What's the eBay response to 60 minutes segment on harassing journalists for trying to do their jobs?

[peszar-0]

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**!!!!!!

[mam98031]

---

@vip2054 wrote:

Well the share holder lawsuits have not started yet, but there are several asking about class action statis. 

---

@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.

[chapeau-noir]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

@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.

---

I 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.

[albertabrightalberta]

---

@vintagecraze50 wrote:

People 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 wrote:

In 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.

---

A social media website isn't to be held responsible for what 3rd party posters post on their site. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-you-should-know-about-section-230-the-rule-that-shaped-to...

[chapeau-noir]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

@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.

---

I 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!

[rugerskick]

They weren't just a few mere employees. They were officer / vp levels, head of security people.

And it was a multi-year conspiracy of coordinated threats and terrorizing this couple.

[zamo-zuan]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

@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.

---

Yeah. 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]

---

@albertabrightalberta wrote:

---

@vintagecraze50 wrote:

People 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 wrote:

In 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.

---

A social media website isn't to be held responsible for what 3rd party posters post on their site. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-you-should-know-about-section-230-the-rule-that-shaped-to...

---

You and I don't normally disagree.  But on this one we will.  I'm not at all sure that Ecommercebytes is considered a Social media site.  It is a fully privately owned site.  The owners of that site have full control.  While I agree that the site isn't held responsible for what people post, they can and should set their own rules.  But there are very few things that will get a post removed from their site.

One is if they use someone's Ebay name or their proper name in the post.  Unless the Poster has already told them their name.  But an Ebay ID will get the post removed pretty rapidly once reported.

[mam98031]

---

@rugerskick wrote:

They weren't just a few mere employees. They were officer / vp levels, head of security people.

And it was a multi-year conspiracy of coordinated threats and terrorizing this couple.

---

@rugerskick 

Interesting.  I don't think the Steiner's know that.  Their reports started in August of 2019.  They have never addressed any other timeframe that I'm aware of and the FBI didn't as well.  The FBI also did not find it went as deep as you are suggesting either.  Where did you get your information?

[mam98031]

---

@zamo-zuan wrote:

---

@mam98031 wrote:

@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.

---

Yeah. 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.

---

Oh 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.

[vintagecraze50]

Yeah I just read that article. It also says that they may be cracking down on or changing the law so many sites with people posting stuff that influences others to do terribly dangerous things. Loud mouth Trump comes to mind.

[valueaddedresource]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

---

@rugerskick wrote:

They weren't just a few mere employees. They were officer / vp levels, head of security people.

And it was a multi-year conspiracy of coordinated threats and terrorizing this couple.

---

@rugerskick 

Interesting.  I don't think the Steiner's know that.  Their reports started in August of 2019.  They have never addressed any other timeframe that I'm aware of and the FBI didn't as well.  The FBI also did not find it went as deep as you are suggesting either.  Where did you get your information?

---

@mam98031 - in their lawsuit, the Steiners do mention multiple past issues with eBay targeting their site in some way. I believe the oldest one included in the case was from  2012, when they allege eBay falsely reported the site to their web hosting service as a phishing scam.

Whether all the previous stuff really happened and how much weight it should carry in this particular case may be up for debate, but they did include several examples they believe show a years long pattern of activity that then escalated in 2019.

As for the events in the criminal cases, they actually started on June 8, 2019 when Senior Manager of Special Operations Brian Gilbert traveled to Massachusetts and vandalized the Steiners' fence by tagging it with the word "Fidomaster" - the meaning of which would have been clearly understood since it was the handle of a frequent commenter and anonymous source.

The threatening messages and bizarre deliveries followed in August 2019 and then escalated to in person surveillance and the attempt to break into the Steiners' garage to install a GPS tracker on their car.

[rugerskick]

Forbes article.

"Prosecutors alleged their plan was to eventually have Brian Gilbert, the 51-year-old former senior manager of special operations for eBay’s Global Security Team and a former Santa Clara police captain, "

"Other than Gilbert, the ex-eBay staff facing criminal charges includes: James Baugh, eBay’s former senior director of safety and security; David Harville, eBay’s former director of global resiliency; Stephanie Popp, eBay’s former senior manager of global intelligence; Stephanie Stockwell, former manager of eBay’s Global Intelligence Center (GIC); and Veronica Zea, a former eBay contractor who worked as an intelligence analyst in the GIC."

