Answered Rules clarification on signatures and services not allowed

[INCC]

I have a rules clarification request.

ORM services like reviews are not allowed to be sold here. Does this also apply to signatures that point outside this community?

If I have a signature that advertises my SPP page for review service, what's the consensus on that?

Thanks

 

[MisterF]

Difficult one, because if it's not allowed top be sold here, then common sense would be it's not allowed to be advertised here ( speaking from my own thoughts ).


It would not be the same as advertising a hacking or DDOS service in your banner / sig which is illegal, but the fact it's been decided by the top table this isn't a suitable service to sell, would suggest it's not one to advertise.

But hey we know a forum that allowed fake IDs to be sold openly, after all,,,,,,

 

[roydan]

Difficult one, because if it's not allowed top be sold here, then common sense would be it's not allowed to be advertised here ( speaking from my own thoughts ).


It would not be the same as advertising a hacking or DDOS service in your banner / sig which is illegal, but the fact it's been decided by the top table this isn't a suitable service to sell, would suggest it's not one to advertise.

But hey we know a forum that allowed fake IDs to be sold openly, after all,,,,,,

I think that the main difference is that the ORM thing is mainly a US problem at this point, which makes OO more liable than BHW.

 

[INCC]

Difficult one, because if it's not allowed top be sold here, then common sense would be it's not allowed to be advertised here ( speaking from my own thoughts ).

It's muddy waters with the ORM services but I obviously get what you are saying and it would make sense.

If it comes down to what's illegal then buying Instagram, Twitter, Facebook likes and followers is also illegal now... I don't remember OO are banning that.

 

[Zwielicht]

This is a very good question. This clarification is definitely necessary, especially if something isn't allowed to be sold in our Trading Post due to legal reasons.

I am looking into how we can allow that service in our Trading Post, so hopefully it's not a forever thing.

f it comes down to what's illegal then buying Instagram, Twitter, Facebook likes and followers is also illegal now... I don't remember OO are banning that.

I know Meta has opened lawsuits against the individuals who sell the accounts directly, but when I tried looking for specific laws on that before, I came up dry. Do you have any links to the laws on that because if we can't allow that here for the same reason, I can add it to the list here (for now). I need to be able to link to a reason before I block a service from our Trading Post so that we don't fall down the rabbit hole of arbitrarily banning services for unknown reasons, if you know what I mean.

Ideally though, I know I need to find a way to allow these services on this site as they're big parts of IM. I'm still looking into solutions for all of this. The Trading Post is still largely being developed, so the banned services list isn't complete and we're probably missing some stuff there.

Anyway, I'll start looking into it and get back to you as soon as I can. If you can think of any potential loopholes, we can just roll with that for now.

 

[MisterF]

Z, this is not an industry I am involved in but there were cases brought several years back, this is an interesting article: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/04/30/facebook-files-questionable-lawsuit-over-fake-followers-likes/

 

[Zwielicht]

Z, this is not an industry I am involved in but there were cases brought several years back, this is an interesting article: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/04/30/facebook-files-questionable-lawsuit-over-fake-followers-likes/

Yeah, that's the kind of stuff I keep coming across as well with account selling and engagement services.

In regards to the review services, the other forum followed both UK and US law (so they say...), so I often wonder if there's something I'm simply missing with how these services are allowed there. We saw with the SecondEye incident that they largely just go after the people selling the service rather than the marketplace itself, and that one was pretty egregious. However, there are some examples of these companies going after the marketplaces as well.

 

[INCC]

In regards to the review services, the other forum followed both UK and US law (so they say...), so I often wonder if there's something I'm simply missing with how these services are allowed there. We saw with the SecondEye incident that they largely just go after the people selling the service rather than the marketplace itself, but there are some examples of these companies going after the marketplaces as well.

As far as I know, the forum becomes liable only when it acts like an escrow.

If they had accepted a cut from Secondeye sales, it would have been a different story.

 

[Zwielicht]

As far as I know, the forum becomes liable only when it acts like an escrow.

If they had accepted a cut from Secondeye sales, it would have been a different story.

That's an excellent point you made there.

I'll look into it with that information in mind. Thanks!

 

[MisterF]

Yeah, that's the kind of stuff I keep coming across as well with account selling and engagement services.

In regards to the review services, the other forum followed both UK and US law (so they say...), so I often wonder if there's something I'm simply missing with how these services are allowed there. We saw with the SecondEye incident that they largely just go after the people selling the service rather than the marketplace itself, and that one was pretty egregious. However, there are some examples of these companies going after the marketplaces as well.

Interestingly FB changed their page wording from this one that was archived; https://archive.is/AsSes

 

[MisterF]

I know I dod post on the other place several times about how the fake IDs were illegal and these were rejected / ignored, which was crazy as they are a UK registered company.

So even though the forum were not directly selling these, they had approved the sales threads, so were complicit.

Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981

Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981

An Act to make fresh provision for England and Wales and Northern Ireland with respect to forgery and kindred offences; to make fresh provision for Great Britain and Northern Ireland with respect to the counterfeiting of notes and coins and kindred offences; to amend the penalties for offences...

www.legislation.gov.uk

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65707268746930000d488908/Suitability+false+representations++.pdf

 

[Zwielicht]

I know I dod post on the other place several times about how the fake IDs were illegal and these were rejected / ignored, which was crazy as they are a UK registered company.

So even though the forum were not directly selling these, they had approved the sales threads, so were complicit.

Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981

Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981

An Act to make fresh provision for England and Wales and Northern Ireland with respect to forgery and kindred offences; to make fresh provision for Great Britain and Northern Ireland with respect to the counterfeiting of notes and coins and kindred offences; to amend the penalties for offences...

www.legislation.gov.uk

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65707268746930000d488908/Suitability+false+representations++.pdf

At the very least, that does mean that if @INCC wanted to advertise his SPP reviews service in the signature, that should be fine. I mean, I need to keep looking into it, but that is something at least.

Thank you, @MisterF!

 

[Zwielicht]

It's not a straight-forward issue to resolve, but I'm going to say go ahead and add your signature in, @INCC.

What @MisterF seems to be correct, as I do remember there being issues from time to time on the other forum, but the companies targeted the members for that rather than the forum. It's not going to be exactly the same for us, but I don't see anything that suggests we can't allow it in signatures. The Trading Post rule, on the hand, needs to remain the same, at least for now.