The Crowd Is Part of the Con: How Fake Likes, Followers and Comments Manufacture Social Media Popularity

The Crowd Is Part of the Con

Imagine discovering a financial influencer with 800,000 followers. Their videos attract enormous numbers of views. The comments are full of praise, people claiming to have made money, and followers urging others to listen.

It looks like a crowd of satisfied people has reached the same conclusion.

But what if some of those followers are fake? What if some of the comments are manufactured? What if the apparent enthusiasm is partly a performance designed to make you believe something is popular, trustworthy or successful?

This isn't just a hypothetical concern.

Fake followers, purchased views and artificial engagement have been sold as services. The Federal Trade Commission has documented businesses selling these indicators of social media influence, and its rule addressing fake reviews and testimonials also prohibits certain knowing or reasonably foreseeable commercial uses of fake influence indicators.

The deeper issue goes beyond inflated numbers. Social media popularity can act as a shortcut for credibility. If someone appears to have a large, enthusiastic audience, we may assume that person has earned the attention.

That assumption can be exploited.

The deception isn't just the number. It's what the number implies.

A follower count is a measurement of accounts following a profile. A view count records activity according to a platform's rules. Likes, shares and comments measure different forms of engagement.

None of these numbers, by itself, proves that an account is trustworthy, an argument is correct, a product works or an audience genuinely supports the person behind it.

Yet popularity carries an implied message:

• Lots of followers? This person must be important.
• Lots of approving comments? Other people must trust them.
• Thousands of views in a short time? This must be worth watching.
• A product everyone appears to love? It must be good.

These are understandable shortcuts. We cannot independently investigate every person or claim we encounter online.

But when someone deliberately manufactures the signals we use to make judgments, those shortcuts become vulnerabilities.

The deception is not simply that a number is false. It's that the number encourages you to draw a conclusion the evidence does not justify.

How fake popularity is manufactured

There is no single method. Fake engagement can involve automated accounts, groups of people coordinating their activity, purchased engagement services or accounts controlled by someone other than the person they appear to represent.

1. Buying followers

A person or business can purchase followers to make an account appear more influential.

Those followers may be bots, fabricated accounts, compromised accounts or other accounts that do not represent genuine interest from real people.

The result can be a profile that looks established before it has built a real audience.

A large follower count can then become part of the sales pitch. A potential customer may assume that so many people would not follow someone without a good reason.

But a purchased audience is not a vote of confidence. It is a number that may have been bought.

2. Buying likes and views

Some services sell likes, video views or other engagement.

This can make content appear to have attracted attention organically, even when some of that attention was purchased or artificially generated.

Imagine two videos making the same questionable health claim. One has 400 views; the other has 400,000.

The larger number may persuade viewers that the second video contains something important. But views do not establish whether the claim is accurate, whether viewers watched carefully or whether the engagement reflects genuine interest.

Artificial engagement can distort the apparent popularity of content without making the content any more credible.

3. Manufacturing a chorus of agreement

Comments can be particularly persuasive because they appear to reveal what other people think.

An account promoting a dubious investment might be surrounded by comments such as:

"I made a fortune following this advice."

"This changed my life."

"Why isn't everyone talking about this?"

Some comments may be genuine. Others could be fabricated, paid for, copied or posted by coordinated accounts.

The objective is to create a social environment in which a claim looks widely accepted.

This technique can be especially powerful when people are considering a financial opportunity, health product or emotionally charged claim. Instead of evaluating the evidence, viewers may be influenced by the apparent enthusiasm of the crowd.

A comment is not proof that the person exists, that the experience happened or that the statement is true.

4. Coordinating accounts to amplify a message

Not all manipulation depends on buying followers.

Networks of accounts can repeatedly share, repost, comment on or promote the same material. Some networks use automation; others involve people coordinating their behavior.

Research into coordinated inauthentic behavior has documented how groups of accounts can work together to manufacture attention and amplify messages on social platforms.

The effect can be misleading. A claim may appear to be attracting widespread, independent interest when much of the activity is connected or coordinated.

This can be used to promote products, push misleading narratives, manipulate public discussion or direct attention toward a particular person or cause.

An important distinction: coordination is not automatically deception. Friends organizing a campaign, fans supporting a creator or people sharing a news story together can be acting legitimately. The concern is deceptive coordination that misrepresents who is participating, why they are participating or how much genuine support exists.

5. Turning manufactured popularity into real influence

Artificial engagement may be the first step, rather than the final objective.

Once an account appears successful, its owner may use that appearance to attract real followers, secure commercial opportunities, promote products or persuade people to trust recommendations.

A business might see a large audience and assume an influencer can reach many genuine customers. A viewer might see thousands of approving comments and believe a product has been tested by satisfied buyers.

This is how manufactured popularity can become a more consequential form of deception.

The fake numbers create an impression. That impression can attract genuine attention. Genuine attention can then lend credibility to the original illusion.

Not every inflated account achieves this, and not every business using influencer marketing is deceptive. But the technique illustrates how artificial signals can be used to influence real decisions.

Why the trick works

Fake engagement exploits a basic feature of human judgment: we look to other people when deciding what deserves our attention.

Psychologists often call this social proof. When we are uncertain, we may use the behavior of others as evidence about what is popular, acceptable or worth considering.

Social proof is not inherently bad. Other people's experiences can provide useful information.

The problem arises when the apparent consensus is manufactured.

Several psychological mechanisms can reinforce the effect.

Popularity bias: We may assume something is valuable because many people appear interested in it.

Repetition: Seeing the same claim repeatedly can make it feel familiar and, sometimes, more believable—even when repetition adds no evidence.

Fear of missing out: A product, investment or opportunity that appears to be attracting enormous attention can create pressure to act before we miss our chance.

