Internet Astroturfer Fined $300,000

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced yesterday that Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetic surgery company who posted fake reviews of their services on various websites, will have to pay $300,000 to the state of New York. Cuomo's office says this is the first US case to specifically target astroturfing on the internet. "Internal emails discovered by Attorney General Cuomo's investigation show that Lifestyle Lift employees were given specific instructions to engage in this illegal activity. One e-mail to employees said: 'Friday is going to be a slow day — I need you to devote the day to doing more postings on the web as a satisfied client.' Another internal email directed a Lifestyle Lift employee to 'Put your wig and skirt on and tell them about the great experience you had.' In addition to posting on various Internet message board services, Lifestyle Lift also registered and created stand-alone Web sites, such as MyFaceliftStory.com, designed to appear as if they were created by independent and satisfied customers of Lifestyle Lift. The sites offered positive narratives about the Lifestyle Lift experience. Some of these sites purported to offer forums for users to add their own comments about Lifestyle Lift. In reality, however, Lifestyle Lift either provided all the 'user comments' themselves, or closely monitored and edited third-party comments to skew the discussion in favor of Lifestyle Lift."

Comments

So they couldn't shout across the office?

[bossanovalithium]

We all know this shit goes on, all the time, but to email about it? they deserve more than 300k fine.. Will it stop this from happening? I doubt it.

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[pizzach]

Where the hell is myslashdotstory.com!? So sad...so sad...

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Abreu]

In order to not be fined $300,000usd, instead of posting glowing reviews of my product, I will start posting negative reviews of my competitor's product and will ask my sales force to spread FUD about them... ...

What?

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[clam666]

The overall problem is that the message still hasn't gotten out to people.

Stop believing everything you read on the internet; most of what you read is, at best, an opinion. The rest of it is entertainment and outright lies.

If you're watching a third rate cable channel a 3 a.m. and you see a "news style" interview with a doctor about a growing medical problem that can be solved with a supplement called "pomegranacai" extract or by using a "XTremeGazelle Exercycle" with testominials from other doctors in white coats and satisfied customers who lost 50 lbs, it is completely fake.

If you know that, why would you believe anything on the internet with testimonials, blogs, google ad links, myspace links and the like? Are you the first person who's never been flooded with SPAM?

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[bossanovalithium]

I watched an infomercial on electric vegetables once. I think the tide is turning, people now rip the piss from Amazon obvious fake reviews. But there's always goign to be a percentile that you wouldn't want helping you across the road.

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[2obvious4u]

This case is Fraud.
Spreading FUD would be Slander/Defamation.

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sure you weren't watching Cinemax?

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[pizzach]

The most interesting thing about slashdot is when I think I may be moderated funny, I get moderated insightful. When I think I am insightful, I am funny. When I think I am a troll, I am insightful. Such a confusing community we have here.

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Coldmoon]

In order to not be fined $300,000usd, instead of posting glowing reviews of my product, I will start posting negative reviews of my competitor's product and will ask my sales force to spread FUD about them... ...

What?

Instead of attacking your competitors in some form of infantile temper-tantrum, why not use these same marketing resources to provide dedicated out-reach support for your products and services? Perhaps answering questions honestly, transparently, and completely? Jeesh, use the brains you were given to understand your customers and to making your products/services better...

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Anonymous Coward]

So judging by the current "4 Funny", you where trying to be insightful, right?

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[mrmeval]

They didn't fine them enough so they will still be in business and will use more deniable means to do the exact same crap.

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Anonymous Coward]

whoosh!

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Abreu]

Wake me up when SCO gets fined $300,000

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Dragonslicer]

Apparently a lot of moderators give Insightful or Informative instead of Funny, because Funny doesn't improve your karma score. Why they bother doing this for people that are already at Excellent karma, I have no idea.

Sincerely,
A Very Satisfied Slashdot Customer

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Dragonslicer]

But lying about your product and/or your competitor's product is so much easier than actually improving your product. Don't they teach that in the first semester of business school?

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Mister Whirly]

It will be the same year Duke Nuke'em Forever is released, which will also be the Linux Year of the Desktop.

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sincerely,

A Very Satisfied Slashdot Customer

In other words, you're on Cmdr Taco's payroll!:P

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[cayenne8]

"I think the tide is turning, people now rip the piss from Amazon obvious fake reviews. "

I have no idea what you just said here.

What does "rip the piss" mean? How do you rip the piss from an Amazon fake review?

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Anonymous Coward]

with 65 trillion dollars stolen (we can argue about the exact amount), do you seriously think $300,000 is a barrier to stopping this kind of activity?

Hell, it's a cosmetic surgery company, three patients with a facelift, and they've paid the freaking thing off. This isn't even a slap on the hand, it's the cost of spreading fascism--an acceptable cost to those who are destroying America.

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[bossanovalithium]

it means to make fun of, but more viciously.

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Anonymous Coward]

..and world peace.

Oh, and a Pony!

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Now you've got me wondering, how crazy and obviously fake would a product need to be before an informercial for it would result in no one trying to buy it? Given how many people fall for spam sales pitches, I bet it would have to be pretty far out there.

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[david_thornley]

No, it'll be the Hurd Year of the Desktop.

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one of the rough parts of moderating -- a really good coment tends to be both insightful and funny. And, IMHO, "interesting" means "I think you probably had a good point but you didn't make it clear enough."

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Fluffeh]

I don't check people's karma before modding up or down... If it's funny, I give it funny, if it's actually insightful, I give insightful, if it's both (funny BECAUSE it is insightful) then it's normally an insight.

Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?

[Fluffeh]

Well, you could do it the Australian way. Cash for Comments worked for a while...

Suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Pwned... and so they should be.

What I really want to know

[morgan_greywolf]

What I really want to know is this: does this "anti-astroturfing" law apply to "Team Windows"? If so, watch out Softies, Cuomo's got your number....

Re:What I really want to know

[morgan_greywolf]

BTW--I really want to know the answer to the question (it isn't rhetorical), so any legal experts out there, please give as a complete an answer as you can.

Re:What I really want to know

[Hyppy]

I'd rather have Microsoft shills than the horde of Cowards. Team Microsoft usually at least contributes something to the discussion, even if it's misinformed at times, as opposed to AC wharrgarbl.

Re:What I really want to know

[drsmithy]

What I really want to know is this: does this "anti-astroturfing" law apply to "Team Windows"?

Certainly. However, the law requires more evidence than "does not hate Microsoft, therefore is an astroturfer".

Re:What I really want to know

[Sj0]

I was going to say something along those lines.

I mean, I'm pretty positive about Windows 7, but it doesn't mean I work for Microsoft.

Astroturfing is destroying discourse on the Internet. You can never know for certain if you're arguing with someone with convictions or just some paid marketing drone. Where once you'd have to come up with a good argument, people can now just point and say "You're just being paid to express that opinion, since nobody sane would ever have it!"

Re:What I really want to know

[Anonymous Coward]

What I really want to know is this: does this "anti-astroturfing" law apply to "Team Windows"?

Certainly. However, the law requires more evidence than "does not hate Microsoft, therefore is an astroturfer".

That is usually the main indicator.

Re:What I really want to know

[morgan_greywolf]

Certainly. However, the law requires more evidence than "does not hate Microsoft, therefore is an astroturfer".

There are several accounts here on Slashdot, though, that not only vehemently defend Microsoft, but use Microsoft marketing clueless drivel to do so. Saying that Windows is better because adopting Linux on your server is more costly due to retraining costs is sure to get you labeled as an "astroturfer." Surely if that is your argument, you can come up with a better one than that load of BS.

Re:What I really want to know

[drsmithy]

There are several accounts here on Slashdot, though, that not only vehemently defend Microsoft, but use Microsoft marketing clueless drivel to do so.

And probably an order of magnitude more accounts do exactly the same thing about Linux and/or OSS (although by OSS they typically mean the GPL). Guess they must be astroturfing, huh ?

Not to mention all the "Apple or die" zealots.

Saying that Windows is better because adopting Linux on your server is more costly due to retraining costs is sure to get you labeled as an "astroturfer."

Thus proving my point.

The idea that anyone is astroturfing Slashdot is, in itself, both dumb and paranoid in equal amounts. Do you seriously think anyone with both decision-making power and a lack of technical knowledge a) actually reads Slashdot in the first place and b) is going to make up their mind based on a posting here (or even a thousand of them) ?

Re:What I really want to know

[drsmithy]

Astroturfing is destroying discourse on the Internet.

Rubbish. Paranoia about "astroturfing" is stressing certain individuals who in some way define themselves by their feelings about whatever-it-is that isn't being "astroturfed".

You can never know for certain if you're arguing with someone with convictions or just some paid marketing drone.

Why do you care ? What difference does it make ?

Where once you'd have to come up with a good argument, people can now just point and say "You're just being paid to express that opinion, since nobody sane would ever have it!"

Which they've done in the past, just with different words instead of "you're being paid". People who zealously and steadfastly hold true to a particularly opinion are not a new phenomenon, either on the internet or in real life. Whether they hold that opinion because of "convictions" or a paycheck, is, at most, a peripheral issue .

Re:What I really want to know

[morgan_greywolf]

The idea that anyone is astroturfing Slashdot is, in itself, both dumb and paranoid in equal amounts. Do you seriously think anyone with both decision-making power and a lack of technical knowledge a) actually reads Slashdot in the first place and b) is going to make up their mind based on a posting here (or even a thousand of them) ?
   

A) Yes and B) No. The reason I think A) is true is because I know Microsoft's culture. They are paranoid. And they are out to win at all costs. And winning for Microsoft means that everyone else has to lose. Including any credible competition, which, we know from the Halloween Memos that Microsoft has viewed Linux as a credible threat since at least 1998. That's more than 10 years.

Re:What I really want to know

[Sj0]

There's a distinct difference between a zealot and an astroturfer -- Most important among them is that one of them believes what they're saying, and the other is just pretending to believe what they're saying.

It's the fundamental difference in whether the conversation is honest or not that poisons internet discourse. Companies are shooting themselves in the foot by associating positive opinions of their product with dishonest under-the-radar paid advertisements.

Re:What I really want to know

[TCaptain]

Why do you care ? What difference does it make ?

I think the point that the parent post was trying to make is that originally, the internet could have been a tool for meaningful and intelligent discourse. You know intelligent conversation? It can be enjoyable at times. Beneficial too.

The attitude shown in your post is that the internet is already meaningless and we should not care about it.

It's sad that 99.9% of forums out there are reduced to meaningless trolling, astroturfing and rampant idiocy. I find it ironic that the technological advances that brought about the internet has done more to glorify stupidity than anything in the last hundred years.

Re:What I really want to know

[drsmithy]

There's a distinct difference between a zealot and an astroturfer -- Most important among them is that one of them believes what they're saying, and the other is just pretending to believe what they're saying.

How is that relevant to the content of the discussion itself ?

If someone is right, the reason they're right is irrelevant. If someone is wrong, either they're prepared to change their opinion or they're not. If they're not prepared to change their opinion, then the motivation behind that being zealotry or money is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact they're wrong.

It's the fundamental difference in whether the conversation is honest or not that poisons internet discourse.

No, it's people like you yelling "astroturfer" every time someone has a different opinion to you, rather than actually engaging in discussion, that "poisons internet discourse".

Re:What I really want to know

[drsmithy]

They are paranoid.

They're also a business. Where do you think the "return" part of "return on investment" is generated from paying people to troll sites like Slashdot ? It must cost - conservatively - millions to do it at the scale some people like to think it happens. How do you think that expense is justified given that you (and presumably anyone else prepared to spend more than a few seconds thinking about it) agree no-one actually responsible for giving Microsoft money is likely to be influenced ?

Re:What I really want to know

[drsmithy]

The attitude shown in your post is that the internet is already meaningless and we should not care about it.