Ok, not officers, but they were higher ups in their positions, I and most others reasonably consider directors and senior managers in a company this size to be part of the upper elite running the place.  I think you are attempting to split hairs here.  These were not small potatoes, rank and file people.  They were high up on the managerial chain here.  

[mam98031]

My question was more towards your statement of the multi year attack on Steiners.  

Yes some of those prosecuted held senior positions with Ebay and some did not.

[retro_entertainment_collectibles]

---

@albertabrightalberta wrote:

---

@vintagecraze50 wrote:

People 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 wrote:

In 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.

---

A social media website isn't to be held responsible for what 3rd party posters post on their site. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-you-should-know-about-section-230-the-rule-that-shaped-to...

---

Yep, but its changing and it's also somewhat vague as what you're looking at is Federal.

That said, pre-covid many nations were working towards Internet Social Media regulatory measures.  HARMS put forth by the UK had become the popular framework and was being adopted by Canada, Australia, much of the EU in varied forms.  Initially it even included interactive gaming which resulted in Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo stating outright that their platforms are not freedom of speech venues.  The interactive entertainment lobbies are big and wealthy so that was dropped of HARMS to be dealt with separately. 

Now in the USA things get crazy.  For starters Mr. Trump's wife was heading all over the USA speaking qt schools, colleges and places for the elderly about Internet Safety working to catalyze starts of new regulatory measures.  Yes, odd as that seems whilst Mr. Trump used social media in HUGE fashion to manipulate citizens and more so blanketing the press. 

Every single state in the USA has laws pertaining to online conduct mostly user based but not all.  Most folks think said laws pertain only to youth, untrue.  Additionally venues have been sued for conduct onsite and ultimately its up to a judge to determine culpability and/or liabilities regardless of bounds of legislation.  Citizens in the USA tend be very unaware of their State or for that matter other States laws.

As an example with youth, it's against say Twitters Terms of Services for underage kids to use the service but that doesn't circumvent law.  One can threaten, stalk, whatever a youth on Twitter and be subject to said laws regardless of Terms of Service for example.  I tell people be on you're best behavior online, I know a family who's daughter used Twitter and was rather brutalized by adults, one in particular who marshalled others.  The Perp in Texas multiple felonies and as the law opened up his life even more, they were awarded $35,000 in a civil case against him regardless of Twitters TOS.  He's the adult, act like one per se.

In America anyone can sue anyone and it's up to the courts to determine how it turns out using law as a guide not a fixed rules set.  It's why for example there is this lawsuit via folks w/ a little blog whereby if say Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson or Chris Cuomo were to have similar events occur there would be no prospect at all of any judge in the land finding eBay culpable.  They endure far far worse citizen activities and that of business on quite a regular basis.  They choose to be public figures just as Congressional people endure such matters and they chose to be public figures.  Matters are pursued as matter of law not lawsuit seeking monetary gain.

Basically same thing happened here, we'd a fella and his wife running a blog about the school district.  District employee's went at them, harassing, threatening, property damage etc.  The perp's were caught and faced what they'd done but as the blogmasters attempted sue the School District and said activities were directed by some district Administrators.  It was a no go and that was due to the fact it was their choice to run the blog "reporting" on said district making themselves public figures.

But back to blogs, forums and anti-social media...  The Internet is the new Wild West and everybody who's anybody knew that 20+ years ago and venue after venue has dodged regulatory legislation.  In third party eCommerce there's been dodging of "We are but a venue" all the way up to operations having to create policy and platform such as Trust & Safety, VERO on and on to try show and stop legislative actions from becoming law.

In Social Media it all heated up again in big fashion as it was used to drive big wedges between citizens in the USA which already existed, opening up the "Fault lines" if you will in geography terms.  The result literally polarizing millions and millions of Americans.  Anybody's who's been involved in American politics which I did for 16 years knows for example the Tik Tok gig going on is abstracted.  Precedent need be laid as stepping stones to further regulatory measures across the interactive online media spectrum.  It comes as no surprise as all forms of communication from wire to phone, TV have undergone regulatory measure.  It's the scale and scope when it comes to the Netiverse that stands as quite the barriers.  If this were China or Russia the family in question likely been jailed long before any perpetrators had opportunity to act.  It's a complex world and the Netiverse has made it an extremely complex world.

