3 ms·

> Shouldn't some kind of anti-trust agency forbid such mergers, or break them up after the fact? At least in an alternate world where anti-trust law was still e

> Shouldn't some kind of anti-trust agency forbid such mergers, or break them up after the fact? At least in an alternate world where anti-trust law was still enforced. Even without anti-trust, it should be illegal to own or buy a "review site" for something you sell. That kind of thing is very counter to consumer interests and a blatant conflict of interest.

ortusdux 5y ago
I frequently encounter 1-off review sites that are owned by the #1 product on the list. Many are transparent about it, and some even do a good job listing their competitors and describing them in a fair light. I think they are mostly a response to Google's algorithms prioritizing reciently published blog style top-10 lists. Here is the first result when I google "best free youtube downloader" https://www.gihosoft.com/hot-topics/best-free-youtube-downloader.html https://www.gihosoft.com/hot-topics/best-free-youtube-downlo...
xboxnolifes 5y ago
I feel like this should fall under advertising laws. Maybe it does and I'm not familiar with the area. Does the review site need to disclose the fact of ownership?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > I feel like this should fall under advertising laws. Maybe it does and I'm not familiar with the area. Does the review site need to disclose the fact of ownership? Even if they do, they can probably satisfy the requirement with disclosure where no one would actually notice it. The only kind of disclosure I'd be happy with is if at the top of the page and next to any self-endorsement they would have to show a garish warning banner with a legally mandated design that called out their conflict of interest in blunt terms. It would be easier and better to just ban the practice.
SahAssar 5y ago
That sort of rule would quickly become very hard to untangle. For example news papers are often the only good source of reliable, in-depth book reviews and for historical reasons the companies that sell books and sell news papers are often owned by the same parent company. In the Kape case I think it is clearly dishonest, and the same can be said for the online order mattress space among others. Most online direct to consumer spaces (for example gaming and anti-virus) probably has some actor that is dishonestly setting up or buying review sites. But it is not exactly clear how you would in a legal sense draw the line.
- mjw1007 5y ago
  Newspaper book reviews certainly can have the suggested problem. The Times would arrange for positive reviews of HarperCollins books by giving them to a reviewer who they knew would provide one.
  - SahAssar 5y ago
    It'd be interesting to see a source for that although I don't doubt that similar things have happened. I'm just saying that such a rule would not just untangle Kape, but would also unravel most larger media companies. Depending on how it would be written things like a youtuber reviewing a pixel phone or one TV show talking about a different TV show might be illegal. Restricting speech is in general hard, what would be much easier is to require clear and obvious disclosure. Since journalistic ethics already requires that it should only require changes for dishonest actors.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > That sort of rule would quickly become very hard to untangle. For example news papers are often the only good source of reliable, in-depth book reviews and for historical reasons the companies that sell books and sell news papers are often owned by the same parent company.... > But it is not exactly clear how you would in a legal sense draw the line. You could probably address that problem by permitting common ownership in cases where the company could prove to a court that it's implemented effective and rigorous firewalls, such that the reviews are independent and not affected by the common ownership and do not show evidence or tampering of bias. My understanding is those kinds of firewalls are de rigueur in the newspaper industry.
donmcronald 5y ago
The story of Sleepopolis changed the way I think about review sites. https://www.fastcompany.com/3065928/sleepopolis-casper-bloggers-lawsuits-underside-of-the-mattress-wars https://www.fastcompany.com/3065928/sleepopolis-casper-blogg...

ortusdux 5y ago

I frequently encounter 1-off review sites that are owned by the #1 product on the list. Many are transparent about it, and some even do a good job listing their competitors and describing them in a fair light. I think they are mostly a response to Google's algorithms prioritizing reciently published blog style top-10 lists. Here is the first result when I google "best free youtube downloader" https://www.gihosoft.com/hot-topics/best-free-youtube-downloader.html https://www.gihosoft.com/hot-topics/best-free-youtube-downlo...

xboxnolifes 5y ago

I feel like this should fall under advertising laws. Maybe it does and I'm not familiar with the area. Does the review site need to disclose the fact of ownership?

tablespoon 5y ago
> I feel like this should fall under advertising laws. Maybe it does and I'm not familiar with the area. Does the review site need to disclose the fact of ownership? Even if they do, they can probably satisfy the requirement with disclosure where no one would actually notice it. The only kind of disclosure I'd be happy with is if at the top of the page and next to any self-endorsement they would have to show a garish warning banner with a legally mandated design that called out their conflict of interest in blunt terms. It would be easier and better to just ban the practice.

SahAssar 5y ago

That sort of rule would quickly become very hard to untangle. For example news papers are often the only good source of reliable, in-depth book reviews and for historical reasons the companies that sell books and sell news papers are often owned by the same parent company. In the Kape case I think it is clearly dishonest, and the same can be said for the online order mattress space among others. Most online direct to consumer spaces (for example gaming and anti-virus) probably has some actor that is dishonestly setting up or buying review sites. But it is not exactly clear how you would in a legal sense draw the line.

mjw1007 5y ago
Newspaper book reviews certainly can have the suggested problem. The Times would arrange for positive reviews of HarperCollins books by giving them to a reviewer who they knew would provide one.
- SahAssar 5y ago
  It'd be interesting to see a source for that although I don't doubt that similar things have happened. I'm just saying that such a rule would not just untangle Kape, but would also unravel most larger media companies. Depending on how it would be written things like a youtuber reviewing a pixel phone or one TV show talking about a different TV show might be illegal. Restricting speech is in general hard, what would be much easier is to require clear and obvious disclosure. Since journalistic ethics already requires that it should only require changes for dishonest actors.
tablespoon 5y ago
> That sort of rule would quickly become very hard to untangle. For example news papers are often the only good source of reliable, in-depth book reviews and for historical reasons the companies that sell books and sell news papers are often owned by the same parent company.... > But it is not exactly clear how you would in a legal sense draw the line. You could probably address that problem by permitting common ownership in cases where the company could prove to a court that it's implemented effective and rigorous firewalls, such that the reviews are independent and not affected by the common ownership and do not show evidence or tampering of bias. My understanding is those kinds of firewalls are de rigueur in the newspaper industry.

donmcronald 5y ago

The story of Sleepopolis changed the way I think about review sites. https://www.fastcompany.com/3065928/sleepopolis-casper-bloggers-lawsuits-underside-of-the-mattress-wars https://www.fastcompany.com/3065928/sleepopolis-casper-blogg...