You must log in or # to comment.
While we’re at it, can be ban AI generated product reviews and comparisons? That would be rad.
First sentence, emphasis mine:
The Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday voted unanimously to ban marketers from using fake reviews, such as those generated with AI technology, and other misleading practices to promote their products and services.
Just being cheeky though. I don’t always read the articles either. But Lina Kahn has been on fire lately.
I read the article, but I more took it as line item reviews from the likes of Amazon, Yelp, Google, etc. It didn’t seem like they were targeting product writeups and comparisons from unaffiliated third party websites.
Yeah I get what you mean now. The SEO spamming AI garbage sites predate LLMs and are one of the worst things about the modern web. It’s a legitimately necessary skill to identify and filter them out. I actually think they probably contributed to some of reddit’s recent rise since everyone started adding “reddit” to their queries just to bypass that garbage.
Exactly. It used to be easy enough to spot that spam, but it’s like damn near anything involving a given product is sponsored content/AI-generated junk and it’s a royal pain sifting through them to do legit research before plunking down a decent chunk of money on something.
Fake reviews sure, but what does comparisons have to do with it? Sounds like a perfect use for an LLM to compare two different product description pages.
Nah fuck that. If I’m seeking out detailed comparisons, I’d rather real world reports from an enthusiast or someone knowledgeable in the field. I’m not talking just comparing side-by-side specs, I can do that with two browser windows myself. The problem is that you’ll find these reports, but they’re absolute drivel written either by machine that has no idea what the hell it’s talking about, or a sponsored content “article” written by some yoyo that’s clearly being paid to promote one product over the other.
I find the AI summaries of reviews Amazon does on product pages to be fairly inoffensive and generally a decent use of AI.
But it’s also clearly marked as auto-generated.
This seems…unenforceable. they’ll catch the low hanging fruit and it gives marketplaces incentive to pretend like they care, but the burden of proof to show someone is using fake reviews or view/likebots is kind of high.
There is no way to enforce this. Its just a feel good solution that will never happen, just like the FCC can’t stop all the robocalling.
Don’t forget mobile device zero days via text
deleted by creator
I can’t think of how you would enforce it either, but I do think there’s value in putting a line in the sand. It makes it clear that yes, this is crossing a line into illegal activity. Will everyone care and stop? No. I do believe some will, though, as a result of this.
Yeah, I see this probably like using tax law to catch a mobster. Maybe they committed other worse crimes, but you don’t have evidence. Maybe you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they paid for reviews or followers or whatever else. It probably won’t stop every instance, but it does give an ability to stop abusers and gives an incentive to not use these tactics, because it could be proven and held against you in the future.
get those whistles blowing
Kinda. This is lip-service. Impossible to enforce and yet the gains of fake reviews are so high.
You know it’s true because Samantha J of Chicago, Il says that my comments are “100% truthful and A++++”. And Barry E of Austin, TX says that I am “Easily a golden god and should be respected.” Also Jessica J of Pittsburgh, PA says that I’m “A fantastic lover and totally doesn’t have a weird shaped penis that looks like a upside down Florida.”.
Seems like with a lack of effective enforcement it could make things worse in some ways, since it would give a competitive advantage to the marketers corrupt enough to willingly break the law and try to get away with it. Also if there’s a situation where this kind of fraud is basically required to be competitive, it could allow authorities to selectively go after people for illegitimate reasons with this as a pretext.
Lina Khan is a hero.
The single best thing Biden has done.
Here’s her interview with Senator Bernie Sanders
Lina Khan is PRECISELY why SCOTUS overturned Chevron. This will just get challenged in that district with a single Trump judge then get pushed up to SCOTUS to be ruled unconstitutional.
I freaking love how Lina Khan is running the FTC. She might be my new favorite cabinet member of all time.
She’s a bad ass.
I have banned my waistline from getting any larger.
This is not the same thing. In your case, only you are responsible and accountable for your actions. So no one but you can do anything with real penality. Now, if the FTC banned you from growing your waistline (wrong govt dept, i know), then there would be a potential fiscal penalty and maybe even prison with enough violations.
The right sarcastic comment should have been: I have banned my cute dog from jumping on people when they come over. because we know that i’ll fuss at her, but never punish her harshly.
if the FTC banned you from growing your waistline (wrong govt dept, i know)
I hope, there’s no right government department for this. 😅
To take effect in October. 2033.
The best way to get that rolling is to try something. Doing nothing and complaining about it certainly won’t help. Sure, changing your diet and exercising might not prevent all growth of your waistline, but it’ll probably be able to slow it down at minimum. With enough effort and time it might even shrink it. It’s better to start trying literally anything than just sitting back and saying no one should try because it’s not going to be perfect.