No, my attitude is that you inherently have no way of knowing someone's motivations for posting in an internet forum. It is, therefore, a complete and utter waste of time - indeed, it is counter-productive - trying to second-guess them.

At best, someone's motivations for being involved in a given discussion are irrelevant to the content of the discussion itself.

It's sad that 99.9% of forums out there are reduced to meaningless trolling, astroturfing and rampant idiocy.

No, it's sad that the first thing lots of people do when someone disagrees with them is yell "astroturfer". THAT is the real problem - the refusal to even conceptually accommodate differing opinions.

I find it ironic that the technological advances that brought about the internet has done more to glorify stupidity than anything in the last hundred years.

TV has done vastly more to "glorify stupidity" than the internet ever could. The internet just gives people a voice. There are a plethora of TV shows that active encourage and reward people for acting foolishly.

Re:What I really want to know

[Sj0]

The poison is the erosion of authenticity from internet message boards.

If I'm talking with my buddy about my new car and he's saying his aunt had one and it ran great, it's completely different than if a car dealer is having the exact same discussion with me -- the conversation with my buddy has more authenticity, exactly because it's not a marketing message. The same facts may be presented, but it's a completely different message. When I can't know whether my buddy is just an advertiser paid to talk about the car or not, the lack of authenticity issue then poisons my conversation with them too.

When it becomes commonly known practice for car dealers to misrepresent themselves as regular people, as on-line it's becoming increasingly common for marketing to hire people to post fake posts, fake reviews, and create fake fan websites, suddenly the same authenticity that made people value forums, review sites, or fan websites is eroded, poisoning the whole internet.

Marketing executives always keep authenticity in mind because of the powerful effect it has on how a message is percieved.

But way to make an ass of yourself by making assumptions about how I conduct discussions.

Re:What I really want to know

[drsmithy]

The poison is the erosion of authenticity from internet message boards.

You are begging the question. There is no "authenticity" in internet message boards to begin with.

None. At all. By default participants are, for all practical purposes, completely anonymous and isolated from any consequences of their behaviour. Anyone can say anything and the only way you have to verify the veracity of their input is to refer to a "primary source".

When it becomes commonly known practice for car dealers to misrepresent themselves as regular people, as on-line it's becoming increasingly common for marketing to hire people to post fake posts, fake reviews, and create fake fan websites, suddenly the same authenticity that made people value forums, review sites, or fan websites is eroded, poisoning the whole internet.

"Internet message boards" are not "losing authenticity". They never *had* any. The same is true for any communications medium that is unregulated and/or anonymous.

Re:What I really want to know

[morgan_greywolf]

The "return" part is "total global domination." Unless they've seriously changed their tune since Bill Gates stopped running things day-to-day (which I doubt very much given the man he left in charge), Microsoft will have nothing less.

Millions is nothing to Microsoft. Microsoft has $25 billion in cash sitting in the bank.

What's $20 million to a company with 10 times that in cash and a market cap in excess of $200 billion?

Re:What I really want to know

[Sj0]

I completely and totally disagree. In fact, the fact that we're having this discussion is proof of that authenticity.

If I believed you weren't arguing for yourself, if I thought you were being paid by a media company to try to shift the public frame towards astroturfing being okay, then you'd lose the authenticity you have, and I'd stop arguing with you -- Arguing with someone whose job it is to present a certain point of view would be a waste of time.

It's because I believe you're a regular person expressing your opinion of your own free will that your opinion gains authenticity. When the fundamental premise of arguing of one's own conviction and opinion leaves, when someone is aruging as an obligation to their employer, the whole discussion -- regardless of what is said -- loses value.

Re:What I really want to know

[morgan_greywolf]

You keep using that term "authenticity," which doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Authenticity != accuracy. Someone can say something that they really believe is true, and even if it isn't, it's authentic. Someone posting for purely ulterior motives, lying for whatever financial gain that they can stand to benefit from, posts their crap, intelligent discourse becomes impossible.

There really was "authenticity" back in the days of Usenet. Anyone old enough to remember Usenet, FidoNet, etc., back in their glory days will tell you that.

Re:What I really want to know

[drsmithy]

I completely and totally disagree. In fact, the fact that we're having this discussion is proof of that authenticity.

No, it's not. You have no idea what my motivations are for posting in this thread.

If I believed you weren't arguing for yourself, if I thought you were being paid by a media company to try to shift the public frame towards astroturfing being okay, then you'd lose the authenticity you have, and I'd stop arguing with you -- Arguing with someone whose job it is to present a certain point of view would be a waste of time.

Arguing with someone who won't change their mind for any reason is a waste of time.

It's because I believe you're a regular person expressing your opinion of your own free will that your opinion gains authenticity. When the fundamental premise of arguing of one's own conviction and opinion leaves, when someone is aruging as an obligation to their employer, the whole discussion -- regardless of what is said -- loses value.

The problem is you have no way of knowing the motivations of the other people in the discussion. You can make a call, sure, but sometimes you're going to be wrong.

Re:What I really want to know

[drsmithy]

You keep using that term "authenticity," which doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Oh, I'm pretty sure the person who started using "authenticity" thinks I'm using it the way they intended.

Authenticity != accuracy. Someone can say something that they really believe is true, and even if it isn't, it's authentic. Someone posting for purely ulterior motives, lying for whatever financial gain that they can stand to benefit from, posts their crap, intelligent discourse becomes impossible.

The problem is you have no way of knowing why someone is posting what they're posting. Nor have you, ever (well, at least not since the internet was big enough to encompass more than a few dozen institutions).

There really was "authenticity" back in the days of Usenet. Anyone old enough to remember Usenet, FidoNet, etc., back in their glory days will tell you that.

I was there. I do remember. Trolling usenet was practically a professional sport, and you no more knew a poster's motivations then than you do now.

Re:What I really want to know

[drsmithy]

The "return" part is "total global domination."

How do you propose trolling Slashdot - probably the Internet's highest-profile anti-Microsoft site - is going to achieve that ?

What's $20 million to a company with 10 times that in cash and a market cap in excess of $200 billion?

Difficult as it might be for some to believe, there's not just a great big pool of money at Microsoft's headquarters that people can just walk by and pull wads of cash from to spend on furthering the empire. Expenses still have to be justified, and millions is not an insignificant part of any business unit's budget.

Re:What I really want to know

[Sj0]

I don't think you know what authenticity is. It's not a fact, and it has little to do with the actual motivations of the speaker. Authenticity is the feeling from the listener that the speaker is being genuine, that the message is genuine.

Some of the most authentic-feeling brands in existence are totally fake: The Daily Show regularly blasts the news-entertainment media for inauthenticity(In fact, they got the show Crossfire taken off the air), despite being a fake news show themselves -- their authenticity comes from admitting they're inauthentic, another part of the news-entertainment media. Haagen-Dasz sounds vaguely scandinavian, but nobody realises that the brand is made up of a couple fake words, and the company actually started in the Bronx, New York.

For a very long time, crappy internet reviews or statements on forums were extremely authentic -- they may be stupid, they may be wrong, but you knew it was a regular person saying it. If someone made a recommendation, you knew it was a regular person making it. If someone had an opinion, you knew it was a regular person who had it.

Today, marketing companies are poisoning that authenticity by paying for fake websites, fake posts, and fake reviews. Suddenly, that shout-out in a forum post isn't necessarily genuine. Suddenly, that passionate Republican or Democrat isn't necessarily a real party supporter. Suddenly, that person sticking up for the nuclear power plant or knocking the Prius and talking up his Ford Focus isn't necessarily a real person expressing real opinions, but a mere actor in a cynical and inauthentic theatre.

$300,000 that's all?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a small price to pay.. not even close to the cost of a decent condo. Cost of doing business, as they say...

Re:$300,000 that's all?

[morgan_greywolf]

Per occurrence.

Re:$300,000 that's all?

[Anonymous Coward]

The multiple web postings postings and the web site are all together considered one violation.

It was totally worth it. Trust me.

Re:$300,000 that's all?

[Hyppy]

No, it's $300,000. Once. It's not even a fine, really, it's an out-of-court settlement to cover some investigative costs so that the AG's office doesn't have to spend more money gathering evidence.

Well...

[Aristophrenia]

Sounds like Sandra Lee wasn't happy with the results...




(Google their names before you mod off-topic)

So?

[cdrudge]

Marketing department tells lies about their product. News at 11.

Re:So?

[glop]

Did you read the summary?
They lied and got fined.
That sounds like news to me.
I had always known that people were planting fake reviews on forums and thought the only defense be cautious. So hearing that this is actually illegal is big news in my opinion.

Re:So?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Marketing department tells lies about their product. News at 11.

Indeed. I think that prosecuting this company for astro-turfing is pointless and inconsistent. As long as we have such a laissez-faire attitude towards all the lies and misdirection that marketing people have been doing for decades now, going after a handful of astro-turfers does nothing but give people a false-sense of trust in what they read on the net. Never mind the free speech implications that come into play when defining exactly where the line is between valid promotion and astro-turfing. (does giving away a free "review" produce with a promise of future "review" products qualify as illegal, what if the promise is never spelled out? what if its not a give-away, just an open-ended loan, or what if it is 1 year loan and it just so happens that the next review product shows up in exactly one year too?)

Re:So?

[timeOday]

Your recap leaves out the news and then claims it is not news. The news is not that they lied, but that they were caught and prosecuted. Good.

Re:So?

[frozentier]

Marketing department tells lies about their product. News at 11.

Ha, yeah, no kidding... Clorox pays people to get on TV and tell the world how good their bleach is, whether or not they've ever used it. I don't see how this is any different.

Re:So?

[plague3106]

No, there's a pretty clear difference between astro-turfing and normal marketing. In normal marketing you know the message is coming from the company, and thus can easily take said message with a grain of salt. In astro-turfing, its made to sound like someone living down the street actually tried the product and liked it. So the assumption there is that the person making the statement isn't biased because they are on the companies payroll.

Re:So?

[Still an AC]

So they got a little slap on the wrist. I would think it's safe to assume that they got more then $300k worth of business from their lies. Looks like a win for them....

Re:So?

[MaskedSlacker]

News yes. /. relevant? Not so much.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's illegal. "Clorox pays people to get on TV" but if they air those commercials, they are required to state the person in the commercial was "compensated" so that you know he/she was paid to say what he/she is saying. Now if they aired the same commercial without the disclaimer, it would be fraud just like astroturfing, except it would be more blatant. Astroturfing is more subtle, and should be more illegal if not just as illegal as False Advertising on TV/Radio/Magazine.

My main beef is all the astroturfing the Obama presidential compaign participated in: Why hasn't anyone said anything about that?

Re:So?

[cayenne8]

"My main beef is all the astroturfing the Obama presidential compaign participated in: Why hasn't anyone said anything about that?"

Careful there Mr. Coward,

Someone may brand you as a racist.

Re:So?

[oatworm]

My main beef is all the astroturfing the Obama presidential compaign participated in: Why hasn't anyone said anything about that?

It's because political astroturfing is considered free speech, while commercial speech is far more heavily restricted. Plus, it's far more difficult to enforce - people will actually volunteer to spread a campaign's message (or pretend they're spreading an opposing campaign's message if they think that doing so will get the opposing campaign in trouble). They usually won't volunteer to spread a corporation's message.

Re:So?

[Knara]

I see you have a mid-range UID. Give it a few years. You will then realize that slashdot has always been this way, and that your initial idea of what slashdot *should* be is not, in fact, what it is.

Re:So?

[Larryish]

Here is a gray area:

Imagine that I want to promote an established company.

This company has a file full of testimonials written by various customers.

I buy 20 domains and create "consumer review" websites which accept reviews from anywhere.

At least once per week I post a testimonial from the customers (real testimonials from real customers) on each website.

Is that ethical? If so, why? If not, why not?

Re:So?

[MaskedSlacker]

How dare ye point out my mark of shame!

Re:So?

