[HN Gopher] YouTubers have to declare ads. Why doesn't anyone el...
___________________________________________________________________
YouTubers have to declare ads. Why doesn't anyone else? [video]
Author : zinekeller
Score : 240 points
Date : 2021-02-15 17:01 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| natureboy21 wrote:
| Because regulations are primarily about protecting the status quo
| in an industry and best case only distantly secondarily about
| protecting consumers
| whatshisface wrote:
| A slight inclination to protect consumers from the worst
| excesses of the regulated stems from a desire to prevent the
| public from getting mad enough to demand change. The distant
| second, therefore, follows the first.
| ymbeld wrote:
| I think advertisement should be banned outright. Wouldn't miss
| it.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| I have to admire Tom Scott for his monologues. Long, edit free,
| pieces to camera are a really pro move, and so rare on YouTube.
| There is so much prep needed to make that happen. What a star.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| He'll often include a little bit at the end of him verbally
| celebrating when he gets it in one take, and it's always
| delightful.
| [deleted]
| eCa wrote:
| Tom Scotts channel is pretty much filled with short, nerdy and
| well-made videos. Highly recommended.
| unfunco wrote:
| He's a national treasure.
| wendyshu wrote:
| Why national?
| ymbeld wrote:
| Pretty overrated.
| jariel wrote:
| This guy is an amazing content creator why doesn't the BBC pick
| him up?
|
| There's a guy called 'Captain Disillusion' or something like that
| who makes these amazing shows about visual effects that remind me
| of some of the scientific programming on CBC when I was younger.
| Why don't they pick him up? His 1-man show is better than most of
| their expensive content.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Disillusion
| progre wrote:
| Tom Scott had a TV career I think? I doubt he'd be interested
| in taking it up again, seeing that he does quite well for
| himself on youtube.
| rcxdude wrote:
| It's entirely possible they wouldn't be interested. The
| successful youtube channels can easily pull in more than they
| would be paid on the BBC, and they would have less control over
| what they are creating. (For an example who have explicitly
| talked about this: the people behind the Corridor Digital
| channel recently got very close to signing a deal to produce a
| film with a traditional hollywood source, but decided against
| it to go their own way independently)
| jariel wrote:
| That makes sense, but that gives him a lot of leverage.
|
| He can get a fat cheque, with a big production team and set
| his own terms if he's in a position to do it.
|
| Or - he can literally make the same stuff, but have it under
| BBC terms.
|
| I feel there is something better than YouTube for these types
| of shows.
|
| I think the jump between TT/YT and broadcast is too big.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Depends on your country; I'm quite happy with the UK's
| restriction on adverts, including a ban on advertising
| prescription meds at all, and restrictions on product placement.
| globular-toast wrote:
| If you watch the video you'll see examples showing that law has
| essentially disappeared in the UK. I haven't watched TV for
| more than a decade so I was unaware of this, but it's clear
| that TV in the UK can now do product placement, even on the
| BBC.
| rozab wrote:
| Part 4, starting at 18:03, details how UK TV shows can
| completely bypass the rules. I found it very convincing, and I
| now think our rules are insufficient.
| fsckboy wrote:
| just to be clear, the video/blogger that this discussion is
| about is also from the UK and this video is about his
| unhappiness
|
| figured i'd just edit my comment here to add another topic: the
| video says the lyric "does your Spearmint lose its flavor on
| the bedpost..." was changed to "chewing gum" because Spearmint
| was a trademark, which was banned on UK radio. The wikipedia
| article does not mention Spearmint being a trademark.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearmint Anybody know the story?
| [did more research, perhaps the answer is that Wrigley's
| trademarked the "arrow" design surrounding the word spearmint
| on the label, the arrow presumably an analogy to a "spear"]
| dcomp wrote:
| Most likely because spearmint was short for Wrigley's
| spearmint which was trademarked. I don't think spearmint
| chewing gum was a generic term at the time. Similar to how
| sellotape(TM) was trademarked but now cellotape is a generic
| term.
