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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The most interesting thing about slashdot is when I think I may be moderated funny, I get moderated insightful. When I think I am insightful, I am funny. When I think I am a troll, I am insightful. Such a confusing community we have here.
Apparently a lot of moderators give Insightful or Informative instead of Funny, because Funny doesn't improve your karma score. Why they bother doing this for people that are already at Excellent karma, I have no idea.
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......
But lying about your product and/or your competitor's product is so much easier than actually improving your product. Don't they teach that in the first semester of business school?
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 overall problem is that the message still hasn't gotten out to people."
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
Do a Google search for Lifestyle Lift [google.com]. In the first three pages of Google
results, ALL EXCEPT THREE are from web sites operated by Lifestyle Lift,
apparently.
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.
I'd rather have Microsoft shills than the horde of Cowards. Team Microsoft usually at least contributes something to the discussion, even if it's misinformed at times, as opposed to AC wharrgarbl.
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!"
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.
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?)
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.
>> 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.
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.
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."
No, they aren't real and a majority of the public wouldn't mistake it for real either. Aside from that, things like "Male Enhancement" are ambiguous products with ambiguous claims. About the only thing solid you can pull away from the advertisement is "These characters claim to have a better sexual experience", but what does that mean? A better orgasm? What does THAT even mean? How do you even measure it? Even if the product did nothing on the physiological level, a placebo effect can certainly cause results on the psychological level.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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....
Haven't companies learned by now that if you are going to instruct your people to do shady/illegal stuff that you should NOT put it in a memo. Just go by word of mouth "hey bob, make some fake posts"....dumb asses
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.
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?
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.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday July 15, @11:02AM (#28704311)
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.
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
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.
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
No, it's $300,000. Once. It's not even a fine, really, it's an out-of-court settlement to cover some investigative costs so that the AG's office doesn't have to spend more money gathering evidence.
So they couldn't shout across the office? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So they couldn't shout across the office? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wake me up when SCO gets fined $300,000
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?
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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!"
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Marketing department tells lies about their product. News at 11.
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.
Parent
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?)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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)
Parent
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
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."
Parent
Re:legal (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
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.
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.
Parent
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: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.
Parent
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
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 ....
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.
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?
Parent
Re:Microsoft shills (Score:5, Funny)
Leave us alone !
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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: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.
Parent
Re:Microsoft shills (Score:4, Funny)
All right, fess up, how much did Linus pay you to post that comment?
Parent
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)