[BoomerSooner]

Why they post that is beyond me. Serves no purpose.

Re:So?

[masonc]

Don't you understand what a shill is?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists. The term plant is also used."
Shills in marketing: See also: Astroturfing

It is subterfuge. There's a huge difference between puffery, obviously overstating your values, and pretending to be a dispassionate third party in order to trick people. We know marketing overstates the product, that's built in to our reactions, but we tend to trust impartial thrid party recommendations. Everyone in marketing knows it is wrong to cross that line.

Re:So?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

No, there's a pretty clear difference between astro-turfing and normal marketing. In normal marketing you know the message is coming from the company, and thus can easily take said message with a grain of salt.

Oh really?

What is product placement then?
What about those advertisements in newspapers and magazines that look like articles?
What about infomercials?

Re:So?

[ChadM]

Are visitors going to be under the impression that the actual giver of testimony created the site, or will it be spelled out that you're the one doing it? It's not exactly a brain teaser of an ethical dilemma...

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you allow the bad viewpoints and reviews to be posted at the same time, and the testimonials are clearly coming from the company - and not the customer directly, then yes thats fine.

IF you pretend to be the customer in the testimonial, or block any reviews but your own while claiming to accept public reviews like the websites in the article - then this would be unethical and worthy of a fine.

It's a really simple line IMO - if you're lying its fucking unethical... actually kinda stunned that had to be explained.

Re:So?

[Larryish]

O.k., let's try something different.

I am trying to promote an existing company.

The company has a file full of video testimonials from customers.

I buy ad slots on 20 television stations, and show the video testimonials from customers.

Is that ethical? If so, why? And if not, why not?

Like phone sex with fat ugly chicks or even dudes

[Anonymous Coward]

But I have to credit Lifestyle Lift with the trustworthiness needed to at least make their employees wear skirts and wigs.

Just goes to show what a good company they are. And on another note, I found my lifestyle lift to be a quite effective alternative to surgery.

Re:Like phone sex with fat ugly chicks or even dud

[Buck2]

I had three Lifestyle Lifts and now have more confidence than ever. I look good, feel confident, and just landed a new high-paying job. I don't know why the government is giving them a hard time. Don't they have something else to do, like fight crime or win wars or something?

legal

[fulldecent]

>> New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced yesterday that Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetic surgery company who posted fake reviews of their services on various websites, will have to pay $300,000 to the state of New York. Cuomo's office says this is the first US case to specifically target astroturfing on the internet.

How is this illegal?

Re:legal

[TheRealMindChild]

False Advertisement.

You and I can say anything about any product we want... that's our opinion. But if the company making a product makes claims that are untrue about said product it's False Advertisement. These people just try to hide it by pretending to not be affiliated with the company. That may even be in itself Fraud.

Re:legal

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know the legal term, but this seems like fraud and misrepresentation. There are restrictions on how a company can advertise. For instance they cannot claim in commercials that person X endorses the product if that person doesn't actually agree to it. They cannot make unsubstantiated or totally erroneous claims.

I think the law takes a dim view of trying to circumvent these advertising laws by pretending to be someone else and delivering the same message.

Re:legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so all those Apple zealots are actually secret Apple employees? I knew it!

Re:legal

[Anonymous Coward]

False (or deceptive) Advertising

Re:legal

[2obvious4u]

• How is this illegal?

It is Fraud.

Re:legal

[Just Some Guy]

But if the company making a product makes claims that are untrue about said product it's False Advertisement.

So all those "male enhancement" commercials on TV are real, and portray real customers with satisfactory experiences?

This stuff is sleazy, but I don't see how it's inherently worse than other advertising we already tolerate.

Re:legal

[copponex]

A market without transparency is not a market. Consumers need accurate information to make informed decisions. The goal of major corporations is to deceive people as much as is legally possible for the greatest short-term profit possible. If the company in question gained more profit than they had to pay with fines, it's a win-win for them.

So, in a healthy market, astroturfing is illegal. I doubt this will effect any company behavior, since the fine was so low. They will just come up with some legal loophole like hiring contractors to conduct interviews with clients and put those up on the web. In a truly healthy market, any flagrant violations of the law by the CEO or a significant portion of the organization would result in the revoking of their corporate charter and the seizure and auction of all company property.

Re:legal

[plague3106]

The difference is that you KNOW YOU'RE WATCHING AN AD, paid for by the company. There are also usually disclaimers on the ad, if you look saying "actor portryal, actors potraying real customers, real customers compensated, real customer not compensated."

Re:legal

[TheRealMindChild]

No, they aren't real and a majority of the public wouldn't mistake it for real either. Aside from that, things like "Male Enhancement" are ambiguous products with ambiguous claims. About the only thing solid you can pull away from the advertisement is "These characters claim to have a better sexual experience", but what does that mean? A better orgasm? What does THAT even mean? How do you even measure it? Even if the product did nothing on the physiological level, a placebo effect can certainly cause results on the psychological level.

Re:legal

[rpillala]

It sounds like wire fraud to me. Even though wikipedia is no place to get legal advice, the definition of wire fraud is included in the article. I followed their link to the appropriate US Code section:

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

The emphasis is mine, and I think that's where this activity on the part of Lifestyle Lifts employees is illegal.

Re:legal

[rpillala]

It's been a while since I watched a commercial, but don't they put a notice at the bottom saying that the people are actors or something? Kind of like "professional driver on closed course"?

Contrast this with ads that say they're going to present real testimonials from actual customers. If they say that, then they have to do it.

Re:legal

[Rolgar]

Well, there is a difference.

When you see it in an advertisement, you know to take it with a grain of salt. That is, you know that the seller may not have credibility because they have a financial incentive to say what they say.

A review is word of mouth, an independent person who has used the product and is giving you their opinion of how well the product worked. In the pre-Internet days, you could talk to somebody you know or happen to meet who has experience with product X (say the iPhone). You expect that the person will give you an honest, unbiased opinion of the item in question, because they probably have no financial incentive in lying. Now, with online reviews, you can either go with a professional reviewer (who may have received benefit to review the item favorably), or you can go to a user review site (Amazon or NewEgg's product pages).

The anonymity of the Internet means that the seller can pose as a user, and have user credibility when they should have seller credibility. And honestly, most products only have a few dozen to a hundred or so reviews. It would be a fairly simple matter for the seller to have a marketer write up three falsified positive reviews (or even a poor review of the competitors' product) a week, and easily overwhelm the false reviews with a flood of good reviews.

Re:legal

[xouumalperxe]

This stuff is sleazy, but I don't see how it's inherently worse than other advertising we already tolerate.

"our product is the best in the market" - subjective, sleazy, legal.
"our product contains substance x" (which is actually not there) - objective, still sleazy, illegal - false advertising.
"this guy's product is great" when you're actually "this guy" but pretending not to be - astroturfing, subjective, I'm guessing illegal - fraud.

Re:legal

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they aren't real and a majority of the public wouldn't mistake it for real either. Aside from that, things like "Male Enhancement" are ambiguous products with ambiguous claims. About the only thing solid you can pull away from the advertisement is "These characters claim to have a better sexual experience", but what does that mean? A better orgasm? What does THAT even mean? How do you even measure it? Even if the product did nothing on the physiological level, a placebo effect can certainly cause results on the psychological level.

What it means is that if I ever see that guy "Bob" I'm going to kick him square in the nuts! Then you can listen to him whistle.

Re:legal

[Knara]

They seem lately be using the phrase "compensated spokesperson".

Re:legal

[BitZtream]

Ahh ... male enhancement that makes you 'thicker' and 'wider' ... Off topic I know, but could someone explain to me how thicker and wider are different when referring to the penis?

What I Wanna Know Is...

[RobotRunAmok]

...what kind of Marketing Cuomo's office did to get this story on Slashdot. Political Slashvertisements now? Or was Soulskill just passing some time surfing the website of the NY Attorney General's Office when he came upon this gem?

Microsoft shills

[jkxx]

Now hopefully someone will look into the MS shills frequenting this and other technology sites.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, because only microsoft would stoop to using shills on a tech website.......

Re:Microsoft shills

[ciderVisor]

Leave us alone !

Re:Microsoft shills

[wjousts]

Hopefully they will look into tin-foil hat shills too!

Re:Microsoft shills

[plague3106]

The problem is that you assume anyone here that actually LIKES MS' product (like me) is automatically a shill. I'm not a shill, I'm a person that was exteremly disapointed when I jumped to Linux, and thus jumped back. My Linux experience actually turned around my opinion of MS software. It was very much a case of "the grass is greener on the other side," only to find that not only wasn't it any more green, there were quite a few brown patches.

Re:Microsoft shills

[An ominous Cow art]

She shills C-sharp shells by the sea shore.

Or something like that.

Re:Microsoft shills

[socrplayr813]

Yes, because no sane person could ever disagree with you.

While there are probably MS shills out there (just like every other major company), the fact that you specifically target them in a story not at all about Microsoft suggests that you're just anti-Microsoft, which really isn't much different from being a shill.

Re:Microsoft shills

[BobMcD]

In all honesty, I find anyone who responds to a comment about the existence of shills with "I am not a shill" to be very, very suspect. Nobody was calling you out, nor am I now, and yet I'm pretty confident you feel that I am.

Point being, if your opinions are well founded and phrased well, the metamod system tends to handle the rest. Usually, anyway. You could even BE a shill, and if you made good posts you'd still be very successful.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but MS is the best at it. MS shills have numerical superiority, not to mention world class "reality distortion" capability. I would like to find out just how their shills get compensated. How much does the job pay? Is it regular work or on a contract basis? Paid in cash or just perks? I wonder about the taxes owed on the perks that are given in exchange for positive blogging and other forms of cheerleading.

Re:Microsoft shills

[GreatBunzinni]

More to the point, it sure clears up that controversy surrounding wikipedia paid edits, which some wikipedia editors tried to push a while ago.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he knew what you were saying and so did you! I really hate people like you. You spout your nonsense on forums like this, and then act like people disagreeing with you somehow proves your point. All because you didn't really say what you clearly said. You, in your incredible wisdom, were just baiting the ignorant.

Re:Microsoft shills

[kalirion]

All right, fess up, how much did Linus pay you to post that comment?

Re:Microsoft shills

[mcgrew]

Not to mention Sony shills, who seem to always have mod points at slashdot. I was an XCP victim, but any time I say anything negative about Sony I'm modded down.

I wonder if that's illegal as well? Probably not.

At any rate, there are also lots of shills here from other companies besides Sony and Microsoft, although it seems the Sony and Microsoft shills seem to get lots of mod points (lots of employees, so it makes sense). In their defense (my God, I can't believe I'm defending MS and Sony) if someone blasted my employer I might mod them down, too, depending on what they said.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Anonymous Coward]

McDonalds sells hamburgers. Not the greatest hamburgers, but they are very convenient. People who have no real choice often end up at McDonalds. Although there is nothing really wrong with McDonalds, there isn't a whole lot right about it either. You might try Burger King and discover that you like McDonald's better. That much I can believe, but most people who want a better choice than McDonalds will go to a real restaurant.

So I can understand why you might legitimately dislike Linux. But most of the people who jump ship from MS in search of a better experience end up with Apple. A few of them might even go back to MS, but I have yet to see that happen in real life.

You may be a genuine McDonalds fan. There really ARE some people who have acquired a test for their food, even though the majority view it as a last resort. But in the computer industry, a lot of people get paid to express an opinion. Brand loyalty is a commodity to be bought and sold. So the pro-MS comments get a fair amount of skepticism, as would a glowing review of McDonald's cuisine.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that you shill shill shilly shill LIKES MS' product (like me) is automatically a shill. I'm a shill, I'm a shill shill shill Linux, and thus more shill. My shill experience actually turned around my opinion of MS software. It was very much a case of "shill shill shill," only to find that not only wasn't it any more shilly, there were quite a few shill patches.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Anonymous Coward]

Take your tinfoil hat off. I'm sure the big bad corporations have better things to spend their money on then paying people to troll slashdot.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Anonymous Coward]

You conveniently ignore "Microsoft shills" were real and genuinely uncovered in the antitrust trial rather than being some Internet or fan boy's paranoia delusion.

