[HN Gopher] FTC announces proposed rule banning fake reviews and...
___________________________________________________________________
FTC announces proposed rule banning fake reviews and testimonials
Author : pseudolus
Score : 117 points
Date : 2023-06-30 21:23 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ftc.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ftc.gov)
| geraldwhen wrote:
| Most fake reviews come from India and the buyers are using non-US
| payment systems. I don't know how this would impact the existing
| market.
| silisili wrote:
| On Amazon at least, they aren't. There are giant networks of
| companies seeking out American reviewers, basically giving free
| products in exchange for reviews. I was invited to one after
| leaving a good review on some product I'd bought, and did some
| digging.
|
| From what I can tell, Chinese companies hire companies in India
| and Bangladesh to boost reviews. They then act like middlemen,
| seeking out pay for play reviewers in other countries. It's
| funny because they pretend to be Chinese women in their
| profiles. After chatting one lady 'Eve' up, basically saying I
| knew they weren't Chinese by the way they wrote English, he
| admitted to being a young man from Bangladesh, though I forgot
| his name. I thanked him for his honesty.
|
| I was sent a spreadsheet of multiple items to choose from.
| Clicked on a few, and saw a couple 'Top 10 Reviewer' labeled
| folks making reviews on these unheard of products. So the 'all
| stars' of Amazon are all in on it.
|
| All this is separate from the multitude of companies who put
| little cards in their packaging offering a rebate for a good
| review.
|
| Garbage all the way down...
| tough wrote:
| Where does one start working as a paid reviewer anyways?
| refulgentis wrote:
| > On Amazon....There are giant networks of companies
| seeking out American reviewers...I was invited to one after
| leaving a good review on some product I'd bought
|
| > From what I can tell, Chinese companies hire companies in
| India and Bangladesh to boost reviews. They then act like
| middlemen, seeking out pay for play reviewers in other
| countries.
| geraldwhen wrote:
| Sites like mturk. Some of the work seems legit, but it's
| all manipulation of organic web traffic. I made a lot of
| money in fake reviews in a past life.
| geraldwhen wrote:
| US reviewers often get paid a premium on amazon/iTunes/Apple
| Store, but the bulk buys are still India.
|
| It's quite easy to spot fake reviews by anyone, since they're
| formulaic. I.e the review must mention <person name> or
| <product name> exactly as written and be at least 50
| characters long. So you get 2-3 sentences that look like
| this:
|
| "Product is a huge game changer for me and my family. I've
| tried some other stuff, but honestly it didn't work as well.
| I'd recommend Product for anyone who has Reason."
| gigglesupstairs wrote:
| This is so non-specific. Which website(s) are you talking
| about?
| photonbeam wrote:
| How will amazon survive this
| chongli wrote:
| Couldn't Amazon just remove all reviews from their site
| entirely? I'm sure sales would take a hit, but they could just
| point to the FTC rule and say "our hands are tied! No more
| reviews!"
|
| I think a lot of people would continue buying lots of stuff
| from Amazon. They'd just have to do their product research
| elsewhere.
| paul7986 wrote:
| Always thought there should be a public identity system on the
| Internet in which your own Internet reputation is at stake like
| your eBay score. It could be attached to your credit score and
| if found out your a liar and faker (for any type of personal
| gain) your Internet identity and credit score takes a hit.
| Also, You are only able to ever get one just like you are only
| able to get a social security card and your score/Internet
| identity follows you around everywhere you go.
|
| Just a thought to clean up all the fake crap that litters the
| Internet.
|
| Now with this idea you could still post anonymously it just
| wouldnt hold as much weight.
| loeg wrote:
| You could call it a Social credit system.
| JohnFen wrote:
| That's just nopes all the way down for me. It would certainly
| keep me off of the web entirely (which might not be the worst
| thing, admittedly).
|
| I'd much rather put up with the fake crap.
| paul7986 wrote:
| How would that keep you off the Internet? You can still
| post anonymously.
| JohnFen wrote:
| It'd keep me off the web, not off the internet.
|
| If participation is optional, then why would anyone
| participate? To be effective, it has to be mandatory in
| some way, be it contractually, legally, or socially.
| justrealist wrote:
| ?
|
| Amazon would be absolutely thrilled if the FTC successfully
| cracked down on fake reviews.
| AbacusAvenger wrote:
| Amazon would still be in charge of enforcement, they'd just
| be held liable for not doing so. Which is not a pleasant
| place to be, because blocking automation is not an easy
| problem, and it's difficult to measure success.
| JimtheCoder wrote:
| "Amazon would still be in charge of enforcement"
|
| Is this true? Based on my reading of the proposed rules, it
| would be the product owner who would be responsible, not
| the platform.
|
| I don't think Amazon Basics or any of their other brands
| are participating in this sort of behaviour.
|
| I could be wrong, though...
| meragrin_ wrote:
| > Is this true? Based on my reading of the proposed
| rules, it would be the product owner who would be
| responsible, not the platform.
