Internet Astroturfer Fined $300,000 245
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced yesterday that Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetic surgery company who posted fake reviews of their services on various websites, will have to pay $300,000 to the state of New York. Cuomo's office says this is the first US case to specifically target astroturfing on the internet.
"Internal emails discovered by Attorney General Cuomo's investigation show that Lifestyle Lift employees were given specific instructions to engage in this illegal activity. One e-mail to employees said: 'Friday is going to be a slow day — I need you to devote the day to doing more postings on the web as a satisfied client.' Another internal email directed a Lifestyle Lift employee to 'Put your wig and skirt on and tell them about the great experience you had.' In addition to posting on various Internet message board services, Lifestyle Lift also registered and created stand-alone Web sites, such as MyFaceliftStory.com, designed to appear as if they were created by independent and satisfied customers of Lifestyle Lift. The sites offered positive narratives about the Lifestyle Lift experience. Some of these sites purported to offer forums for users to add their own comments about Lifestyle Lift. In reality, however, Lifestyle Lift either provided all the 'user comments' themselves, or closely monitored and edited third-party comments to skew the discussion in favor of Lifestyle Lift."
So they couldn't shout across the office? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So they couldn't shout across the office? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sincerely,
A Very Satisfied Slashdot Customer
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In order to not be fined $300,000usd, instead of posting glowing reviews of my product, I will start posting negative reviews of my competitor's product and will ask my sales force to spread FUD about them... ...
What?
Re:So they couldn't shout across the office? (Score:4, Informative)
Spreading FUD would be Slander/Defamation [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wake me up when SCO gets fined $300,000
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it'll be the Hurd Year of the Desktop.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So they couldn't shout across the office? (Score:5, Insightful)
The overall problem is that the message still hasn't gotten out to people.
Stop believing everything you read on the internet; most of what you read is, at best, an opinion. The rest of it is entertainment and outright lies.
If you're watching a third rate cable channel a 3 a.m. and you see a "news style" interview with a doctor about a growing medical problem that can be solved with a supplement called "pomegranacai" extract or by using a "XTremeGazelle Exercycle" with testominials from other doctors in white coats and satisfied customers who lost 50 lbs, it is completely fake.
If you know that, why would you believe anything on the internet with testimonials, blogs, google ad links, myspace links and the like? Are you the first person who's never been flooded with SPAM?
The marketing is very effective. Is it honest? (Score:3, Insightful)
A more immediate problem is that this story on Slashdot is likely to bring Lifestyle Lift [lifestylelift.com] more customers. Look at the before and after photos.
"If you know that, why would you believe anything on the internet with testimonials, blogs, Google ad links, Myspace links and the like?"
In the particular case of Lifestyle Lift, it is difficult to detect what is actually happening. Are the before and after photos completely dishones
Google is overwhelmed by Lifestyle Lift web sites. (Score:4, Informative)
This is the most intense attack on social, psychological, and technical weaknesses than I've ever seen. In my opinion, it is likely to be dishonest.
And the company was only fined $300,000, an amount that is likely to be less than a day's income, I'm guessing.
The lesson they've failed to learn from history... (Score:2)
The lesson they've failed to learn from mistakes of historical greats like Richard Nixon and the Plumbers - destroy the (e-mails.)
Re:The lesson they've failed to learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow! You really miss the point. The lesson from Nixon is that the cover-up is what kills you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Deep Throating kills you.
What I really want to know (Score:3, Insightful)
What I really want to know is this: does this "anti-astroturfing" law apply to "Team Windows"? If so, watch out Softies, Cuomo's got your number....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What I really want to know is this: does this "anti-astroturfing" law apply to "Team Windows"?
Certainly. However, the law requires more evidence than "does not hate Microsoft, therefore is an astroturfer".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was going to say something along those lines.
I mean, I'm pretty positive about Windows 7, but it doesn't mean I work for Microsoft.
Astroturfing is destroying discourse on the Internet. You can never know for certain if you're arguing with someone with convictions or just some paid marketing drone. Where once you'd have to come up with a good argument, people can now just point and say "You're just being paid to express that opinion, since nobody sane would ever have it!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Astroturfing is destroying discourse on the Internet.
