It’s not uncommon for authorities to ban advertising by industries whose mission is to make the world worse. Eg tobacco ads are banned where I live. This here may be legal now but I interpret the article as in favour of a ban on gambling ads, which sounds like a good idea to me.
Okay but is there a reason to believe this is whataboutism rather than pointing out an additional problem we might discuss? If it were whataboutism I'd expect to see an implication that this excuses the gambling industry, but I don't see it.
Sounds like your beliefs are aligned with individual freedoms and responsibility, probably something like libertarian where the government had minimal influence? This is a guess.
Anyway I disagree with this point of view because large corporations, thanks to the law are like defacto governments with a lot of power, and there needs to be something with the muscle to stand up to them (the slap on wrist fines we read about means there probably isn't enough muscle, but better than none).
Remember the large corps have all the data (the new oil) the cash (billions) and control the technology. Statistically if you temp a million people to try gambling some will get addicted there is no way to avoid this, even though you could say those that got addicted it was there own fault, and not the fault of the large corps hiding tempting messages in areas of the internet they trust.
Commercial advertisement comes with many regulations and ethical requirements in every nation. Even in the capitalist hell of the US you are typically not allowed to brazenly lie to consumers to their face. Deception for financial gain is fraud.
Even Disney was engaged in stealth marketing, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if a less reputable industry such as gambling is engaged in stealth marketing.
I'd spin this the other way round, even in the US it is unlawful to not disclose that you are advertising:
From your link:
> In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission said in 2017 that influencers on social media sites such as Twitter and Instagram “should clearly and conspicuously disclose” any paid work to promote a product or service.
Sponsored posts should be clearly labeled, at the very least
Anecdotally, the "conspicuously" provision is not enforced, and the FTC no longer has any contact/reporting channel for regular citizens to report violations, other than the specific case of being scammed.
I get daily requests to put up free articles on my site and I tell these folks that I pre-screen all links, no matter what. Crypto and/or gambling? Always a hard no.
Counter-counter-point: this only matters if you're doing this for social signalling purposes, and/or to boost your self-esteem, which is... kind of missing the point, and itself not too moral.
Something being "the right thing to do" is independent of whether, for you, it's something you're doing by default, or it's something cheap, or it's something requiring immense personal sacrifice. Either way, it's the right thing to do.
The way it matters in practice is that, if the society is structured so that doing the right thing is an act of great personal courage, very few people will do the right thing. If the society manages to make that cheap/free/default, nearly everyone will do the right thing. In this sense, morality is like working on stage lighting or sound during concerts, or being a sysadmin - if people can notice you doing work, you're doing it wrong.
(At least that's the more abstract take. Humans being what they are, if they don't feel recognized for their personal sacrifice, they'll just stop, as the need to belong is stronger than conscience.)
How is this a counterpoint? It's literally the same point they made. Morality is easy if you have a full belly - you can easily choose to dismiss advertisers like these because your financial wellbeing doesn't depend on getting their money. There's nothing to lose by dismissing them. If you are struggling financially then there is a lot to lose by not accepting their offers.
I'd agree with the notion suggested in the article it may not even be about getting mothers to gamble as much as it is an attempt at blackhat SEO. Recruiting a few new gamblers is small potatoes compared to redirecting a large amount of web traffic for gambling-related keywords on Google.
Several gambling firms are aggressively throwing money at the problem of trying to manipulate PageRank-like algorithms. I've seen examples of them sponsoring open source projects, ostensibly in order to purchase a link from a high ranking website.
Makes sense though when basically your entire budget goes to marketing.
I'd suggest if you don't understand why this is outrageous you just take a step back away from this topic, rather than try to comment on a problem you don't understand.
You likely come from a culture that lets pharmaceutical companies advertise on TV. You likely come from a culture that doesn't restrict fast food companies from advertising during children's programming. You likely come from a culture that doesn't force all product placement to be clearly marked with an icon on the programme.
Advertising in the UK is much more heavily regulated than in other countries. We don't believe in the right for companies to advertise whenever or wherever they like.
Gambling is fully legalised, in part so that it is easier to regulate, including regulating when and where it is advertised. There is talk from banning gambling companies from being shirt sponsors.
This is, I think, a more mature approach than banning or heavily restricting online gambling and pretending it isn't a problem.
> take a step back away from this topic, rather than try to comment on a problem you don't understand.
