Thread

1. neilv · 1790603264 · focus · HN ↗

   > REDCmts sells one Reddit comment for $9.99 and 100 for $699.99, from what it calls "real, aged accounts", and shows a gallery of brand mentions it says it delivered. Soar says its accounts are "aged and manually warmed" for weeks before a single brand mention. Bazzly advertises automated replies to every post that looks like someone shopping.

   Why doesn't Reddit make sure that shilling is disallowed by their ToS, and then sue these companies and all their customers?

   1. nerevarthelame · 1790645804 · focus · HN ↗

      It's extremely unrealistic to sue someone for violating your Terms of Service. It's not impossible -- you'd need to sue them for a breach of contract and demonstrate clear financial damages --, but the primary solution is to just refuse to provide them service.

      Like, Reddit may know that Bazzly is selling fake comments, which violates Reddit's ToS. How many comments can they prove are tied to Bazzly? How much does an astro-turfed comment financially harm Reddit, and can they convince a jury of that?

      Instead, most companies will aggressively shut down the bot networks, if they can identify them, and hope that the astro-turfers focus on other platforms, and/or make it more financially challenging to do it successfully on theirs.

      1. SoftTalker · 1790656412 · focus · HN ↗

         If there's no payment ("consideration") there's generally no contract.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.