Telco Astroturfing Or Elaborate Double-Reverse Sabotage Fakeout? You Decide
from the point-counterpoint dept
You may recall that we recently wrote about the likelihood of telco astroturfing on professor Susan Crawford's book, Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age. If you don't remember, Crawford's book is highly critical of the telco industry and the fact that serious broadband competition is lacking in the US and that we've fallen way behind many other countries.The book came out in January, and around March, there was suddenly a bunch of one star reviews that started appearing that all had tell-tale signs of being fake. I spent an evening comparing the then 31 one-star reviews to the then 41 5-star reviews, noting some oddities in the one-star reviews. For example, almost none of the one-star reviewers had ever reviewed another product on Amazon, while nearly all of the 5-star reviewers had a bunch of other reviews. Most of the 1-star reviews felt the need to mention their profession and that they lived in a "rural" area for no clear reason at all. Almost none were "verified purchases" or used Amazon's Real Names program. I concluded that there was fairly strong and compelling evidence that these were astroturf reviews -- fake reviews put forth by the telco industry, their friends or lobbyists to try to drag down the star ratings of the book.
I never thought that defenders of the telcos would respond to the claims. After all, there are times when it really is best to shut up. However, it would seem that some cannot resist. Richard Bennett -- a long time apologist for the telcos' position on nearly everything -- has decided to step to the plate with an alternative theory for those obviously fake one-star reviews, and followed it up with a series of mocking tweets directed at me, claiming that I am a "poor journalist" for never even considering his alternate theory and suggesting that I would never "dare" to discuss it.
So, in the interest of "fairness," I thought I'd present the two competing theories side by side, and let the readers decide which one makes more sense. For some background, Bennett has been a long time denier of any problems with US broadband, insisting that it's been highly competitive and super fast and innovative for years and years. He works for ITIF, which was among those who fought hardest against net neutrality rules and was the "think tank" behind the original plan that turned into SOPA. When the MPAA was desperately seeking tech experts who would support SOPA, the only ones they turned up all had connections to ITIF (and weren't particularly experts on technology anyway). That gives you a hint of ITIF's standard operating procedures. More recently, Bennett co-authored a report claiming that US broadband was highly competitive and working wonderfully -- a report that was discredited thoroughly and repeatedly by a variety of experts, making it a bit of a laughing stock.
But... he's sure he knows where those one-star reviews came from. You see, as we mentioned in our original post, Bennett was among the short list of "named" reviewers of the book. As I noted, nearly all of the named reviewers were well known in DC telco policy circles, working for think tanks, like ITIF, that had a long history of repeating AT&T's talking points. I have no problem with that, because he was clearly named there, and didn't try to hide anything, and his one-star review was well written and gave a full explanation of his position. That's fine. So, here's his alternative theory, followed by my theory:
- All of those obviously faked one-star reviews -- which he admits are clearly faked -- weren't actually done by telco lobbyist/astroturfers, but rather they were done by Free Press or their supporters, an organization that has been a big supporter of Crawford's book and the view that the telcos are abusing their power and providing us substandard broadband. But, you ask (and I did!), why would an organization like Free Press who supports Crawford's work litter her Amazon book page with one-star reviews? According to Bennett, the answer is obvious to someone of his great intellect (a rarefied club to which I do not belong): it was to do two things (1) bury his own absolutely brilliant critique of Crawford's work so that potential buyers would not read it and (2) so that six months later, a complete stooge like me would come along, find the fake reviews that were really written by Free Press (again, supporters of the book) and write an article blaming those reviews on telco lobbyists.
Because this is a slightly complex strategy, let me repeat it, just to be clear: Bennett is claiming that Free Press -- an organization that supports Crawford's book -- purposely sabotaged the reviews on the book's page, piling up about 25 obviously bogus one-star reviews solely to demote his own one-star review, and at the same time lead "gullible" people such as myself to pin the blame on telco shills.
His evidence for this is that his own brilliant review has many "unhelpful" votes and just a few "helpful" votes, and that could only have happened because Free Press set up this complex string of dominoes, knowing that one day I would tip them over, getting the story on Reddit and having lots of people on Reddit vote down his unimpeachable critique of Crawford's duplicitous book. Or, he believes, Free Press is so frightened by the intellectual might and persuasive power of his review, that it unleashed an unruly and uninformed mob of its followers armed with blatant misinformation, to click that his review was "unhelpful." - Or, you know, my theory: most of those one-star reviews were from telco astroturfing groups designed to pull down the star rating on the book.
For what it's worth, since my original post did end up on the front page of Reddit, and got a ton of traffic, a bunch of folks added their own 5-star reviews (and one absolutely hilarious one-star parody review), which have since shifted the numbers so that there are many, many more five-star reviews on the book, many of which admit that they haven't read the book but are trying to counter the astroturf reviews. As I noted in my original story, I don't think this is particularly helpful, and Bennett now uses those reviews to argue that there is some sort of equivalence between the clearly faked astroturf reviews and the "faked" 5-star reviews.
