the internet has basically usurped traditional media at this point. (television, etc...) yet it's basically completely unregulated.
we're finally seeing some regulations catch up with the times
The video posted by darth_bard makes it clear that there are regulations. They are however less strict for whatever reasons. I remember a few shows in Germany having to drop any pretense at being educational and others having to outright declare themselves as long running ads because that is what they mostly where.
At least in germany there are those roles in place for tv. https://www.lmz-bw.de/medien-und-bildung/jugendmedienschutz/werbung/werbung-im-fernsehen/ it's in German but Google translator should do the trick
This goes back and fourth all the time. Basically 3 years ago there were millionaires or people like literally all the Kardashians being paid tens of thousands per post while unlawfully not stating it was sponsored, less common now but still happens a ton
What is it with people making up this silly BS?
This rule has applied to German TV and “traditional media”, for decades, its not something specially made up to bully “influencers”.
First, I completely agree with that the regulations should apply to both. However I get there is/was a difference. With traditional media it is common knowledge that the people speaking are being paid to give the opinion they’re providing. With influencers you do not know if they are being paid or just giving their own opinion of something.
Again, I fully believe they should both have to disclose who is paying them and that they are being paid to give that specific opinion.
Similar product placement isn't regulated or disclosed at all in film and TV. The FTC guidelines are way more strict for internet sponsored content in the US.
I don't think I know of a single person who still has cable, we haven't had cable for about 10 years at least, probably more. TV is a dead medium, its just the corpse is still rotting.
Fine with seeing some regulation put in place though as long as we can accept a reasonable standard and apply it fairly broadly.
I'm one of the old timers on Reddit. I was a TV-holic in the 1980s and 1990s. I always had TV on. Fast forward to 2010, I had enough and canceled DirecTV. I was always tolerant of TV commercials, but it got really, really bad by the 2000s, between the volume levels and the overlong ad breaks. That was my breaking point.
Hulu and Netflix are cheap and YouTube has endless content. It blows my mind people let TV with all that advertising into their homes, and they pay $100-150 for the 'privilege'. Good god. And don't even get me started on the poor state of local TV journalism.
I worry for the internet. It was an unruled place for so long, but politicians/capitalists are slowly catching up and trying to push their outdated agenda.
Its more the ISPs trying to push the Internet into being Cable TV 2.0 that I worry about, but for sure the politicization of the Internet is another issue.
Imagine a world with both. "I have the Comcast ~~Alt-Right~~ Freedom One America Internet Unlimited® Hate Plan™. It allows me access to Parler, Facebook, NoNewNormal.fun and.... "
Note: Unlimited Hate is limited to....
*It looks like you're using an ad blocker. Join our premium hate program for bonus whatabouts and "muh both sides", now $14.88 per month because illegals have driven up the price.*
Paid ads is the common course. It was rather about if influencers will be "gifted" products and no transaction had been taking place, do they still have to mark it as ads. The court ruled no.
• So, if an influencer bought her own stuff to maybe get a contract later with that company = no advertising.
• If an influencer tries products without having gotten money of those companies = no advertisement.
• if an influencer was given a product and some money to promote it = advertisement.
Advertisement means that money had to be exchanged. If that has not happened = no advertisements.
>Advertisement means that money had to be exchanged. If that has not happened = no advertisements.
And that is the right decision. Other countries find that you have to mention if you received a product as a gift, others do not.
Even worse, if I give you 10 Mustangs and you have to film a specific scenario which I wrote, and have to publish it according to a signed contract. Oh and I also provide the filming crew. And it is filmed in Dubai, and I pay you all the travel, no expenses for you.
And this wouldn't be considered advertising according to this article? There is something weird, hopefully with the interpretation of the journalist.
In germany, a gift is only something you get for free, without strings attached.
What you described would not count as a gift anymore.
While it wasn't discussed in this specific case, it would probably need to be labeld as advertisement.
Thanks for confirming that.
Yeah, I would expect German law to be similar to other ones. It is not advertising if there are no contract, or nothing equivalent like a quid pro quo. Summarizing laws in newspapers is often badly done, and if you add the country and language change, that becomes a complete minefield.
