this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
650 points (99.5% liked)

News

23215 readers
4474 users here now

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.


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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cocobean@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 20 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Some guy in India is gonna get fined $7,498,342.37 in three years and I'm all for it.

[–] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

And then he won't pay it because he's in India and doesn't pay a lot of attention to the US FTC.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

There is a very long history of expeditions and fines against foreign nationals involving spam, scams, etc. Here is a recent example., and another example, and a much older and bigger example

But you never hear about any of the good stuff the US Government does for its people, nobody ever talks about that stuff.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 11 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Oh dude they literally had an activity at my old cult where they had everyone make a dozen fake reviews at each of their local buildings. That's gonna be fun.

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, "my old cult"? Care to give some background? Obviously if you'd rather not that's completely up to you :)

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

I personally thought it was better ambiguous.

[–] moon@lemmy.cafe 56 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Lina Khan is literally too good for consumers, that's why she don't last :(

[–] just_an_average_joe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

Who was that punchable face guy who undid net neutrality? And she is completely opposite.

[–] Budakai@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

You mean this guy? Ajit Pai. Fuck him and his ridiculous mug

[–] Lavitz@lemmings.world 7 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Ajit Pai is that scumbags name. If I ever bump into him at a grocery store I plan to give him the same level of respect he gave the American people.

[–] MrPoopbutt@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

I doubt he does his own grocery shopping, because he doesn't have to, and also because of the exact reason you posted.

Having said that, if he were in a grocery store and I saw him, I'd be right at your side to ensure that piece of shit knew what I thought of him.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

I.e. an atomic wedgie?

[–] moon@lemmy.cafe 1 points 4 hours ago

Literally the opposite lol. He got rid of net neutrality with the help of spamming with a bunch of fake bots for support. Nobody actually supported it, except the monopolies of course.

This is pretty close to banning that exact action. That should've instantly kicked him out of office for that, but it showed pretty clearly that we weren't in a democracy...

[–] 4lan@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago

She is doing more for the working class than any other government official. And yet no one knows her name

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 69 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Awesome, now make them criminally liable.

Corporations are people, no? Throw them in prison.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 9 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

"I will believe that corporations are people, once Texas executes one."

[–] Naryn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

It's executed plenty.

12 were executed in 2022

Zoom in: Texas had 23 clinics in operation before the decision — 12 shut down and 11 are open but only offer services other than abortion.

[–] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 day ago (3 children)

IMO, corporate punishments should work like that: steal a little from someone? Lose 90 days of profit. Steal a lot? Lose a couple years of profits. Kill someone? Lose 20 years of profits

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

They tried that when McDonald's served coffee that gave an old woman 3rd degree burns on her genitals.

A single days profits from coffee.

McDonald's fought that in court, and spent many thousands of dollars on a PR campaign to vilify the woman they burned.

[–] Sabata11792@ani.social 1 points 5 hours ago

Jail or volcano sacrifice. I'm sick of rich fucks being above the law and fines are just an expected, calculated, and bet against expense to a big business.

[–] Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Jailing CEOs works better only because money is easy to manipulate. Loosing 20 years of profit just means bankruptcy. Make a new name new company buys all assets of bankrupt at fault company and nothing but the name changes. I'm with the idea that if companies have personhood than the person in charge is responsible for harm that personhood does.

[–] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

I wonder if having to face consequences for their actions would change how CEOs behave 🤔

[–] moakley@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

The CEO would just be a fall guy, and the decision-making would go to someone else.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

I mean given the depths they'll go through to dodge taxes I think they absolutely would change behavior.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 94 points 1 day ago (9 children)

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.

[–] FPSkra@lemmy.world 65 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] FrowingFostek@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I've said it once and I'll say it again. I love the work Lina Khan is doing. Its going to be so sad when Kamala gives her the boot :(

[–] Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why would Harris give her the boot? Khan was placed in position by Biden.

[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Its up for debate if she will, but a lot of big ticket donors are ~~bribing her~~ requesting it as a favor for donating to her campaign.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 10 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I thought most of those big donors were just straight up backing trump. I guess the tariffs got them down?

[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 12 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

That or they pay both sides.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago

They definitely pay both sides. It's a small price for an almost guaranteed increase in profits.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 day ago (7 children)

They can do it for reviews, why not news?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago (3 children)
[–] nothingcorporate@lemmy.world 9 points 23 hours ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago

The Federal Trade Commission today announced a final rule that will combat fake reviews and testimonials by prohibiting their sale or purchase and allow the agency to seek civil penalties against knowing violators.

Oh good, glad they didn't ban obvious joke ones people post for free, like the top reviews for the 50 gallon barrel of lube.

[–] grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I just got a can of diet Coke in exchange for a 5-star review of a local eatery. I legit like the eatery, but would not have left a review without the bribe.

Is that a legit review or a fake one?

[–] beetlejuice0001@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 hours ago

You received an item for the review. That’s a bribe. Fake.

IMHO, if they'd give you the Coke for any review, regardless of rating, that's fine. If they demand a 5-star rating for the Coke, then that's no good.

Your review might have been honest, but not everybody else's who just wanted the Coke will be.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›