Imagine you run "Bob's Burger Shack." A rival restaurant, "Bill's Grill," spreads negative information about you: "Bob's Burger Shack uses cat and dog meat in their burgers", "Bob's Burger Shack employs illegal immigrants," "Bob's Burger Shack failed their health inspection because they have dead rats in the kitchen."
IF THOSE RUMORS WERE UNTRUE, wouldn't Bob be wise to specifically address them and give evidence to prove that they're wrong? "It has been alleged that we use cat and dog meat. However, we buy our meat directly from Smith Cattle Farm on Highway 11. Also, the other allegations made against us are false. Our Health Inspection certificate is on display in our dining room, and all of our workers are documented."
BUT... what would you think if Bob just refused to address the allegations, instead posting a sign in his dining room: "There are many false accusations about our restaurant on our competitors' websites. We should avoid those sites."
Wouldn't that make you feel like there was something Bob didn't want you to see? Wouldn't you wonder if the "false allegations" were actually true?
So... why won't the washtowel actually address the "false information by opposers"? Why try to intimidate everyone into not even looking?
(Of course, we all know the answer to that question: because the information that's out there is TRUE, and the most damning information was written by the wtbts!