I mean....if the content is there, and people found it engaging enough to want to interact with it, is it really scammy? _Dishonest_ is probably a fair descriptor of presenting the content as coming from more people than actually were (and if those "usage numbers" were presented as actual usage numbers for, like, VC funding, then it's an out-and-out scam), but I don't think it's really _that_ much of a scam as-presented. If someone told me tomorrow that all of the content I'd read on Hacker News for the last month had all been provided by one extremely prolific person with a bunch of sockpuppets, rather than by multiple actual real human people, it wouldn't reduce the value or enjoyment I'd got from them.
The flipped vowel is extraordinarily relevant! I agree that it's scummy, but not scammy.
> And I would find invented discussions less engaging
I would predict that I would, too - but, evidence suggests that it was engaging enough to get people interested, so maybe our predictions are incorrect.
the truth doesnt need to be defended cause the truth is no one, and it doesnt care to be defended. The one you should defend is common good. And truths as when they pertain to common good.
I think scam generally implies that someone was swindled, told they'd get A and get Q (or nothing at all). Sold a bill of goods (but not the goods).
In the case of something like Reddit, you come to read content, and once you've readit, you write it, and then read some more. I'm not sure you're ever really sold that you're even engaging with actual people.
These days, I frequently wonder what percentage of comments on any of these sites is genuine (although I happen to believe it's still a pretty high percentage). Its good to assume noble intent, but to also carry around skepticism.
> I think scam generally implies that someone was swindled, told they'd get A and get Q (or nothing at all). Sold a bill of goods (but not the goods).
It's much more broad than that. A common sales tactic is to pretend there are other folks interested in what's being sold; maybe this is to make it seem popular, maybe this is to push Buy It Now for a limited (maybe one) item. Some folks will have a fake interested party show up in person.
I would call all of that a scam, even if I'm paying the listed price and get what was promised.
As a sibling commenter suggested - to me, in order to have been scammed I need to have lost something (or, equivalently - been induced to pay more for something than I would have otherwise considered a fair price). You can certainly make the case that Redditors were "buying" entertainment with their time, so it's reasonable to describe a transaction as having taken place. I don't, however, believe that the content and comments they were consuming would be devalued if they found out that it was being submitted by a small number of people using multiple accounts. The entertainment value derived was the same.
Dishonesty is not sufficient to render something a scam - the scam-ee needs to "lose out" in some way. In this situation, I don't believe they did.
