Quackometer Silenced

jimbob · 18th February 2008, 01:59 PM

In case you didn't know, Andy Lewis's excellent quackometer site has had its plug pulled by his ISP, Netcetera.

Discussion on badscience here:

And one of the badscience bloggers view on it here:

Quote:

Quackometer blog suffered was malady of homeopaths, which saw his hosting company Netcetera following legal threats from the Society of Homeopaths. Most recently the Quackometer was afflicted with Joseph Chikelue Obi which saw his hosting company remove another page from his blog. It is thought that the Quackometer blog has finally succumbed to this ailment, slipping off this mortal coil, today, Monday 18th Febraury.

He wants to abolish the GMC, probably as he is suspended for serious professional misconduct

Quote:

Shamed doctor Joseph Chikelue Obi is running a string of internet sites offering health advice.

He was suspended last year because of serious misconduct at a North East hospital and is not licensed to practise medicine in this country.

The 34-year-old, who lives in Gateshead, is banned from treating patients in the UK but not from offering advice.

A Chronicle probe has discovered Dr Obi is running websites selling medical advice and services, including premium-rate phone lines

wahrheit · 18th February 2008, 02:27 PM

This ISP has quite some small print in it's terms:

Quote:

Netcetera will be the sole arbiter as to what constitutes a violation of this provision.
1) Web Hosting
1.1) Netcetera reserves the right to suspend or cancel a customer’s access to any or all services provided by Netcetera, where Netcetera decides that the account has been inappropriately used. Netcetera reserves the right to refuse service and /or access to its servers to anyone.”

What a fine elastic clause.

tkingdoll · 18th February 2008, 02:28 PM

AUGH!!!!

That totally sucks.

Loss Leader · 18th February 2008, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by wahrheit

This ISP has quite some small print in it's terms:

What a fine elastic clause.

It's not really uncommon. In fact, I'd say that such a clause is far and away the standard for ISPs. I haven't looked into it but I bet you'd be hard pressed to find an ISP that didn't reserve the right to kick you off for no reason at all.

tkingdoll · 18th February 2008, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

It's not really uncommon. In fact, I'd say that such a clause is far and away the standard for ISPs. I haven't looked into it but I bet you'd be hard pressed to find an ISP that didn't reserve the right to kick you off for no reason at all.

Quite. And almost every ISP will kick a site at the first sniff of a legal letter rather than risk the suit. I know people who have done this very thing (had sites with libelous content removed).

The trick is to find an ISP who is sympathetic, or who doesn't care about baseless legal threats.

Drudgewire · 18th February 2008, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

The trick is to find an ISP who is sympathetic, or who doesn't care about baseless legal threats.

Man I wish I could remember who we were using when I was getting threatened weekly with legal action. The host would send me the threats and we'd laugh and laugh and laugh.

Unfortunately the tech support sucked so we dropped them like a bad habit.

wahrheit · 18th February 2008, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

It's not really uncommon. In fact, I'd say that such a clause is far and away the standard for ISPs. I haven't looked into it but I bet you'd be hard pressed to find an ISP that didn't reserve the right to kick you off for no reason at all.

I'm sure you are right, and in fact I do have some kind of psychic powers, because I was already preparing a little addendum to my previous post because I knew someone with legal expertise would straighten me out on this one.

My excuse: I was mentally stuck in German (European?) law, where it would rather be the creator of the site being under legal attack, not the ISP, since courts repeatedly ruled that the ISP is not responsible for content it hosts or transfers in it's network (in principle). The background for this is that it is merely impossible to create a web-site in Germany without having your full name, address, phone et cetera on the site. In other words, an anonymous web-site is illegal in Germany, which quite frankly sucks and is not right in my opinion. Thus any party who wants to sue you will address you directly, not by threatening the ISP necessarily. Not that they wouldn't try, though.

Mojo · 18th February 2008, 03:34 PM

Unfortunately in the UK we have Godfrey v. Demon.

Quote:

...the court found that an Internet service provider can be sued for libel, and that any transmission by a service provider of a defamatory posting constituted a publication under defamation law.

