AI Smackdown: How a New FTC Rule Also Fights Fake Product Reviews (salon.com) 20
Salon looks closer at a new $51,744-per-violation AI regulation officially approved one month ago by America's FTC — calling it a financial blow "If you're a digital media company whose revenue comes from publishing AI-generated articles and fake product reviews.
But they point out the rules also ban "product review suppression." Per the ruling, that means it's a violation for "anyone to use an unfounded or groundless legal threat, a physical threat, intimidation, or a public false accusation in response to a consumer review... to (1) prevent a review or any portion thereof from being written or created, or (2) cause a review or any portion thereof to be removed, whether or not that review or a portion thereof is replaced with other content."
Finally... The rule makes it a violation for a business to "provide compensation or other incentives in exchange for, or conditioned expressly or by implication on, the writing or creation of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, whether positive or negative, regarding the product, service or business...." [T]he new rule also prevents secretly advertising for yourself while pretending to be an independent outlet or company. It bars "the creation or operation of websites, organizations or entities that purportedly provide independent reviews or opinions of products or services but are, in fact, created and controlled by the companies offering the products or services."
In an earlier statement, FTC Consumer Protection Bureau head Sam Levine, said the new rule "should help level the playing field for honest companies. We're using all available means to attack deceptive advertising in the digital age," he said.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader mspohr for sharing the article.
But they point out the rules also ban "product review suppression." Per the ruling, that means it's a violation for "anyone to use an unfounded or groundless legal threat, a physical threat, intimidation, or a public false accusation in response to a consumer review... to (1) prevent a review or any portion thereof from being written or created, or (2) cause a review or any portion thereof to be removed, whether or not that review or a portion thereof is replaced with other content."
Finally... The rule makes it a violation for a business to "provide compensation or other incentives in exchange for, or conditioned expressly or by implication on, the writing or creation of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, whether positive or negative, regarding the product, service or business...." [T]he new rule also prevents secretly advertising for yourself while pretending to be an independent outlet or company. It bars "the creation or operation of websites, organizations or entities that purportedly provide independent reviews or opinions of products or services but are, in fact, created and controlled by the companies offering the products or services."
In an earlier statement, FTC Consumer Protection Bureau head Sam Levine, said the new rule "should help level the playing field for honest companies. We're using all available means to attack deceptive advertising in the digital age," he said.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader mspohr for sharing the article.
Account Cancelation (Score:2)
```
unfounded or groundless legal threat, a physical threat, intimidation, or a public false accusation in response to a consumer review...
```
The big factor is ecommerce sites canceling people's accounts when they write negative reviews.
You can find numerous examples of very fair negative reviews that got people's accounts canceled and home addresses banned. "Community Standards" is 100% subjective.
It's not worth leaving reviews anymore which is detrimental to the public good.
If FTC cared to ensure a fair r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how I have never heard of that type of account cancellations happening in Europe. A company doing this would probably get skewered here. And I have left plenty of (well-reasoned) negative reviews. Some vendors here even use these in advertising, because they have understood that a negative review does not reduce sales, it just means a different product gets sold and the customer has a higher satisfaction. So allowing well-reasoned negative reviews is actually good for business. I guess the ones doing
Anything sponsored is fake (Score:4, Insightful)
It's really simple, you don't need A.i. to fake a review.
How many youtube videos haven't we seen that opens with : ....
Manufacturer sent me this product for review, but I am in no way affiliated with
etc..
Every youtube - ever - today.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not that simple. Anything sponsored needs higher standards in its reviewers. True, most people do not have that level of honor and integrity, but some do.
FTC is one of the good ones. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully it withstands the SCOTUS overturning of chevron deference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully, they will be able to continue that. Regulatory capture is the beginning of the end. Just look at Boeing or the crap going on on the software space.
Re: (Score:2)
FTC is a nominated position so it's really up to us, or I guess, people in about 7 states.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like it. Well, if the voters decide to end it all, it will at least be a pretty fire.
Couple of Problems Here (Score:1)
Unfounded or groundless legal threats
The Federal Trade Commission has no authority, implied or otherwise, to determine on its own what is and is not an "unfounded legal threat." The judicial branch is delegated that authority at both the state and federal level.
Further, issuing legal opinions intended as advice average citizens can rely on could also be interpreted as practicing law, which is forbidden in all 50 states unless you are a member of the Bar.
That is, of course, leaving aside the fact the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee e
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, telling people what they can and cannot say, especially on their own web sites, is treading dangerously close to the textbook definition of "abridging the freedom of the press." The government has no authority whatsoever to restrain the written word except in clear cases of fraud.
Read what the FCC said. They are saying you, as a business, cannot remove a negative review, nor prevent one from being posted. In other words, that would be a violation of the person's 1st Amendment right to free spee
Re: (Score:1)
They are saying you, as a business, cannot remove a negative review, nor prevent one from being posted.
That's compelled speech, which is black-letter abridging the freedom of the press. If I have the right to publish what I please, I also have the right to refuse.
What stops someone from dressing up vandalism of your web site as a negative review? You may as well issue Reddit a bag of dogshit and a cigarette lighter at the gate to your porch. It would be total chaos.
and as many on here have pointed out, just because you don't like what someone has to say doesn't mean you get to censor it
The fact that anyone would utter such words in 2024 on a site like Slashdot is a shocking demonstration of just how out of touch people can beco
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dr
Go chevron!
When your revenue comes from "fake reviews" ... (Score:2)
... then maybe you are a perpetrator here and need to be stopped?
That said, I am sure the big assholes will find a way around this and will manage to stay dishonest.
Now prove it... (Score:2)
Punishment is all well and good if you can detect the problem happening. What tools to mere mortals have for that? And how many people can afford to litigate a company to punish them?
Even then it won't stop all cases, just make them less publicly obvious. Add one more layer between the publisher and purchaser.
Don't get me wrong... I prefer making it monetarily bad to do evil things, but I'm not all that excited by it. Heck they mention the courts are where the decisions will happen and too many well me