5 ms·
I don't endorse this behavior at all but can it really be said to be black-hat? imho seems more gray to me. From what I understand, content _is_ being generated
by warent 6y ago
I don't endorse this behavior at all but can it really be said to be black-hat? imho seems more gray to me. From what I understand, content _is_ being generated and there are attempts to boost the SEO, so they're providing a service and it's not outright theft. At worst it just sounds like poor practice and gaming the system. They're not acting maliciously, illegally, and/or destructively, which is how I've always defined black-hat. Am I missing something?
- troydavis 6y agoIf this isn't black-hat, what is? Specifically, an author not disclosing an affiliation or payment, fake accounts promoting it, and fake accounts commenting on those promotions. In the continuum between white and black, what's left on the black side? :-)
- twmahna 6y agoSome examples that come to mind: click fraud, phishing, malware.
- bilbo0s 6y agoThat doesn't preclude the techniques we're discussing here, it only adds other techniques to the black hat tool box.
- ineedasername 6y agoI think the point is that those activities are clearly "black hat", while astroturfing isn't inherently illegal. (well, maybe in some jurisdictions it is. I seem to recall that the UK has much stricter "truth in advertising" laws than the US) It all exists on a spectrum though, and we can disagree on where the line for black hat is drawn, with no one being wrong because it's a matter of opinion.
- bootcampwhere 6y agoYou dummy. How about actual fraud? Hijacking sites, puting in secret back links. Paying for content is not black hat.
- duskwuff 6y agoOutright spam, like forum and blog comments. Exploiting web sites, or abusing trust relationships (like updates to WordPress plugins or browser extensions) to inject spam into legitimate pages, or to create entire networks of spam pages within unaware sites. Launching deliberately obvious spam campaigns to discredit competing sites. That's black-hat SEO -- where the behavior itself is probably illegal, even without the intent.
- BryanBigs 6y agoDont forget SAPE. When I heard of that I knew the SEO world was rougher than I had previously imagined. For those that don't know, its a Russian run marketplace for link injected/hacked sites. Really big, high quality sites.
- pathseeker 6y agoSQL injections, vulnerability exploits, or other hijacking mechanisms to inject links directly. In my mind, using a system as designed without breaking any laws lands in grey-hat territory.
- Reebz 6y agoIt is more commonly known as Astroturfing
- gimboland 6y agoWell, fuck it.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y agoRelevant, I think: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/dis...
- nl 6y ago> They're not acting maliciously, illegally, and/or destructively, which is how I've always defined black-hat. Am I missing something? It probably is illegal if they aren't disclosing a paid relationship: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/dis...
- ineedasername 6y agoNot really, according to their page, disclosure is a best practice, but doing otherwise isn't inherently illegal. Their own guide [0] begins by talking about adhering to their guidelines as "voluntary compliance", and that a failure to do so would require their investigation into the specifics to determine if it was a violation of law: It is not automatically a violation. [0] https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-publishes-final-guides-governing-endorsements-testimonials/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-re...
- nl 6y agoThose guidelines are voluntary, sure. But there are actual laws included (section 5 of of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. 45)) that make some things actually illegal. Specifically: "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful."[1] This voluntary guide helps people understand how the FTC inteprates that law. Deciding not to comply because the guide is voluntary doesn't preclude prosecution. You are right insofar as there is no law that specifically says "on the website reddit.com you must disclose if you are paid". [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45
- ineedasername 6y agoYep, there's lots of gray area. But not disclosing a financial arrangement isn't illegal in itself. It's only in the last few years that Youtube even had an option to flag videos as "contains paid promotions", though now they do require that to be flagged if you're getting paid.
- unethical_ban 6y agoDeception for money is malice.
- ineedasername 6y agoI'm confused on your word choice. Malice is generally a more deliberate act of hostility. "Fraudulent" would seem to fit better.
- ivanche 6y agoI agree. From the twitter thread, I clicked on random Medium user and on hos random article. Yes, there was a passage about one company's product. But boy, there were 15 passages of pragmatic, no BS content which I found very useful - I'd even say it was above average written article.