Google: Cyberbullying for profit

An anonymous Australian web-site reveals how Google has a financial incentive to cyber-bully people by elevating smear-and-extort sites like The Ripoff Report.

(I will not link to it, but here is Wikipedia’s entry on the Ripoff Report):

[Side-note: One of my attackers on the web seems to have been affiliated with this site,  which essentially runs an extortion racket by smearing people via hired proxies and then asking for money from the victims to remove the smears.]

UPDATE September 20th 2013: Victory

A large number of major companies have removed their advertisements from Ripoff Report.

This webpage contains an overview of the project.

The updated full report can be downloaded from this url: for Profit September

A list of examples URLs from Ripoff Report containing offensive material about children, public figures and individuals is contained in an attachment to the report but an also be found here:

This video explains how Google priorities links from Ripoff Report in its search results.

This video shows that Google considers Ripoff Report has unacceptable  business practices. So why does it advertise on its webpages? The answer is…..advertising revenue for  Google (see above).


The website Ripoff Report and other websites that emulate the business model of ‘cyberbullying for profit’  publish false and offensive information about minors, teenager, adults and businesses and these are often accompanied by photographs and identifying details.   Ripoff Report also publishes extremely racist and homophobic material, offensive material about religious groups, public figures and ‘celebrities’. While the material about public figures appears to be given a low Google page rank, the names of children, teenagers, ordinary people and small business owners ‘reported’ on these websites is contained in snippets displayed at or near the top of the Google search results (SERPs). These snippets contain names and location details couched in terms such as ‘ripoff’, ‘fraud, ‘pedophile’, ‘scam’, ‘whore’, ‘slut, ‘prostitute’, ‘skank’, ‘murderer’, ‘bitch’ ‘faggot’ ‘liar’ ‘drug abuser’, ‘cunt’, ‘stalker’, ‘HIV’ and/or ‘AIDS’ and other accusatory and derogatory terms.  

Ripoff Report earns revenue from two sources – advertising and payments from victims to the website to ‘rehabilitate’ their reputation in the Google search results or remove the false material. Despite the fact that the claims are false, if a person cannot pay their life is ruined because, as stated by Google, their search engine is often ‘the first place people look for information that’s published’ about a person.

Even if the allegations can be proven to be false Ripoff Report will not remove the material unless they are paid a substantial corporate advocacy’, or ‘arbitration’ feeIn response to removal requests, Google provides a number of excuses and victims must find an ‘ex-gratia’ payment in order to ensure the material is removed from the Google index and ameliorate the danger towards their children and/0r save their livelihoods and businesses. Furthermore, Ripoff Report publishes registered trade names and copyrighted photographs without permission. It claims a copyright over the webpages. This business model is enabled by both a high Google page rank  and advertising revenue. The companies and business that advertise on Ripoff Report supply this revenue and support the endangerment and cyberbullying of children, teenagers and adults and the destruction of careers and livelihoods. This project arose out of my own experience with the publication of false and defamatory material on these websites.

Despite the fact that it takes only a couple of minutes to remove links from the Google index, after four years of notifications, pleading with the website and Google, and litigation against Google it has not been removed. ……I sued Google for defamation in February 2011 with the hope that it would simply remove the links and I could then move on with my life. My hope was misplaced. …….

…Despite the fact that Google refuse most removal requests, they have quietly removed links for other victims of Ripoff Report.

[Lila: I have seen Google actively suppress information that exposes the financial mafia,which is to the left, politically.]

“For obvious reasons I cannot and will not publish the names of these people because they likely paid a substantial amount to either the websites or Google to save their families and livelihoods.

However, Google can and does remove websites and links without much effort.

For example, since December 2011 Google has removed almost 90,000 links from its index at the request of Ripoff Report. Many of those links contained registered trademarks and copyrighted photographs but it appears that Ripoff Report is  not questioned about these DMCA issues by Google. My blog, was also removed from the Google index soon after it went online.  If this appears difficult to believe consider that the removal occurred  after I drew attention to the blog by applying for AdSense advertising as an experiment.

In fact, I clearly stated on my blog that I was suing Google. Apparently’ freedom of speech’ only applies unless one says something negative about Google.

My blog was magically re-indexed in the Google index within hours of my public complaint in a blog conversation in which Matt Cutts was participating. The documents showing the removal and reinstatement of my blog in the Google SERPs can be downloaded from this link.

[Lila : Here is a previous blog post of mine, from 2009, where I reference Ripoff  Report and its owner, in the context of describing the nexus of organized crime and short-sellers.]

