Finding an article on Medium that defames you or spreads false negative information about your business creates immediate reputation damage. A defamatory Medium.com article ranks on Google’s first page within hours of publication.
The author remains anonymous.
Your business loses contracts as prospective clients discover accusations of fraud during background searches. You email Medium’s trust and safety dept explaining the content contains false information that violates their rules. Weeks pass. No response. You send follow-up appeals. Silence. Four years later, the article still ranks and Medium never acknowledged your removal requests.
This happened to a writer suspended in August 2019 who appealed in June 2020 and received zero response after 60 months. His case represents Medium’s standard operating procedure under CEO Tony Stubblebine, who took control in 2022 when the platform hemorrhaged $2.6 million monthly.
Email us to REMOVE your POST: info@respectnetwork.com, PAY only after RESULT. No upfront FEE.
Medium.com operates behind Section 230 immunity that makes traditional takedown requests nearly impossible. The platform Evan Williams and Biz Stone founded in 2012 as Twitter’s long-form counterpart transformed under Stubblebine’s tenure into a suspension factory where arbitrary enforcement replaced editorial standards. With 60 million unique monthly readers as of 2017, Medium’s reach means damaging articles achieve massive visibility that persists indefinitely.
The writers documented accounts vanishing without warning throughout November 2024, especially around the first of each month when Medium calculates payouts. One writer lost $900 in pending earnings when trolls created fake impersonator accounts and Medium closed her appeal within hours. For businesses facing defamatory Medium articles, understanding what actually works for content removal becomes essential to protecting reputation.
How Medium.com Works and Why Removal Fails
A Medium Corporation operates the publishing platform Williams and Biz Stone created to encourage writing longer than Twitter’s then-140 character limit. Medium generates revenue through $5 monthly or $50 annual memberships providing unlimited article access. Writers earn income based on member reading time through the Partner Program introduced in 2017. The platform maintains editorial control through its Boost nomination program, where Medium curators select articles for additional distribution. This gatekeeping creates visibility bottlenecks where algorithmic reach depends on editorial approval.
Medium provides three reporting mechanisms: in-product flagging, a web form at medium.com/report, and email to trust@medium.com. The official rules prohibit threats, hate speech, harassment, privacy violations, copyright infringement, spam, and misinformation. The platform reserves sweeping discretion: “We reserve the right to suspend accounts or remove content, without notice, for any reason.”
Copyright infringement represents the most reliably removed content category. Medium complies with DMCA takedown notices sent to copyright@medium.com and publishes these to the Lumen Database. If you hold copyright to content a Medium user republished without permission, DMCA provides straightforward removal within days. Privacy violations occasionally succeed when content contains social security numbers, credit card data, or unpublished contact information. However, public court records, business addresses on corporate filings, and publicly available information don’t qualify as privacy violations under Medium’s interpretation.
What Medium doesn’t remove: Defamatory articles lacking direct threats. Negative but truthful criticism. Content someone finds embarrassing or reputation-damaging. Articles based on public information. Whistleblowing about alleged wrongdoing. Opinion pieces expressing negative views. The platform explicitly states that content disagreements and material someone dislikes don’t constitute rule violations.
Response inconsistency approaches randomness. Karthikeyan Nagaraj received restoration within 12 hours when Medium’s spam filter erroneously flagged educational cybersecurity content. The Astute Copywriting writer waited 60 months without acknowledgment. DIY removal attempts through Medium’s official reporting channels succeed perhaps 5-10% of the time, primarily for clear copyright infringement or explicit privacy violations. Defamation claims, reputation damage, and negative criticism almost never result in removal through platform reporting.
Section 230 Immunity and Legal Reality
Medium operates under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, providing near-absolute immunity from liability for third-party content. This means victims of defamatory Medium articles typically cannot sue Medium itself—only the individual author, if identifiable. The Fourth Circuit established in Zeran v. America Online that platforms face “federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user.”
Even court orders don’t necessarily penetrate Section 230’s shield. In Hassell v. Bird, California’s Supreme Court ruled that Yelp couldn’t be forced to remove content a court had determined was defamatory. Medium benefits from identical protection, facing zero consequences for arbitrary enforcement. Getting defamatory content removed from Medium typically requires identifying the anonymous author through a John Doe lawsuit, obtaining a court judgment proving defamation, then attempting to enforce that judgment. This process costs tens of thousands of dollars minimum and takes years even when successful.
Santa Clara Principles Violations
The Santa Clara Principles outline minimum standards tech platforms should meet for transparent content moderation. These voluntary principles require platforms to specify which content violated rules, cite exact rule provisions, explain detection methods, and provide clear appeal procedures. Medium systematically violates every principle. Writers receive generic red banners stating “Your account is under investigation or was found in violation of the Medium Rules” without identifying problematic content, citing specific rules, or explaining detection methods.
The Astute Copywriting case exemplifies this failure. Suspended in August 2019, the writer appealed in June 2020 following Medium’s published procedures. Four years passed without acknowledgment. This violates Paragraph 3 requiring platforms to “provide a meaningful opportunity for timely appeal.” Hundreds of cases documented across 2024 show identical patterns. Cyn BehindMind watched established writers like Ryan Canady and Leonard Tillerman vanish in November 2024 without explanation. André Strand documented the timing: Medium achieved profitability in August 2024, then mass suspensions began weeks later.
Email us to REMOVE your POST: info@respectnetwork.com, PAY only after RESULT. No upfront FEE.
Stubblebine’s February 2024 Semafor interview revealed his view that writers earning under $200 monthly produce worthless content. When asked about a tech writer whose earnings dropped from $175 to $75 monthly, Stubblebine dismissed the concern: “You could grind $100 a month out of Medium with trash.” Multiple writers accused him of gaslighting when he claimed only 5% experienced earnings declines. These due process failures occur because Medium faces zero legal obligation to follow the Santa Clara Principles. Section 230 immunity insulates the platform from consequences.
Alternative Strategies When Removal Fails
When Medium refuses removal—the typical outcome for reputation-damaging content—three alternatives exist. Google de-indexing removes Medium articles from search results through court orders determining content is defamatory. The EU’s Right to Be Forgotten provides additional options for EU citizens. De-indexing doesn’t remove content from Medium itself, but since most damage occurs when people Google your name, de-indexing substantially reduces harm.
Suppression campaigns push Medium articles off page 1 through strategic SEO. This involves creating high-authority web properties that rank above the Medium article: LinkedIn profiles, optimized personal websites, press releases, social media profiles, industry directories, and guest posts. Professional suppression typically needs 6-12 months to move articles from page 1 to page 2-5 of Google results.
Response strategies involve publishing counter-content on Medium itself. Create rebuttals addressing false claims with documentation. This works best when you can demonstrate inaccuracies with concrete proof, though it requires engaging with the platform on their terms.
How Respect Network Can Help
DIY removal attempts through Medium’s reporting systems fail 90-95% of the time for reputation-damaging content. Most businesses waste months submitting appeals that disappear into Medium’s support void.
Respect Network has successfully managed hundreds of Medium reputation crises using what actually works versus what Medium claims works. Our approach combines legitimate removal where policies support it, Google de-indexing through legal channels, and suppression campaigns that push articles to page 2-5 where they cause minimal damage.
Contact Respect Network for confidential consultation about your Medium situation. We understand what works in 2025 and won’t waste your money on dead-end removal requests.
Email us to REMOVE your POST: info@respectnetwork.com, PAY only after RESULT. No upfront FEE.