To me the company has, time and again, demonstrated an unethical pattern and nothing it does should escape extreme scrutiny and major skepticism.

Only fools would believe the Microsoft of today is culturally not the same company that abused its market positions, violated patents, announced vaporware, shipped stolen source code, scammed partners, plotted against competitors with deliberate incompatibilities and even more to expand and embed their dominance.

OOXML, Silverlight, Bing... are just more of the same sorts of effort to maintain or expand control.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Alien Being]

I can't believe how many comments I'm reading that imply it's no big deal to engage in sales fraud. Everyone does it so it must be ok?

Caveat emptor is a good doctrine but it does not excuse this type of behavior, especially where they're selling a scalpel to the face.

They did this to sell their "service" and I can only assume that it's effective. If this fraud resulted in someone's face being mangled, I'd want to see them up on charges of felony assault.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Only fools would believe the Microsoft of today is culturally not the same company that abused its market positions, violated patents, announced vaporware, shipped stolen source code, scammed partners, plotted against competitors with deliberate incompatibilities and even more to expand and embed their dominance.

What big software company doesn't do all those things?

Re:Microsoft shills

[Eli Gottlieb]

It's a trend on Slashdot to call someone a Microsoft shill if they say Linux doesn't roxxors. You know it is, you've seen it. I've been called a shill on other topics across the internet all the damn time because my honest opinion goes against the site groupthink.

Astroturfing is a problem. So is people justifying their own opinions by calling everyone with a contrary opponent an astroturfer.

Re:Microsoft shills

[kevinNCSU]

I totally agree and feel the same way about people who claim to not be terrorists. Why just the other day a 90 year old man grumbled about the TSA officials inspecting his walker saying "It's not like I'm a terrorist!" Well boy did that make me nervous. I mean, who is always claiming that their not terrorists? TERRORISTS! They should have hauled his ass off to Guantanamo right then and there, but no, they ignored this obvious admission of guilt of actually being a terrorist. I can only hope you one day work in law enforcement so we won't be caught off-guard by such deceptions.

Also yesterday my neighbor claimed she wasn't a witch. Now I just need to figure out how to lure her onto my duck scale to be sure.

Re:Microsoft shills

[drsmithy]

That much I can believe, but most people who want a better choice than McDonalds will go to a real restaurant.

In the OS world there is no "restaurant". They all suck, just in different ways.

Re:Microsoft shills

[MaskedSlacker]

This is like asking what Secret Police don't murder a few protestors?

Just because it is common practice does not make it acceptable behavior.

Re:Microsoft shills

[CodeBuster]

It doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" thing either. There are many free/open source programs available on the Windows platform as well, its just that most users aren't as much aware of them because free/open source projects do not generally have the marketing and advertising budget of Microsoft or other big vendors. In fact, about the only Microsoft product that I use besides the OS itself is Visual Studio; which I really wish that Microsoft would offer in a usable basic single-developer version for free (and yes I do know about the express editions, but no addon support is a deal breaker).

Re:Microsoft shills

[Anonymous Coward]

Now hopefully someone will look into the MS shills frequenting this and other technology sites.

You sound like a typical Apple shill.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It doesn't make it acceptable, but it does mean that you cannot cite it as a reason to dislike it. If you run secret police arresting people in Poland SSR, you cannot really cast stones at Russia SSR for having secret police.

If you say "I use non-Microsoft products because Microsoft does X", you have to find non-Microsoft products that don't also do X. Or come up with a different rational (there are plenty!)

Re:Microsoft shills

[an unsound mind]

Amusingly enough, that's perfectly the argument a Microsoft shill would make to try to cover his tracks.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Grishnakh]

You may be a genuine McDonalds fan. There really ARE some people who have acquired a test for their food, even though the majority view it as a last resort.

Actually, I think a lot more people really LIKE McDonald's food than you realize. There's a lot of lower-class people who never go to "real" restaurants who think McDonald's/Burger King/etc. is a treat, and eat there a lot. Not coincidentally, these people tend to be obese.

You're never going to find these people dining in a nice sit-down restaurant eating a $10 hamburger, however.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Eli Gottlieb]

LOL, nice one. Actually I run a triple-booted Mac, but the Windoze partition is just for games. I do all my multimedia and personal stuff on OSX and work under Linux.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to point out these shills? It seems to me that any person praising a Microsoft product is automatically accused of being a shill (and only it takes a product by Microsoft; I don't think I've ever read MS-all-together being praised here without it being an obvious troll).

Re:Microsoft shills

[The Moof]

I've been called a shill on here, and I wasn't even talking good about MS. I was ranting about Sun doing similar things as MS, and how we need to go after both companies instead of just singling out MS. Instead of people on here reading that as "Sun and MS are both doing shady stuff, let's rally against both," I was told to "stop sucking on Microsoft's balls, you fucking shill."

So while you may have a valid point, this is Slashdot, where anything not Microsoft bashing is usually written of as being a shill.

Re:Microsoft shills

[BobMcD]

Both of your examples reflect people being accused or otherwise suspected, investigated, or rumored-about.

That's not the case here. Terrorists exist, and 'witches' do likewise. Which am I accusing YOU of being by stating those two facts?

Re:Microsoft shills

[Super_Z]

Whether people are astroturfing or simply have a bias or positive opinion is of course extremely hard to tell. What is striking is the sheer amount of people that has a positive bias towards Microsoft that has entered this forum these last years.

What is even more striking is the dearth of people extolling products competing with Microsoft.

Given the amount of "I use Linux, but Bing is really good" posts - where are the Yahoo fanboys posting their views? Likewise - where are the happy Flex/Flash users when lots of posts thinks Silverlight rocks? Where are the Java people when tons of posts extols .Net?. Where the Lotus Notes people when tons of people extols Exchange? The PS3 seems to be a noncontender when Xbox 360 is discussed.

Why are the posts pointing out competitors products either drowning or non-existant? There are no raving hordes of Apple fanboys around here. There sure seems to be loads of the Microsoft kind.

Heck - the grandparent has as of writing recieved 3 trolls and one flamebait. I'm sure this post will be treated likewise.

Re:Microsoft shills

[plague3106]

Its a pretty common thing here on /. to call anyone that says anything pro-MS to be a shill. Check out any thread about MS (and even some stories that have nothing to do with MS).

I know you weren't calling me a shill, I wasn't say you were. I said there is a problem here with regards to labeling someone a shill for having a differing opinion.

Re:Microsoft shills

[plague3106]

Interesting and subtle way to bash MS, nice job.

However, your burger theory doesn't make sense. Nobody "ends up" at McDs that doesn't want to... they can have a burger at home, or not have a burger at all. Also, you seem to perclude that McDs can't make good burgers. I actually like them quite a bit. I also like the burgers at Wendys, BK, Outback and my local steakhouse, in addition to local pubs. They're all good; just different. I doubt McDs though is the "last resort," since you can throw a stone and find another burger place.

Back to OSes, people going from Windows to Mac is a more recent thing, brought on by the sucess of iPod and more recently, iPhone. When I jumped to Linux, it was at a time when the iPod was just coming out, so this jump didn't happen. People (techies, the one that used to frequent this site) were jumping to Linux. Apple was often also rarely mentioned, especially outside any Apple category. So the jumping done (of which there was little) wasn't to Apple then, it was to Linux.

So while I know elitists like to bash anything popular, the fact is that MS does make good software, McDs does make good food, and Dunkin Donuts does make good coffee... thats they they're still in business.

Re:Microsoft shills

[plague3106]

I said this in my other reply, and don't get it. Why is it not possible to think the "real" restraunt has a good burger, AND McDs does as well? Its as if McDs is trash only to be eaten by trashy people... ya its cheap, but that doesn't make it trash... unless you want to say Linux is trash because its cheap too?

For the record, I enjoy fancy burgers as well as the fast food ones, and sometime perfer the fast food one. I also hate to break this to you, but I'm pretty fit as well.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Grishnakh]

McD's burgers have tiny, thin patties. Their taste comes from the toppings, not from the beef itself. If you like that, more power to you. But a real burger has typically a 1/4 to 1/3 pound patty of beef, and much of the flavor comes from the meat itself.

And if you're fit, it's probably because you're still under 30, or maybe have been smart enough to stay away from soft drinks. McDs burgers aren't really that bad for you, it's mostly the drinks, which are loaded with high-fructose corn syrup, though the ketchup and buns have it as well so they're not exactly healthy either. HFCS is the reason so many kids these days are obese.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Psyborgue]

Meh. It's an aquired taste.

Re:Microsoft shills

[oatworm]

Amusingly enough, that's perfectly the argument a real Microsoft shill would use to gain credibility in the community so that he/she could push MS products "objectively".

It's at this point that I'll do everything within my power to avoid mentioning that Red Hat, Canonical and Novell could also hire pro-Linux shills. FreeBSD, on the other hand, is corporation-free - that's why you can trust it! Free software for all!

Re:Microsoft shills

[oatworm]

Why are the posts pointing out competitors products either drowning or non-existant? There are no raving hordes of Apple fanboys around here.

Most of them went to Ars.

In all seriousness, much of it has to do with looking for conflict. If you're a Yahoo fanboy, so what? Where's the conflict? Where's the rivalry? That's like trying to decide between the merits of the Kansas City Royals and the Pittsburgh Pirates. Bing, on the other hand, is from Microsoft. Love them or hate them, they're like the Yankees - they will inspire passion, one way or another. Sun doesn't inspire much passion, so saying you love or hate Java isn't going to garner a serious emotional response. Saying you like (or hate) .NET, on the other hand, taps into the Microsoft Emotional Reservoir. This also holds true for Notes vs. Exchange, OpenOffice vs. MS Office, PS3 vs. Xbox 360 (though Sony had a solid attempt at earning some solid emotional ire with the "All I want for Christmas is a PSP" campaign) and on and on and on. At each point, expressing disgust for a MS product is a sign of allegiance against the emotional avatar represented by Microsoft, and expressing that you aren't automatically disgusted by that avatar is a sign of counter-counterculture ("All you non-conformists are all alike!").

In short, it really stopped being about Microsoft a long time ago. Now it's just about what we all think the symbol of Microsoft stands for and how we all feel about it.

Re:Microsoft shills

[plague3106]

McD's burgers have tiny, thin patties. Their taste comes from the toppings, not from the beef itself. If you like that, more power to you. But a real burger has typically a 1/4 to 1/3 pound patty of beef, and much of the flavor comes from the meat itself.

You mean like the 1/4 lber or double quarter pounder they have, which is what I get? I also don't get most of the toppings... cheese and ketchup and mustard, which is all I get with any burger.

And if you're fit, it's probably because you're still under 30, or maybe have been smart enough to stay away from soft drinks. McDs burgers aren't really that bad for you, it's mostly the drinks, which are loaded with high-fructose corn syrup, though the ketchup and buns have it as well so they're not exactly healthy either. HFCS is the reason so many kids these days are obese.

Over 30, and now I stay away from soda. But stop blaming HFCS; the problem is 1) people eat WAY too much (do you measure your food servings? I do) and 2) people sit on their ass way too much.

Remove HFCS, and you STILL have a problem with most bread, being that its white bread, a simple carb. THATs the problem, people eat far too many simple carbs (and fat). Stop thinking that if HFCS suddenly dissappeared that the nation would be full of fatasses... it wouldn't.

