| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
You know, I made myself a nice little list of rules for internet conduct. Rule #39 Perhaps people should listen to me more. | |
What a bitch. Why am I not surprised that someone like her is behind a scam agency like Offerpal. | |
Thankfully the girls from the Evony ads cleavage distract me from clicking on the more unsavory ads. | |
I love Evony ads. Is it so much to ask that I nearly find porn anywhere I go? I thought that was what the internet was about! >_> <_< Yes...I am a DnD nerd...cut me some slack. | |
We as a society shouldn't be allowing this sort of deception to happen in the first place. Fine print is in itself a deception (or, if you prefer, misdirection). It doesn't directly exist because of regulations; those regulations require that information to be provided but they do not require it to be provided in fine print. That is done to quite intentionally make it more difficult and tedious for people to read, thus reducing the likelihood that they will. Sure, maybe legal details of offers won't fit in the main body of an ad or whatever, but the basic premise should be spelled out clearly in the main copy. But attitudes like the above, attributing it all to people's "stupidity," "laziness," and "indifference" are what enable such scams to continue. Seems more like ignorance than any of those things, but calling it that makes it a little more difficult to defend the position that it's all the fault of the person clicking that link. Then it becomes a question of whether that person is responsible for not knowing they're being conned. Are we as a society providing adequate resources out there to inform them, then, and in places they are at least as likely to notice as the scams themselves? If not, how are we supposed to expect them to know? They aren't born with that knowledge. But, of course, all of that is avoiding the real issue: it is blatantly obvious that the people running these "ads" are intentionally tricking people out of money. The question of who is responsible for preventing this sort of thing (answer: every single one of us) would be moot if we as a society would recognize that it's counterproductive to keep scamming each other left and right. Of course, that would require people to realize that money is not the most important thing in the universe. Until such a collective epiphany materializes, we have to each take responsibility for our part and do what we can right now to make "we as a society" more in line with what works (actually, that is the collective epiphany, just on an individual level). Personally, with regard to this particular issue, I will be spreading the link to that TechCrunch article around on Facebook, Twitter, and my blog, and warning people to avoid those offers. | |
Well said sir. | |
But... what if the offers are real? | |
Well said. | |
PLAY NOW, MY LORD. | |
Definitely well said. I'm comfortable cruising the internet personally because I can smell these things coming from a mile away and I won't touch it even if there's a chance it's legitimate. But my parents will fall for this stuff all the time, because they didn't grow up with banner ads and "YOU'RE OUR 1 MILLIONTH VISITOR" scams on every page. The internet would be more enjoyable for everyone (and I might actually put some faith into the virtual goods concept) if the virtual economy was one I could take seriously and put my trust in. | |
That sir.. was deep. | |
A business not taking responsibility for ethics violations Haha, how original!! | |
I dont know about whether someone is being stupid if they follow through on an offer without reading the finer details, as they just may not be fineprint savvy. I have found that many people do one thing very intelligently, but may not know enough for another. But SharedProphet does raise a good idea. Regardless of how savvy others are, it should be on our part who do know better, to spread the word among our friends and peers to be aware that such scams exist. The only free to play service I use is Second Life, and that is the only. I am quite experienced to know that many many companies out there pull out their legalese to justify embezzling people of their money. I hope sometime in the near future that justified embezzling becomes unjustified. Too many businesses these days have lost the idea of customers, and more just think the people that buy or use their product as tools and saps. But when you aren't seeing the person's face in person, that's all too easy to do. It's come time that we remind internet companies that we are people, we are customers, and we deserve respect for the money we have. The economy has no hope of improving if more and more companies find cheap ways to scam us of money, therefore discouraging us from doing business with even legitimate places. It truly is contradictory and harmful. | |
Well this raises some questions about what you should be able to agree to by signing a form or pushing a button. Some rights should be impossible to sign away, something that has been held up in the cases of doctors requiring waivers and such from patients they are giving treatment to before surgery, basically saying that even if THEY messed up the patient gives up the right to seek legal recourse against them. Likewise, I feel EULAs, agreements to access websites, etc... should all be considered non-binding. Scams are scams, and truthfully anyone who falls for a scam winds up feeling dumb. The thing with Facebook Flash games is that it's a great place to pull a "fine print" scheme because this is the kind of game that is going to be played by a casual gamer (usually none to bright, hence the level of intellectual stimulation... as offensive as that sounds), probably coming home from a day of work, and wanting to unwind for an hour or two living out his Tony Soprano fantasies or whatever. The simplistic, casual atmosphere, puts people off guard and they aren't expecting it, and honestly catching a rube unaware is pretty much what scams are all about. The thing is to consider is that even when you get past targeting specific vulnerable audiences like casual gamers, is that scam artists are predators. Nobody is on guard 100% of the time, and honestly who wants to live in a world where you have to be THAT paranoid. As such laws to regulate this kind of thing (or people getting others to sign away rights like that to free speech) is something that should be illegal. Not "well you were stupid, so haha on you". Trust me, we are ALL vulnerable at some point no matter how good we are, how well educated, or how aware. Laugh at someone today, and tomorrow the stupid guy could very easily be you. Most scams are bloody obvious, and "avoidable" once you know how they work. I mean heck, HOW Many people lost tons of money to pay lines run out of third world nations pretending to be phony prize give aways? Once upon a time if "Publishers Clearing House" or someone was to contact you you'd be doing cartwheels of joy. Today someone tells you that you won something, even if it's legitimate, your first reaction is "okay, what's the scam?". At any rate, I'd imagine most of those targeted by Farmville or Mafia Wars are people who despite my comments above would be VERY careful when dealing with a business transaction or someplace where money is supposed to be involved. Stupid does not mean ignorant, and even dumb people are smart enough nowadays to know that when money is involved that if they don't understand something they need to confer with an expert who does. However this is a bloody online game intended to blow off steam, not dealing with a creditor, or trying to finance a big purchuse. Really, the first step is simply to maintain there are certain kinds of agreements that are non-binding no matter what. Just like a "sex slave agreement" over Craigslist is non-binding because you can't voluntarily agree to something like that. EULAs, most "internet contracts" of any kind, etc... I'm rapidly getting to the point nowadays that unless a contract comes from a face to face meeting, and is notatized by a third party unaffiliated with either (Notaries still exist, but aren't used quite like they used to be) it's meaningless in any legal sense. Predators are predators, and face it, no matter how much you look down on others, one day the "sucker born every minute" might very well be you. | |
Well said. And in addition to this new development, the news room contributors keep pointing out how life-destroying and pointless FarmVille is, so I think I'll just say no once a flashing ad for that game pops up.
PLAY NOW DISCREETLY! I have no idea for the life of me what that means, though, even IN context. | |
If you go to TechCrunch, you discover that this story doesn't end as it's written here. Zynga (you may know them as the guys who stole Farm Town and repackaged it as "FarmVille"), praised by Shukla in the accompanying video, has publicly admitted that it's used scams and will no longer, while a major network on Facebook has promised to cease CPA offers. There's also a post on TechCrunch by a former spammer who points out this stuff will only exist until a larger company comes along to drive out the spammers. Basically, the fight right now is between Google AdSense versus these Offer Scams. It's a battle between 10cents to a couple of bucks, which is why the spammers are winning. But when some larger company comes a long that can offer $50 for targeted local legitimate advertising the scammers will have to move on. The guy also surmises that Facebook will either have to crack down or risk becoming MySpace, although as Arrington notes, Facebook has shown no real drive to take this action so far. | |
Wow why did none of her colleagues run up and throw some tape over her mouth. You gotta know that when some one responds to a well reasoned argument with "shit, double-shit and bullshit" the following rebuttal is only going to go downhill. Hell she didn't even give any decent argument to support her company, I mean really her argument against people scamming Netflixs is that she rented 2 movies a year ago and is paying them $20 a month to keep them...so it is ok to scam them?! WTF. Oh and she thinks Blockbuster and some Disney Club does a better job so everyone should go out and scam Netflix. On second thought, just looking at their (what I would describe as) greedy smiles of those on the panel, they probably all do honestly think what they are doing is ok. Which is a shame, because it only hurts users in the end while they run away with their loaded pockets. | |
Not my problem. That's not my usual approach, mind you, I like to think companies are held accountable for their actions. But when I'm not living in my fantasy-fairy world where everything is rainbows, I understand that companies lie, cheat and steal and the bigger the business then the less likely they are being honest with me. If people can't be bothered to protect their money, then consider it Economic Darwinism. OT: Also, I realize I'm about to nullify any credibility in my argument by alienating the audience, but shame on them for using text messaging. That's the ultimate regression of mankind right there. Let me give you text-ers a free heads up. 1) Texting is not less rude than talking on the phone while you are talking to me, and it does not count as "more polite" at the table where you are eating or in a movie theater. Shut up. 2) Its a scam. Even paying for "unlimited texting" is a ridiculous notion. If its an emergency, call the person. If its not, wait till you get home and use one of 500 free services to reach them. Twitter, Facebook, even good old email. There has never been a time when texting has been appropriate. If you need to be that connected constantly, like for business, then just get a headset or a laptop. Maybe spend more time in the office, slacker. 3) If Texting absolutely must become acceptable? No one under 18 is allowed to use it. You're 12, who are you texting? Your mother has already laid out the footy pajamas, calm down. | |
Evony, not only stealing from Civilization, but stealing the girls from their ads: this is also why I dont play games like these, instead opting for pay to play ones like Anarchy Online, atleast those have a reason for you to pay for them. | |
This is a "Well, DUH." moment. The company is definitely at fault here, but people who actually click an ad on the internet intentionally deserve, not to have their money stolen, but to have something punish them for their stupidity. Some sort of karmic retribution. | |
I swear to God, the last Evony ad I saw were two girls in skimpy bikinis on a beach... Is there a volleyball MMO now? | |