Loss Leader · 18th February 2008, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by wahrheit

My excuse: I was mentally stuck in German (European?) law, where it would rather be the creator of the site being under legal attack, not the ISP, since courts repeatedly ruled that the ISP is not responsible for content it hosts or transfers in it's network (in principle).

In the US, ISPs are protected from such suits by the Communications Decency Act. However, being able to ultimately defend such a suit competes strongly with the desire to avoid any lawsuits on any basis at any cost. Some ISPs are braver than others.

Acleron · 18th February 2008, 05:02 PM

Netcetera sucks. There I've said it!. Perhaps I'll be lucky and they try to sue me. If not perhaps a Google will associate the two words. I can't think of a word worse than coward but perhaps the phrase 'spineless jellies' get closer but still doesn't get close to what they are.

Quackometer, when you have set up again please post here so we know the new URL.

shpalman · 19th February 2008, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

The trick is to find an ISP who is sympathetic, or who doesn't care about baseless legal threats.

He was already moving across to postive internet, who offered their services when Netcetera first caved in. That requires a bit of porting, which now just has to go a bit faster. All Netcetera have achieved with this is some negative publicity.

(Edit: the T&C of my host is something like "don't annoy Simon".)

lecanardnoir · 19th February 2008, 03:28 PM

wahrheit - the point is that both the homeopaths and Obi did know my home address. They chose to attack my hosts because a) their complaints were groundless and b) they realised the hosts were the weakest link. In both cases, no substantiation of their grievance was offer, or even their grievance clearly stated. They just cried 'take down the site' or we will sue.

So, I have some technical work (a port from asp to php) but am well underway to move to Postive Internet - who have been extraordinarily kind and want to host the site for free just to make the point. Bless them.

All URLs will stay the same. You will notice no change (I hope) - just a few more pages!

wahrheit · 19th February 2008, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by lecanardnoir

wahrheit - the point is that both the homeopaths and Obi did know my home address. They chose to attack my hosts because a) their complaints were groundless and b) they realised the hosts were the weakest link. In both cases, no substantiation of their grievance was offer, or even their grievance clearly stated. They just cried 'take down the site' or we will sue.

Thanks for giving first hand feedback! Given that Obi et al knew your home address, there is no other explanation for me than that your ex host is a spineless non-service company.

Originally Posted by lecanardnoir

So, I have some technical work (a port from asp to php) but am well underway to move to Postive Internet - who have been extraordinarily kind and want to host the site for free just to make the point. Bless them.

This, on the other hand, is some really good news! An interwebs provider offering to host your site for free just to make a point - almost unbelievable. Kudos to them and hope your site is up and running again pretty soon.

Mojo · 19th February 2008, 04:02 PM

Another blog post about Netcetera caving in, on Holfordwatch this time.

rjh01 · 19th February 2008, 07:32 PM

Is this something skeptics could do? Write to the ISP of hosts demanding that they take down the woo sites or we will sue?

I know this is a rather nasty tactic.

shpalman · 20th February 2008, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

Is this something skeptics could do? Write to the ISP of hosts demanding that they take down the woo sites or we will sue?

Unfortunately there isn't a recognised offence of "defaming the truth".

tsig · 20th February 2008, 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by shpalman

Unfortunately there isn't a recognised offence of "defaming the truth".

Doesn't matter since they will fold on the mere whiff a lawsuit why not go after them all and let
god sort it out(or the courts)

tsig · 20th February 2008, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

Is this something skeptics could do? Write to the ISP of hosts demanding that they take down the woo sites or we will sue?

I know this is a rather nasty tactic.

Apparently anyone could do it just make the claim and they will fold. Why is it nasty?

shpalman · 20th February 2008, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Doesn't matter since they will fold on the mere whiff a lawsuit why not go after them all and let go sort it out(or the courts)

It's the woos who complain they are being suppressed by big pharma while firing off lawyer's letters to suppress anyone who tells the truth about them - if we actually did try to suppress them it would only vindicate them. I don't think we should sink to their level. When there are genuine legal concerns (for example, false advertising or malpractice) then exploit those.

tkingdoll · 20th February 2008, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

Is this something skeptics could do? Write to the ISP of hosts demanding that they take down the woo sites or we will sue?

