3 ms·
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, how
by 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...
- 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.