Oh... for fun, lookup obesity rates on a map. You'll notice something; the fattest people are in the south, around LA and MS. Guess what the typical diet is there? Yup, anything that's fried. This is not a coincidence.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Super_Z]

+1 insightful

Re:Microsoft shills

[BitZtream]

When someone points out how you are a fanboy and wrong, that doesn't make them a Microsoft shill or incorrect. Most of the pro-microsoft stuff seen on slashdot is true, sure there is some BS, but there not really anymore MS BS than there is GPL/Linux BS spread here.

Turn off your damn fanboy paranoia for a few moments and realize that while they are fully evil bastards, they are simply better at some things than your precious. GPL and Linux aren't the end all be all/only solution that can possibly be for everything on the planet, regardless of how much you want it to be so. Its not going to make you cool even if it were true, you'll still be a dull douche bag following the trend set by someone else :)

Re:Microsoft shills

[hobdes]

Sony shills: You missed one!

Re:Microsoft shills

[Cytotoxic]

McD's burgers have tiny, thin patties. Their taste comes from the toppings, not from the beef itself. If you like that, more power to you. But a real burger has typically a 1/4 to 1/3 pound patty of beef, and much of the flavor comes from the meat itself.

I'd suggest you give them another shot the next time you need a drive-through meal. They have 1/3 pound Angus Burgers right now; the mushroom/swiss burger is pretty darn tasty. And you really can't beat the fries at Mickey-D's anywhere - if you are in the mood for fries.

Oh, and this is not a corporate Astroturf. I actually eat their crap a few times a month. And it is usually quite good value.

But you probably don't want to take advice from me. I've been into the grilled octopus at the local Greek restaurant lately, so clearly I'm a little off kilter.

Re:Microsoft shills

[drsmithy]

What is striking is the sheer amount of people that has a positive bias towards Microsoft that has entered this forum these last years.

You must be reading a different Slashdot to me. The anti-Microsoft sentiment here is as strong now as it's always been - and I've been reading Slashdot for a _long_ time.

Indeed, if anything, the blind anti-Microsoft rage has significantly increased while the genuine arguments have decreased. Exhibit A: Vista's system requirements. Exhibit B: pretty much anything to do with DRM.

Re:Microsoft shills

[RedK]

He meant a 1/4 pound of meat, not a 1/4 pound patty of something that is part meat, 80% cereal. And don't come back with that 100% pure beef bull, yes, the beef is 100% pure (have you ever seen a cow crossed with something else ?), it's just not 100% of the patty.

Re:Microsoft shills

[DNS-and-BIND]

The problem is that Microsoft, having been caught red-handed astroturfing before, has pissed in the pool. ANYONE who posts a positive review of MS is going to be suspect, honest or not. I have the same problem with people supporting China online - the Chinese government pays people 50 cents per message to dispute contrary opinions and post positive thoughts about China - thus making people who honestly support China appear like fakes. Sad but true.

Re:Microsoft shills

[tonycheese]

I am on slashdot about as much as the next person, and I'm always reading the comments. I have to say, I haven't noticed any sort of positive bias towards Microsoft recently. In fact, after reading slashdot for a few years seeing any comments that are anti-microsoft just gets to be sickening and old. Just like any comment that has the word "ftp" in it when discussing browser neutrality automatically gets modded +5 insightful, any comment saying anything bad about microsoft or its products gets modded +5 insightful, even when it has nothing to do with the topic.
I have not seen any sort of "dearth of people extolling products competing with Microsoft." I still see the same old posts whining about Microsoft at every opportunity and automatically getting modded up to infinity.

Re:Microsoft shills

[ErikZ]

Really? I've never heard of this. I tried googling it and couldn't come up with anything.

Got any links to back up your claim that a McDonalds 1/4 pound patty is not 100% meat?

Re:Microsoft shills

[Anonymous Coward]

and much of the flavor comes from the meat itself.

This is the bit you don't understand - everyone has different tastes.

Kids love McDonalds et all because they're taste-buds are overly sensitive, and can actually taste more of the food than your average adult can. This is also the reason that they're not as big a fans of more substantial and expensive meals, as they are designed to have a more varied and fragrant taste.

I personally am a large fan of good food. If i had the money and the metabolism, I'd be eating at the local restaurants daily. I find the majority of food from markets etc. to be extremely bland, to the point of retching when trying to swallow - but then I'm a smoker who's destroyed his taste-buds with a decade or two of booze, curries and fags (and im convinced that certain bedroom activities have contributed, but I aint giving them up either :p).

The fact that you can no longer appreciate or even detect the taste of fast food burgers, simply means that you have spoiled yourself and altered the sensitivity of your taste-buds. I congratulate you for being as lucky as myself in enjoying your food thus far - but it's not necessary to belittle people that have simpler tastes.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Anonymous Coward]

mcdonalds sells food? I thought it was just a chemical distributor.

Re:Microsoft shills

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to raise the point - I've had the 'Angus burgers', and they taste absolutely nothing like an Angus burger tastes.

Its not that their bad, its just they don't taste dramatically different from the usual ones, and they most certainly do not contain as much actual beef as you would find in a local eatery *I assure you that this site is safe for work, despite the dodgy sounding URL*

Re:Microsoft shills

[plague3106]

He meant a 1/4 pound of meat, not a 1/4 pound patty of something that is part meat, 80% cereal. And don't come back with that 100% pure beef bull, yes, the beef is 100% pure (have you ever seen a cow crossed with something else ?), it's just not 100% of the patty.

Sorry, I forget some people never let facts get in the way of their beliefs. Check their ingredients list, they MUST list all ingredients, and there's nothing saying the patty is 80% cereal, or anything other than beef.

http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/nutrition_ingredients.html

If you believe, and have evidence, that McDs is using filler in their beef (and on that page you'll find this: 100% pure USDA inspected beef; no fillers, no extenders. Prepared with grill seasoning (salt, black pepper)), please contact the relevent government agencies, since legally they MUST list all ingredients.

Otherwise, STFU.

Not the first!

[Mathinker]

Sony got caught doing this a while back:

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4741259.stm

The link is to the BBC coverage of the California court decision.
I found out about it after reading a Slashdot post panning one of the movies which was pushed this way.

Re:Not the first!

[Anonymous Coward]

And to throw in another, Belkin were also caught paying people to do reviews on some tech websites fairly recently, the whole "pay for good review" thing.

So many links on it, it is just better to link the search.
Belkin Paying for good reviews

And funny thing about these is that so many companies do it, even small-time shops, anything to get customers.
And if you were to ask most of them if they knew the legality of it, they'd never think once that it was illegal.

Re:Not the first!

[mpaulsen]

The Purdy paint brush folks (part of Sherwin Williams) had their marketing firm (M Force, Brown & Martin) spamming usenet and message boards with fake customer testimonials. http://www.ownrecognizance.com/purdy.html

In other related news

[Monkeedude1212]

Lifestyle Lift Revenue went up by 300K last month...

Re:In other related news

[SupremoMan]

So you are saying they also cook their books?

In other words...

[Idaho]

As a company, you should be absolutely fine, unless you are so incredibly stupid as to put instructions like these down in writing, and making them so explicit that they cannot be read or weaseled out of in any conceivable way.

Re:In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remind me never to hire you as a manager, let alone CEO. Your line of thought is what has allowed unscrupulous people into positions of power the past 5 years. Look at our current US administration and baulk, people. Or is it that you agree with their abusive ways?

why "to the State of New York" ?

[panthroman]

The company gets a punitive fine, okay. But who gets the money?

A Michigan-based company lies on the internet, so giving the money to the State of New York doesn't make sense to me. I'm having a tough time specifying just which group was wronged by the company -- Michigan consumers, American consumers, all consumers who have access to the internet, suckers? Wouldn't the money be more appropriately given to the FTC?

Re:why "to the State of New York" ?

[trogdor8667]

According to TFA...

Lifestyle Lift is like a franchise. They have offices in a bunch of places, including 21 in New York, and they also advertised specifically in New York, hence harm was done in the state of New York. I'd think that the Michigan AG could now also perform the same type of fine, and probably other states that the company has offices in too.

Re:why "to the State of New York" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The State of New York was the party harmed, therefore it gets the money. When you commit a crime, you're charged for the harm to the country/state/county/municipality by your disruptive actions, not for the harm to the victim of your crime. Michigan/American consumers, suckers, and "all" other internet consumers have recourse through the civil court system.

Re:why "to the State of New York" ?

[FatRichie]

Because it's in their jurisdiction. Just like if you get a parking ticket in your city, you pay the fine to the city... even though the state may have given the city funds to assist in building the street on which you got ticketed, or the federal government may have had funds trickle down to that street as well. Frankly I don't care who ends up with the money, just so long as a$$hats like Lifestyle are forced to give their money away as punishment for schenanigans like this.

Re:why "to the State of New York" ?

[mcgrew]

I'm assuming you're British. I wish we had an ASA here, but unfortunately there's nothing an US customer can do about false advertising. The company's competetion has to file the complaint here, the customer has no recourse unless it's out and out fraud. And even then, if you file a complaint with the BBB you can't file a complaint with the AG (at least here in Illinois).

But then, we have the best legislators money can buy. And corporations have LOTS of money.

Thank you Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you Slashdot! Reading you every day while at work has taught me so much about Technology and has made me a productive member of our IT team.

Re:Thank you Slashdot

[AndrewNeo]

Productive? You must be new here.

Re:Thank you Slashdot

[An ominous Cow art]

He probably is. Back in the Olden Dayes, we weren't forced to read every single article, whether or not we were interested int the topic, like we are today.

Individual Responsibility

[MobyDisk]

The problem is not the fine. The problem is that the individuals who did this can hide under the corporation and not be held responsible. Why is it that if I did this on my own, I would personally be liable, but if I did so working for a corporation, the corporation is liable? Can I just do anything I want, so long as I have a shell corporation with a boss who tells me to do it?

If we held individuals responsible, then individuals would stand-up to the corporations and say no. But so long as they can clear their conscience by blaming their boss, and on up the chain, these things will happen. Oh, and punishing the CEOs doesn't fix it either, unless the CEO was really involved. Everybody seems to want to go to the person at the top. I want to beat the person at the bottom who actually did it.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[u38cg]

The point is, if you or I did this, it wouldn't *be* a problem. It would be fairly daft, but as far as I know there's nothing to stop you posting a fake review anywhere per se. So there's by extension nothing that the people have done wrng as individuals. This does not mean that a corporation can order its employees to gun down the opposition (though it would make hostile takeovers much more interesting).

Re:Individual Responsibility

[kevinNCSU]

If we held individuals responsible, then individuals would stand-up to the corporations and say no. But so long as they can clear their conscience by blaming their boss, and on up the chain, these things will happen.

If you work at such a morally righteous company then good for you. However, many corporations would have a field day with the ability to ask employees to do illicit activities without any threat of it falling back on the company itself. If you "stood up" to the company as you suggest you'd likely find negative consequences to your employment/advancement.

The individuals stood little to nothing to gain. It's the corporate entity that is involved in the illegal actions. Could you make a dummy corporation with a boss and do the same thing to "protect" yourself? Sure thing, but the $300,000 fine is going to come to your boss and dummy corporation (ie: you) so what would be the point?

I think it's also important to make the distinction that their violating laws pertaining to the legal operation a corporation and therefore the corporation is fined. Had they been told to go murder someone, then clearly the individuals would be held responsible as well, not just the corporate entity.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Also in most companies you are expected to do what your boss asks you. Its their company, you are just acting for them on their whims. So yeah it should be the top level.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[MobyDisk]

I agree with your logic, and it serves to prove my point. Since the individuals are not responsible, they have no incentive to follow the law. If the law held them responsible, then employees would no longer engage in illegal activities.

In that scenario, if your boss threatens to fire you over your refusal, then they violate labor laws and face blackmail charges. If you go along with it, then the boss is also an accomplice. So the individuals would have disincentive to ask employees to do illegal actions.

Therefore, holding individuals responsible for their actions makes individuals less likely to commit crimes. Since corporations are a group of individuals, corporations are less likely to commit crimes.

