7 Burst results for "Elizabeth Watkin"

"elizabeth watkin" Discussed on Here & Now

Here & Now

06:10 min | 3 months ago

"elizabeth watkin" Discussed on Here & Now

"Bipartisan antitrust bills introduced in washington could change the way some of the biggest tech companies operate for more. Let's bring in elizabeth watkin. She's the silicon valley correspondent for the washington post. Hey elizabeth hey karner so folks actually might remember that. There was this sixteen month. Bipartisan investigation of tech companies. And these bills come out of that. Their recommendations made by house antitrust panel. One of the biggest proposed changes is something that is pretty common in silicon valley. And that's the ability for big companies to acquire smaller rising competitors. One of the bills would bar that practice. This is significant isn't it. I think it's very significant. It's one of the aspects of these bills that i would call a major blow to. How big tech does business. Google amazon facebook and apple have all had one hundred acquisitions in recent years. It's a large number of companies because of the silicon valley culture of startups and in the case of facebook for example they've really used the acquisitions to position themselves. In the market in a dominant way. Facebook is not growing in the united states. The main facebook but owned whatsapp and instagram. Which at the time were not dominant services but are now almost as big or in some ways getting as big as facebook and so if the big blue app that mark zuckerberg built in college. If that dies off one day or becomes a nothingburger he still has these other services that allow him to own the biggest social network of the world and did o in some ways the other companies. There's another element in this series of proposed legislation. That would also make it easier for people to use different tech services together or move their data to a competitor implications. This also have. I consider that to be one of the other major blows to the big four You know it's known here in silicon valley as data interoperability and it. Just this idea every consumer knows this how hard it is to switch port your data over like you can't take your data from facebook and just drop it on a competitor service. We all know how hard it is to switch between apple and android and this is already by the way well underway in europe which is to say that regulators are looking around the world are looking and saying how can we promote competition and won. They could do. It is actually legally force and regulate the creation of code technology because it requires building all new platforms and services to basically build new protocols for the internet that would allow consumers to do something simple as port over your data because that makes it easier to leave a service when you're disappointed. One of the aspects of monopolies. It's hard to prove in. American law is what's the harm to consumers. If these products are so great everyone loves google maps g mail. What's the harm and one of the ways that people might be able to express their dissatisfaction by leaving the services but there's these big walled gardens. It's very hard to do that. So it's hard to express the satisfaction on monday republican senators chuck grassley and mike lee introduced a bill that would would shift all antitrust enforcement from the ftc and the federal communications commission to the justice department and allocate about six hundred million to the doj's antitrust division. What does this indicate about republican efforts with antitrust. The big question is there's the big of bills that are introduced by democrats on friday and we'll republicans support it. I mean we look at what's happening with the rest of biden's agenda right now in congress it's slowed down because there isn't always bipartisan support. And there's lots of debate so in this case what you see is grassley and mike lee. Basically saying we don't want a solution that's regulatory. We want a solution that is enforcement. It's around bringing cases in an emboldened justice department and we're going to embolden that justice department which is already by the way has major anti-trust cases against facebook and the other big four so they've been really emboldened into the trump administration and grassley and lee are saying let's let's emboldened the lawyers to actually use the existing antitrust laws but with more muscle behind it to fight these cases. And what's interesting about these bills. Is they have a lot more. Bipartisan support right. Now than other initiatives so it very well could pass but when you look at them you say with other lawmakers are saying is no. We can't wait for the lawyers and the justice department to come after these companies after. They've already done harm. We need to try to create new structures and our society and our business that stopped the companies from being so powerful and dominant and potentially harmful to consumers in the first place our tech companies reacting. Or how do you anticipate they will respond. Just armies of lobbyists is the biggest lobbyists in washington already and that is going to grow a now they actually have something concrete to fight against as opposed to the last few years when we've seen these hearings and hearing after hearing testifying in soccer berg testifying lawmakers talking saying they were going to do it but now they have something to fight against and to erode so. I'm interested in seeing whether they're going to try to lower try to poison the well in some ways by not making the bills seem politically unpalatable So that they don't get the bipartisan support. Or in some ways weakening them weakening those hurdles that will be created for example to buy new companies or to create products on their platforms. And so you can really see the company's Trying to lobby to water it down there already very publicly saying that this would really hurt competition. And they're bringing in china they're saying well look at the competition from china. Do we really want the next generation of internet companies to not be american nearly a lot of talk as well. Elizabeth dwoskin is a silicon valley correspondent for the washington. Post as always. Thank you so much for having me. Well as our country gets ahead of corona virus infections. It's now pledging to send hundreds of millions of vaccines to countries still struggling with.