I guess i understand the sentiment, but we shouldn't shame people away from discourse. Everyone should be allowed to be wrong, if comments are made in good faith.
I don't think it's shaming to suggest people take a beat and to offer relevant items for consideration. I thought the comment was well constructed and nonaccusatory.
It wasn't doing that. It was saying to not comment, and offer some stereotypes of the US as a little insinuation as to exactly who shouldn't be allowed to comment.
Those aren't so much stereotypes about the US as much as observations about the ways UK regulations might be different from people's expectations or experiences. I don't think they're saying "shut up Americans" as much as, "if you don't understand why this is a big deal for people in the UK, here is a list of things that might seem normal to you that seem bizarre to me." For what it's worth, I'm from the US, I took no offense.
I just don't see the problem with politely asking people who've self identified as not understanding the issue from sounding off on it before they've given it due consideration. They're still free to do so, but frankly I don't think it would add to the conversation.
This isn't something to preach on a thread, though. It's how people should treat every discussion. Otherwise why aren't you pasting the same message into every comment thread on the site?
I disagree with them too but there's no reason to be rude or patronizing, we were having a perfectly reasonable conversation where we explored our differences of opinion here. Please don't lob a grenade into the conversation.
You've levelled two accusations at me, neither of which is true. I didn't think people shouldn't think before speaking, and I didn't say others shouldn't be heard. The fact you've so misinterpreted such a simple point cannot be attributed to anything benign.
I don't understand the topic, I wouldn't comment anyway because I usually don't when I'm not interested or know too much about a topic. But I also didn't get offended by his suggestion because it left room for me to ask questions. Just because HN calls my question a comment is what's making you confused I guess.
I get that this is outrageous, then again I find it hard to be outraged right now, this seems predictable given the rise of ad targeting and our past experience, e.g.:
- Ads that follow new mothers even after miscarriage [1],
- Age discrimination in employment ads [2],
- Cambridge Analytica was also mostly about targeting,
- probably many more.
Perhaps we should explore some actual transparency in the context of ad targeting.
Obligatory reminder that advertising is a cancer on modern society?
It's getting funny - in a sad, tragicomic way - to see people getting so worked up about other people having biases against them, afraid that such people being allowed to publish/speak/exist will somehow, somewhen lead to bad thing for you and yours. At the same time, people are completely ignoring that there exists a whole industry that's actively malicious, that's harming you right now - one that doesn't even hate you, but rather denies you your humanity, and cares only about extracting some money off you. If you become poor, or sick, or die in the process? This group couldn't care less.
Yes, that's the advertising industry, and associated sales and marketing cultures.
I suppose the trick is, it's hard for people to realize who's consistently screwing with their lives - with tragic outcomes such as those hinted in the comments above - when the perpetrator controls the very means people use to communicate and learn about the world.
EDIT:
It's doubly hard because this means the perpetrators are among us - among our friends, among our families, even ourselves - many whose work involves either directly or indirectly, to a greater or lesser degree, attempting to screw over innocent strangers. It shows that, the way modern economy is structured, it's really hard for anyone to be fully innocent. It's very uncomfortable to think about, even more uncomfortable to talk about. It's much easier to focus instead on hypothetical others, somewhere out there, that are out to get us.
> If you become poor, or sick, or die in the process? This group couldn't care less.
I was going to disagree with this, but then I was opening with a disclaimer along the lines of "other than the ones green washing the oil industry, and the ones who were encouraging people to smoke long after it was known to be dangerous, and the ones working for gambling companies, and the ones selling alcohol to alcoholics".
I used to work for a big ad agency, and while I'm not aware of any projects we took on which were actively harmful to quite that degree there was definitely a general culture of not really caring about whether or not what we did was worthwhile. Several projects I worked could only be described as redistribution of money from one company to another, because we all knew they'd have no real benefit to anyone - the people being advertised at didn't want the ads, and the company being advertised for wasn't going to get any sales from them. I was explicitly told on a few occasions not to add detailed analytics because then the client would have hard numbers on how useless the campaign was.
The Doonesbury comic featured Mike Doonesbury, an ad man, who invented the "Mr. Butts" character. It was too much, and he dropped out, to eventually become a successful software entrepreneur.
A better one would be “please understand that this is talking about advertising and regulation in a country with norms very different from your own. If you don’t know the difference, don’t jump in with comments about how you think things should be.”
