No Patrick, that doesn't apply to people writing fake reviews for your shitty books

[Ladynyahh]

 

[Kurt_Love]

Next lawsuit: sorted

 

[AliceWorquer]

Lol. He probably genuinely thinks this will apply to bad reviews he disagrees with instead of bullshit 5 star reviews there to drive up numbers.

 

[DominusOdium]

View attachment 217105

You and SFWA specifically suppressed all negative reviews through Goodreads and Amazon. But hey, 1.7 can just keep focusing on the part he thinks benefits him.

Also, wait until this is tried in court trying to determine something is "false" when it's my opinion.

 

[SFWA liaison]

can't be bothered to look it up but I bet it's a ban on *the seller* falsifying reviews, not consumers

it's not like this even matter to him anymore, he no longer has a career

 

[TorqueWheeler]

View attachment 217105

Fake reviews = any negative reviews, even the ones citing specific examples, in this fat cunt’s braindead mind.

 

[BoomerSperg]

Someone should tell patrick that this isn't a law, it's an ftc rule that will apply to companies using review bots en masses.

Or don't, the third, better lawsuit will be funnier that way.

 

[Rodeo Clown]

The funny part is this is another example of the type of overreach that becomes unenforceable and and will eventually lead to an completely censored internet if they want to try and even attempt to enforce it anyway. Either you have a fully democratized internet where all people can have their say whether you like it or not or you have an authority that approves truth which do these fools want?m I think it's clear. It would seem obvious to me 4000 good reviews vs 50 bad give you a clear picture but the tyrants prefer 100% so they want a rigged a process of eliminating all bad reviews as "fake" that's what this noise is about. That's what I'm hearing, especially from Titty Mcgitty here.

 

[TorquieTwoBeers]

You and SFWA specifically suppressed all negative reviews through Goodreads and Amazon. But hey, 1.7 can just keep focusing on the part he thinks benefits him.

Also, wait until this is tried in court trying to determine something is "false" when it's my opinion.

I remember I had a goodreads account with a few dozen reviews on it. When all of that shit with the SFWA was happening I decided to write a review of Gate Crashers since I had read it. It was a few paragraphs long and very specific as to why I didn't like the book. They not only deleted the review, they deleted my account and banned me and to this day I can't get a response from goodreads about reinstating my account. It was a legitimate review with examples and quotes and they nuked it and my account. If this ban were enforceable at all (it isn't) goodreads and SFWA would be in its crosshairs.

 

[Racist Google Intern]

Someone should tell patrick that this isn't a law, it's an ftc rule that will apply to companies using review bots en masses.

Or don't, the third, better lawsuit will be funnier that way.

a lot of good it'll do, they'll just buy a bunch of indians who say they're a "social medium service."

 

[Humanatee]

He actually still thinks there's going to be some huge W at the end of all this for him doesn't he. It's beyond insane.

 

[PorqueDealer]

He actually still thinks there's going to be some huge W at the end of all this for him doesn't he. It's beyond insane.

Wait quietly, stlaker.
Quietly is key.

 

[Torque’sHeadBump]

Does it also apply to people like Rick who post fake / false news stories about the Ghost of Kiev or Trump owning Epstein’s old jet?

 

[DominusOdium]

The new rule could help address AI-generated reviews that pop up on sites across the web, including Amazon. Here are the types of deceptive practices the FTC’s new rule prohibits:

• Offering incentives to customers in exchange for writing positive or negative feedback.
• Reviews and testimonials written by “insiders” at a company who fail to “clearly and conspicuously” disclose their affiliation with the business.
• Company-controlled review websites, which often advertise themselves as providing independent opinions on products they actually own.
• Threatening or intimidating customers into removing negative reviews.
• Buying or selling fake followers or views on social media.

The last two are going to fuck Pat and Thiki's whole spot up badly. I wonder if it's intimidating me when I buy a 3 dollar ebook, write a bad review, get called a stlaker/criminal/felon/cyberterrorist/PFGciple in response and have the author threaten me and Amazon with legal action unless I take it down.

What if you have a website full of reviews from friends of your mom's that don't state who they are and what financial arrangements they have? Or if you have fake followers bought every time you drop down? What if interested parties with autism started tracking who your reviews and followers are really?

Well now, that's interesting.

 

[Phish]

The new rule could help address AI-generated reviews that pop up on sites across the web, including Amazon. Here are the types of deceptive practices the FTC’s new rule prohibits:


The last two are going to fuck Pat and Thiki's whole spot up badly. I wonder if it's intimidating me when I buy a 3 dollar ebook, write a bad review, get called a stlaker/criminal/felon/cyberterrorist/PFGciple in response and have the author threaten me and Amazon with legal action unless I take it down.

What if you have a website full of reviews from friends of your mom's that don't state who they are and what financial arrangements they have? Or if you have fake followers bought every time you drop down? What if interested parties with autism started tracking who your reviews and followers are really?

Well now, that's interesting.

What about hundreds of fake reviews on your air bnb???

 

[DominusOdium]

What about hundreds of fake reviews on your air bnb???

Surely nobody will research each and every one of them and autistically report any and all fakes.

 

[TheDarkFezRises]

Prohibits suppressing negative reviews?

Enjoy prison Pat, SFWA, and Goodreads, children.

 

[quasi101]

I looked into every dumb lawsuit news post he tweeted, when I was still actively engaged int he litigation... and... huge shocker here, it never applies even remotely to his situation.

There was one that wacky jacky had tweeted with her plumber hands and some stupid emoji. She literally takes the headlines of non tech media as fact. "new federal decision shows tech companies not immune to section 230" or something like that. Because her knowledge of tech law is basically 230 bad, section 230 applied in fatso case, so AHA! onaforums is fucked. Turns out it was a clever argument from the plaintiff attorneys to ciruvnet section 230 for "product liability standards".

https://new.onaforums.net/threads/w...s-in-madison-and-waukesha.52652/#post-1200294

btw the cases he's referring to have to do with "product" liability so it doesn't fall under section230 or free speech. If he means to blame kiwifarms, who he has blamed in the past then he'd have to sue xenforo as they produced the kiwifarms forum software. Thats what happened in the snapchat case from a while ago.

However, plaintiffs contend the defendants’ platforms are more than just message boards containing third-party content. They allege they are sophisticated products designed to be addictive to young users and they specifically directed Gendron to further platforms or postings that indoctrinated him with “white replacement theor

 

[quasi101]

Basically the only possible way that could apply is if he tried to sue xenforo.

 

[Racist Google Intern]

Basically the only possible way that could apply is if he tried to sue xenforo.

way to tell him, now he's gonna sue another guy!