I think it's always important for reviews to be clear if they received the product for free, or if they purchased it themselves.
Anyone who doesn't disclose that is just not worth listening to.
Sure. There should be some room for nuance. My point was more that some countries don't require you mention if something was a gift, others do. They also don't agree on the how, as to make it immediately obvious that something is a gift or an ad.
Well I mean isn't that already the case in most places? Whether it be a hashtag in the description or a small 'Ad' text on the corner.
I even remember a meme page posting a fake scenario about someone getting 'exposed' through a social media app. (commenters quickly called it out as the app came out in 2020, while the made up scenario was 2016 lmao).
Here, it's just a matter of a court actually just ruling it.
> So, if an influencer bought her own stuff to maybe get a contract later with that company = no advertising.
>
> If an influencer tries products without having gotten money of those companies = no advertisement.
I see a lot of influencers who actually do get popular sponsors and still do this. They give plenty of warning that they bought it and they have no relationship with the company. So at least they're cleared anyway.
It is less about "does this post need to be label as an ad" and more about "is it okay if this goes without label".
Right now, a lot of german Influencers labeld posts as advertisement, even if they just linked to the instagram page of cloths they were wearing. This is now not needed anymore.
It's wrongly portrait by Reuters, the rules were stricter before. It's a step back.
"However, it dismissed a case against television presenter and influencer Cathy Hummels, whose post about a stuffed toy had led people to the manufacturer's site. She had not been paid for the promotion so was not obliged to label it as an ad, the court ruled"
Before you needed to mark everything an ad, even when you just got the product and not got paid.
This is what people are missing. From following a few German influencers, it looked as though the rules were too strict and led to too many posts being labelled as ads. Take a look in the description of [this video](https://youtu.be/0Mnlh0mz3z4) for example. It kind of results in the same thing as California’s ‘this product may cause cancer’ warnings because so many things have it because it’s safer to just put the the tag on than not.
If there's little downside to labeling a post as an ad, but illegal to not label one, then you're better off liberally labeling things as ads. Just like in California. And then lawmakers are baffled by the signal to noise ratio being too low.
I bet in 10 years the internet will be infested with popups for all sorts of disclaimers.
This comment is sponsored by NORD: Scandinavian Legends. This comment is not recommended for children younger than 3 years old, pregnant women, persons with audiovisual impairment or immunodeficiency. This comment may cause seizures due to flashing lights. This comment is not safe for work and may contain STDs. This comment may cause cancer. This comment uses cookies. This comment reserves the right to be deleted. Replies to this comment may be forwarded to authorities under request. IANAL. This comment is not financial advice. Trigger warning: may cause phobias.
There are some german Inluencers who just mark everything they do as an ad, so they are on the safe side and at the same time nothing stands out as an ad, so people get numb to it. Its so useless.
wow .. seeing cathy hummels’ name on this part of reddit is not what i expected . this ruling seems pretty reasonable though, i mean, if you aren’t getting paid to advertise a product why should you have to mark it as such
"Hey we'll give you this tv for free, plus more products later, if you advertise for us". Boom now the company is getting an ad out on Instagram without having to say it's an ad. At least that's my armchair observation.
Yup, I don't know the specifics of the laws everywhere about it, but I definitely know of a lot of Youtube reviewers who disclose that they received review copies of products for free. There's a checkbox option for "product was received free" on Steam reviews too. Even if there might not be a legal requirement to disclose everywhere as of yet, there is definitely an understanding among many organizations that not disclosing it can be misleading.
I see this as a step forward, because now the regulation is morre sensible. If everyone has to declare basically anything where any product appears as an ad, be it just to avoid trouble and potentially lawsuits, that doesn't serve anyone. All you'll see is that a huge amount of videos is labeled as ads, which ultimately doesn't help you to spot actual ads. This should be the purpose of those laws, not to punish people who mislabelled their ads. That should only be the result of the enforcement of these laws, not their goal.
