Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion

I do not know anything about this, but if it is true, then it is horrible. As an author myself, the last thing I would want is for hate groups to look down on my work and put false accusations around it. I hope this problem gets tackled.

I have already reached out to a lawyer about defamation of character this group is doing to harm me. These laws protect against false statements that harm a person's reputation through libel (written defamation) or slander (spoken defamation). The laws attempt to balance free speech with the right to protect one's reputation and have been shaped by constitutional limits, such as the First Amendment, and specific court rulings like New York Times v. Sullivan. I was told that those hiding behind a pen name or first name can be revealed with cyber forensics. I am looking forward to finding out the results of who these individuals are and moving forward with a extremely valid law suit. My lawyer is excited as well because he does not like to see artists falsely accused.

I have already reached out to Amazon about this issue as well since I am very aware that Amazon owns Goodreads now. They are very interested in the fact that this AI Group has a history of attacking Indie Authors during their Goodread's giveaway campaign in a malice attempt to manipulate it especially since my book was published via kindle kdp direct. I would not be surprised if some of the members of this AI group either works for or are affiliated with big publishing companies that fear a growing Indie Author market.

Before Marc *Dark Reader with a Thousand Young! Iä!*'s set his profile data to private, he had a list of books under his name apparently he likes. Those book covers look way more AI generated than mine. That is so hypocritical! I can't wait until cyber forensics tells me who are!!!
Actually, I have a screenshot of all of those books and his real name already as I kept all of the screen shots to give to my lawyer. His name is Aidan Provost. If you go on his profile and look at the books he likes all of those book covers look way more AI generated than mine. I also have and screenshot of M.M. Strawberry's original post as well even though that one was taken off that I gave to my lawyer.

What is interesting is that most of these if not all of the AI group members are Goodread's librarians which are supposed to help and support authors not harm their reputation. I am sure Amazon will want to do a clean of this type of unethical behavior.

Janet wrote: "I have already reached out to a lawyer about defamation of character this group is doing to harm me. These laws protect against false statements that harm a person's reputation through libel (writt..."

Oh, look! Someone Googled “libel law” and now thinks they understand how the First Amendment works! The irony, of course, is that this case cited (NYT v Sullivan) actually works against you, not for you. It set the precedent that public figures (such as politicians or celebrities) have to prove ACTUAL MALICE: that someone knew what they were saying was false and said it anyway, in order to win a defamation suit.

That means if some reader says, “This book sounds like it was written by AI,” that does not meet the criteria for defamation. That’s a Constitutionally protected opinion. As much as it may break your heart, you can’t sue someone for having taste. Or, in this case, for recognizing that your prose reads like it came straight off the ChatGPT assembly line. “It sounds artificial” isn’t a factual claim, it’s a judgment call...and a legal case attempting to assert otherwise is a case a court would toss out faster than a reader can delete your book sample on Kindle Unlimited.

No real lawyer with an ounce of self-respect would touch a case like this. There’s zero path to victory here as there's no actionable harm done and no damages to collect. What are you going to show the judge...screenshots of Goodreads reviews that hurt your feelings? “Your honor, these mean people said my book has AI vibes”? Unless your attorney bills by the tear, there is no way in Hell they are taking this on contingency. The only way a lawyer takes this case is if they smell a mark desperate enough to pay them for the illusion of justice while they bleed you dry in hourly invoices.

Those noble, crusading lawyers who take up lost causes “to do what’s right” live exclusively in John Grisham novels and late-night reruns on the Hallmark Channel. In the real world, your “lawyer” probably works out of the same virtual cubicle as your cover artist and your ghostwriter: ChatGPT.

And that bit about “cyber forensics” to track down reviewers... That’s called doxxing. Goodreads’ author conduct policy explicitly forbids authors from retaliating against reviewers, and crossing that line doesn’t just get you banned...it can get you criminally charged. Threatening to unmask or intimidate critics isn’t free speech or self-defense. It’s harassment, plain and simple. You don’t need a legal degree to know that’s the quickest way to burn your entire reputation (in both the indie author stratosphere as well as the real world) straight to the ground.

So here’s your free legal consultation, on the house: If you’re trying to wave NYT v. Sullivan as a sword instead of the shield it is, you’re swinging it backward. You can’t litigate your way into literary legitimacy. And you certainly can’t scare readers into liking your work.

The only case you’re building here is the one for why nobody should take you or your “AI-assisted” prose seriously.

Janet wrote: "I have already reached out to a lawyer about defamation of character this group is doing to harm me. These laws protect against false statements that harm a person's reputation through libel (writt..."

This type of thing has been going on from the year dot (the old Ammie board days and the old BBA days here)

Not every reader is going to like your work and you need to deal with that in a professional manner and let your work speak for itself.

As a reader if I read your work then it is my time, my money and my review.

From my POV as a reader I tend to shy away from the multitude of 5 star gushing reviews on offer and tend to consider books that have more balanced reviews in place. Just my opinion as a lifelong reader.

Not even War and Peace has all 5 star reviews, a lot I grant you but not all 5 stars.

Hi Cphe,

I can tell from the tone of your words that you are genuine and I appreciate that about you. But this has more to do with this AI group harassing and bullying tactics not to mention false accusations.
This is not just about me! It is about all the other authors they have harassed and bullied as well.

Hi James,

Being the empath that I am, I feel the hatred oozing off your words laced with fear and projections.

Janet wrote: "Hi James,

Being the empath that I am, I feel the hatred oozing off your words laced with fear and projections."

Hi Janet,

Let me be crystal clear: I never said I hate you, nor do I. My critique was directed at your attempt to intimidate readers and silence opinions through legal posturing and threats of “cyber forensics”...not once at your person.

I have no personal animus; what I do despise is the idea that someone could try to bully others into liking their book by dangling lawsuits and doxxing. That kind of conduct is misguided and dangerous, and it reflects far more on the author making the threats than on the readers voicing honest reactions.

So, by all means, feel free to continue imagining malice where none exists. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to exercise the same freedom to read, review, and call out behavior that smells of intimidation.

Wishing you a perfectly good day.

—James

What bothers me more is the obviously purchased 5-star reviews to artifically inflate the book's ratings. At least 15 are from blank profiles, all based in India, all rated the book 5-stars (with AI generated sounding reviews) and most of them were posted on October 7. There are 20 if you include those who went to the effort to add a profile pik.