Stupid people should be less stupid then. It's just like the winning free console ads. The only sites that actually do this legitimately are those sites that you become a member of and review ads, afterward you gain points in which you can spend on items which the online store offers. I mean, really, why would they need to text you the results? What logical reason is there. The internet has always been a big, mean, hungry place and people need to learn that it won't shoot rainbows out of its arse just for them. | |
Most of those offers that ask you to fill in your phone number are going to screw you over, subscribe you to some service you don't want, and generally do bad things. In any case, the ones that actually ARE FREE give you about 1 or 2 of the certain in-game currency when it would generally take (FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE) 1000 of those to buy a bale of hay. | |
I got totally shitfaced one night and actually bought some "Godfather coins" or whatever they're called in Mafia Wars, charging it to my cell phone bill. Once I sobered up I vowed never to waste 10 bucks like that again. About a week later I started getting text-spammed on my phone, and by the end of that month I had to change my number because of all the unwanted bullshit I kept getting. What these companies are doing is the 21st century version of the "Bait and Switch" where you're "Baited" by a great offer, or sale price, then comes the "Switch" where you're convinced that even though the first offer is great, what you really want is THIS, and we'll make it really easy for you to finance it... The only difference is that the "Switch" is buried under the aforementioned legalese, and you end up taking it up the pooper without even the courtesy of a reacharound. (Yes, my mother is proud of me, thank you for mentioning it.) I bet if you took a poll of all the other suckers that fell for this scam you'd find a large portion of them probably started getting "Cell-Spammed" soon afterwards... Methinks there is a scam within the scam hereabouts, i.e. your cell phone number being sold like your eMail address used to be, but its probably next to impossible to prove. Either way all I need is a speed bag and I can vault my boxing collection and get a bonus! If you got that last part you are a sad, sad little person. | |
This. Stupidity needs to be punished so people can grow smarter. | |
great article | |
I think I found my soul mate on the issue of texting. OT: I can't really be arsed to feel sorry for the people who got scammed...mostly because they got screwed while trying to get ahead in a game set up as a fucking Facebook application, which spells all kinds of fail to me. So what if the fine print is boring to read? That doesn't negate a person's responsibility to at least skim it over to find any glaring problems that they'll regret agreeing to later. Sure, the company is also at fault, but those screwed over can't push all the blame off themselves either. | |
Sure, we also shouldn't collectively turn a blind eye upon the plight of our fellow man, whether it be starvation, water shortages, aids, or genocide. We should be taking care of our environment, and yes we shouldn't be ripping each other off. That said compared to the other problems in the world I have a hard time drumming up the care for people failing to read the fine print. It's not that I don't agree with what you're saying in theory, I just find this attitude idealistic and counterproductive in the real world. We as a society are by and large responsible for most of the worlds evils through indifference. I had more to say but I am at work. Clients are gonna wonder where I am soon. | |
I'm not a lawyer, but I think a lot of them aren't binding. Most website access agreements are crap. The BoingBoing team likes to shred website terms of use, especially clauses like "you can't link to our site without our permission" which displays complete ignorance of how the web works (it's kind of analogous to putting up a big billboard on a well-travelled public street, and trying to forbid people from driving down the street). As for software EULAs; well, corporations don't have the power to create and enforce laws (yet!), but they do have certain rights regarding who they do business with. I don't know that just clicking on an "Agree" button is the same thing as signing a binding legal contract though. I'm not aware if anyone's taken a software publisher to court over a EULA--anyone else have some perspective? | |
Well, some are nto completly a lie. My friend got his PS3 for cheap from one of those type of things. I dont know the full details, but it did require he put more effort than clickign the link once, but he got it cheaper than buying it. (This is when it was the stupid price) | |
is it too late to say duh? | |
Would you mind giving a little more detail? This is the first time I've ever heard of an ad on any website being worth it. | |
As far as I am concerned those games are a waste of time. I have a games console to play games, why shuld I bother with stuff like that? | |
I like your statement concerning protecting people from their own stupidity: This is true, there are literally millions of business's and individuals who have learned how to bend the rules on ethics and implement their own get rich quick schemes on the unsuspecting public, and its up to each one of us as individuals to protect ourselves from such scams, not the governement or any other regulating group. If we keep expecting other to do something nothing will change, the easiest and most effective step to bringing down scam artists like these wonderful social media exploiters is to simply get informed and make a proper decision, instead of just clicking that little button that says "free" | |
| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
Extra Punctuation
Experienced Points
MovieBob: Intermission
First Person
Miracle of Sound: Encore
Loading Time
Hexproof
Ask Dr Mark
Backchat
Drinking Games
Escape to the Movies
Escapecraft
Escapist Podcast
Feed Dump
GinxTV
Jimquisition
LoadingReadyRun
Meatbag and Co
Media Sandwich
Miracle of Sound
No Right Answer
Pro-Gamer Gauntlet
Reviews
Tales from the Table
The Big Picture
The Escapist Presents
Trailers
Unskippable
Zero Punctuation
The Darkness II Review
Reckoning Review
Exodus Review
Final Fantasy XIII-2 Review
Scarygirl Review
Amy Review
Critical Miss
Name Game
Blogger Says Farmville Ads are "Scams"
Popular social games like Farmville and Mafia Wars are huge money makers, but Michael Arrington of TechCrunch says a lot of that revenue comes from from "completely unethical" advertisements that trick players with false promises of free stuff .
