Why don't we start calling paying for fake followers what it really is

Plausible deniability. Fake followers aren't marketed as fake, they're just marketed as followers.

I have to wonder how many developers do this too. Or if they don't, use follow bots or some other method to get people to follow them.

I've seen a lot of developers post almost nothing in terms of quality content yet somehow have thousands of followers.

Meanwhile I try to post quality content and only have 600 followers. I have considered buying at some point but decided that I'd rather have fewer real followers than thousands of fake ones. And I've written books and spoken at dozens of conferences...

I can definitely see the argument that if I bought followers and a conference organizer or publisher used that as a metric by which to consider booking me it could be considered fraud.

I have dated 2 fashion models. One was signed. They purchased Instagram followers. I didn't know what that even meant before either of them (and still don't really care). They did it ( and realistically, it's just part of that world) to remain competitive in an extremely tough industry they were wrapped up in. While I'm still not with either and things didn't work out and the whole thing is a little ridiculous, I would not consider either of them to be engaging in criminally fraudulent behavior.

Any company that looks solely at followers and not at overall and long term engagement (comments and likes) trends with a user's follower base deserves what they get from the person that "sold" them the bill of goods they bought.

Are internet points worth something in real life?

in the good old slashdot days, "astroturfing" was still a well-known verb.

The Internet is serious business.

Fraud would imply malice and criminal intent. What is criminal about paying for fake followers?