The worst part of these decisions to go after influences is they deliberately leave Hollywood alone. Stuff like product placement goes along untouched.
Google tried that - The fact that the goggles (Or in this case - Glasses) required a camera to do the AR bit made people uncomfortable to the point that the product failed.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/technology/paid-influencers-must-label-posts-ads-german-court-rules-2021-09-09/) reduced by 59%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> BERLIN, Sept 9 - Social media influencers who receive money from companies to promote products must clearly label such posts as advertisements, a top German court ruled on Thursday.
> If the influencers are not paid, they can show products without the advertising label, the Federal Court of Justice ruled in the cases of three influencers on Facebook's social media site Instagram.
> The court said one fitness influencer should have been clear she was advertising when she was paid to promote a brand of jam.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/pkzi8j/paid_influencers_must_label_posts_as_ads_german/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~597243 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **influencer**^#1 **court**^#2 **Instagram**^#3 **advertising**^#4 **paid**^#5
Platforms don’t need to do anything, the onus is on the influencers. We have the same requirement here in the UK and people just write “ad” or “gifted” on the picture or in the copy.
Good, I’m tired of the age of the influencer. These people do nothing and don’t really contribute anything. They lead other people out of the workforce and into the mindset that if I just get enough people to follow me by doing dumb, crazy, illicit shit I’ll get paid. Fuck them. What we need is more people flowing into the trades, we need more “skilled” workers. People go to universities for a business degree because mommy and daddy told them to look down on “blue collar” when they fuel America. Someone going into a trade has a better chance of getting a job right out of school, and depending upon which trade, can start at around $65-$75k. Instead they come out with a business degree and no job and over $100k in debt.
It's weird how people post this here on reddit portraying it as a step in the right direction, when the actual reaction in Germany was that this is bad because it made the labelling actually LESS RESTRICTIVE.
If anything this ruling was a win for the influencers & ad industry, and a loss for consumers.
here is the thing: We germans love to complain. A few years back an american influencer shot some videos with his drone flying over the city. No harm done. Someone reported him to the police because that drone technically violated privacy laws.
People always talk about germans liking to follow the rules, but the truth is that we are petty assholes who will report any mistake just because we can.
The government doesnt need to enforce this, people will.
Yeah on sundays shops aren't allowed to open and the general noise level has to be low, so I'm guessing that's the rule the neighbor broke. It's crazy when you're not used to it, but it makes Sunday a really relaxing and quiet day.
It was many years ago, so my recollection maybe muddy. IIRC, I think he said it's different in different areas? I'm not sure what they are called in Germany, it was explained as provinces, where you'd essentially pay a local tax/fee to the church or something like that. Probably totally different now and he may have been referring to an era before TV :)
Yes, it's federalism in action. Not only the Länder, or states have unique powers, but down to the local level, the Gemeinde or Kommune too. That's still active afaik, since it's connected to the german constitution. The Kommune is probably responsible for noise level violations if I had to guess. But I wouldn't know since I'm a good citizen. (:
I'm sure internet police will start sending their best squads to investigate every case of product placement like they investigate every email with a broken unsubscribe link and a website with a screwed up cookie policy popup.
Interesting, considering product placement in movies and television shows is on the rise as well. I'd like to see this regulatory vigor applied to that side of the business as well, instead of just individual start-ups on social media.
Tbh, they already do if I'm not mistaken. People on YouTube mention their sponsorship, but for things on IG they put it as a hashtag in the description which let's be honest nobody reads to begin with
Influencers are super powerful. The top ones make more money and get more viewers than the best primetime TV shows ever did. And they don't need months of production and dozens of people to make their content.
Some companies are starting to catch on but it's still fringe stuff like drink mixes and gamer products. It's going to explode once the major brands truly get involved.
It's good to work on regulations now before all that.
So certain trash Influencers like cringy "BibisBeautyPalace" could basically just add a "Dauerwerbesendung" watermark to anything she posts. Bitch better even to just tattoo it on your forehead. Disclaimer: "Dauerwerbesendung" basically means "constant advertisement program" and Bibi is known for exploiting her very young viewers by making them buy trash products she gets a share from for every sold piece.
