Craigslist Is Our Mirror, Nothing Better (Or Worse)

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

1. Dave Johnston
   

   March 25th, 2008 at 11:07 pm

   Too many lawyers.

2. Freudian Slip
   

   March 25th, 2008 at 11:13 pm

   “But for the most part Craigslist is just a really good place to find a job, or a boyfriend”

   Freudian slip perhaps?

   j/k — We all know Julia Allison and the other video-bloggar-gals* has a special place in your heart.

   *bloggar-gal = not to be confused with a beggar on the street in SF actually doing something useful for the scenery.

3. Matt
   

   March 25th, 2008 at 11:18 pm

   Either this is really old or this isn’t the first time this has happened… i read of a Looting that was perpetrated by CraigsList before.

   At the end of the day, CraigsList will have to address it’s shortcomings. What a cute experiment in digital promotion… but real world implications will come home to roost. Craig must be none to happy to see his service abused to victimize people… I also think the anonymity of CraigsList is it’s achilles heel. Whoever posted that listing ought to have his balls cut off and not-so-gently placed down his throat. (yes, it’s easy and correct to assume it was a Male who did this.)

4. ineedhits Australia
   

   March 25th, 2008 at 11:27 pm

   At the end of the day, craigslist is just a broadcast medium and people who post the information should be held liable for their actions… not the website.

5. Victor Caballero
   

   March 25th, 2008 at 11:37 pm

   Agree with ineedhits. You post you should be liable.

6. alexanderpink
   

   March 25th, 2008 at 11:51 pm

   I knew this would happen someday. I am always on craigslist, and every time I see one of those posts for a free boat or trailer in the driveway that says to take it if the owner isn’t home, I ask myself how anyone could actually go through with such an act without verifying the owner of the boat did, in fact, post the ad. I mean what idiot would go loot a house when the owner was not even present. Anyhow, obviously any outcome is possible involving litigation if the judge doesn’t throw out the case and if the lawyer can argue well enough, but I don’t think the complainant would win going this route. Would a local newspaper be liable given the same circumstances - not likely.

7. Ruslan
   

   March 26th, 2008 at 12:29 am

   I don’t understand one thing. And I’m surprised nobody has this question too. How all thouse people got into the house ? I assume it was closed if owner was away. In this case all those people robbed his house.

8. Anonymous
   

   March 26th, 2008 at 1:05 am

   Facebook’s Marketplace was supposed to kill Craigslist. Notice nobody talks about that failed monetization effort these days? How much money is SocialAds making, anyway?

9. Ernest Nova
   

   March 26th, 2008 at 1:33 am

   Not withstanding the issue of who is responsible in this case - it wouldn’t be that hard for CL to require validation via SMS for anyone putting up a classified posting. It requires the poster to own a mobile - which is not an undue burden for anyone making a posting and would take just a minute or so for the process to complete.

   CL already allows frequent posters to use their CL accounts and those accounts would need to be validated just once.

   Currently CL only requires email address validation for free postings.

   Throw-away email accounts are much more easily obtained and less traceable than throw-away SIM cards - in case abuse needs to be investigated.

10. David Parkinson
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 1:54 am

    Craiglist is very useful, but I found it frustrating to spend the time to respond to each post separately. That’s why I wrote the http://www.craigslistautoresponder.com … which makes it easy to automatically respond to posts you’re interested in.

    Using craigslist and the autoresponder, I have found my current apartment, furnished my entire room for free, bought and sold mobile homes, and even gone on some great dates with wonderful ladies :).

11. Faramarz
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 1:58 am

    Bahahhahahhahhahhahahhahahha

    -pause-

    BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

    I hope the owner doesn’t see this, but i found the linked article too funny to keep a straight face. Oh man, i hope his insurance covers it and the perpetrator who posted it gets caught!

12. Chris
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 2:05 am

    Damn, what a dirty trick. Well I guess it’s more effective than sand in the gas tank or a burning bag of dogshit on the doorstep.

    I must say, you can only take the good with the bad if the bad is not TERRIBLE… There’s nothing stopping some asshole from posting an ad that his ex-girlfriend fantasizes about men breaking in and brutally forcing sex on her.

    Yep, totally nuts… but not inconceivable.

    CL has to create some sort of safety net. An IP address is not a good enough trail, if you ask me.

