EU Bans Sock-Puppet Blogs 393
PhilipMarlowe9000 writes in with news of a new EU directive that will take effect in the UK at the end of this year to ban "sock-puppet" reviews or websites, part of an EU-wide overhaul of consumer laws. From the article: "Businesses that write fake blog entries or create whole wesbites purporting to be created by customers will fall foul of a European directive banning them from 'falsely representing oneself as a consumer.' From December 31, when the change becomes law in the UK, they can be named and shamed by trading standards or taken to court. The Times has learnt that the new regulations also will apply to authors who praise their own books under a fake identity on websites such as Amazon."
Before anyone says anything about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
No it isn't. This, however, is commercial speech, fraudulently pretending to be free speech, as part of a ruse to impress people. Commercial speech identifiable as such is known to suffer the trustworthiness problems typical of commercial speech. If a corporation sends its marketing department to blogspot and creates 100 blogs talking about how cool its products are, that's fraud. The company is misrepresenting itself and concealing a conflict of interest. I mean, duh. Even in the crazy United States we have laws saying you can't make ads disguised to look like newspaper articles unless you print ADVERTISEMENT at the bottom so everyone knows you're probably full of it. Free speech is not going to last very long if we use it to excuse cheap commercial hijinks.
Re: (Score:2)
Please do not pull bullshit slippery slope arguments out of your ass.
Note also that this is in England where there are far more strict laws about speech.
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait... maybe free speech ISN'T an absolute.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you say "I won't stop you." or that I "have every right to do so", I know for sure that you are full of shit. Those types of speech could very well ruin a person's life and they sure as hell shouldn't be protected. And I'm damn sure you'd do just about anything possible to stop
Re: (Score:2)
That's what slander lawsuits are for: they still allow the person to express his free speech in the first place, but hold him responsible for the consequences of it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If we force people to tell the truth in court then how long until we force them to tell the "truth" everywhere else?
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech only if it's believed true?! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Name a right that is unlimited (Score:5, Insightful)
Either speech is free or it isn't, no matter what convenient label you want to put it under.
That's an easy position to take, because it is the expression of an ideal. In the real world, rights clash all the time. The rights of Individual A, when they come into conflict with those of Individual B, or of society at large, can't be absolute.
My right to defend myself does not give me the right to shoot someone in the head when they try to pick my pocket. My right to own property doesn't mean that I can drill down and inject anthrax into the groundwater. My right of free speech doesn't mean that I can spam millions of email users without consequence. It also doesn't mean that I can advertise Fruit Loops cereal as a cure for cancer. In Abstract World it sounds great to let the buyer beware, but just imagine how much of a drag that would be on society. Transaction costs would go up, because much more due dilligence would need to be done, just to conduct a simple purchase. Those with more free time and more resources would be able to conduct due dilligence. Everyone else would be put at a substantial disadvantage. That's a perversion of free speech, which is designed to protect political speech, not the fleecing of other citizens.
As a side note, your slippery slope argument may apply in some countries, but not in the United States.I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in the United States, commercial speech has been granted more 1st Amendment protection [abuse.net] over the past few decades, not less.
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
You ignore the fact that corporations are not people, and as such do not (and should not) have the inalienable rights of a human being. You also assume that the right to free speech trumps all other rights (such as life, property, autonomy, etc.), which is completely untrue, not to mention unjust and far more dangerous than limits on free speech.
Try yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and telling the theater staff that you have First Amendment Rights when they remove you from the premises and you'll find out just how little that applies to private persons on private property.
The Right to Free Speech does not, in fact, apply to that speech which is specifically designed to be malicious, it never has, and such an idea flies in the face of it's very origins (see: Immanuel Kant). Trying to apply it to such actually weakens the idea, and perverts the intent of free speech. Fraud, slander, and incitement are all directly opposed to "free", and as such are NOT protected as free speech.
I also wonder why so many people are convinced that specific limits on free speech are a new thing (they aren't), and that such limits make it impossible to protect speech which needs to be free (it hasn't).
