Regretsy: Do as we say, not as we do
Thursday I wrote about the alleged destruction of a violin, based in part upon a letter posted on Regretsy. I also created an account on Regretsy to post a comment that included a note to the original author of the letter asking her to contact me via my web site and a link to my article.
Apparently the folks at Regretsy don’t like what I have to say: They deleted my account and removed my comment.
The mob at Regretsy are very quick to jump on what they perceive to be heavy-handed behaviour by PayPal, but it appears that they don’t apply the same standards to themselves. And in failing to do so, they call the credibility of the original post and the balance of comments into question. It leaves me wondering if I should Regretsy using them as a source.
Regretsy did not respond to my email inquiry.
4 Comments
Leave a Reply
Keep in Touch
Kudos
Welcome to the club! That’s standard operating procedure for Regretsy. NO FREE SPEECH FOR YOU! Regretsy is a whimsical land of make believe and you better play by her rules or you will get blanked. It’s her site and she can do whatever she likes with it but, she uses her army of fans to silence PayPal and any and all detractors on Facebook and Twitter. If she is doing nothing wrong (charity fraud?) then why the need to cyber-wash everyone who provokes her ire? If you ask me, she is a hypocritical grifter.
Whack: You do understand that “free speech” is a concept that applies to governments, not individuals, right? It is an exercise of freedom of speech when you post something and the government doesn’t arrest you for it.
But if you post on Bob’s forum, and Bob deletes the post because he doesn’t like it, that’s not a free speech issue. That’s simply an interpersonal conflict.
While Tomas is correct, the point is that Regretsy lambastes PayPal for perceived injustices, acting as if the owner of Regretsy is somehow morally superior. Then she deletes any comment that does not follow suit in order to make it appear that every single comment is aligned with her.
Does she legally have a right to do so? Yes. But it displays remarkably poor ethics and eliminates any credibility she might have.
Unless she’s complaining that PayPal is deleting her posts, there is absolutely no ethical or moral connection between Paypal demanding a counterfeit be destroyed and deleting comments on a blog.
Her blog is her property to allow others to use as she sees fit. Nobody has to like how she sees fit, of course, but it’s not ethically or morally wrong to run it that way, nor is there an ethical comparison to draw with Paypal. It is disingenuous to draw such a comparison. It’s also very wrong, intellectually, to make a free speech argument in respect of a wholly private setting.