Locked
Discussion interactions are currently paused.
What's the eBay response to 60 minutes segment on harassing journalists for trying to do their jobs?
This is SICK tactics by eBay to try and bring down a journalist who is trying to bring to light a crackdown on 2nd Amendment rights. And the CEO exits with a golden parachute. **bleep**!!!!!!
258 comments
cardxcraft
·3 years agohttps://youtu.be/NacqQW-SC7I
mam98031
·3 years agoThank you for the link. It doesn't say what you represented it to say earlier, but it is still a very good thing to watch. It was from back in the beginning when FBI started filing charges against the 6.
FYI He thanked Ebay for their willingness to help and provide whatever the FBI asked for. Not a direct quote.
Back then the culture at the top was in bad shape back then as all the ones convicted where high ranking members of Ebay and then there was the CEO.
westchestervillage
·3 years agoSo embarrassing to do these tactics, what kind of culture was this? Amateur hour. Wow. Reminds me of the great TV show on HBO, "Silicon Valley." While it was a comedy, it has the same similar elements as this story. lol The CEO and the security guys in that show are so freaking similar lol. Must be something in the water in Silicon Valley. lol Director Mike Judge made another documentary like with his other films "Office Space" and "Idiocracy". lol Dude is 3 for 3. lol
gurlcat
·3 years agoWhat happened in that show that was similar to this?
westchestervillage
·3 years agoWatch it, its on DVD, several seasons. A good insight on how silly Silicon Valley is. A lot of it is based on real events and similar CEO's. It's rather funny. What they did to Ina and her husband isn't funny at all but love how this show makes fun of the culture of Silicon Valley.
mam98031
·3 years agoYou do make a lot of assumptions with nothing to go on. Now you are condemning all of Silicon Valley over some bad [very bad] actors at Ebay????
If you have proof of this, you should contact the FBI.
westchestervillage
·3 years agoLOLOLOLOLOL
I'm talking about a TV Show. Holy. Wow. Calm down. LOL. Hahahaha
You seem gung ho to defend this site at all costs, calm down. We are adults with opinions. This is a message board with different opinions.
I am never going to think like you. You have to come to terms with that.
mam98031
·3 years agoYou are ASSUMING it was a "culture" in the company. FBI has been investigating for 5 years and has not proved that or Ebay would have been charged a long time ago.
Assuming things that happened without any proof is just further passing around incorrect information.
westchestervillage
·3 years agoAnd you are ASSUMING it wasn't a culture in the company during that time. You don't know either unless you work for the company?
"Assuming things that happened without any proof is just further passing around incorrect information."
What proof do you want? lol The FBI report? The New York Times article? Even then, I'm talking about a TV show that is fictional. Why are you so adamant on defending their actions?
Calm down with the keystroke responses. Take a breather and keep cover.
mam98031
·3 years agoYou will have to draw my attention to what post where that I was "defending their actions". It will take you awhile as you will find no such posting. The people that were directly involved were tried and convicted. And are spending time in prison.
You are someone that reads between the lines and tries to make a determination of what might be there as I am calm and have not been anything but that in my ONE post to you. So either you like to exaggerate or you are trying to build up something that isn't there. Either way it doesn't matter to me. This is a OLD story. People are in prison because of it.
There is one last leg for Ebay to deal with and that is the personal lawsuit by the victims. And it is likely Ebay will be paying them a huge amount of money.
westchestervillage
·3 years agoOh I see mam, I understand what you're saying.
Yea wish this never happened as it hurts everyone that is on this site.
Cheers.
kh-ornesh
·3 years agoHi everyone,
Due to the age of this thread, it has been closed to further replies. Please feel free to start a new thread HERE if you wish to continue to discuss this topic.
Thank you for understanding.
westchestervillage
·3 years agoI'm curious, you state, "FBI has been investigating for 5 years and has not proved that or Ebay would have been charged a long time ago."
What hasn't the FBI not proven? I am lost? Nowhere in my opinion does it warrant that response, so I'm wondering what you mean when you say, "the FBI hasn't proven that"
Proven what exactly? The culture? Hard to show culture just victims and perpetrators and they did find that what's appalling is that this started at the very top at the time.
clown_car_driver
·3 years agoI'm curious, you state, "FBI has been investigating for 5 years and has not proved that or Ebay would have been charged a long time ago."
What hasn't the FBI not proven? I am lost?
Have you been watching the news?
Do you trust the FBI?
DOJ?
mam98031
·3 years agoEbay has never been charged
cardxcraft
·3 years agoUS Attorney, Andrew Lelling called it, 'a culture". He said this in the context of being asked by a reporter, 'how high up the orders came from". In other words although they were filing charges against the group of 6 Ebay employees, what they found was the "behavior" was pervasive throughout the company; and that further charges were possible. That's what he said, so you're going to need to ask Mr. Lelling to elaborate.
As for myself, I know exactly what he meant. I ask any sane and normal person, to read through the 17 or 18 pages of posts under this topic, and read the responses from a certain group; they're essentially blaming the Steiners' and accussing them of "milking it." Implying the Steiners' were enjoying being in the media limelight and possible financial windfall. I find it disgusting that anyone would view what happened to the Steiners' and their subsequent legal actions as "milking it".
mam98031
·3 years agoAnd if there was enough evidence to support that for all or most of Ebay, Ebay would have faced charges. It could also mean that it was the "culture" in the group of people that were arrested and sent to prison. And it may have gone to the top, Wenig was fired and left in Sept. But the FBI hasn't charged him with anything to do with this.