13. Clara
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 2:11 am

    I also agree with ineedhits and Victor. I am guessing if you tried to moderate internally or pre-moderate a place like CL, you would be out of business. You have to build the trust and self-regulation into the system as they try to do and when and if there is a breach, as in this case, the medium should not be held responsible.

    I have been in 3 court cases related to this in my career in the calssifieds industry in a number of countries and, each time, the paper, platform or was not held responsible.

14. Chris
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 2:50 am

    They can screen an auction quickly whether it is legitimate or not before approving to be listed, otherwise it can occur again, someone can set up a bogus account and do the same. A similar incident occurred at Craigslist last year, not sure they caught the culprit at that time.

15. jon
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 3:09 am

    Craigslist needs to do a lot more to prevent abuse of their site.

    Last year I spent months looking for a San Francisco - craigslist is the dominant place to find listings, so everyone goes there. Because it is such a seller-dominated market with ridiculous competition to find a place, there is so much abuse that goes on. Creepy people who victimize roommates and , perverts who post fake ads to get girls to come to their apartments, Craigslist can be a very dangerous place. When abuse is discovered, the abuser can go on posting and posting without any consequences, with little that others can do to stop it.

16. I Am Not Posting To Spam My Blog
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 3:10 am

    @7: The Register’s comments thread suggests that this happened in a rural area where people don’t feel the need to lock their house.

    Stuff like this proves that the veneer of decency in such areas is pretty thin, though. Even when he told them it was his house, they just waved printouts of the ad in his face and continued looting. That proves beyond doubt that there were no decent intentions on the part of the people who turned up (apart from, of course, the woman who came for the horse, got suspicious at its good health and called the owner). It wasn’t “I’m doing the owner a favour”, it was “I’m able to get away with this”.

17. Peter
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 3:20 am

    maybe pointing the finger at craigslist _is_ what should happen next.

    power centers have the ability to destroy people’s lives. in this case, the guy _only_ lost a lot of property, and his horse. gd - sick bastards.

    but it’s not hard to imagine much more offensive postings - which i think i remember reading have already occurred.

    for instance, would it be ok for someone to post a message claiming that they were an 11 yo girl at some address and they were home alone and wanted a friend to come visit? what if some evil mom/daughter combo - like the myspace mother - posted a message like that about the girl down the block they were trying to kill? and if this 11 yo girl, who was home alone, was harmed in any way, should we _still_ automatically abdicate craigslist of any responsibility in the matter?

    craigslist has to be accountable.

18. Voices
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 3:27 am

    To show the true power of the community, the people should either return the stuff, or Craigslist should have a DONATE button on their home page for a week to raise some funds for Mr. Salisbury. Do something for cryin’ out loud!

19. alan p
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 3:48 am

    Endgame Craigslist will have to tighten up authentication, its clear that cheat behaviour in this social community is getting too risky.

20. Kevin Allman
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 4:10 am

    i feel sorry for the guy…
    most social networking sites that use user content depend on the character of persons who sign up and post on the site..

    can craiglist be held responsible? maybe not
    can craiglist be held responsible if they have no facility to help locate the perpertrators who would have done this? who knows..

    new laws are made when things like this happens and it affects the right person

21. diystartupnews.com
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 5:17 am

    A simple way around this would be to require a credit/debit card to create an account with a token fee.

    Did this guy not lock his house? I wonder if he did then some broke in.

22. anonymous
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 5:32 am

    craigslist should absolutely be held liable , I hope they get sued to the last penny , they’re site is a ghetto anything useful about it can be done in other ecosystems in a better more accountable way.

    MA is clearly smoking too much cash these days, luckily craigslist probably paid him for such a biased post, or maybe he is just hooked on his local casual encounters list.

23. Lawrence
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 5:34 am

    The article says his ‘barn’ and ‘porch’…not his House, specifically.

    so I’m assuming his barn was unlocked??
    and his house was locked, unless the ‘looters’ broke-in?

    sob, CL Should track down that poster’s ip

24. Cheap Web Hosts
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 5:39 am

    I’ve never been a fan of Craigslist site. I remember putting my email add in the site when I posted a simple add and the next thing I knew, my inbox was filled with scam letters and all sorts of SPAM emails. That email was newly created and it was intended for Craigslist.

    The greatest tragedy, after this Craigslist brouhaha, is when everyone will be posting about free stuff at the expense of others’ tears.