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with the rest of what you said but this statement is completely false. Or at least, there is no distinction to make between individuals and corporations as far as political and commercial speech are concerned. One axis is independent of the other. Microsoft has a right to express a political view, even on technological matters, and individuals have a right to engage in commercial speech and sell things. The restrictions on speech are determined by the nature of the speech itself and not by who is making it.
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
This only applies to the US (Score:3, Insightful)
Here in the EU, there is a very clear distinction between a person and a company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"If your immune system is not normal due to advanced HIV disease, be sure your doctor knows this to avoid a potentially fatal interaction with this pill we're selling."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This law regulates commerce, not speech. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not about freedom of the press or individual expression. It's about
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I.e. you want to be able to say whatever you damn well please without it having consequences. Dream on...
Re: (Score:2)
The request to properly identify who you are speaking for does not limit the speech itself, and is not an abridgement of free
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
I would rephrase that as "The speech is free. The speaker is not allowed to con people by pretending to be something he/she is not.
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech (Score:5, Funny)
... says the AC.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes it is.
There is a big difference between anonymity and actively pretending to be someone else. The whole point of the legislation seems to be to stop the former, not the latter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the legislation seems to be about honesty vs. lying and deceiving. If a company lies to their customers, making falls statements abou their products, the I don't think this should be protected by free speech. Not allowing companies to set up fake website pretending to be from happy customers, or not allowing that companies otherwise cla
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Going through with the killing would still be illegal (or would you change that too?). But the threat would be protected free speech, by your reasoning.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
How's that for free speech?
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Your kids will be scared stiff over and over. What a pleasure! And I'll make a million in the process!
You won't know if I'm serious and willing to go through with the killing, so you'd better pay up. Just to be sure, I'll also talk to your young wife repeatedly. Maybe I'll casually carry something that looks like the hacked-off arm of a child. Stuff like that. In due time she should be very, very worried about her kids' lives. Or maybe I'll just talk about hacking their legs off or something, that might be more effective. What do you think?
I'll find some really effective things to say to her. And I'll be very, very convincing. I can make a very convincing sociopath.
Repeated phone calls all through the night might be a nice touch. I'll also shout threats outside your home at random times day and night, speaking slowly and ominously. Maybe I'll bring a megaphone. No restrictions, remember?
And if there's a trial -- for example if your kids mysteriously get hurt a few times before you finally come to your senses and pay me -- don't worry about trying to get any witnesses. I'll see to it that any witnesses you find get scared and get paid. They won't have any incentive at all to tell the truth, since lying in court is fully accepted.
No restrictions, remember?
Just in case somebody doesn't notice the irony and takes the above seriously, all of the above is irony and none of it is intended to be taken seriously. It's a completely fictitious illustration of the consequences of the parent post. I have no intentions whatsoever of threatening or hurting anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
That very clever ideology, but it's profoundly wrong. All freedoms require restrictions in order to function. That sounds like a logical contradiction, but it's not.
Imagine this: you and I are sitting in a room. Every time you open your mouth to speak, I scream "SHUT UUUUUUUUPPP!" at the top of my voice. I am abusing my freedom of speech in order to curtail yours. Based on your ideology it is necessary to allow that situation because we can't limit 'freedom'. In fact, the way to ensure freedom is to apply fair rules, such that exercising my freedom cannot unfairly curtail yours. The rules needed will depend on the context: in a public debate that may mean turn-taking, in a restaurant it may mean sufficient spaces between tables and removing anyone that behaves like I did towards you in my imaginary situation.
Freedom without any limits or restrictions is a ridiculous myth. The difficulty is who gets to decide what rules are needed to provide freedom, who makes sure that the rules themselves don't become a kind of abuse, and who enforces those rules.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, freedom itself is a myth. Freedom is something that was created so that the various slaves of the world would think they have control over their lives, despite the fact the few options available to them are controlled by persons other than themselves.