So, there we go. Since Bennett claims that I am too gullible and stupid to see the truth, I will leave it up to the readers here to suss out which of the two theories is more plausible. Theory one, in which supporters of the book purposely sabotaged the ratings, driving down the overall star rating, just to bury Bennett's own brilliant review and get it buried with "unhelpful" votes, or the apparently facile explanation that the bogus one-star reviews came from telco astroturfers. And, of course, for Bennett's theory to be accurate, it would mean that people don't really care so much about the overall star ratings on a product as they do about how many "helpful/unhelpful" votes there are on each review -- and therefore loading up the book page with one-star reviews, just to drive people to vote Bennett's single review as "unhelpful" was the strategy. But, perhaps I'm wrong in my assumption that most people focus mainly on the star ratings, and Bennett in his vast store of knowledge has ferreted out the real plot from those nefarious consumer advocates at Free Press.
I'll leave it open for you to decide.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: amazon reviews, astroturfing, broadband, richard bennett, susan crawford, telcos
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That's not the most convoluted excuse I've heard today.
I heard Obama talk about transparency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Occam's Razor...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Occam's Razor...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reality is that the reviews are actually part of a *triple* reverse sabotage. They were written by telco astroturfers pretending to be Free Press fake-astroturfers pretending to be telco astroturfers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reality is that the reviews are actually part of a *triple* reverse sabotage. They were written by telco astroturfers pretending to be Free Press fake-astroturfers pretending to be telco astroturfers.
You have clearly missed your calling and should immediately apply to head up the NSA. Your reasoning is far, far better than theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
With frickin' laser beams attached to their heads.
Pretending to be telco astroturfers.
.
.
.
Oh, sorry. My bad. I just assumed that Dr. Evil had one of those razor things everyone's talking about. Y'know, given his head, and all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sPVEBAtwmg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'nuf said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm going to go with Hanlon's Razor now. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Bennett is assuming malice against his 1-star review. You're assuming stupidity on the part of telco-astroturfing efforts. Therefore, I'm going with stupidity on the part of the telcos, who have been proven to engage in similar stupidity before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The poor guy is merely trying to earn his money... no matter how stupid it makes him look.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ok, so what if I typed it in a word document, sent it to you, and you read it? Then you can claim you didn't just read it on the Internet and you would no longer be an idiot for believing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow. Ok. That's a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Razors, razors everywhere...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Third option
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, I'm still paying the about the same price, but I have half the download speed I used to have, and I have a data usage cap.
The only thing that's stayed consistent, is I only have one choice for a broadband provider in my area, unless I want to pay for satellite internet, which is expensive and slow.
I'm sure Mr. Bennett will argue that satellite internet should be considered 'competition' in my area.
I can't even get DSL internet in my area...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ronald J. Riley says:
Telcos have been scum so long that they no longer have an memory of being responsible corporate citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But otherwise - *gasp* - RJR talks sense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow...just...wow...
I honestly expected to click on the comments link and see OOTB as the first poster, because any attempt to bludgeon Mike into submission is a good place to find him.
That being said, I think Bennett takes the cake for oddball. and by cake I mean laughing gas. and by laughing gas I mean anything else that has no bearing on society...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I had no idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I spent an evening comparing the" reviews. -- I just bet you did.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130722/17503523891/telco-astroturfing-tries-to-bring-down-r eviews-susan-crawfords-book.shtml#c112
[Heh, heh. Hidden again by the non-censoring censors here at Techdirt.]
Now that you've bragged of the power of Techdirt to cause people to LIE, you should at least consider -- well, not YOU, Mike, but objective readers, should they exist -- that for whatever reason, you're out to promote the book, and this 3RD mention makes it a dead cert.
First time is happenstance; 2nd time coincidence, 3rd time enemy action. Ian Fleming, some Bond book.
@ "dante866": Now that I've commented you and other ankle-biters can use the "report" button to censor! But thanks for the advance notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I spent an evening comparing the" reviews. -- I just bet you did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "I spent an evening comparing the" reviews. -- I just bet you did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I spent an evening comparing the" reviews. -- I just bet you did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I spent an evening comparing the" reviews. -- I just bet you did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For the alternate theory of faking sabotage and crossing your fingers that it is discovered for media attention... The risk/reward for such such an act makes it absurd for a reasonable person to consider. If you believe the Free Press to have a high-risk taking delusional character/culture than yes, this theory remains a valid possibility. If you do not, then this theory is some fantastical idea that is more likely to conjured up by someone with those same attributes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quadruple Fake Comment
Love,
A nefarious Free Press guy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, I Did It
Who reads books anymore? :-)
Now that we can shelve that topic, back to following the money. Richard has never disclosed what large companies (cough... AT&T) are keeping the lights on at the K Street HQ of ITIF, one of America's biggest apologists of the sorry state of overpriced, too slow U.S. Internet access. (Broadband for America, in terms of sheer hackery, is even bigger and the always useless Harold Ford, Jr. and John Sununu are honorary co-chairs).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Godwin's Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Godwin's Law
Your attempt at Goodwin-ing this thread has outed you as an agent provocateur.
