5 ms·

She’s not a criminal. She got paid to promote something and she did. Not disclosing it is an ethical dilemma and she’s paid in much more than she made. Also, i

She’s not a criminal. She got paid to promote something and she did. Not disclosing it is an ethical dilemma and she’s paid in much more than she made. Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that.

windexh8er 4y ago
I don't see it that way. If your job is to promote things part of your process, with respect to ascertaining the validity of that work, should be in a wide range of ethics. She knows she has fans that will believe anything she says which is part of the reason why she's paid to promote things. But if all of the sudden a bleach company is paying Kim to promote drinking it to prevent and cure cancer it might feel different. Kim is still directly hurting people through her brand, but in a different way. > Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that. While likely unpopular I wish there were some decent studies on this topic. Like age demographics, screen time in social media, income, schooling, and other background information on the people that fit into this charade. I think this would shed some light on the predatory marketing Kim, potentially, engages in - knowingly or not.
notakio 4y ago
The SEC has real, legal teeth. In this case, Ms. Kardashian took a legal settlement to avoid a criminal verdict. In a prior job, a mutual fund startup, I was restricted from purchasing stocks unless I ran it through an internal company process first, then ran it by the SEC, all because, as sysadmin, I had access to "live stock feed", which is considered privileged information. If I had a hunch to buy something, by the time I ran that potential purchase through those two processes and got permission, generally the window of opportunity had closed. Of course, I knew this because it was made explicitly clear to me when I took the job, and when we went through the paperwork to setup the live stock feed. Still, my lack of awareness would not have been a valid excuse, had I crossed the line with the SEC, and the potential penalties were very real, and very steep. Then again, I didn't have vast resources to keep on-staff legal personnel to manage my interactions with them, nor was I a celebrity or politician, so all the rules apply to me, all the time, where that might not be the case in every situation.
- kennend3 4y ago
  > I had access to "live stock feed", which is considered privileged information. As someone with 22 years in equity trading technology Real-time market data is NOT privileged information. This is not "material non-public information" because every professional trader has this access. Having access to see client orders prior to them reaching a public exchange IS material non-public and this will put you in the "you need to have all your trades reviewed" category. If you want further proof, most retail client trading systems now offer "real-time" market data, at least for the US markets.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - notakio 4y ago
    So today I learned the reason I was in that category is, in fact, my visibility to my employer's trades, not visibility of the stock feed, itself. I'd been under this misconception since 2006!
- listless 4y ago
  Ok - fair point. I'll redact my "not a criminal statement" since the definition is just breaking the law - which she did - and because ignorance is never a defense.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
    Yeah, but if there wasn't a criminal case, and she doesn't admit to fault, how can you conclude that she broke the law?
jjulius 4y ago
>She's not a criminal. Technically, sure, but only because she settled the charges. Settling doesn't mean you aren't a criminal, you just weren't convicted in court. >Not disclosing it is an ethical dilemma and she's paid in much more than she made. Nope. ~$250k is what she was paid, $1.6million is what she was fined. >Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that. Classy.
- listless 4y ago
  > Nope. ~$250k is what she was paid, $1.6million is what she was fined. If she was paid 250K and fined 1.6M, then she's going to pay in much more than she made. Do I misunderstand the terms of the settlement here? > Classy This is a fair point and I agree it doesn't sound _great_, but I would just like to see a little agency now and then. Both things could be true at once.
kennend3 4y ago
> She’s not a criminal. And the million dollars she paid to settle this, was that a "charitable donation"? It is unfortunate the US allows wealthy people to "settle" via fines while the poor often face jail time instead. Had she not "settled" it would have went to court, and if she was found guilty what would that have made her then?

windexh8er 4y ago

I don't see it that way. If your job is to promote things part of your process, with respect to ascertaining the validity of that work, should be in a wide range of ethics. She knows she has fans that will believe anything she says which is part of the reason why she's paid to promote things. But if all of the sudden a bleach company is paying Kim to promote drinking it to prevent and cure cancer it might feel different. Kim is still directly hurting people through her brand, but in a different way. > Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that. While likely unpopular I wish there were some decent studies on this topic. Like age demographics, screen time in social media, income, schooling, and other background information on the people that fit into this charade. I think this would shed some light on the predatory marketing Kim, potentially, engages in - knowingly or not.

notakio 4y ago

The SEC has real, legal teeth. In this case, Ms. Kardashian took a legal settlement to avoid a criminal verdict. In a prior job, a mutual fund startup, I was restricted from purchasing stocks unless I ran it through an internal company process first, then ran it by the SEC, all because, as sysadmin, I had access to "live stock feed", which is considered privileged information. If I had a hunch to buy something, by the time I ran that potential purchase through those two processes and got permission, generally the window of opportunity had closed. Of course, I knew this because it was made explicitly clear to me when I took the job, and when we went through the paperwork to setup the live stock feed. Still, my lack of awareness would not have been a valid excuse, had I crossed the line with the SEC, and the potential penalties were very real, and very steep. Then again, I didn't have vast resources to keep on-staff legal personnel to manage my interactions with them, nor was I a celebrity or politician, so all the rules apply to me, all the time, where that might not be the case in every situation.

kennend3 4y ago
> I had access to "live stock feed", which is considered privileged information. As someone with 22 years in equity trading technology Real-time market data is NOT privileged information. This is not "material non-public information" because every professional trader has this access. Having access to see client orders prior to them reaching a public exchange IS material non-public and this will put you in the "you need to have all your trades reviewed" category. If you want further proof, most retail client trading systems now offer "real-time" market data, at least for the US markets.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- notakio 4y ago
  So today I learned the reason I was in that category is, in fact, my visibility to my employer's trades, not visibility of the stock feed, itself. I'd been under this misconception since 2006!
listless 4y ago
Ok - fair point. I'll redact my "not a criminal statement" since the definition is just breaking the law - which she did - and because ignorance is never a defense.
- HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
  Yeah, but if there wasn't a criminal case, and she doesn't admit to fault, how can you conclude that she broke the law?

jjulius 4y ago

>She's not a criminal. Technically, sure, but only because she settled the charges. Settling doesn't mean you aren't a criminal, you just weren't convicted in court. >Not disclosing it is an ethical dilemma and she's paid in much more than she made. Nope. ~$250k is what she was paid, $1.6million is what she was fined. >Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that. Classy.

listless 4y ago
> Nope. ~$250k is what she was paid, $1.6million is what she was fined. If she was paid 250K and fined 1.6M, then she's going to pay in much more than she made. Do I misunderstand the terms of the settlement here? > Classy This is a fair point and I agree it doesn't sound _great_, but I would just like to see a little agency now and then. Both things could be true at once.

kennend3 4y ago

> She’s not a criminal. And the million dollars she paid to settle this, was that a "charitable donation"? It is unfortunate the US allows wealthy people to "settle" via fines while the poor often face jail time instead. Had she not "settled" it would have went to court, and if she was found guilty what would that have made her then?