That is six EX-Ebay employees. They all lost their jobs the summer this all happened in 2019.
I would ask you post the link to the article that states "... what they found was the "behavior" was pervasive throughout the company..." so I know exactly what was said and by whom. It is difficult to respond to a statement I've never seen.
As for the potential for further charges, that is a really normal thing for investigators to say as they don't want to close any doors. It is a smart move since the Civil Suit is still being processed. However I don't think it will ever go to a trail as much as the FBI may hope it does, it is likely to get settled out of court as most suits like this do.
I suppose this is likely true of other corporations that have had some very bad actors in their employee pools. If those employees are convicted of some wrong doing, the entire company must be at fault too. Sounds like Amazon is in serious trouble as there has been many cases over the years of misbehaving employees.
I get it, some simply don't like Ebay and prefer to see the worse. That has been clear since this story came to light. There are others that believe that an entire company does not have to be involved when a few very bad apples act like some at Ebay did. It is all conjecture. We are likely never going to know one way or the other.
pburn
·3 years agoIMO, this whole scandal is indicative of the corporate culture at eBay. I, myself--albeit to a much lesser extent--have been bullied and intimidated by a current eBay employee. This employee has been vindictive in response to my criticism about specific topics. I sent an email expressing concern over a particular topic and received a reply containing a meme about "feminine hygiene products." While I'm reluctant to go into too much detail, this employee's behavior is anything but professional, and, IMO, has been covertly threatening and overtly offensive.
I think these particular employees got caught, but they certainly aren't the only eBay employees capable of this kind of behavior.
zamo-zuan
·3 years agoWell it seems part of the dispute is that both sides can be true as well because of the different definitions of "responsible".
Being real-life responsible (for lack of a better term) and being legally responsible are often times two different things. Heck, even a large company being held responsible compared to a small company being held responsible often time plays by completely different rules.
If I was told by our lawyer that legal action wasn't possible, then I went to a manager and said "This competitor is a problem. I need you to fix this situation. I know there's going to be blowback and I understand - it's part of running a business. Shut them down!".... Then that manager goes to one of our drivers and says "This person is your target. Find this persons identity and then burn them down to the ground. Neutralize their site. Do whatever it takes, I want to see ashes."
Would we have the same outcome as eBay had? Very unlikely. We're nowhere near as rich as these people. I have a family member who recently became a lawyer, as well as a paralegal in the family, and one of the things that is taught is that the legal system in the US is often designed for who has more money has the advantage. Capitalism at it's finest.
To make it worse, Wenig is still connected to one of - if not the biggest - legal company in the country. Make no mistake, they are to this day following his tracks.
For the criminal case, there was a much higher burden, which pushes these advantages even further.
So I think this makes it important to distinguish what type of responsibility we're talking about here. If we're not talking about legal definitions, obviously Wenig and Wymer must share some responsibility. If we're talking about legal responsibilities, well that's an uphill battle Vs people like this. Civil has a better chance, but we'll see how that goes.
In terms of eBay as a company responsible, it's the same deal, only even more complicated. Considering we have evidence that these employees were literally covering their tracks as best as they could, it will be hard to determine how much they knew. Which means we're left with a situation where any of those who were a part of eBay who are held responsible will then not want it to fall on them but will then implicate eBay (such as Baugh is doing). If Wenig or Wymer or anyone else at the company went down, it's likely they would place the blame on eBay as well.
And what was just mentioned here is probably how it went: Legal probably said "If you're going to pursue this, we don't wanna know". Does that mean they're not responsible? Again, do we mean realistically or legally? Realistically, a legal department doing their job should have monitored the situation. Legally, there would need to be claims and/or evidence to appear, and that will likely only happen as more try to shift responsibility from themselves to eBay.
the-hook-and-the-loop
·3 years agoThe childish behavior continues throughout the walls of eBay. From the customer support to the rewording of policies every month. How do these kids even get jobs at eBay? If it's publicly owned, can't they be removed by the public? I call for change. I demand it!
mam98031
·3 years agoHow are you finding a comparison between what was done to the Steiners and what you describe above?
If you want to "demand" something of Ebay, the first step would be to start buying stock in the corp so you can become a shareholder. Once you have acquired enough stock to have enough of a percentage for them to care about your demands, then you will get some attention from them.
farmalljr
·3 years agoI'm just going to say here, there are many who keep rationalizing that a corporation (eBay) is not some how a "person" and should not be held liable.
You armchair lawyer need to brush up on the LAW. A corporation has been considered a person for a very long time. As a "person" a corporation is responsible for what it's workers and managers DO. Not so unlike a mom or a dad being responsible for what their child does.
So can we stop with the long winded diatribes trying to excuse the corporation from the liability the laws hold them to? A simple Google search would educate people of how a corporation IS liable as a PERSON.