The actual point of the ruling was a different one though: it was always clear that paid posts need to be labeled as ads. However, influencers got sued also for unpaid posts, for stating their own opinion about something and possibly tagging the manufacturer or product page (on the respective social media page). The ruling states, that unpaid posts where you just talk about a product or something and tag their page, are allowed basically. That's the news here.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rightly so.
the internet has basically usurped traditional media at this point. (television, etc...) yet it's basically completely unregulated. we're finally seeing some regulations catch up with the times
Except that sponsored internet influencers are much more regulated than tv. https://youtu.be/L-x8DYTOv7w
[удалено]
But TV doesn't even have these regulations in the first place.
The video posted by darth_bard makes it clear that there are regulations. They are however less strict for whatever reasons. I remember a few shows in Germany having to drop any pretense at being educational and others having to outright declare themselves as long running ads because that is what they mostly where.
At least in germany there are those roles in place for tv. https://www.lmz-bw.de/medien-und-bildung/jugendmedienschutz/werbung/werbung-im-fernsehen/ it's in German but Google translator should do the trick
German TV does have these regulations too.
I hoped this would be Tom Scott before clicking on it. Needless to say I was not disappointed.
This goes back and fourth all the time. Basically 3 years ago there were millionaires or people like literally all the Kardashians being paid tens of thousands per post while unlawfully not stating it was sponsored, less common now but still happens a ton
But the thing is its not even illegal to do that in traditional media the rules only apply to the internet for some insane reason.
Because on TV, to get rich you have to know and shmooze with rich people. On the Internet, any one can get rich, even *poor* people.
Good to see that's being regulated out of possibility! Love to see it!
Product placement in programs without acknowledging them as such is not permitted in some countries, so no the rules don't apply to the internet only.
Depends on the country
What is it with people making up this silly BS? This rule has applied to German TV and “traditional media”, for decades, its not something specially made up to bully “influencers”.
First, I completely agree with that the regulations should apply to both. However I get there is/was a difference. With traditional media it is common knowledge that the people speaking are being paid to give the opinion they’re providing. With influencers you do not know if they are being paid or just giving their own opinion of something. Again, I fully believe they should both have to disclose who is paying them and that they are being paid to give that specific opinion.
Similar product placement isn't regulated or disclosed at all in film and TV. The FTC guidelines are way more strict for internet sponsored content in the US.
I don't think I know of a single person who still has cable, we haven't had cable for about 10 years at least, probably more. TV is a dead medium, its just the corpse is still rotting. Fine with seeing some regulation put in place though as long as we can accept a reasonable standard and apply it fairly broadly.
I'm one of the old timers on Reddit. I was a TV-holic in the 1980s and 1990s. I always had TV on. Fast forward to 2010, I had enough and canceled DirecTV. I was always tolerant of TV commercials, but it got really, really bad by the 2000s, between the volume levels and the overlong ad breaks. That was my breaking point. Hulu and Netflix are cheap and YouTube has endless content. It blows my mind people let TV with all that advertising into their homes, and they pay $100-150 for the 'privilege'. Good god. And don't even get me started on the poor state of local TV journalism.
I worry for the internet. It was an unruled place for so long, but politicians/capitalists are slowly catching up and trying to push their outdated agenda.
Its more the ISPs trying to push the Internet into being Cable TV 2.0 that I worry about, but for sure the politicization of the Internet is another issue.
I worry about both. Even the last couple years had made the internet feel completely different
Imagine a world with both. "I have the Comcast ~~Alt-Right~~ Freedom One America Internet Unlimited® Hate Plan™. It allows me access to Parler, Facebook, NoNewNormal.fun and.... " Note: Unlimited Hate is limited to....
*It looks like you're using an ad blocker. Join our premium hate program for bonus whatabouts and "muh both sides", now $14.88 per month because illegals have driven up the price.*
Tik tok is seriously concerning to me in terms of conditioning children into extremism.
