Three Companies Impersonated Millions to Influence Internet Policy

Post by callalex » Sun, May 14, 2023, 6:25 AM UTC

adriand wrote: post #73

dmbche wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep getting this eerie feeling when seeing product reviews and the rest of things you list here - I would never in a million year consider writing a paragraph long glowing review of my car jack on amazon, and yet there are millions of such interactions all over the web.

I was startled to recently discover that a local gastroenterologist has numerous excellent reviews on Google Maps by people talking about what a lovely colonoscopy they had, some of whom related the specific medical condition that brought them there. Never in a million years would I consider doing this either. It turns out people are pretty weird.

Post by airesearcher » Sun, May 14, 2023, 6:27 AM UTC

Post by asimpleusecase » Sun, May 14, 2023, 6:35 AM UTC

Post by levidos » Sun, May 14, 2023, 6:37 AM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #6

"An investigation by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) found that the fake comments used the identities of millions of consumers, including thousands of New Yorkers, without their knowledge or consent." $615k seems like a slap on the wrist for what they did.

Post by Thorrez » Sun, May 14, 2023, 6:43 AM UTC

demindiro wrote: post #164

nine_k wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why, I think, the future is either putting your money (or at least provable identity) where your mouth is, or not being heard (e.g. because everyone will assume a petition without hard proofs of identity fake). Yes, this is disenfranchising. But not being heard while some company pretends to speak for you is even more disenfranchising.

>This is why, I think, the future is either putting your money (or at least provable identity) where your mouth is That will become less effective as companies become increasingly centralized, with just a few having many, many brands.