Another situation of "like it or not, agree or not, the law does not see it your way".
vintagecraze50
·3 years agoYou forgot about a situation called “Frolick and Tort. Look it up.
deblgree-0
·3 years agoThank
moondogblues
·3 years agoInteresting thread. I do remember this whole thing from years ago...go Ina and hubs!!!
the-hook-and-the-loop
·3 years agoOne thing's for sure, sales have really sukt since the airing of the show.
redmodelt
·3 years agoJust watched it on You-Tube this morning, didn't really say anything new (I don't condone what happened) but was just a ratings rehash/repeat of what already happened.
gurlcat
·3 years agoFor those who don't know, one of the biggest differences between criminal and civil trials is the level of certainty juries must have in order to convict. In criminal trials, the jury must unanimously agree that the prosecution proved guilt "beyond reasonable doubt", whereas in civil trials there need only be "a preponderance of evidence" meaning the jury can convict even if there is a little bit of reasonable doubt. The reason behind this difference is the difference in punishment, a prison term and a criminal record, versus loss of money and no criminal record. And yeah the loss of money can be jaw-dropping, but most people would still find that preferable to loss of freedom for X number of years, with all the horrors that life in prison brings.
The classic textbook comparison between these two trial types (and the level of proof needed) is O.J. Simpson. His criminal jury found enough reasonable doubt to acquit him, but his civil jury found enough preponderance of evidence to convict him (not of "murder" but of "wrongful death"), so he had to pay millions to the family members for their loss.
It COULD turn out to be the same with the Ebay executives, despite the fact that they weren't even arrested for their text messages which arguably give the appearance of intending for subordinates to harass the Steiners. I would just guess that the criminal prosecutors knew there was too much of a lack of direct evidence between the texts (among themselves) versus the behaviors carried out by the subordinates, that it would be a guaranteed loss as a criminal trial, because that lack of evidence is classic reasonable doubt. But if only a preponderance of evidence were needed ..........
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·3 years agoI don't believe I ever said, "Slam dunk" anything can happen which is up to a judge or judges in case of appeals. From what I've read the CEO and others were not arrested as it could not be proved they'd engaged in directing the activities but again, its up to a judge not me and I assume the court is looking at various case law.
Certainly it was WAY wrong for any of parties to terrorize the family just as it's also valid to say no entities should be terrorizing mainstream journalists, congressman and women, senators, supreme court justices or other public figures. As I noted America has very sorted history of just that back to it's very foundations and seldom for right or wrong were the business associated held liable. If you review The Robber Barons history or even closer in time that of the Coal and mining history it's absolutely astonishing the wrongs nor were many of the victims public figures albeit many were.
One thing that is certain is civilization really isn't any more civilized than it's sorted history and the Internet has very much blown allot of it back up.
rugerskick
·3 years agoI think its pretty clear by the emails they basically gave a "take care of them" order, a blanket order, that was sent along with stuff about crushing the woman, doing whatever it takes, as long as it takes", but not actually planning what would be done. But the ceo/cco gave the green light to their underlings, do whatever was necessary.
So its like a mafia don saying "take care of them" or "you know what to do" but keeping their hands technically clean. They approved it and wanted it done. And this isn't a leap considering they were going to send them a dead feral pig as a "statement".
simply-the-best-for-you
·3 years ago@rugerskick Fetal pig, not feral pig. It was a pig's fetus, but the company was unable to complete the order.
@zamo-zuan I'm glad I'm not the only one horrificly disgusted by his using the hastag #whatever it takes in annoucing his new position. It is beyond tacky, uncouth & a million more things I could say. That guy needs to do jail time. Making fun of the whole situation & taunting everyone that he got off scot free is reprehensible. I hope the Mayor of SJ is sorry for his supporting this arrogant piece of you know what.
rugerskick
·3 years agoWhoops! Yep, fetal pig. 🙂
chapeau-noir
·3 years agoHe got that position through influence and back scratching, not qualifications. He shouldn't be let anywhere NEAR kids.
mam98031
·3 years agoYet the CEO has never been charged. So it isn't "pretty clear" as far as the justice system is concerned. But as it has been said on this thread. The burden of evidence is not as steep in a Civil case as in a Criminal case.
moondogblues
·3 years ago"has very sorted history of just that"
Perhaps you mean 'sordid'?
vip2054
·3 years agoWell the share holder lawsuits have not started yet, but there are several asking about class action statis.
mam98031
·3 years ago@vip2054 And who would they be suing????
Link please to where you read some were asking for a class action status. To my knowledge that is determined by a judge.
policequilts
·3 years agoI don't know if it applies to the civil suits but, I wonder if eBay can "claw back" Weinig bonus to offset this suit if found guilty or causing the problem?
simply-the-best-for-you
·3 years agoNo way. If they had any way to not pay it out, I'm sure they wouldn't have.
@chapeau-noir Yeah, Fidomaster was def a big piece of it. I have never bought that the little piece on Wenig's salary was what started all this. Wenig's salary was available to anyone who can read an annual report or type a sentence into Google.
ITA that the money spent on this was piddly compared to Walkers West. I read that text exchange from the
"ex-employee" who had the 'incriminating information', more evidence of how well thought out it was. Fido was brilliant in the way he or she handled it.
valueaddedresource
·3 years ago@policequilts potentially yes - especially if eBay (the company) faces criminal liability.
I read something interesting recently from the DOJ (not specifically related to this case) about giving corporations incentive to clawback compensation (like severance packages) from bad executives in order to avoid paying fines.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-lisa-monaco-delivers-remarks-american-bar...