I know this is a rather nasty tactic.

Anyone can write to any ISP claiming they've been libeled. Whether or not the ISP takes the site down depends on how jittery they are.

But unless you have actually been libelled on a site, I don't see on what grounds you would send the letter anyway. Plus, it's really, really bad PR for skeptics.

CFLarsen · 21st February 2008, 01:57 AM

Can I see the offending blog entry?

shpalman · 21st February 2008, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Can I see the offending blog entry?

See http://shpalman.livejournal.com/8711.html and links therein.

CFLarsen · 21st February 2008, 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by shpalman

See http://shpalman.livejournal.com/8711.html and links therein.

Thanks.

I don't see any problems hosting that on a Danish ISP.

lecanardnoir · 22nd February 2008, 02:16 AM

Rumours of the Quackometers demise have been greatly exaggerated.

The duck has risen phoenix like from the ashes of its Netcetera hosts and is now up and running with Positive Internet, hosts to very funny and clever people like Ricky Gervais. It also hosts Ben Goldacre's Bad Science.

Much thanks to all.

tkingdoll · 22nd February 2008, 06:41 AM

W00t!

18th February 2008, 01:59 PM	#1
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 29,222	Quackometer Silenced In case you didn't know, Andy Lewis's excellent quackometer site has had its plug pulled by his ISP, Netcetera. Discussion on badscience here: And one of the badscience bloggers view on it here: Quote: Quackometer blog suffered was malady of homeopaths, which saw his hosting company Netcetera following legal threats from the Society of Homeopaths. Most recently the Quackometer was afflicted with Joseph Chikelue Obi which saw his hosting company remove another page from his blog. It is thought that the Quackometer blog has finally succumbed to this ailment, slipping off this mortal coil, today, Monday 18th Febraury. He wants to abolish the GMC, probably as he is suspended for serious professional misconduct Quote: Shamed doctor Joseph Chikelue Obi is running a string of internet sites offering health advice. He was suspended last year because of serious misconduct at a North East hospital and is not licensed to practise medicine in this country. The 34-year-old, who lives in Gateshead, is banned from treating patients in the UK but not from offering advice. A Chronicle probe has discovered Dr Obi is running websites selling medical advice and services, including premium-rate phone lines

18th February 2008, 02:27 PM	#2
wahrheit Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,485	This ISP has quite some small print in it's terms: Quote: Netcetera will be the sole arbiter as to what constitutes a violation of this provision. 1) Web Hosting 1.1) Netcetera reserves the right to suspend or cancel a customer’s access to any or all services provided by Netcetera, where Netcetera decides that the account has been inappropriately used. Netcetera reserves the right to refuse service and /or access to its servers to anyone.” What a fine elastic clause.
wahrheit Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,485

18th February 2008, 03:12 PM	#4
Loss Leader I would save the receptionist. Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 28,231	Originally Posted by wahrheit This ISP has quite some small print in it's terms: What a fine elastic clause. It's not really uncommon. In fact, I'd say that such a clause is far and away the standard for ISPs. I haven't looked into it but I bet you'd be hard pressed to find an ISP that didn't reserve the right to kick you off for no reason at all.
	__________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. S^t L. Leader

18th February 2008, 03:24 PM	#6
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,421	Originally Posted by tkingdoll The trick is to find an ISP who is sympathetic, or who doesn't care about baseless legal threats. Man I wish I could remember who we were using when I was getting threatened weekly with legal action. The host would send me the threats and we'd laugh and laugh and laugh. Unfortunately the tech support sucked so we dropped them like a bad habit.
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

18th February 2008, 03:29 PM	#7
wahrheit Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,485	Originally Posted by Loss Leader It's not really uncommon. In fact, I'd say that such a clause is far and away the standard for ISPs. I haven't looked into it but I bet you'd be hard pressed to find an ISP that didn't reserve the right to kick you off for no reason at all. I'm sure you are right, and in fact I do have some kind of psychic powers, because I was already preparing a little addendum to my previous post because I knew someone with legal expertise would straighten me out on this one. My excuse: I was mentally stuck in German (European?) law, where it would rather be the creator of the site being under legal attack, not the ISP, since courts repeatedly ruled that the ISP is not responsible for content it hosts or transfers in it's network (in principle). The background for this is that it is merely impossible to create a web-site in Germany without having your full name, address, phone et cetera on the site. In other words, an anonymous web-site is illegal in Germany, which quite frankly sucks and is not right in my opinion. Thus any party who wants to sue you will address you directly, not by threatening the ISP necessarily. Not that they wouldn't try, though.
wahrheit Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,485	Last edited by wahrheit; 18th February 2008 at 03:30 PM.