apple Elizabeth dwoskin Facebook elizabeth europe china congress Google mark zuckerberg washington facebook whatsapp elizabeth watkin instagram united states republican biden mike lee monday sixteen month
"elizabeth watkin" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

08:44 min | 2 years ago

"elizabeth watkin" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

"All this is Bruce Dumont with our beyond the beltway analysis of National Politics Kinkel injections of ruining the window all up fire panel and political insiders pundits Beverly Republican Mardi Garrity Republican Josh can throw Democrat Christine. Sean Bacher are tonight with my own base at the Museum of Broadcast Communications in Chicago or our toll free lines are open at one eight hundred seven two three eight hundred twenty nine that's one eight hundred tweet it's an Dumont at D. U. M. O. and of course you can join us live on beyond the beltway dot com not only this week but pat shows can be found there of course we are live tonight on facebook and we are live tonight on youtube around the country and around the World Nice W with us we have lots to talk about again we've been talking about the the possibility of of an impeachment inquiry into the president of the United States for several months on this program had happened last week as you all know so we'll be talking about that and the ability of a further impeachment discussions as the program unfolds and really as the program unfolds for the next several weeks or several months likely in this country and I I just want to make a pledge I hope I can live up to this pledge and that is and and this was the same pledge that we made during the Clinton Impeachment which is is not we're not there yet but obviously it started with an inquiry as well I want a pledge to you that each and every Sunday night we're going to have four people to are going to be in favor of an impeachment inquiry or impeachment and two that are going to be opposed to it we did the same thing for Bill Clinton we're going to have spirited discussions hopefully they're going to be based in some fact in addition to area opinion but that's that's what we're going to try to do on this program and again if you're looking leaned to try to get just one side of the discussion and the debate on this program at least for the next several months you probably GonNa find it all here because we want I do believe that what the founding fathers had in mind and I didn't know any of them personally but I think what they really had in mind is that the the public the electorate would be informed and again thinking when you think back to the founding fathers quite figure out how they were going to be informed because there weren't many newspapers and radio and TV was around but they expected an intelligent electric to make decisions on the future of the country we are there right now we have a country that divided at least according to statistically and we'll discuss it tonight as well as many months and hopefully years to come on beyond the beltway the begin Chris Chris Christine Sean Bacher joins US Christy Nice data with us a maiden voyage you are an attorney are a liberal you're running for Congress you're running to retire Danny Davis the longtime representative of this district where this program comes from the Seventh Congressional district of Illinois so to begin with the question do you I know that you favor the impeachment inquiry of all the things you know about Donald Trump or have read about donald trump which is the thing that is most egregious to you and your most upset about it is the Ukraine call it is a clear line even Democrats one in deeply red zones are more moderates I'm talking about what they call themselves the bad houses so Elizabeth Watkin Chrissy Houlahan it was a bright line rule for them. are that he crossed a bright line because he is asking another government to come in again interfere with our elections and to take a swipe ac his political opponent show you're you're a newcomer to the to the increments if we would have had you on a month ago would you still have been for an impeachment inquiry oh absolutely I the ten counts of obstruction of justice that should have been a bit should've been acted on there should have been an increase in with an inquiry look this The House has warned the Democrats have wanted to impeach the president since the day he was elected before he was even inaugurated and they have stated so so it didn't surprise me at some point they were going to move on impeachment they're progressive base was demanding it and you know he handed them a little bit of opportunity here although I certainly don't think he should be impeached over this okay Beverly joins us fill nice to have you with us my recollection is the last time on this program you were not quite ready to get behind an impeachment inquiry you sort of on the side of the speaker is that is that a fair assessment of what your opinion was and how has it changed the the phone call and the use of Code Word classified servers is is really problematic for made the the the line between protecting the country and our national security and whatever your political aspirations and behaviors those have to remain separate and inviolate and and that to me has been filed pleaded he's already attacked the intelligence community unjustifiably already attacked law enforcement community unjustifiably enough off stop with the cover up stop dragging people into this nonsense that the thing that that just tells me how much of an amateur donald trump is is that he's got incumbency advantage already what's he doing this amateur hour stuff bardy guarantee also joins US Marty you are a card carrying Republican but again for long time viewers to this program because you've been a guest many many times for many many years you were not a big donald trump fan during the primary there were seven eighteen republicans at the time and he was my seventeenth choice in one one dropped out he became my sixteenth choice and totally became the the only choice he was so where where do you stand now because some of the reservations that you had then when you had sixteen choices ahead of him I would assume that some of those reasons are still alive has either run against or he will is likely to be running against is far and away better for me than than those people so you know Gung Ho trump supporter now in terms of When he's running against any wizards Elizabeth Warren Joe Biden or or peep thanks they can't like some media people have suggested that the speaker got role she got pressured this is not something she really wants to do but she looked up put her finger in the air and realize that the leftward the leftward movers and shakers in the house convinced some more moderates that you referenced in your opening commentary there was no other decisions she could have made this past week I think Speaker Pelosi is brilliant and no one can roll her she makes her own decisions this was a very well thought out analytical decision that came from her and understanding that a bright line was crossed one eight hundred seventy three eighty two coast to coast and border to border. I'm like to find out from the people out there beyond the beltway. How do you feel about the impeachment inquiry USA that's last week or are you holding them personally in.

