• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

An issue with Rickenbacker

I am in the “i dont care if john hall is an azzhole” camp. I like rics.

I am an azzhole too. Everyone is at some point. Some may make a hobby or profession out of it… but if i like the product i like the product.

The vast majority of Ric players don't even know who the guys is, so it doesn't matter in the big picture.

That being said, it's nice when a product you enjoy is being made and sold by a pleasant group of humans, but I don't think most people rank it as a necessity.

I would hope we can all agree that treating people poorly is nothing to be proud of, though we disagree on what qualifies as poor treatment. Either way, life is too short to enjoy being disliked IMO, but different strokes and all that.
 
You haven't lived life if you haven't been banned from something ...

The ironic thing is most of these forums generate significant revenue from people viewing, commenting ,and clicking on ads. Logic would tell me that that suspensions and banishment is like poking yourself in the the eyes to keep from seeing something offensive.

Seriously, when you ban or suspend a poster, it’s a loss of potential revenue, which is what they are trying to prevent by deleting offending posts or posters, but I’ll make a wager the most of them lose more revenue from loss of posters not posting from not being able to express themselves.

Pretty much I can handle just about any post, as long as it isn’t personal.
 
The vast majority of Ric players don't even know who the guys is, so it doesn't matter in the big picture.

That being said, it's nice when a product you enjoy is being made and sold by a pleasant group of humans, but I don't think most people rank it as a necessity.

I would hope we can all agree that treating people poorly is nothing to be proud of, though we disagree on what qualifies as poor treatment. Either way, life is too short to enjoy being disliked IMO, but different strokes and all that.
Fair. I dont mind if people dislike me though. That is work for them not me.
 
Howdy folks! I just received a reply on Instagram that Rickenbacker replied to a comment I made on their recent post about the latest skunk stripe basses for 2022. I made a comment pertaining to how I was a bit sad that they would be removing the lacquered fretboards from their basses/guitars. When I went to view the reply, it said that the user doesn’t exist, I think Rickenbacker blocked me!
they really don't know how to run marketing at their end, from what I have heard over the years, so I wouldn't be surprised if this happened like you described.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN WOODMAN
online censorship is very common these days
keep in mind, there's a difference between social media companies protecting themselves from hosting content that could come up in court or be deemed illegal in any of the countries in the world where their content is viewed, and from rick just deleting and blocking content and users because they don't like it for their own indefensible reasons. online censorship isn't really a thing - online protection of your own internet hosting rights according to law is a thing, and also any privately owned company (internet hosting company) can do what they want.

what I wonder with rick is how they justify their brutal deleting of content and users. Social media has valid legal reasons for everything they do, and also a very difficult time since they have billions of users posting content constantly, so it's hard to monitor consistently.

but the rick forum? that's just some dude being a prick on their end, as far as I can see. it seems really insecure of them to behave that way.
 
I remember a couple of years ago on one of Rickenbacker's 4003S posts asking if they'd ever consider making a cream colored one like Chris's and getting torn with "That would drastically de-value the Chris Squire model and make it less special. That was the point of only doing a limited run" It was at that point I realized they couldn't give two s#!ts about us devoted customer base...That and releasing that ABOMINATION that is the Al Cisnero's signature model....(Yet no Mike Rutherford Doublenecks, Geddy Specials, or a PROPER 4005 that was elongated and only single bound in the back)
 
It's not the same thing, really. It may be unreasonable for Rickenbacker to block people one their own page for seemingly innocuous comments, but it's still their page.

Online censorship is when big brother steps in and decides your comments aren't worth hearing, whether big brother takes the form of government or the social media platform you're on or their designated "fact checkers" or someone else.
I understand your opinion on this. I totally get that it looks that way to those who get banned or deleted. I've seen plenty of perfectly valid comments and accounts get killed.. generally incorrectly by accident, but it isn't because they are evil.

It's very complex actually, trying to host social media. Probably one of the most legally complex businesses in the world.

I work in software and internet stuff often, and making sure things are legal and acceptable where ever your website is to be view, that's all been part of my career experience. Social media companies have no choice but to do what they do, or they would disappear pretty fast.

The legal challenges that social media hosting companies have are nearly insurmountable, and ANYTHING that could be even misconstrued into a complaint becomes another of the thousands of ongoing legal battles they have to deal with, most of which or futile from the complainant's side, but still cost them dearly. So they are as proactive as they need to be to keep operating.

Also, legally speaking, they are private companies and, according to the terms and conditions we all agree to when we sign up, they can do whatever they want with our posts, since they own the posts, they own the content, and they host it around the world in countries that have very different laws than we do, so they have to jump fast based on algorithms using search words and phrases.

Sometimes they are wrong, and anybody has the right to complain if they are wrong and get reinstated. I've seen people do that often. It's mostly algorithms guessing what to delete, after all. However, social media companies are allowed to delete whatever they want, legally. The only way they can keep operating is to be too tough on posts than too lenient, in case something slips through that turns out to be a big problem for them to host.

It's not censorship, which is an entirely different circumstance in law. It is the only way real time posting can work online - there MUST be proactive, too tough, automated and manual deleting and warning etc. It's just social media - it's not supposed to be controversial content, and they must protect themselves.
 
Last edited: