[HN Gopher] Paid influencers must label some posts as ads, Germa...
___________________________________________________________________
Paid influencers must label some posts as ads, German court rules
Author : DocFeind
Score : 659 points
Date : 2021-09-09 14:33 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| TamDenholm wrote:
| Tom Scott makes a good video on this subject:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-x8DYTOv7w
| fouc wrote:
| > Around the world there are regulations for "influencers", for
| people with a large audience on platforms like YouTube, or
| Instagram, or TikTok. Those regulations make sure that if
| someone is paid to endorse a product, they have to declare that
| payment to the people watching. But.. why does no-one on TV, or
| film, or anywhere else have to do that?
|
| That's a quote from near the beginning of his video.
|
| Tom Scott is supportive of declaring paid endorsements, he just
| thinks it should be declared everywhere by everyone, not just
| influencers. He gives some good examples of some TV/film that
| do declare it with a sort of watermark.
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| The "anywhere else" just isn't true. Ads on TV as well as in
| the printed press and large online platforms are labeled
| either by law or more or less formal agreements between these
| publishers.
|
| The same is true for "native content" which tries to blend
| into the site with design and format, but is still clearly
| labeled as being "sponsored by BP" or whatever.
|
| Journalists at quality publications aren't allowed to accept
| anything of actual value. So books for reviews are ok, but
| you aren't going to keep that Mercedes. For car reviews
| specifically, I remember seeing notes on them explaining that
| the publication paid travel expenses or that they accepted
| the invite to some luxurious event.
|
| It's really only the entertainment sector, especially US
| movies and series, that does product placement.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Ads on TV as well as in the printed press and large
| online platforms are labeled either by law or more or less
| formal agreements between these publishers.
|
| Ads on TV are literally placed in news (local and national)
| broadcasts with no indication that they were paid for.
| Every morning show has a segment where they shill products,
| periodic "gift guides," and people being interviewed who
| are headlining or keynoting local trade conventions and
| festivals. I don't think that there is legislation of any
| sort governing print ads; they're labeled to distinguish
| them editorially from the rest of the magazine or paper
| _for the magazine or paper 's sake_ whenever they're
| labeled. If they're disguised as a story, I've never seen
| them labeled at all.
|
| On the internet paid stories get labeled a lot more often
| these days, but the push that made that happen is part of
| the same push that made influencer labeling happen, because
| the internet, being new, is the center of a lot of moral
| panics.
| mrweasel wrote:
| > Ads on TV are literally placed in news
|
| That's pretty country specific. I'd almost assume that
| Germany prohibits that, I know Denmark does. You CANNOT
| insert ads in any way into a program. Ads must
| specifically ONLY reside in ad blocks, between programs.
|
| Which is why many of Denmark commercial TV stations
| aren't technically Danish, but they also don't produce
| news shows.
| nicbou wrote:
| Watch the video. It's pretty interesting, but it also
| addresses your comments. I watched it from Germany, and I
| found that it applies to Germany just as well as the UK
| (where it was recorded).
| zinekeller wrote:
| A bit unrelated, but if you want a overview of sponsorships in
| different media platforms across different countries (mostly
| Britain and US though), I suggest watching Tom Scott's excellent
| video: https://youtu.be/L-x8DYTOv7w.
|
| (Note that the video is ~30 minutes long. It's unfortunately that
| complicated, even when only talking rules mainly in two
| countries.)
| jedimastert wrote:
| First thing I thought of as well. The hypocrisy is a bother to
| say the least
| fnord77 wrote:
| can we stop using the euphemism "influencers"? There's several
| words in English to describe them.
|
| I like "shill"
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| warent wrote:
| I think most influencers openly communicate that they are
| sponsored. A shill intentionally obscures it.
|
| In this sense it's not a euphemism, it's just a different thing
| altogether.
| fnord77 wrote:
| until the influencers were forced to disclose they were
| sponsored (in the US), they actively obscured the fact.
|
| shills by intent
| Pxtl wrote:
| On the subject, Tom Scott has a great video on the inconsistency
| that online influencers and youtubers have to declare
| ads/product-placements while traditional media does not.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-x8DYTOv7w
| xqcgrek2 wrote:
| Why does YouTube or Instagram tolerate sponsored content?
|
| They don't get a cut from a sponsored video or product placement,
| and their dominance in the advertising space means this is also
| cutting into their ad revenue.
| asdff wrote:
| Youtube and instagram still place their own ads on sponsored
| content. I see it as youtube and instagram saving on labor
| costs since the sponsored posts are paying the influencer who
| ultimately drives engagement to the actual first party
| advertisements that make these platforms their real money. Just
| look at what gets posted as a sponsored post vs a first party
| advertisement and you can see its an entirely different
| ballgame being played and orders of magnitude different levels
| of ad spend. Sponsored posts might have some weird energy drink
| you've never heard of with vague promises of virility or other
| typical snakeoil features. The first party ad on the other hand
| will be from coca cola.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > Youtube and instagram still place their own ads on
| sponsored content
|
| The 'skip advert' button... should it skip the YouTube
| inserted sponsored content, or move to the end of the video
| entirely?