QED.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[plague3106]

Because as an individual your job depends on if you comply or not; you have been coerced. Personally I don't think people should be coerced into doing bad things, so I'm totaly fine with the company taking the hit and the employees "getting off."

If we held individuals responsible, then individuals would stand-up to the corporations and say no.

And said individuals would be promptly fired, and someone that really needs a job (especially now) will take their place. You can't as an individual employee stand up to your employer, unfortunately.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[kevinNCSU]

It is however, very difficult to prove the case of blackmail. Your boss could ask you to do it it verbally, and if you don't maybe you just get passed up for a raise or bonus. Maybe you just get crappy assignments from now on. There's any number of different ways they can punish you that would be difficult to prove in a court case.

It's not that I don't agree with the idea of personal accountability it's that I fear it would be too easily abused by corporate entities.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[cdrguru]

You have an odd opinion of labor laws. Maybe if everyone worked for a union it might somehow be a contract violation to fire anyone. However, if an employee is told to do something, legal or illegal, and they don't do it they can be fired for insubordination. Or for no reason at all, because there are no laws preventing people from being fired.

In Europe there are plenty of laws preventing people from being fired, for any reason at all. If you decide to employ someone you take on the responsibility for their future employment potentially forever. And paying into the state for them as well. It is practically impossible to fire someone after they have been working for six months in most places. The result of this is very high unemployment - no company can afford to hire someone without knowing in advance they can afford the position for the long term.

Contrast this with the US, where I can hire a sales person and if there is a downturn I can fire them anytime I want. There are no regulations, no laws preventing this. The result is more people get hired. Period. Would it be nice if everyone was assured by the government that they couldn't be fired? Maybe. But the result would be a lot fewer people getting hired. And that isn't good for anyone.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[BobMcD]

You're over simplifying. For starters, every employee is eligible to be fired. No one is perfect, and with enough manipulation and due diligence the company WILL eliminate employees if it so chooses. Additionally, you assume that groups of individuals are not somehow distinct from the individuals themselves. This is widely known to be false.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[socrplayr813]

The people who were giving the orders will no doubt be held responsible in some way by the corporation. True, it'll likely be more because they got caught than because of what they did, but you can be sure they'll hear about it. Unless it was coming from the highest levels of the company, in which case the fine is already correctly targeting them.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[Thaelon]

Why?

If they fined the individuals responsible for the decisions, then they might actually stop doing shit this reprehensible.

A corporation doesn't really exist. It's comprised of individual decision makers who should be held accountable for their decisions just as non-corporate citizens.

And I mean both, those in charge and those responsible for the actual actions. If you put the repercussions on both then shit like this would occur a lot less frequently, don't you think?

I'm sick and tired in this day and age of everybody shirking as much personal responsibility as possible. It is as disgusting and as immoral as lying.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[RobBebop]

You're correct.... as long as there are there are no negative circumstances (or even a perception of negative circumstances) to doing immoral or unethical acts people will do them.

We fight pretty hard when there are things we don't think should be considered immoral or unethical (such as jail time for smoking marijuana), but I think what's lacking is a fight to make the negative circumstances of truly immoral and unethical acts more visible.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[mcgrew]

I wouldn't punish the poor sap who posted the shillage if he was ordered to, I'd fine whoever gave the order. Punishing the low level worker wouldn't fix anything. He's between a rock and a hard place - get fired for not following orders, or get fined for following them.

If it's corporate policy to break the law, the CEO and board should be held accountable, and not just to the stockbrokers but to the government.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[jjrff]

The real answer here is "it depends" - for instance a few years ago someone who worked for Internet.com was astroturfing LinuxToday (and probably other Internet.com sites); in that instance the individual was held responsible: granted internet.com was less than pleased about it, however, the evidence that a sole individual was responsible led to that person being dismissed. If, however, Internet.com management overall instructed employees to astroturf it would have been difficult to punish each and every person - hence the organization itself would be punished.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[an unsound mind]

Except it works reasonably well in Europe.

The protection isn't against being fired for any reason at all. It's against being fired for no reason at all.

Checking the data reveals that the unemployment rates are very similar in Europe and the United States, actually.

And it offers protection against being ordered to commit illegal acts to keep your job - and offers people significantly more stability in their lives and in regards to unemployment.

It costs corporations a little more, but the tax difference between most European countries and the United States is significantly more significant.

Or in conclusion: Your defense for lack of laws preventing unreasonable dismissal, while superficially sound, fails on every level once the actual facts come into play.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[Grishnakh]

In that scenario, if your boss threatens to fire you over your refusal, then they violate labor laws and face blackmail charges. If you go along with it, then the boss is also an accomplice. So the individuals would have disincentive to ask employees to do illegal actions.

Wrong. Bosses do illegal stuff like this all the time, and never face repercussions. Why? Because it's extremely difficult for the employee to prove his case, unless he happens to have incriminating documents or recordings.

Employees are frequently in difficult financial spots, so they don't have the luxury of refusing to do what their boss says (however illegal) and taking a hit in income until they can (maybe) prove in court that they were wronged. Their landlord, for instance, isn't going to accept that they can't pay their rent for the next 24 months until the case winds its way through court.

Sorry, but the legal system simply doesn't provide true justice. It's really just a mechanism to provide punitive actions to more-or-less keep people in line, but it rarely works very well. It's too slow, too expensive, and too tilted towards those who have money.

The only reason this company got nailed is because they were stupid enough to send out these instructions in emails. If they had kept everything verbal, they probably wouldn't have gotten in trouble, unless some employee really had it out for them and brought in a voice recorder.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing I find most interesting about this post is it seems to conflate "not wanting employers to be able to fire an employee for refusing to do an illegal activity on their behalf" with "not wanting employers to be able to fire an employee for any reason at all". What, exactly, is the supposed benefit to the economy as a whole in allowing employers to bully their employees into illegal? Why can't this specefic activity (i.e. retalitorial firing after a refusal to engage in illegal acts) be illegal in and of itself?

Re:Individual Responsibility

[Grishnakh]

The problem is determining who really is responsible, and then proving it in court. Evidence is hard to obtain from inside a company unless you have someone on the inside gathering it for you. And individual employees can easily claim (frequently truthfully) they were in fear for their jobs.

Remember, the low-level employees who end up having to do this stuff are the people who are struggling to pay their bills every month. They can't afford to be out of work for 2 years so they can be involved in a court case against their employer, so they're not going to do anything to jeopardize their job unless it's something really bad, like being asked to kill someone. Heck, these employees probably didn't even know there was a law against astroturfing. Yeah, supposedly ignorance of the law is no excuse, but that's BS; there's so many laws that it's impossible to know them all (otherwise we wouldn't have lawyers), and there's probably no one who isn't a criminal.

That's why the current system is correct: the only people who can be held personally liable for a company's actions are its officers. They're the ones who really make all the decisions and who are ultimately responsible. They also profit the most.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[Grishnakh]

What, exactly, is the supposed benefit to the economy as a whole in allowing employers to bully their employees into illegal? Why can't this specefic activity (i.e. retalitorial firing after a refusal to engage in illegal acts) be illegal in and of itself?

What the hell are you talking about? Here in the US, such firing IS illegal. The problem is proving it. There's lots of cases of "wrongful termination" in every state, even right-to-work states, and companies frequently settle out-of-court.

There's no benefit to allowing employers to bully employees. What the parent is saying is that labor laws which allow companies to lay off people easily (such as a recession, or poor employee performance, or simply not needing someone to do that job any more) makes for a more productive economy because employers are more willing to take a risk and hire someone. It doesn't mean they can abuse employees.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[CastrTroy]

Good point. However no everybody is in a good enough financial position to be able to risk getting fired. Sure it would probably be classified as wrongful dismissal, but then, the employee would have an expensive legal battle ahead of them to try and prove it. The employee shouldn't have to keep in check with all the laws either. How is the employee supposed to know it's actually illegal. Sure it sounds devious, but a lot of stuff in the current business world is devious, yet not illegal. The employee has to have some assurance that they won't be arrested because they did something their employer told them to do was illegal. The employee should be able to assume that the employer isn't telling them to do illegal things. Do you charge the guy who drives the truck when illegal dumping is done, or do you fine the company who told him to do it? Hard decision in some cases, but you can't expect the employee to go trying to identify the contents of the unmarked barrels and try to figure out if dumping the stuff is legal.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[Red Flayer]

However, if an employee is told to do something, legal or illegal, and they don't do it they can be fired for insubordination. Or for no reason at all, because there are no laws preventing people from being fired.

Actually, that's not true, even in at-will states.

Federal law protects employees who refuse to take illegal action, if they bring it to the attention of the authorities. Nearly every state has a whistleblower statute that applies to this, and there is also the federal statute (which may only apply to federal criminal activity, I'm not sure).

Contrast this with the US, where I can hire a sales person and if there is a downturn I can fire them anytime I want. There are no regulations, no laws preventing this. The result is more people get hired. Period. Would it be nice if everyone was assured by the government that they couldn't be fired? Maybe. But the result would be a lot fewer people getting hired. And that isn't good for anyone.

That's a pretty heavy assumption. Care to support that assertion? It makes sense on cursory examination, but when you look a little more in-depth, things change. One thing restrictions on firing of employees does is smooth out the employment curve -- this is probably the biggest impact. And job stability is very good for an economy (when you could be fired any minute, you'll be less likely to purchase consumer goods, which feeds into a recession -- this is part of the current problem). So at-will employment may actually reduce hiring in the long run, by exacerbating fluctuations in the economy.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[cptdondo]

Actually the law does hold them responsible. However, Law enforcement will go after big fish rather than little ones, knowing that the number of minimum wage workers in this economy is well-nigh infinite. You could put a thousand in jail, and all you'd do is destroy a bunch of families, but you wouldn't stop the criminal activity.

So it's much more cost effective to kill the company, put the execs in jail, and let the drones go.

Not many minimun wage earners have the resources to sit on their butt while their labor complaint winds through the courts for a dozen years.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point of forming a corporation is to create an entity with separate rights and liabilities from those of the people working there.

To hold individuals responsible for their actions on behalf of the corporation -- that is actions that they are not performing as individuals (think corporate guarantee vs personal guarantee) -- would be a massive change in the structure of the business world. Why don't people get this?

Absolution from individual responsibility is the whole point of incorporation.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[AK Marc]

The individuals stood little to nothing to gain.

Unless they owned any stock or feared they'd get fired if they told their boss "no, that's illegal." Then they gain employment by doing it, or gain stock value.

Could you make a dummy corporation with a boss and do the same thing to "protect" yourself? Sure thing, but the $300,000 fine is going to come to your boss and dummy corporation (ie: you) so what would be the point?

For one, that shouldn't work (though it does in practice). If you own a share of stock in the company you work for, you are both an employee and an owner and have the means to gain directly for such actions you might take.

People seem to forget what companies are. They were never intended to allow corporations to not follow the law. The corporations should be held to a more strict version of the law because they are not people and have no rights. They are a piece of paper that allows continuity and shielding for investors who have no input into the daily operations. Any investor with input into the operations can be held personally responsible. The continuity was to allow Bob to sign a contract with Joan Acme Anvils and when Joan dies in a horrible road runner related accident, Jeff that takes her place is required by law to honor the agreement as if he signed it himself. If you signed an agreement with Joan on her promise that as long as she worked for Acme she would make it happen, then that wouldn't be worth nearly the same amount. And before incorporation, that's all you had (though in practice it worked better than that, but it was still how it explicitly was). And about the same time those problems were popping up, corporations grew so large as to have investors that had no interest in daily operations, but didn't want to be held liable for things they didn't and couldn't know. The governments wanted increased growth, so they passed laws to protect investors so that more people would fund corporations.

There was never an intention that the employees would be shielded for direct illegal actions. The law is not written that way either. But the practice in prosecuting is such that they have immunity unless someone with clout lost money (see Enron).