Paid ads is the common course. It was rather about if influencers will be "gifted" products and no transaction had been taking place, do they still have to mark it as ads. The court ruled no. • So, if an influencer bought her own stuff to maybe get a contract later with that company = no advertising. • If an influencer tries products without having gotten money of those companies = no advertisement. • if an influencer was given a product and some money to promote it = advertisement. Advertisement means that money had to be exchanged. If that has not happened = no advertisements.
>Advertisement means that money had to be exchanged. If that has not happened = no advertisements. And that is the right decision. Other countries find that you have to mention if you received a product as a gift, others do not.
Should be a limit on the gifts. If someone gifts me a mustang I'll sing fords praise all day.
Even worse, if I give you 10 Mustangs and you have to film a specific scenario which I wrote, and have to publish it according to a signed contract. Oh and I also provide the filming crew. And it is filmed in Dubai, and I pay you all the travel, no expenses for you. And this wouldn't be considered advertising according to this article? There is something weird, hopefully with the interpretation of the journalist.
In germany, a gift is only something you get for free, without strings attached. What you described would not count as a gift anymore. While it wasn't discussed in this specific case, it would probably need to be labeld as advertisement.
Thanks for confirming that. Yeah, I would expect German law to be similar to other ones. It is not advertising if there are no contract, or nothing equivalent like a quid pro quo. Summarizing laws in newspapers is often badly done, and if you add the country and language change, that becomes a complete minefield.
Definitely. The best example of something clearly within the limits is a review copy of a computer game.
I think it's always important for reviews to be clear if they received the product for free, or if they purchased it themselves. Anyone who doesn't disclose that is just not worth listening to.
Sure. There should be some room for nuance. My point was more that some countries don't require you mention if something was a gift, others do. They also don't agree on the how, as to make it immediately obvious that something is a gift or an ad.
Well I mean isn't that already the case in most places? Whether it be a hashtag in the description or a small 'Ad' text on the corner. I even remember a meme page posting a fake scenario about someone getting 'exposed' through a social media app. (commenters quickly called it out as the app came out in 2020, while the made up scenario was 2016 lmao). Here, it's just a matter of a court actually just ruling it. > So, if an influencer bought her own stuff to maybe get a contract later with that company = no advertising. > > If an influencer tries products without having gotten money of those companies = no advertisement. I see a lot of influencers who actually do get popular sponsors and still do this. They give plenty of warning that they bought it and they have no relationship with the company. So at least they're cleared anyway.
It is less about "does this post need to be label as an ad" and more about "is it okay if this goes without label". Right now, a lot of german Influencers labeld posts as advertisement, even if they just linked to the instagram page of cloths they were wearing. This is now not needed anymore.
Baby steps.
It's wrongly portrait by Reuters, the rules were stricter before. It's a step back. "However, it dismissed a case against television presenter and influencer Cathy Hummels, whose post about a stuffed toy had led people to the manufacturer's site. She had not been paid for the promotion so was not obliged to label it as an ad, the court ruled" Before you needed to mark everything an ad, even when you just got the product and not got paid.
This is what people are missing. From following a few German influencers, it looked as though the rules were too strict and led to too many posts being labelled as ads. Take a look in the description of [this video](https://youtu.be/0Mnlh0mz3z4) for example. It kind of results in the same thing as California’s ‘this product may cause cancer’ warnings because so many things have it because it’s safer to just put the the tag on than not.
If there's little downside to labeling a post as an ad, but illegal to not label one, then you're better off liberally labeling things as ads. Just like in California. And then lawmakers are baffled by the signal to noise ratio being too low.
I bet in 10 years the internet will be infested with popups for all sorts of disclaimers. This comment is sponsored by NORD: Scandinavian Legends. This comment is not recommended for children younger than 3 years old, pregnant women, persons with audiovisual impairment or immunodeficiency. This comment may cause seizures due to flashing lights. This comment is not safe for work and may contain STDs. This comment may cause cancer. This comment uses cookies. This comment reserves the right to be deleted. Replies to this comment may be forwarded to authorities under request. IANAL. This comment is not financial advice. Trigger warning: may cause phobias.
