> If it ever does happen, I assure you that all it takes is one email to office@thenextweb.com and we'll have it resolved.
I'm sure it does. But the point is that you should ensure through process and not through policy that you do not end up with other people's stuff on your site without attribution or compensation.
The fact that you'll take it down to avoid further damage is not enough to put you in the clear, this is not 'user generated content', these are people with who you have a relationship where you have them create works on your behalf.
You're responsible.
One way in which you could do this - consult your local legal eagle - is to ask your authors to sign a release stating that they are the original creators of all the content they submit, and that they are within their rights to re-sell this content to you.
We do have processes AND policy in place to make sure this doesn't happen. But it can still happen unintentionally and when it does, we react activity and proactively.
And spam the guys twitter saying he is overreacting and that its ridiculous that hes getting the slightest bit annoyed at the fact that you ripped his work off? Wow.. Just WOW.
Excellent point re: reacting proactive-ly. At some point you've taken so many action items on-board, uplifted so much capability and re-purposed to much content that all the corporate buzz-words just start making perfect sense.
By telling the original authors you'll be sure to 'steer clear' of them in the future for being upset that they weren't credited until it made you look like an ass? Yikes.
This was not unintentional, though. The writer clearly took a screenshot of someone else's work and made no effort to even credit work that should not have been used in the first place.
talk about a great way to ruin a company image... just shows that a company can't do this anymore to the masses, the people are not as silenced. Its now actually in a companies best intrest to be legitimate ;)
Zee, everyone can see the online record, which shows you plagiarized Joshua Gross, publicly threatened him on Twitter, and then publicly denied plagiarizing him.
What's up with the down voting? The score is now so low that you have to play with the screen contrast to read the comment. Does it enhance the quality of Hacker News when we can't read a side of the argument? This is judgmental crap, not mature debate.
A strict policy that includes insulting the original poster, accusing him of being "too extreme" and vowing on Twitter to avoid him in the future. At least this policy was written down, agreed to in advance and followed to the letter in practice. There's leadership for you. Or chutzpah.
I vehemently disagree with Zee in this case, but I upvoted his posts because I believe his position deserves to be heard. This goes double for when the other person is mis-handling the fallout. I recommend putting half-baked defenses to the top so everyone can see the person's poor character.
I actually think the grey has the opposite effect, makes the post really stand out and i go out of my way to high-light and read it, if only to see why the person was downvoted so much.
To stay on topic I can't believe the guy still hasn't apologized. Judging by his attitude and replies he's probably too busy self-rationalizing about how he's right and if everyone else wasn't an idiot we would all agree with him.
Mentioned elsewhere: I'm not complaining about the specific text contrast. My concern is with downvotes being misused (albeit for my own definition of misused).
Downvoting also has the effect of lowering the comment's position relative to other replies. No matter the color, the comment will appear below someone who gets a higher score, even though I can't imagine a more relevant comment than from the guy this entire thread (and post) is really centered around.
It's not the text contrast that bothers me. It's that we're effectively trying to censor someone directly related to the article, if only for the fact that we believe him to be wrong. I would prefer that his comments are perceived as most relevant to the discussion at hand, and upvoted (or at least left alone) so that the comment can stand on its own.
Zee's 'punishment' shouldn't come in the form of mass downvoting and censorship. His punishment should be publicity. Let the community see what he has to say and judge his actions, not his comments.
I think that's a rather narrow definition of censorship. Maybe you would prefer the term 'suppressed'. Either way, the intent is to signal to readers, "the community consensus is that this comment is not valuable, or does not add to the discussion. It is likely not worth your time to read".
The whole point of voting is that higher-rated comments are brought to the top of the page, making them more visible. Most people don't read every comment.
I think otherwise he might not realize the breadth and depth at which this community disagrees with him. He is not merely expressing an unpopular opinion, he's demonstrated an inability to grasp certain basic concepts. Don't think of it as punitive; think of it as a wake-up call.
If it does, and it really shouldn't have beyond a year ago (when we really clamped down on it with our authors)... we fix it.
If it ever does happen, I assure you that all it takes is one email to office@thenextweb.com and we'll have it resolved.
But I assure you that this "care free" image you might have of us when it comes to posting other peoples images just isn't reality.