Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the Food Industry Pays Influencers to Shill Blueberries, Butter, and More

bonappetit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 157 posts

Re: How the Food Industry Pays Influencers to Shill Blueberries, Butter, and More

#21

Post by galdosdi »

ethbr1 wrote: post #13
delichon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, on the spectrum of shilling for nukes, cigarettes, sugar and blueberries, blueberry shills are relative saints.

As long as they don't shill bananas mixed with blueberries. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2023/FO/D3FO0... Apparently the polyphenol oxidase in bananas doesn't play well with other nutrients.

That study does not match your tone, it implies that eating them together makes them very slightly less good and healthy across just one particular nutrient than they otherwise would have been separately, not that putting them together makes two healthy things combine into one unhealthy thing.

That said, I'm a fan of processing as little as possible, and I imagine a fruit salad of those two things would still suffer from this effect just as the smoothie, but surely not to the same magnitude, there's just bound to be less total mixing.

The bigger hedge is just to have a varied diet.

All in all though it seems an oddly medium-low importance thing to bring up in context?

Re: How the Food Industry Pays Influencers to Shill Blueberries, Butter, and More

#22

Post by delichon »

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #20
ethbr1 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as they don't shill bananas mixed with blueberries. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2023/FO/D3FO0... Apparently the polyphenol oxidase in bananas doesn't play well with other nutrients.

The general term for this is "antinutrient", and their effect in real-world situations is rarely large enough to be worth the trouble of thinking about.

Several knowledgeable vegans I know believe that they have real problems with oxalates in particular. This is particularly credible among people who drink a lot of spinach based smoothies, as I once did.

Re: How the Food Industry Pays Influencers to Shill Blueberries, Butter, and More

#23

Post by whatamidoingyo »

Wait, are blueberries "shilled"? I had no idea, but I indeed "shill" them myself. Eating blueberries early in the morning has improved my digestion. They also make me feel really good throughout the day. So much so, I've made numerous attempts at growing blueberry bushes myself (unfortunately I don't have a green thumb).

Likewise with coconut water, a habit I developed in Thailand.

If they're shilled, so be it. It works for me, and if it works for others, that's good, right?

Re: How the Food Industry Pays Influencers to Shill Blueberries, Butter, and More

#24

Post by tivert »

morsch wrote: post #6
Simulacra wrote: post #5

I'm amazed that people still depend on "influencers" to make decisions. After all we've seen over the last 10 years of sponsored posts, and "influencers" people still blindly follow their lead.

It's pretty insidious. People form parasocial relationships with these social media personas. When they recommend blueberries, or a brand of lip gloss, or invasive surgery, it's like a recommendation from a friend. I doubt it's a new phenomenon -- presumably in the past people bought sneakers because some celebrity wore them or recommended them. But it's probably more ubiquitous? And I think it's easier to fool yours…

> And I think it's easier to fool yourself you have a relationship or kinship with a Instagram microcelebrity than with Micheal Jordan.

That, and it's probably easier to be fooled into thinking some Instagram microcelebrity is expressing a true independent opinion rather than making a paid endorsement.

I think a similar thing happened to blogs. I recall reading years ago about a "mattress blog" that presented itself as some enthusiast sharing his knowledge, but it was 100% pay-for-play promotion. I'm not super active on social media, but I'm assuming something similar is going on there with influencers.

An additional insidious dynamic is how advertising camouflages itself in whatever medium is the popular way for people to share honest opinions with strangers, then infects it so totally that you can't really trust it anymore. It's really undermined one of the positive selling points of the web.

Re: How the Food Industry Pays Influencers to Shill Blueberries, Butter, and More

#25

Post by mhuffman »

Animats wrote: post #2

It's surprising that's constitutional. I'd expect "Right to Farm" laws in some states to prohibit such union dues.

Then again the food industry is pretty powerful. Remember when they legally forced Oprah to publicly apologize or saying that it could be dangerous to eat raw hamburger?

Re: How the Food Industry Pays Influencers to Shill Blueberries, Butter, and More

#26

Post by tivert »

mrguyorama wrote: post #19
Simulacra wrote: post #5

I'm amazed that people still depend on "influencers" to make decisions. After all we've seen over the last 10 years of sponsored posts, and "influencers" people still blindly follow their lead.

If you think you aren't influenced by "thought leaders" and similar, you are mistaken.

>> I'm amazed that people still depend on "influencers" to make decisions. After all we've seen over the last 10 years of sponsored posts, and "influencers" people still blindly follow their lead.

> If you think you aren't influenced by "thought leaders" and similar, you are mistaken.

That seems like a false equivalence. I think the question is about what kind of influence, not "influence, y/n?" Is it typical for "thought leaders" to be paid to dishonestly push certain ideas?

My understanding is "thought leaders" are at worst self-promoters and at best are just people with ideas they believe in. "[Social media] influencers" on the other hand, are typically paid shills.

Re: How the Food Industry Pays Influencers to Shill Blueberries, Butter, and More

#27

Post by yifanl »

tivert wrote: post #26
mrguyorama wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think you aren't influenced by "thought leaders" and similar, you are mistaken.

>> I'm amazed that people still depend on "influencers" to make decisions. After all we've seen over the last 10 years of sponsored posts, and "influencers" people still blindly follow their lead. > If you think you aren't influenced by "thought leaders" and similar, you are mistaken. That seems like a false equivalence. I think the question is about what kind of influence, not "influence, y/n?" Is it typical for "th…

> Is it typical for "thought leaders" to be paid to dishonestly push certain ideas?

Null hypothesis would imply we should treat them no different than other influencers. Unless you've evidence otherwise?

Re: How the Food Industry Pays Influencers to Shill Blueberries, Butter, and More

#28

Post by COGlory »

timvdalen wrote: post #14

I really cannot figure out the Bon Appetit site anymore. I subscribe to the magazine, and when I log in it says I'm a current subscriber, but I'm not allowed to read the online articles. Do you just need a separate subscription for the online stuff?

In a subscriber, and the link they send me to confirm the login just 404s now.

Re: How the Food Industry Pays Influencers to Shill Blueberries, Butter, and More

#29

Post by Workaccount2 »

Simulacra wrote: post #5

I'm amazed that people still depend on "influencers" to make decisions. After all we've seen over the last 10 years of sponsored posts, and "influencers" people still blindly follow their lead.

There is this raft of people out their completely divorced from any kind of level headed discussion, who live in a world entirely composed of mega-corps and influencers trying to sell them stuff. A steadfast diet of tik-tok materialism channels and whatever garbage streaming TV series.

Re: How the Food Industry Pays Influencers to Shill Blueberries, Butter, and More

#30

Post by ghaff »

tivert wrote: post #24
morsch wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty insidious. People form parasocial relationships with these social media personas. When they recommend blueberries, or a brand of lip gloss, or invasive surgery, it's like a recommendation from a friend. I doubt it's a new phenomenon -- presumably in the past people bought sneakers because some celebrity wore them or recommended them. But it's probably more ubiquitous? And I think it's easier to fool yours…

> And I think it's easier to fool yourself you have a relationship or kinship with a Instagram microcelebrity than with Micheal Jordan. That, and it's probably easier to be fooled into thinking some Instagram microcelebrity is expressing a true independent opinion rather than making a paid endorsement. I think a similar thing happened to blogs. I recall reading years ago about a "mattress blog" that presented itself…

I have trouble marshaling any outrage in this particular instance but anyone with a base level of intelligence knew that "Got Milk?" was a paid for advertising campaign while you may not know if some blog or Tik-Tok is the legit opinion of an enthusiast or is pay for play.
Post reply on HN