Wenig got $57M, SVP Global Ops Wendy Jones got $11M and I haven't seen an exact figure for Wymer anywhere but have seen he apparently got some severance too.
An opportunity to fill that $64M hole *and* deduct ~$70M from any potential fines? If I were eBay I'd certainly at least be considering it.
$64M may seem like chump change to eBay and on balance it probably is, but sometimes it's more about where the money comes from than the exact amount and if they can avoid having to actually take that loss...that could be worth a lot more than the dollar amount in investor relations.
simply-the-best-for-you
·3 years agoOh, very interesting. I stand corrected. I still think it's a real long shot though.
mam98031
·3 years agoHighly unlikely, there would have been some kind of contract signed at the time by both parties. Besides he is named in the suit too.
simply-the-best-for-you
·3 years agoI've never felt the blog had a personal point of view or that there was any "hatred", etc. Yes, some of the articles & coverage are negative b/c some people's experiences with Ebay are negative. Honestly I have seen much more hatred towards Ebay on the boards here.
Let's keep in mind that one of the people was a former Police Captain, he's the one who's trying to blame eBay for his alcoholism. Even his wife is in on blaming Ebay for the corporate culture that celebrated alcohol.
https://www.svvoice.com/former-santa-clara-cop-phil-cooke-pleads-for-leniency-in-ebay-harassment-conspiracy/
Another one of the ringleaders manipulated another defendant, a young, married woman into a sexual relationship with him, as part of all of this & also subsequently gave her a sizeable "bonus". I would love to know who paid for that bonus.
Also yet another (or maybe one of these, the names are starting to confuse me) is basically filing a counterclaim against Ebay, saying that he was hired to do this job & did exactly what he was hired to do, so he should not be held liable b/c he was simply doing what the employer ordered him to do.
Make no mistake, when all of this happens on company time, using company resources, both financial & physical, the company is liable. It should be pretty simple to prove. Most of this occurred in company meetings, conference rooms, using company resources to fly to MA, renting cars using company money. The whole "White Knight" strategy made it very clear, how well thought out & planned this was. I mean, there just is no question - when employees do bad things on company time, using company money, as part of a huge orchestrated campaign, companies are liable. There's a reason $60M was set aside for this in the latest 10K (I think that's where it was published).
And I still want to know why these employees were staying at the Ritz Carlton? I traveled for a Fortune 100 company every week for over a decade. Ritz Carltons are NOT the norm in Corporate travel. I lucked out 3x & got to stay in one, each time b/c the Fortune 100 company I was doing business at had a negotiated rate there due to location proximity. If the Ritz Carlton is the norm at Ebay, then I should look into a job there. It would have been SO MUCH more comfortable than the Marriott 😄
chapeau-noir
·3 years agoI have junkets at the Motel 6. 😒
The White Knight strategy was an interesting one, and I wonder how much of eBay's revenue was spent on this nonsense - probably still a drop in the bucket compared to, say, Walkers West. IMHO they were really out to uncover and probably doxx Fidomaster (Unsuck eBay on Twitter) - that's who was painted on the Steiners' fence, and who provides the real sting in the tail. Fido was too smart for them and one texting string in the evidence shows a neatly deflected attempt on the part of one of the participants in this scheme who had been tasked with discovering him. He also regularly posted in the blog's chat section. He's still on the Twitter dumpster fire.
And as @retro_entertainment_collectibles says - the actual through-put on that blog is probably not extremely high. I think people don't realise how huge the interwebz is and how many thousands and thousands of blogs are out there, only that this particular one looms large. Same mistake certain individuals at eBay made.
vintagecraze50
·3 years agoTypical of alcoholics to blame everybody but themselves for their addiction.
mam98031
·3 years agoIf only it was that simple.
coolections
·3 years agoHave you ever attempted to post there. If not, I can tell you that every post gets screened and you must be permitted by those two to even have a post shown. If it does not meet their mantra then forget about it.
farmalljr
·3 years agoAnd yet another mischaracterization from you. What you are saying is simply false. I don't even post there, just read. I see comments from BOTH sides of the coin. It's not just a hate filled diatribe in the comments.
coolections
·3 years agoWrong, I know from experience. Believe me when I tell you if they are talking hate on a topic you better keep going with that mantra or your post will not be permitted.
mam98031
·3 years agoThat simply is not true.
simply-the-best-for-you
·3 years ago@coolections Sure. Many times over the years. Never had a problem. I have personally contacted Ina about specific glitches & though I haven't posted there for years, I saw just a week or so ago that one of the posts I had here, about a glitch, made the front page, though my name was not on it. So yeah, I've had a casual reader/contributor relationship with them. I don't know them personally in any way, but I have communicated with Ina in trying to get resolution for certain glitches. I don't know that I've ever had a post pre-screened, but hey, it's their website, so it wouldn't bother me if they did. In fact, I would expect them to, since most small websites screen the public posts before publishing them, so they can avoid profanity, libelous statments, etc. I've never had an issue. Every post I've sent has been published, but mine are usually centered on technical topics/glitches.
chapeau-noir
·3 years agoNot so - I don't really post there recently but my posts were mostly in opposition of some of the more egregious nonsense I read on there. There's a poster there named "Marie" who I think also posts on here, who also steers a commonsense course. Ina has actually posted on there telling people to calm down when it has gotten personal. *
*TBH, it's mostly the same gang who posts on there with others who post less regularly, and it's no better or worse than most comment sections. I do see why blogs and other new organisations are getting rid of comment sections as they're magnets for nutcases and the fringe, but I've read so much worse elsewhere than on Ina's blog.
