Tracking astroturfing efforts seems to be a relatively new phenomenon in the digital world. Businesses need to be aware of how this controversy can affect marketing efforts. While many consider astroturfing unethical, there is little public awareness of the legal implications of this type of marketing or public relations. In Australia, astroturfing is governed by section 18 of the Australian Consumer Code, which largely prohibits “deceptive and deceptive behaviour”. According to the Journal of Consumer Policy, Australian laws introduced in 1975 are more vague. Walker points to the case of working families for Wal-Mart, where the campaign`s lack of transparency led to its end.[180] Note that with respect to corporate political discourse, the Supreme Court has ruled that “[t]he government may regulate corporate political discourse through requirements of disclaimer and disclosure, but it must not completely suppress such discourse.” Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 319 (2010). While this is not directly applicable in the context of astroturfing due to Citizens United`s campaign finance history, it still shows that the Supreme Court has left the door open to regulating corporate speech through mandatory disclosures in the corporate context. Many groups recognize the potential power of citizen activism through grassroots organizations. But not everything has a sustained level of popular support or the ability to engage citizens in meaningful ways.
Unlike popular activism, “Astroturfing” seeks to exploit the success of citizen representation while using few traditional methods of organization. “Astroturfing is an attempt to give the impression of broad popular support for a policy, individual or product where there is little such support.” 18 The term “astroturfing” was first coined in 1985 by Texas Democratic Party Senator Lloyd Bentsen when he said, “A colleague from Texas can tell the difference between the base and AstroTurf. This is a generated email. [14] [41] Bentsen described a “mountain of cards and letters” sent to his office to promote the interests of the insurance industry. [42] [34]. Press Release, New York State General, A.G. Schneiderman announces an agreement with 19 companies to stop writing fake reviews online and pay more than $350,000 in fines (September 23, 2013), available at ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-announces-agreement-19-companies-stop-writing-fake-online-reviews-and [perma.cc/ 7NY6-6LQC] [hereinafter Schneiderman, press release] (discussion on Operation Clean Turf and related astroturfing practices). Although the term “astroturfing” has not yet been developed, one of the earliest examples of this practice can be found in Act 1, Scene 2 of Shakespeare`s Julius Caesar play. In the play, Gaius Cassius Longinus writes false letters from the “public” to convince Brutus to assassinate Julius Caesar. [14] Although technically legal, astroturf lobbying is an ethically dubious tactic that has been used for decades to influence public order. Facilitating popular fake actions is inherently problematic for several reasons. First and foremost, Astroturfing misleads citizens and exploits them as pawns in a political game, ironically placing well-funded special interest interests above voters and bona fide interest groups.
Second, fraudulent campaigns threaten the perceived legitimacy of genuine advocacy campaigns. Lawmakers are less likely to incorporate voter feedback into policy decisions when their offices are constantly inundated with Astroturf communications. Data mining expert Bing Liu (University of Illinois) estimated that one-third of all consumer reviews on the Internet are fake. [17] According to the New York Times, it is therefore difficult to differentiate between “popular sentiment” and “manufactured public opinion.” [23] According to an article in the Journal of Business Ethics, astroturfing threatens the legitimacy of real popular movements. The authors argued that astroturfing, which was “intentionally designed to meet corporate agendas, manipulate public opinion, and harm scientific research, constitutes a serious flaw in ethical behavior.” [3] A 2011 report found that the often paid posters of competing companies attack each other in forums and overwhelm regular participants in the process. [24] George Monbiot stated that persona management software that supports astroturfing “could destroy the Internet as a forum for constructive debate.” [25] An article in the Journal of Consumer Policy indicated that regulators and policymakers needed to be more aggressive against astroturfing. The author said this undermines the public`s ability to inform potential customers about inferior products or inappropriate business practices, but also noted that fake reviews are difficult to detect. [9] The term “astroturfing” is a game with the term “popular movement” because the herb is fake. Astroturfing has been tried by online companies that present a product as highly sought after and are sought after by a specific clientele via forum posts, blogs or company-sponsored articles when there is no evidence to support such a claim. It is estimated that up to a third of all online reviews are fake, which unfortunately makes some forms of astroturfing common.
Effective marketing, customer service and product quality eliminate the need for astroturfing – when discovered, the dangers of losing credibility or facing lawsuits outweigh all potential benefits. On April 11, 2022, seven weeks after Russia`s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the BBC published the results of the investigation into a network of Facebook groups with the primary aim of promoting Russian President Vladimir Putin as a hero who opposes the West with overwhelming international support. With the help of researchers from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, the members, activities and interrelationships of 10 pro-Putin public groups with more than 650,000 members were analyzed at the time of writing this article, which bore names such as Vladimir Putin – leader of the free world. In one month, the researchers counted 16,500 contributions and received more than 3.6 million interactions. The campaign “creates the appearance of broad support for Putin and the Kremlin in the shadow of the invasion and is based on it. inauthentic accounts to achieve its goal,” according to the ISD report.