31–40 of 182 posts
As far as I can see this is a non-Governmental non-profit doing this. So it has no legal merit. Can’t tell if this is the ad industry attempting to self-regulate? The Wikipedia articles are quite mealy. I do tend to agree with the findings, regardless.
Indeed. It's one of those "we joined this program so now you all can see we are very committed to ensure our consumers are well protected" non-profit organisations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
So if you donate money to charity then you get a pass on obeying the law and general morals? Is this like indulgences from the Pope? How much does a murder cost?
As far as I can see this is a non-Governmental non-profit doing this. So it has no legal merit. Can’t tell if this is the ad industry attempting to self-regulate? The Wikipedia articles are quite mealy. I do tend to agree with the findings, regardless.
It has no legal weight. Lave of legal merit is a feature of a legal argument and is missing if the argument improperly represents the law, not if it comes from a source that doesn’t provide it legal weight. (Since you later say you agree with it. that is equivalent to saying that, insofar as it is a legal argument, that argument does have legal merit.)
> Can’t tell if this is the ad industry attempting to self-regulate?
No, it is a non-advertising industry non-profit doing research and reporting to the public, which potentially puts political pressure on government actors (State Attorneys-General and, maybe, the FTC) to take action (it could also provide ammunition for private lawsuits, except COPPA doesn’t provide a private cause of action.)
Note that a part of COPPA regulation is a Safe Harbor provision which involves industry self-regulation and certification, but that only protects against FTC, not state, action.
is there a name for the phenomenon where you get so tired of seeing someones face pop up over and over and over that you start to hate the person and despite their good deeds feel no remorse for them when they end up in trouble?
Even if 215M in revenue on chocolate bars suggests that they might be perfectly capable of funding all their $5K and $10k givaways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When it comes to people that wealthy, the money they're using for their "good deeds" are the bare minimum they think they need to get you off their case. So when you say "I don't think someone should be a billionaire, that means something has gone seriously wrong" they can point to how he filmed himself giving a homeless guy a house.
In the case of MrBeast it's not even really reputation laundering, he's just an algorithm goblin who iterated through different shticks until landing on giveaways and contests as the things which consistently brought in the most clicks. I don't think he was even that rich when he started doing them, as far as I can tell his first ever prize was just two $50 iTunes gift cards while still recording in his bedroom, and…
To be fair, this is apparently table stakes for being a YouTuber at the moment. Maybe not hundreds but definitely several. Veritasium did a video [0] about how he has to do this to maintain enough viewership to keep YouTubing viable as a full-time job.