Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is • Hacker News Board

Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is

#11

Post by mykoleary » Wed, Jan 31, 2018, 10:46 PM UTC

bobthechef wrote: post #5

dmschulman wrote: post #2

Fraud would imply malice and criminal intent. What is criminal about paying for fake followers?

No. From MW: * intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right * an act of deceiving or misrepresenting In other words, yes, fraud, your ticket to the 8th Circle of hell.

Saying I have 10K followers is not a lie or misrepresentation of any facts, even if you bought half of them. Saying you have 10K ACTIVE followers when you bought half of them IS.

Companies need to do their research and ask the right questions before they part with their money...

Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is

#12

Post by jerkstate » Wed, Jan 31, 2018, 10:47 PM UTC

mykoleary wrote: post #10

Any company that looks solely at followers and not at overall and long term engagement (comments and likes) trends with a user's follower base deserves what they get from the person that "sold" them the bill of goods they bought.

ooh, good idea, where can I buy some comments and likes?

Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is

#13

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jan 31, 2018, 10:51 PM UTC

mykoleary wrote: post #10

Any company that looks solely at followers and not at overall and long term engagement (comments and likes) trends with a user's follower base deserves what they get from the person that "sold" them the bill of goods they bought.

You can buy comments and likes just as easily as followers. Once something manipulable becomes used as a measurable proxy for influence, it will be manipulated.

Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is

#14

Post by hprotagonist » Wed, Jan 31, 2018, 10:55 PM UTC

in the good old slashdot days, "astroturfing" was still a well-known verb.

Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is

#15

Post by throwaway2016a » Wed, Jan 31, 2018, 10:55 PM UTC

I have to wonder how many developers do this too. Or if they don't, use follow bots or some other method to get people to follow them.

I've seen a lot of developers post almost nothing in terms of quality content yet somehow have thousands of followers.

Meanwhile I try to post quality content and only have 600 followers. I have considered buying at some point but decided that I'd rather have fewer real followers than thousands of fake ones. And I've written books and spoken at dozens of conferences...

I can definitely see the argument that if I bought followers and a conference organizer or publisher used that as a metric by which to consider booking me it could be considered fraud.

Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is

#16

Post by z_ » Wed, Jan 31, 2018, 10:56 PM UTC

The Internet is serious business.

Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is

#17

Post by westondeboer » Wed, Jan 31, 2018, 10:59 PM UTC

Are internet points worth something in real life?

Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is

#18

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, Jan 31, 2018, 11:07 PM UTC

westondeboer wrote: post #17

Are internet points worth something in real life?

If you care, they're worth a tiny ego boost. (But if you care very much, it often comes at the price of addictive behavior...)

Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is

#19

Post by mykoleary » Wed, Jan 31, 2018, 11:07 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #13

mykoleary wrote: post #10

Any company that looks solely at followers and not at overall and long term engagement (comments and likes) trends with a user's follower base deserves what they get from the person that "sold" them the bill of goods they bought.

You can buy comments and likes just as easily as followers. Once something manipulable becomes used as a measurable proxy for influence, it will be manipulated.

If that's a concern for companies, they can bake measurable minimums (referrals, converted referrals, etc) into their endorsement deals. Any person with a bevy of fake-ness won't meet them and thus won't get paid.

Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is

#20

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, Jan 31, 2018, 11:09 PM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #7

dmschulman wrote: post #2

Fraud would imply malice and criminal intent. What is criminal about paying for fake followers?

No, it wouldn't. There is civil fraud too. Here's the basic black's law dictionary definition: An intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage.

Why would someone's number of followers be a "material fact"?

I mean, it might make me decide to listen to them a time or two. It won't for long, though - they need to say something worth hearing for that.

(Disclaimer: The previous paragraph is hypothetical. I don't do social media at all, so I don't follow anyone...)