A federal rule banning fake online reviews is now in effect.

The Federal Trade Commission issued the rulein August banning the sale or purchase of online reviews. The rule, which went into effect Monday, allows the agency to seek civil penalties against those who knowingly violate it.

“Fake reviews not only waste people’s time and money, but also pollute the marketplace and divert business away from honest competitors,” FTC Chair Lina Khan said about the rule in August. She added that the rule will “protect Americans from getting cheated, put businesses that unlawfully game the system on notice, and promote markets that are fair, honest, and competitive.”

43 points

Common Lina Khan W

permalink
report
reply
17 points

Give me 10 Lina Khans and I’ll give you the world.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I wish she was the one running for president. Maybe in eight years if we’re lucky and have Harris. And/or legal elections in four.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Lina Khan is the most useful bureaucrat in at least a generation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

ʘ‿ʘ

permalink
report
reply
99 points

allows the agency to seek civil penalties against those who knowingly violate it.

I hate that wording. Ignorance of the law isn’t a defense, unless you’re a corporation, apparently.

It also looks like this doesn’t address the practice of offering incentive for actual purchasers to leave positive reviews.

permalink
report
reply
68 points

That’s not what knowingly means in this context. Knowingly refers to the level of intent required to pursue charges, not whether they knew there was a law against it.

In this case it requires the government to show that the person intended to leave a review and/or testimonials that misrepresent that they are by someone who does not exist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

The wording is a bit ambiguous but I’d read that as “intentionally” rather than “with knowledge they’re violating the law”… it definitely could have used a good copy editor though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

They’ll just outsource it to foreign “reputation management” firms and pretend they had no idea what was happening, like how Coke got away with murdering union members in a foreign country.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Holy shit, killercoke.org goes fucking hard

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Interesting

This post sponsored by PepsiCo

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

Anyways my brother works for the FTC. With the current funding, they take thousands of complaints before they even look into something. It’s effectively useless as only the most publicised cases get any enforcement and the fines are tiny. And he says it was twice as bad before Biden.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

That’s not true, ignorance of the law is also a valid defense for police officers violating people’s rights 🙄

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It’s more than a defense, it’s actually a benefit for police. Attempting to enforce rules that don’t exist still count as valid pretext if they find evidence of actual crimes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It’s also pretty much impossible to prove, which of course is the point. The government exists to protect corporations

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Better than nothing but it also seems like it might be kind of difficult to prove the company allowed it knowingly.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

It prevented reviews and testimonials that misrepresent that they are by someone who does not exist. Fairly easy to prove. If they catch an individual posting a review while posing as anyone but themselves, It’s a done deal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yes, I understand (ignorance of a law is no defense at least in the US) that but it still may prove difficult to actually prove.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Well if you take a company like Amazon they know everything about you already, including if you actually purchased the item you are reviewing. And that should be a simple first “hurdle” for a reviewer to be legit. They already have a way of sorting them out and labeling them in place. So I would assume this means if you don’t have that label your review doesn’t go live. They can then add more qualifiers to prove they know the reviewers are real, since this seems to put the onus of proof on the company not that FTC.

Edit - some words

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It is possible I bought the item at my local warmart though and then review it on amazon. I don’t know if anyone does that, but it is possible.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I find that Amazon allows me to do that for good reviews, but whenever I leave a bad review for something I bought somewhere else the review disappears.

permalink
report
parent
reply

I feel like although possible now, that this may need to change going forward since I’m not sure how Amazon can validate your review if not done through their platform.

This of course fragments reviews to specific retail storefronts, but if the platform can’t validate at least the fact you purchased the item I don’t see anyway they can even begin to know you’re leaving a legit review.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

I’m sure this will work.

permalink
report
reply
12 points

It’s a start, we could still have nothing. FTC is doing the Lord’s work right now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Hmm, the same Lord that created all the fake reviews in the first place?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The Lord can suck it

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Agreed.

Insofar as the Lord doesn’t actually do anything, but millions continue to fawn over him because he said maybe someday eventually he might

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

You’re right, we should just leave it as being legal 🙄 that’s so much better

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Why do people do what you just did?

He says this won’t work.

And somehow you jump to “then we should just leave it as being legal”

He didn’t say we shouldn’t try something just that this might not be the best implementation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s bound to happen when sarcasm is met with sarcasm.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

He didn’t say we shouldn’t try something just that this might not be the best implementation.

He didn’t really say anything, you’re just hypothesizing a substantive argument from a low effort pessimistic gripe.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 200K

    Comments