| corobo wrote:
| Sponsored content isn't locked in to YouTube
|
| The second they ban it all the creators that can afford to will
| jump ship. YouTube knows the creators that can afford to jump
| ship are also the ones keeping their lights on
|
| I have no idea the legal situation but I'd also imagine there'd
| be a safe harbour challenge in there somewhere too
| Jerry2 wrote:
| > _The second they ban it all the creators that can afford to
| will jump ship._
|
| Jump to where though? No other video platform is even close
| to the number of visitors.
|
| We really need a credible YT alternative :(
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| Instagram actually force themselves into the value chain. Also,
| if all your content creators leave then you have no content. If
| you see the "sponsored" field on Instagram then it's part of
| Facebook forcing itself into the value chain.
|
| I also suspect it's againist anti-trust to force yourself into
| that value chain and to prevent others from marketing.
| paxys wrote:
| Because then they would have to pay content creators
| themselves.
| Bayart wrote:
| Their dominance in the ad space means content creators aren't
| able to make a living without sponsorships and other sources of
| revenue (merch, patreon).
|
| Sponsorships on Youtube exploded when ad revenue cratered.
|
| Cut sponsorships away and you're basically killing the
| ecosystem.
| ajhurliman wrote:
| Sponsored content is the main income for creators, so if a
| platform banned it there would be a mass exodus and they'd lose
| their dominance.
| xqcgrek2 wrote:
| But they would earn more money from regular ad revenue,
| presumably.
|
| You're painting a rather bleak picture -- that the majority
| of creators/influencers' content is advertising. If that's
| the case, I'm not sure why Youtube/Instagram should also
| tolerate that -- it's basically spam on their platform they
| haven't curated through their ad network.
| Cederfjard wrote:
| > But they would earn more money from regular ad revenue,
| presumably.
|
| I'm not sure why you would presume that. Also, product
| placement has been a standard feature of entertainment for
| a long time. I don't see why you'd expect Google and
| Facebook to be the ones to take a stand on this, after all
| this time.
| asdff wrote:
| Youtube et al tolerate it because these influencers posts
| ultimately mean more eyes are fixed on the platform to
| watch the actual first party advertisements. Having these
| influencers rely on third party sponsored posts for their
| funding means that youtube doesn't have to pay them very
| much at all.
| cma wrote:
| And they can eventually change terms to charge a
| percentage, maybe only on the biggest channels for ease
| of enforcement, like record labels eventually started
| doing with concert tickets and merch.
| asdff wrote:
| How would they even do that? Music artists are free to
| make their own endorsements without having to pay their
| label.
| erosenbe0 wrote:
| A lot of content contains or is funded by a product
| placement but is otherwise not advertising.
|
| For example, a guy is teaching me to fix a generic,
| unbranded toilet issue but stops to mention a particular
| widget or toolbelt he is being paid to use.
|
| Next video he is teaching me to fix a sump pump and there
| again he mentions his sponsored plumbing gear.
|
| This is fine by me. I learn how to fix things and some
| plumbing widget company pays the bill.
| dathinab wrote:
| > that the majority of creators/influencers' content is
| advertising.
|
| Advertising embedded in the content as sponsor callouts and
| similar (often paying way better then YT ad sense), this
| includes showcases of sponsored content and similar.
|
| Which if it's properly labeled is not a problem.
|
| But as far as I know many big YT channels can NOT live from
| YT ad sense/network money. Some won't even get any at all
| due to YouTubes (IMHO overreaching) classification of
| content into advertisement friendly or not.
| djur wrote:
| The platform is essentially getting a cut -- their own ad
| revenue -- from content producers who are financially
| supported via sponsorship/paid content. Right now it's just
| economically not feasible for the platforms to force
| themselves into that sponsorship relationship without
| risking an exodus of their most profitable users. And
| Google doesn't really want to be in the business of
| individually managing influencers' relationships with
| brands, anyway.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Spam is something nobody wants. The influencers videos
| quite some people _want_ to see despite their sneaky ads.
| So youtube gets views, too.
| slapfrog wrote:
| > _Spam is something nobody wants._
|
| Spam is something the _recipient_ doesn 't want. What is
| or isn't spam is subjectively determined by each
| individual recipient. If spam were strictly determined by
| what _nobody_ wants, requiring complete consensus, then
| nothing would be spam because in a world of 7 billion
| people there will always be one nut who welcomes the
| unrequested solicitation.
| katbyte wrote:
| Not all sponsored ads are sneaky, a number of YouTube
| channels I watch do hilarious skits for each one at the
| end of their videos which I think is a win for everyone
| involved.
| djur wrote:
| At this point I don't think there's a single channel I
| watch that produces original content for YouTube (as
| opposed to, say, speedruns of video games or stream
| recordings) that is not sponsored. The last few holdouts
| gave in just a year or two ago. Just like podcasts,
| they'll do an ad read before, in the middle of, or after
| the video. I've gotten very used to skipping them.
| ajhurliman wrote:
| Brand deals are the majority of their income, but not the
| majority of their content. This just means the platforms
| aren't paying very much, since the platforms are
| advertising on _all_ their content and yet creators are
| managing to earn ~80% of their income through brand deals
| on a tiny fraction of their content. 58% of creators post
| 16 or less sponsored posts a year, and those with more
| followers post even less[0], while the majority of creators
| post significantly more content than that.
