4 ms·

I hope it does. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish the guy ill. I hope he expects that and was ready to get out anyway. But I also don't care much for the "Instag

I hope it does. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish the guy ill. I hope he expects that and was ready to get out anyway. But I also don't care much for the "Instagram influencer" thing. It's a lot like political astroturf, appealing to people's preference for real-person authenticity when there's really none involved. The harder it becomes for people to make money at it, the better off we'll all be.

puranjay 8y ago
I mean if you're going to hustle someone, better to hustle the rich.
- stronglikedan 8y ago
  > better to hustle the rich. How so?
  - tom_ 8y ago
    They've got more money.
    - stronglikedan 8y ago
      I still don't understand how that makes it better.
      - CharlesColeman 8y ago
        If you hustle someone who's poor, maybe they won't be able to make rent on their primary residence next month. If you hustle someone who's rich, they're probably still going to be rich next month.
        stronglikedan 8y ago
        "Maybe" and "probably" are a lot of assumptions. Hustling is a shitty activity that isn't made better by the status of the victim.
        notacoward 8y ago
        Putting people in prison is a shitty thing too, but it's still better to do it to people who are actually a menace to society. Something doesn't have to be good in an absolute sense to be better (than an alternative) in a regular one. Even if we're just dealing with statistical probabilities, hustling the rich seems less egregious than hustling the poor. Would you have reacted so strongly if the same sentiment had been expressed as "preying on the poor is especially bad"?
        stronglikedan 8y ago
        > Would you have reacted so strongly if the same sentiment had been expressed as "preying on the poor is especially bad"? Nope. Preying on anyone is bad. A rich person could lose everything in a hustle the same as a poor person. It's only the extent of the hustle that makes it better or worse. E.g., hustling someone for a fraction of their assets is better than taking all of their assets. The value of the assets is not relevant.
        notacoward 8y ago
        Do you seriously think taking half of a poor person's assets is the same as taking half of a rich person's? I suggest a little reading on the concept of marginal utility before making more simplistic moral statements.
        CharlesColeman 8y ago
        > Hustling is a shitty activity that isn't made better by the status of the victim. But it is made worse by the status of the victims. Also, I'd say that victim-status is the variable that's responsible for most (but certainly not all) of the "shittiness" of the activity.
      - shadowbannedtoo 8y ago
        Because they most likely hussled someone in order to get their wad. The average wealthy guy doesn't' become wealthy because they lived a Christian life? I live in Marin County. I am surrounded by the wealthy. I can't think of one of the wealthy boys whom didn't screw over the little people on their way up. Their dad usually taught them well. That goes for taking advantage of the uninformed too.
  - stackola 8y ago
    They can afford it
    - stronglikedan 8y ago
      Even if the hustler takes everything?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  He is not its marketing to a niche audience a couple of years ago I worked on one of the big yacht broker sites sorting out their tech / SEO.
kbutler 8y ago
Because it's better to have professional models in ads rather than self-educated hobbyists? It could be improved by journalistic standards of disclosure - but instagram/facebook already requires that, though I don't know that it is widely followed/enforced: https://www.facebook.com/policies/brandedcontent https://www.facebook.com/policies/brandedcontent
- notacoward 8y ago
  I think you're using "professional" in a manner inconsistent with its actual meaning. Modeling is not generally considered one of the "professions" requiring licenses and adherence to standards, so the operative definition clearly has to do with a source of livelihood rather than a pastime. In that context, your dichotomy leaves out one of the most relevant groups - self educated professionals. Like me, albeit in a different field. "Self educated" is really orthogonal to professional vs. hobbyist, and if somebody is a professional in that sense then damn right I think they should be honest about it. Being a professional is fine, being a hobbyist is fine, but neither should try to pass as the other. That's deceptive, in the astroturf-like way I already mentioned.
  - kbutler 8y ago
    "Professional model" is a common phrase that has nothing to do with licensing, just that someone is paid to appear in a photo. Old: Manufacturers create advertising, including professional models. Journalists write reviews, but aren't generally in photographs of the items. Manufacturers try to build positive relations (influence) with journalists in various ways. Social media influencers: Self-selected individuals produce content about products, often including themselves as the "models" in the product photos, hoping to build a following so they can get paid by sellers for publicizing products. It's all marketing, and almost all of it is fake, and it requires finding voices you trust and agree with.
    - notacoward 8y ago
      > just that someone is paid to appear in a photo. In other words, the difference between a livelihood and a pastime. Like I (and the dictionary) said. A "professional model" is someone who makes their living at it, and I challenge you to find an instance of a non-idiot using it to mean someone who only got paid a modest amount one time. > it requires finding voices you trust and agree with. Ideally, it also means those voices are trustworthy. Among other things, that means being honest about whether they're professionals or amateurs. That precludes "influencers" pretending to have genuine passion about something when in fact they're being paid to fake that passion. Encouraging and rewarding deceptive behavior is not a good thing, even in marketing.

