4 ms·

I don't understand where the "fraud" line is. I suspect many more don't either. It's common knowledge that to get a good network startup going, you need to soc

I don't understand where the "fraud" line is. I suspect many more don't either. It's common knowledge that to get a good network startup going, you need to sock-puppet the hell out of it. It's common knowledge that Amazon is full of scam reviews. It's common knowledge that many Twitter followers are fake, or bots. It's common knowledge that Instagram pics are photoshopped-up. So when you see a picture of an attractive person on Instagram using some product, go to your Twitter to see a famous person recommend it, then click over to Amazon to read raving reviews, is that fraud? Because that's how the web works. It's the same exact game, you just don't give the money directly to your buddy.

dboreham 8y ago
So a crime isn't a crime if it is commonly perpetrated?
- DanielBMarkham 8y ago
  I don't know. I'm honestly confused. The best I can tell from the article, if it looks too directly like fraud, it's fraud If you involve a few players and do it indirectly, it's marketing? The danger here, which I guess needs to be explicitly-stated is that if public perception becomes a big part of the decision whether to prosecute or not, we've fallen completely into political crime territory, where the ultimate bad thing to do is look bad. That's not going to work.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
I think I have the opposite view from you. I see how this is not technically fraud, but I don't understand why isn't it. It should be. All the companies that engage in such practices can go to hell; I do my best to never do business with any that I know does that. It's sad that lying to people and exploiting them is not only accepted, but considered a legitimate standard practice.
- DanielBMarkham 8y ago
  My view is that I don't understand. It looks like you do. Yay! I will try to explain to you why I don't understand. Maybe you can help. Computers are an extension of our brains. What I think is happening is that people doing a whole bunch of immoral things online: lying, sock-puppeting, and so forth. But there's a not direct person-to-person link where money trades hands and the other person gets screwed. Instead it's much more subtle than that. When you add it all up, yes, we agree, a lot of this looks like fraud to me. But maybe it's fraud in the moral sense and not fraud in the criminal sense? If I tell my Uncle Amit that his new suit looks good on him, even though it doesn't, then goes out and buys a dozen, is that fraud? What if 100 people he doesn't know participate in the same kind of lie only using a lot of different tech? My point is that simple lying is not a crime. So it can't all be a crime. And now I'm back to trying to figure out where the line is. ADD: As I typed this, I noticed that my FB notification went off in one of my browser tabs. I click over -- and FB is notifying me of something it already notified me of. But got me to click! I'm seeing a lot of social sites doing this double-notification stuff. I understand about distributed databases, that there might be a reason for it. But after a while, this starts to look like a whiny, pathetic attempt just to get me back looking at more Facebook. Is that fraud? How about when Facebook both shows more of my stuff and more of the people I interact with to me -- while we're all online together, hoping that we'll start interacting directly -- and staying on FB? There's an enormous amount of this online. FB is only used here as an example. How about when you hellban people and they think they're typing comments into a forum but they're really not? You're directly taking their time and energy away from them by lying. I hate all of this. I'm just not sure it should be a crime.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > But maybe it's fraud in the moral sense and not fraud in the criminal sense? Yes, that's what I meant. It's not fraud in criminal sense, but it's definitely immoral - and I often find myself wondering, why some of those practices aren't considered legal!fraud? > But there's a not direct person-to-person link where money trades hands and the other person gets screwed. Instead it's much more subtle than that. Sometimes there is. I complain a lot about dishonest ads and telemarketers, because in those cases there's a direct link - a telemarketer manipulates a poor person into buying stuff that they don't need, and that doesn't perform as well as advertised. That person is then left with mostly useless paperweight, less money for their real needs, and a sense of shame that makes it hard to admit they were duped. Yes, I know of such cases first-hand. There are degrees to this, and ultimately, it usually doesn't result in life-threatening problems, but then again me punching you and taking your lunch money also doesn't cause you more harm than hurt feelings and going hungry for the day. Step above that are faked and bribed reviews. Again, one can say it's just noise, but then just imagine a person who needs an appliance, and can't afford to make a bad purchase. All this noise suddenly makes it very likely that whatever they buy will be crap, and they'll get an utterly suboptimal deal. I've been in that situation in the past, and though these days I can afford to pay premium and buy a branded product just to avoid dealing with this bullshit, most people I know can't, and thus shopping is often a lottery of regrets. > My point is that simple lying is not a crime. So it can't all be a crime. And now I'm back to trying to figure out where the line is. Same as I do. It's a hard problem; doubly so if you include enforcability and cost/benefit into calculation. -- Come to think of it, maybe I'm just too sensitive about people's feelings? Maybe I mistakenly want to hold our modern civilization to much higher standards than warranted? Maybe it's still really a jungle, a dog-eat-dog world, and hoping for a society of friendly cooperation is too much?

dboreham 8y ago

So a crime isn't a crime if it is commonly perpetrated?