Had they been told to go murder someone, then clearly the individuals would be held responsible as well, not just the corporate entity.

Not true. Multiple corporations have had people decide to take actions that result in deaths and have not been held responsible. When you kill Bob, you go to jail. When you kill some number of unknown people around the globe, you get a raise. Drug companies have hidden trials they are required by law to disclose, resulting in higher use because it is presumed safe based on lies, resulting in deaths. Ford violated law to fail to disclose Pinto problems which they expected would result in deaths. It happens all the time. And no one from those companies went to jail. Sure, if they hired a hit on a specific person and documented it well, someone (or more than one someone) would go to jail. But if they are simply negligent (meaning they expect to kill, but can't guarantee who), then they just get a fine less than the lost profits if they weren't negligent (except for Ford who had the "we know this to be the case, but jurors are idiots that will not award enough to make murder unprofitable" memo that was exposed in court).

And the real problem is that a corporation breaks laws, bad ones, felonies, and isn't punished like a person. Kill someone and get a fine? That's like an indulgence, and leads to the same problems that the Church had with granting them. A person can go to ail, but never a corporation. So they end up, under current laws and practice, to have all the rights and priveledges of a person, with none of the responsibilities. That was never the intention.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[Hatta]

However, many corporations would have a field day with the ability to ask employees to do illicit activities without any threat of it falling back on the company itself

Isn't that what conspiracy laws are for? Punish the criminal, and the person who pays them to be a criminal.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[cbhacking]

Let's just start with IANAL, and I live and work in Washington state (laws may be different where you work).

We have "at will" employment, and unless a contract explicitly stipulates otherwise, either empolyee or employer may terminate employment at any time. *HOWEVER* if they terminate your employment for the specific reason that you refused to partake in a criminal act, then you can in fact sue them for it. It would be a civil case (although there may also be a criminal case for them issuing the order in the first place) but you should ahve a pretty good chance nonetheless.

That said, if they ordered you to only wear inside-out t-shirts while at work, and you refused, they could fire you for that with no repercussions at all.

Re:Individual Responsibility

[MobyDisk]

You have an odd opinion of labor laws.

I have no opinion on labor laws, nor did I represent one.

cause there are no laws preventing people from being fired

Incorrect. To name a few: racial/religions discrimination, public policy violations, whistle-blower protections, personal injury, defamation, ... These are often lumped together as "wrongful termination" and companies can be sued for them.

They have operations in New York

[sirwired]

As a corporation, if you have facilities in a certain state, you are expected to abide by the laws of that state. New York gets the money because the AG filed the suit and did all the work. I suppose the FTC could join in the fun if they wanted to... but it looks like there is no need here.

SirWired

The lesson they've failed to learn from history...

[Lead Butthead]

The lesson they've failed to learn from mistakes of historical greats like Richard Nixon and the Plumbers - destroy the (e-mails.)

Re:Like phone sex with fat ugly chicks or even dud

[mcgrew]

Your subject line is totally incorrect. I know a woman with the sweetest, sexiest voice you ever heard, and a pretty good body, but her face - AAAAAGH!

Sex with her in the dark is GREAT. If you're having phone "sex" it doesn't matter what she looks like, only what she sounds like.

Fake reviews and astroturfing are nothing like that. It's more like the My Name Is Earl episode where "Patty the Daytime Hooker" uses Joy's picture in her newspaper ads.

Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?

[cdrguru]

OK, they are lying. Everybody lies. All advertising is lying in one form or another. Do believe that went some celebrity appears on TV for a product that they really use it? Or know anything about it other than what the teleprompter is telling them to say?

Yes, this company sounds like they were using the "power of the Internet" a little more forcefully than others are today, but exactly what law did they break? False advertising? I doubt it. Certainly no more false than Wilford Brimley talking about Liberty Medical products as if he was at all familiar with the company before they started paying him.

No, this isn't a good start. This is not "making the Internet safer." If you believe testimonials on the Internet you are a fool, because all of them are designed to elicit behavior - yours. Every single review someone takes the time to write is either telling you how great something is or how bad. Either way, someone was so motivated as to write the review to "help" others to make the "right" decision. I wouldn't trust any of them, especially when it is not tied to anyone's real identity. How many people are out there putting up fake reviews, positive or negative, because they are paid to do so? How many people are putting up fake reviews because they have some other motive? For all you know, the person doing it could just hate the founder of the company because he beat them up in 3rd grade.

Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can doubt all you want. Yes, what they did was false advertising.

Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?

[Nerdfest]

Not all advertising is lying. It can purely be describing your product in objective terms to your audience. This is actually even done on occasion, although it does seem to be getting more rare.

Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?

[DriedClexler]

Do believe that went some celebrity appears on TV for a product that they really use it?

Good point. Somehow, we've got to the point where it's illegal to say,

"I'm a celebrity, this product is good" (without mentioning you were paid to say so)

but not,

"I'm an average person, this product is good". (without mentioning you were paid to say so)

WTF, seriously? If the government is really concerned about paid fake endorsements, they have MUCH bigger fish to fry than some small-time cosmetics company. Yet somehow the small-time ones are the only ones that will be prosecuted.

Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?

[Chris Burke]

OK, they are lying. Everybody lies. All advertising is lying in one form or another.

"One form or another" is where the difference between legal and illegal lies. The majority of lies in advertising, the ones that are legal, are the ones that appear to be saying something when really they are saying nothing that could really be called a lie. When Ford describes their trucks as "tough", or Miller Brewing says you can drink their "great tasting" product to live the "High Life", they're trying to give you a certain emotional impression about their product that is largely bullshit, but ultimately to the extent that it means anything at all it's all just subjective opinion. Because actual lies, about facts, are illegal.

When Ford says that the F150 has the most HP of any truck in its class, they make sure that claim is true, even throwing up some fine print describing exactly what 'class' means or what trucks they are specifically comparing to. Does that extra HP make Ford trucks "tough"? They sure hope you think so, but since that adjective's very meaning is subjective, you couldn't ever prove it false.

When Miller says Miller Light uses Triple Hops Brewing, that is almost certainly true. The implication that this gives Miller Light great taste is definitely what they want you to take away from the ad, and while it's bullshit it's subjective bullshit. Which is the whole point.

False advertising? I doubt it. Certainly no more false than Wilford Brimley talking about Liberty Medical products as if he was at all familiar with the company before they started paying him.

Yes, he talks "as if" he just loves Liberty Mutual in his heart, but he is never presented as anything but a paid endorsement. The second they claimed that Wilford Brimley was not paid by Liberty Mutual and that he just had to help get the word out, that's when they'd fall afoul of the law. Because that would, in fact, be much more false, and an actionable lie.

So when some shill says "I haven't been paid by Damn Girl U So Ugly Let Us Cut You Up, Inc, but I just love their facelifts!", and they have been paid, that's a specific factual lie and illegal.

No, this isn't a good start. This is not "making the Internet safer." If you believe testimonials on the Internet you are a fool, because all of them are designed to elicit behavior - yours. Every single review someone takes the time to write is either telling you how great something is or how bad. Either way, someone was so motivated as to write the review to "help" others to make the "right" decision.

Yes but people naturally react differently when the reviewer's motivation was "I was paid to write a positive/negative review" versus "I sincerely like/dislike this product". Nearly all communication is designed to "elicit behavior", treating that as inherently bad or untrustworthy is foolish. Yes assuming most reviews on the internet are of the sincere kind is also foolish due to anonymity, that doesn't mean you can't get anything useful out of reviews on the internet. But I guess you never have?

No it isn't "making the Internet safer" because paid astroturfing is so widespread that fining one company making false claims isn't even going to come close to discouraging the behavior.

Yes it's a good start. More of this, please. Lots more.

Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?

[innocent_white_lamb]

All advertising is lying in one form or another.
 
That's an exaggerated view of the situation.
 
"Don's Lawn Mowing Service - We mow your lawn for $15 (plus taxes)!" isn't a lie. And there are lots of ads of that type around.

Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?

[canajin56]

but exactly what law did they break? False advertising? I doubt it.

Doubt all you want, but all spokespersons and ad actors are given samples to try before they sign on. The company has a good faith belief that the actor they hired actually did use the product, and agrees with their lines. So, it really is a totally different situation. People are saying that it's because you know the TV actor is a paid actor, but the real reason is, those TV actors are actually made to represent to the company that they've tried the product and like it. They may lie, but the company has covered its ass! Take Commodore 64. They hired William Shatner to hawk their PCs. They sent him one, and told him to try it out before agreeing to anything. He didn't. They pestered him so he took it out of the box, and couldn't figure out how to turn it on, so he just said he'd tried it out and it's fine. That's totally different than if they'd just run ads with fake names and fake testimonials. You could try to argue that they should have known he'd just pretend to have used it, and just lie about how much he likes it, so therefore they were lying to the public...but that's a stretch. I'm sure lots of spokespersons actually use and like the product, even if few of them actively sought out the company to be a spokesperson.

Certainly no more false than Wilford Brimley talking about Liberty Medical products as if he was at all familiar with the company before they started paying him.

Bad choice, because he almost definitely was. He's been speaking on behalf of the American Diabetes Association, visiting VA hospitals, spreading awareness of diabetes, for longer than he's been a spokesperson for Liberty Medical. And Liberty Medical is a key member of the ADA, so he was almost certainly aware of their existence well before they paid him a cent, and he probably used their products too, since they're one of the few companies who makes them at all. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he asked THEM, so he could have funding to do radio and TV PSAs, rather than being limited to speaking at VA hospitals and the like. He's quite the activist, even if most of his causes (gambling and cock fighting) aren't nearly so PC as diabetes awareness.

A better comparison for astroturfing would be a medical journal that's owned and published by a drug company, and full of fake articles about the effectiveness of said drug company's products. That's disappointingly come up a few times recently, though I have no idea if anything really came of it (other than moral outrage on Slashdot). But I'd at least hope they'd get a massive fine.

Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?

[anegg]

Offtopic: I really liked watching Wilford Brimley's character get the crap kicked out of him by Tom Cruise's character in "The Firm."

Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single review someone takes the time to write is either telling you how great something is or how bad. Either way, someone was so motivated as to write the review to "help" others to make the "right" decision. I wouldn't trust any of them, especially when it is not tied to anyone's real identity.

Sorry I choose not to have any faith in your comment as I believe you are a shill and paid to post this article.
Besides, I'm sure "cdrguru" is not your real identity and I just can't see your motivation in spending the time to write this post.

Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?

[Chris Burke]

No, you're way off.

When a celebrity appears in a paid commercial advertisement, it is obvious that they were paid to be in it. When a non-celebrity appears in a paid commercial advertisement, it is similarly obvious that they were paid to be in it. Neither is illegal, because any reasonable person would assume that they were paid to be in the advertisement unless the advertisement specifically claims otherwise. And if the ad does make that claim, and the claim were to be false, then it would be illegal.

Which is essentially the case here, specifically because the advertisement in question was not clearly a paid commercial advertisement, it appeared to be, and was presented as, an unsponsored fan site. Because that claim was false, it was illegal.

Lemme break it down for you:

Kobe Bryant appears in a Sprite advertisement: legal.
Joe Schmoe appears in a Sprite advertisement: legal.

Kobe Bryant starts a blog about how much he loves Sprite of his own accord: legal.
Joe Schmoe starts a blog about how much he loves Sprite of his own accord: legal.

Kobe Bryant starts a blog about how much he loves Sprite, claims it was of his own accord, but is actually being paid by Sprite: illegal.
Joe Schmoe starts a blog about how much he loves Sprite, claims it was of his own accord, but is actually being paid by Sprite: illegal.

Notice how celebrity has nothing to do with it?

Oh, and prosecutors fry the fish they can catch. Frying big fish gets them fame, prestige, and promotion opportunities. Who knows what investigations they have going on? These guys were dumb and left email evidence. So they got caught.

Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?

