fraud.
Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is
#2Fraud would imply malice and criminal intent. What is criminal about paying for fake followers?
Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is
#3Fraud would imply malice and criminal intent. What is criminal about paying for fake followers?
If it results in a competing startup's product losing funding, and the fraudulent startup's product gaining funding based on fake followers, I could see the term "fraud" applying.
Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is
#4Fraud would imply malice and criminal intent. What is criminal about paying for fake followers?
It could be considered criminal if you were stating your following or reach was immense, such as in the tens-of-thousands when really it was merely in the dozens, so as to arrange inflated endorsement dollars.
Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is
#5Fraud 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.
Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is
#6Plausible deniability. Fake followers aren't marketed as fake, they're just marketed as followers.
Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is
#7Fraud 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.
Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is
#8I have dated 2 fashion models. One was signed. They purchased Instagram followers. I didn't know what that even meant before either of them (and still don't really care). They did it ( and realistically, it's just part of that world) to remain competitive in an extremely tough industry they were wrapped up in. While I'm still not with either and things didn't work out and the whole thing is a little ridiculous, I would not consider either of them to be engaging in criminally fraudulent behavior.
Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is
#9Fraud 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.
What possible injury could result from my false belief that a Kardashian has four times the followers than she actually has?
Re: Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is
#10Any 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.