Anderson to Nik Richie: 'I Just Don't Get You'
Wednesday, January 04, 2012 5:01AM
Nik Richie, owner of TheDirty.com, which encourages people to post anonymous dirt about others, tells Anderson that "everyone has their platform. TheDirty.com is my platform. This is where I can speak my mind."
"I am literally trying to get your perspective," says Anderson. "I just don't get you."
"My perspective is the wake-up call," says Nik. "You can submit anything. It’s not like I'm looking for garbage." Take a look at the clip...
What's your opinion of TheDirty.com?
Watch Nik's previous appearance on "Anderson."
View more unseen footage of Nik in-studio.
Filed Under: As Seen On The Show
Comments
I think its great! Kind of like STD Carriers from a couple weeks ago, but with more categories. Its funny how Anderson asks Nik questions using basically the same exact language that he used to question the STD Carriers guy by voicing opinions using nearly identical words.
http://www.andersoncooper.com/videos/0_8mryvfhp
I have to admit I was stunned at the level of hypocrisy shown by this Nik guy for employing his lawyer to contact the Anderson Cooper Show to ensure the removal of any and all libelous content from the blogs, while at the same time defending to the teeth his right to refuse removal of libelous content on his site about other innocent people. Why was this blatant hypocrisy not addressed on the show where the world could see it? I agree that all libelous content should be removed, and I don't disagree with Anderson Cooper for removing it when it was reported, but then to let Nik skate on his blatant hypocrisy that libelous content about HIM is crossing the line while all the libelous content his site facilitates is completely legal and in his words "helpful" to those being victimized was disgusting to witness. This guy has a date with KARMA coming soon and I hope the whole world is witness to his inevitable fall. It's only fair.
Watching the segment on Nik Richie just made me sick. I hope he implicated himself enough with his words to make it possible for him to be prosecuted for blackmail and extortion.
Maybe he should google Karma.....
wow anderson nice being a hypocrite all you did was basically blast nik on your show thedirty.com actually isnt just dirt it is an informational site hell if you end up on the dirty obviously you pissed off somebody or did something stupid in public if you dont want to be on thedirty stop being ******* stupid and get your **** straight its simple nik is a saint he is fixing the world and exposing people who should be getting a wake up call on life and start to change
We humans have a tendency to make things, then find out what it does. We did it with the A-bomb, now we're doing it with the Internet. Oh isn't this a great thing, the Internet. Let's put it up with no rules. As a result, socio-paths and other creepy criminals are having a field day. Why do we expect people to be well-behaved and kind?? Why don't we protect ourselves better? Thanks, Anderson, for exposing this creepy behavior. I have told my adult children to be careful with Facebook. They don't listen. I guess I was just too well educated on social deformities (1984, Animal Farm, 2001, Lord of the Flies). We need to re-read those books.
@D. Smith:
With regard to your suggestion: "Nik is fully aware that the submissions are slanderous, but he still publishes them...."
What makes you say that Nik is "fully aware" of what is or is not slanderous? He said that something like 20 million people visit his site every month, and there are thousands upon thousands of comments posted there. Do you really think that Nik actually knows (or could ever know) what is true and what is not true? What planet are you on?
Oh, wait -- I know what you will say...you will say that Nik "knows" that certain posts are false people people contact him and tell him they are false! Great argument -- so are you saying that when Casey Anthony entered a plea of not guilty, that meant they should have dropped the case against her immediately? After all, no one ever lies, do they?
P.S. I just sent an email to Anderson Cooper notifying him that all of your comments were false, so I assume that means he has to take my side and remove them now, correct? Moron...
----------
WOW. Why are you, all of a sudden, personally attacking me? For a second there I thought we were in an educated argument...and then you call me a moron? It sounds like you've let my comments against Nik Richie affect you personally, which resulted in you calling me a moron. Thank you. I will now stop wasting my time arguing with you. :)
P.S. You're wrong, by the way. I wasn't going to say "Nik knows that certain posts are false when people contact him and tell him they are false." Way to put words in my mouth. That, right there, is a mark of a person who knows their way around an argument. Congrats! You've just earned yourself a $0.25 medal.
P.P.S. This is the last time I'm responding to you. I was under the impression that you were at least civilized. Oh, how wrong I was. OK, bye now.
@D. Smith:
I am not confused about anything. The CDA is pretty clear: Website operators and hosts are immune from liability based on material posted by users of the website.
^That only applies to HOSTS. Nik Richie isn't just the host of TheDirty.com; he's also the acting publisher/editor (according to him). When one ACTIVELY takes part in slanderous claims (i.e. publishing them when you know they're slanderous), then they're no longer just "hosting" the website -- they're actually PROMOTING the slanderous claims.
When someone, say, posts death threats on AndersonCooper.com, of course no one can blame Anderson or the admins of the website. People will say what they want to say (i.e. troll); it's called freedom of speech. But, obviously, the website has mods. If someone says horrible stuff on here, sooner or later they'll get deleted. The same thing can't be said about Nik Richie's TheDirty.com, where he ACTIVELY posts slanderous claims, regardless of whether or not the claims came directly from him.
@Felipe....I forgot one other thing...
With regard to your suggestion: "Nik is fully aware that the submissions are slanderous, but he still publishes them...."
What makes you say that Nik is "fully aware" of what is or is not slanderous? He said that something like 20 million people visit his site every month, and there are thousands upon thousands of comments posted there. Do you really think that Nik actually knows (or could ever know) what is true and what is not true? What planet are you on?