|
| Creators are very careful not to overwhelm their audience
| with ads; their audience (and their portability to new
| platforms/ channels) is their number one asset since they
| may need to jump to new platforms in the future as their
| channels can get demonetized/ banned for frivolous reasons.
|
| [0] https://influencermarketinghub.com/creator-earnings-
| benchmar...
| dathinab wrote:
| > _all_ their content
|
| Except if they believe you are not advertisement friendly
| content.
|
| Like any discussion or educational material about any
| touchy topic gets not ads (and there are a lot of such
| thinks).
|
| YT accidentally mistaking a think you sayd as a black
| listed swear word (even if you didn't say it and are not
| even speaking in the language its from and it just sound
| similar) => No Ad Money.
|
| Politics => No Ad Money.
|
| Covering Covid related thinks => No Ad Money.
|
| Covering local news including violence => No Ad Money.
|
| etc...
| cwkoss wrote:
| I don't think most influencers can make a living with just
| ad content. Many are using sponsorships and ada and barely
| getting by.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| And make money how? Creators are dependent on platforms to
| get and monetize attention. People aren't going to stop using
| Instagram and YouTube because a few superstars only post
| content on TikTok.
| space_fountain wrote:
| Even moderately successful YouTubers rely on sponsorship
| and because there's competition for creators between
| platforms it would take illegal coordination to present a
| united front and ban it
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Right... Like how Google and Apple and Steam and
| Microsoft and Playstation compete on transaction fees for
| their stores?
|
| If the platforms wanted to come after the money, they
| could. I suspect they're still in the growing phase. But
| I imagine in the near future, they'll start demanding all
| ads go through their platforms.
| space_fountain wrote:
| Ignoring the ongoing court cases around that it's very
| different when you have huge barriers to entry and thus
| only a few companies especially when they just have to
| follow the existing norms vs imposing a new norm. Like
| starting up a video sharing site is hard, but we've seen
| a number of examples over the past 5 years who have
| gained traction where we've seen no examples of new
| successful app stores in that time
| not2b wrote:
| Only if they aren't worried about antitrust enforcement
| against their advertising monopolies. Probably safer for
| them to let it go.
| slapfrog wrote:
| > _Even moderately successful YouTubers rely on
| sponsorship and because there 's competition for creators
| between platforms_
|
| The fact that you call them _" Youtubers"_, identifying
| them using the trademark of _one particular_ platform
| rather than a generic descriptor like "video content
| creator", suggests that there is not quite as much
| healthy competition as you claim. Most video companies
| other than youtube only compete with youtube in a narrow
| sense; a great deal of the content on youtube does not
| fit on tiktok's platform, which is only good for short-
| form content. Netflix only hosts movies or TV shows.
| Twitch is for livestreaming; other kinds of content don't
| fit into the paradigm of twitch. Vimeo has never been a
| good place for off-the-cuff home movies, they too try to
| compete with youtube only in a narrow domain, not across
| the board. The few generalist video hosting companies
| other than youtube are all jokes that are _faaar_ behind
| youtube in viewer counts.
| space_fountain wrote:
| I guess the point is that Youtube has a powerful market
| position but not an unassailable one. They can lose
| market share and pissing off a large percent of there
| content creators seems like a good way of doing that
| jollybean wrote:
| Content is King.
|
| TikTok has a fund to pay people to make content to get them
| up off the ground.
|
| Insta, despite it's growth, has a decay problem in that
| it's out of the zeitgeist of the key demos. it's growing in
| developing markets and maybe might have some incidental
| sign ups, but people are not flocking to it.
|
| And TikTok - depsite it's popularity, has a very 'fad' feel
| to it. While FB has a bit of the 'e-mail' incumbency in
| that it's how people communicate with family and user
| groups, TikTok is a bit more fleeting.
|
| These platforms would get hurt badly without a lot of those
| middle and upper tier content makers.
|
| The current situation is a rational entente actually: Insta
| makes ads, influencers can make a buck however. The more
| popular YouTubers will monetize with ads anyhow.
| kentosi wrote:
| True, but banning it would mean a drop in engagement with the
| platform, which would in turn hurt YouTube/Instagram's profits.
|
| That's my guess.
| [deleted]
| joshl325369 wrote:
| Why wouldn't they? It doesn't really hurt them.
|
| When viewers see Youtube ads, they'll be annoyed with Youtube.
| But when viewers see sponsored content, they'd be annoyed with
| the content creator. So Youtube won't get the extra flak.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Because without sponsored content, they'd have to give content
| creators a bigger cut of their own revenue.
| lampe3 wrote:
| because if you would only get money from youtube ads then you
| could not survive on it.
|
| Maybe if you are on of the 0.1% creaters but then you would
| miss out on a lot of smaller channels.
|
| Sure you have things like Patreon but its not that easy to get
| people to pay for your stuff.
|
| So in the end you will take sponsorship deals because you
| either do that or do something else.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| Digital ad campaigns are all about advanced targeting that
| influencers can't really do. Influencers are more like
| traditional media that can describe their general demographics,
| but can't precisely deliver ad dollars.