18th February 2008, 02:28 PM	#3
tkingdoll Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 12,382	AUGH!!!! That totally sucks.

18th February 2008, 03:22 PM	#5
tkingdoll Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 12,382	Originally Posted by Loss Leader It's not really uncommon. In fact, I'd say that such a clause is far and away the standard for ISPs. I haven't looked into it but I bet you'd be hard pressed to find an ISP that didn't reserve the right to kick you off for no reason at all. Quite. And almost every ISP will kick a site at the first sniff of a legal letter rather than risk the suit. I know people who have done this very thing (had sites with libelous content removed). The trick is to find an ISP who is sympathetic, or who doesn't care about baseless legal threats.

18th February 2008, 03:34 PM	#8
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 36,852	Unfortunately in the UK we have Godfrey v. Demon. Quote: ...the court found that an Internet service provider can be sued for libel, and that any transmission by a service provider of a defamatory posting constituted a publication under defamation law.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

18th February 2008, 03:50 PM	#9
Loss Leader I would save the receptionist. Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 28,231	Originally Posted by wahrheit My excuse: I was mentally stuck in German (European?) law, where it would rather be the creator of the site being under legal attack, not the ISP, since courts repeatedly ruled that the ISP is not responsible for content it hosts or transfers in it's network (in principle). In the US, ISPs are protected from such suits by the Communications Decency Act. However, being able to ultimately defend such a suit competes strongly with the desire to avoid any lawsuits on any basis at any cost. Some ISPs are braver than others.
	__________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. S^t L. Leader

18th February 2008, 05:02 PM	#10
Acleron Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,290	Netcetera sucks. There I've said it!. Perhaps I'll be lucky and they try to sue me. If not perhaps a Google will associate the two words. I can't think of a word worse than coward but perhaps the phrase 'spineless jellies' get closer but still doesn't get close to what they are. Quackometer, when you have set up again please post here so we know the new URL.
Acleron Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,290

19th February 2008, 02:11 AM	#11
shpalman Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 203	Originally Posted by tkingdoll The trick is to find an ISP who is sympathetic, or who doesn't care about baseless legal threats. He was already moving across to postive internet, who offered their services when Netcetera first caved in. That requires a bit of porting, which now just has to go a bit faster. All Netcetera have achieved with this is some negative publicity. (Edit: the T&C of my host is something like "don't annoy Simon".)
shpalman Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 203	__________________ -- Opinions expressed in this posting are subject to change without notice Last edited by shpalman; 19th February 2008 at 02:17 AM.

19th February 2008, 03:28 PM	#12
lecanardnoir New Blood Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 16	wahrheit - the point is that both the homeopaths and Obi did know my home address. They chose to attack my hosts because a) their complaints were groundless and b) they realised the hosts were the weakest link. In both cases, no substantiation of their grievance was offer, or even their grievance clearly stated. They just cried 'take down the site' or we will sue. So, I have some technical work (a port from asp to php) but am well underway to move to Postive Internet - who have been extraordinarily kind and want to host the site for free just to make the point. Bless them. All URLs will stay the same. You will notice no change (I hope) - just a few more pages!
lecanardnoir New Blood Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 16

