In the context of the reliability, accountability and quality of the media and discussion of the HR.
Some time ago, I received a request from a network cleaning agency to delete an entry that active 1 of the coachies (or quilts).
I said no.
The company expected no, but I understand, she had to try, amazed I wasn't. I was wondering another question – the entry was not attacking or insulting a quiver – an analysis of a certain phenomenon, a description of the situation. possibly the names came out of the safety camera and hit the report, I don't know.
All the more reason for him not to be removed or even modified.
Unlike erstwhile I received a letter from a law firm, erstwhile the company's name and the owner's name appeared in the comments under an entry of a pathological name. Unverified – individual pasted, google indexed – in specified situations I reacted and removed.
In case I did the right thing, I said no.
Because in addition to the regulation I did not see the point, the entry was neutral and balanced.
But by the way, I found out that I didn't refuse and remove...
And here's the interesting thing, the puzzle I didn't explore.
Why did the large portal decide to clean up its service with unfavorable articles on the stake? It is not an advertiser like the large companies of the Treasury, nor is it individual who has power and can harm.
Do you have any theories?
Maybe there was any cooperation between the stake and the portal. That's the most likely scenario.