Also, I doubt anyone at eBay even cared until Wenig and his crew got their panties in a twist over it, and it ended up blowing open how toxic that department and its techbro culture was. A great opportunity to clean out the rubbish. No respectable company really wants or needs that kind of personnel and it says a great deal more about the people involved than the company as a whole.
mam98031
·3 years agoNow that is something I've never heard about Ecommercebytes. Where did you learn this?
If you are making that judgement because you don't see new names pop up posting on the site, that is more likely due to not wanting to be attacked by the regulars, especially if you don't agree with them.
valueaddedresource
·3 years ago@simply-the-best-for-you both Security Manager Philip Cooke and Senior Manager of Special Operations Brian Gilbert were ex-Santa Clara PD...and both of them got to keep their $200k+/year police pensions despite pleading guilty to federal felonies. 😮
https://www.svvoice.com/good-plan-brian-second-retired-santa-clara-cop-indicted-in-ebay-harassment-scheme/
Director of Security Jim Baugh (the highest up in the security department) is the one was married and manipulated his much younger subordinate into a sexual relationship and bribed her to try to influence her communications when meeting with FBI investigators.
He's also the one who is counter-suing eBay saying they should be responsible to pay for any settlement or damages assigned to him because he should be indemnified under CA labor law due to "just doing his job."
The whole "White Knight" strategy made it very clear, how well thought out & planned this was. I mean, there just is no question - when employees do bad things on company time, using company money, as part of a huge orchestrated campaign, companies are liable.
I agree with that 100%! That part hasn't gotten as much media attention, but the court documents make it very clear the "White Knight" strategy was the end game and an integral part of what happened/why it happened.
I've seen some comments here and elsewhere dismissing the deliveries etc. as "juvenile pranks" but a a lot of people seem to have missed that it escalated to in person surveillance, trespassing, and a (thankfully failed) attempt to break into the Steiner's garage with the explicit intent to install a GPS tracking device on their vehicle....all in furtherance of trying to "find and destroy" (in Baugh's words) Fidomaster/unsuckEBAY.
simply-the-best-for-you
·3 years agoThank you @valueaddedresource . I thought it was Baugh, but I was so caught up all day in trying to get my tech issue from my post on Friday night fixed, that I didn't have time to research it who it was & didn't want to get it wrong. Both parties were married IIRC & the young women felt threatened into complying with the sexual demands of her boss. Borderline **bleep** in my book.
This is a little thing, but you'll recall that I pointed it out to you at the time, I still wonder how that licensed piece of music got into the Walker's West video & was the licensing fee paid? One of those pieces of music was a huge hit in the hip hop world involving household names like Dr. Dre & Snoop Dogg that would surely have cost a SMALL FORTUNE to license, as it's practically an anthem these days. Now, Ebay CAN AFFORD a small fortune, so perhaps they DID pay that licensing fee & back in the Meg days, A list performers were often hired for the Live Events, but I was shocked to hear such a famous & seemingly super expensive piece of music used in that video. Maybe they paid the fee or maybe some coerced employee copied it off the internet. We'll probably never know.
I love Ebay, I really do. I've been here since the beginning. But when something is egregious, it needs to be called out & what happened to the Steiners, I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy!
chapeau-noir
·3 years agoNot Bared Naked Ladies then. 🙄
(they were at an eBay live one year)
simply-the-best-for-you
·3 years ago@chapeau-noir Ha! I'm trying to remember who I saw. I believe it was the Neville Brothers & it was in N'Awlins, so that would make sense. It's hard to remember though b/c I was still traveling then & had Million Miler status with my airline, who often did private concerts for us & I attended them all. I may be mixing up the Neville Bros. from the private concerts vs the entertainment Ebay hired. The private concerts were almost all blues based, so it's possible I saw the Neville Bros at both. I think I read that Weird Al was at one of the Ebay events too.
ETA: THe Barenaked Ladies are not my thing at all, but they actually are really big in Canada.
postcardcountry
·3 years agoDH used to teach new adjusters......."never go to court on damages, settle. Only when liability is in question should you go to court". I imagine eBay's legal dept are saying something similar and it will probably be settled out of court. We may never know the details of the settlement. If wise, eBay will ask for a nondisclosure agreement - at least one that will allow the Steiners to say "we settled. it's over" in their own publication and no further information.
coolections
·3 years agoI would love to see Ebay countersue them for defamation and as many other reasons for hurting Ebay's business and reputation. Maybe that can offset the amount Ebay will be forced to hand over to them.
chapeau-noir
·3 years agoSeriously? It's just a blog and I doubt they've "hurt" eBay with their little articles - that's why this entire response on the part of some eBay employees was so ridiculous.
coolections
·3 years agoDo you know how many millions or thousands of viewers read that hateful blog ? Do you know what percent of the people who do read it leave thinking Ebay is a place someone should never buy or sell on? I am not advocating for those who did what they did not get punished but want people to know that couple seems to have had a vendetta for years about Ebay. I still wonder if they got booted and that is what started it all.
chapeau-noir
·3 years agoThey've been writing the blog for a long time and it covers more than eBay. There is nothing this little blog is going to do that should even matter to a huge multinational corp like eBay, it's not going to upset thousands and millions of people*. It just mattered to a couple of immature snowflakes at eBay and off they went.