25. Cian
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 5:59 am

    Maybe Mr. Salisbury could recoup the financial loss through TV/newspaper interviews etc. Doesn’t bring back poor horsey though. Although with the story being widespread, surely some of the people would realise they effectively stole his stuff and would feel obliged to bring it back to him.

26. Michael Bakovic
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 6:31 am

    That really sucks for the guy, he should have left his house locked up.

    -Check out my site for ways to make money online.
    http://mikesmoneyclub.blogspot.com/

27. Technical Writing Geek
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 7:03 am

    We don’t need more laws. Enforce what we’ve got.

    The IP will lead to an ISP will lead to the poster. This person is guilty of theft. So are the people who took the stuff. They fell for the “too good to be true.” They’re probably sending their life savings to Nigerian princes as I type.

    Enforce laws, and accountability comes about, and we can’t accept “sorry, we’re too busy confiscating drug dealers’ cars and writing speed tickets” from our police.

28. Gorboonet Beram
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 7:12 am

    @11 Faramarz:

    He was probably a rashti — they saw they could take his wife without a peep so they tried it with his belongings…

    ha!

29. Gorboonet Beram
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 7:13 am

    @26

    It’s one thing to have the URL linked to your name, but there’s no need for a retarded signature line on your posts….really…

30. Sandra G
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 7:23 am

    What about the ad in the Salem section where someone was offering to sell their baby for meth? Just saw it on CNN and obviously this goes above sex and humiliation. They are not sure if it’s a joke or not but it’s sick. Craigslist can only go on for so long before they must be forced to take responsibility. To say they can’t automatically screen posts or verify accounts is taking the easy way out.

    Honestly, I hope the site dies off and heads towards the Deadpool.

31. Sean
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 7:32 am

    This is horrible for the guy who owned the house but I just don’t agree that CL should be liable. It’s just a medium, and all mediums are abused by someone. If you think CL should be liable, then the entire internet should be liable, and shut down, because it’s obviously such a horrible place that allows things like this to happen.

    I think the people at the house had some mob-mentality going on by the time there were 30 of them. Some dude shows up and asks them what the hell they’re doing, they don’t care, they’re a mob now. “Look, here’s my printout from the internet, it must be legit, so fuck off mate.”

    The people looting should be more liable than the person who posted the ad. Anyone who sees an ad like that and just busts down a house to get some free crap with no sort of verification… well, that’s just a dumb ass person.

32. CL is full of pervs
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 7:35 am

    Especially the personals part, the first post is *always* flagged. Seems fishy to me. But I’ve decided to make that work for me, so I created:

    SoftOrNot [dot] com

    and am posting like crazy. I hope I can get some of those pervs go to my site.

33. Karm Khanna
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 7:42 am

    “Craigslist will have to tighten authentication”. “they will have to do this” and “have to do that”…..well, Craigslist is not the problem here.

    What’s stopping me from pinning up posters all over the city listing my neighbor’s house up for grabs?

    Craigslist is, simply, a medium. And like any other medium, it’s use/abuse will continue based on our level of morality.

    In Utopia, people would come back and return all the stuff (including the horse) once they found out what really happened.

34. Matt
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 7:51 am

    The guy should have used physical violence against the truck he stopped. There is no “talking” when you’re dealing with people that ignorant… you curl up those fists and start throwing them into faces and stomachs… then of course you call it self defense… they have a truck full of YOUR property, who do you think the police are going to sympathize with?

    Too bad for this guy the law will have it’s hands tied… he really should have resorted to violence… if any of you ever come to my house and try to take something I am promising a thorough ass kicking is all you will leave with.

    On second thought, it would actually be a fun trap to set for stupid people, put up an ad like that one and BE at the location with your whoop stick at the ready and bash some heads… i might just do that… and i’m a twisted fucker so watch your ass next time you respond to that “free stuff” craigslist ad. (You guys do realize that this is the only way to prevent this type of thing from becoming a trend, you have to set up the “what if” scenario that makes people think twice before going to pick up that free horse… “what if it’s one of those pranksters and I get hospitalized?” … it just might be, and you will.)

    just kidding. (or am i?)

35. Jay Gaines
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 7:56 am

    @Gorboonet

    I like the retarded signature line–without that I might have clicked on his link.

36. Bob
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 7:57 am

    But pointing the finger of accusation at Craigslist for what happened is not what should happen next.

