4 ms·
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
by 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 agoOTOH, 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 agoI 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...
- wilg 3y agoObviously, now you have a huge problem of defining celebrity. We've gone from Larry David to some podcaster who would be banned from promoting "anything". So basically this just means the only legal ads are like the guys who twirl signs around on the street.
- toss1 3y agoIf it were not a ban, but a liability limited to something like twice the earnings from the promotions, you'd have to do a bit of vetting...
- wilg 3y agoShould we do the same for any employee of a company? They should do their due diligence before they give material support to the company's mission, lest they lose double all the wages they earned?
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI think we should also be able to sue the idiot FTX investors for their failure of due diligence and wasting the time and money of the SEC.
- jondwillis 3y agoHonestly, I would vote for that.