| [deleted]
| Jiocus wrote:
| I think it's the other way around. The BBC public radio are
| (were?) not allowed to condone -any- private businesses or
| products.
|
| Then it get's a bit tricky. Trademarks are a consumer
| protection device which affords the consumer to differentiate
| between competing products.
|
| As the song appeals to a chewing gum, and it's assumed that
| the general public are aware of one brand, two brands or 50
| brands of spearmint-flavoured chewing gums for purchase - the
| radio may reason that the lyric would be unfit according to
| their mission.
|
| It's less about any actual trademark such as a Spearmint(r)
| Chewing Gum, than it is a public association to some marketed
| goods (and the BBC's stated mission to not condone such).
|
| This is just a random reasoning of mine, so a grain of salt
| etc.
|
| This entry mentions this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Does_
| Your_Chewing_Gum_Lose_Its..., but the issue is marked
| 'dubious'.
| earthboundkid wrote:
| That the US allows ads for prescription drugs is totally
| indefensible. When I lived in Japan, it took me a while before
| I realized that all the drug ads were ending with the
| equivalent of "over the counter" because advertising
| prescription drugs was illegal. Once I figured it out, it made
| me wonder why the US would possibly have a different law. It's
| crazy!
| wendyshu wrote:
| What's wrong with ads for drugs?
| p1necone wrote:
| Because prescription drugs are supposed to be prescribed by
| a doctor with actual medical knowledge. Average joes
| watching ads shouldn't be deciding what _prescription_
| drugs their doctor gives them.
| [deleted]
| m463 wrote:
| It's interesting to go elsewhere in the world and see
| advertisements for say hard alcohol.
| Animats wrote:
| The US has ads for hard alcohol. They were never illegal,
| but it took until 1996 until the booze industry decided
| that they weren't going to trigger a return to Prohibition
| by advertising on TV.
| m463 wrote:
| I haven't seen any, where would you look?
| tekromancr wrote:
| I see ads like that all the time. Never see anyone
| drinking the product, just sophisticated looking adults
| mingling intercut with shots of liquors being poured into
| glasses.
|
| And then a voice at the end saying "please drink
| responsibily"
| [deleted]
| Animats wrote:
| Prescription ads to consumers were legalized in the US in
| 1985. "Deregulation", it was called.
|
| Only the US and New Zealand allow this.
| rhino369 wrote:
| It didn't really take off in the USA until the FDA loosed
| side-effect notification rules in 1997. Literally overnight
| a huge number of TV commercials started playing.
| deelowe wrote:
| Yep, I remember when this happened. Viagra seemed to be
| the main driver "little blue pill."
| pessimizer wrote:
| Don't forget Prozac.
| cortesoft wrote:
| The 'defense' is the first amendment. It would violate it if
| you prevented people from telling other people about their
| products.
| heymijo wrote:
| When was the last time you saw a cigarette ad on TV?
|
| Commercial speech in the United States has limitations.
| Historically commercial speech was not protected by the 1st
| amendment. Protections and limitations have largely been
| established over the past 50 years in Supreme Court rulings
| [0].
|
| [0] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/939/corporate-
| speec...
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| I've heard that argument and but it really doesn't stand up
| to scrutiny. You also have a right to run a business and
| sell things - such as prescription medication - but that
| hasn't stopped the government from (too heavily, imho)
| restricting that.
| parhamn wrote:
| The US constitution explicitly grants regulation of
| commerce to Congress (see the commerce clause). Whereas
| the constitution explicitly prohibits the abridging of
| the freedom of speech through law.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Yes, but let's not pretend there's "absolute" freedom of
| speech even here in the United States. Cigarette
| manufacturers no longer have "freedom of speech" to
| advertise their products with anthropomorphized cartoon
| characters and relaxing artwork depicting tropical
| getaways, even though their product is more "freely
| available" than 5mg of Propranolol, but somehow
| Tofacitinib1 ("serious side effects may include
| infections, cancer, and pulmonary embolism") is spammed
| on every channel.