puranjay 8y ago

I mean if you're going to hustle someone, better to hustle the rich.

stronglikedan 8y ago
> better to hustle the rich. How so?
- tom_ 8y ago
  They've got more money.
  - stronglikedan 8y ago
    I still don't understand how that makes it better.
    - CharlesColeman 8y ago
      If you hustle someone who's poor, maybe they won't be able to make rent on their primary residence next month. If you hustle someone who's rich, they're probably still going to be rich next month.
      - stronglikedan 8y ago
        "Maybe" and "probably" are a lot of assumptions. Hustling is a shitty activity that isn't made better by the status of the victim.
        notacoward 8y ago
        Putting people in prison is a shitty thing too, but it's still better to do it to people who are actually a menace to society. Something doesn't have to be good in an absolute sense to be better (than an alternative) in a regular one. Even if we're just dealing with statistical probabilities, hustling the rich seems less egregious than hustling the poor. Would you have reacted so strongly if the same sentiment had been expressed as "preying on the poor is especially bad"?
        stronglikedan 8y ago
        > Would you have reacted so strongly if the same sentiment had been expressed as "preying on the poor is especially bad"? Nope. Preying on anyone is bad. A rich person could lose everything in a hustle the same as a poor person. It's only the extent of the hustle that makes it better or worse. E.g., hustling someone for a fraction of their assets is better than taking all of their assets. The value of the assets is not relevant.
        notacoward 8y ago
        Do you seriously think taking half of a poor person's assets is the same as taking half of a rich person's? I suggest a little reading on the concept of marginal utility before making more simplistic moral statements.
        CharlesColeman 8y ago
        > Hustling is a shitty activity that isn't made better by the status of the victim. But it is made worse by the status of the victims. Also, I'd say that victim-status is the variable that's responsible for most (but certainly not all) of the "shittiness" of the activity.
    - shadowbannedtoo 8y ago
      Because they most likely hussled someone in order to get their wad. The average wealthy guy doesn't' become wealthy because they lived a Christian life? I live in Marin County. I am surrounded by the wealthy. I can't think of one of the wealthy boys whom didn't screw over the little people on their way up. Their dad usually taught them well. That goes for taking advantage of the uninformed too.
- stackola 8y ago
  They can afford it
  - stronglikedan 8y ago
    Even if the hustler takes everything?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
C1sc0cat 8y ago
He is not its marketing to a niche audience a couple of years ago I worked on one of the big yacht broker sites sorting out their tech / SEO.

kbutler 8y ago

Because it's better to have professional models in ads rather than self-educated hobbyists? It could be improved by journalistic standards of disclosure - but instagram/facebook already requires that, though I don't know that it is widely followed/enforced: https://www.facebook.com/policies/brandedcontent https://www.facebook.com/policies/brandedcontent

notacoward 8y ago
I think you're using "professional" in a manner inconsistent with its actual meaning. Modeling is not generally considered one of the "professions" requiring licenses and adherence to standards, so the operative definition clearly has to do with a source of livelihood rather than a pastime. In that context, your dichotomy leaves out one of the most relevant groups - self educated professionals. Like me, albeit in a different field. "Self educated" is really orthogonal to professional vs. hobbyist, and if somebody is a professional in that sense then damn right I think they should be honest about it. Being a professional is fine, being a hobbyist is fine, but neither should try to pass as the other. That's deceptive, in the astroturf-like way I already mentioned.
- kbutler 8y ago
  "Professional model" is a common phrase that has nothing to do with licensing, just that someone is paid to appear in a photo. Old: Manufacturers create advertising, including professional models. Journalists write reviews, but aren't generally in photographs of the items. Manufacturers try to build positive relations (influence) with journalists in various ways. Social media influencers: Self-selected individuals produce content about products, often including themselves as the "models" in the product photos, hoping to build a following so they can get paid by sellers for publicizing products. It's all marketing, and almost all of it is fake, and it requires finding voices you trust and agree with.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    > just that someone is paid to appear in a photo. In other words, the difference between a livelihood and a pastime. Like I (and the dictionary) said. A "professional model" is someone who makes their living at it, and I challenge you to find an instance of a non-idiot using it to mean someone who only got paid a modest amount one time. > it requires finding voices you trust and agree with. Ideally, it also means those voices are trustworthy. Among other things, that means being honest about whether they're professionals or amateurs. That precludes "influencers" pretending to have genuine passion about something when in fact they're being paid to fake that passion. Encouraging and rewarding deceptive behavior is not a good thing, even in marketing.