Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 2, Interesting) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2015-09-02 16:39 (#K7NM) I suspect they'll have better luck deterring this nonsense if they actively shame the companies who pay for/execute the biased bullshit.They'll never win the cat-and-mouse if they just ban accounts. Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-02 19:53 (#K88M) So I'll just hire them to edit your company article for better, then get you caught for this.You'll be the one to get shamed. Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2015-09-02 23:22 (#K8S7) That's a good point. I guess shaming the PR companies would be a good 'compromise' though, if their identities can be reliably established.
Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-02 19:53 (#K88M) So I'll just hire them to edit your company article for better, then get you caught for this.You'll be the one to get shamed. Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2015-09-02 23:22 (#K8S7) That's a good point. I guess shaming the PR companies would be a good 'compromise' though, if their identities can be reliably established.
Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2015-09-02 23:22 (#K8S7) That's a good point. I guess shaming the PR companies would be a good 'compromise' though, if their identities can be reliably established.