Bruce Dumont Sean Bacher Beverly Republican Chicago USA Museum of Broadcast Communicat Christine Mardi Garrity Josh
Facebook let companies access users' friends data

0 Show

03:29 min | 3 years ago

Facebook let companies access users' friends data

"In Europe today, Nick Schifrin tells us there are new documents that show the social media giant gave other companies select access to user's data. Judy. The documents were released by a British parliament committee and seemed to show Facebook using all of our data as a bargaining chip to increase revenue the committee accuses Facebook of cutting special deals with companies like Netflix Airbnb and lift to access users data because those companies were advertising on Facebook Facebook restricted access to users dated a company's at deemed competition the data. We're talking about is users education and religious background. Also, preferences, what users like and don't like this matters because Facebook claimed to have restricted access to this data to all companies in two thousand fifteen and it matters because it raises questions about Facebook's interest in collecting your data and making money for the record the NewsHour works with Facebook on some video projects talk about all this. I'm joined by the Washington Post Silicon Valley correspondent Elizabeth Watkin from San Francisco. Thank you very much for being on the news hour, can we start with these internal discussions in two thousand twelve and we now have these emails Facebook figuring out how to make money. Mark Zuckerberg writes the following in October twenty twelve without limiting distribution or access to friends who use this app. I don't think we have any way to get developers to pay us at all does that shows Brooke thinking about users data as some kind of bargaining chip. I think it does. And you have to see the big picture here. Which is this is right after Facebook is on gone public. And the media story is that they can't pivot to mobile are they going to make money their stock price was dropping. And so they have at the time this whole developer community in or tens of thousands of apps that are literally writing off the social graph. Even the Obama came campaign did at Cambridge analytic did it and they're looking and saying we need to make money. And so they're looking at these relationships with thousands of developers, and you can see this intense bargaining. That's going on between Zuckerberg Facebook's top brass over who should get access and how while at the same time what they're publicly telling developers is. Is that all the access is free and neutral and this runs up until this debate runs through twenty fifteen when they finally decide twenty fourteen two thousand fifteen to finally decide to cut off access, but what we're learning is that actually there were whole categories of exceptions at the time. So let's fast forward to twenty eighteen Mark Zuckerberg is in front of congress. This is April. And he is speaking in two in response to a question from dean Heller Republican of Nevada. Well, Senator once again, we don't sell any data to anyone. We don't sell it to advertisers. And we don't sell it to developers. What we do allow is for people to sign into apps and bring their data and it used to be the date of some of their friends. But now it isn't with them. And that I think makes sense. I mean, that's basic data portability the ability that you own the data, you should be able to take it from one to another if you'd like the documents out today show that while Facebook didn't sell data they use the data to make. It's the documents strongly suggests that now the caveat is we are seeing bits and pieces in the documents. It's not like it's a full transcript of everything Facebook ever did. But from what we can tell what's interesting is that privacy didn't come up that much in the documents. It was all about competition

Zuckerberg Facebook Facebook Mark Zuckerberg British Parliament Committee Europe Nick Schifrin Judy Netflix Barack Obama Washington Airbnb Elizabeth Watkin San Francisco Brooke Newshour Dean Heller Republican Nevada Developer Cambridge Analytic
"elizabeth watkin" Discussed on Techdirt

