Hacker News Reader

Comment by warent | Hacker News Reader

I don't endorse this behavior at all but can it really be said to be black-hat? imho seems more gray to me. From what I understand, content _is_ being generated and there are attempts to boost the SEO, so they're providing a service and it's not outright theft. At worst it just sounds like poor practice and gaming the system. They're not acting maliciously, illegally, and/or destructively, which is how I've always defined black-hat. Am I missing something?

View on HN

> They're not acting maliciously, illegally, and/or destructively, which is how I've always defined black-hat. Am I missing something?

It probably is illegal if they aren't disclosing a paid relationship: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/dis...

Not really, according to their page, disclosure is a best practice, but doing otherwise isn't inherently illegal. Their own guide [0] begins by talking about adhering to their guidelines as "voluntary compliance", and that a failure to do so would require their investigation into the specifics to determine if it was a violation of law: It is not automatically a violation.

[0] https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-re...

Those guidelines are voluntary, sure. But there are actual laws included (section 5 of of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. 45)) that make some things actually illegal.

Specifically: "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful."[1]

This voluntary guide helps people understand how the FTC inteprates that law. Deciding not to comply because the guide is voluntary doesn't preclude prosecution.

You are right insofar as there is no law that specifically says "on the website reddit.com you must disclose if you are paid".

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45

Yep, there's lots of gray area. But not disclosing a financial arrangement isn't illegal in itself. It's only in the last few years that Youtube even had an option to flag videos as "contains paid promotions", though now they do require that to be flagged if you're getting paid.

> But not disclosing a financial arrangement isn't illegal in itself.

What is making you think this is true? It's not.

For example 3/4 of the example cases here are around undisclosed financial arrangements in influencer marketing, and in all cases the company admitted fault: https://mediakix.com/blog/ftc-influencer-marketing-violation...

I'm not sure what your definition of illegal is, but there is a law that the FTC is using to win legal cases on the issue.

I'm referring to their guiding principal that disclosure is necessary when that disclosure might change how a consumer evaluates the review. If it is reasonable to think the disclosure would make no difference, then no disclosure is required. Though I'll admit that can be interpreted broadly enough to say that disclosure is always necessary.

> Specifically: "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful."[1]

This is one of the least appropriate uses of the word "specifically" I've ever seen.

That law just says "Don't do bad things. You know who you are."

It's often written like this, and regulations define more specific things (or it's left to judges).

Likely to also be wire/mail fraud if my understanding is correct.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_and_wire_fraud

If this isn't black-hat, what is? Specifically, an author not disclosing an affiliation or payment, fake accounts promoting it, and fake accounts commenting on those promotions. In the continuum between white and black, what's left on the black side? :-)

Some examples that come to mind: click fraud, phishing, malware.

That doesn't preclude the techniques we're discussing here, it only adds other techniques to the black hat tool box.

I think the point is that those activities are clearly "black hat", while astroturfing isn't inherently illegal. (well, maybe in some jurisdictions it is. I seem to recall that the UK has much stricter "truth in advertising" laws than the US)

It all exists on a spectrum though, and we can disagree on where the line for black hat is drawn, with no one being wrong because it's a matter of opinion.

Outright spam, like forum and blog comments. Exploiting web sites, or abusing trust relationships (like updates to WordPress plugins or browser extensions) to inject spam into legitimate pages, or to create entire networks of spam pages within unaware sites. Launching deliberately obvious spam campaigns to discredit competing sites.

That's black-hat SEO -- where the behavior itself is probably illegal, even without the intent.

Dont forget SAPE. When I heard of that I knew the SEO world was rougher than I had previously imagined. For those that don't know, its a Russian run marketplace for link injected/hacked sites. Really big, high quality sites.

SQL injections, vulnerability exploits, or other hijacking mechanisms to inject links directly. In my mind, using a system as designed without breaking any laws lands in grey-hat territory.

It is more commonly known as Astroturfing

Well, fuck it.

Relevant, I think:

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/dis...

I agree. From the twitter thread, I clicked on random Medium user and on hos random article. Yes, there was a passage about one company's product. But boy, there were 15 passages of pragmatic, no BS content which I found very useful - I'd even say it was above average written article.

Deception for money is malice.

I'm confused on your word choice. Malice is generally a more deliberate act of hostility. "Fraudulent" would seem to fit better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com