|
| For example say I follow a lot of architecture / interior
| design / construction accounts. A company that pays a
| construction influencer is going to waste their money on my
| impression -- I'm never going to buy professional-grade
| construction equipment.
|
| On the other side Instagram or whomever already knows I'm a
| white collar worker and just sends me ads for ring lights and
| laptop stands.
|
| So influencers and platforms are essentially going after
| different sets of ad dollars.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Better the devil you know?
| manigandham wrote:
| It's not really the same ad revenue. Sponsorships are
| completely different campaigns and budgets from typical
| programmatic video or companion ads run on Youtube.
|
| As far as YT is concerned, their ads pay for the hosting and
| delivery of the content, but it's the creators who actually
| create the content and they can include whatever they want (as
| long as its legal, etc) with their audience deciding if they
| want to deal with it or not.
| tmaly wrote:
| I would love to see something similar to commercial new stories.
| Have stories written by PR firms written as such. Have opinions
| labeled as such. Have speculation labeled as such.
| trevcanhuman wrote:
| Yet the TV industry is still far from done with shady
| advertising. Very Related: YouTubers have to declare ads. Why
| doesn't anyone else? [0]
|
| On another note, that is like the shortest news article ever!
| It's literally just 102 words!
|
| [0] https://youtu.be/L-x8DYTOv7w
| jjcm wrote:
| Good. I'd love if we could go further and make requirements to
| disclaim if a photo's structure has been digitally altered.
| Combining these two would be very effective in increasing clarity
| of content online.
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| This is tough.
|
| Phones do a lot of magic already.
| sofixa wrote:
| In France that's the law, you must add a label on photo / video
| ads that were digitally altered.
| kinkrtyavimoodh wrote:
| No thanks, we don't want another Prop 65 nuisance, this time
| for photos.
| mLuby wrote:
| "Results not guaranteed" "Actor portrayal" "Real users
| compensated for appearing"
|
| If _everything_ would have the warning label (like "Don't try
| this at home" or California's "known to cause cancer" signs or
| arguably GMO food labels) then people ignore it.
|
| It'd be better to know how different what's shown is from the
| median result, but that'd be hard to figure out, and if you
| could, why not just require the ads show that result instead?
| Veen wrote:
| Digitally altered from what? All digital cameras and image
| processing tools "digitally alter" images.
| jjcm wrote:
| That's why I specifically mentioned the structure of the
| image. You'd still have to differentiate lens corrections,
| but structural changes could be counted differently from
| color / sharpening corrections / standard postprocessing.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| I just assume that any time any product is promoted, that the
| person is a potential shill. It may be a cynical view, but I find
| it a cleaner metric than trusting the poster to disclose whether
| they are getting compensated for mentioning a product.
| yann2 wrote:
| Its Germany. They dont make assumptions about anything unless
| its in the rule book, as a rule.
| malandrew wrote:
| > They dont make assumptions about anything unless its in the
| rule book, as a rule.
|
| I'm curious. Is this in any German rulebook? (I secretly want
| it to be).
| dathinab wrote:
| The secret rule book was lost during WW1 which is why
| thinks went so out of hand afterwards.
|
| (Sorry for the bad joke, but as a German the though that
| there is a secret rule book which was lost in WW1 had me
| rolling, I just have no idea why??)
|
| > Is this in any German rulebook?
|
| Idk. but I feel that:
|
| - State organs often act as if it's the case.
|
| - Politicians often do some many (bad/wrong) assumptions
| hat I feel it would be better if it would be the case.
| isk517 wrote:
| In the aftermath of WW1 the secret rule book was
| accidentally allowed to become too secret.
| [deleted]
| ramoz wrote:
| Sure, but there are many people/followers who are new to some
| industry/products.
|
| I mean Im the same way, but have recently gotten into a new
| hobby where I was searching a bit to figure out my "first
| purchase." It was hard to find genuine
| content/reviews/suggestions. It's easy to stay clear of the
| affiliate/SEO sites, but it's really hard to parse what is
| sponsored or not in expert/influencer content.
| katbyte wrote:
| Indeed, and it becomes very apparent when it's a product you
| know is rubbish.
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| Nearly all Influencers in Germany as a far as I know where doing
| this. It was widely known that it would be required since it's
| required for other advertising.
| numair wrote:
| There's laws, and then there's enforcement. Let's see who gets in
| trouble, and what happens to them.
|
| We live in an era where governments are diluting the value of
| their legal frameworks through selective enforcement (SEC,
| anyone?). I don't get too excited anymore when I see these sorts
| of "protections" passed.
| websap wrote:
| If an influencer owns a brand, then are all their posts ads? How
| does that work with Instagram's algorithms, will it suppress this
| content?
| stickfigure wrote:
| Isn't there a jurisdictional problem here? I can't imagine anyone
| outside of Germany paying any attention to this.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Having your own language has its advantages. Sure, Germans are
| very active in English-speaking communities where this is
| impossible to enforce, but many people prefer German-speaking
| communities, and there these kinds of things are very
| enforceable because most German speakers actually live in
| Germany.
| zinekeller wrote:
| Unless you're in Germany or _specifically_ targeting Germans,
| nope.
|
| But some people are interested in these type of topics,
| especially when compared to (for example) America's lax
| policies (but it can't beat America's very lax policies on
| sponsorships in television and movies).