Like if someone defends this advertising under the First Amendment, that isn’t very relevant to the UK is it?
Every Hacker News thread inevitably devolves into a conversation about the US Constitution and the Founding Fathers regardless of any attempts to stop it.
The ongoing insinuation that the US is the One True Way to run a State has caused so much legitimate worldwide damage. It’s sad to see supposedly enlightened HN commenters continue to perpetuate it.
That is mostly because americans still haven't learnt that the internet is not USA exclusive but actually world-wide. This phenomenon was already quite apparent in the 90s, on usenet for instance. One would assume this gets better over time, but alas, no, it doesn't. Americans are about the only people on this planet that behave like they are the only country on earth.
Sure, yet I see more pharma, fast food and gambling ads on UK television than anywhere else. I've never seen a gambling ad on TV anywhere but the UK. How is that "heavily regulated"?
> I see more pharma, fast food and gambling ads on UK television than anywhere else
Even the USA? Prescription drug advertisements are illegal in the UK, except when aimed specifically at medical professionals. When I visit the USA, it throws me every time when I see prescription drugs advertised on prime-time TV.
What are you counting as a pharma advert? UK has lots of ads for over-the-counter meds but should be none for prescription-only ones, unless you're reading things like The Pulse magazine.
> There is talk from banning gambling companies from being shirt sponsors.
The shirt sponsor ban is a pre-emptive measure so that when the goverment comes after the Premier League they can point to the fact that betting companies have been banned from sponsoring shirts. Betting promotion in the form of pitchside displays / TV ads before & during games will still be allowed.
Advertising is evil and UK law doesn't go nearly far enough. There is no good reason for advertising. It's all bad. It's silly to single out specific examples when the whole lot needs to go. Fuck advertising.
It occurred to me (not recently) and maybe painfully obvious to others that pharmaceutical advertising on TV isn't really for the consumer. The whole "ask your Dr if this medication is right for you" is such a weird trope because that's not how prescription medication is supposed to be marketed.
Large advertising spends have pilfered a tremendous amount of pharmaceutical influence in mainstream media. So much so that much of the salary of mainstream news personalities is funded by drug companies. It has become exceptionally difficult to criticize or challenge drug companies on major tv and print outlets.
If you have a popular blog or social media account on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube, you may receive marketing emails from various brands, big or small, asking you to include links to their products or low-quality VPN services. The internet is essentially a colossal marketing machine. While some people on HN believe that Reddit reviews are authentic because they are created by humans, there is a possibility that they are also paid (although I do not have any evidence to support this claim).
As mentioned in the article, it's regular blackhat consisting of buying unmarked links to rank better on Google. If you own a blog, you usually get those messages weekly or even daily offering to pay $150-400 for it. Regardless of niche. Gaming affiliates are notorious for it.
It should be shunned but the headline kinda makes it seem like something it isn't, although correct. They aren't primarily after the blog audience but rather Google.
I get anywhere from 50 to 100 emails every month asking me to put gambling/casino links on my site.
Let’s say the average is 75. Lets deduct another 25 because it’s probably the same guy.
At 200$ per link (low end) thats 10k per month.
50 blog posts with each one linking to a gambling site is kind of unrealistic though. But the numbers (and the demand) is there. I am sure the actual market is in the hundreds of millions for this kind of a scheme.
And even though it is easy money, I think Google probably has a good grasp on identifying that a mommy blog is linking out to a gambling network.
IME a lot of these people are middle men -- though it looks like it, they aren't actually offering to buy a link; they'll just add you to the list of sites willing to sell links that they hawk around to other site operators (via spam, natch)
Also, when I see prices mentioned, they tend to be in the $10-$50 range. But that could just be the tier my sites are in, I guess.
All that aside, it's an absolute no from me. Lie down with dogs, get fleas.
I've actually jerked a lot of them around, I don't do it much anymore as I had my fun, but you're right. A lot of them will start with extremely lowball offers. I've had one guy email me once and I played with him for a while, he went from $25 per link to around $300 over the course of 5-6 emails.
For him, the middleman, it makes no sense to start with the real offer because in his mind he is thinking, "If I go as low as possible below the baseline, I get to keep the rest.".
Yeah, it's a no from me also. I mean it would not make any sense for me to write an article like that on my site even though it is about tech. It would be like lighting a fire in my living room and asking, "What's wrong?".