|
| From my reading, Amazon is only responsible for whatever
| they knowingly participate in. If sellers and
| manufacturers participate in it without Amazon's
| knowledge, Amazon has no required enforcement.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| > blocking automation is not an easy problem
|
| Amazon is very much willing and able to tackle difficult
| problems, as repeatedly demonstrated throughout their
| history. Admittedly they prefer to choose which difficult
| problems they tackle, but still.
| justrealist wrote:
| The difficulty of a problem scales in an adversarial
| environment.
| [deleted]
| jjkeddo199 wrote:
| They will make Amazon do the legwork.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| If Amazon has to do the legwork, don't they need a system
| to identify what's fake to enforce if Amazon isn't doing
| their part?
| loeg wrote:
| Kind of amazed this needs any kind of new rule. Isn't this FTC
| bread and butter? Still, if it leads anywhere, I'm happy to see
| the FTC do more work in this direction.
| jimmygrapes wrote:
| I have been asked (even recently) many times by upper management
| in various private companies, NPOs, and public industries alike
| to boost local visibility by submitting positive reviews to Yelp,
| Google, Foursquare, etc. recommending it as a place to work or
| talking up products/services offered. Often offered a reward for
| it, in some form or another.
|
| Think of a clerk at your local EBT office submitting a 5 star
| Google review saying "Excellent customer service and low wait
| times, [your coworker here] was caring and compassionate, just
| make sure you schedule an appointment online to avoid the lines!"
| or "I've worked here for X years and I cannot say enough great
| things about how wonderful and caring everybody is! I love
| helping the undeserved in my community!"
|
| Maybe it's a car repair shop doing the same. Maybe it's a fast
| food franchisee. Maybe it's a boutique store. It's definitely
| more than just Amazon or TripAdvisor reviews.
|
| I intend to present this proposed rule to my current management
| and let them sweat, because just this week I was told it is
| "highly recommended to help offset the fake reviews". I
| understand the struggle, though. People leave shitty 1 star
| reviews for spiteful purposes all the time, and that can hurt a
| small business or encourage unnecessary community discontent.
|
| I don't think there is any good solution on the SEO aspect, but
| I'm all for banning the scummy practices of astroturfing.
| lallysingh wrote:
| This needed to happen 10 years ago.
| jlsfiew38 wrote:
| I would estimate more like 20.
| EA-3167 wrote:
| Honestly, that's a pretty standard "tape delay" for this sort
| of thing. It's really hard to make good, widely agreed-upon
| rules _before_ the problem becomes widespread. Once it is,
| and there 's popular support, rules and regulations become
| obvious.
|
| And that's how government tends to work.
| ranting-moth wrote:
| Amazon reviews were decent 10 years ago. Now they're worse than
| useless. My Amazon shopping has followed the curve.
|
| I'm pretty sure Amazon knows best of all what's going on, but
| stays quiet because they're generating insane profits.
| m463 wrote:
| It is sort of amazing how many of the scenarios listed on this
| page we have all seen, probably on a daily basis.
|
| Wonder how many of these will survive to the end? I guess one
| good thing is that the participants are not something like ISPs
| vs the public, more like business vs business.
| sergiomattei wrote:
| This week I got locked out of my car. I left the keys in the
| trunk of a 2022 Toyota Camry. A car that happens to have strong
| anti-theft features.
|
| In a state of desperation, I looked for locksmiths in my area.
| First Google ad that popped up for "Locksmith Redmond" seemed
| like a reputable website. To confirm their credibility, I looked
| up their Google reviews: 400 five star reviews.
|
| I requested the service, and twenty minutes later some dude turns
| up in a Ford Escape. He proceeds to "open the car" and quotes me
| $299 on the spot for simply opening the door.
|
| If you've dealt with anti theft on these Toyotas, you know this
| solves nothing. You can't get into the trunk without disabling
| it.
|
| I refused immediately: are you insane? He started getting
| aggressive with me. It's me and this dude, alone in a parking lot
| at 10 PM. Dude's twice my size, I was terrified. Long story
| short, he didn't get the money.
|
| It was a scam, a bait and switch. In my state of nerves, I fell
| for the reviews. I took a look at the reviews after the situation
| was resolved.
|
| Clearly fake reviews: same writing style, similar names. Only two
| or three people who actually exposed the scam.
|
| I'm a very tech savvy guy. I got screwed by fake reviews and
| Google ads this week. I have a feeling this measure won't stop
| them.
| walrus01 wrote:
| Locksmiths, plumbing, electricians and other services in any
| major city are plagued by people whose actual business model is
| setting up a website, CRM system and pipeline to sell "hot
| leads" to shady trunk slammer type contractors. It's trivially
| easy to have a phone number that looks like it belongs to the
| area code for (your city here) but goes to a call center
| offshore. It's a whole well documented phenomenon.
| LordShredda wrote:
| > Businesses would be prohibited from creating or controlling a
| website that claims to provide independent opinions about a
| category of products or services that includes its own products
| or services.
|
| This is literally designed to kill vpn review websites. All the
| major ones are owned by a couple of vpn mills
| afavour wrote:
| I'd be surprised if VPN providers were an area of _prime_
| focus.
|
| ...but wouldn't this description also include Amazon, with
| Prime brands at least? It sort of implies a _separate_ site
| which would mean Amazon is fine, but it doesn't say it
| outright.