Online games that are free to play but offer in-game items or currency for sale to gamers who want to advance faster or farther than everyone else should be familiar to just about everyone reading this. Microtransaction-based MMOGs have been around for years; their emergence in North America is a relatively recent phenomenon but the system has already been credited with at least the short-term salvation of Dungeons & Dragons Online. But on the more casual side of the gaming coin, ironically, Arrington claims that there's an unsavory aspect of the business that's often overlooked: "Lead gen scams" that trick unwary players into spending big bucks on in-game items they think they're getting free.
It works like this: Users respond to an ad promising free Farmville currency in exchange for filling out a quick survey or questionnaire. After answering the questions, they're told to submit their mobile phone number so the results can be sent to them via text message. They are then sent a PIN code to be entered on the quiz and that's where things get ugly: Following the steps to completion results in a subscription to a $9.99 monthly service, essentially for nothing and often at the hands of Tattoo Media, a company that was fined in late 2008 for serving up similar ads on MyLuvCrush.com.
The dicey part for game developers is this: A significant majority of game revenues (as much as 70 percent, according to one executive) can come out of these offers and small-time studios desperate for income, not to mention the social networks themselves, which take their own hefty cut, are hesitant to bite the hands that feed them. Meanwhile, companies that refuse to take part find themselves falling further and further behind in the battle for monetization.
The end result, Arrington says, is a self-perpetuating "social gaming ecosystem of hell" in which bad behavior breeds success - and more bad behavior - while companies with a conscience end up finishing last. Facebook and MySpace both have rules against certain types of scams but have apparently been rather lax in enforcing them, at least in part, one must assume, because they themselves benefit tremendously from this kind of advertising.
Arrington took his complaint to last week's Virtual Goods Summit in San Francisco, where he asked Offerpal CEO Anu Shukla to "explain the ethics of her business." Shukla initially met his complaints head-on, calling them "shit, double-shit and bullshit," but then dodged the point by shunting responsibility for ethical advertising behavior onto Facebook and suggesting that virtually everyone who signs up for an Offerpal program is an informed and consenting adult.
This, of course, is where the debate gets interesting. These offers do spell out their terms and conditions, including catches like high-priced monthly subscription fees, in the fine print - which we all know nobody ever actually reads. So who should ultimately be held responsible for these unwanted "surprise" fees: Companies who knowingly camouflage the truth of their "deals" with pages and pages of mind-numbing legalese, or the unthinking schmucks who blithely toss credit card numbers and other personal information onto the internet without giving a second thought as to what's actually being done with it?
I'm all for protecting the public from predators, but when it comes to protecting people from their own stupidity I tend to be a little less generous. There's no doubt that these offers absolutely push the ethical envelope if not the legal one and on a personal level I find it a despicable practice, but the question remains: How far are we willing to go to protect people from themselves? Fine print exists precisely because of various industry regulations; are we now admitting that we as a society have grown so lazy, indifferent and/or stupid that we need these warnings spoon-fed to us in monosyllabic 24-point boldface?
Interestingly, while Shukla aggressively defended her company's behavior and Offerpal posted a comprehensive rebuttal of Arrington's accusations on its media blog the next day, the company's mobile survey offers have apparently been removed from most, if not all, Facebook games. A quick look at Farmville reveals that while lead gen offers remain, including a freebie from something called EliteMate, there are currently no mobile offers available. As Arrington asks, "If there's no scam, why remove them?"
Why, indeed?
Permalink