4 ms·

But how many of these people really pass as journalists? I don't see people like PewDiePie as a journalist anymore than I see Quill18 as a journalist. I just wa

But how many of these people really pass as journalists? I don't see people like PewDiePie as a journalist anymore than I see Quill18 as a journalist. I just want their LPs and enjoy their silly antics. I don't buy the game based on their opinions but more on my opinion of how much fun it seems from my POV. If there's no fun IMO I just skip the game or only get it while it's on sale on Steam. Hell, I'll go as far as to say these sorts of "reviewers" saved me more money than the old fashioned magazine/TV show reviewers have on games. So I don't even bother with traditional reviews as is since LPs tell me more about a game than a review ever could. It's why I stopped going to Polygon for reviews because honestly reviews just don't cover enough to give me an idea what the game is about or how it plays. When I watch say Quill18 play HoI4 or Civ5 I get more information on the game than he can ever give me if he was tasked with writing a review of the game post-LP. Edit [Major addition, lol]: Also where the heck do you folks get the idea that PewDiePie is a 'reviewer' from? I'm like sorta floored by this still. And after watching a video response by him it seems he's in the legal right here. Before the FTC even had regulations for this, he was disclosing in the description of the video but it wasn't at the top of the description. Now he does both the description disclosure AND a mention of sponsorship BEFORE the LP. And it's not uncommon for the same thing to happen in the Paradox LP community (Arumba has mentioned at least one time in an LP that he was flown out and/or sponsored for the LP of a Paradox game which I think was HoI4). So, I'm not really keen to bite this click bait crap. Frankly, I think the Verge should edit this article with a major correction at the top of the article stating the promotional videos were done prior to FTC and YT/Google regulations existed on the matter.

qbrass 10y ago
>Also where the heck do you folks get the idea that PewDiePie is a 'reviewer' from? I'm like sorta floored by this still. "You folks" are the millions of teenagers who don't know any better. The people who expect youtubers to be corporate shills aren't normally the people who actually watch them.
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  You clearly don't know PewDiePie's audience otherwise you wouldn't talk that way. Can you show me what actual harm is done by a sponsored LP does to kids who wind up being out of a few bucks from renting it at Redbox for their PS4/XB1? I'm all ears.
  - larsiusprime 10y ago
    When undisclosed (or improperly disclosed), it's a form of Payola, and it has numerous problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola
    - norea-armozel 10y ago
      The article you linked doesn't give any substance to the claim of actual harm when taking into account the facts of the case before the FTC as is. All you're doing is proving that there's no harm done as is thus my position remains correct. So again, I'll ask you one more time: is there actual proof of actual harm (property or life loss) from sponsored content in Let's Plays? If not, then will you admit your thesis is a false comparison and needs to be focusing on the matter of uniform disclosure (note that PewDiePie does this in the videos now and it's on the top of every video description he posts on YouTube)?
      - larsiusprime 10y ago
        Number one: Payola is deceptive to the audience. If you are advertising you should disclose it, prominently and UNAVOIDABLY. Otherwise you are lying in saying "hey I like this thing and you should like it too!" rather than "hey I was paid to tell you I like this thing and you should like it too!" If there's no material harm to sponsored content as you claim, then there should be no reason not to disclose this prominently. Number two: Payola is harmful to the economy in that it has a "rich get richer" effect -- those who can afford Payola can buy lots of advertising, without indicating that they are doing so, giving themselves an unfair advantage. Also, disclosing at the top of a video description is not enough as those descriptions do not get carried forward when the video is shared on other media outlets (Facebook, twitter, etc). I'm not sure when the FTC made the rule official, and so he might get a pass based on timing, but the current standard is that a disclosure must be UNAVOIDABLE. IE, a best practice is to put the disclosure IN THE VIDEO TITLE and IN THE VIDEO ITSELF.

qbrass 10y ago

>Also where the heck do you folks get the idea that PewDiePie is a 'reviewer' from? I'm like sorta floored by this still. "You folks" are the millions of teenagers who don't know any better. The people who expect youtubers to be corporate shills aren't normally the people who actually watch them.

norea-armozel 10y ago
You clearly don't know PewDiePie's audience otherwise you wouldn't talk that way. Can you show me what actual harm is done by a sponsored LP does to kids who wind up being out of a few bucks from renting it at Redbox for their PS4/XB1? I'm all ears.
- larsiusprime 10y ago
  When undisclosed (or improperly disclosed), it's a form of Payola, and it has numerous problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola
  - norea-armozel 10y ago
    The article you linked doesn't give any substance to the claim of actual harm when taking into account the facts of the case before the FTC as is. All you're doing is proving that there's no harm done as is thus my position remains correct. So again, I'll ask you one more time: is there actual proof of actual harm (property or life loss) from sponsored content in Let's Plays? If not, then will you admit your thesis is a false comparison and needs to be focusing on the matter of uniform disclosure (note that PewDiePie does this in the videos now and it's on the top of every video description he posts on YouTube)?
    - larsiusprime 10y ago
      Number one: Payola is deceptive to the audience. If you are advertising you should disclose it, prominently and UNAVOIDABLY. Otherwise you are lying in saying "hey I like this thing and you should like it too!" rather than "hey I was paid to tell you I like this thing and you should like it too!" If there's no material harm to sponsored content as you claim, then there should be no reason not to disclose this prominently. Number two: Payola is harmful to the economy in that it has a "rich get richer" effect -- those who can afford Payola can buy lots of advertising, without indicating that they are doing so, giving themselves an unfair advantage. Also, disclosing at the top of a video description is not enough as those descriptions do not get carried forward when the video is shared on other media outlets (Facebook, twitter, etc). I'm not sure when the FTC made the rule official, and so he might get a pass based on timing, but the current standard is that a disclosure must be UNAVOIDABLE. IE, a best practice is to put the disclosure IN THE VIDEO TITLE and IN THE VIDEO ITSELF.