Obviously, it was the Jews. I mean, they're behind everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To boil it down to its simplest terms, I said nobody knows who wrote the obviously fake reviews of Crawford's book on Amazon. All we do know for certain is that 95% of the posted reviews where written by people who haven't read the book, and that goes for the 5 star reviews as well as the 1 star reviews. It makes no more sense to blame telco astroturfers for the fake reviews than to blame the Free Press astroturfers.
In reality, there are fairly compelling reasons to believe that both sides have manufactured fake reviews, and the overall balance of fakery is on the five star side. But I don't claim it's a certainty, just a likelihood.
Another plausible explanation that I've floated on this blog is that some intrepid PR entrepreneur produced the fake reviews in order to win some future business from one of the vested interests involved in the discussion. I don't know if that happened either, but things like that have happened before. It's widely known that Amazon reviews can be purchased.
I appreciate that your desire to attack me is a show of respect in some perverse sense, but surely there are better ways for you to raise your visibility than by dragging others down to your tabloid level.
I'll see you and your colleagues Tim Karr, Matt Wood, and Karl Bode on Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have no "fairly compelling reasons."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the open market people are astroturfers, so are the open networks people, and vice versa.
Consistency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, no, that's not true, but you can live with your delusions Richard.
1. As I showed with my analysis, the bogus 1-star reviews had indications of being faked. The 5-star reviews did not. You present no counter evidence other than a visceral (and ridiculous) hatred for Free Press and claims that they "do this kind of stuff" which, um, they don't.
2. While it is true that many of the 5-star reviews *do* point out that they didn't read the book, they clearly state that they're doing it in response to *seeing* the 1-star reviews. So, what happened -- as is clear to just about *anyone* -- is that there was clear telco astroturfing. Somewhere along the line (around Feb or March or so) someone else drew attention to those reviews, and some people responded with the 5-star "counter" reviews. Then there was my post, which lead to many more of those "counter" reviews. I made clear in my post that those reviews were not helpful and I didn't support or condone them.
But, as with SOPA, you can't come to grips with the idea that *actual people* found the bogus corporate talking points to be pure bullshit -- bullshit that you've been known to spew for years -- and reacted *naturally* against it, not because of some "campaign" but because they were disgusted by the dishonesty.
You need to get yourself out of DC "policy circles" -- it's dulled your senses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The astroturf fake review fantasy comes down to what the definitions of "astroturf" and "fake reviews" are.
In your little world, any comment that's favorable to open markets is telco astroturf, but any comment favorable to open networks is righteous, true, and genuine. As I see it, any review from an open network advocate recruited by Free Press, Karl Bode, or Tech Dirt-by-way-of-Reddit is also astroturf.
I also judge as fake any review that fails to convince me that the reviewer has actually read the book would be a fake review, regardless of how it's motivated.
Amazon book reviews on tribal subjects such as this one are full of partisanship and dishonesty, so there's no need to single out one of the tribes while giving the other tribe a free ride.
The fact remains that "Captive Audience" is a work of story-telling held up by references to blog posts and popular press articles. It is not based on serious research.
Don't hate for knowing technology and policy, Mike. It's good for you that someone like me is willing to dirty his hands in the sausage factory. You really don't want policy work to be left to law professors who can't be bothered to learn the difference between an Internet and a phone booth. The Crawfords and Wus of the world may be well-meaning, but that's not good enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's funny how nearly every other tech expert who has reviewed the book disagrees. I've already said that I actually agree that her policy recommendations are not ones I agree with, but there is a lot of good information in the book.
The astroturf fake review fantasy comes down to what the definitions of "astroturf" and "fake reviews" are.
Yes... do go on...
In your little world, any comment that's favorable to open markets is telco astroturf...
Oh bullshit, Richard. Seriously, you are so full of shit it's not even funny.
1. I'm a major supporter of *open markets*. That's the whole basis of what we often talk about.
2. The telco market that you support is ANYTHING BUT an open market. It's a regulated oligopoly, with incredible limits via rights of way and other government subsidies. Denying that means you're either stupid or lying.
3. I gave a detailed list of reasons and explanations for why those comments were astroturf, and NONE of them had to do with "supporting open markets." Because that's pure horseshit. I support open markets. You support corporate cronyism AGAINST open markets.
