Thai defamation law and online reviews

[Fairynuff]

On 11/24/2017 at 10:10 AM, robblok said:

I can personally vouch for his business even though i don't 100% agree with his opinion. I been there a few times and will visit again and if things go as planned id bring more family with me as this year.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

Just make sure you don’t give him any kind of review tho...he’ll hate You for it

[Golden Triangle]

I frequently leave reviews on TripAdviser, all honest, whether it be an Attraction, Restaurant, Hotel, Bar or whatever, a few years ago I left a review of an attraction in Pattaya that was less than complimentary, (it's directly opposite B P Hospital) if you need to know, 

 

Later I learnt of the rather dodgy defamation laws in Thailand and requested that the review be removed and I would supply an update, it was removed, I provided an update and suggested that the said attraction would be best visited in the hours of darkness when all the fairy lights were on 

 

 Another time, I booked a hotel on Koh Samet, I checked the reviews prior to booking and all looked good, when we arrived I was very disappointed to find that our Chalet was more or less at the top of a very steep hill which due to bad knees and a balance problem was out of the question, I had to negotiate a new price for a different Chalet on the ground level, nowhere was it mentioned that you had to be fit, agile and a mountain goat to get back to your room after a meal and a few beers, so review sites do work, I left a review indicating the above, but not in a derogatory way, just advising people.

 

I also understand human nature, especially Thai human nature and they will diss your business if they think it will increase their throughput of customers.

 

PS: With regard to the ferry service to Koh Samet, I very nearly didn't go, as mentioned above I do suffer with balance problems, on the outward journey I was presented with a 6 feet wide gap on a 6 inch plank 10 feet above the ocean with no hand rail, it took 3 people to get me on the boat    

[fishbrando]

On 11/22/2017 at 4:46 PM, rufanuf said:

let me ask you a simple question. Do you think its fair that a business has NO CHOICE but to be listed on these sites? Surely a business should be allowed to be in control of its own marketing strategy?

Yes I think it is fair.  If you do business with the public, you should be able to tolerate public discussion about your business.  Removing your listing would be like a politician telling newspapers that they aren't allowed to write articles about him.

 

The best review sites allow the business to post a rebuttal to each review.  The businesses I see posting some sort of excuse for each bad review (e.g. blaming/insulting the customer) are the ones I avoid.  The ones that post reasonable replies are the ones that I patronize.

[fishbrando]

On 11/22/2017 at 10:02 AM, rufanuf said:

What needs to change with review websites to make them fair is that KNOWONE should be able to publish reviews under a "nickname" or unverifiable ID. Strangely enough all these platforms are up in arms about this simple but fair idea, because they know they would be out of business in the blink of an eye. I wonder how many visitors to Trip Advisor wishing to publish a negative review would still do so if their name and address was up there in all its glory along with the businesses?

Imagine if someone in the government said this.  "I wonder how many government critics there would be if their name and address were up there in all its glory..."

 

Not all business owners are honorable and many would not hesitate to legally or physically intimidate customers who post bad reviews.

Edited November 25, 2017 by fishbrando

[joebrown]

On ‎24‎/‎11‎/‎2560 at 10:23 AM, rufanuf said:

Thanks Rob, then I can explain to you why I have my views about reviews over a cold beer LOL! Theres another place I know you detest...you should look at their reviews!

FAO rufanuf

Please be kind enough to respond to my #89 and the PM I sent you.

[rufanuf]

On 11/25/2017 at 7:15 PM, fishbrando said:

Imagine if someone in the government said this.  "I wonder how many government critics there would be if their name and address were up there in all its glory..."

 

Not all business owners are honorable and many would not hesitate to legally or physically intimidate customers who post bad reviews.

This is not government, but imagine if government representatives where allowed to remain anonymous! Not all review writers are honourable either, why should they be allowed to hide behind anonymity?

[rufanuf]

On 11/25/2017 at 7:12 PM, fishbrando said:

Yes I think it is fair.  If you do business with the public, you should be able to tolerate public discussion about your business.  Removing your listing would be like a politician telling newspapers that they aren't allowed to write articles about him.