Rubbish. Paranoia about "astroturfing" is stressing certain individuals who in some way define themselves by their feelings about whatever-it-is that isn't being "astroturfed".
You can never know for certain if you're arguing with someone with convictions or just some paid marketing drone.
Why do you care ? What difference does it make ?
Where once you'd have to come up with a good argument, people can now just point and say "You're just being paid
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a distinct difference between a zealot and an astroturfer -- Most important among them is that one of them believes what they're saying, and the other is just pretending to believe what they're saying.
It's the fundamental difference in whether the conversation is honest or not that poisons internet discourse. Companies are shooting themselves in the foot by associating positive opinions of their product with dishonest under-the-radar paid advertisements.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The poison is the erosion of authenticity from internet message boards.
If I'm talking with my buddy about my new car and he's saying his aunt had one and it ran great, it's completely different than if a car dealer is having the exact same discussion with me -- the conversation with my buddy has more authenticity, exactly because it's not a marketing message. The same facts may be presented, but it's a completely different message. When I can't know whether my buddy is just an advertiser paid to talk about
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I completely and totally disagree. In fact, the fact that we're having this discussion is proof of that authenticity.
If I believed you weren't arguing for yourself, if I thought you were being paid by a media company to try to shift the public frame towards astroturfing being okay, then you'd lose the authenticity you have, and I'd stop arguing with you -- Arguing with someone whose job it is to present a certain point of view would be a waste of time.
It's because I believe you're a regular person expressin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think you know what authenticity is. It's not a fact, and it has little to do with the actual motivations of the speaker. Authenticity is the feeling from the listener that the speaker is being genuine, that the message is genuine.
Some of the most authentic-feeling brands in existence are totally fake: The Daily Show regularly blasts the news-entertainment media for inauthenticity(In fact, they got the show Crossfire taken off the air), despite being a fake news show themselves -- their authenticity
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are several accounts here on Slashdot, though, that not only vehemently defend Microsoft, but use Microsoft marketing clueless drivel to do so.
And probably an order of magnitude more accounts do exactly the same thing about Linux and/or OSS (although by OSS they typically mean the GPL). Guess they must be astroturfing, huh ?
Not to mention all the "Apple or die" zealots.
Saying that Windows is better because adopting Linux on your server is more costly due to retraining costs is sure to get you la
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Marketing department tells lies about their product. News at 11.
What I Wanna Know Is... (Score:2)
...what kind of Marketing Cuomo's office did to get this story on Slashdot. Political Slashvertisements now? Or was Soulskill just passing some time surfing the website of the NY Attorney General's Office when he came upon this gem?
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you read the summary?
They lied and got fined.
That sounds like news to me.
I had always known that people were planting fake reviews on forums and thought the only defense be cautious. So hearing that this is actually illegal is big news in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
News yes. /. relevant? Not so much.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Marketing department tells lies about their product. News at 11.
Indeed. I think that prosecuting this company for astro-turfing is pointless and inconsistent. As long as we have such a laissez-faire attitude towards all the lies and misdirection that marketing people have been doing for decades now, going after a handful of astro-turfers does nothing but give people a false-sense of trust in what they read on the net. Never mind the free speech implications that come into play when defining exactly where the line is between valid promotion and astro-turfing. (does giving away a free "review" produce with a promise of future "review" products qualify as illegal, what if the promise is never spelled out? what if its not a give-away, just an open-ended loan, or what if it is 1 year loan and it just so happens that the next review product shows up in exactly one year too?)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, there's a pretty clear difference between astro-turfing and normal marketing. In normal marketing you know the message is coming from the company, and thus can easily take said message with a grain of salt. In astro-turfing, its made to sound like someone living down the street actually tried the product and liked it. So the assumption there is that the person making the statement isn't biased because they are on the companies payroll.
NY Mom Lost 47 lbs Following 1 Rule! (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the same NY Mom who appears as a California Mom, Texas Mom, Florida Mom and %ipaddress% Mom.
