The domain was registered one day after the HN account was registered, first post wasn't made for 14 days (aka. when the username no longer appears in green). In his defence, if he is a shill, he's not very good at it.
Edit: hnsearch picked up a hellbanned post (it should appear on the front page, but it doesn't) at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5567259 that mentions a couple more accounts
do you think Google created this? Obviously not, Google get nothing from it.
http://information-man.com/impressum/
"Verantwortliche Ansprechperson: Iwan Uswak"
information-man -> infoman
whois glass-apps.org:
Domain Name:GLASS-APPS.ORG
Registrant ID:AT1001919805572 Registrant Name:Iwan Uswak
Blog post in 3...2...1...
What is unacceptable though is deliberately trashing your opponents.
It is probably very common (and as an impulse understandable) but I think it's still wrong even without trashing your opponents. Saying your product is better than it is is not much different than saying explicitly that it's better than the other guys. Either way, it a cynical lie.
“[Samsung’s] long-standing policy prohibits union organising [and has] attracted critical attention. Samsung’s overall corporate structure centralises the policy-making that governs the activities of its vast network of subsidiary corporations.
Samsung is a “chaebol” – one of the family-run conglomerates that dominate South Korean society. Almost Mafia-like in their obsessive secrecy and reach, chaebols have influence in most markets and industries in the country and wield huge political influence. They have also not been shy of using underhand methods to maintain their position. [...]
[Secretly recorded conversations] revealed that Haksoo Lee (vice-chairman of the Samsung Group) and Hong (Korean ambassador to the US and then publisher of the Joongang Daily) were planning to deliver upwards of 3 billion won – around £2 million – to presidential candidates ahead of South Korea’s elections. [...]
Samsung owns Joongang Daily… it also has unprecedented power over journalism because it has the economic power to buy advertising space and time. “It is hard to criticise Samsung as an individual journalist. It is considered insane.” [...]
In 2008, the current Samsung chairman, Lee Kun-Hee, stepped down after his house and offices were raided and a police investigation began into claims that the corporation was maintaining a slush fund to bribe court officials and politicians. Found guilty of financial wrongdoing and tax evasion by Seoul Central District Court on July 16 2008, Lee Kun-Hee was in serious trouble. But despite prosecutors requesting that he be sentenced to seven years in prison and fined $347 million, the sentenced handed down was three years suspended and $109 million in fines. [...]”
http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/3028/samsung-power-...
As an example:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Coke-Machine-Behind-Favourite/dp...
http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/shell%2526%2523039%3Bs...
No, in most places it isn't. If a consumer was misled by a planted, phony review and bought an inferior product, he could go to civil court and demand monetary compensation, but civil courts largely deal with the kinds of damage claims that don't involve the legality of an action, only its harm.
Just remember that an illegal action would be prosecuted in a criminal court. A claim of harm would be prosecuted in a civil court.
Most of the activity surrounding phony reviews is not about the legality of the activity, but how much harm the public exposure might do to a company's reputation.
> I'm pretty sure paying for fake negative reviews of competition is illegal, because there is a clear victim.
Even in that case, it's not a question of "illegal" as much as misleading, and the remedies are usually civil, not criminal.
Even the small/local businesses do this. Just check Yelp reviews. Hell, Yelp used to allow businesses to move their best reviews to the top if they paid them enough.
1) http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/yelp-and-the-business-...
2) http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/the-yelp-mafia/3116
3) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/02/yelp-facing-class...
There was so much fallout from this back in 2009/2010 that Yelp had to turn the tables and pretend to play nice guy finally by outing businesses that buy positive reviews (starting last October).
Many people have this attitude, yes. That doesn't make it universally true or even close, and it's probably less commonplace than you seem to assume, particularly for small/local businesses, which overwhelmingly don't have time to waste on shill reviews.
And while it definitely happens and is widespread, you're not doing your argument any favors by citing exactly one example and suggesting it shows a trend or proves a point.
History shows humans will do anything to better their odds and leverage their success.
> And while it definitely happens and is widespread > citing exactly one example and suggesting it shows a trend or proves a point.
Guess you kinda just did the same thing? Just because I'm citing one example doesn't make it any less true and it seems we have two examples now: Samsung and Yelp.
Sorry, but this is rampant in e-commerce.