That Transparency Meme…

About that transparency meme that I caught on to in 2010, from whence it… er… others, like the estimable Daily Bell, whom I have often and meticulously cited,  whom I applaud for its wonderful work and have supported over and over, despite many misgivings….

(One of its associates/editors’ comments to my post can even be seen later in this blog post).

A nod in the direction from where you get stuff, folks, would be nice. It would be even nicer if I got it without having to bring it up, although, as you can see, I’m not bashful about doing that either…

I  give credit regardless, and I hope for the same, politely, humbly, and patiently at first, but if not, then a tad more assertively. Ultimately, this blog is committed to subverting and destroying the lies on which modernity has lived for centuries and a little (intellectual) blood-letting will take place when it has to, with no qualms.

The biggest lie fostered by modernity is the lie called western supremacism, whose economic form is mercantilism. This, as I  see even in this day, can only be sustained by the appropriation of other people’s work, whether physical or mental.  That is fundamental to it.

My attribution battles, small and great, are thus an intrinsic part of  the mandate of this blog, and not solely personal. More later…

Thus this brief history of the transparency meme  is not the first such and it probably won’t be the last.

Over and over, even recently, I blog something  and then see it surface a day or so later, without a nod in this direction. [One recent example was when I blogged why we need avoid treating ‘End the Fed’ as a slogan and why I think that power has already moved to the BIS].

Sometimes, I daresay, it’s just accidental. I allow for that. But more often it isn’t. Then I am reluctantly forced to call them out.

That kind of thing is simply wrong, no matter how many people do it and what theories or philosophies they quote. It is a kind of theft. Whether it is simply careerism or the professional standards of hard money people or marketers or the financial industry, it has to be called out. Nothing will get better without a clean up of the intellectual pollution and smog that clogs political debate.

Think about it. How can you denounce state actions as the means to enforce norms, if your own conduct adheres to none? If you yourself worship at the foot of power, whether money power, or status, or marketing clout, or anything else, and rely on your ability to “get away with it” because “everyone does it,” rather than on objective truth, then you have no moral grounds to complain when another kind of power (state power, the power of law, or the will of the people) opposes you. In fact, your behavior invites it.

That is why, in the end, the OccupyWallStreet folks will triumph. Soros will win. Why shouldn’t he?

If all you really care about is your network, and the money you make from them, and aggrandizing yourself, rather than objective truth, well then, on all those counts Soros is your master. He has proved it.

You cannot complain. If capitalists express in their behavior no more than the tenet, “might makes right”, they  have nothing on which to stand when the might of the state turns against them.  And it will turn against them. In fact, it already has.

And, truthfully, they have no one to blame but themselves.

See below:

“Again, I could be mistaken about Wikileaks.

But even if I were,  even if Assange himself turned out to be well-meaning and principled, I’m not enthusiastic about his perfect transparency, leak-for-profit model. I think it has ominous parallels in corporate and state intelligence services. In my reading (and that of some others), it was one of the instigating factors in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. Furthermore, the model depends on flouting the privacy rights of innocent people and private outfits.

So however things turn out, I’ll pass on Wikileaks and the “glamor” of spy v. spy. Means are just as important, if not more, than ends. That’s a lesson the Cold War should have taught us. In fact, I thought libertarianism was premised on it.

It troubles me then to see so many liberty-minded people simply brush off these questions as “spiteful” or “envious”……

In such matters, no one is beyond respectful questioning.”

And this post below (I’d actually started doubting Assange much earlier…as you can see from checking back at my posts)

Here’s the main theoretical reason why one might tend to suspect Wikileaks.

Assange objects to privacy. Wikileaks violates privacy. Kind of like Google, notice? Google thinks it’s heroic too and Google has its China-connection too. Wikileaks makes anonymous sources, hacking, leaking, and ratting out your associates cool. It makes snitches heroes.

Cui bono? Need I ask? Corporate rivals, speculators and short-sellers, blackmailers, rival governments, spy agencies. Does that sound like the company the power-elites keep?

So even if Wikileaks were not a disinformation agent, whose agenda would its work finally help? A totalitarian outfit’s. It certainly doesn’t help individualism.

A friend said…

  • [From The Daily Bell]

    Hi! Interesting article. Can you post a definitive (or semi-definitive article) showing Assange is a disinformation agent? Is that your point in this excerpt … that your suspicions are re-ignited? Maybe we misunderstood.

    At this point, (without evidence to change our tiny, collective mind) our betting is still that it is more likely MADSEN is one (since he is actually a member of several US old boy intel clubs) than Assange. We have our doubts about Rense too, where Madsen often appears.

    06/27/10 2:05 PM | Comment Link Edit This