Live data from Hacker News

Paid influencers must label some posts as ads, German court rules

reuters.com

181–184 of 184 posts

Re: Paid influencers must label some posts as ads, German court rules

#181
post #154
post #136

Whether or not these influencers should have to label ads is one thing. But... I'll note how "little guy" regulation works relative to major players. You don't see court, legislature decisions, or such upending the business model of a FB, Google or whatnot. Every word will be negotiated, Google and/or FB will have control over implementation. Often, the regulation will be a net positive, given that it can slow small…

This is frankly not true in a lot of European countries. Google, Facebook and every other company cannot advertise things like toys, tobacco or alcohol to children here in Denmark, and they have to clearly tell you which parts are advertising and which aren’t. This is why Facebook has an “suggested” and an “advertising tag, that you can even click on to be told what metrics decided that you should see it. As well as…

> Influencers are actually some of the only advertisers who aren’t well regulated in Europe,

When was the last time you saw product placements being clearly labeled in TV shows/movies? For most people, the answer is "never".

Just because we are used to it doesn't mean it's fair. Tom Scott explains it much better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-x8DYTOv7w

Re: Paid influencers must label some posts as ads, German court rules

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, this means that there is no equal treatment under the law, which means that the rule of law is only partial.

Now you’re getting it

then the question that will never be solved: scale down/simplify the laws to what can be enforced, or exoand the bureaucracy to try to meet the demand signal...

Re: Paid influencers must label some posts as ads, German court rules

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AT&T just re-merged after the break-up, so it’s a bad example. See the diagram: https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/24/13389592/att-time-warner...

Not sure why it's a bad example. 35 years later it did not "just re-merged", it still is in a few pieces. You need to think about how the present would look like if there was no breaking up. And that present likely would not have google, fb, amazon - only AT&T.

The diagram has 3 input companies and 3 output companies, so at a surface level it seems nothing has changed. Even Google Fiber couldn’t compete with the big guys because (at least partially) these utility companies are so entrenched in lobbying etc.

I don’t doubt the break-ups are effective in the short term, but the long-term behavior in this case seems to be less affected.

Post reply on HN