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Even if you're specifically targeting Germans. I don't see
| how international influencers could be judged against.
| dathinab wrote:
| I don't think this law has the same (intentional)
| overreaching characteristics as GDPR, i.e. it only applies
| to people "doing business" in Germany.
|
| In this end the ruling just clarifies some legal details
| about when and when not you need to label it in certain
| cases where the respective law(s) "standalone" was clear
| enough.
|
| The ruling also seems to be in general _in favor_ of
| influencers, making it clear that in certain situations
| they don 't have to label content as ads.
| Bayart wrote:
| It's typically the type of stuff that ends up becoming an EU
| norm.
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| I believe this is most common in the teenager-focused segment,
| especially young girls and cosmetics? That demographic will
| tend to prefer domestic content because the language still
| makes a difference at that age and fashion/products/culture are
| not completely universal.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| I noticed a trend of youtube now where the entire video is some
| sort of setup for a product. It will start off with some
| emotionally charged story about some personal struggle, and
| you're like okay this person is being so genuine sharing, the
| hard time they're going through. And you're feeling empathy. But
| it ends with some ad for some bullshit online coaching. Its just
| so off putting. Reminds me off that hot waitress in Mexico that
| does a shot of Tequila with you because you think she likes you.
| Later before you leave you find out it was like $40 for that
| shot. And the bouncer will kick your ass if you don't pay. The
| betrayal is real.
| eli wrote:
| US law already requires influencers to disclose ads. (And the FTC
| says that US law includes foreigners whose audience is reasonably
| likely to include Americans)
|
| https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/dis...
| purple_ferret wrote:
| How exactly do they go about enforcing this?
|
| Two recent possibilities:
|
| Steve Harvey randomly changing his twitter icon to an nft:
| https://twitter.com/IAmSteveHarvey
|
| -Seems somewhat likely to me somebody paid him to do this in
| order to pump the NFT release
|
| Steph Curry tweeting about crypto advice and then the next day
| announcing he's been hired as a 'brand ambassador' for FTX:
| https://twitter.com/StephenCurry30/status/143504771695066726...
|
| - Obviously was all set up as a marketing reveal
| k1rcher wrote:
| This is enormously surprising to me. I can't seem to find any
| links to official legal code or documents on that page (seems
| to be a guide for influencers). What I'm specifically
| interested in, is what happens when as an influencer you
| _don't_ disclose an ad? Are there fines? Is it a series of
| "stern warnings", akin to the Comcast emails you'd get for
| pirating big Hollywood studio movies from public trackers on a
| home connection? An n-strikes and you're out system?
|
| Influencers (in joint union with targeted advertisements-- and
| even more tangentially cross-site/browser/device
| fingerprinting) has made me extremely embittered and
| disillusioned to social media in general, going so far as to
| delete old accounts made while I was younger and even
| abandoning certain platforms. (early-mid-20's here btw)
| jasode wrote:
| _> What I'm specifically interested in, is what happens when
| as an influencer you _don't_ disclose an ad? Are there
| fines?_
|
| Of course, not everyone is caught and punished but if you're
| big enough to attract the scrutiny of the FTC, they do issue
| fines for not disclosing ad sponsorship. Example:
|
| https://www.marketingdive.com/news/ftc-fines-detox-tea-
| compa...
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Thanks for link! In that case, fined the company, but not
| the influencers?
|
| I mean, it makes sense, the influencers are small potatos
| in many cases just hustling to get by.
|
| But... the company probably just takes the risk as a
| potential cost of doing business (especially when
| enforcement is so rare; in this case they were fined $1
| million which isn't peanuts, but I wonder what % of their
| profits it was...), and the influencer has no incentive to
| worry about it at all unless the company paying them tells
| them to.
| fouc wrote:
| when an influencer is making $10k/mo or more, they
| probably have incorporated, or they're a sole
| proprietorship.
| beezischillin wrote:
| I've seen disclaimers in YouTube videos by just about every
| channel with a larger audience for years now. I don't really
| browse through publications on the daily enough to tell you
| about those (I get linked to articles directly most often than
| not nowadays) but I vaguely remember news about a whistleblower
| outing one of the bigger video game sites about two years ago,
| revealing that a staggering number of their posts was paid for
| advertising.
| dathinab wrote:
| German law does so too since a long time, in a way absurd
| enough that some people started labeling everything as ad as
| it's too risky for them not to do so even through they might
| not do any "advertisement" at all.
|
| The curt ruling wasn't about the curt now newly forcing posts
| to be labeled but it was about creating a bit more clarity when
| it needs to be labeled and when not.
| elif wrote:
| Yep exactly like US law forbids email, SMS, and phone spam...
