4 ms·
Isn't this illegal? The FCC should investigate. These 'reviews' are paid sponsorships which need to be disclosed.
by yellow_lead 3y ago
Isn't this illegal? The FCC should investigate. These 'reviews' are paid sponsorships which need to be disclosed.
- junofan 3y agoYou can certainly hope the FCC takes action to protect the integrity of reviews of Ophelia, a feminist retelling of Hamlet starring Daisy Ridley…
- causi 3y agoIs that a real thing? I don't get the appeal of these "what if this historical story was created now instead of hundreds of years ago" genre.
- jncfhnb 3y agoGuess you don’t like Hamlet either then, which is a reinvented Amleth. I struggle to see how the gp here can still be so bothered by the “feminist” film that did just a couple hundred thousand in the box office five years ago personally. That is a tiny drop in the bucket.
- junofan 3y agoI’m not bothered. I don’t think the FCC will prioritize it.
- jncfhnb 3y agoBecause it was a tiny film from five years ago that was neither critically nor financially successful despite 8 reviewers being offered $50. I just can’t fathom why you felt compelled to reference it and the fact that it was “feminist”
- junofan 3y agoI think it’s fine to describe a film on a discussion forum. I just Googled what it is and copied the first thing I saw. I referenced it so others have that information too.
- hgsgm 3y agoFTC.
- yellow_lead 3y agoThanks, my bad.
- londons_explore 3y agoPaid reviews are legal in most of the world. In most of the world you don't even need to disclose that it is paid.
- willcipriano 3y ago> Rotten Tomatoes is located in San Francisco, California
- shadowgovt 3y agoBut do they have an employer / employee relationship with those critics or are they doing a section-230-compliant resharing / publicizing of those critics' personal opinions?
- willcipriano 3y agoThat defence hasn't worked for social media sites, they have had to enact tools and policies to let users know when a post is sponsored.
- shadowgovt 3y agoIf you mean on, say, YouTube, that's something the FTC requires content creators to do, not YouTube. YouTube requires content creators to disclose to them for a separate reason: their advertising guarantees to advertisers include things like ad exclusion, so if your video includes a paid sponsorship from Pepsi, Coca-Cola can automatically not waste money injecting an ad into the middle of that video (they consider that impression run directly next to their competition while the competition is being actively painted in a good light to be a waste). I only know about YouTube's policies, but I do wonder if the story at other social networks for paid-sponsorship disclosure is similar, since they all have an advertising component.
- londons_explore 3y agoI don't think youtube supports ad-exclusion from content within the video. The creator doesn't have any space to declare a list of the names of companies or products they are endorsing. They merely have a checkbox to declare that the video contains paid product placement (required by UK law for example).
- tyingq 3y agoPretty sure the payments were to individuals, and not to any Rotten Tomatoes entity directly. So you would have to make some case about lack of due diligence instead, or sue a bunch of random people.
- andylynch 3y agoI read too much Money Stuff but aside from the disclosure issue this is probably securities fraud, and bribery as well - pushing the needle on positive reviews certainly ticks most of the boxes.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]