Not just that. Thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act the operators of sites like Rip-Off Report have absolute immunity from legal action over their site's content so long as it's not copyright-infringing - it's not even possible to get an injunction forcing them to remove it. Doesn't matter if they know it's defamatory, or if they've made it impossible to find the original poster, or if the original poster can't remove it anyway, or even if they're openly making a profit from charging people to take down "defamatory" entries; they're still totally immune. (There's a workaround: if you can find the original poster you can sue them and get an injunction forcing the site to take down their posts in that lawsuit. Most of these sites make that impossible though.)
The worst thing about them seems to be that they accept reports about private persons, who are much less likely than a business to have the funds to pursue false claims. It is also
clear that their attitude stinks. To quote a recent Forbes article on Ripoff Report [1],
>Asked about a comment alleging
another woman had herpes,
Magedson responds: “This f——
broad probably did something.”
Edit: And look at the comment section on that article.