It's like the 17th Century, when pickpockets used to work the crowds who came to watch pickpockets being hanged.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's like the 17th Century, when pickpockets used to work the crowds who came to watch pickpockets being hanged.
You've got to admire the sheer ballsiness of such a move though.
Re:NY Mom Lost 47 lbs Following 1 Rule! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's because political astroturfing is considered free speech, while commercial speech is far more heavily restricted. Plus, it's far more difficult to enforce - people will actually volunteer to spread a campaign's message (or pretend they're spreading an opposing campaign's message if they think that doing so will get the opposing campaign in trouble). They usually won't vol
legal (Score:3, Interesting)
>> New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced yesterday that Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetic surgery company who posted fake reviews of their services on various websites, will have to pay $300,000 to the state of New York. Cuomo's office says this is the first US case to specifically target astroturfing on the internet.
How is this illegal?
Re:legal (Score:5, Informative)
You and I can say anything about any product we want... that's our opinion. But if the company making a product makes claims that are untrue about said product it's False Advertisement. These people just try to hide it by pretending to not be affiliated with the company. That may even be in itself Fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
But if the company making a product makes claims that are untrue about said product it's False Advertisement.
So all those "male enhancement" commercials on TV are real, and portray real customers with satisfactory experiences?
This stuff is sleazy, but I don't see how it's inherently worse than other advertising we already tolerate.
Re:legal (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is that you KNOW YOU'RE WATCHING AN AD, paid for by the company. There are also usually disclaimers on the ad, if you look saying "actor portryal, actors potraying real customers, real customers compensated, real customer not compensated."
Re:legal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a while since I watched a commercial, but don't they put a notice at the bottom saying that the people are actors or something? Kind of like "professional driver on closed course"?
Contrast this with ads that say they're going to present real testimonials from actual customers. If they say that, then they have to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is a difference.
When you see it in an advertisement, you know to take it with a grain of salt. That is, you know that the seller may not have credibility because they have a financial incentive to say what they say.
A review is word of mouth, an independent person who has used the product and is giving you their opinion of how well the product worked. In the pre-Internet days, you could talk to somebody you know or happen to meet who has experience with product X (say the iPhone). You expect t
Re: (Score:2)
This stuff is sleazy, but I don't see how it's inherently worse than other advertising we already tolerate.
"our product is the best in the market" - subjective, sleazy, legal.
"our product contains substance x" (which is actually not there) - objective, still sleazy, illegal - false advertising.
"this guy's product is great" when you're actually "this guy" but pretending not to be - astroturfing, subjective, I'm guessing illegal - fraud.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is Fraud.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A market without transparency is not a market. Consumers need accurate information to make informed decisions. The goal of major corporations is to deceive people as much as is legally possible for the greatest short-term profit possible. If the company in question gained more profit than they had to pay with fines, it's a win-win for them.
So, in a healthy market, astroturfing is illegal. I doubt this will effect any company behavior, since the fine was so low. They will just come up with some legal loophol
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It sounds like wire fraud [wikipedia.org] to me. Even though wikipedia is no place to get legal advice, the definition of wire fraud is included in the article. I followed their link [cornell.edu] to the appropriate US Code section:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
The emphasis is mine, and I think that's where this activity on the part of Lifestyle Lifts employees is illegal.
Microsoft shills (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft shills (Score:5, Funny)
Leave us alone !
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft shills (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that you assume anyone here that actually LIKES MS' product (like me) is automatically a shill. I'm not a shill, I'm a person that was exteremly disapointed when I jumped to Linux, and thus jumped back. My Linux experience actually turned around my opinion of MS software. It was very much a case of "the grass is greener on the other side," only to find that not only wasn't it any more green, there were quite a few brown patches.
Re:Microsoft shills (Score:5, Insightful)
McDonalds sells hamburgers. Not the greatest hamburgers, but they are very convenient. People who have no real choice often end up at McDonalds. Although there is nothing really wrong with McDonalds, there isn't a whole lot right about it either. You might try Burger King and discover that you like McDonald's better. That much I can believe, but most people who want a better choice than McDonalds will go to a real restaurant.