Life is struggle, there is always some lifeform fighting to take your life away from you. Whether it is an infectious bacteria colony, a hungry wolf, or a roving band of rebellious drug lords
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech (Score:4, Informative)
The EU's Free Speech Law (Score:5, Informative)
Au contraire :
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is, there is no such thing as 'freedom of speech'- the fact that we live in a human society instantly precludes that blanket statement, just as it prevents any blanket clause dealing with religion or association.
What people do not realize is that statements like the Canadian constitution, which says:
Actually strengthen the exercise of those rights and freedoms, by allowing solid guidelines to be coherently laid down. Absolutities are only for tyrants and ideologues- the rest of us have to live in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
We would have written it off as a crock of shit long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're claiming that we should attempt to enforce something enforceable until we get around to changing it to mean what we're currently enforcing it as, which was likely the intent of the people who originally wrote it unenforceably?
Re: (Score:2)
And how? (Score:2)
Technology seems to be lacking, here...
Depends on the text of the law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice if deceptive practices like this would be outlawed, but I fear it may be more directed at pretending to be individuals than pretending to be other companies.
Regards,
--
*Art
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This will end well (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully, here in the US someone grabs the spirit of revealing sock puppet websites to ferret out the political sock puppet websites in the upcoming election.
Definition? (Score:3, Informative)
The sock meme has always been personal rather than corporate, as in the Wikipedia entry:
Corporate personhood... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here, in order to enact a law like that, we'd have to take away the right from everyone, else have it overruled by courts.
Ryan Fenton
P.S. Yes, I do want to 'oppress' corporations, whenever they are in contest with the interests of most citizens.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean do we go "Oh there's that Christian person again" or "there is that Islam person again"? A group of people is a group of people, they are NOT mini parts of 1 entire person.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Companies are considered people because this enables them to limit their financial liability and encourages their directors to take greater risks. This in turn encourages innovation and is good for the economy. Courts are usually unwilling to go behind the corporate veil, but will do so in cases of serious fraud and the like.
If we are going to have a market driven system, this is arguably the best way to do it, though of course since there is less deterrent against irresponsible behaviour, it does require
Re:Corporate personhood... (Score:4, Insightful)
In what way does that require the corporation to be a person? Surely it's just as easy for the law to say "directors and other employees of corporations are protected from personal financial liability in the event of corporate financial liability" as it is to say "corporations are people"? The former, while possibly becoming a long list, limits the protection and rights to exactly what they need to be. The latter potentially opens up all sorts of problems.
To draw an analogy to computing (yes, I realise that's the wrong way...), when setting up a firewall you don't allow all except known bad stuff, you block all except known good stuff. It's a little more work, but a damn sight safer in the long run.
Treating corporations as people is a shortcut that leads to all sorts of potential abuses and excesses. It's not even as though your country has a shortage of people able and willing to sit down and thrash out the details of a saner law...
Re:Corporate personhood... (Score:5, Funny)
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
* There might be another crazy country somewhere, but no EU country does it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
in germany there even exist so a called quasi-legal person. it is a business partnership (kommanditengesellschaft, offene handelsgesellschaft) which is not a real legal person but still meets a definition of a person (a person is defined as bearer of rights
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You recall that America had a Civil War. After that, it determined that black people were persons. America then passed the 14th Amendment, which says that the states must ensure that all persons in their jurisdiction had equal access to rights & protections. This was meant to prevent states from treating blacks as second-class people; as we all know, that didn't work quite as well as it should have.
In the meantime, a creative Supreme Court decided that t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ban sock puppet politicians (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know a few politicians I consider sock puppets for other entities. Can we ban them too?
To hell with banning them, they should be charged with treason, and punished appropriately; ie. with death.
The government should represent its people, and politicians should be held to very high standards. Legal bribery, or any other means of subverting our government are simply unacceptable, and should be considered no less seriously than premeditated murder. In fact, as the current administration demonstrates, it is often much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just wondering if laws like this may end up with a Macarthy-esque witch-hunt on forums or blogs about "who's a shill." After all, not all of them will give themselves away with language like "Don't just wear it, pwn it!"
