←back to thread

A harassment campaign on Goodreads

(www.patreon.com)
270 points ilamont | 6 comments | 06 Jan 20 20:20 UTC | HN request time: 1.358s | source | bottom
Show context
wyldfire ◴[06 Jan 20 21:06 UTC] No.21973326[source]▶
> Not all of these fake reviews are one stars – some give five star or other highly rated ratings. The catch with these highly rated reviews is many of them are created to give the false appearance that they were written by Tomlinson to raise his own Goodreads ratings, spoofing his name and photo and sometimes even using his own copyrighted writings.

Wow, that's devious. I wonder if any of the fake product reviews I've seen are obvious fake endorsements placed there by the competition.

replies(2): >>21973501 #>>21974868 #
degenerate ◴[06 Jan 20 21:24 UTC] No.21973501[source]▶
This problem isn't one born with the internet. Think about all those "WE BUY HOUSES 4 CASH" signs you see at stop lights. Why can't the city simply look up the phone number on them and convict the business owner for breaking advertisement laws? Because there is no proof he put the sign there. It could be the competition trying to frame him! Thus, the signs are simply thrown out... and he can put new ones out tomorrow.
replies(5): >>21973565 #>>21974177 #>>21974243 #>>21975186 #>>21976871 #
burundi_coffee ◴[06 Jan 20 22:27 UTC] No.21974177[source]▶
"Hello, I saw a sign that says you buy houses for cash, can I set up a meeting?"

"Yes, when are you available?"

> Ladies and gentlemen, we got him.

Surely can't be that hard to find out if the business owner set up that sign, right?

replies(5): >>21974209 #>>21974217 #>>21974232 #>>21974257 #>>21974671 #
whatshisface ◴[06 Jan 20 22:37 UTC] No.21974257[source]▶
Let's say you buy houses for cash and I put up a sign with your number on it. The police call you and find out that you do, indeed, buy houses for cash. They throw you in jail and I snicker, knowing that by breaking the advertising law myself but with your name I have put you out of business.

While I'm at it, I leave your business card at the scene of a heist.

replies(3): >>21975097 #>>21976137 #>>21978453 #
catalogia ◴[07 Jan 20 02:21 UTC] No.21976137[source]▶
>"Let's say you buy houses for cash and I put up a sign with your number on it. The police call you and find out that you do, indeed, buy houses for cash."

Suppose I were operating such a business with legal advertisements only and the detective asked me "Hey I saw a sign on a telephone pole saying you buy houses for cash, is that right?" why would I answer in the affirmative?

> "No, it's weird that you saw that. I don't post signs on any telephone poles, this is a highly reputable business.

They'd only say that if they're smart. Many of them probably aren't, and their guard will be down if the detective can do a passable "desperate alcoholic" impression over the phone. But regardless, I agree that false negatives are more likely than false positives.

replies(2): >>21976174 #>>21976341 #
dvtrn ◴[07 Jan 20 02:26 UTC] No.21976174[source]▶
Because of the inherent and blatantly obvious disparity in the power dynamic that exists between the two parties in your hypothetical?

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/06/psychologist-explain...

replies(1): >>21976213 #
1. catalogia ◴[07 Jan 20 02:33 UTC] No.21976213[source]▶
If I didn't in fact advertise on telephone poles, then I would say that wasn't my sign.

If I didn't advertise on telephone poles but somebody else was trying to frame me, and then I proceeded to act as though those signs were my own, then why would I not deserve punishment? If those signs advertised my business and I neglected to disown the signs because I was greedy, I think I'd deserve to be fined by the city. If I admitted on a recorded telephone call with a detective that the signs were mine, even if they weren't, then I've screwed myself with my own greed, which is fitting and just.

replies(1): >>21976256 #
2. dvtrn ◴[07 Jan 20 02:39 UTC] No.21976256[source]▶
It feels like you're skipping through a few steps to create a specific conclusion in order to then refute it?

If a detective merely asks you "do you post signs with your name and number with an offer to buy houses", a lot more steps have to take place before reaching the point where you, personally and individually would see a fine for what is in more cases than not going to be a civil infraction that I would imagine, one can take photos of, go to your municipality and contest and say "those signs are illegal but are not mine, these signs are legal and belong to me".

replies(1): >>21976310 #
3. catalogia ◴[07 Jan 20 02:49 UTC] No.21976310[source]▶
> If a detective merely asks you "do you post signs with your name and number with an offer to buy houses",

You're missing the point were the detective specifically asks you if you placed signs on telephone poles and got a voice recording of you admitting you did place illegal signs. The real reason this doesn't happen is simply because detectives can't be bothered, not because it's an impossible case to make in court.

replies(1): >>21976324 #
4. dvtrn ◴[07 Jan 20 02:52 UTC] No.21976324{3}[source]▶
The real reason this doesn't happen is simply because detectives can't be bothered

And because it's highly improbable that "yes, those are my signs" over the phone is enough to result in an infraction if they did.

Chances are, you're not even going to get the phone call in the hypothetical you're propping up, even from a clerk's office. If your name and phone number is on it, you'll likely just end up getting it in the mail without even the courtesy of a phone call to ask how your morning is going.

replies(1): >>21976336 #
5. catalogia ◴[07 Jan 20 02:53 UTC] No.21976336{4}[source]▶
Chances are these scam realestate business do not have "clerks offices." The numbers on them are almost always local numbers and probably go to the personal cellphone of the jackass who hung the sign nine times out of ten. Legitimate realestate businesses usually don't need to scrap the bottom of the barrel like this.

The possibility of a false negative does exist, but the possibility of a false positive seems greatly overstated and I do not believe aversion to false positives motivates the lack of enforcement as was suggested above.

replies(1): >>21976365 #
6. dvtrn ◴[07 Jan 20 02:58 UTC] No.21976365{5}[source]▶
Chances are these scam realestate business do not have "clerks offices."

I was talking about clerks of the local government agency who would have an issue with illegal sign placements...