Fake Defined? Next Up Trust, Ethics, and Truth
October 28, 2024
Another post from a dinobaby. No smart software required except for the illustration.
This is a snappy headline: “You Can Now Get Fined $51,744 for Writing a Fake Review Online.” The write up states:
This mandate includes AI-generated reviews (which have recently invaded Amazon) and also encompasses dishonest celebrity endorsements as well as testimonials posted by a company’s employees, relatives, or friends, unless they include an explicit disclaimer. The rule also prohibits brands from offering any sort of incentive to prompt such an action. Suppressing negative reviews is no longer allowed, nor is promoting reviews that a company knows or should know are fake.
So, what does “fake” mean? The word appears more than 160 times in the US government document.
My hunch is that the intrepid US Federal government does not want companies to hype their products with “fake” reviews. But I don’t see a definition of “fake.” On page 10 of the government document “Use of Consumer Reviews”, I noted:
“…the deceptive or unfair commercial acts or practices involving reviews or other endorsement.”
That’s a definition of sort. Other words getting at what I would call a definition are:
- buying reviews (these can be non fake or fake it seems)
- deceptive
- false
- manipulated
- misleading
- unfair
On page 23 of the government document, A. 465. – Definitions appears. Alas, the word “fake” is not defined.
The document is 163 pages long and strikes me as a summary of standard public relations, marketing, content marketing, and social media practices. Toss in smart software and Telegram-type BotFather capability and one has described the information environment which buzzes, zaps, and swirls 24×7 around anyone with access to any type of electronic communication / receiving device.
Look what You.com generated. A high school instructor teaching a debate class about a foundational principle.
On page 119, the authors of the government document arrive at a key question, apparently raised by some of the individuals sufficiently informed to ask “killer” questions; for example:
Several commenters raised concerns about the meaning of the term “fake” in the context of indicators of social media influence. A trade association asked, “Does ‘fake’ only mean that the likes and followers were created by bots or through fake accounts? If a social media influencer were to recommend that their followers also follow another business’ social media account, would that also be ‘procuring’ of ‘fake’ indicators of social media influence? . . . If the FTC means to capture a specific category of ‘likes,’ ‘follows,’ or other metrics that do not reflect any real opinions, findings, or experiences with the marketer or its products or services, it should make that intention more clear.”
Alas, no definition is provided. “Fake” exists in a cloud of unknowing.
What if the US government prosecutors find themselves in the position of a luminary who allegedly said: “Porn. I know it when I see it.” That posture might be more acceptable than trying to explain that an artificial intelligence content generator produced a generic negative review of an Italian restaurant. A competitor uses the output via a messaging service like Telegram Messenger and creates a script to plug in the name, location, and date for 1,000 Italian restaurants. The individual then lets the script rip. When investigators look into this defamation of Italian restaurants, the trail leads back to a virtual assert service provider crime as a service operation in Lao PDR. The owner of that enterprise resides in Cambodia and has multiple cyber operations supporting the industrialized crime as a service operation. Okay, then what?
In this example, “fake” becomes secondary to a problem as large or larger than bogus reviews on US social media sites.
What’s being done when actual criminal enterprises are involved in “fake” related work. According the the United Nations, in certain nation states, law enforcement is hampered and in some cases prevented from pursuing a bad actor.
Several observations:
- As most high school debaters learn on Day One of class: Define your terms. Present these in plain English, not a series of anecdotes and opinions.
- Keep the focus sharp. If reviews designed to damage something are the problem, focus on that. Avoid the hand waving.
- The issue exists due to a US government policy of looking the other way with regard to the large social media and online services companies. Why not become a bit more proactive? Decades of non-regulation cannot be buried under 160 page plus documents with footnotes.
Net net: “Fake,” like other glittering generalities cannot be defined. That’s why we have some interesting challenges in today’s world. Fuzzy is good enough.
PS. If you have money, the $50,000 fine won’t make any difference. Jail time will.
Stephen E Arnold, October 28, 2024
Comments
Got something to say?
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
