←back to thread

374 points indus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bragr ◴[] No.41915238[source]
Does the regulation say anything about deceptively moderating reviews? e.g. deleting all the low star reviews?

edit: it doesn't seem so. You just have use some weasel language:

>The final rule also bars a business from misrepresenting that the reviews on a review portion of its website represent all or most of the reviews submitted when reviews have been suppressed based upon their ratings or negative sentiment.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/08/...

replies(4): >>41915320 #>>41915513 #>>41916025 #>>41916194 #
onlyrealcuzzo ◴[] No.41915513[source]
How does this stop one of the most common practices?

* Step 1, take a product with a terrible rating

* Step 2, create a new SKU for the exact same product so it has no ratings

* Step 3, get a handful of fake 5-star reviews (in some way the FTC isn't going to crack down on)

* Step 4, blast the old terribly reviewed product that now has good reviews on marketing

* Step 5, get 10s of thousands of sales, $$$

* Step 6, let the terrible reviews pour in

Repeat to step 1 (possibly under a different brand name).

replies(10): >>41915589 #>>41915601 #>>41915678 #>>41915693 #>>41915890 #>>41915989 #>>41916260 #>>41916563 #>>41916946 #>>41917132 #
soco ◴[] No.41915589[source]
To all commenters quickly pointing out the ways this rule is far from perfect: you are completely right. This being clarified, is the alternative doing nothing? Because that's where we are.
replies(3): >>41915616 #>>41916134 #>>41918676 #
1. jessriedel ◴[] No.41918676{3}[source]
Rules degenerating into infinite whack-a-mole is a strong (though inconclusive) signal a mistake is being made. "Let's ban rent increases". "Whoops, now all the landlords are slacking on property maintenance; let's mandate maintenance." "Whoops, now all the landlords have stopped making improvements; let's let them increase rents X% when they spend at least $Y on improvements." "Whoops,..."

So you end up in some new equilibrium. Maybe that equilibrium is better, maybe it's worse, but it's simply not true that it's always better to do something rather than nothing, and pointing out the loopholes in the rules is valid criticism.