(This comment applies to things other than your waistline.)
🙄
Whoosh
I think you got woodshed. His comment used the example of the smart ass answer about their waist to say the ftc is at least trying and while this may not be effective at least it’s a start.
So you’re saying they got the joke, they’re just disagreeing with the sarcastic remark. Maybe. I have reread it and it still doesn’t sound funny to me, was it meant to? If not, does whoosh apply?
And more importantly, why am I trapped in this woodshed?
I’m the writer of the comment. It was meant as a reflection of what they were saying. The original comment was being sarcastic saying they were banning their waistline from getting larger implying it that wouldn’t work, just as the FTC ban wouldn’t work. My comment was saying they should start putting in some effort to prevent their waistline from growing and it might help some, just like the FTC ban is a step in the right direction for making a difference.
Doing nothing and waiting for perfection is not a solution. Complaining about every step not being a complete cure gets no where. The only way to start making a difference is to take some action. It probably won’t be ideal, but it’s better than nothing and gets things moving the right way.
Basically, my comment was flipping their sarcastic dismissive reply into a serious productive message.
Well I certainly hope you are right and it does make a difference. Without a robust mechanism for enforcement it will be worse than useless. Which was the point of their joke, and which you did not address.
No it wasn’t a funny comment
No no you’re behind the woodshed, he took you there and is now bashfully looking at his feet.
Yeah. We’ll see.
That’s great and all, I hope they actually manage to enforce it though.
Doesn’t it ever feel to you like they’ve just collectively stopped making good products by and large and you have to really just, hunt disproportionately hard to find something good and you don’t know what to believe anymore when you have a product related decision to make because everything is atroturfed to fuck?
I’m sorry, Amazon complained about fake reviews!? They know what site they run right, and more to the point the behavior they almost explicitly condone on that site?
they actually dont condone it, its just that the rate they come in is faster than they can filter out.
for example a while back, Amazon removed Ravpower, Aukey, Mpow from Amazon products list due to companies asking basically paying buyers ti give good reviews. its why those companies basically were deleted off in the U.S market allowing for companies like Anker to rapidly grow.
if you live in the bay area in california, there is a well known seller who frequents tech swaps/flea markets selling the products of these companies for very cheap.
Oh they absolutely condone it, both by frequently ignoring reports of fake reviews and occasionally even banning the reporter and by allowing companies to do that thing where they swap product pages to get a bunch of free reviews from something completely different.
on the flip side, they clamp down hard on communities where companies pay people for reviews for free products. It was a huge issue on reddit and several of its communities were essentially banned. its a two faced situation where soo much shit is happening on all sides that it doesnt look like theyre actively fully one sided.
Why do they need to filter?
Can’t they easily tell that an account bought a certain product? Only allow those accounts to make a review, and only accounts that have made a certain number of purchases before.
there are communities off amazon on various platforms where companies will basically refund your entire order after they confirm a 5* review for a product they bought, and amazon basically attempts to chase those communities wherever they go. It’s not easy for amazon to find out which purchases were purchases that were legitamately made by a user vs a user whose been using amazon, but took a backroom deal to get a free product.
I had a roomate in college who was in those kinds of programs to get free shit and can verify that he basically was refunded after purchase of stuff. Of course, this action is extremely against Amazons TOS
Sure. But can they enforce it? Chevron says maybe not.
I know what you mean, but let’s not misinform accidentally. Chevron Deference is the decision in which courts defer to the expertise of the federal agencies when statutes are vague or otherwise ambiguous. Loper Bright is the decision that overturns it and is a power grab by the supreme court.
Court rulings aside, how do you actually detect this for enforcement?
Like everything else. Complaint -> lawsuit -> discovery
Maybe we can start with sellers that swap items and keep their reviews so they show up first in listings.
There are multiple ways you could ago about proving it. You could look at the timing of reviews. (Do they suddenly get an influx and then it drops?) You could look at the IP address of reviews to find correlations. You could look at the content of reviews. (Do they share similar characteristics that don’t match legit reviews?)
These, and other things, can be used to start the process. Then you enter into discovery and get their emails and account information. This is likely to get you absolute proof if there wasn’t enough already.
Exactly. Making false advertisment claims for health products is banned.
I know of fake health products with 10k + filed complaints and the FTC has done zilch. It needs far more funding to be effective online.
If we Fund the FTC theyre going to show up AT OUR DOORS ARMED TO THE TEETH READY TO KILL US JUST LIKE THE IRS!
I for one want us to arm the ftc
Oh good, now that that’s sorted out we can read reviews without worry.
Inflatated social media influence? Does that include the tens of thousands MAGA bots on X?