*I doubt such large numbers even read it. As a matter of fact, this will probably do more damage to the Steiners than it would ever do to eBay insofar as direct impact. Alarmists aside, save for what these individuals at eBay did to the Steiners, it's a tempest in a teapot.
retro_entertainment_collectibles
·3 years agoWell according to my new web traffic monitoring venue basically they barely exist which is rather surprising given how long been out there and their bounce rate is crazy terrible. Bounce rate is basically visits that hit the site and leave rapidly. Site has a horde of unknown "bot hits" which basically tells me they dont understand the technology as likely content spidered then a translation engine shifts things to other languages then changes attribution and reprints. Been happening for ages on the web now, basically theft of content so be some sites in China and all over the globe that steal the content.
Qualified traffic is less than my eBay impressions by quite some measure no less. It's far short of millions, far short of hundreds of thousands, qualified traffic even short of hundred thousand with a bounce rate of over 70%, that's unbelievable. Bet $ to donuts the stat package they review is provided by the webhost and perhaps by the blog software, both ALWAYS suck in huge fashion. Webhosts stat packages love to inflate reality as it keeps webmasters buying in so they don't filter based on any realities and blog stat software likes to count crap that's just that, crap. I can sit just pinging and they'll both happily count up.
Some folks for example will use monitoring service make sure their web doesn't go down so service actively ping every 30 seconds or minute and meantime the statistics software be going, "Hit, page view..." "Hit, page view" as the webmaster never had the strudel to filter the IP ranges out. It's common, Generally speaking unless a webmaster knows what's what its very common looking at stats to think things are swimmingly well. Reality is just like here when eBay filtered off Bot views... So if a site shows lets say 200,000 monthly views its likely more like 2,000-5,000 of qualified human beings, bounce rate of say 50% mean more like 1,000-2,500 of anybody every looking at much anything.
With an interactive web like a blog or forum post rate tends be in 2-10% range qualified traffic depending on topics. For example a game blog or Cannabis forum likely be more on the high end these days than say a place talking about old forms of advertising when drawing and lithograph was used. Tell-Tale in interactive webs if one doesnt care pay properly for accurate statistics which doesn't necessarily correlate to making a place more visible or used is to look at the total stat on the webhost. For example if an interactive site webhost stat shows say 500,000 views (not hits as hits often mean, oh this image and that one in addition to, every http request is a hit) upon the site as raw data and you look at you're blog. At 500,000 raw views, take about 75% off that as its just gonna be automations, indexing or harvesting (theft) of content if not filtered off. So we're at 125,000 do the 2% low end of activity which is 2500. That'd mean we're having about 2,500 posts a month or in case of blog comments. Now here, we've 70% bounce rate and you can see how impactful that be! If we take 70% of our fictional 125,000 we're that means 87,000 are just popping in and out. Now we're at 38,000 ACTIVE readers. 2% of that is 760, so if we are performing at the low end, we've 760 interactive comments or forum posts per month. If we are less than that, we are underperforming on epic scale. We're bouncing 70% of prospect folks off before they even really began.
All quite common as people think, "I make it and they will come," but the statistics they look towards are essentially a complete fabrication and have been for over 20 years. Webhosts love it as it keeps people paying for their hosting thinking we're doing when in fact we're not doing. Same happens with folks who set up their own webstores via a hosting company, the stats are like, "Geee... Look at that! But how come nothings selling?" LOL. Same figures apply, in commerce call it conversion rates, in interactive media its now called "Engagement rates" (used to be called capture rates). Just like with eCommerce, 2% is the low water mark, 10% is wonderland and anything over that is just dreamy!
vintagecraze50
·3 years agoWhen I used to read it there were a choice few who commented on it regularly and had nothing positive to say about ebay. How many just read it and not comment not sure. Folks that sell on Ebay and are ultra successful do not have the time for such nonsense.
maxine*j
·3 years agoThe thing is, there are hateful blogs on every subject under the sun and on every public figure and private enterprise on the planet, and most of the people who read the blogs already share the hatred of "X" with the blogger. They flock to blogs that confirm / vindicate their own hatreds, to blogs where the moderators are happy to let them be hateful.
I don't know what per cent of people think badly of eBay after reading the blog, but I'll wager that 90 per cent of them thought badly of eBay before reading it.
And I'm with you in using the term "blogger" rather than the OP's "journalist," by the way.
-
chapeau-noir
·3 years agoAlso, the articles in the blog are simply coverage. The comment section is where all the vitriol is - they need to get a hobby if they're still banging on about eBay and they don't even sell here anymore. And it seems to be the same few people, though there are a few good posts I've pretty much stopped bothering with it.
I get caught up on news for Etsy and Amazon on that blog, as well as any other selling sites up and coming, most of it just notices about fee changes, restructuring, new initiatives, etc.
