News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what... by dmschulman on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @05:03PM (#16277956)
Fraud would imply malice and criminal intent. What is criminal about paying for fake followers?
Re:Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what... by DannyBee on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @05:39PM (#16278202)
No, it wouldn't. There is civil fraud too.

Here's the basic black's law dictionary definition:

An intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage.

Re:Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what... by AnimalMuppet on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @06:09PM (#16278404)
Why would someone's number of followers be a "material fact"?

I mean, it might make me decide to listen to them a time or two. It won't for long, though - they need to say something worth hearing for that.

(Disclaimer: The previous paragraph is hypothetical. I don't do social media at all, so I don't follow anyone...)

Re:Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what... by dragonwriter on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @06:15PM (#16278432)
> Why would someone's number of followers be a "material fact"?

People buying followers are often competing for commercial opportunities for which social media influence is a key factor in what they are selling to the prospective buyer.

Re:Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what... by CobrastanJorji on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @05:42PM (#16278220)
What possible injury could result from my false belief that a Kardashian has four times the followers than she actually has?
Re:Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what... by DannyBee on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @06:11PM (#16278423)
You are apparently not imaginative enough :) Note that it includes indirect injury as well.

The most obvious one is that you could could spend money on her as an advertiser, over someone else.

But people are crazy. There are super-weird fact patterns in fraud cases out there.

Re:Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what... by SCAQTony on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @05:34PM (#16278162)
It could be considered criminal if you were stating your following or reach was immense, such as in the tens-of-thousands when really it was merely in the dozens, so as to arrange inflated endorsement dollars.
Re:Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what... by cheschire on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @05:32PM (#16278146)
If it results in a competing startup's product losing funding, and the fraudulent startup's product gaining funding based on fake followers, I could see the term "fraud" applying.
Re:Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what... by bobthechef on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @05:37PM (#16278179)
No.

From MW:

* intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right

* an act of deceiving or misrepresenting

In other words, yes, fraud, your ticket to the 8th Circle of hell.

Re:Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what... by mykoleary on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @05:46PM (#16278255)
Saying I have 10K followers is not a lie or misrepresentation of any facts, even if you bought half of them. Saying you have 10K ACTIVE followers when you bought half of them IS.

Companies need to do their research and ask the right questions before they part with their money...

Re:Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what... by DannyBee on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @06:19PM (#16278463)
"Saying I have 10K followers is not a lie or misrepresentation of any facts, even if you bought half of them. "

Sure it is, it's omission of a material fact. You know the person is trying to get through to real people. You know the number of actual people who are followers is smaller than the real number (through your intentional act of buying them), and you know this is material to the person you are talking to. If they suffer legal injury, congrats, you committed fraud.

This is pretty basic stuff. The kind of logic parsing you are attempting is not how the law works.

"Companies need to do their research and ask the right questions before they part with their money..."

While generally true, it's irrelevant here. This is a thing you would definitely have a duty to disclose (for a ton of reasons). This would make it ripe for a misrepresentation-type fraud claim.

Re:Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what... by AnimalMuppet on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @06:10PM (#16278416)
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure I can make fake followers continue to be active, unless "active" is defined very carefully...
Re:Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what... by afrophysics1 on Thursday February 01, 2018 @01:09PM (#16284121)
upvoting this for starting a healthy debate.