19th February 2008, 03:43 PM	#13
wahrheit Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,485	Originally Posted by lecanardnoir wahrheit - the point is that both the homeopaths and Obi did know my home address. They chose to attack my hosts because a) their complaints were groundless and b) they realised the hosts were the weakest link. In both cases, no substantiation of their grievance was offer, or even their grievance clearly stated. They just cried 'take down the site' or we will sue. Thanks for giving first hand feedback! Given that Obi et al knew your home address, there is no other explanation for me than that your ex host is a spineless non-service company. Originally Posted by lecanardnoir So, I have some technical work (a port from asp to php) but am well underway to move to Postive Internet - who have been extraordinarily kind and want to host the site for free just to make the point. Bless them. This, on the other hand, is some really good news! An interwebs provider offering to host your site for free just to make a point - almost unbelievable. Kudos to them and hope your site is up and running again pretty soon.
wahrheit Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,485

19th February 2008, 04:02 PM	#14
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 36,852	Another blog post about Netcetera caving in, on Holfordwatch this time.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

19th February 2008, 07:32 PM	#15
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 27,633	Is this something skeptics could do? Write to the ISP of hosts demanding that they take down the woo sites or we will sue? I know this is a rather nasty tactic.
	__________________ This signature is for rent.

20th February 2008, 12:14 AM	#16
shpalman Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 203	Originally Posted by rjh01 Is this something skeptics could do? Write to the ISP of hosts demanding that they take down the woo sites or we will sue? Unfortunately there isn't a recognised offence of "defaming the truth".
shpalman Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 203	__________________ -- Opinions expressed in this posting are subject to change without notice Last edited by shpalman; 20th February 2008 at 12:14 AM.

20th February 2008, 01:22 AM	#17
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 39,049	Originally Posted by shpalman Unfortunately there isn't a recognised offence of "defaming the truth". Doesn't matter since they will fold on the mere whiff a lawsuit why not go after them all and let god sort it out(or the courts)
	Last edited by tsig; 20th February 2008 at 01:28 AM. Reason: bad keyboard

20th February 2008, 01:27 AM	#18
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 39,049	Originally Posted by rjh01 Is this something skeptics could do? Write to the ISP of hosts demanding that they take down the woo sites or we will sue? I know this is a rather nasty tactic. Apparently anyone could do it just make the claim and they will fold. Why is it nasty?

20th February 2008, 01:28 AM	#19
shpalman Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 203	Originally Posted by tsig Doesn't matter since they will fold on the mere whiff a lawsuit why not go after them all and let go sort it out(or the courts) It's the woos who complain they are being suppressed by big pharma while firing off lawyer's letters to suppress anyone who tells the truth about them - if we actually did try to suppress them it would only vindicate them. I don't think we should sink to their level. When there are genuine legal concerns (for example, false advertising or malpractice) then exploit those.
shpalman Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 203	__________________ -- Opinions expressed in this posting are subject to change without notice

20th February 2008, 06:23 AM	#20
tkingdoll Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 12,382	Originally Posted by rjh01 Is this something skeptics could do? Write to the ISP of hosts demanding that they take down the woo sites or we will sue? I know this is a rather nasty tactic. Anyone can write to any ISP claiming they've been libeled. Whether or not the ISP takes the site down depends on how jittery they are. But unless you have actually been libelled on a site, I don't see on what grounds you would send the letter anyway. Plus, it's really, really bad PR for skeptics.

21st February 2008, 01:57 AM	#21
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,371	Can I see the offending blog entry?

21st February 2008, 02:11 AM	#22
shpalman Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 203	Originally Posted by CFLarsen Can I see the offending blog entry? See http://shpalman.livejournal.com/8711.html and links therein.
shpalman Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 203	__________________ -- Opinions expressed in this posting are subject to change without notice

21st February 2008, 02:51 AM	#23
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,371	Originally Posted by shpalman See http://shpalman.livejournal.com/8711.html and links therein. Thanks. I don't see any problems hosting that on a Danish ISP.

22nd February 2008, 02:16 AM	#24
lecanardnoir New Blood Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 16	Rumours of the Quackometers demise have been greatly exaggerated. The duck has risen phoenix like from the ashes of its Netcetera hosts and is now up and running with Positive Internet, hosts to very funny and clever people like Ricky Gervais. It also hosts Ben Goldacre's Bad Science. Much thanks to all.
lecanardnoir New Blood Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 16

22nd February 2008, 06:41 AM	#25
tkingdoll Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 12,382	W00t!