Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–28 of 28 posts

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

#21

Post by AnimalMuppet »

mykoleary wrote: post #11
bobthechef wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure I can make fake followers continue to be active, unless "active" is defined very carefully...

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

#22

Post by DannyBee »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #9
DannyBee wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What possible injury could result from my false belief that a Kardashian has four times the followers than she actually has?

You are apparently not imaginative enough :) Note that it includes indirect injury as well.

The most obvious one is that you could could spend money on her as an advertiser, over someone else.

But people are crazy. There are super-weird fact patterns in fraud cases out there.

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

#23

Post by dragonwriter »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #20
DannyBee wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...)

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

People buying followers are often competing for commercial opportunities for which social media influence is a key factor in what they are selling to the prospective buyer.

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

#24

Post by DannyBee »

mykoleary wrote: post #11
bobthechef wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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

Sure it is, it's omission of a material fact. You know the person is trying to get through to real people. You know the number of actual people who are followers is smaller than the real number (through your intentional act of buying them), and you know this is material to the person you are talking to. If they suffer legal injury, congrats, you committed fraud.

This is pretty basic stuff. The kind of logic parsing you are attempting is not how the law works.

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

While generally true, it's irrelevant here. This is a thing you would definitely have a duty to disclose (for a ton of reasons). This would make it ripe for a misrepresentation-type fraud claim.

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

#25

Post by aoeusnth1 »

throwaway2016a wrote: post #15

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…

What’s your handle? :-)

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

#26

Post by threatofrain »

throwaway2016a wrote: post #15

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…

I've started to suspect some Github projects are like that, but I wouldn't want to be wrong in calling a project out.
Post reply on HN