Fixing Internet Fakes

Earlier this week, Politico pointed out that a vast number of Twitter accounts are using fake followers to make themselves seem more important. 46.8% of Obama’s are fake, 35.1% of Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s are fake, 23.6% of John McCain’s are fake, 21.9% of Hillary’s are fake. Interesting. Did you know that you can’t trust online reviews either?

Let’s start with this: why would someone fake Twitter followers? Well, the answer is simple. Success on Twitter is measured by the number of followers each account has. Hence, if you want to be seen as an influential person, then you need a lot of followers. The same is true of book reviews. The more reviews you have at a place like Amazon, the more likely it will be that you will be seen as an important author.

Why does this work? Well, people are herd animals and they do what everyone else does. So when they see two books and one has 1,000 reviews and the other has 10, they will instinctively drift to the first.

But do you know what? Just as you can’t trust the fake Twitter followers, you can’t trust any of the reviews you see at Amazon or Yelp either (or anywhere else online). Why? Because there are too many people who have incentives to fake their reviews. Consider these examples:

● Authors: Authors know that reviews sell books, so they have an incentive to put up fake “highly positive” reviews. It won’t surprise you to learn that many authors do this, and I don’t just mean reviews by families and friends. I am aware of authors who have posted dozens of fake reviews to their accounts. One woman actually posted two glowing reviews within hours of any negative review that appeared. And each of those new reviews would go out of their way to contradict the negative reviews. I suspect that publishers and agents play this game too.

● Competitors: People are constantly getting caught smearing their competitors online. What’s bizarre about this, at least in books, is that there are way more than enough sales for everyone and a rising tide means more sales for everyone. Nevertheless, there are authors who think it helps them to tear down the competition and they go around and secretly leave devastating reviews to their competitor’s books. I’ve had this happen several times to my books and even been able to track it back to specific authors.

● Trolls: Believe it or not, there are people who get off attacking products online. You can spot these people because their reviews are typically way off base and so negative that they border on personal attacks. And if you check out the other reviews written by these people, you will typically see that they hand out nothing but 1s and 2s, and they do it to dozens of products.

● Politics: Anything that ends up on the political radar will be massacred by the other side typically without a single “critic” actually purchasing the product.

● Top Reviewers: Some places have created a series of “awards” and “distinctions” for people who get the most positive feedback on their reviews. This status brings with it certain benefits. One of those benefits is that these people get a lot of free products in the hopes that they will leave a glowing review. Here’s the thing: to keep getting positive feedback on their reviews, these people have learned to only say good things.

● Paid Reviews: Finally, there are companies out there who will post reviews in exchange for money.

The end result of all of this is that I would bet that maybe 25% of all the reviews you see online are false reviews posted by people with the intent of manipulating you rather than informing you. So which reviews can you trust? The answer is: none.

Even worse, there are people who set up whole websites to sell their products, and these are often flat out fraudulent. To give an example, try doing a general search for the dangers of diet supplements. The first hundred or so responses you get will be created by the manufacturer, who has set up dummy websites to sell these products. At first glance, these websites look like individuals who bought the product, used it, liked it, and wrote about it. But if you look closely, you’ll see the telltale signs of something created by an unethical marketing department.

Interestingly, they also clog up the “negative” sites. In fact, if you click on many of the sites that at first appear to be exposés on the product, you will be shocked to discover that each of these supposed skeptics tells you how skeptical they were because all those other products out there are so harmful so this must be a fraud, right? Well, gosh darn it, if this product isn’t different. Not only does this product work, but angels sang when I used it.

When you do find a legitimate debunking, typically done by a doctor or consumer rating organization, you will see their comment section filled with utter hate. That’s the manufacturer’s unethical marketing team again.

The sad truth is that you can’t believe anything you see online that is supposed to tell you what the customers really think. Most of it is fake, and you have no way to tell the difference.

Interestingly, there have been several instances lately where companies have started suing people who leave negative reviews. The most recent examples have been restaurants and hotels, each of which won their suits. So do I support this? Absolutely. If you’re going to attack a product online, then you better be truthful about your attack. Hopefully, this will start to make people think twice.