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| What happens when these foreigners don't?
| krono wrote:
| "Fuck around and find out"
|
| AKA Absolutely nothing until your actions affect the wrong
| entity
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| I think this will be quite similar to non-EU business that
| do not have an actual legal foothold in the EU: nothing
| happens (because what actually could?).
|
| I am actually surprised by some US businesses (local
| newspapers for instance) that make the effort to use GDPR
| cookies instead of not giving, as you say, a fuck.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| It seems to be WILDLY unenforced then, no?
|
| In the USA, it doesn't seem to be done. I was actually shocked
| -- and then realized how naive I was -- when i was talking to
| someone at a party who had a tiktok where she reviewed garden
| products, to find out that it wasn't just "free product", she
| was literally getting paid by the companies to give them good
| reviews, and from the tiktok you wouldn't know she wasn't just
| reviewing things she had bought on her own independently.
|
| It did seem to me like this was probably a problem for the FTC,
| but I realized, oh, this is just how it's done now, nobody ever
| discloses.
| mountainb wrote:
| Most of the statutes that can only be enforced by the federal
| government are like this: it's not just the FTC.
|
| Federal law enforcement is a teensy tick on top of an
| enormous dog which is crime. The FTC is really small compared
| to its purported bailiwick. It would need more lawyers than
| the largest law firms in the US to accomplish anything close
| to its responsibilities, and it would need to duplicate the
| FBI to act as its enforcement/investigation arm. Most of the
| jobs at the FTC aren't even lawyer jobs, but are in more
| analytical roles.
| tbihl wrote:
| Unfortunately, this means that there is no equal treatment
| under the law, which means that the rule of law is only
| partial.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Now you're getting it
| eli wrote:
| The FTC doesn't move super fast, but they have done some
| enforcement actions over this: https://www.ftc.gov/news-
| events/blogs/terms/231
| jimbob45 wrote:
| FWIW, most Twitch/YT streamers I see label their sponsored
| content as #sponsored or #ad. There are certainly more
| pernicious ads that go unlabeled though,
| trey-jones wrote:
| Perhaps I'm unimaginitive, but it seems impossible to enforce
| anyway: how can you tell the difference between my verbose
| and well-thought-out positive review of a product I really
| liked, compared to someone paid to come up with their own
| positive review?
|
| Cynically, for years I've been treating pretty much every
| single product review I encounter as though it's bought by
| the manufacturer. Ya know, since the internet is a giant
| steaming pile of algorithmically generated bullshit (for the
| most part).
| karaterobot wrote:
| > how can you tell the difference between my verbose and
| well-thought-out positive review of a product I really
| liked, compared to someone paid to come up with their own
| positive review?
|
| Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but isn't this the problem of
| enforcement period? How can you tell I didn't just buy this
| garage full of Playstations and throw away the receipt? How
| can you tell he was pushed over that cliff, and he didn't
| just trip? In the case of paid advertisements, at least
| you've got a paper trail connecting the advertiser and the,
| ugh, influencer.
| suyash wrote:
| that's simple, by disclosing that it was sponsored or
| paid for. Then let readers be the judge.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| > how can you tell the difference between...
|
| Probably by finding the financial records that you received
| payment from the brand.
| [deleted]
| hollerith wrote:
| >it seems impossible to enforce anyway: how can you tell
| the difference between my verbose and well-thought-out
| positive review of a product I really liked, compared to
| someone paid to come up with their own positive review?
|
| Sting operations seem like a practical way to enforce this
| rule.
|
| (Not that I consider the rule a good one: in fact, if as
| others here say, the rule is "WILDLY unenforced" in the US,
| then I say either start enforcing it more or get rid of
| it.)
| silisili wrote:
| The law is gutless. Spend like 30s on any Youtube channel.
|
| I really wish they'd actually enforce this one.
| cma wrote:
| "This phone really shows fingerprints, so I would knock it
| down a notch, except this easily fixed with this dope x brand
| skin, so it's ok!"
| silisili wrote:
| Just recently I was trolling through youtube looking for
| tool reviews and insights. One in particular that stood out
| to me, the first video, the presenter(rather well known)
| blasted a brand of tool, saying he didn't understand why
| they even existed, seemed underpowered, overpriced, etc. A
| week later he had a video showcasing their tools, and at
| least tagged it 'sponsoredContent', as if anyone reads
| those. He featured them on about 3 more videos saying how
| surprising they are and good value. Really gross to watch.
| Youtube is about as helpful as Amazon reviews anymore.
| driverdan wrote:
| YouTube is better than the FTC at this. There are very clear
| rules for any sponsored or paid content and channels can get
| deleted if they don't follow it.
| OptionX wrote:
| With this new decision how exactly does tings work as so far as
| not giving the influencer money but other goods.
|
| For example a gaming pc brand give a fully built top-of-the-line
| in exchange for publicity. Would a video by that person on the
| brand be labeled an ad or not?
| noizejoy wrote:
| For music making products (hardware and software) it's become
| common for influencers to get products for free without
| official strings attached. Of course a bad review will most
| likely stop the free flow of products to that influencer.
|
| I'm not sure who's being scammed more, the video viewer or the
| video maker.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/pBNog
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| If she's in a swimsuit/leggings with a protein powder or some CBD
| oil in the forefront of the photo saying "thanks to @companyname"
| in the caption... it's an ad.
| prawn wrote:
| Many wouldn't be bothered by this - promoting that businesses are
| paying you to post just tells other businesses that they can do
| the same. Small time content people on Instagram would likely be
| excited to show that they are finally in the game.