| dcormier wrote:
| Mattress review sites, too.
| gigglesupstairs wrote:
| And the sundry video editing tools, pdf editors, random file
| converters etc. So many just mask their promotion strategies in
| the form of review blogs.
| JimtheCoder wrote:
| It will be interesting to see what "controlling" means.
|
| Can they "Sponsor" a site, and put a little tiny disclaimer on
| the bottom of the page, where no one ever looks, indicating
| this is sponsored content?
| dylan604 wrote:
| Hell, they could put "Sponsored Content" above the article
| just like in news readers, and people will think it is legit
| news
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I dont think it's designed to kill vpn review websites
| _specifically_. it 'll sure catch those though.
| eschaton wrote:
| This should already be prosecutable as wire fraud. Does an FTC
| rule make enforcement easier?
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| i thought the same, then realized phone spammers are out of
| control still in the US, and they're not slowing down. What
| would actually work to shut these crooks down?
| janalsncm wrote:
| How about caning. It might seem foreign and extreme, but it
| works. A fine is just a cost of doing business. Even prison
| time would usually be spent at a minimum security prison
| perhaps even with work release. Barely a punishment.
|
| Those are just slaps on the wrist. You know what's not a slap
| on the wrist? Caning. Caning would force these scammers to
| rethink their lives. It is used in Singapore as a punishment,
| a country widely seen as one of the least corrupt on the
| planet.
| jonahhorowitz wrote:
| Now if they'd only ban "this review is based on a free product I
| got from the company in exchange for reviewing it" fake reviews.
| samtho wrote:
| I'm personally conflicted about these. On one hand, having
| launched products before, it's difficult to get those first
| reviews because even if the public perception of reviews is
| poor, they still hold a lot of weight in terms purchasing
| decisions. As such, it's easy to send off a few free products
| and hope they will review them well. As a consumer, however,
| I'm always skeptical of products with less than 20 or so
| reviews that are all 5 stars and the text of the reviews have
| no real substance.
|
| There is an opportunity here (and I'm not sure what it looks
| like) to get products in the hands of people who will be
| incentivized to review honestly because the maker of the
| product actually wants to earn organic, positive reviews and
| will take the issues noted by reviewers seriously for improving
| upon the product.
| JimtheCoder wrote:
| As long as it is clearly indicated, is it really that big of a
| problem?
|
| I think they are focusing on getting rid of deception...
| russdill wrote:
| Yes, so long as when browsing products there's a checkbox to
| ignore all such reviews so I can sort by a rating that
| doesn't include such shenanigans.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I think those sorts of reviews are fine (both ethically and
| legally) as long as that is disclosed so that everyone knows to
| discount the review.
| lolinder wrote:
| From the proposed rule text [0]:
|
| > It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and a violation of
| this Rule for a business to represent, expressly or by
| implication, that a website, organization, or entity that it
| controls, owns, or operates provides independent reviews or
| opinions about a category of businesses, products, or services
| including the business or one or more of its products or
| services.
|
| As I read it, the 5-star review systems on Amazon.com and
| Walmart.com would be categorized as unfair under this rule, since
| both companies sell their own products in addition to having a
| rating system on their website. I'm not sure whether that's
| intentional or not (and I could be misreading it, IANAL).
|
| [0]
| https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/r311003consumer...
| scottshamus wrote:
| I interpret that more as banning all of the shadier situations
| like the mattress companies that own "independent" mattress
| review sites.
| tough wrote:
| I was thinking this but how the same 2-3 vpn providers own
| all the vpn review websites
| hrdwdmrbl wrote:
| I suppose they would be required to work with an independent
| 3rd party that would manage the reviews. A little bit similar
| to the Credit Rating companies.
|
| IMHO it could be a good, kind of, separation of responsibility.
| crazygringo wrote:
| No, I don't think that's correct, either by the text or spirit.
|
| This isn't about user reviews, it's about editorial reviews
| where it is the website/organization itself that is doing the
| reviews. Think Wirecutter, Consumer Reports, and so forth
| (although those are fine).
|
| Basically when you search Google for reviews on e.g. an air
| purifier, you'll find a bunch of sites called things like "air-
| purifier-reviews.com" that seem to be a legitimate review
| site/blog at first glance (like Wirecutter), but are just a
| fake site created by the company whose products are
| recommended.
|
| Amazon and Walmart with their product listings and user reviews
| aren't anything like this. User reviews even for Amazon-branded
| products would continue just fine, although another rule
| indicates that Amazon couldn't selectively remove negative
| reviews for their own products (not that there's evidence they
| have, since there are plenty of terribly-rated ones alongside
| the good ones).
|
| It's also clear that Amazon wouldn't be able to e.g. create its
| own Wirecutter or Consumer Reports equivalent as long as it
| continued its own brands. And it probably means that Amazon
| wouldn't be able to continue its "Amazon editorial
| recommendations" which is a row that used to pop up in search
| results, but that they removed a couple of months ago [1].
|
| [1] https://www.modernretail.co/technology/amazon-has-quietly-
| re...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-30 23:01 UTC)