    Unless of course you are Mr. Salisbury.

37. drew olanoff
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 8:33 am

    Craig should pony up some cash for the chap. It would be the nice thing to do.

38. Mike Masterson
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 8:40 am

    must have some great neighbors…

39. Andrew
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 8:45 am

    I don’t think this is CLs fault. They are just a medium + they already won that lawsuit that they are not responsible for people breaking the law who post on their site(the fair housing thing).

    And honestly I don’t think its the fault of the person who posted this as a joke. You have to be some kind of moron to think you get free stuff. The people at fault are the ones who looted.

40. Dave Newton
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 8:47 am

    Let’s talk about YOUR ethics, Michael. Ho hum. Take the bad with the good? Hello? Ever hear of a newspaper allowing an ad like this? Possible, I guess, but unlikely. So, you don’t approve, I take it. But you don’t think there’s any limit to free speech. Am I hearing you right? You been talkin’ to lawyers too much. Most of them, at least there in the Valley, can come up with a workaround for anything. Call somebody else first next time.

41. Trevor Plantagenet
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 9:05 am

    I think that we’re seeing a manifest example of the ethics of the Web 2.0 world. This is the morality of file sharing taking to it’s illogical extreme, and, as usual, we’re all ganging up to blame the victim, who just doesn’t “get it”.

42. John Trebeck
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 9:07 am

    A similar thing occurred in Brisbane, Australia about eight years ago, using a newspaper classified ad. It was far worse in that case, though, since the ad said the house was due to be demolished and people should just take whatever they could. Doors, walls, windows etc were literally taken. The newspaper (same one that held the ad) showed the damage the next day: the house was practically demolished, all in a matter of hours.

43. mark
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 9:41 am

    Ouch, this can get really nasty.

44. Matt
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 10:24 am

    Given recent court cases, I’m sure Craigslist would be found to not be found responsible for any of their ads if this were taken to court. That said, if they’re going to continue to herald themselves as this great ethical service to the community, they’ve got to start taking a proactive stance against these kinds of postings.

    Echoing Trevor Plantagenet, it’s sad that we continue to absolve Craigslist ethically in these kind of situations while they hide behind the law. As Arrington surely knows, law != ethics.

45. Steven Roussey
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 10:33 am

    What attorneys did you talk to that said there was a case? Such a clear Section 230 CDA case, that if I were craigslist I would file a Rule 11 motion against the attorney in question. California even has an anti-SLAPP law to handle attorneys that live just for a shakedown, knowing there is no case.

    Publish these attorney’s names.

    And who are these thieves that took the stuff? They could have reasonably known that the post was false. If the poster used Tor or similar, then he, sadly, may never get caught. Let’s hope he is as much an imbecile we think him to be and that they see a long time in jail.

46. Jake
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 11:11 am

    true.. but Craigslist could employ more tools that let the community identify bogus or dangerous posts. maybe kinda like % thumps up % thumbs down

47. Common sense guy
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 11:20 am

    It is the people that came in to pick up the stuff thats at fault here. Just because someone said the stuff in that house is free, you let yourself in and pick stuff up? I mean where is the common sense. Wouldnt it be obvious that the stuff is being used and not being given away for free. These looters should be caught and punished.

    The next thing you know they are jumping off the golden gate bridge because there is treasure at the bottom of the ocean — according to someone in craigslist.

    One word: Morons.

48. Trevor Plantagenet
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 11:21 am

    Are you a lawyer, Steven? I did ask one and there’s enough leeway that a case wouldn’t immediately be dismissed depending on the judge and the quality of the lawyers involved. Craigslist would certainly use Section 230 CDA as *part* of it’s defense, but would be foolhardy to use it as the sole reason why it wasn’t liable, and it will certainly have to be prepared to invest in defending itself, because there very well could be case, especially since CL warns users against other forms of fraud, indicating that it is aware and monitors the various types of illegal activities that take place on it’s service.

49. Market Credibility
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 11:34 am

    The guy/gal who posted the information should not be the one at fault. The one at fault is craigslist who provided the medium for the information to be distributed to the mass. If the medium is not provided, the information itself is not as far reaching. People lie all the time. In print, in email, in writing, in conversation, etc. We shouldn’t punish people for free speech. The fact that craigslist gets pay on their website for attracting an audience to view classified ads show there’s a financial gain for anonymous posting. This financial gain has consequences because craigslist never put a disclaimer when someone clicks “Free” to inform users that some posting may be fake and users should be cautious about it. Remember this has happened before and craigslist has not done anything to inform users posting may be faked because craigslist has an incentive to not do it. By posting that some ads may be fake, craigslist will disenfranchise most users who depend on the information to be TRUSTED, this in turn will cause craigslist to lose a lot of its million usersbase.