 

The best review sites allow the business to post a rebuttal to each review.  The businesses I see posting some sort of excuse for each bad review (e.g. blaming/insulting the customer) are the ones I avoid.  The ones that post reasonable replies are the ones that I patronize.

It still doesn't change the fact as a business owner you have no rights and cannot do much about dishonourable reviewers but as a member of the public you can write what you like? If you think that's fair, fair enough I guess, each to their own.

[habanero]

I get emails from Lazada asking me to give them a review of their services during our last transaction. 

I answer honestly. If I don't like it, I say so and explain why.

The way I look at it, they contacted me and asked for my review of their services and products. If they don't like what I have written too bad. Like I said, they contacted me.

[fishbrando]

7 hours ago, rufanuf said:

This is not government, but imagine if government representatives where allowed to remain anonymous!

Not a good analogy as business owners tend to be more entreched in their community and have greater resources at their disposal than consumers.

 

Not all review writers are honourable either, why should they be allowed to hide behind anonymity?

Like I said: many business owners would not hesitate to legally or physically intimidate customers who post bad reviews.  Bad reviews are not as damaging as physical/legal intimidation.

[fishbrando]

7 hours ago, rufanuf said:

It still doesn't change the fact as a business owner you have no rights and cannot do much about dishonourable reviewers but as a member of the public you can write what you like? If you think that's fair, fair enough I guess, each to their own.

That's right, business owners have no rights when it comes to suppressing free speech.  I prefer it that way, otherwise we end up with cases like Jonathan Head.

 

I agree that many reviewers can be unfair and downright malicious and in many cases are folks who are trying to discredit their competition.  However I'd rather err on the side of free speech.

[rufanuf]

9 hours ago, fishbrando said:

That's right, business owners have no rights when it comes to suppressing free speech.  I prefer it that way, otherwise we end up with cases like Jonathan Head.

 

I agree that many reviewers can be unfair and downright malicious and in many cases are folks who are trying to discredit their competition.  However I'd rather err on the side of free speech.

Well we are kind of getting to the core of the debate. What is the difference between free speech and defamation?

[rufanuf]

9 hours ago, fishbrando said:

Not a good analogy as business owners tend to be more entreched in their community and have greater resources at their disposal than consumers.

 

Like I said: many business owners would not hesitate to legally or physically intimidate customers who post bad reviews.  Bad reviews are not as damaging as physical/legal intimidation.

Says who? Why are business owners any more or less likely to legally or physically abuse anyone? The abuse starts with the review and really grows from there.

[fishbrando]

6 hours ago, rufanuf said:

Well we are kind of getting to the core of the debate. What is the difference between free speech and defamation?

I don't know the legal definition of libel/defamation but it probably involves lying with intent to harm, either economically or via intimidation/incitement to violence.

 

Ultimately there's not much too difference as one man's free speech can be another man's defamation.  The legal bar needs to be high so that the powerful can't arbitrarily silence their critics.  Unfortunately the bar is not too high here.

[fishbrando]

6 hours ago, rufanuf said:

Says who? Why are business owners any more or less likely to legally or physically abuse anyone? The abuse starts with the review and really grows from there.

Because people who feel like their livelihood is being threatened tend to react in this manner.

 

Here are a few examples:

 

https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/taxi-drivers-charged-threatening-uber-driver-pattaya/

 

 

[rufanuf]

5 hours ago, fishbrando said:

I don't know the legal definition of libel/defamation but it probably involves lying with intent to harm, either economically or via intimidation/incitement to violence.

 

Ultimately there's not much too difference as one man's free speech can be another man's defamation.  The legal bar needs to be high so that the powerful can't arbitrarily silence their critics.  Unfortunately the bar is not too high here.

I agree. This is really my whole point. So in the knowledge that everything is simply subjective, then I question the value of reviews. I do not however question the basic nature of negative conduct. It is by definition something that spreads like a disease thru society. Whether it be a written review or two guys having a brawl in the street. Why the majority of people cannot see that review websites thrive off the basic need of some people to spread negativity (and therefore rather than being doing a public service are simply just profiting from peoples love of complaining) is beyond me, but each to their own as I have said many times in this thread.