Techdirt

04:12 min | 3 years ago

"elizabeth watkin" Discussed on Techdirt

"Garcetti wants to remind us that is conjoined. So I'm for breaking up big tech and neutralizing their power over information markets because I fear corruption, and I am for political liberty. If we allow the centralization of our information Commons, and it has never been more concentrated and more centralized than politicians are going to end are demanding that they be allowed to repurpose it for their own objectives. And that's what's happening right now in China. And that's the road that we're on. If knew this centralization. Last sentence. So the question is really whether you're comfortable with that. Because if you are that that means that you're going to have to be comfortable turning Silicon Valley into a giant censorship machine. And I'm not comfortable with that. Right. Strong words how thanks for having me. So I noticed we had a poll up back here. These are my my notes, by the way, it's gonna serve also as my as my napkin shit seeing a little bit on my mustache. But there was a poll up here. And it said that I think forty-one percent of you didn't think there was a problem. And hopefully by the end of this. We're going to be able to turn you guys around. I'm gonna agree with Matt that that there is a problem. A Matt meant has shown a very important problem democratic problem in a political problem. I'm going to talk about another one that keeps economist up at night. And that's the innovation problem. What I'm worried about is whether we buy by basically allowing these tech platforms to run free if we are going to create a climate or an ecosystem in which independent edge providers are going to feel that the playing field is so slanted against them that they're not even going to bother bringing forward the energies and creative entre. Rural activities to create things in the edge any longer. We we've been down this path before there was a this isn't the first time that a a platform that was dominant in its era vertically integrated into content, and then started using its platform power to take over and slavery or vertical markets. In fact, it was the cable operators of the late nineteen eighty s that got congress very concerned. There was a concern that if you have no protections if you lean entirely on antitrust, which is largely unhelpful here to protect independence that the cable guys could make things very very difficult for independent content, creators, we said, and it was this was a political preference and the nineteen Ninety-two cable act, which I think is the template for what we should do. Here. We said we are going to stand behind independent creators, we think that independence have an important voice to enroll to play when it comes to content creation. So the created a set of protections. These are called the program. Carriage or nondiscrimination rules. And what this does is it allows an independent content creator to bring a carriage complaint a discrimination complaint against vertically integrated operator, and if they can prove their case, there's certain evidentiary standard. I'll go into that. I think in my second answer, then they can get relief at the FCC the FCC does this through administrative law judge process. I wanna I wanna tell you one story. There's there's question Jeff this question. Where's the evidence? Let me just talk a little evidence. We have had declining funding funding activity in venture capital and tech, particularly in the seed angel investment for every year since two thousand fourteen two thousand fourteen down to fifteen down to sixteen down to seventeen downed eighteen and the question, you should be asking yourselves as why is investment in these activities drying up as the economy is expanding. And Jeff's, right. I don't have a causal proof that that that the tech companies are buying this. But I will say this Elizabeth Watkin did a survey in the Washington Post twenty four tech investors. She asked what do you think is the biggest problem facing entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley and the answer was Facebook can appropriate their functionality, and there's nothing to protect it..

Silicon Valley Jeff Matt Elizabeth Watkin Garcetti China FCC content creator Facebook Washington Post congress forty-one percent
"elizabeth watkin" Discussed on Tech News Today