ETA: Oh yeah, and the comments sections are where that one commenter wrote who also tweeted and which the individuals with eBay were trying to expose and seemed to trigger.
mam98031
·3 years ago@chapeau-noir
Actually some of the most venomous posts on that site come from sellers that still sell on Ebay. They are banned from the Community here, but they do still sell. To me it makes no sense.
Then there are others that stop selling years ago, but just can't seem to let go. That I really don't understand. Why spend so much time hating a site of any kind that is for commercial purposes. I know I can sure find much better things to do.
chapeau-noir
·3 years agoI don't get it, either. Honestly, if I hated a place so much I'd leave, and if I left out of sheer dislike I wouldn't have anything to do with it. It just beats me.
zamo-zuan
·3 years agoThere's far more hate in eBay's internal messages than in their blog. And people who go to that blog typically would already have experience on eBay, hence seeking out publications outside of eBay.
It's pretty odd to compare the hateful aggression that eBay's reps had, to bloggers and/or people who post on those blogs that are giving feedback. Negative feedback does not equal hate.
Ironically your (mis)interpretation is the same that led to the harassment. By interpreting coverage of issues and/or presenting negative feedback as a malicious attack.
Here is the current list of articles on the page, what is wrong or "hateful" with any of these?
bonjourami
·3 years ago"Ironically your (mis)interpretation is the same that led to the harassment. By interpreting coverage of issues and/or presenting negative feedback as a malicious attack. "
I read that blog,if that wasnt malicious,I dont know what is.Hardly was 'interpreting the issues'. Radiated hostility and yes...hatred.
zamo-zuan
·3 years agoThis would be an easy one to prove if true. Why not share anything that is even remotely comparable to what we can see in eBay corporates text messages then?
vintagecraze50
·3 years agoPeople who post blog info about corporations like this should be monitoring their user base and their comment suggestion and be especially careful when the comment sections gets overloaded with extremely negative content. If you are going to be presenting just factual info about what is happening and you get tons of negative comments you need something like Khoros here to monitor it remove inappropriate comments and certainly NOT let some posters continue on a negative rant continuously.
vintagecraze50
·3 years agoIn addition to what I just posted letting the negative comments get out of control is a form of perhaps knowingly or unknowingly harassing the organization that you are blogging about.
mam98031
·3 years ago@zamo-zuan
It is likely that many confuse the articles written on the site with what people that post on the site write.
Many of the posters hate Ebay for one reason or another. Quite a few of those, by their own admission, have been banned from the Ebay Community for years and they really harbor hatred towards Ebay over that alone.
chapeau-noir
·3 years agoI think that's exactly it - maybe they don't understand that a comments section is just that or that's all they remember (the comment section can be ridiculous). I recall once even being told that Ina posts for the benefit of those commenters as if it's some kind of incestuous circle - um, no, anyone can comment just like anywhere else that provides a comment section. I'm not sure how that's not perfectly clear. TBH, this same person acted like they were some kind of undercover agent sneaking over to see what was happening at Ina's Blog, which had only been around since about 2004 or 2002 or something LOL - NS, Sherlock!
zamo-zuan
·3 years agoYeah. They're pretty clearly labelled as letters from readers, though. In any case, it's real feedback, and I do know for a fact that they have vetting procedures, as someone submit one of my posts in a letter before and I was contacted to ensure authenticity and that what I said was valid.
Although in comments, many do hate eBay. But that's the nature of comments on pretty much any website. Twitter, yahoo, fb, the comment sections are often a nightmare. It's not really fair to blame the bloggers in that case.
At the end of the day, it's a media site. That is what caused this story to be picked up by major outlets in the first place. Because from the perspective of journalists, a story about a company whos leaders were trying to suppress journalism, or having such an outlandish reaction to journalism, is a sore spot for them. It's an attack on their livelihood. Especially considering eBay knew it was beyond legalities, it was their own actions drew the attention of outlets that would typically never care about eBay.
mam98031
·3 years agoOh that is only one part of their site. Letters to the Editor.
Yes, I'm aware they have a vetting procedure for those that may write an article to be posted on the site. But the Letter's to the Editor are not as closely vetting and certainly not for accuracy as is clear by many of the letters they post.
Tis true, the way people post is more like they do on Twitter, without any filter. What gets me is there are a half dozen or so regular poster that post just about the same thing on every single blog. Many times when it isn't even about Ebay. That really gets old.
valueaddedresource
·3 years ago@collections If there was anything for that to stand on, I imagine it would have already been done.
There are multiple court documents in the various cases involved that show multiple emails from eBay's legal department (including Chief Legal Officer Marie Oh Huber) stating that there was nothing legal could do about the perceived "problems"....that should have been a good indication to everyone involved that taking action outside of that would be ill-advised to say the least, but here we are.
simply-the-best-for-you
·3 years ago@valueaddedresource you mistagged I think. I believe you were trying to tag @coolections
valueaddedresource
·3 years agoThanks @simply-the-best-for-you - that's what I get for trying to multi-task and type while talking on the phone. 😂
albertabrightalberta
·3 years agoI thought I read that the 60 million was an amount ebay "set aside" to allow for payment of a potential payment or settlement.
mam98031
·3 years agoThat is what I read somewhere too @albertabrightalberta . If memory serves me it is 64 million, they set aside for this lawsuit. But IDK what is actually correct if anything. It is just something someone was passing around.
