Kenny Malone puts forward the following methods of dealing with negative responses on blogs and company websites used by different companies: companies like at&t take time and respond to each and every post, regardless of them being positive or negative, companies like BP take down posts that are negative from their blog pages, and lastly, companies like McDonald limit their users on the type of responses they can post. According to the first amendment of the US constitution, it permits the freedom of expression, be it positive or negative. One cannot stop or create boundaries on whatever a person wants to speak or express. When posting opinions on different company blogs, a user is exercising his freedom of expression, and is open to post whatever information he or she feels is in his or her mind pertaining the subject at hand. Therefore, when companies such as BP and McDonald, remove or limit responses, they are denying the freedom of expression of the people involved. Whereas, companies like at&t, in their practise of replying each and every post stands out as being courageous and not an escapist.

In removing negative posts and limiting the users on their feedback, companies may be able to get the information that is specifically required by them, but such information does not help in predicting the nature of the company's products in the market in real time. It gives a false picture, since certain consumers are being neglected and thus, in the long-run the company is losing a lot of profits due to their ignorance.

Using interruption as a tactic in response to negative postings is utterly cowardly. Since, it means the parties involved in such companies are running away from the matters discussed in those posts rather than facing them and solving those issues. I think intervening is a better method of facing negative postings, since it assures your consumers that you, as a company, are aware of the problem and are willing to do something about it.