Edited November 28, 2017 by rufanuf

[rufanuf]

5 hours ago, fishbrando said:

Because people who feel like their livelihood is being threatened tend to react in this manner.

 

Here are a few examples:

 

https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/taxi-drivers-charged-threatening-uber-driver-pattaya/

 

 

But in observing this then you are STILL of the belief that reviews are useful? Seems to me they are just then a possible cause for social discord.

[fishbrando]

40 minutes ago, rufanuf said:

I agree. This is really my whole point. So in the knowledge that everything is simply subjective, then I question the value of reviews. I do not however question the basic nature of negative conduct. It is by definition something that spreads like a disease thru society. Whether it be a written review or two guys having a brawl in the street. Why the majority of people cannot see that review websites thrive off the basic need of some people to spread negativity (and therefore rather than being doing a public service are simply just profiting from peoples love of complaining) is beyond me, but each to their own as I have said many times in this thread.

Just because reviews don't have value doesn't necessarily mean they should be stamped out.  I don't see much value being created by Keeping Up with the Kardashians but I wouldn't argue that it shouldn't be allowed to exist. 

 

Some review sites are better than others and hopefully the ones that serve everyone well will win in the marketplace.

 

The existence of negative conduct is the price we pay for a free society.  I'd prefer some negativity rather than having big brother watch and regulate everything.  As Justice Scalia said, “There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.”

 

[rufanuf]

On 11/28/2017 at 8:33 PM, fishbrando said:

Just because reviews don't have value doesn't necessarily mean they should be stamped out.  I don't see much value being created by Keeping Up with the Kardashians but I wouldn't argue that it shouldn't be allowed to exist. 

 

Some review sites are better than others and hopefully the ones that serve everyone well will win in the marketplace.

 

The existence of negative conduct is the price we pay for a free society.  I'd prefer some negativity rather than having big brother watch and regulate everything.  As Justice Scalia said, “There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.”

 

I cant really comment about the Kardashians, never watched it, but its plainly a different subject. The point here is that systems put in place by large businesses are profiting at the expense of small businesses by creating a platform for whingers who can cause damage yet stay anonymous in doing so.

 

I am not calling for reviews to not be allowed to exist. I am calling for better accountability and regulation of yet another wild west internet industry that is generating 100s of millions for a few at the expense of the majority. Fake reviews, professionally written reviews and just outright moaners and nasty people can exploit the current system until the cows come home with no recourse whatsoever. In the physical world free speech is regulated by all sorts of laws in the west.(hate crimes etc) yet written published examples of hate crimes are considered acceptable and if you own a business your fair game?  Something somewhere doesn't add up.

Edited December 1, 2017 by rufanuf

[Casted]

On 11/22/2017 at 9:22 AM, rufanuf said:

You perhaps ought to be asking yourself a different question. Why would you wish to post negative reviews about a business? Would it not be simpler simply to vote with your feet and never return? There's an old saying that goes "If you haven't got something positive to say, don't say anything at all."  Its conventional wisdom that proceeds the internet by about ten thousand years, and generally is the right way to deal with society.

 

If your a business owner and you have had ANY negative reviews on these pathetic websites you would feel as though it is grossly unfair if you are simply doing your best to make your way in the world. I actually don't think Thai defamation laws are insane AT ALL. I think it's right to suggest that publicly bad mouthing someones right to try and earn a crust by providing a service or facility that encourages MASS criticismn is wrong, which is effectively what the internet allows, and the parasite organisations that live off this criticism ought to be shut down. You try writing something negative on Trip Advisor about Tripadvisor. See how far it gets you!

I'm sorry but this is patently absurd. Your desire to protect bad businesses wrongfully trumps the right of the public to know what they're getting themselves into. Websites like Yelp, Google Reviews, and Trip Advisor serve as much needed platform to protect consumers from getting scammed or running into willfully poor and inadequate service. If by chance a good business receives a bad review or two, most people will be able to determine for themselves that this was a one off (e.g. the business has 110 outstanding reviews and two bad ones).

 

But your model of "if you don't have anything nice to say" leaves absolutely no room for free speech and giving consumers the right to voice their opinion.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Casted