At the same time, I would actually expand the power of these lawsuits. If it is a competitor, then there should be a fine attached... a hefty one as this is a deceptive trade practice. At the same time, if a company gets caught posting their own fake favorable reviews, those should be fined as well for the same reason. As much as I dislike bringing the legal system into life, I am starting to think that the legal system is needed to rein in the worst misbehavior on the web.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

How Far Is Too Far With Anonymous Posting?

One of the greatest things about the internet is also one of the worst things about the internet: anonymity. Anonymity allows people the freedom to say their most truthful and deepest thoughts without fear of social sanction. But it also makes it too easy to express vicious and hateful thoughts and to try to manipulate others. To combat this, people have adopted various tactics -- everything from deleting anonymous comments to the creation of fake posters to refute the haters. But how far is too far?

The incident that raises this question involves Scott Adams. Adams, for those who don’t recognize the name, is the creator of the comic strip “Dilbert.” Adams, who describes himself as a “libertarian minus the crazy stuff,” found himself in trouble in March of 2011 when he wrote a blog post on the topic of men’s rights after his readers suggested that be his next topic.

In typical Adams style, Adams relied heavily on sarcasm as he suggested that men treat women differently for the same reason men treat children or the mentally handicapped differently, i.e. because it is an effective strategy. He then suggested that men should take the path of least resistance when dealing with women. This generated significant outrage both from men’s rights advocates and from feminists, neither of whom can take a joke.

Adams eventually deleted the post after pointing out that people had failed to grasp his use of sarcasm and satire, and he wrote that this furor showed that it was impossible to “have a rational discussion on any topic that has an emotional charge.” But that didn’t end the problem. Following this, Adams found himself subject to repeated nasty criticism on the internet by anonymous posters. Adams responded by creating a fake person (called a “sockpuppet” in internet parlance), who would visit sites like Reddit and Metafilter pretending to be a fan of Adams and would defend Adams. Eventually, he was caught, and in April 2011, he confessed. This unleashed ferocious criticism of his tactic. But was he unjustified?

This is an admittedly complex question and answers that appear clear at first glance turn cloudy very quickly. For example, in general, we shouldn’t condone fraud or deceit. Pretending to be someone else is classic fraud. But then, the entire internet is anonymous, and why should we condemn Adams when we don’t demand to know the identities of the equally anonymous attackers?

Also, if our concern is just his pretending to be someone else, then he could fix that by hiring someone to defend him -- like a public relations firm. But that’s the same thing we call fraudulent when a salesman does it by planting a shill in the audience to talk up their product. So isn’t that just swapping one problem for another? Or should we factor in the difference anonymity makes today? In the past, you had to make your claims in person, which toned them down and gave people a person to judge the allegations against. But not today. Today, people have the power and right to slander you without ever disclosing their real names, much less their motivations. Shouldn’t that grant some leeway in how people choose to fight this threat?

Of course, we should also point out that people should know not to trust what they read from anonymous sources. So caveat reader seems to be the order of the day. But do people really get this? I can tell you from experience that the perception of independence matters, even when it’s a false perception. For example, we’ve seen that a link posted by one of you at Big Hollywood will consistently drive many times the amount of traffic to our site that the same link posted by one of us would. Yet, those visitors have no way to know if any of you is real or if you are just Commentarama sockpuppets. So clearly, there is something to the idea of an independent recommendation that people find attractive, even when there is no way to confirm the independence.

But before we start advocating some new rules, we should also ask: does it matter? Sure, humans tend to believe far too much of what they read. But most of the criticism found on the net is just subjective opinions and falls into the “he said, she said” category which people tend to ignore. Moreover, if either side pushes too far into truly damaging statements, then readers start to suspect a motive. . . that’s how Adams got caught and how the Washington Redskins got caught when they did the same thing -- they pushed too hard in their own defense. Also, massive organizations like Media Matters regularly flood comment streams with pro-leftist posts today, but the public still has turned against Obama and the Progressives. So maybe this type of attack just isn’t very effective?