I would never, ever sell out to link farming but I am kind of insulted that I have never been offered that kind of money for a link. What is the point of principles if you never have the opportunity to test them?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact nobody reads my blog.
I think a lot of them use tools like Ahrefs and Semrush to scan the "authority" of a website. The bigger the number (these tools go to 100) the higher the likelihood that you'll get pestered with these emails. For one of my domains, the one I was talking about, my rating is 70 and I have very good incoming links from various reputable sites.
Sometimes I get curious to see what these tools think of my site but they always want me to sign up. Fair enough, I guess, but I don't care enough to give them an email address.
Let me rephrase this "Mom Blogs put links to Gambling Sites to get their readers, especially new Mothers, hooked to Gambling"
Sure, BIG Gambling Company is bad.
But the so called 'mom blogs' have no ethics and decency for doing this.
If I were a reader, I might not trust the Gambling Company but I have a relationship ( as a reader ) with the Mom Blog owner.
And it's that person who has abused our relationship.
The outrage should be directed more at these women ( I assume ) who are basically predators preying on new mothers who might be at an emotionally vulnerable stage of their lives.
But when you bait/pay/bribe people to do bad things, it's surprising how many "good people" turn bad. The real perpetrator is of course the one who pays people to do bad things.
Are we sure that they were "mum blogs". Hooke have lost the SEO game to such an extent that it's almost always stack overflow clones rather than stack overflow.
I would not be surprised to discover that these "mum blogs" were nothing if the sort.
This is "just" the usual, paying influencers to push products. The product is legal, advertising via influencers is legal. Except this time it's not teenagers and hand creams but new mothers and gambling.
The gambling companies are likely in the clear. They are allowed to advertise to everyone one (maybe over 18 which mum blogs mostly cover).
So I guess it's bad but I'm not sure which part of the chain is the weakest link. Is advertising gambling the bad thing? Maybe. Or advertising via influencers? This should certainly be more regulated.
I struggle to be outraged by people doing legal things, I'd rather think about what is wrong with the law itself.
To put it in perspective, our company works with a casino that wants to target women in marketing efforts, but that extends as far as stock photos and general language, not telling mothers gambling is a stress reliever or financial solution. The headline of this article should be updated because it's not illegal to advertise gambling to mothers or to pay for ads or blogs. It's illegal (in some places) to pretend gambling is risk free to relieve stress and financial burdens.
"People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you're not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don't owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs." -Banksy
No one going to a mommy blog looking for baby food recipes ends up signing up or online gambling somehow. This is a story about SEO/ search engine ranking but that wouldn't get clicks. Whatever you think about online gambling, the narrative presented here is really distorting the truth.
I was a professional gambler for several years. I eventually gave up because it wasn't hard to find lines that had been mispriced and profitable gamblers get cut off quickly. Coral in particular ran a very simple algo, once you were up £1000 they cut your maximum bet by 90%.
I became convinced that bookmakers strategy was to entice those with a predilection to addiction and then take all their money.
104 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 169 ms ] threadAs far as I'm concerned, probably 80 to 90% of advertising is for things that make the world worse.
You only live once it you think smoking improves quality and you're welling to cut down quantity. Go for it.
Anyway I disagree with this point of view because large corporations, thanks to the law are like defacto governments with a lot of power, and there needs to be something with the muscle to stand up to them (the slap on wrist fines we read about means there probably isn't enough muscle, but better than none).
Remember the large corps have all the data (the new oil) the cash (billions) and control the technology. Statistically if you temp a million people to try gambling some will get addicted there is no way to avoid this, even though you could say those that got addicted it was there own fault, and not the fault of the large corps hiding tempting messages in areas of the internet they trust.
Disney Puts Some ‘Frozen 2’ Promotions on Ice After Twitter Flap https://archive.is/RFsLV
From your link:
> In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission said in 2017 that influencers on social media sites such as Twitter and Instagram “should clearly and conspicuously disclose” any paid work to promote a product or service.
Sponsored posts should be clearly labeled, at the very least
I get daily requests to put up free articles on my site and I tell these folks that I pre-screen all links, no matter what. Crypto and/or gambling? Always a hard no.
Something being "the right thing to do" is independent of whether, for you, it's something you're doing by default, or it's something cheap, or it's something requiring immense personal sacrifice. Either way, it's the right thing to do.
The way it matters in practice is that, if the society is structured so that doing the right thing is an act of great personal courage, very few people will do the right thing. If the society manages to make that cheap/free/default, nearly everyone will do the right thing. In this sense, morality is like working on stage lighting or sound during concerts, or being a sysadmin - if people can notice you doing work, you're doing it wrong.
(At least that's the more abstract take. Humans being what they are, if they don't feel recognized for their personal sacrifice, they'll just stop, as the need to belong is stronger than conscience.)
But I've seen some very impressive acts of altruism happen near me that by their sheer impact would never have gone unnoticed.
If there is no price, then morality does not function a credible signal. It's signalling, not morality, that requires making sacrifice.
Morality is cheap when one's belly is empty.
Morality is easy when one's belly is full.
Several gambling firms are aggressively throwing money at the problem of trying to manipulate PageRank-like algorithms. I've seen examples of them sponsoring open source projects, ostensibly in order to purchase a link from a high ranking website.
Makes sense though when basically your entire budget goes to marketing.
Plus, there's plenty of mobile games that are borderline gambling, look up monopoly go, it has all the hallmarks of creating addiction/gambling loops.
They had done the sciencing and found that there are only handful of life events where a large change of behavior can be made relatively easily.
Graduation, marriage, giving birth to a child.
The angle as I see it is to sneak in through that window and make gamblers out of those young mothers permanently.
[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits....
You likely come from a culture that lets pharmaceutical companies advertise on TV. You likely come from a culture that doesn't restrict fast food companies from advertising during children's programming. You likely come from a culture that doesn't force all product placement to be clearly marked with an icon on the programme.
Advertising in the UK is much more heavily regulated than in other countries. We don't believe in the right for companies to advertise whenever or wherever they like.
Gambling is fully legalised, in part so that it is easier to regulate, including regulating when and where it is advertised. There is talk from banning gambling companies from being shirt sponsors.
This is, I think, a more mature approach than banning or heavily restricting online gambling and pretending it isn't a problem.
I guess i understand the sentiment, but we shouldn't shame people away from discourse. Everyone should be allowed to be wrong, if comments are made in good faith.
- Ads that follow new mothers even after miscarriage [1],
- Age discrimination in employment ads [2],
- Cambridge Analytica was also mostly about targeting,
- probably many more.
Perhaps we should explore some actual transparency in the context of ad targeting.
[1]: "How to stop pregnancy ads following you after a loss" https://www.tommys.org/about-us/charity-news/how-stop-pregna...
[2]: "Dozens of Companies Are Using Facebook to Exclude Older Workers From Job Ads" https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-ads-age-discrimi...
It's getting funny - in a sad, tragicomic way - to see people getting so worked up about other people having biases against them, afraid that such people being allowed to publish/speak/exist will somehow, somewhen lead to bad thing for you and yours. At the same time, people are completely ignoring that there exists a whole industry that's actively malicious, that's harming you right now - one that doesn't even hate you, but rather denies you your humanity, and cares only about extracting some money off you. If you become poor, or sick, or die in the process? This group couldn't care less.
Yes, that's the advertising industry, and associated sales and marketing cultures.
I suppose the trick is, it's hard for people to realize who's consistently screwing with their lives - with tragic outcomes such as those hinted in the comments above - when the perpetrator controls the very means people use to communicate and learn about the world.
EDIT:
It's doubly hard because this means the perpetrators are among us - among our friends, among our families, even ourselves - many whose work involves either directly or indirectly, to a greater or lesser degree, attempting to screw over innocent strangers. It shows that, the way modern economy is structured, it's really hard for anyone to be fully innocent. It's very uncomfortable to think about, even more uncomfortable to talk about. It's much easier to focus instead on hypothetical others, somewhere out there, that are out to get us.
I was going to disagree with this, but then I was opening with a disclaimer along the lines of "other than the ones green washing the oil industry, and the ones who were encouraging people to smoke long after it was known to be dangerous, and the ones working for gambling companies, and the ones selling alcohol to alcoholics".
I used to work for a big ad agency, and while I'm not aware of any projects we took on which were actively harmful to quite that degree there was definitely a general culture of not really caring about whether or not what we did was worthwhile. Several projects I worked could only be described as redistribution of money from one company to another, because we all knew they'd have no real benefit to anyone - the people being advertised at didn't want the ads, and the company being advertised for wasn't going to get any sales from them. I was explicitly told on a few occasions not to add detailed analytics because then the client would have hard numbers on how useless the campaign was.
