The list of tweets that Yodel provided to Twitter typically include those hitting out its failure to deliver on time, lost parcels and advice to others not to use the deliver service. Many are disparaging while others are humorous but don’t strike me as particular libellous.

Yodel appears to be using heavy handed legal tactics in an attempt to silence dozens of online critics – hardly a step that is likely to endear it to customers or a step in the right direction when it comes to customers service.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges claimed that it has been proven that the existence of these Twitter accounts “”over a substantial period of time, that the existence of these pages serves as a platform for such defamatory statements to be made against our client”.

The cottage industry of internet marketers informs businesses everywhere that they must have an internet presence to survive.  Left out of the sales pitch is how customer dissatisfaction can now be louder than business self-promotion.  “What? They never told us about that!”  This is but one example of what Ken at  Popehat calls “censorious asshats” trying to shut down unpleasant noise on the internet. There are many others, and many others pending at this very moment. 

It’s got be embarrassing for a law firm with a solid reputation like Weil, Gotshal, to make such silly and vapid claims as defamation by customer who tell the story of their nightmares with a company. It adds the additional layer of a law firm that apparently doesn’t know the definition of defamation, or one that will write anything for a buck, no matter how laughable. Either way, it diminishes the firm.  It might diminish the business as well, but it appears that the business is doing that all on its own.

Before the internet, one dissatisfied customer could yell and curse the customer service representative in a boiler room in Manilla.  Today, the dissatisfied customer locks arms with a thousand others, no longer lone voices in the woods but a choir of angels on the internet.  And neither a horribly managed company nor a law firm willing to be stupid in public can stop it.  As Babs could explain, there are few things that motivate people more than pissing them off.

And finally Donna Barstow debases the high art of political cartoons, whose beef combines the worst attributes of Kelly and Yodel.

Aside: I am well aware that there are no shortage of examples that could have been included in this post, but have chosen these three. You may think that others would have been better, but these are my choices. This is not your opportunity to denounce whoever you think should have been included, or even raised your personal target for most evil internet whiner. I’ve left out my own pet peeve, KitchenAid. If I can resist using this post for personal vendettas, so can you.

From Popehat’s survey of Barstow’s complaints:

Barstow is a blogger (sort of), an author (technically), and, to my taste, an appallingly awful political cartoonist, gripped by some terrible compulsion to explain her cartoons in a caption when she posts them. Given her level of nuance, this is roughly akin to providing a listening guide to musak.

This time, Barstow has turned her attention on a less compliant target — the denizens of the website Something Awful. To be fair to her, it’s not like she lashed out at 4chan or something, but that seems to be her pure dumb luck. Barstow’s complaint is that Something Awful forum goons posted and criticized her cartoons in a forum thread about bad cartoons. She began to lash out at Something Awful writers on Twitter.

Barstow went on to accuse Something Awful of copyright violations and “defamation,” scorning the idea that posting her comics in a thread criticizing bad comics constituted fair use.

Barstow soon found herself the target of insults, abuse, and — she claims — tweeted or emailed obscene images. That’s obnoxious, juvenile, contemptible, and utterly predictable if you launch a broadside against a site like Something Awful.

Wrapping oneself in defensive legalese, using words that sound threatening even if inapplicable, is the weapon of choice of the internet whiner.  There is such a thing as copyright violation and defamation, and it matters. It’s just not left to every unhappy camper to redefine them to serve thwart their critics.  As with Kelly, I’ve chosen not to look at Barstow’s political cartoons or the infantile reactions of her enemies. It’s best not to let the content blind one to the issue at hand, that the internet provides no one, absolutely no one, with an assurance of support and kindness. 

By making the decision to put your thoughts, feelings and beliefs on the internet, you invite criticism.  You invite uncontrolled criticism. You invite every friend to disagree. You invite people you don’t know to call you horrible names. You invite people smarter than you and dumber than you to levy fair and unfair attacks on your character, lineage and attire.

And in contrast to the myriad voices who tell us that this is a horrible state, that it should be a crime to hurt other people’s feelings by saying mean things about them, the internet will not be stopped.  It does not forgive. It does not forget. Before you think your words need to be read by the world, consider whether you are tough enough to weather the storm. 

Every time I hit the little button that makes something appear on the internet, I authorize everyone in the world to cast stones. You do the same. Get over it.