Ultimately, maybe this whole issue comes down to a bit of a contradiction. For example, I find that I cannot condemn Adams for wrongdoing. He has the right to defend himself. He did nothing more than use the same tools used by his critics to attack him. And he never left the realm of subjective opinion into making false claims about the physical properties of products, i.e. the kinds of things I would see as fraudulent. But at the same time, I can’t condone what he’s done either as it feels dirty. And I have to wonder if maybe the best policy when faced with this kind of attack isn’t simply to challenge the anonymous posters under your own name? People respect that and they tend to give instant credibility to the “known” entity over the unknown attacker. So maybe, the answer was there all along -- Adams should have just stood up for himself as “Scott Adams”?

What do you think?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Modern Media Matters

Let’s talk about a couple issues related to the modern media, both of which came to light in the past few days. First, we have the NPR issue and the whining about James O’Keefe. Then we have the issue of fake callers.

1. NPR Stung

James O’Keefe first came to the public consciousness when he pulled a sting on ACORN, exposing them as a criminal organization. His sting was so successful it killed ACORN. What made this all the more shocking, was the number of government organizations who should have been investigating/overseeing ACORN, yet somehow, “knew nussiiiiing” until O’Keefe exposed the truth.

Now he’s done it again. This time he exposed the bias as the top of NPR, with an NPR executive slandering Republicans, acquiescing in anti-Semitic remarks, and saying they don’t need funding -- this despite the fact NPR claims to be unbiased and continues to lobby for funding on the basis that withdrawing funding would destroy NPR.

So far two executives have resigned as a result of this, but that’s hardly enough. There is no way someone with these views or who thinks such conduct is acceptable could make it to the top of a news organization if his conduct was not condoned by the other managers and staff. And since I don’t recall any NPR reporters blowing the whistle, I think it’s a fair read that they too share his beliefs. . . as further evidenced by the bias they inject into their stories. So it sounds to me like it’s time for (1) a purge, (2) outside supervision, and (3) intensive sensitivity training by conservative and Jewish groups.

Of course, the left is complaining that what O’Keefe did was unethical -- they made the same claim when Tucker Carlson exposed the Journolist. But what O’Keefe did is a time-honored journalistic tactic used by 60 Minutes, Primetime Live and dozens more. It doesn’t suddenly become immoral just because it catches liberals.

2. Media Fakery

Leftists are also claiming that a company provides fake callers to shows like Rush and Hannity so they can control what questions they get asked. Really? Why? They get more callers than they can possibly use and their screeners control who gets through, so they already control what questions get asked. Moreover, anyone who argues for a living is more than capable of twisting their callers to get to any point they want. So why bother?

Nevertheless, this raises a good point to keep in mind: you can’t just believe everything you see or hear. Consider the issue of fake comments. Fake comments have become a part of the propaganda/marketing wars. They are everywhere now. When you see a town hall meeting on television, what you are seeing is a highly controlled, almost scripted event that is designed to provide the public with a certain perception of the politician who held the event. This includes selecting who gets in (including race and gender quotas), selecting who gets to ask questions, and often planting questions to help the speaker make the precise points they want to make. When you see a story at Yahoo or other news sites, you often see a couple hundred strangely similar comments appear usually within a short period of time. These are from groups that troll the web looking for articles where they can influence the public by creating the impression that the rest of the public thinks one way or another.

Even when you go to a website, you have no idea if the comments you see are real. Some are intended to make the place seem busier or to stir up controversy or to make the author seem more popular (unlike the first comment below, which is 100% legit!). In the commercial arena, some companies have marketing departments which go to places like Amazon and talk up their own products and talk down their competitors. One college professor was actually fired when he was caught anonymously posting malicious comments about a competitor’s book. Even the Washington Redskins are believed to have hired someone to post comments as andyman, attacking their critics at various newspapers. Some companies/political groups even set up fake blogs dedicated to their products, but which appear to be unrelated and spontaneous.