DanielBMarkham 8y ago
I don't know. I'm honestly confused. The best I can tell from the article, if it looks too directly like fraud, it's fraud If you involve a few players and do it indirectly, it's marketing? The danger here, which I guess needs to be explicitly-stated is that if public perception becomes a big part of the decision whether to prosecute or not, we've fallen completely into political crime territory, where the ultimate bad thing to do is look bad. That's not going to work.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

I think I have the opposite view from you. I see how this is not technically fraud, but I don't understand why isn't it. It should be. All the companies that engage in such practices can go to hell; I do my best to never do business with any that I know does that. It's sad that lying to people and exploiting them is not only accepted, but considered a legitimate standard practice.

DanielBMarkham 8y ago
My view is that I don't understand. It looks like you do. Yay! I will try to explain to you why I don't understand. Maybe you can help. Computers are an extension of our brains. What I think is happening is that people doing a whole bunch of immoral things online: lying, sock-puppeting, and so forth. But there's a not direct person-to-person link where money trades hands and the other person gets screwed. Instead it's much more subtle than that. When you add it all up, yes, we agree, a lot of this looks like fraud to me. But maybe it's fraud in the moral sense and not fraud in the criminal sense? If I tell my Uncle Amit that his new suit looks good on him, even though it doesn't, then goes out and buys a dozen, is that fraud? What if 100 people he doesn't know participate in the same kind of lie only using a lot of different tech? My point is that simple lying is not a crime. So it can't all be a crime. And now I'm back to trying to figure out where the line is. ADD: As I typed this, I noticed that my FB notification went off in one of my browser tabs. I click over -- and FB is notifying me of something it already notified me of. But got me to click! I'm seeing a lot of social sites doing this double-notification stuff. I understand about distributed databases, that there might be a reason for it. But after a while, this starts to look like a whiny, pathetic attempt just to get me back looking at more Facebook. Is that fraud? How about when Facebook both shows more of my stuff and more of the people I interact with to me -- while we're all online together, hoping that we'll start interacting directly -- and staying on FB? There's an enormous amount of this online. FB is only used here as an example. How about when you hellban people and they think they're typing comments into a forum but they're really not? You're directly taking their time and energy away from them by lying. I hate all of this. I'm just not sure it should be a crime.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > But maybe it's fraud in the moral sense and not fraud in the criminal sense? Yes, that's what I meant. It's not fraud in criminal sense, but it's definitely immoral - and I often find myself wondering, why some of those practices aren't considered legal!fraud? > But there's a not direct person-to-person link where money trades hands and the other person gets screwed. Instead it's much more subtle than that. Sometimes there is. I complain a lot about dishonest ads and telemarketers, because in those cases there's a direct link - a telemarketer manipulates a poor person into buying stuff that they don't need, and that doesn't perform as well as advertised. That person is then left with mostly useless paperweight, less money for their real needs, and a sense of shame that makes it hard to admit they were duped. Yes, I know of such cases first-hand. There are degrees to this, and ultimately, it usually doesn't result in life-threatening problems, but then again me punching you and taking your lunch money also doesn't cause you more harm than hurt feelings and going hungry for the day. Step above that are faked and bribed reviews. Again, one can say it's just noise, but then just imagine a person who needs an appliance, and can't afford to make a bad purchase. All this noise suddenly makes it very likely that whatever they buy will be crap, and they'll get an utterly suboptimal deal. I've been in that situation in the past, and though these days I can afford to pay premium and buy a branded product just to avoid dealing with this bullshit, most people I know can't, and thus shopping is often a lottery of regrets. > My point is that simple lying is not a crime. So it can't all be a crime. And now I'm back to trying to figure out where the line is. Same as I do. It's a hard problem; doubly so if you include enforcability and cost/benefit into calculation. -- Come to think of it, maybe I'm just too sensitive about people's feelings? Maybe I mistakenly want to hold our modern civilization to much higher standards than warranted? Maybe it's still really a jungle, a dog-eat-dog world, and hoping for a society of friendly cooperation is too much?