[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)