The point is you can’t believe anything you see in this anonymous yet highly-produced world, so the idea that anyone should be upset if Rush uses a fake caller is ludicrous. This also means, that despite the fact we have become a cynical people, we apparently still need to become even more cynical.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Technical Assistance, Commentarama Style

Sometimes a relationship goes stale. The chase becomes tedium. The challenge is gone. You’ve said everything you have to say. Those little things you once found charming. . . they become annoying. That’s how I feel about Nigerian Scammers. Who did you think I was talking about?

I, for one, am sick of the low quality garbage these Nigerians keep sending to my inbox. They’re dull, pointless, and about as see-through as the latest Obama jobs claim lie. Blech. I miss the old days, when you looked at your inbox and you weren’t sure what was real or what wasn’t. Now it’s nothing but Spanish Lottery winners and rich widows trying to leave Africa. Come on people! You’ve got to step up your game.

So I’m going to offer some free advise to my friends from Nigeria. . . or Kenya.

The crux of the problem is this. Nobody believes that you would pick a “trusted friend” from a random e-mail. Not happening. BUT. . . people will believe that they stumbled upon something. So start with this: “Dear Harry, I have the money and am ready to send it to your account. But I need to act fast. If you were unable to open the account, then find me someone who can do this instead of you. I’m willing to share with whoever it is.”

Notice the advantages here. First, you don’t need to know who you’re talking to because your target thinks you were sending the e-mail to “Harry” and they will just assume you sent it to them by mistake. That means no more awkward e-mails to “Dearest Mr. Commentarama” or “My trusted friend flamingasshat7”. Secondly, this is believable because the target will think they’ve stumbled upon a scheme, not that you’ve offered them one. Trust me, humans are suspicious of offers that sound too good to be true (except from Congress), but they’re suckers for sneaky schemes.

Next, stop talking about lottery winnings. Everyone knows that nobody wins the Spanish lottery, not even the Spanish. And calling it the British lottery doesn’t help either. You need a better angle for where you got the money. I would suggest playing on the current strain of angry populism: “Harry, I got the TARP money from that rich greedy bank.” This has many advantages. First, banks aren’t people, they can’t feel pain so people feel no qualms about stealing from them. Secondly, some politicians reinforce this by telling us that it’s ok to take things from banks, because they’re evil and greedy. . . and foreign banks are the worst!

But if that isn’t simple enough for you, take a page from the frat party ad book. Send the following: “I’m going to shoot this panda if you don’t support ObamaCare send us $100.” Just make sure to include the picture of the panda. If you need to, substitute a baby.


Finally, get yourself an English speaker on staff. Seriously, the investment will pay for itself in days. If you’d like us to help you, just send us your account information and we’ll get right on that.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

я люблю тебя

Love is in the air dear reader, and online. Just this very morning, I was contacted by a lovely young woman, who sounds (if I may say so) quite interested in me. Hubba hubba. Now admittedly, I haven’t had the chance to read the whole e-mail, as it’s been a busy morning. But I have time now, so join me as I learn more about the woman of my dreams!

Her name is Oksana. . . or it could be Svetlana (but I think that’s just a typo), and she lives in Georgia (possibly near Atlanta?). She got my e-mail from someplace called “Soul Mate Service -- Agency of the International Acquaintances.” That sounds pretty impressive, kind of Austin Powersy. I wonder how they got my name?

Anyhoo, she continues:

“At Soul Mate to me has told that you looking for serious women to relationship.” And indeed I am, I’m done with relationshiping clowns. . . and jugglers.

“I hope you still in search of serious relationships with women.” Um. . . I don’t quite know how to take that. Is she hoping that I’m not gay or is she hoping that I’m lonely? Hmmm.

“As I am microbiologist by profession, I am fond of nature.” Makes sense.

“I like travel in nature best of all.” A nudist! I guess that makes her French? As an aside, I’m down with nudism, though I’m not sure where you keep your car keys?

