Social media services now illegal

[alwayslistening]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30/tech/new-york-attorney-general-social-media/index.html

"New York (CNN Business)A company that brought in millions of dollars in revenue by creating fake social media posts and comments has settled a case with the state of New York after a probe exposed its activities. It's the first finding by a law enforcement agency indicating that such activity constitutes illegal deception and illegal impersonation, according to the state's top attorney."

 

[sesamee]

How did you end up on CNN in the first place?
Secondly, they'll do fookin' nothin'

 

[alwayslistening]

How did you end up on CNN in the first place?
Secondly, they'll do fookin' nothin'

LOL true, saw it on someones post i follow. You sure about that? Looks like they did... and if you're doing big business- could hurt getting it all taken back via chargebacks or something.

 

[aduseia]

Your thread title is misleading. This is a case regarding straight up fraud.

It's not to say social media services are "illegal" outright.

 

[KraftyKyle]

Well that was a terrible choice of a thread title...

 

[mickyfu]

Please forgive me for my ignorance if I'm wrong. But haven't loads of companies been sued for operating the same / similar businesses, several years prior to this article?

 

[rafark]

If you are an extremely good lawyer, you can make a case on breach of terms of use.

Not that this is in any way important though, no company will sue your basement's blog. It's not worth their time.

 

[doepjohn]

The company earned approximately $15 million in revenue selling this fake social media activity, according to the settlement. Calas neither admitted nor denied the attorney general's findings as part of the settlement. Calas must pay $50,000 to the state of New York to cover the costs and fees incurred by the state in its probe, but neither he nor the company will face any additional penalties.

Cost of doing business I guess. They still made off with a lot.

 

[erui22]

Your thread title is misleading. This is a case regarding straight up fraud.

It's not to say social media services are "illegal" outright.

That thread title was kind of misleading, however as far as the merits of the case, this very well could set a precedent. I mean it could be only a matter of time before we see TV ads from law firms with "Have you been sold a fake like, is that follow not real? call the attorneys of Joe blow and Bill bo for your free consultation."

 

[jonsnow2019]

So a company that made $15 mil was closed down and paid a 50K fee for selling fake likes. Not a big deal.

Yes title is confusing, I thought it meant you can't do social media ads anymore lol.

 

[weirdo23]

clickbait title....anyway they made a pretty nice amount of money and got away with it, congrats!

 

[aduseia]

That thread title was kind of misleading, however as far as the merits of the case, this very well could set a precedent. I mean it could be only a matter of time before we see TV ads from law firms with "Have you been sold a fake like, is that follow not real? call the attorneys of Joe blow and Bill bo for your free consultation."

That's a grand assumption. It's perfectly fine if a company advertises that they offer FAKE likes, comments, and views, because then it's not fraud. Tons of people on this website don't have a problem with that.

It's all about context.

 

[shyft101]

Interesting. This works out for growth hackers who are actually bringing in real followers and likes.

Times are changing. Survival of the fittest. Adapt or be left behind (sued in this case).

 

[SocialManager]

$15 million, minus outsourcing costs of $300, minus $50,000 fine. Eh, I guess I will still consider hopping into this industry.

 

[alwayslistening]

Your thread title is misleading. This is a case regarding straight up fraud.

It's not to say social media services are "illegal" outright.

No, its not straight up fraud. Its as fraudulent as a girl using 2 year old photos on tinder.

Well that was a terrible choice of a thread title...

*guy that clicked + responded to post

Please forgive me for my ignorance if I'm wrong. But haven't loads of companies been sued for operating the same / similar businesses, several years prior to this article?

Im not sure, do you know of any?

That thread title was kind of misleading, however as far as the merits of the case, this very well could set a precedent. I mean it could be only a matter of time before we see TV ads from law firms with "Have you been sold a fake like, is that follow not real? call the attorneys of Joe blow and Bill bo for your free consultation."

Get ya weight up, get ya click through rate up

That's a grand assumption. It's perfectly fine if a company advertises that they offer FAKE likes, comments, and views, because then it's not fraud. Tons of people on this website don't have a problem with that.

It's all about context.

Not sure if thats true at all. It seems they think the bots are misleading people on the opposite end, not the consumer purchasing from you. They dont want you doing it period.

$15 million, minus outsourcing costs of $300, minus $50,000 fine. Eh, I guess I will still consider hopping into this industry.

Hahah as the industry has matured, they're definitely costs associated with it, the margins are not as great as one would think.

 

[belg]

@alwayslistening
https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/how-to-use-the-multiquote-feature-on-bhw.975670/

 

[Stavro]

Legally, a settlement means absolutely nothing. The law won't be set until a judge rules on a similar case, and even then the law would only apply within New York state.

 

[PinguSpy]

I believe, they did not "create" it.
They "resell" it.

Why do they still have to pay a fine?

 

[aduseia]

Not sure if thats true at all. It seems they think the bots are misleading people on the opposite end, not the consumer purchasing from you. They dont want you doing it period.

Not necessarily. They should still be able to sell fake likes in my opinion. Nobody bans women from buying fake hair, nails, etc because its "misleading people on the opposite end" LoL. I mean unless men lobbied against companies selling fake hair.

I think if there's context, then its fine. If you're referring to the user (people viewing the profiles), then maybe there's a point.

 

[mrbit]

"As people and companies like D*vumi continue to make a quick buck by lying to honest Americans, my office will continue to find and stop anyone who sells online deception.” who you guys think comes next