So I can understand why you might legitimately dislike Linux. But most of the people who jump ship from MS in search of a better experience end up with Apple. A few of them might even go back to MS, but I have yet to see that happen in real life.
You may be a genuine McDonalds fan. There really ARE some people who have acquired a test for their food, even though the majority view it as a last resort. But in the computer industry, a lot of people get paid to express an opinion. Brand loyalty is a commodity to be bought and sold. So the pro-MS comments get a fair amount of skepticism, as would a glowing review of McDonald's cuisine.
Re: (Score:2)
That much I can believe, but most people who want a better choice than McDonalds will go to a real restaurant.
In the OS world there is no "restaurant". They all suck, just in different ways.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether people are astroturfing or simply have a bias or positive opinion is of course extremely hard to tell. What is striking is the sheer amount of people that has a positive bias towards Microsoft that has entered this forum these last years.
What is even more striking is the dearth of people extolling products competing with Microsoft.
Given the amount of "I use Linux, but Bing is really good" posts - where are the Yahoo fanboys posting their views? Likewise - where are the happy Flex/Flash users when lo
Re: (Score:2)
What big software company doesn't do all those things?
Re: (Score:2)
This is like asking what Secret Police don't murder a few protestors?
Just because it is common practice does not make it acceptable behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a trend on Slashdot to call someone a Microsoft shill if they say Linux doesn't roxxors. You know it is, you've seen it. I've been called a shill on other topics across the internet all the damn time because my honest opinion goes against the site groupthink.
Astroturfing is a problem. So is people justifying their own opinions by calling everyone with a contrary opponent an astroturfer.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I totally agree and feel the same way about people who claim to not be terrorists. Why just the other day a 90 year old man grumbled about the TSA officials inspecting his walker saying "It's not like I'm a terrorist!" Well boy did that make me nervous. I mean, who is always claiming that their not terrorists? TERRORISTS! They should have hauled his ass off to Guantanamo right then and there, but no, they ignored this obvious admission of guilt of actually being a terrorist. I can only hope you one day w
Re: (Score:2)
She shills C-sharp shells by the sea shore.
Or something like that.
Re:Microsoft shills (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, because no sane person could ever disagree with you.
While there are probably MS shills out there (just like every other major company), the fact that you specifically target them in a story not at all about Microsoft suggests that you're just anti-Microsoft, which really isn't much different from being a shill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft shills (Score:4, Funny)
All right, fess up, how much did Linus pay you to post that comment?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to mention Sony shills, who seem to always have mod points at slashdot. I was an XCP victim, but any time I say anything negative about Sony I'm modded down.
I wonder if that's illegal as well? Probably not.
At any rate, there are also lots of shills here from other companies besides Sony and Microsoft, although it seems the Sony and Microsoft shills seem to get lots of mod points (lots of employees, so it makes sense). In their defense (my God, I can't believe I'm defending MS and Sony) if someone blaste
Not the first! (Score:5, Informative)
Sony got caught doing this a while back:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4741259.stm [bbc.co.uk]
The link is to the BBC coverage of the California court decision.
I found out about it after reading a Slashdot post panning one of the movies which was pushed this way.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And to throw in another, Belkin were also caught paying people to do reviews on some tech websites fairly recently, the whole "pay for good review" thing.
So many links on it, it is just better to link the search.
Belkin Paying for good reviews [google.co.uk]
And funny thing about these is that so many companies do it, even small-time shops, anything to get customers.
And if you were to ask most of them if they knew the legality of it, they'd never think once that it was illegal.
In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a company, you should be absolutely fine, unless you are so incredibly stupid as to put instructions like these down in writing, and making them so explicit that they cannot be read or weaseled out of in any conceivable way.
why "to the State of New York" ? (Score:4, Interesting)
The company gets a punitive fine, okay. But who gets the money?
A Michigan-based company lies on the internet, so giving the money to the State of New York doesn't make sense to me. I'm having a tough time specifying just which group was wronged by the company -- Michigan consumers, American consumers, all consumers who have access to the internet, suckers? Wouldn't the money be more appropriately given to the FTC?