Tech News Today

03:40 min | 3 years ago

"elizabeth watkin" Discussed on Tech News Today

"This is the show where we talk about the tech news that happened this week and we are the unindicted co, conspirators of the tech news this week, the true. No, I'm a co, nothing. Good. Yeah. All right. Shall we get. If you've ever found yourself mindlessly browsing through Facebook, silently, judging people, you should know that Facebook is also silently judging you joining us to talk about Facebook's opaque trustworthiness rating. Scale of its users is Elizabeth Watkin Silicon Valley reporter for the Washington Post, welcome to the show, Elizabeth. Thanks for having me. So tell us what you know about this rating system. What I know is that Facebook is so many companies faced with all these problems, Russian meddling, fake news, people, actors, malicious actors, abusing their system, ideological people, you know, you name it. Someone's trying to gain Facebook and they have to figure out in this new way, whose arrest to their service and who's trustworthy. And so this group actually kinda came out in an interview, like one of those things that someone kinda just blurts out and it sounds very interesting which is from tests alliance who's the product manager for misinformation there, and she's so she's running like this whole operation of how do we determine what's trustworthy news source, and part of that is the publisher. But part of that also is the user. And so it's this whole new way of looking at user behavior and what they do is if you go on Facebook and you're somebody who starts flagging, Facebook lets you flag. Posts for like pornography violence. They also let you fly opposed if you think it's fake news. It turns out that a lot of people are doing that flagging posts fake news simply because they disagree with things and therefore Facebook is getting all this like noise. The ratio of noise to signal is hard to suss out. So in order to do that, it's like they have to build an algorithm on top of algorithms. And essentially what they're doing is they're looking saying whether you or I, whether something that we flag is false actually lines up with what fact checkers found. And if I'm a person who likes seems to be pretty credible and everything I Marcus false is lined up with foot fact checker say, then I might get a good score. It's between zero and one. But if you're somebody who just keeps flagging stuff that they disagree with and Facebook might give you a lower score. So that's one example of score that they have, and they've been pretty like opaque and kind of have shut down since I did the story about what the other scores are. But that's, that's one that I was able to learn wrote about it. So how I mean, what makes them think that this as you describe it an algorithm on top of a now at this Salgar them is going to be less likely to be gamed than any other algorithms sort of algorithms all the way down. Arming. That's such great question because that's that's kind of one of the facets that makes this story. So interesting are proving to it was that it's almost like the album, the initial algorithms opaque and you're trying to defy human behavior into software, and you're talking about scale of a third of the world's population which is on Facebook and its family of services. And it's like, yeah, how do you know? Like I mean, I say in a way kudos to them for figuring out this metric like the idea that, yeah, a lot of people are gaming our system and gaming are reporting system. So we have to kind of figure out a way to measure that..

Facebook publisher Elizabeth Watkin reporter Salgar Washington Post product manager
"elizabeth watkin" Discussed on Up First

Up First

05:24 min | 3 years ago

"elizabeth watkin" Discussed on Up First

"Here's my level. Here's a level. This is my level. This is my level. We are talking. He set the sand. That's happens when you have children in that will using everything anyway, but then like child. That's great. New signs of Russian hacking head of midterm elections. Microsoft says it found websites apparently designed to steal information. They mimicked the US Senate and other groups linked to public policy till Martin along with David green. And this is up. I from NPR news. President Trump is set to announce new EPA rules today. Here's the gist Obama's clean power plan will be replaced with less stringent emission rules, clean coal, and what they can do now is incredible. But even with help from the president can coal plant survive new economics of energy production and also prisoners are going on strike. They do manual labor, even fight, fires get paid pennies on the dollar. They say they're sick of being exploited. So how do you organize a nationwide strike from inside a prison cell? Stay with us for the news. You need to start your day. Support for this podcast and the following message come from twenty three and me a personal genetics company named for the twenty three pairs of chromosomes that make up your DNA helping you understand what your Connectik say about your ancestry and health at twenty three and me dot com slash up. I support also comes from Exxon Mobil. The company that's helping cars go further with less making cars, more efficient and helping to reduce emissions, learn more at energy factor dot com. Exxon Mobil, energy lives here. A group with ties to the Russian government has been linked to another hacking attempt. Microsoft said last night that it discovered and then disabled six misleading websites apparently created by the group AP t twenty eight also known as fancy bear. The group is active during the two thousand sixteen presidential election. That's where you heard that name a lot. Cyber security researchers blamed them for the hack of John Podesta's Email account Hillary Clinton's former campaign chairman. All right. This is all reported this morning in the Washington Post in a story by Craig timber, Elizabeth Dwoskin, and Elizabeth joins us this morning, Elizabeth. Thanks for coming on. Good morning. Thanks for having me. Can you tell me what exactly Microsoft discovered here? I mean, what? What was this group's goal in and who were they targeting Microsoft discovered six websites. Now remember Microsoft is managing one of the largest corporate Email programs in the world. So they're, they're really barely. They really care about phishing attacks. When when you open up your Email and you click. On a link and then you're taking to a website. You know, you think it's an Email from trusted person and you're taking a website that is loaded up with malware. And so this wasn't like what we saw with the Russian IRA, Russian operatives on Facebook where they're actively creating these pages that are trying to so divisive messages and the US political pages. This was different. These were going to be set up as impersonation pages for the US Senate and also four, two prominent thinktanks as well. I see. So this, this would be kind of in theory luring me in if I was going to look at something on a conservative tanker in the US Senate website, I might accidentally go to one of these sites and they could. They could somehow fish me and start collecting data from from my stuff. Yeah, that's what it looked like. It was about to be. It didn't get to that point or at least Microsoft didn't know of any attack that has been staged from these pages. But these pages they said, had ties to the group publicly linked to the rush. Intelligence agency. And so it really shows how active us efforts are to meddle in our democracy. Two months ahead of the midterms will Microsoft says that they've actually been tracking this group for a couple years now. So what? What is the timing of his wife's speak out about this now? Yeah, I thought that was fascinating. That was like one of my biggest questions for them is why now 'cause they said they've found actually eighty four websites associated with the group for the last two years. And the reason for the why now is that they seen an uptick an activity leading into the midterms, which is scary, but it's also more than tech companies right now, silicon valley's a whole is wrestling with how to be more public, how to be more transparent, user tend to be really secretive competitive companies. How do they be more transparent about the threat against them? And the way their own systems might be weaponized and remember it's frightening because here you are naming a foreign country and a foreign government tension to making yourself into a bigger target. And I'm just getting involved in geopolitical issues that you're not used to. It also can make you look bad if you were the subject of an attack. So it's very risky for them, but Microsoft president who I interviewed, he said that they just they feel like it's an imperative now, which is what the companies are kind of stretching towards. And I'm sure we might be hearing more of this in the months leading up to the midterms. I'm, it sounds like Russia's still is still at it Elizabeth Watkin of the Washington Post. Thanks so much for talking to us when we really appreciate it. Thanks for having David. IT