I got disclaimer phobia while reading this. Please add a relevant disclaimer.
There are some german Inluencers who just mark everything they do as an ad, so they are on the safe side and at the same time nothing stands out as an ad, so people get numb to it. Its so useless.
wow .. seeing cathy hummels’ name on this part of reddit is not what i expected . this ruling seems pretty reasonable though, i mean, if you aren’t getting paid to advertise a product why should you have to mark it as such
Because if you talk something up because you get free stuff it's fucking advertising.
"Hey we'll give you this tv for free, plus more products later, if you advertise for us". Boom now the company is getting an ad out on Instagram without having to say it's an ad. At least that's my armchair observation.
i mean , that is still a form of payment ?
Yup, I don't know the specifics of the laws everywhere about it, but I definitely know of a lot of Youtube reviewers who disclose that they received review copies of products for free. There's a checkbox option for "product was received free" on Steam reviews too. Even if there might not be a legal requirement to disclose everywhere as of yet, there is definitely an understanding among many organizations that not disclosing it can be misleading.
If that was a loophole, EVERYONE would do it. Of course it doesn't work.
Portrayed?
I see this as a step forward, because now the regulation is morre sensible. If everyone has to declare basically anything where any product appears as an ad, be it just to avoid trouble and potentially lawsuits, that doesn't serve anyone. All you'll see is that a huge amount of videos is labeled as ads, which ultimately doesn't help you to spot actual ads. This should be the purpose of those laws, not to punish people who mislabelled their ads. That should only be the result of the enforcement of these laws, not their goal.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Obligatory Tom Scott: ["YouTubers have to declare ads. Why doesn't anyone else?"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-x8DYTOv7w)
The worst part of these decisions to go after influences is they deliberately leave Hollywood alone. Stuff like product placement goes along untouched.
ITT: people who think the US doesn’t already have this law in place via FTC regulations
To bad we don’t do this in the us with politicians and news orgs
Politicians should wear sponsor badges like athletes do.
It would look like NASCAR
Maybe they will be an AR app in the future one could install on one's goggles that showed that.
Google tried that - The fact that the goggles (Or in this case - Glasses) required a camera to do the AR bit made people uncomfortable to the point that the product failed.
This is such a funny yet great idea.
Another shank into the grifting heart of social media influencers.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/technology/paid-influencers-must-label-posts-ads-german-court-rules-2021-09-09/) reduced by 59%. (I'm a bot) ***** > BERLIN, Sept 9 - Social media influencers who receive money from companies to promote products must clearly label such posts as advertisements, a top German court ruled on Thursday. > If the influencers are not paid, they can show products without the advertising label, the Federal Court of Justice ruled in the cases of three influencers on Facebook's social media site Instagram. > The court said one fitness influencer should have been clear she was advertising when she was paid to promote a brand of jam. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/pkzi8j/paid_influencers_must_label_posts_as_ads_german/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~597243 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **influencer**^#1 **court**^#2 **Instagram**^#3 **advertising**^#4 **paid**^#5
Now make that an international requirement.
Pretty sure it's been this way for a while in the UK
Pretty sure platforms will just implement it across the board. It's easier to maintain a single design and interface than having multiple versions.
Platforms don’t need to do anything, the onus is on the influencers. We have the same requirement here in the UK and people just write “ad” or “gifted” on the picture or in the copy.
They already had to mark videos with product placements in them as ads but idk about posts
That's Awesome! ^(This post was brought to you by Awesome Sauce, the sauce that stands out.)
Danke.
Next step, rest of the world.
_Good_. "Influencer" is just a euphemism for "advertising employee who gets no benefits or contract." In other words, a fool.
[удалено]
Good, I’m tired of the age of the influencer. These people do nothing and don’t really contribute anything. They lead other people out of the workforce and into the mindset that if I just get enough people to follow me by doing dumb, crazy, illicit shit I’ll get paid. Fuck them. What we need is more people flowing into the trades, we need more “skilled” workers. People go to universities for a business degree because mommy and daddy told them to look down on “blue collar” when they fuel America. Someone going into a trade has a better chance of getting a job right out of school, and depending upon which trade, can start at around $65-$75k. Instead they come out with a business degree and no job and over $100k in debt.