A better one would be “please understand that this is talking about advertising and regulation in a country with norms very different from your own. If you don’t know the difference, don’t jump in with comments about how you think things should be.”
Like if someone defends this advertising under the First Amendment, that isn’t very relevant to the UK is it?
The ongoing insinuation that the US is the One True Way to run a State has caused so much legitimate worldwide damage. It’s sad to see supposedly enlightened HN commenters continue to perpetuate it.
Even the USA? Prescription drug advertisements are illegal in the UK, except when aimed specifically at medical professionals. When I visit the USA, it throws me every time when I see prescription drugs advertised on prime-time TV.
Funny. Ads seems to absolutely everywhere in the UK. It feels very overwhelming. Reminds me of those famous crossings in New York and Tokio.
So advertisements can and are everywhere so long as they are not misleading, targeting kids or grossly offensive (I imagine)
My country (Japan) likely has one of the highest rates of child gambling addiction in a developed nation.
The number of times I heard "I spent all my savings on the casino haha, gotta skip some meals I guess" was ludicrous.
That was in highschool. And now I see it in middle schools. (Siblings)
I have done my part ensuring my sibling doesn't get involved in that garbage.
The are all fundamentally designed around the same psychological hooks.
So instead we have pachinko parlors. They do not have age restrictions.
We also have gacha games which heavily push gambling and incentivise the spending of money for png images.
It's just that the generation has moved onto gacha games with systems that are even worse. They tend to be better designed and more easily accessible.
The shirt sponsor ban is a pre-emptive measure so that when the goverment comes after the Premier League they can point to the fact that betting companies have been banned from sponsoring shirts. Betting promotion in the form of pitchside displays / TV ads before & during games will still be allowed.
Large advertising spends have pilfered a tremendous amount of pharmaceutical influence in mainstream media. So much so that much of the salary of mainstream news personalities is funded by drug companies. It has become exceptionally difficult to criticize or challenge drug companies on major tv and print outlets.
It should be shunned but the headline kinda makes it seem like something it isn't, although correct. They aren't primarily after the blog audience but rather Google.
Let’s say the average is 75. Lets deduct another 25 because it’s probably the same guy.
At 200$ per link (low end) thats 10k per month.
50 blog posts with each one linking to a gambling site is kind of unrealistic though. But the numbers (and the demand) is there. I am sure the actual market is in the hundreds of millions for this kind of a scheme.
And even though it is easy money, I think Google probably has a good grasp on identifying that a mommy blog is linking out to a gambling network.
Also, when I see prices mentioned, they tend to be in the $10-$50 range. But that could just be the tier my sites are in, I guess.
All that aside, it's an absolute no from me. Lie down with dogs, get fleas.
For him, the middleman, it makes no sense to start with the real offer because in his mind he is thinking, "If I go as low as possible below the baseline, I get to keep the rest.".
Yeah, it's a no from me also. I mean it would not make any sense for me to write an article like that on my site even though it is about tech. It would be like lighting a fire in my living room and asking, "What's wrong?".
10k for one month. Then nobody will want to read you blog anymore.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact nobody reads my blog.
I'm an "easy" target in that regard.
Sure, BIG Gambling Company is bad. But the so called 'mom blogs' have no ethics and decency for doing this.
If I were a reader, I might not trust the Gambling Company but I have a relationship ( as a reader ) with the Mom Blog owner. And it's that person who has abused our relationship.
The outrage should be directed more at these women ( I assume ) who are basically predators preying on new mothers who might be at an emotionally vulnerable stage of their lives.
But when you bait/pay/bribe people to do bad things, it's surprising how many "good people" turn bad. The real perpetrator is of course the one who pays people to do bad things.
I would not be surprised to discover that these "mum blogs" were nothing if the sort.
The gambling companies are likely in the clear. They are allowed to advertise to everyone one (maybe over 18 which mum blogs mostly cover).
So I guess it's bad but I'm not sure which part of the chain is the weakest link. Is advertising gambling the bad thing? Maybe. Or advertising via influencers? This should certainly be more regulated.
I struggle to be outraged by people doing legal things, I'd rather think about what is wrong with the law itself.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don't owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs." -Banksy
I became convinced that bookmakers strategy was to entice those with a predilection to addiction and then take all their money.