Re:why "to the State of New York" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
According to TFA...
Lifestyle Lift is like a franchise. They have offices in a bunch of places, including 21 in New York, and they also advertised specifically in New York, hence harm was done in the state of New York. I'd think that the Michigan AG could now also perform the same type of fine, and probably other states that the company has offices in too.
They have operations in New York (Score:2)
As a corporation, if you have facilities in a certain state, you are expected to abide by the laws of that state. New York gets the money because the AG filed the suit and did all the work. I suppose the FTC could join in the fun if they wanted to... but it looks like there is no need here.
SirWired
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming you're British. I wish we had an ASA here, but unfortunately there's nothing an US customer can do about false advertising. The company's competetion has to file the complaint here, the customer has no recourse unless it's out and out fraud. And even then, if you file a complaint with the BBB you can't file a complaint with the AG (at least here in Illinois).
But then, we have the best legislators money can buy. And corporations have LOTS of money.
Individual Responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is not the fine. The problem is that the individuals who did this can hide under the corporation and not be held responsible. Why is it that if I did this on my own, I would personally be liable, but if I did so working for a corporation, the corporation is liable? Can I just do anything I want, so long as I have a shell corporation with a boss who tells me to do it?
If we held individuals responsible, then individuals would stand-up to the corporations and say no. But so long as they can clear their conscience by blaming their boss, and on up the chain, these things will happen. Oh, and punishing the CEOs doesn't fix it either, unless the CEO was really involved. Everybody seems to want to go to the person at the top. I want to beat the person at the bottom who actually did it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Individual Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
If we held individuals responsible, then individuals would stand-up to the corporations and say no. But so long as they can clear their conscience by blaming their boss, and on up the chain, these things will happen.
If you work at such a morally righteous company then good for you. However, many corporations would have a field day with the ability to ask employees to do illicit activities without any threat of it falling back on the company itself. If you "stood up" to the company as you suggest you'd likely find negative consequences to your employment/advancement.
The individuals stood little to nothing to gain. It's the corporate entity that is involved in the illegal actions. Could you make a dummy corporation with a boss and do the same thing to "protect" yourself? Sure thing, but the $300,000 fine is going to come to your boss and dummy corporation (ie: you) so what would be the point?
I think it's also important to make the distinction that their violating laws pertaining to the legal operation a corporation and therefore the corporation is fined. Had they been told to go murder someone, then clearly the individuals would be held responsible as well, not just the corporate entity.
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
If they fined the individuals responsible for the decisions, then they might actually stop doing shit this reprehensible.
A corporation doesn't really exist. It's comprised of individual decision makers who should be held accountable for their decisions just as non-corporate citizens.
And I mean both, those in charge and those responsible for the actual actions. If you put the repercussions on both then shit like this would occur a lot less frequently, don't you think?
I'm sick and tired in this day and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have an odd opinion of labor laws. Maybe if everyone worked for a union it might somehow be a contract violation to fire anyone. However, if an employee is told to do something, legal or illegal, and they don't do it they can be fired for insubordination. Or for no reason at all, because there are no laws preventing people from being fired.
In Europe there are plenty of laws preventing people from being fired, for any reason at all. If you decide to employ someone you take on the responsibility for t
Re: (Score:2)
You're over simplifying. For starters, every employee is eligible to be fired. No one is perfect, and with enough manipulation and due diligence the company WILL eliminate employees if it so chooses. Additionally, you assume that groups of individuals are not somehow distinct from the individuals themselves. This is widely known to be false.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who were giving the orders will no doubt be held responsible in some way by the corporation. True, it'll likely be more because they got caught than because of what they did, but you can be sure they'll hear about it. Unless it was coming from the highest levels of the company, in which case the fine is already correctly targeting them.
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct.... as long as there are there are no negative circumstances (or even a perception of negative circumstances) to doing immoral or unethical acts people will do them.