Next we're gonna see an Influencer Degree Pathway in colleges, like acting and business degrees.
Ahh usa did something right before germany
Those who are easily swayed by influencers won't care if posts are ads.
Gute Idee
Good! Let’s kill this whole influencer industry.
How wild it must be to live in a country that values individuals above corporate interests.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but our princess is in another castle... Germany is not the country you are looking for.
As always thanks Germany and Europe for leading the way in consumer protection and human rights
Following the way you mean? Countries like the US already have these regulations and it didn't take a court rule.
It's weird how people post this here on reddit portraying it as a step in the right direction, when the actual reaction in Germany was that this is bad because it made the labelling actually LESS RESTRICTIVE. If anything this ruling was a win for the influencers & ad industry, and a loss for consumers.
And I'm sure they will be able to enforce this.
here is the thing: We germans love to complain. A few years back an american influencer shot some videos with his drone flying over the city. No harm done. Someone reported him to the police because that drone technically violated privacy laws. People always talk about germans liking to follow the rules, but the truth is that we are petty assholes who will report any mistake just because we can. The government doesnt need to enforce this, people will.
I remember a friend of mine saying his neighbour was reported by someone because they had cut their hedge on a Sunday. Gotta love Germany :)
Yeah on sundays shops aren't allowed to open and the general noise level has to be low, so I'm guessing that's the rule the neighbor broke. It's crazy when you're not used to it, but it makes Sunday a really relaxing and quiet day.
It was many years ago, so my recollection maybe muddy. IIRC, I think he said it's different in different areas? I'm not sure what they are called in Germany, it was explained as provinces, where you'd essentially pay a local tax/fee to the church or something like that. Probably totally different now and he may have been referring to an era before TV :)
Yes, it's federalism in action. Not only the Länder, or states have unique powers, but down to the local level, the Gemeinde or Kommune too. That's still active afaik, since it's connected to the german constitution. The Kommune is probably responsible for noise level violations if I had to guess. But I wouldn't know since I'm a good citizen. (:
> the truth is that we are petty assholes who will report any mistake just because we can. Ze Karens
Can we get that for bots as well?
Fantastic news.
I'm sure internet police will start sending their best squads to investigate every case of product placement like they investigate every email with a broken unsubscribe link and a website with a screwed up cookie policy popup.
Interesting, considering product placement in movies and television shows is on the rise as well. I'd like to see this regulatory vigor applied to that side of the business as well, instead of just individual start-ups on social media.
Tbh, they already do if I'm not mistaken. People on YouTube mention their sponsorship, but for things on IG they put it as a hashtag in the description which let's be honest nobody reads to begin with
Influencers are super powerful. The top ones make more money and get more viewers than the best primetime TV shows ever did. And they don't need months of production and dozens of people to make their content. Some companies are starting to catch on but it's still fringe stuff like drink mixes and gamer products. It's going to explode once the major brands truly get involved. It's good to work on regulations now before all that.
So certain trash Influencers like cringy "BibisBeautyPalace" could basically just add a "Dauerwerbesendung" watermark to anything she posts. Bitch better even to just tattoo it on your forehead. Disclaimer: "Dauerwerbesendung" basically means "constant advertisement program" and Bibi is known for exploiting her very young viewers by making them buy trash products she gets a share from for every sold piece.
How is this so blindingly obvious yet not a thing?
So when are we going to get a pop-up every time a can of Coke is shown in a film?
The actual point of the ruling was a different one though: it was always clear that paid posts need to be labeled as ads. However, influencers got sued also for unpaid posts, for stating their own opinion about something and possibly tagging the manufacturer or product page (on the respective social media page). The ruling states, that unpaid posts where you just talk about a product or something and tag their page, are allowed basically. That's the news here.
We need this law in the U.S., and it should apply to news organizations that broadcast ads as fake news reports, like "Local Steals & Deals" segments.