15 ms·

Who is the government to say that a particular review isn't authentic? Reviews are subjective. While it is in fact a difficult argument to say that a review fo

Who is the government to say that a particular review isn't authentic? Reviews are subjective. While it is in fact a difficult argument to say that a review for the fake business used in this entrapment operation is authentic, perhaps I love or don't love the name or location of the business, and give it a rating based upon that. Maybe I own a yogurt shop, and automatically hate all of my competitors. No one can tell me that I can't like or dislike any business for any reason, whether I have visited them or not. There is a reason that 100% of these cases were settled....these cases would have been laughed out of a courtroom on constitutional grounds. Personally, I would have forced them to take it to court, but most businesses don't want the headache.

reustle 13y ago
> Who is the government to say that a particular review isn't authentic? They set up a fake shop, didn't you read the article?
- downandout 13y ago
  Yes....you apparently didn't read my entire comment. "While it is in fact a difficult argument to say that a review for the fake business used in this entrapment operation is authentic, perhaps I love or don't love the name or location of the business, and give it a rating based upon that."
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    What this shows me is how utterly worthless online reviews are.
    - trippy_biscuits 13y ago
      It also demonstrates SEO value but it's not representative of all SEO. That same stands for online reviews: many are worthless but some of them are not.
      - chris_wot 13y ago
        So how can I differentiate between the worthless and non-worthless reviews?
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    Did you miss the part where they didn't just arrest random people for giving ratings based on the name? They arrested people for offering to give ratings for money.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Who is the government to say that a particular review isn't authentic? The government. > Reviews are subjective. That doesn't mean that they aren't fraudulent in how they portray, among other things, their provenance. (It also doesn't mean they aren't false in how they portray facts; the fact that some parts of reviews, such as ratings, are subjective doesn't mean that they don't include fact claims which are objectively true or false.) > There is a reason that these cases were settled Yeah, because the people on the receiving side considered that their probability of winning at trial and getting off with no penalty did not outweigh the cost of trial plus (probability of a penalty being imposed) × (the likely cost of any imposed penalty). > had a single one of these actually been brought into a courtroom, the case would have been laughed out of it on constitutional grounds. Were that the case, that would have been a major disincentive for the targets to settle.
- downandout 13y ago
  The cases, like many others brought by overzealous prosecutors, were settled because the state offered settlements at a discount to anticipated defense costs. As to your other arguments, depending on the content of a review, it could be fraudulent. But again, US law doesn't (yet) specify criteria upon which I must base opinions that I choose to share.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > But again, US law doesn't (yet) specify criteria upon which I must base opinions that I choose to share. That's a non-sequitur, since neither US law nor the criteria on which opinions were based were the basis for the case. New York Law on deceptive business practices and false advertising was the basis.
    - downandout 13y ago
      If New York has a law that imposes the criteria upon which opinions shared with others must be based (I can pretty much guarantee that they don't), it will be quickly tossed out on constitutional grounds.
AJ007 13y ago
$350,000 divided by 19, that is more embarrassing to the NY Attorney General than the companies named. On the other hand the FTC has oversight on this, and there are already existing rules in place. These companies are hardly limited in their exposure or liability from one side. The FTC has pretty wide purview as to what it wants to do, and the powers that go with it. They can take all of your money, bar you from life from a particular industry,and if you pretend you are broke when your not put you in jail. As far as US case law goes, yes the government can go after you for making up stuff about a commercial action.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > $350,000 divided by 19 Isn't really indicative of what happened, since the range of individual settlement amounts was from $2,500 to "just under $100,000". And, of course, the main thrust isn't the monetary settlements, its the Assurances of Discontinuance that are part of the settlement, which are themselves enforceable. > On the other hand the FTC has oversight on this Only when interstate commerce is involved, and even then it is by design not exclusive of state oversight or individual consumer remedies. > and there are already existing rules in place. This action was enforcement action under the existing rules.

reustle 13y ago

> Who is the government to say that a particular review isn't authentic? They set up a fake shop, didn't you read the article?

downandout 13y ago
Yes....you apparently didn't read my entire comment. "While it is in fact a difficult argument to say that a review for the fake business used in this entrapment operation is authentic, perhaps I love or don't love the name or location of the business, and give it a rating based upon that."
- chris_wot 13y ago
  What this shows me is how utterly worthless online reviews are.
  - trippy_biscuits 13y ago
    It also demonstrates SEO value but it's not representative of all SEO. That same stands for online reviews: many are worthless but some of them are not.
    - chris_wot 13y ago
      So how can I differentiate between the worthless and non-worthless reviews?
- tedunangst 13y ago
  Did you miss the part where they didn't just arrest random people for giving ratings based on the name? They arrested people for offering to give ratings for money.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Who is the government to say that a particular review isn't authentic? The government. > Reviews are subjective. That doesn't mean that they aren't fraudulent in how they portray, among other things, their provenance. (It also doesn't mean they aren't false in how they portray facts; the fact that some parts of reviews, such as ratings, are subjective doesn't mean that they don't include fact claims which are objectively true or false.) > There is a reason that these cases were settled Yeah, because the people on the receiving side considered that their probability of winning at trial and getting off with no penalty did not outweigh the cost of trial plus (probability of a penalty being imposed) × (the likely cost of any imposed penalty). > had a single one of these actually been brought into a courtroom, the case would have been laughed out of it on constitutional grounds. Were that the case, that would have been a major disincentive for the targets to settle.

downandout 13y ago
The cases, like many others brought by overzealous prosecutors, were settled because the state offered settlements at a discount to anticipated defense costs. As to your other arguments, depending on the content of a review, it could be fraudulent. But again, US law doesn't (yet) specify criteria upon which I must base opinions that I choose to share.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > But again, US law doesn't (yet) specify criteria upon which I must base opinions that I choose to share. That's a non-sequitur, since neither US law nor the criteria on which opinions were based were the basis for the case. New York Law on deceptive business practices and false advertising was the basis.
  - downandout 13y ago
    If New York has a law that imposes the criteria upon which opinions shared with others must be based (I can pretty much guarantee that they don't), it will be quickly tossed out on constitutional grounds.

AJ007 13y ago

$350,000 divided by 19, that is more embarrassing to the NY Attorney General than the companies named. On the other hand the FTC has oversight on this, and there are already existing rules in place. These companies are hardly limited in their exposure or liability from one side. The FTC has pretty wide purview as to what it wants to do, and the powers that go with it. They can take all of your money, bar you from life from a particular industry,and if you pretend you are broke when your not put you in jail. As far as US case law goes, yes the government can go after you for making up stuff about a commercial action.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> $350,000 divided by 19 Isn't really indicative of what happened, since the range of individual settlement amounts was from $2,500 to "just under $100,000". And, of course, the main thrust isn't the monetary settlements, its the Assurances of Discontinuance that are part of the settlement, which are themselves enforceable. > On the other hand the FTC has oversight on this Only when interstate commerce is involved, and even then it is by design not exclusive of state oversight or individual consumer remedies. > and there are already existing rules in place. This action was enforcement action under the existing rules.