[SL Baur]

OK, they are lying. Everybody lies. All advertising is lying in one form or another. Do believe that went some celebrity appears on TV for a product that they really use it? Or know anything about it other than what the teleprompter is telling them to say?

Hmmm, someone more cynical than I am.

Advertising reducing prices for consumers has been proven experimentally. I was a participant in some experiements in college as a guinea pig.

I also am not afraid to tell people about products that I have had good experiences with.

One possible case where you might find my motives dubious occurred in the late 1980s when I was working for a defense contractor, my email address clearly identified that I working in the defense part of the company and part of my job description at the time was to be the first person to get his hands on new Ada compilers and put them through my not-so-loving tests. The technology of the time was fairly weak and the US DOD had not yet settled on specifying specific Ada compilers for projects.

The best of the sorry lot was Verdix Ada (VADS), that had deficiencies which, no matter how often we reported them to the vendor, fell on deaf ears. One evening, after a particularly rough day at work, I was browsing comp.lang.ada and responded to a request for information regarding Verdix with an absolutely scathing review that peeled paint off walls hundreds of miles away.

The next day, I received a call at work from a person within Verdix who made me an offer I couldn't refuse (after consultation with my management, of course). I would be given beta tester status with access to their latest & greatest prior to formal release. My part of the agreement was to post a retraction and a review on comp.lang.ada should circumstances merit it.

I tested and did the review and it was one of the easiest reviews I've ever had to write - their newer code was a vast improvement over what I had been working with. I went on to become a very strong Verdix advocate within the company, though it ended up not making much difference. Alsys Ada with its political connections (a founder by the lead designer of the winning Ada design context was too strong despite having a weaker overall system) became the official standard.

Did I sell out and shill? I don't think so. Verdix Ada could be an order of magnitude faster compiling code than Alsys. Did I become corrupted with my special back channel into the company? I don't know. I gave special treatment to Omron and Wnn6 as Mr. XEmacs when I was given an "illegal"[1] copy of that software too.

Afterwards:
Verdix (and Alsys) have since gone the way of the dodo, but from the most recent look I've taken at GNAT, it appears to be very strong. Certainly strong enough that Ada cannot be considered a dead language.

More is the pity, because Ada the language looks in horror at anything not statically typed and defined within the program. It's the perfect language for doing safe web development.

[1] They had the standard clause in Japanese software that prohibited sale outside of Japan.

Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?

[SL Baur]

People are saying that it's because you know the TV actor is a paid actor, but the real reason is, those TV actors are actually made to represent to the company that they've tried the product and like it. They may lie, but the company has covered its ass!

I think a greater issue is how US society treats the roles of entertainers. A TV or movie actor is basically trained to make people believe that he is someone that he is not. Why should that make his (or her) opinion any more important?

Just as bad are the actors who play some role on TV or movie and then presume to be an expert on whatever expertise their role had. Nonsense.

Take Commodore 64. They hired William Shatner to hawk their PCs. They sent him one, and told him to try it out before agreeing to anything. He didn't. They pestered him so he took it out of the box, and couldn't figure out how to turn it on, so he just said he'd tried it out and it's fine. That's totally different than if they'd just run ads with fake names and fake testimonials.

An unusual example but O.K. As much respect as I have for the Shattner the actor (he was the best captain of the Enterprise in my opinion), rare for me because I normally despise entertainers, I cannot believe he has ever played World Of Warcraft, let alone has any great knowledge of computer games in general. "What's your game" is pretty cool as far as advertisements go though ...

Great! So what's next?

[Dunbal]

Now they can go after the entire online porn industry? I have a feeling that it's all a bunch of sites owned by one person laughing demonically and getting you to click on links that never ever get you anywhe...

Hmmm, no, I've never done that. I don't know about those sites! Really!

Billy Mays Here

[tinkertim]

Hi! Billy Mays here with a completely new and revolutionary product called Internet Astroturfing! Read what thousands of our satisfied clients have to say about IA on popular blogs and forums ....

Re:Billy Mays Here

[tinkertim]

Actually, I think that was recursive.

Re:Billy Mays Here

[SupremoMan]

You forgot your ghost-voice tags.

Memo's and illegal crap

[furby076]

Haven't companies learned by now that if you are going to instruct your people to do shady/illegal stuff that you should NOT put it in a memo. Just go by word of mouth "hey bob, make some fake posts"....dumb asses

BTW I find politicians a bit hypocritical. In politics the tech writers will write a nice constituant letter about their politician. They will then give it to a loyal constituant and ask them to sign it. So the constituant never wrote the words, never had the experience, but because they like the politician they will put their name to it...and this makes it 100% perfectly legal. So the next time you see grandma who says her politician is the second coming of christ just realize the words/experience may have come from some paid writer and grandma just signed her name to it.

NY Mom Lost 47 lbs Following 1 Rule!

[nbauman]

The funny thing is that when I read the Seattle PI story, I got an ad next to it saying, "NY Mom Lost 47 lbs Following 1 Rule!"

That's the same NY Mom who appears as a California Mom, Texas Mom, Florida Mom and %ipaddress% Mom.

It's like the 17th Century, when pickpockets used to work the crowds who came to watch pickpockets being hanged.

Re:NY Mom Lost 47 lbs Following 1 Rule!

[MaskedSlacker]

It's like the 17th Century, when pickpockets used to work the crowds who came to watch pickpockets being hanged.

You've got to admire the sheer ballsiness of such a move though.

Re:NY Mom Lost 47 lbs Following 1 Rule!

[nbauman]

You've got to admire the cleverness of the bacteria that cause urinary tract infections too.

Re:NY Mom Lost 47 lbs Following 1 Rule!

[plague3106]

And? You clearly KNEW it was an ad, right? That's what astroturfing is attempting to hide... its trying to pretend not to be an ad.

Re:NY Mom Lost 47 lbs Following 1 Rule!

[nbauman]

And? You clearly KNEW it was an ad, right?

That's because I'm smarter than most people who use the Internet.

Re:Like phone sex with fat ugly chicks or even dud

[The Archon V2.0]

But I have to credit Lifestyle Lift with the trustworthiness needed to at least make their employees wear skirts and wigs.

Yeah! Why is the Attorney General bigoted against transvestites?!

(Dons wig.) SOLIDARITY!

Oh, wait, my coworkers are looking at me funny. Solidarity... after work!

Why New York?

[Doug52392]

I don't understand why a company which is not based in New York lied on the Internet, and was fined by the "State of New York". They have one location in Syracuse, NY, but they have locations all over the United States. Could every state in the United States fine them for $300,000?

And, of course, we can't forget Andrew Cuomo's lengthy track record when it comes to tech issues, specifically Usenet.

What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is called marketing, or rather guerrilla marketing and there's nothing wrong with it. If they're service is false (i.e. doesn't actually work or is fraudulent) then I guess it would be false advertising.
But doing this sort of marketing isn't really illegal now is it?

Re:What's the problem?

[stewbacca]

It doesn't matter if the service is false or not. If somebody from the company claims to be a customer, even if it IS the best thing since sliced bread, that is illegal (evidently, based on the fine imposed).

Below the Radar

[lee1]

These slimeballs just got picked off because they got big enough to get noticed, and they had enough money to make it worthwhile for the government. This will not be likely to give much pause to the small companies and individuals who routinely employ these sleazy tactics.

That name again

[Spatial]

Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetic surgery company [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift. [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift. [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift."

Just in case you didn't catch it the first time!

Re:The lesson they've failed to learn from history

[MarkvW]

Wow! You really miss the point. The lesson from Nixon is that the cover-up is what kills you.

Re:The lesson they've failed to learn from history

[Hyppy]

The botched cover-up kills you. Do it right, and nobody will know.

The marketing is very effective. Is it honest?

[Futurepower(R)]

"The overall problem is that the message still hasn't gotten out to people."

A more immediate problem is that this story on Slashdot is likely to bring Lifestyle Lift more customers. Look at the before and after photos.

"If you know that, why would you believe anything on the internet with testimonials, blogs, Google ad links, Myspace links and the like?"

In the particular case of Lifestyle Lift, it is difficult to detect what is actually happening. Are the before and after photos completely dishonest? I don't know.

Infomercials often take advantage of the weaknesses of people and there is an intense search for methods of intensifying the attack on those weaknesses.

Google is overwhelmed by Lifestyle Lift web sites.

[Futurepower(R)]

Do a Google search for Lifestyle Lift. In the first three pages of Google results, ALL EXCEPT THREE are from web sites operated by Lifestyle Lift, apparently.

This is the most intense attack on social, psychological, and technical weaknesses than I've ever seen. In my opinion, it is likely to be dishonest.

And the company was only fined $300,000, an amount that is likely to be less than a day's income, I'm guessing.

I've seen this first hand

[escchr]

I work for a large health care provider in california and I know for a fact that some of the goons here do this very same thing. Trying to pump up the organization even though they have multiple malpractice lawsuits as well as labor lawsuits. They have even had us in the IS dept install anonymizer on their pcs so they can't be traced back to our hospital. Now that I hear of this I hope the people here get caught and fined also.

Pug Stalwart

[TimeAddict]

Ah yes Astroturfing, if only Fox News, and the other major networks weren't all paid shills for faceless robber barons and multinationals.

Re:The lesson they've failed to learn from history

[MaskedSlacker]

Deep Throating kills you.

This is only a start

[MazzThePianoman]

Web Hosting is one area where they are going to have a field day with. I recently left a horrible webhost (double-billing, not staffing cancellation lines, technical support staff on shotty VOIP lines that hardly speak English) and know they only survive because of fake reviews and of the like.

independent and satisfied customers

[Culture20]

What independent and satisfied customers of any (one time use) product or service go out of their way to create a fan page? Sure, they exist for Toys, Games, Food, but Plastic Surgery? A site like that is fake on its face (pun intended, but no less accurate).

Might this spell the end

[nightfire-unique]

Might this spell the end of the Israeli lobby?

Re:The lesson they've failed to learn from history

[Anonymous Coward]

Deep Throating kills you.

Only if you swallow

Not enough! Send them to Bagram !

[Snaller]

(Bagram is the forgotten guantanamo)

Re:The lesson they've failed to learn from history

[Al Dimond]

Yeah, you have to cover up your cover-up, and make sure you don't botch that!

From the article....

[LittleGuy]

Another internal email directed a Lifestyle Lift employee to 'Put your wig and skirt on and tell them about the great experience you had.'

Wouldn't the deep voice and five-o-clock shadow been a tipoff?

Re:The lesson they've failed to learn from history

[BitZtream]

No, you've been asleep for the last 50 or so years.

The coverup doesn't kill you if its successful any more than falling kills you.

Its when the coverup fails or you suddenly stop at the end of the fall that kills you.

Appearently you missed the iran contra affair completely among hundreds of other scandles. When they come out to tell you about how they did something bad, in reality thats just a good cover up, drawing the attention away from the REALLY bad shit they did.

Aha!

[Anonymous Coward]

People who zealously and steadfastly hold true to a particularly opinion are not a new phenomenon, either on the internet or in real life. Whether they hold that opinion because of "convictions" or a paycheck, is, at most, a peripheral issue .

You're being paid to say that, aren't you?

Good Start

[stewbacca]

Now if we can just fine race car drivers and celebrities for "endorsing" products that they don't actually use. Then we can move on to unfounded claims and go after Billy Mays' estate for all the junk he's hawked over the years. Then we can get the Oreck guy and the 4-hour Energy guy. Finally, the Sham-wow guy...err, wait, he has enough legal troubles it seems.

Don't forget the RIAA

[rayk_sland]

Good law, good ruling. Maybe penalty is too small, but it's time to go after RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft and a whole host of others who set up 'authorities' to say what they want said, and then quote from them as if they were independent voices. As earlier reported on slashdot --- http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4079/125/

Typo in parent:

[morgan_greywolf]

s/10 times/1000 times.