Confirmation bias: If a claim matches what we already believe, approving comments and apparent public support can make us less likely to question it.

Authority by appearance: Large audiences, polished videos and confident delivery can make a person look more knowledgeable than they actually are.

None of these reactions means someone is gullible. They are ordinary human tendencies that can be exploited when the signals we rely on are deliberately manipulated.

How fake popularity can cause real harm

The consequences depend on what the manufactured attention is being used to promote.

Financial deception

A fraudulent investment promoter may use impressive follower counts, enthusiastic comments and apparently successful testimonials to create an illusion of legitimacy.

Viewers may mistake popularity for financial expertise or assume that other investors have independently verified the opportunity.

Before investing, look beyond the social media account. Check the promoter, the investment and the relevant registration or regulatory information independently. Never treat follower counts or testimonials as proof of legitimacy.

Misleading health claims

A supplement or treatment may appear to have thousands of satisfied customers. Comments may describe dramatic results, while videos present the product as a breakthrough.

But social media engagement cannot establish that a treatment works or that reported results are genuine.

Health claims require appropriate scientific evidence, not a manufactured chorus of approval.

Deceptive product marketing

Fake engagement can make a product look popular and well regarded. A viewer may assume that large numbers of people have purchased and enjoyed it.

Even genuine followers and comments do not guarantee product quality. A trustworthy assessment requires more than social media metrics.

Manipulating public opinion

Coordinated accounts can create misleading impressions about how much support exists for a political position, social cause or public claim.

This does not mean that every widely shared political post is manipulated. It means that apparent agreement should not be confused with independently established consensus.

In each case, the tactic is similar: influence the audience's judgment by manipulating the signals that appear to show what other people think.

Can you tell whether an account's popularity is fake?

Sometimes there are warning signs. Sometimes there is no reliable way to tell from the visible numbers alone.

Look for patterns that warrant further investigation.

• A mismatch between followers and engagement. An account has a huge following but consistently receives very little meaningful interaction. This can be a clue, but audience size, subject matter and platform behavior vary considerably.
• Repetitive or generic comments. Large numbers of nearly identical comments or praise that never addresses the actual content may warrant scrutiny.
• Sudden unexplained surges. A dramatic increase in followers or engagement without an apparent reason can justify closer examination.
• Accounts that look interchangeable. Repeated profile patterns, copied comments or clusters of accounts posting the same material may suggest coordination.
• Testimonials without verifiable details. Dramatic claims of success are not proof that a product or opportunity delivers the promised results.
• Pressure to act quickly. If impressive popularity is paired with urgency, guaranteed returns or promises that sound too good to be true, slow down.

These are clues, not a diagnostic test. A small account can have a genuine, enthusiastic audience. A popular account can have quiet followers. A viral post can attract a flood of authentic comments, and a new creator can grow rapidly.

Do not label someone a fraud based on one suspicious metric.

The purpose of these checks is to decide when more independent verification is needed—not to pretend that fake engagement can always be identified from a profile.

What to trust instead of popularity

When an account's numbers look impressive, ask what those numbers actually establish.

Check the claim independently. Search for reliable evidence outside the creator's own posts and promotional material.

Examine expertise and incentives. Does the person have relevant qualifications or a demonstrable track record? Are they selling something, earning commissions or benefiting financially from your decision?

Look for evidence rather than applause. A product's effectiveness requires appropriate evidence. An investment's legitimacy requires independent checks. Neither is established by likes or enthusiastic comments.

Be cautious with testimonials. Even genuine testimonials describe individual experiences, not necessarily typical results. Fake or incentivized testimonials create additional problems.

Compare independent sources. Do several credible sources reach similar conclusions based on their own evidence, or are many accounts simply repeating the same original claim?

Give yourself time. Urgency is often used to prevent careful evaluation. A legitimate opportunity should withstand reasonable questions and independent checks.

The central principle is simple: evaluate the underlying evidence, not the apparent size of the crowd.

The law recognizes part of the problem

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission's Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Rule addresses certain deceptive practices involving fake reviews and testimonials. It also prohibits the knowing or reasonably foreseeable sale or purchase of fake indicators of social media influence when used to misrepresent influence or importance for a commercial purpose.

That provision covers indicators such as followers or views generated by bots, hijacked accounts or other sources that do not reflect genuine activity, opinions or experiences.

The rule does not mean that every suspicious account or every instance of inflated engagement automatically violates the law. The circumstances and the rule's specific requirements matter.

But it recognizes an important point: fake popularity can be more than harmless vanity. When used deceptively for commercial purposes, it can mislead people about the influence or credibility of a person or business.

The deeper deception

Social media numbers are visible, immediate and easy to compare. Credibility, honesty and expertise are harder to measure.

That imbalance creates an opportunity for manipulation.

A fabricated crowd can make an unqualified person appear authoritative. Fake engagement can make a dubious product seem desirable. Coordinated accounts can make a fringe claim look widely accepted.

And once the illusion attracts genuine attention, it can become harder to distinguish the original deception from the real interest that follows.

The answer is not to distrust every popular account. Nor is it to assume that low engagement means a claim is truthful.

It is to stop treating popularity as a substitute for evidence.

A million views tell you that a video received a million views according to the platform's counting system. They do not tell you whether its claims are true.

A thousand approving comments tell you that the comments exist. They do not establish that the commenters are independent, that their experiences are genuine or that the claim deserves your trust.

The crowd may be real. The crowd may be manufactured. Sometimes it may be a mixture of both.

The numbers alone cannot settle the question.

EVIDENCE: STRONG

The existence of services selling fake followers and engagement, and the use of coordinated accounts to manufacture attention, are documented. However, visible engagement metrics alone cannot reliably establish whether a particular account's audience is genuine or whether a post has been manipulated.