SHILLING IS ILLEGAL

b) For purposes of this part, an endorsement means any advertising message (including verbal statements, [concernfagging], demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual or the name or seal of an organization) that consumers [or anons] are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser [purported, unpaid "anon"], even if the views expressed by that party are identical to those of the sponsoring advertiser. The party whose opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience the message appears to reflect [Media Matters, JIDF] will be called the ~~shill~~ endorser and may be an individual, group, or institution.

(c) The Commission intends to treat subversion endorsements and testimonials identically in the context of its enforcement of the Federal Trade Commission Act and for purposes of this part. The term endorsements is therefore generally used hereinafter to cover both terms and situations.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking

https://web.archive.org/web/20180912065124/https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking

ERGO: shilling—paid participation in online forums under the guise of free participation and intended to influence users' decisions—falls under the FTC guidelines for undisclosed endorsement/influencing.

(Somehow the "money as speech" idea should be used against them by linking their posts ie message as a product.)

Let's LARP as lawfags and write this up with an aim to:

>petition the FTC

>file class-action lawsuits

>propose new/revised legislation.