And in other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Does that mean (Score:2, Funny)
This is a disaster! (Score:5, Funny)
First thing I thought of... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How hard would it be to find the IP addresses of a competitor and hack or backdoor or botnet his machine and start spamming websites with bogus false advertising?
Slashdot is the best thing to happen in my life (Score:5, Funny)
Sincerely,
Captain Burritto
Re:Slashdot is the best thing to happen in my life (Score:5, Funny)
Very truly yours,
Boston
Burn the socks! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the crafts and activities on this site are Bible-based and are great to use in Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, preschool, and home school.
Um, I haven't read the entire Bible word for word, but being raised Christian (though not any more), I don't believe I recall there being anything in it about making sock puppets.
Well. (Score:3, Interesting)
Did we learn nothing from Cow and Chicken? (Score:2)
Shame on the EU.
In Sovjet US and A (Score:2)
Life without astroturfing (Score:3, Interesting)
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/UK_fake_bloggers_soo
Old news. (Score:4, Informative)
It does have some effect -- though it's not enforced as well as I'd like -- for example movies with paid product-placements are accepted, despite imho being a straigthforward violation of the above law. No idea why.
Legal overdrive (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, every law can be bad or good, but we're missing the big picture. Have you seen the proposed European consitution? The Bible's both testaments are nothing compared to it.
Every time you put a law about something, you need to be really friggin sure that the right solution is *legal*. Otherwise we end up in a system so complicated and flawed (every law is imperfect, you know this), that nobody understands it at all, and the rules are so many and in many cases conflicting with each other, that the only way to apply them is selectively and "with a spin", depending on the lawyer/prosecutor/citizen bias.
We all fall pray to lawyers and the juridical system setting traps for us on every step to doing something.
Should fake blogs and reviews be banned? They shouldn't be encouraged, but a law is excessive. I mean, how many times should Sony
Fake marketing right now is, in most instances, easily recognizable. If we decide to patch the situation with a bunch of "moral" and "smart" laws, then the corporations in question will just get stealthier, and hire few more lawyers to let them workaround the law.
In the end, we gain nothing, except more complexity, and more lawyers. Great.
Re:"United States government politics" (Score:4, Interesting)
It might be of interest to Americans to know that should they, or their company, or their former employer (all the way back to that job you worked evenings in high school), or any company that they might own stock in (or hold funds that hold stock in, etc) ever post any kind of positive review of themselves on the internet where it can be read in Europe, then you probably should schedule your flights to make sure none of them stop there.
So it's still related, even if only on the idea that one of these days some European agency is going to decide to play tit-for-tat for some of the stupid shit America does to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is an EU political story that does not belong on slashdot at all.
True it has been mislabeled and doesn't belong in the 'Politics' section however the FAQ also says
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently there is no "outside the US" to a lot of American Citizens or their Politicians for that matter.
Don't be so ridiculus. Americans are educated to a very high standard of Geograhpy. There's Canada up North, and Mexico down South, go any further and you fall off the edge. Oh yeah, and there's Iraq and France too, that's where the baddies live, mind you have to fall off the edge to get to those places. OK I missed a few places, like China (that's where the Chinese come from), and Australia (wh
Re:"United States government politics" (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently there is no "outside the US" to a lot of American Citizens or their Politicians for that matter.
Don't be so ridiculus. Americans are educated to a very high standard of Geograhpy. There's Canada up North, and Mexico down South, go any further and you fall off the edge. Oh yeah, and there's Iraq and France too, that's where the baddies live, mind you have to fall off the edge to get to those places. OK I missed a few places, like China (that's where the Chinese come from), and Australia (which is a giant desert without any intelligent lifeforms) but that, basically is the rest of the world. It's no wonder they are all trying to move here!
Just kidding.
Re:"United States government politics" (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What you should have said here is, "that's where all the stuff we buy at Wal-Mart is made".
Re: (Score:2)
Fakery on the internet is a huge problem, so it's nice to see it addressed. However, it would also be good to address fakery on TV and in print as well. I just watched the documentary "The Corporation," and one of the stories was about how some independent FoxNews reporters lost a legal battle because a US judge
Re: (Score:2)
Is that you?