|
| 1 I have absolutely nothing against what I'm sure is a
| very fine drug - it was merely the first result in my
| search for "most advertised prescription medication" and
| I'm sure that the side effects are _not_ representative
| of typical outcome and that someone suffering from
| serious rheumatoid arthritis is better off taking the
| drug than not.
| parhamn wrote:
| > Yes, but let's not pretend there's "absolute" freedom
| of speech even here in the United States.
|
| This isn't whats happening is it? The exemptions to free
| speech are well known and taught in entry level civic
| classes [1]. There are quite a few. Whats happening here
| is another discussion on the intricacies of free speech
| (which have hundreds of pages of professional opinion and
| case law for each exemption) full of nuance. However
| here, as is the case for most discussion forums, you can
| only fall into two groups: anarchist or fascist.
|
| Heres a more honest view: given free speech laws in the
| US it's not clear what we should or what is right to do
| with regards to advertising medicine. We will probably
| have a populist exemption when it's needed, as we have in
| the past.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_spee
| ch_exce...
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| But that was the point I was trying to make when you
| first replied to me. It's freedom of speech to the extent
| "we" (the people and their representatives) allow,
| meaning the first amendment isn't an absolute barrier to
| preventing the enforcement of a law "for the common good"
| (and the abuse that automatically entails, cf anything
| regarding encryption and the prevention of the
| distribution of child pornography) and it can accordingly
| make room for outlawing anything from PACs to advertising
| prescription medication.
| [deleted]
| anonymfus wrote:
| A person exercises their freedom of speech when they say
| whatever they want. The advertisement is when somebody is
| paid to say something with implication that they don't want
| to say that, as otherwise they would not be paid. So
| advertisement is an opposite of the freedom of speech.
|
| P. S.: I am watching the video and Tom Scott gives a very
| similar definition of advertisement at 3:44, and basically
| the whole video is about how that logic is applied in
| British and American laws.
|
| P. P. S.: I am now at the last section "The Land Of The
| Free" (24:47) where Tom Scott talks specifically about
| freedom of speech in US, and basically everything in this
| thread is brought up by him.
| nulbyte wrote:
| The defenses I've seen are less about free speech and more
| to the tune of "doctors can't possibly know everything, so
| you should ask them in case they haven't looked into it."
| Frankly, if you think a TV advert does a better job at
| informing you about medical research then your doctor, who
| spent tons to graduate and more still on continuing
| education to maintain a license, you probably need new
| doctor.
| dawnerd wrote:
| I've heard another defense that's pretty laughable. Goes
| something like, the ads tell people about conditions they
| might have but not realize.
|
| I fully think we should be banning prescription drugs.
| There's precedent already for banning product ads - tobacco
| ads are no longer allowed for example.
| bryan0 wrote:
| I think the more charitable interpretation of this
| defense is: Ads tell people about conditions they might
| have, but not realize there is an available drug that can
| treat it. Or at least an encouragement to talk to their
| doctor about it.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| If your condition isn't bothersome enough that you need
| an ad to prompt you to mention it to your doctor, perhaps
| it's not _really_ an issue.
|
| I think a lot of these ads prod hypochondriacs to rush to
| their doctor (or perhaps even the ER) to "tell them about
| their symptoms" which just drives up costs for everyone.
| an_opabinia wrote:
| I don't know. Ads for monoclonal antibody therapies against
| COVID would probably save lives - by convincing doctors to
| use them. Smoking cessation products (they are prescribable
| for insurance reimbursement purposes) definitely save lives.
| Lots of smokers in Japan. What about PReP? It's prescription
| only. Lofexidine? It's not so black and white. If your
| conclusion is, make stuff over the counter, I feel like
| you're missing the point. Of course promoting drugs _that
| work_ are a great outcome. Like what are we even talking
| about?