Oh, wait -- I know what you will say...you will say that Nik "knows" that certain posts are false people people contact him and tell him they are false! Great argument -- so are you saying that when Casey Anthony entered a plea of not guilty, that meant they should have dropped the case against her immediately? After all, no one ever lies, do they?
P.S. I just sent an email to Anderson Cooper notifying him that all of your comments were false, so I assume that means he has to take my side and remove them now, correct? Moron...
Why cannot Nick Riche be charged with slander since he owns the site and is posting these slanderous statements - especially when he deliberately posts their photos, names, addresses etc.? Isn't he committing a crime? What about phone crimes? This has to be a Federal issue! He is a very creepy person. Probably a socio-path.
@Felipe...I'm sorry that you are confused about this, but you need to think it through.
Stop and think about this -- you are saying that Anderson Cooper is LESS BLAMEWORTHY because I can post a death threat on his site which will be automatically posted because he doesn't review ANYTHING before it goes online....but Nik is MORE BLAMEWORTHY because he does review comments and he blocks the ones that he feels are the worst? How does that make sense?
Anyway, please don't take my word for it -- the courts have already spoken on this issue over and over and over and over. Here's just ONE example you can read, but the bottom line is this -- the CDA was enacted to ENCOURAGE website operators like Nik to review and screen material without fear of liability for whatever remains. The idea is that maybe if they see someone trying to post obvious kiddie porn, they will step up and block that sort of thing. That's GOOD....that's what we WANT website hosts to do, even if it means that they cannot be sued for all of the other stuff they decide not to block.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57916234/Shiamili-v-The-Real-Es...
@D. Smith:
A majority of people watching this episode are asking the same question -- "If something false is posted on Nik's website, why can't he be sued for it?"
The answer to this question is very simple -- based on a federal law called the "Communications Decency Act" or "CDA", website operators and hosts are immune from liability based on material posted by users of the website. So, for example, if someone posts a false statement about Nik on this site, does that mean that Nik can sue Anderson Cooper for publishing the statement? Of course not.
-- The difference is, on AndersonCooper.com, whatever is posted GETS posted. That means anyone can say whatever it is they want to say. When AndersonCooper.com does get requests to remove certain posts, they immediately take action. Also, just because AndersonCooper.com has Anderson Cooper's name does not mean Anderson, himself, runs the site; nor does it mean that he gets to SEE every single comment being posted.
On Nik Richie's TheDirty.com, Nik himself has said that he, himself, goes through the submissions. While he runs the site, he also acts as the publisher, which means HE personally chooses which stuff to publish or not. How does the CDA still protect him in that case? Nik gets to SEE the slanderous claims before they get published, and it's Nik himself who publishes them. How does the CDA protect him when Nik, himself, ACTIVELY takes part in publishing these slanderous claims? Explain. I understand that "the dirts" are from 3rd parties, but the fact that Nik Richie actively takes part in publishing the slanderous claims should, in my opinion, disqualify him from being protected by the CDA.
On Facebook, when person X posts horrible stuff about person Y, Facebook doesn't get to SEE the posts. It only comes to their attention when people report the posts in question. The same thing can be said about AndersonCooper.com. It's different with TheDirty.com, because Nik Richie himself has acknowledged the fact that he, himself, GOES THROUGH the submissions. Nik is fully aware that the submissions are slanderous, but he still publishes them...and he's still protected by the CDA? You have got to be kidding.
It's weird that he says in the segment that "TheDirty.com is my platform. It is where I can speak my mind." (HIS OWN WORDS, people) And then, when people bring up the fact that "the dirts" are slanderous, he does a complete 180 and says, "Oooh, those aren't from me. Those dirts are from 3rd parties."
My god, Nik Richie, at least be consistent. What a confused little poophead.
A majority of people watching this episode are asking the same question -- "If something false is posted on Nik's website, why can't he be sued for it?"
The answer to this question is very simple -- based on a federal law called the "Communications Decency Act" or "CDA", website operators and hosts are immune from liability based on material posted by users of the website. So, for example, if someone posts a false statement about Nik on this site, does that mean that Nik can sue Anderson Cooper for publishing the statement? Of course not. The CDA is a very good law which allows websites like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to exist without being exposed to unlimited liability because of something posted in the middle of the night by a third party. Do you really want to shut down Nik's site? What if that also means shutting down Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc? Does that make sense?
Before people rush to condemn Nik, please take five minutes and perform a Google search for "Section 230 Communications Decency Act". You will find lots of resources which explain this rule. You will also realize that this rule is a GOOD thing. You don't have to like Nik or what he does, but you must understand that you cannot blame a website operator for something that is posted on the site by a user. If we start shutting down websites because of comments posted by users, then guess what will happen? Websites (including AndersonCooper.com) won't allow users to post comments anymore, and this will make it much harder for people to share their thoughts and ideas online. Is that a good thing? What would you do if you wanted to post a comment online that criticized Nik, but you weren't allowed to do so?
Think about it....
YOU EVIDENTLY HAVE NOT HAD SWEET AND SOUR BRUSSEL SPROUTS.. THEY ARE VERY GOOD.
wow i have never seen someone so arrogentas this guy with the bad website. if he doesnt see anything wrong with it then why did he have his lawyer call you about what was said about him. He shouldnt care that people said hes into kiddy porn. This guy is a bully and it makes me sick to even listen to him flip flop on his answers