Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Sisuahlai is banned from INNIT for 2 months


Thanks guys.

Is this article defamatory? How so?

*I have decided to remove the original picture depicting the "evolution of apes" followed by two Nuffnang pictures, and a fade-out image of a cartoon carrying a sack with dollar sign on it because Nuffnang interpreted it as something which I never intended it to portray. (The picture removal is not an admission of guilt, far from it - I will explain why in the next entry!)

**I intend to make public the email sent out to me because it also explains Nuffnang position regarding disclosing their payout structure. It took more than 3 SSL entries before they respond. If I see no objection of me releasing their email content, I will do so in my next entry.

wearing this banned badge proudly!


Anonymous Anonymous said...


May 06, 2008 9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nope the article wasn't. But I think the picture is.

May 06, 2008 9:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what the hell took them so long to do it? they should have done it so much earlier

May 06, 2008 10:32 PM  
Blogger Sisuahlai said...

Why so many anonymous commentors?

F*E*A*R of being monitored by NN?

May 06, 2008 10:36 PM  
Anonymous Ed said...

How does one determine if a post is defamatory?

For me personally, having dealt with a little law enforcement (not in Malaysia though) I don't actually see any accusations if that's the specific post you were banned for.

Secondly, if a legitimate defamation is taking place towards any company and adversely affects the reputation or standing, then the best option for the company is to prove their case with a legal suit. Banning members will only erode the credibility of a company further, if the ban is not backed by facts.

May 06, 2008 11:30 PM  
Anonymous Ed said...

Oh btw, as much as I hold little tolerance towards unethical and dishonest business conducts, we should be mindful of the proposition we are asking for information.

Between a private company and a public listed company, the initial actually has no obligations to go open with their statistics and earnings. The bulk of "trust" consumers (in this case publishers) who use its services will have to rely on public reviews and peer feedbacks to determine if a product/service is worth the time or effort. The judgement is majorly on us.

With a wide selection of reviews available, it will be in your position to gauge how credible the various reviews are. Therefore, I don't reckon that even with a poll, that will make Nuffnang reveal their earnings. It is their Right as a private company to observe confidentiality, not until they are public listed or a charitable organization.

May 06, 2008 11:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HAHAHA. This is funny. Like that also banned? So not transparent.

May 06, 2008 11:53 PM  
Blogger Sisuahlai said...

Ed, thanks for your comments. The defamatory content NN was referring to was the original picture posted.

You are right on the disclosure part; Nuffnang belongs to a private company and it has no obligations to go "open".

I am merely asking them to explain certain term (i.e. band) used in their pay-out and how they derive the banding - not the exact payout amount for each ad and who gets what.

I have also inquired how this 70:30 ratio is reached, they can choose not to answer and I'll respect that.

May 07, 2008 12:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well as I said before, they're kids. What were you expecting ?

May 07, 2008 12:58 AM  
Anonymous AngryAngMo said...

wha, sad for you, but 2 month gona get over quickly..

May 07, 2008 8:44 AM  
Blogger naeboo~ said...


so childish.

is this how they run a business ah?


May 07, 2008 9:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i think a ban is at least better than a law suit at any time given.

May 07, 2008 12:35 PM  
Blogger yapthomas said...

No more SSL in Innit.. :(

May 07, 2008 5:33 PM  
Blogger Ali said...

great job. this is legend.

May 07, 2008 10:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Older Posts