| gjulianm wrote:
| > by convincing doctors to use them.
|
| I don't think it's patients the ones that need to convince
| the doctors of what to use. If anything, patients demanding
| solutions without any knowledge of whether they're useful
| or not would make treatment much more difficult.
|
| > Smoking cessation products
|
| A lot of smoking cessation products are over the counter.
| Here in Spain I see ads about them, and we have the same
| prohibition of adverts of prescription meds.
|
| > What about PReP? It's prescription only
|
| Sexual education covers this, no need to monetize ads. Not
| to mention that the return on investment on an anti-HIV
| medication is probably not ideal
|
| > Lofexidine
|
| Again, I doubt the market for opioid withdrawal meds is
| high enough.
|
| > Of course promoting drugs that work are a great outcome.
| Like what are we even talking about?
|
| Doctors are the one that prescribe drugs, not patients. Why
| would you need to market a prescription drug that one takes
| only after a doctor visit to patients? They are not the
| ones making the decision on the drug. They do not have the
| information required to evaluate whether the drug is
| appropriate or not.
|
| At best, ads for prescription drugs will be useless because
| it's the doctor that makes the decision. At worst it
| encourages self-medication and forces doctors to make non-
| optimal choices due to patient pressure. The only ones that
| stand to benefit from prescription drugs ads are
| pharmaceutical companies and ad agencies.
| tzs wrote:
| In case the title might lead to you expect he's arguing for the
| rules for social media influencers to be loosened to match those
| of movies and TV and radio, it is actually the opposite. He
| argues that those other media should also have the stricter
| disclosure requirements that current only apply to social media.
|
| The video is fairly long (about 30 minutes), but goes into a lot
| of the history of advertising (explicit, product placements, paid
| endorsements, etc) in radio, TV, and movies in order to make a
| thorough case.
| dheera wrote:
| "You have to declare that" Excuse me for my ignorance but why
| is this important? I usually assume any review from someone I
| don't know personally is potentially sponsored, so I don't
| really care if they declare it or not. If everyone were taught
| to make that assumption this wouldn't be an issue.
|
| The way I see it, if people listen to influencer bullshit,
| they're going to get sold on shitty products and that's their
| problem. I don't listen to influencers, I listen to friends and
| coworkers who can give me an honest review that I trust.
| zouhair wrote:
| Please watch the video before arguing about something that he
| clearly explained.
| dheera wrote:
| I watched the video. Not sure why there's an assumption
| that I didn't, and I don't think my question is answered.
| tinco wrote:
| Imagine what would happen if this became a thing for TV and
| movies. Whenever Iron Man would pull up to the Avengers head
| quarters, you'd get a message "This scene is sponsored by Audi
| AG". Every war movie would have a "Vehicles and props kindly
| provided by the US Armed Forces".
|
| And those are just the obvious ones. It would be super funny if
| they'd have to do it retroactively.
| pydry wrote:
| They'd just tack it on the credits at the end.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| They already do, the video actually shows that. The video
| is arguing that they should have to do it the way social
| media "influencers" have to, either while the product is on
| screen, or clearly up font at the beginning (the way TV
| ratings are shown)
| tsimionescu wrote:
| It would hopefully reduce the value of those ads, so it may
| turn at least a few away. That would be a great thing!
| thebrain wrote:
| I get what he's trying to say but the fact is that the two
| mediums are different.
|
| I know when I watch a TV show, large sums of money went into
| making the show I'm watching due to the history of television.
| Writers, actors, set builders, etc. were all paid during the
| production of a TV show and I know commercials and product
| placements paid for all of it.
|
| When I watch something on YouTube, my first inkling is to think
| I'm watching some bloke with a webcam making a video in his
| basement. The history of YouTube causes me to think that the
| person on YouTube operates all by themselves just for the fun
| of it. While I know that that's not the case anymore the
| historic perception is still there, that's what the rules are
| meant to protect general public against.