But to say a media website cannot be held culpable to user activities is very wrong when it comes to civil action.  You won't see it reported much as settlements happen and are sealed or they become publicly exposable.

If you read a prior post I'd made in this thread about when I'd made a website for Multiple Sclerosis and was garnering favor of some local medical professionals to help vet site data.  One day I was walked into a board room of the rather large care system they work for and I was grilled.  I mean BBQ grilled over the work and what it means, grandiose vision of doing away with disease and helping folks.  Ok, understandable.

Then came the talk of social media and how damaging it is to so many patients, families and then some.  Its a miracle in that patients, families can interact with others opening entirely new worlds to them.  MS is a condition where a persons immune system attacks their central nervous system, brain, spine or optic nerves.  Damage done results in the symptomology which can be minor or all the way to being a Quadriplegic in pain 24/7 with hosts of other symptoms. 

AlbertaBrightAlberta, you probably know this as MS is Canada's national disease per se.

So these med professionals grilling me on our usage of social media both external and internal to the web venue.  I'm citing back engagement and the good of it all when one leaves the room, comes back five minutes later.  He throws three file folders in front of me and says READ! And so I did.

SHOCKED would be a light reaction.  All three were folks who received advice via others on the Internet in social media (One FB, other two forums off of blog sites).  All were just tragic but I'll cite one.  A female MS patient was given advice to take supplement's to help her symptoms.  She was driving her car and seized, seizure.  She lost control of her vehicle striking another car with a mother and two children in back.  The children were immediately killed and the driver of the vehicle struck lost an arm and a leg amputated.

Lawsuit ensued as one might imagine.  Not only were the webmasters successfully sued but they were banned from ever having any web venue again.  I believe it was 11 million dollars as I recall.

The other two were just as gruesome...  Then I was told that this particular University Care System is one of three around the USA that has record of MS patients and tragic happenings due to Social Media engagements.  I was told they've over 1,000 records on site and similar numbers at the other locations filing be regionally based, East, Midwest, West Coast.

Discussion ensued and it was agreed upon that our forum be removed.  That the blogging ability at the venue be closed and that social media engagement via FB, Twitter etc. only be that of directing people to aspects (pages) of the web portal.  You will not find a medical professional that does not think interactive social media is both a blessing to patients and among the most dangerous things they can engage in I would find out in time.

To say webmasters cannot be held in liable for what occurs on their venue is wrong, it can...  Just as this particular family is attempting to hold accountable a corporation which is a web based venue.  Just as family here wanted hold the school district accountable to its employee's directed actions.  The fact 60 million dollars bandied about is sheer insanity.  Best hope that's not the family actually having sought that amount as a judge very likely see that as profiteering versus the emotional distress and medical proofs thereof which better be from word go.

Now as I said, women looses and arm, leg, two children awarded 11 million dollars.  The woman who took the supplements?  She too was injured in the accident but she was not found culpable, the webmasters were as they permitted the dialog resulting in the women's seizure.  

[rugerskick]

Also there were executives involved, I now see that info:

"Investigators learned in April of 2019,  eBay's then CEO Devin Wenig shared a link to this post Ina had written about his annual pay. EBay's Chief Communications Officer,  Steve Wymer,  wrote back "we are going to crush this lady" about a month later, Wenig, the CEO of eBay  texted: "take her down."  Prosecutors say Steve Wymer later texted eBay security director  Jim Baugh "I want to see ashes. as long as it takes. whatever it takes."  - CBS news, 60 minutes info

TAKE HER DOWN, from ebay ceo officer

WE ARE GOING TO CRUSH THIS LADY, from ebay cco

I WANT TO SEE ASHES, AS LONG AS IT TAKES, WHATEVER IT TAKES, ebay cco

Fact is most of the people doing this, approving this, were officers, who directed itbut didn't execute it, and senior team management, who carried out the order and did the detail work.

These people were hated by ebay for years prior and in 2019 they executed revenge.  Don't think for one second it would not have continued if they didn't get that photograph of the van license plate that tied back to Veronica, who got an incredibly light slap on the wrist for what she did.  The ebay cco said AS LONG AS IT TAKES, WHATEVER IT TAKES.