3 ms·

It seems odd to sue the models when this kind of lawbreaking is so common - I'm reminded of Microsoft's influencer campaign that raised a stink among the YouTub

It seems odd to sue the models when this kind of lawbreaking is so common - I'm reminded of Microsoft's influencer campaign that raised a stink among the YouTube audience a while back. While I absolutely believe that these models did wrong by not discussing the nature of the promotion, I'm left wondering if the only reason they are being litigated against is that they deceived the wealthy. Another data point for the argument that the law is applied differently to protect different interests, I guess. Unrelated, I'm glad Ratajkowski did the right thing here; always nice to see people you've heard of following a moral (or at least legal) path despite their peers.

RichardHeart 9y ago
There could be nothing easier to comply with, than stating that things that are ads, are ads. The reason this lawbreaking is common, I would assume, is because not enough heads have rolled. It's seems rare that anyone can afford to litigate for justice these days, unless a billionaire happens to smile upon your cause.
drzaiusapelord 9y ago
It seems odd to excuse those low on the totem pole in what was essentially a scam. There's this odd part of American culture that considers marketers and other 'influencers' immune from criticisms. I don't agree with it and stinks of the long debunked "just following orders" excuse. This allows lower-tiered scammers to play up a "but I just work here, go after my rich boss not me," narrative which co-opts class warfare rhetoric to make themselves immune from any criticism or consequences. >I'm left wondering if the only reason they are being litigated against is that they deceived the wealthy. Legal fees are expensive. I don't have $250,000 laying around for legal fees but the wealthy do. The same way Hulk Hogan's wealth and connections weren't enough to take on Gawker, so Thiel stepped in. In both cases the wealthy took on the moral position. Its odd that you're suggesting that because the wealthy are involved and not 'regular joes' that they must be taking an immoral position.
- endominus 9y ago
  Please do reread my comment. I never said the position of those undertaking the suit are immoral; on the contrary, I specifically stated that the models involved were culpable. I'm merely stating that were the victims not wealthy, this violation of the law would likely never have been punished. I'm pointing out a systemic issue in the legal system, in giving greater access to the capitalist aristocracy.
  - drzaiusapelord 9y ago
    How can you possibly know this? Maybe a lawyer would take up a case for the non-wealthy as a class-action. Or an organization like the ACLU would step in and support someone's claims. I think you're really stretching credibility here with a "Only the wealthy would do this" argument. Most of Fyre's tickets were low end tickets. Painting this as a "capitalist aristocracy" issue is extremely questionable. My reading of your comments just shows someone with a classist axe to grind and little else.
  - tomkarlo 9y ago
    I don't think it's so much the wealth of the victims as the size of the transaction (ticket price) as well as the total spend. It makes a class action lawsuit (where the lawyers will get a % of the value recovered) attractive, whereas if it was a smaller purchase, with the same number of affected customers, that might not be compelling to lawyers.
valdiorn 9y ago
> It seems odd to sue the models when this kind of lawbreaking is so common this may be the event that we've been waiting for, the big, precedence-setting lawsuit that makes this no longer OK, socially or legally

RichardHeart 9y ago

There could be nothing easier to comply with, than stating that things that are ads, are ads. The reason this lawbreaking is common, I would assume, is because not enough heads have rolled. It's seems rare that anyone can afford to litigate for justice these days, unless a billionaire happens to smile upon your cause.

drzaiusapelord 9y ago

It seems odd to excuse those low on the totem pole in what was essentially a scam. There's this odd part of American culture that considers marketers and other 'influencers' immune from criticisms. I don't agree with it and stinks of the long debunked "just following orders" excuse. This allows lower-tiered scammers to play up a "but I just work here, go after my rich boss not me," narrative which co-opts class warfare rhetoric to make themselves immune from any criticism or consequences. >I'm left wondering if the only reason they are being litigated against is that they deceived the wealthy. Legal fees are expensive. I don't have $250,000 laying around for legal fees but the wealthy do. The same way Hulk Hogan's wealth and connections weren't enough to take on Gawker, so Thiel stepped in. In both cases the wealthy took on the moral position. Its odd that you're suggesting that because the wealthy are involved and not 'regular joes' that they must be taking an immoral position.

endominus 9y ago
Please do reread my comment. I never said the position of those undertaking the suit are immoral; on the contrary, I specifically stated that the models involved were culpable. I'm merely stating that were the victims not wealthy, this violation of the law would likely never have been punished. I'm pointing out a systemic issue in the legal system, in giving greater access to the capitalist aristocracy.
- drzaiusapelord 9y ago
  How can you possibly know this? Maybe a lawyer would take up a case for the non-wealthy as a class-action. Or an organization like the ACLU would step in and support someone's claims. I think you're really stretching credibility here with a "Only the wealthy would do this" argument. Most of Fyre's tickets were low end tickets. Painting this as a "capitalist aristocracy" issue is extremely questionable. My reading of your comments just shows someone with a classist axe to grind and little else.
- tomkarlo 9y ago
  I don't think it's so much the wealth of the victims as the size of the transaction (ticket price) as well as the total spend. It makes a class action lawsuit (where the lawyers will get a % of the value recovered) attractive, whereas if it was a smaller purchase, with the same number of affected customers, that might not be compelling to lawyers.

valdiorn 9y ago

> It seems odd to sue the models when this kind of lawbreaking is so common this may be the event that we've been waiting for, the big, precedence-setting lawsuit that makes this no longer OK, socially or legally