As I see it, any review from an open network advocate recruited by Free Press, Karl Bode, or Tech Dirt-by-way-of-Reddit is also astroturf.
Then you're an idiot. We didn't "recruit" any reviews.
I also judge as fake any review that fails to convince me that the reviewer has actually read the book would be a fake review, regardless of how it's motivated.
How many times do I need to tell you that I agree with this before you stop acting like the world's biggest idiot? I've said, repeatedly, that I disagree with the fake positive reviews as well. But there's a difference between planned astroturf reviews, and the backlash to those reviews, which is what those fake positive reviews are.
Amazon book reviews on tribal subjects such as this one are full of partisanship and dishonesty, so there's no need to single out one of the tribes while giving the other tribe a free ride.
I didn't. You don't even read before you spew. You really look like a complete fool here. A smart person would have stopped digging. But you just got a bigger shovel.
Don't hate for knowing technology and policy, Mike.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Good one Richard. Good one. You had me going there for a second.
Seriously. You're a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've read Bennett for years
However, it's pretty clear that he really doesn't have the slightest idea what the Internet is or what it could be or what it should be. Like so many telco lobbyists, he sees the world entirely in terms of billable events: not surprising, that's how EVERY telco sees it. Thus if it can't be captured and logged and billed...it doesn't exist. It never occurs to these people that the idea of "billable events" is an ancient construct and that maybe, just maybe, it's obsolete now.
You will never persuade these people. It's burned too deeply into them. All you can do is wait for them to die off...which is now happening. In another 20-30 years, minds that have never been poisoned by this worldview will (I hope) have the vision that telco leaders lack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've read Bennett for years
Uh oh, now you've done it. You've summoned its presence, and it will come.
Give in a little while and I promise that Bennett will be here to talk about how he invented the internet, ethernet, WiFi and every other important networking technology ever. He may have invented the telegraph and the telephone too. I forget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've read Bennett for years
I was also one of the contributors to the first Wi-Fi standard, starting in 1990, and I contributed the 802.11n A-MPDU frame aggregation technique that doubled throughput. Do you care to dispute this?
Remind me what you've done for networking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've read Bennett for years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I've read Bennett for years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I've read Bennett for years
Is it?
http://web.archive.org/web/20060503084840/http://www.bennett.com/blog/
"The Original Blog
Established July 4, 1996 by Richard Bennett"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I've read Bennett for years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I've read Bennett for years
It's called "getting caught red-handed", look it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I've read Bennett for years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've read Bennett for years
"Bennett will be here to talk about how he invented the internet"
Richard Bennett == Al Gore
'splain that one to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're both wrong!
Because it'd be too simple for it to be a bunch of telcos trying to smother dissenting opinions!
[/impersonation of "expert" with weird hair from History Channel's Ancient Aliens]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He has finally come out-of-the-closet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both...and here's why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turns out Hanlon's was a much better choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Arguing that wireless is inherently better than wired is reversing positions. Here he is arguing from a future perspective, while she is taking the present stance. Also, wireless technology builds on the fiber, arguing wireless structure as something else than fiber to home is a bit thin since fiber to all homes = fiber for all wireless, while that is not the case in the opposite situation...
- His anecdote about a person preferring satellite above DSL is ridiculous in itself. That it proves real competition between satellite and DSL is a complete non-sequitor. He should be emberrased to even try such a cop-out instead of giving evidence!
- He is claiming VDSL as something other than fiber while explaining it, correctly, as a hybrid technology. It is used as an argument against fiber being the standard of the future... Yeah... VDSL as competition to fiber is like fiber competing with fiber. There is a small saving from the homeowners in choosing VDSL in the short-medium term. In the long term, it gets speculative at best. From the telcos desk fiber is too damn expensive and that is the only reason they are pushing VDSL and normal DSLs today. Using VDSL as the standard of the future is medium term an improvement over ADSL or dial-up, but it is not the solution in the long term!
- He constantly mention her name in ridiculing and fact-poor sentences, which is a loosing debaters position. It has straight up ad homs a good deal of the way and there are several strawmen he pounds down with a vengeance. I think he has a problem with Crawford basing a lot on predictions, while he wants pure reactive measures from the industry. On the other hand, his own future scenario is also based on predictions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Super Troll's real identity unmasked !
Sounds vaguely familiar. Oh wait! OOTB_AJ_AC real identity is uncovered ! He is ... Richard Bennett! Not ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You guys have missed it all
You're all a bunch of filthy hippies and Communists and traitors who don't appreciate what this great country of ours - not yours - has done for you. If you don't like it, why don't you just get out and go live in one of those workers' paradises you dream of, like Sweden or Eurasia or something.
-- A True Patriot from Iowa or Idaho or one of those places
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys have missed it all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Icredulity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is
AWE SOME !
some of the best mind blowing cr@p on the internet
(which I invented, of course)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard Bennett is..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]