|
| I have traded content for product ($100-30k travel experiences
| usually). One thing that makes this ad scenario awkward is that
| the business would ordinarily pay an agency to create the
| content. An influencer has replaced that. They are doing work and
| then showing it off, and often it's being used by the business
| going forward.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Shouldn't we assume that anything online is paid advertising? I
| mean, someone is paying for it. Same thing for newspaper and
| medias in general.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Who paid you to write that?
|
| It would be sad if we have to go down that road. There's a guy
| who maintain a website about old local railroad in my area (and
| you are NOT allowed to share his content on Facebook), no one
| is paying him anything. Should he then be forced to label his
| content as: "Not sponsored", if he don't want readers to assume
| that he's sponsored by someone?
|
| I'd say you where closer if you had suggested just labeling
| Instagram as an ad platform. Anyone with more than X number of
| follows, assume that their posts are sponsored.
| throwawaymanbot wrote:
| The Germans being sensible again. This is needed, (especially for
| the younger teen cohort who might not realize they are being used
| to garner sales/revenue).
| franciscop wrote:
| In Spain influencers are regularly breaking up to 6 laws by
| hiding they are doing ads. This is a great video, but in Spanish
| ofc:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPHeadnlKnI
| erk__ wrote:
| It's the same in Denmark usually the consumer ombudsmand first
| asks them to comply before getting the police to set up a case
| against them if they do not comply
|
| They have also set up a website where they say what a
| influencer should https://www.forbrugerombudsmanden.dk/hvad-
| gaelder/markedsfoe...
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| I have wondered for a while why the FTC isn't getting serious
| about this here.
| [deleted]
| ramboldio wrote:
| The headline in a domestic newspaper reads "There are some
| product placements that influencers do not need to label as ads"
|
| https://www.zeit.de/digital/internet/2021-09/bundesgerichtsh...
|
| :D
|
| it's all about framing
| k__ wrote:
| What does _" ubertrieben werblich"_ even mean?
|
| Did those people read any Apple fanboy blogs lately? These
| people actually pay Apple AND write overboarding positive
| reviews.
| 5faulker wrote:
| That's the zeitgeist.
| dang wrote:
| Hmm - ok, I've squeezed a 'some' up there to make it less
| misleading. Thanks!
| dathinab wrote:
| I just read the article and from the facts listed in it the
| decision seems fairly reasonable.
|
| Hopefully this will generate a bit more legal reliability for
| them. The current legal situation was (and probably still is)
| somewhat absurd.
| qwertox wrote:
| > it's all about framing
|
| My pet peeve are the news snippets in Google Discover or Google
| News, which then lead to a paywalled article.
|
| From my point of view these snippets are all ads for the
| newspaper or magazine which is promoting them by giving Google
| access to index them.
|
| One could argue that they are not actively promoting their
| articles, that it is Google who is "stealing" the content and
| publishing it, but then again, they want to be monetized
| through the "Leistungsschutzrecht" (Ancillary copyright for
| press publishers), so they are well aware that having their
| articles indexed is beneficial to them. They might as well add
| a robots.txt file, which is respected by Google.
|
| They are also formatting their articles in such a way, that the
| snippets are as attractive as possible, which becomes obvious
| when you read an article and have the feeling that you're
| reading 3 times the same content until you get to the real
| information.
|
| These snippets are clearly ads and Google should have to label
| them as such, unless the content is free-to-view.
| w-m wrote:
| This is a better headline, as it clarifies the situation. The
| Reuters headline, that influencers must label posts as ads when
| money changes hands, is not really news - the law was voted on
| this June, and goes into effect at the beginning of next year.
| growt wrote:
| The ruling was actually in favor of influencers, as before
| almost everything had to be labeled as an ad. Now there is a
| ruling that makes a lot of exceptions. So the headline you
| cited is closer to the truth IMHO.
| [deleted]
| pacman2 wrote:
| Many [German] influencers don't even live in Germany. The German
| court thinks again it can rule the world with its ruling. Good
| luck with that.
| netcan wrote:
| 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 competitors down. The process will
| take years, the roll out will be gradual....
|
| "Influencers" or really anyone selling content via platforms can
| have rules slapped onto them by either the state or the platform
| without notice, lots of potential for revenue disruption... It's
| easy to belittle the little, and this article kind does it too:
| _" The court said one fitness influencer should have been clear
| she was advertising when she was paid to promote a brand of
| jam."_
|
| Meanwhile.. FB, Adwords and such got decades of lead time.
| Extreme tolerance of various dubious practices as regulation
| designed to be business friendly at the cost of timeliness &
| effectiveness was slowly formulated. No parliament demands Fast
| and Furious post little notices, nor have they over decades.
| moksly wrote:
| 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 options to ignore advertisers or setup personal preferences.
|
| I'm not going to defend Google or Facebook, but they didn't add
| those things because they wanted to. They added them because
| their platforms would be banned from Europe if they didn't.
|
| Influencers are actually some of the only advertisers who
| aren't well regulated in Europe, and it's honestly a real issue
| when they have more reach than national television stations.