Microsoft US Senate Exxon Mobil Washington Post president David green Russian government US President Trump NPR Obama EPA Elizabeth Watkin Facebook Elizabeth John Podesta
"elizabeth watkin" Discussed on Reply All

Reply All

04:11 min | 3 years ago

"elizabeth watkin" Discussed on Reply All

"Is six hundred bucks right every day we sold a hundred twenty i see it to two hundred so it's a small price to pay in the end so off of like a six hundred dollar investment eric says that his company was making a couple grand a day and that they are still the number one dryer ball on amazon eric's company wasn't unique in realizing that the algorithm changed all across amazon people are like oh if i want to stay ahead of the game i want to be in the number one spot i have to get more reviews so suddenly everybody's in the market for fake reviews and i talked to this reporter who a couple months ago decided that she wanted to understand how this fake review market worked my name is elizabeth watkin and i am the silicon valley correspondent for the washington post which i feel like we should mention is owned by jeff basis right so elizabeth was working with this researcher named rene directa and rene said to elizabeth like hey listen i think i found like the fake review motherlode like where all of the fake reviewers hang out so she and i were talking one day about how she had been looking at all these facebook groups for amazon reviewer clubs and she said why don't you go and check them out see what their life because they to be totally scamming amazon's rules so i went in with her and these groups were just unbelievable because you go in for a second and you kind of announce herself like hey you know i'm interested in reviewing dm me and then suddenly you'll start getting dozens and dozens of dm's from facebook messages from sellers and they just start going and rapid fire offering to pay your view their products they're like would you like kitchen is no would you like shower caddies no how about retractable badges how bluetooth headsets and they'll just go on and on and on sweetening the deal rain ponchos some of these groups are huge like i found one called the amazon review club that has twenty one thousand members and do you have any idea like who is actually writing these reviews yeah i actually talked to one of them okay he goes by the name glue boy glue boy can you just just to get a level on your voice can you tell me it's super early where where you are right you're in california too around seven fifteen a m well i appreciate you waking up this early for me i don't problem i'm a student so not too bad so glue boys in college he's twenty and he told me that over this past school year he did dozens of paid reviews on amazon and he actually gets his hands on the product he he he gets he purchases the product and then once he's got it he writes the review and he does the reef any gets gets a refund how much info to the folks who want you to review give you now it's a bit more complicated because they ask you to search kind of a generic term lead to the item and then click on a few items look reviews to so that amazon doesn't you know notice that all of a sudden a bunch of people are going to this product directly do they ask for specific language in the reviews they like make sure to talk about this particular thing yes for some sellers some sellers will provide a you know they'll give give you a review but those usually sound very artificial you know to sound ridiculous reading it like a robot road it usually it's a you know right shown personal review what he told me he was like he was like it's pretty easy to avoid detection amazon is not super sophisticated about this but i have some like best practices which are don't review everything you buy that looks super suspicious right don't review too many of the same type of product that look super right wise guy keep buying bluetooth headphones and then he said something which i loved which is he was like the hallmark of a fake review is that it's pretty much uniformly positive and then there's like one tossed off negative thing that can easily be ignored so if you're reviewing one of those like dashboard mounted cell phone holders you would say something like.

six hundred dollar one day