4 ms·

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 wi

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.
    - norea-armozel 10y ago
      "Number one: Payola is deceptive to the audience..." I don't see this being a problem even then because there's no actual harm. The audience is there to see an LPer do an LP sponsored or not. The content of the LP is still entertaining. What WB's agency did was give them explicit instructions to hide disclosures and avoid negative comments. The reason why PewDiePie and other LPers involved aren't being fined regardless of whether they've conformed to these requests or not (in the case of PewDiePie he actually put the disclosure in the description so legally he's off the hook regardless of how you or I feel) is due to the fact the regulation came out AFTER the fact. "Number two: Payola is harmful to the economy in that it has a "rich get richer" effect..." Unless there's a communist revolution in the near future I'm not seeing this as criminal as it's not criminal in and of itself. So don't try this angle unless you can show me a law that says rich people can't get richer categorically. I'm not interested in moral assessments in a legal situation I just want the legal facts not one's moral sentiments. "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)." Then I think the new regulation needs to be expanded to enforce content non-modification on presentation via third parties (DMCA could work here I think as the justification). "I'm not sure when the FTC made the rule official, and so he might get a pass based on timing..." The FTC as not fine PewDiePie and in their press release they've made no further mention of it him other than an example of some of the LPers that were working with the agency hired by WB. And since the regulation came AFTER the game and LPs were done they're not going to be fined, ever. So just deal with the fact his annoying self is going to be gracing YT for the foreseeable future (even I cringe at that thought, eew). But the fact you all are overblowing the actual legal impact of this case demonstrates a critical break from the reality of it and dishonesty on part of sites like the Verge (at least Variety reported that PewDiePie clarified the situation rather than tried to ignore it like the Verge has done so far). So, now I refuse to go to the Verge's site until they add to the beginning of the article that PewDiePie and other LPers are not in violation of the regulations as is. Until then I'm going to call out the writer and the Verge as dishonest. If they want to win me back start by reporting the facts and not supposition.

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.
  - norea-armozel 10y ago
    "Number one: Payola is deceptive to the audience..." I don't see this being a problem even then because there's no actual harm. The audience is there to see an LPer do an LP sponsored or not. The content of the LP is still entertaining. What WB's agency did was give them explicit instructions to hide disclosures and avoid negative comments. The reason why PewDiePie and other LPers involved aren't being fined regardless of whether they've conformed to these requests or not (in the case of PewDiePie he actually put the disclosure in the description so legally he's off the hook regardless of how you or I feel) is due to the fact the regulation came out AFTER the fact. "Number two: Payola is harmful to the economy in that it has a "rich get richer" effect..." Unless there's a communist revolution in the near future I'm not seeing this as criminal as it's not criminal in and of itself. So don't try this angle unless you can show me a law that says rich people can't get richer categorically. I'm not interested in moral assessments in a legal situation I just want the legal facts not one's moral sentiments. "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)." Then I think the new regulation needs to be expanded to enforce content non-modification on presentation via third parties (DMCA could work here I think as the justification). "I'm not sure when the FTC made the rule official, and so he might get a pass based on timing..." The FTC as not fine PewDiePie and in their press release they've made no further mention of it him other than an example of some of the LPers that were working with the agency hired by WB. And since the regulation came AFTER the game and LPs were done they're not going to be fined, ever. So just deal with the fact his annoying self is going to be gracing YT for the foreseeable future (even I cringe at that thought, eew). But the fact you all are overblowing the actual legal impact of this case demonstrates a critical break from the reality of it and dishonesty on part of sites like the Verge (at least Variety reported that PewDiePie clarified the situation rather than tried to ignore it like the Verge has done so far). So, now I refuse to go to the Verge's site until they add to the beginning of the article that PewDiePie and other LPers are not in violation of the regulations as is. Until then I'm going to call out the writer and the Verge as dishonest. If they want to win me back start by reporting the facts and not supposition.