|
| In Denmark alone we've had issues with influencers advertising
| plastic surgery or sugar dating to teenagers and below. Things
| that are extremely illegal through any other medium, but
| because "influencers" fall outside of traditional law, it's
| been very hard to stop them with the legalisation that we have.
| In fact they have only been stopped by being publicly shamed in
| other media, causing them so much bad press that nobody wanted
| to pay them to advertise things.
|
| So it's actually quite the opposite, but I'll be the first to
| agree that the platforms should also be held into account for
| the things they allow influencers to post. Not a very popular
| opinion on HN, but as far as I'm concerned Europe would lose
| nothing by kicking non-EU software companies where it hurts.
| jand wrote:
| I did not read netcan's statement as the thesis that there is
| no legislation regarding "big corps" in the EU. I read it as
| a statement about speed and willingness regarding the
| establishment of new laws or law changes.
|
| Whether the statement i interpreted is true i cannot tell,
| but it would be interesting to have data points on it.
| random314 wrote:
| Makes sense, especially when it is so difficult to tell apart
| Google search results from Ads.
| Shish2k wrote:
| Sounds like influencers need to form a union?
| charlchi wrote:
| Irrelevant. The people who own the most morally corrupt and
| toxic companies, that are destroying the planet, have all the
| money in the world to advertise and influence "organically"
| when everything they do is as inorganic and unnatural as it
| gets.
|
| Industrialists will be first to the guillotine(in Minecraft of
| course).
| exporectomy wrote:
| Who cares if they're the little guy. The influencers are lying
| to their followers to fool them into wasting their money, so
| they can profit. Little guys also includes shoplifters and con-
| men. They're still bad for others.
| oehpr wrote:
| Well, I think the point here is that you don't become good or
| evil, or do harm or not do harm, by virtue of being big or
| small. Yet that seems to be the primary axis on whether
| legislation pampers its target or not.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| You're right, but it's worth pointing out that the other party
| being slowed down by these rules are corporations that are
| paying influencers to post ads, some of which are quite large.
| They're losing a source of sneaky ads hidden as genuine
| personal endorsement.
| phatfish wrote:
| I wouldn't call Instagram influencers the "little guy", many
| are millionaires (either off the back of social media or old
| school Kardashian style). They milk their fans through
| unregulated advertising and get richer.
|
| With the attitude that regulation disproportionately effects
| start-ups or small businesses no regulation would ever end up
| law, which seems to be the point of this style of comment.
| varsketiz wrote:
| In the past big monopolies have been dismantled. See for
| example AT&T. Google, Facebook, Amazon, they exist for a
| relatively short period of time. Don't you think they will also
| be dismantled in the next 10-30 years?
| glugc wrote:
| If you cannot see by yourself when an "influencer" is showing you
| an ad you are not the sharpest tool in the shed
| jacobmischka wrote:
| I follow some somewhat popular accounts who occasionally
| advocate for a product they enjoy even though they aren't being
| paid to. It would be nice to know for sure when the sentiment
| is legitimate or bought.
| the-dude wrote:
| Is it still a sentiment if it is bought?
| jacobmischka wrote:
| Most ads include feigned sentiment, in my experience.
| glugc wrote:
| The result is that those influencers will be paid under the
| table and won't label their posts as ads.
| Larrikin wrote:
| That's literally the point of this thread, to make that
| illegal since the only valid meaning of under the table is
| illegally paying a wage.
| bildung wrote:
| Just compare German and US influencer spam to see that laws
| like this actually have an effect.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Yes, that's the problem they're trying to address. As George
| Carlin said "Think of how stupid the average person is, and
| realize half of them are stupider than that."
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| Many children can't.
| glugc wrote:
| Children shouldn't use social networks without adult
| supervision.
| 0des wrote:
| Children do a lot of things they shouldn't do, often with
| their parents enabling them.
| [deleted]
| pope_meat wrote:
| That's not how the real world works though. I was raised by
| the internet because both my parents had to work nonstop
| just to keep a roof over our heads. We'd need to make a lot
| of changes to how society functions to allow for that level
| of parenting.
|
| But hey I turned out okay! (Not really)
| codr7 wrote:
| Many children are "influencers", often with parental support.
|
| It's a very weird world out there.
| lazybreather wrote:
| This!
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Many people aren't very bright. Does that mean we should let
| them be abused?
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| if it means taking away my right to do X (where my doing X
| doesn't endanger others), then yes
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| Let's paint a story.
|
| You are looking at a tool review channel. Most of the tools are
| items that the creator had in his shed.
|
| Suddenly, one of the screwdrivers he reviews doesn't look as
| useful as the others and is clearly pristine. It is clearly an
| advertisement. The product is new because it was donated by a
| brand and the review is better than usual because of that.
|
| Except that this is not the case.
|
| The screwdriver was recently given to him for Christmas by
| their wife and the creator is emotionally attached to it,
| explaining why they review it more positively than previous
| items on the channel.
|
| Meanwhile, he was wearing a new belt. The belt was donated by a
| clothing company in exchange for positive exposure. It is
| identical to his other belts with the brand name visible on the
| buckle, except that it has a magnet on the side to attach
| screws. No mention is made of the belt other than the fact it
| is used in the video.
|
| The ads are not as easy to detect as one might think.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-09 23:00 UTC)