We fight pretty hard when there are things we don't think should be considered immoral or unethical (such as jail time for smoking marijuana), but I think what's lacking is a fight to make the negative circumstances of truly immoral and unethical acts more visible.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't punish the poor sap who posted the shillage if he was ordered to, I'd fine whoever gave the order. Punishing the low level worker wouldn't fix anything. He's between a rock and a hard place - get fired for not following orders, or get fined for following them.
If it's corporate policy to break the law, the CEO and board should be held accountable, and not just to the stockbrokers but to the government.
Great! So what's next? (Score:2)
Now they can go after the entire online porn industry? I have a feeling that it's all a bunch of sites owned by one person laughing demonically and getting you to click on links that never ever get you anywhe...
Hmmm, no, I've never done that. I don't know about those sites! Really!
Billy Mays Here (Score:4, Funny)
Hi! Billy Mays here with a completely new and revolutionary product called Internet Astroturfing! Read what thousands of our satisfied clients have to say about IA on popular blogs and forums ....
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think that was recursive.
Memo's and illegal crap (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW I find politicians a bit hypocritical. In politics the tech writers will write a nice constituant letter about their politician. They will then give it to a loyal constituant and ask them to sign it. So the constituant never wrote the words, never had the experience, but because they like the politician they will put their name to it...and this makes it 100% perfectly legal. So the next time you see grandma who says her politician is the second coming of christ just realize the words/experience may have come from some paid writer and grandma just signed her name to it.
Why New York? (Score:2)
I don't understand why a company which is not based in New York lied on the Internet, and was fined by the "State of New York". They have one location in Syracuse, NY, but they have locations all over the United States. Could every state in the United States fine them for $300,000?
And, of course, we can't forget Andrew Cuomo's lengthy track record when it comes to tech issues, specifically Usenet.
Below the Radar (Score:2)
That name again (Score:2)
Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetic surgery company [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift. [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift. [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift."
Just in case you didn't catch it the first time!
This is only a start (Score:2)
independent and satisfied customers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Like phone sex with fat ugly chicks or even dud (Score:5, Funny)
I had three Lifestyle Lifts and now have more confidence than ever. I look good, feel confident, and just landed a new high-paying job. I don't know why the government is giving them a hard time. Don't they have something else to do, like fight crime or win wars or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Your subject line is totally incorrect. I know a woman with the sweetest, sexiest voice you ever heard, and a pretty good body, but her face - AAAAAGH!
Sex with her in the dark is GREAT. If you're having phone "sex" it doesn't matter what she looks like, only what she sounds like.
Fake reviews and astroturfing are nothing like that. It's more like the My Name Is Earl episode where "Patty the Daytime Hooker" uses Joy's picture in her newspaper ads.
Re:Like phone sex with fat ugly chicks or even dud (Score:2)
But I have to credit Lifestyle Lift with the trustworthiness needed to at least make their employees wear skirts and wigs.
Yeah! Why is the Attorney General bigoted against transvestites?!
(Dons wig.) SOLIDARITY!
Oh, wait, my coworkers are looking at me funny. Solidarity... after work!
Re: (Score:2)
Productive? You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2)
He probably is. Back in the Olden Dayes, we weren't forced to read every single article, whether or not we were interested int the topic, like we are today.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do believe that went some celebrity appears on TV for a product that they really use it?
Good point. Somehow, we've got to the point where it's illegal to say,
"I'm a celebrity, this product is good" (without mentioning you were paid to say so)
but not,
"I'm an average person, this product is good". (without mentioning you were paid to say so)
WTF, seriously? If the government is really concerned about paid fake endorsements, they have MUCH bigger fish to fry than some small-time cosmetics company. Yet somehow the small-time ones are the only ones that will be prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, they are lying. Everybody lies. All advertising is lying in one form or another.
"One form or another" is where the difference between legal and illegal lies. The majority of lies in advertising, the ones that are legal, are the ones that appear to be saying something when really they are saying nothing that could really be called a lie. When Ford describes their trucks as "tough", or Miller Brewing says you can drink their "great tasting" product to live the "High Life", they're trying to give you a c