3 ms·

I'm torn between thinking there's no reason to expect Tom Brady to be an expert of crypto or business or accounting, and thinking that it would be good to make

I'm torn between thinking there's no reason to expect Tom Brady to be an expert of crypto or business or accounting, and thinking that it would be good to make celebrities personally liable for faults with whatever they endorse. If celebrity endorsements carried liability, they would become more expensive and happen less, and fewer people who are persuaded by celebrities would be convinced to buy things they otherwise wouldn't. That said, it would seem extremely weird to me to sue one of the extras in that commercial. They basically did the same thing, try to persuade people to use FTX, as the celebrities. Why is it wrong for famous rich people to do something but okay for non-famous to do it?

batch12 4y ago
> Why is it wrong for famous rich people to do something but okay for non-famous to do it? It's not, but I am guessing they are targeting those with money, not the broke extras.
- coffeebeqn 4y ago
  They could sue FTX… oh wait
jtbayly 4y ago
Not wrong for one and not the other. The non-celebs just don’t have enough money to make it worth it to sue them.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  Would you expect an actor, upon getting a commercial role, to start doing due diligence? That seems like too much to ask of a minor actor, even if it's reasonable for some triple digit millionaire.
  - jtbayly 4y ago
    No. I wasn’t even meaning it was wrong for both of them. I was only saying lawsuits go after people with money. If the actors know enough to know something is a scam, then they are in the wrong, too. Regarding due diligence, anybody who accepts money to lend their name’s credibility to a product ought to do a lot of due diligence if they don’t want their name sullied. Or they don’t care about their name, or they shouldn’t sell their name.
valyagolev 4y ago
the famous people use their authority (that shouldn’t really exist but is there) to persuade us. thus they abuse the trust already established between them and us (again, i think the trust was always misplaced but it’s nonetheless there). while some acting randos don’t command any special authority or trustworthiness to them

batch12 4y ago

> Why is it wrong for famous rich people to do something but okay for non-famous to do it? It's not, but I am guessing they are targeting those with money, not the broke extras.

coffeebeqn 4y ago
They could sue FTX… oh wait

jtbayly 4y ago

Not wrong for one and not the other. The non-celebs just don’t have enough money to make it worth it to sue them.

ALittleLight 4y ago
Would you expect an actor, upon getting a commercial role, to start doing due diligence? That seems like too much to ask of a minor actor, even if it's reasonable for some triple digit millionaire.
- jtbayly 4y ago
  No. I wasn’t even meaning it was wrong for both of them. I was only saying lawsuits go after people with money. If the actors know enough to know something is a scam, then they are in the wrong, too. Regarding due diligence, anybody who accepts money to lend their name’s credibility to a product ought to do a lot of due diligence if they don’t want their name sullied. Or they don’t care about their name, or they shouldn’t sell their name.

valyagolev 4y ago

the famous people use their authority (that shouldn’t really exist but is there) to persuade us. thus they abuse the trust already established between them and us (again, i think the trust was always misplaced but it’s nonetheless there). while some acting randos don’t command any special authority or trustworthiness to them