5 ms·

> You might as well go over the every caterer they ever hired or the people they hired to clean their offices. There's a significant difference between a cater

> You might as well go over the every caterer they ever hired or the people they hired to clean their offices. There's a significant difference between a caterer and a high-profile celebrity endorsing something. You don't think there are people who joined FTX as a result of these promotions? While I like Larry David, he has no business promoting financial products to consumers. In fact, I think it should be illegal for celebrities or "influencers" to promote any kind of financial products.

ecshafer 3y ago
I dont think there is a difference between the two groups, no. My mind, when i see a celebrity endorsing a product, puts them clearly into the role of someone selling their product for money. Does some model have more business selling cocacola than larry david selling ftx? Larry david is a pretty wealthy guy, i wouldnt be surprised if hes done his due dilligence on finance and talks to advisors on the matter regularly. While a model might not actually know the health implications of drinking coke, and may not drink it personally.
- ryanklee 3y ago
  I'm very confused by the juxtaposition of your top-level comment and this one. They seem to be saying exactly opposite things.
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    They both seem to be saying the same thing to me. It's an actor in a commercial; they're acting. They're not giving you friendly advice. Now one can argue that it should be illegal for anyone to advertise for a product or be paid to say nice things about it (like the smiling guy wearing a lab coat while the screen says 4/5 dentists recommend whichever toothpaste), but otherwise I don't see why celebrities should be uniquely liable.
  - ecshafer 3y ago
    Larry David isn't giving me financial advice. Larry David is selling his image / voice / comedic talents / acting abilities to FTX. Just like a model or singer or athlete is just selling their image to coke. It makes no sense to go after them
ryanklee 3y ago
But then this is a principle, and it's got nothing to do with Larry David et al. Further, it has nothing to do with the FTX outcome, since the principle is not about particular outcomes, but general risks. Given that, it makes no sense to go after any of the celebrities in this instance, since they did nothing wrong in particular except violate an abstract principle, not a law or regulation. If no celebrities should ever endorse financial products (not sure I agree with this), then some regulatory body or legislative body should constrain us to that. But to tell you the truth, that strikes me as pretty stupid, since this principle can be applied easily outside of financial concerns. The result, if applied correctly, would be that no celebrity should ever endorse any product whatever, since every product has massive, latent risk that would not be able to be reasonably known by any celebrity. Think recalls. Think contamination. Think unknown drug side effects. Think mechanical failure. Etc. Go after the people who are responsible and who should know, not the incidental agents who just happen to be involved in some tragic fraud or malfeasance of which they knew nothing and could not have been expected to know. Massive misattribution of blame.
- toss1 3y ago
  OTOH, a significant subset of people do use Social Proof, including celebrity endorsements, as a criteria for purchasing decisions, despite the fact that unless explicitly stated, the endorsement says nothing about any due diligence done by the celeb. So is it the responsibility of the fool who uses social proof without doing their own due diligence, or is it the fault of the celeb accepting payment for the promotional work? If they are just going after the celebs to claw back any earnings, which would be put back in the pot to compensate victims, that seems reasonable. But to go after them as if they were co-conspirators seems quite unjust.
  - ryanklee 3y ago
    I would not be opposed to putting those who do the promotional work on the hook for giving back a percentage of earnings to compensate victims. I do think, however, that the principle would have to be applied more generally and pertain to most if not all promotional work. Practical difficulties aside, this might have the added benefit of highly discouraging celebrities to promote anything. I say benefit, because to my mind it's vacuous, tasteless, and toxic for celebrities to promote products. This goes to podcasters and YouTubers, as well. If I hear one more otherwise respectable person shill investments into Master Works rather than index funds...
nfw2 3y ago
But Larry David explicitly did not recommend FTX. He got paid to say he didn’t like it in a comedy sketch. I don’t see how anyone with any knowledge of Larry would reasonably conclude that he is genuinely into crypto after that ad.
- richbell 3y ago
  In the commercial, Larry is a contrarian who opposes every great invention starting with the wheel. At the end, he says that he doesn't recommend FTX. It's clearly an endorsement, even if within the commercial he doesn't literally say "In Larry David and this is my favorite crypto currency exchange". Moreover, it's a major promotional video for FTX. He presumably would not have agreed to star in it if he didn't like it (or the money).

