Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "Feds Pass Rule to Get Rid of Fake Online Reviews" video.

That's part of why buying the fake reviews is also criminal rather than just being on the supply side. If a company has an abnormally large number of fake reviews, that would presumably be a basis for looking into their books for payments for such services and other payments that don't have a clear purpose or to businesses that engage in this sort of practice.
22
@JohnDoe-qz1ql Back when SCOTUS still cared about legitimacy, the rule of law and the constitution, we'd have some idea what to expect. Now, it's going to depend upon which side is giving the best gratuities.
6
It's not great, but by the same token, the quality of the rules is generally better than ones that are written by lobbyists and passed without any opportunity for the people to comment on it.
3
I think it will be enforceable, Amazon may not know where all the fake reviews are coming from, but they probably do know if they're fake. Likewise, whatever business is being advertised should be have the appropriate business records covering those expenditures. There may be some situations where a 3rd party is paying for them as a sort of smear campaign, but that's something that can be figured out as well.
2
@davidg3944 It could have just been misfiled. I've had some comments over the last couple years that appear on completely the wrong video. I'll click reply to a comment and it will wind up on a different video that I watched where it makes absolutely no sense.
2
Before SCOTUS blew up Chevron, there wasn't much of a difference. The reason that SCOTUS blew it up was because they didn't want any sort of regulations to be enacted. You can't get anything meaningful through the legislature thanks to corruption on both sides, and you're left with executive orders that are pretty limited in terms of what they can do and regulatory rule making where the law leaves it up to the experts at the agency to decide how to proceed with the task they were handed.
2
@tonycamp4514 If there is even the slightest wiggle room SCOTUS might decide that it's not enforceable. That being said, the fake reviews might anger enough corporations that SCOTUS will be allowed to let it stand.
1
@redneckcoder Not true, look at medicine now versus before the government got involved. If you don't think the government is doing a good enough job, stop voting GOP.
1
@wingracer1614 Yes, and that's why this likely will be useful. I doubt that it will solve the problem completely, but having enforcement actions against online market places that don't take down fake reviews and the ability to investigate businesses that appear to be paying for the fake reviews would have a noticeable impact. As opposed to the fake calls, where it's a lot harder to just sever ties to over seas call centers that may have some part of their business making legitimate phone calls.
1
@brianorca Yes, the buying side of things is much more likely to be something that they can actually enforce. I doubt most of the people on the providing side even reside in the US, or at least when it was actual people leaving the reviews, bots could be located anywhere.
1
@DaveP-uv1ml I remember years ago being threatened with a law suit for pointing out that giving things away for reviews was more or less buying reviews. Thanks to the Mr. Beast drama, I now know that it may have also been an illegal lottery. I do realize that it's difficult to get people to review products and services, especially if it's not a mediocre opinion, but paying for reviews from legitimate buyers is problematic.
1
That's because it's not illegal to receive unsollicited spam calls. In this case, it's illegal to pay for the fake reviews rather than to just leave the fake reviews.
1