[brookst]

Are you saying Glassdoor should rewrite user posts that the company claims are libelous?

Honestly I’m not sure how many negative posts could reasonably be considered libel, but for those that genuinely could be, Glassdoor is probably better served by just removing them than wading into liability both from posting and from modifying them.

[lazide]

Nope. That should be between the company and whoever did the post, frankly.

I don’t see how Glassdoor would have any liability unless they were somehow presenting it as their own opinion.

They might want to take it down as part of overall community moderation if it violates their TOS of course, say if it includes cursing, or has racist remarks or whatever.

I’m pointing out libel has a definition, and posting what is clearly an opinion isn’t it. It has to be making statements which are presenting false facts as true.

That they’ll almost certainly find ways to take down ‘undesired’ messages that paying customers don’t like seems like something they do, which is shitty and undermines their nominal reason for existing, is… sad but seems to be what is going on. Nothing to do with libel.

[chickenpotpie]

* user posts anonymous review

* Company tells Glassdoor the review is false and to take it down

* Glassdoor says the review is from an anonymous user and not them, so they should sue the user * Company asks for the name of the user so they can sue them for libel.

* Glassdoor refuses to turn over the user because it ruins the anonymity

* Company sues Glassdoor for libel because they refuse to produce proof they didn't create the libel. Glassdoor now has to face the lawsuit or turn over the user and destroy the anonymous premise of their website thats fundamental to their business model

[idiotsecant]

This is not how the law works, and if it was no website on the entire internet would be able to print user comments of any kind.

[lazide]

Also, Glassdoor has no issues turning over user details in case of a subpoena I believe?