my-cottage-books-and-antiques
·3 years ago@albertabrightalberta Yes, ebay has money set aside, whether for this lawsuit or just as a contingency fund for any litigation is an open question. But until a decision is made (and any appeals are exhausted) or a settlement reached, the amount is an open question. And keep in mind, if there is no settlement and the court finds against the employees but not against ebay/Wenig, it could be hard to collect on the award, as ebay/Wenig are the deep pockets here....
valueaddedresource
·3 years ago@albertabrightalberta - the exact info about what has been set aside for "pending legal matters" can be found in eBay's most recent 10-K filed with the SEC on February 23, 2023.
https://investors.ebayinc.com/financial-information/sec-filings/sec-filings-details/default.aspx?FilingId=16428890
Importantly - it's not *just* the civil matter for which funds are being set aside (either to cover costs of litigation or possible settlement/judgement).
Funds are *also* being set aside because the US Attorney's Office is apparently considering possibly pursuing the company criminally and there could be fines and other expenses if USAO finds the company criminally liable.
Text below, emphasis mine.
The Company is also responding to inquiries from the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts regarding potential criminal liability of the Company arising from the stalking and harassment in 2019 of the editor and publisher of Ecommercebytes, a website that publishes ecommerce news and information.
Six former Company employees and one former contractor have pleaded guilty to crimes arising from the conduct. The Company has begun discussions with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which discussions include a potential settlement.
We expect any such settlement may include fines, other payments, and non-monetary remedies, such as additional remediation, compliance and reporting requirements. Although the Company has concluded that losses in the U.S. Attorney matter are probable, we are unable at this time to estimate the losses that may be incurred because the matter is still under investigation and involves open questions relevant to the Company’s potential liability for conduct of its former employees.
The editor and publisher also have a pending civil action against the Company, which seeks unspecified damages arising from the above-described conduct. In connection with the government matters and civil action described above, the Company to date has accrued for probable losses of approximately $64 million in the aggregate.
Given the uncertainties involved, the ultimate resolution of these matters could result in additional losses that may be material to our financial results for a particular period, depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of our net income or loss for that period.
zamo-zuan
·3 years agoI've stated this before in the other threads about this subject, and it doesn't seem to get very far as it's disregarded next time a new post comes up.
But it was very clearly more than just a small group of rogue employees. It boiled over in to this very community - which is (or at least was, according to eBay reps) led by the leadership team at the time. They had members on here doing this harassment to people (including ones that were not mentioned in the trial), they even had the capability and did read peoples private messages on here. One of the people mentioned in the lawsuit was PMing me and had action taken against them.
We can see how much Wenig knew in the text messages of Baugh going to "fix" the situation once the posters identity is drawn out. Wenig called it "part of running w consumer company".
He may be able to deny knowledge of exactly what they were going to do, but it's odd that people are downplaying the fact that they openly stated how they were not able to shut him down in any other way, so they had to find his real life identity to "fix it" and "shut him down" with "whatever it takes". It is also stated they were going to openly communicate with those connected to Wenig to determine the best course of action.
We also know Wenig was in constant connection with Wymer discussing this. Whom Wymer we see had in writing a completely irrational response to this entire situation about being "utterly vexed" and willing to explore ANYTHING to resolve this because the issue "gives him ulcers".
Let's be honest. What do you expect was the plan when they literally invited someone to a hotel room as their way of "shutting him down"?
It was also confirmed that Wenig was the name being mentioned when it was stated "Wenig said to burn her to the ground correct?" in Baugh's messages to Wymer. Which Baugh gave confirmation that he was ordered to "find and destroy".
People are also not considering how deeply connected Wenig is in the legal world. Look up his past company. They just happen to be the same people who literally print the legal reference books used by lawyers.
People also keep saying it was ran by an "alcoholic rogue employee. What about the fact that this "rogue employee" was constantly in communication with executives every step of the way and encouraged to keep going?
We also know they were commanded to do their best to keep this as private as possible and the executive "wants to see ashes":
So this certainly bigger than what we see, as the evidence we see is ONLY what slipped through the cracks and was not sufficiently hidden after orders to delete all records of what they were doing.
The fact that this guy is potentially an alcoholic only means that made him easier to manipulate by the executives who literally built a bar on site and used alcohol to their advantage in their work environment and culture.
It's said earlier that it would have been a better plan if devised by the corporate office - the corporate office literally just left it at "take them down, ruin them, destroy them, whatever it takes". They didn't get involved with the messy details as they are familiar with the legal world and plausible deniability. But they were very clear about the extent of how far they wanted Baugh to go, they knew it was illegal enough that they had to cover their tracks as much as possible, and knew it would be so bad it led to fallout.
So nobody should get it twisted. They wouldn't have been consciously hiding records if they were unaware of the criminal activity. They just did a better job of it than Baugh.
coolections
·3 years agoOMG, they left out so many facts and allowed the yahoos to continue to do what they do best, bash Ebay. They should have included the other side of the story about how they continually harass Ebay and only allow Ebay haters to post on the site. Thye take a few dozen posts bashing Ebay but never mention there are 100,000 sellers who have no problems with Ebay. Even though not right what those execs did, the story was one sided as usual. I'd be curious to know if those two had been booted from Ebay and that is why they have so much hatred against them to run a 5 year or more campaign.