“Im kind, caring, calm, honest, cheerful, understanding, responsive and charming lady. I like dancing, traveling, nature, cooking, sport and people. I can be firm or tender depending on the situation, but I always stay woman.” Now that’s good to know. Although, it is a little troubling that she felt the need to assure me on this point. . . I wonder if there is something I should know?

“I want to make my live bright and saturated, I dont like being boring and doing nothing. So, you can be sure, you will never boring with me.” I don’t know, I’ve bored house plants.

“Im very sociable and cant imagine my life without communication with people.” Yes, that would be difficult, though hermits seem to pull it off.

“I enjoy watching moves with my friends.” Me to, nothing beats watching movers do their thing.

“In winter time I love scatting.” Whoa! Now this bothers me! This could be a deal breaker.

“On the whole, I am very romantic and tender, kind, jolly and well-bread person.” Well-breaded? Tender? I guess that’s better than gamey, but not by much, especially considering the whole scatting thing. And I wonder what “on the whole” means? Is this perhaps code for “experiences brief moments of homicidal rage, followed by intermittent scatting”?

“I am communicable and goal-oriented.” So is a virus.

“I think that all life of a woman is LOVE and at first a man should love a woman and then understand.” *scratches head*

“Now some words about mine search. I looking for serious relationships here.” More than one? Call me a jerk, but I’m starting to doubt this is going to work out.

“I want man to find for making strong and happy family in the future. I know that it is difficult to find future love by so way.” Sure is, but it’s easier than trying to find past love -- which requires a time machine.

“I am looking my second half, man who wants to create his own family.” Half of you is a man? Which half?

“I am looking man who is caring and cheerful.” Sure, whatever.

“He is optimistic.” Good luck finding that.

“He has big heart.” What?! You want someone with an enlarged heart? Well fine, if we’re going to play that game, then I want a woman with a big, floppy liver and a hump.

“He is self sure. He should trust me completely.” Strangely, I’m finding that rather difficult at the moment.

“He must become the most intimate and important man in my life, and respect and understand me. I want him to have his own opinion about everything!” Maybe this e-mail was meant for Lawhawk?

“I wish see your country.” Since when is Georgia in another country? Texas maybe, but not Georgia.

“We should communicate much and long time what to come to it. Not so?” Wait a minute, are we talking haggling or negotiations? This is sounding worse and worse by the minute.

“I hope that you will also be write about yourself and city where you live and sent photos.” You know what, I don’t think so.

Sorry dear reader for wasting your time. Please disregard this entire post.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

I Am Outta Here Suckers. . .

It is with great pleasure that I announce today my retirement from everything. You heard me right, I’m done. Unlike the rest of you proles, I am now rich. . . monocle rich.

Yessiree, this very morning I received an e-mail informing me that I have won the English Lottery!! Heh heh heh. That’s right, £1.5 million . . . all mine.

So as I wait for the cash to start rolling in, let me say that it’s been fun, but as you saps roll out of bed on Monday for another long day at work, I plan to be sitting on my couch. . . living the high life.


UPDATE:

Please disregard the above post dear reader. Apparently, I have not won the English Lottery.

Who knew there was no such thing as a free lunch? *sighs*

You know, in hindsight, I should have guessed something was wrong because I never entered the English Lottery. I guess I just hoped they’d made a mistake. And the more I think about it, it doesn’t make a lot of sense that they would notify me of something like this by anonymous e-mail.

And while we’re at it, I probably shouldn’t have sent my social security number and bank account numbers to someone I didn’t know -- I would never do this if someone showed up on my door -- but this is different, right? This is the internet, and the old rules of common sense just don’t apply on the internet, right?

This isn’t fair. Nobody warned me that this could be a scam. I knew the Spanish Lottery e-mails were a scam, but this was the English Lottery.

Somebody should do a public service announcement to warn people about these things.

Oh well, live and learn. Fortunately, I have other things going on . . . I’m quite close to the Minister of Development in Nigeria, and he’s got a deal for me that sounds too good to be true. I’m very excited. [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...