|
| YouTube creates a different kind of relationship between viewer
| and content creator, one that's particularly intimate and
| consequently persuasive.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| This argument would be valid if not for the rise of reality
| TV. There's a while genre of shows made to seem "unscripted"
| when in reality they're almost entirely artificial. Something
| like pawn stars is a great example of this[1]. Viewers are
| led to believe that it's actually organic content, and more
| naive viewers could easily fall for this falsehood.
|
| [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z31G3Ct98EM
| dna_polymerase wrote:
| On the contrary, I think that TV paid product placements are
| often way more subtle. On social media and YouTube it's
| really in your face full on ads.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > YouTube creates a different kind of relationship between
| viewer and content creator, one that's particularly intimate
| and consequently persuasive.
|
| It may, but should that relationship be enforced? Letting
| well-backed productions get away with not disclosing while
| the less well-backed have extra rules they have to follow is
| just favoring incumbents. It's similar to the discussion
| surrounding "real journalism" and bloggers/youtubers.
| tekromancr wrote:
| In BOTH the UK and US contexts, too! Pretty comprehensive
| soheil wrote:
| Several issues with this A) who are the regulators? Typically
| these are elected officials that at least half of the population
| typically doesn't see eye to eye with, think left vs right. So
| why do they get to decide what is "in the interest of the
| public"? B) what makes undisclosed product placement so
| inherently evil or at least more evil than normal advertisement?
| There are extremely deceptive advertising techniques, just
| because you are aware something is an ad doesn't mean you can be
| fully aware of the manipulation tactics used against you, many
| can be very subtle. So to paint the whole thing with such broad
| brush and assume one just needs a binary answer to know if
| something is an ad or not assumes all ads are created with the
| same level of deceptiveness. C) finally people with "power and
| money" will find a way to communicate their message regardless,
| you can make it more difficult or expensive for them to do so,
| but at the end of the day that cost has to be imposed on someone
| and that is typically the consumer.
|
| I also find Tom Scott's videos highly well presented and produced
| but they lack the same level of quality when it comes to the
| concepts discussed in them.
| mlinksva wrote:
| Strikes me as another way broadcast/studio media (and associated
| formats) escapes scrutiny and regulation directed at internet. As
| the influencer says at the end of the video, they should play by
| the same rules.
|
| Is there a text equivalent of this video? A bunch of sources are
| listed under the video, but none is an overview.
| ggggtez wrote:
| Use the "..." menu below the video, and click "Open
| Transcript".
| Shivetya wrote:
| Traditional media is using their influence to lead regulation
| of social media under the guise of protecting people from fake
| news after having that same prove their bias and even outright
| falsification of the news; does a month go by where a major
| news outlet doesn't have to restate a story? Fake news or
| declaration something is fake news is no different than product
| placement. News organizations sell authenticity which they use
| to make money from actual product placement and many companies
| desire to advertise through certain outlets as they seem some
| more desirable than others.
|
| At times in my local paper the small print stating a story is
| paid placement is easily overlooked but these stories tend to
| only occur on weekends
|
| However we have to admit that product placement in some movies
| and television shows has approached meme quality to where the
| products were more talked about than the show they were on.
|
| On a side note, a friend who does stream on twitch has to be
| explicit when being paid to play a game or even given a free
| key. they also prevent give away contest from being limited to
| subscribers.
| franciscop wrote:
| In the web in fact they also declare ads, that's why they have a
| little "Ad" besides their entry on Google Search or on Google
| Adsense (and FB? I don't use FB anymore but IIRC also there). Not
| sure if this is actually regulated, or comes from the "better
| ads" the Adblock industry created, or both.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Google pretty much created the status quo on that one.
|
| Earlier search engines didn't mark results that had paid to
| rank higher.
|
| Regulators across the world weren't paying attention to the
| internet at the time. I'm sure if Google decided to remove that
| word "Ad", regulators would start paying attention.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-15 23:01 UTC)