    Craigslist is a business. Trust is the foundation for good business. Craigslist has every incentive to NOT inform users some posting may be fake because that’ll make people NOT trust craigslist and go somewhere else that’s more trusted like fiji or sfgate.com.

    Freedom of speech permit the person who posted the right to post said information. He could’ve posted the information on any forum or any website.

50. donations
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 11:53 am

    can someone get Robert Salisbury to signup here so all the charitable TC’ers can help him out:

    https://www.modestneeds.org/registration/

51. Harry Wang
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

    Freudian Slip and I think alike. Mikey, mikey, mikey.

    Harry “not that there is anything wrong with it” Wang

52. CSamarin
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 1:31 pm

    This is interesting!

    Now get this…couldn’t a thief (who intends to rob a house) post a similar ad on craigslist and then go to the house and take what they want and if they get caught just say something like…

    “hey I saw an ad on craigslist that said everything was for free!”

    I think this opens up a HUGE can of worms!

53. Jester Jones
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

    “But what I really think is that Craigslist is just a mirror, and we have to take the good with the bad. Countless connections and transactions are made on the site, and the vast majority are of benefit to everyone involved.”

    You better get a big beach towel, to wipe off all of the slimy, self-interest you’re covered in.

    I bet you’d have a different perspective if it was your — or your parents’ — house

54. Jester Jones
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    And, while I’m still venting my outrage, why is that TechCrunch requires comments to its website to be “moderated” while you give your tacit support to ‘remote robbery’ on Craig’s list … hmmmm ….

55. Dan
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 4:50 pm

    Any self policing society that gets too big will inevitably destroy itself.

56. AW
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 5:33 pm

    We should probably destroy every medium for information available in a hail-storm of litigation.

    It would create this awesome divide; social networking sites would have to be created and run in the style of The Pirate Bay.

57. honestmall.com
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 8:04 pm

    they could easily make their site safer

    a simple fee like #21 stated

    and beefing up the community’s ability to self report posts. (like #46’s idea of a thumbs up+down) could be really beneficial.

    we instituted a $9.95 fee on our marketplace and it has worked really quite well to keep out the lowlifes

58. Fake Craig Newmark
    

    March 26th, 2008 at 8:58 pm

    One of my favorite practical jokes is to post a “Nintendo Wii” on Craigslist for $200. Then, I list my friend’s/enemy’s home phone number.

    Good times …

59. Steven Roussey
    

    March 27th, 2008 at 12:46 pm

    Well, I am not a lawyer, but I am in litigation on the matters and as such have attorneys now in four states.

    Your statement about monitoring goes back before the CDA. Before the CDA it was most prudent to NEVER ever monitor, look at or remove bad messages since then you would start having “editorial” control and thus be liable. That is precisely WHY that part of the CDA was created — so websites could be free of liability for policing their own sites. If you want a good explanation, you might look at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh District’s decision involving CRAIGSLIST just about a WEEK ago.

    Trevor, I’m afraid that the people you talked with didn’t have actual experience in the matter.

    No one is saying that this isn’t an awful thing, and that someone (many people actually) shouldn’t be liable. But the message could have been posted here, and even if it was up only long enough for a single person to read it and bolt out the door to rob a house, then I guess TechCrunch would be liable if things were different.

    This is not a case (or a site) that needs attention. I’m more worried about people creating sites for the *purpose* of hosting messages that are the type meant to be self policed.

    That said, I am in court again this week (via council provided by Public Citizen and the ACLU) to protect the anonymity of two union employees who dared to post parodies of management. And, of course, they are trying to get me to pay them cash as well.

60. Steven Roussey
    

    March 27th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    PS: I like the thumbs up/down idea too… but the people that posted and the people involved in the theft were morons and thieves no matter a rating…

    PPS: Is “Trevor Plantagenet” a reference to The Sting movie?

61. RAWR
    

    April 3rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm

    the guys at http://www.thisisnotmyspace.com actualy did that to me