ecshafer 3y ago

I dont think there is a difference between the two groups, no. My mind, when i see a celebrity endorsing a product, puts them clearly into the role of someone selling their product for money. Does some model have more business selling cocacola than larry david selling ftx? Larry david is a pretty wealthy guy, i wouldnt be surprised if hes done his due dilligence on finance and talks to advisors on the matter regularly. While a model might not actually know the health implications of drinking coke, and may not drink it personally.

ryanklee 3y ago
I'm very confused by the juxtaposition of your top-level comment and this one. They seem to be saying exactly opposite things.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  They both seem to be saying the same thing to me. It's an actor in a commercial; they're acting. They're not giving you friendly advice. Now one can argue that it should be illegal for anyone to advertise for a product or be paid to say nice things about it (like the smiling guy wearing a lab coat while the screen says 4/5 dentists recommend whichever toothpaste), but otherwise I don't see why celebrities should be uniquely liable.
- ecshafer 3y ago
  Larry David isn't giving me financial advice. Larry David is selling his image / voice / comedic talents / acting abilities to FTX. Just like a model or singer or athlete is just selling their image to coke. It makes no sense to go after them

ryanklee 3y ago

But then this is a principle, and it's got nothing to do with Larry David et al. Further, it has nothing to do with the FTX outcome, since the principle is not about particular outcomes, but general risks. Given that, it makes no sense to go after any of the celebrities in this instance, since they did nothing wrong in particular except violate an abstract principle, not a law or regulation. If no celebrities should ever endorse financial products (not sure I agree with this), then some regulatory body or legislative body should constrain us to that. But to tell you the truth, that strikes me as pretty stupid, since this principle can be applied easily outside of financial concerns. The result, if applied correctly, would be that no celebrity should ever endorse any product whatever, since every product has massive, latent risk that would not be able to be reasonably known by any celebrity. Think recalls. Think contamination. Think unknown drug side effects. Think mechanical failure. Etc. Go after the people who are responsible and who should know, not the incidental agents who just happen to be involved in some tragic fraud or malfeasance of which they knew nothing and could not have been expected to know. Massive misattribution of blame.

toss1 3y ago
OTOH, a significant subset of people do use Social Proof, including celebrity endorsements, as a criteria for purchasing decisions, despite the fact that unless explicitly stated, the endorsement says nothing about any due diligence done by the celeb. So is it the responsibility of the fool who uses social proof without doing their own due diligence, or is it the fault of the celeb accepting payment for the promotional work? If they are just going after the celebs to claw back any earnings, which would be put back in the pot to compensate victims, that seems reasonable. But to go after them as if they were co-conspirators seems quite unjust.
- ryanklee 3y ago
  I would not be opposed to putting those who do the promotional work on the hook for giving back a percentage of earnings to compensate victims. I do think, however, that the principle would have to be applied more generally and pertain to most if not all promotional work. Practical difficulties aside, this might have the added benefit of highly discouraging celebrities to promote anything. I say benefit, because to my mind it's vacuous, tasteless, and toxic for celebrities to promote products. This goes to podcasters and YouTubers, as well. If I hear one more otherwise respectable person shill investments into Master Works rather than index funds...

nfw2 3y ago

But Larry David explicitly did not recommend FTX. He got paid to say he didn’t like it in a comedy sketch. I don’t see how anyone with any knowledge of Larry would reasonably conclude that he is genuinely into crypto after that ad.

richbell 3y ago
In the commercial, Larry is a contrarian who opposes every great invention starting with the wheel. At the end, he says that he doesn't recommend FTX. It's clearly an endorsement, even if within the commercial he doesn't literally say "In Larry David and this is my favorite crypto currency exchange". Moreover, it's a major promotional video for FTX. He presumably would not have agreed to star in it if he didn't like it (or the money).