Around the same time I discovered https://narrativescience.com/ and read about how they accomplished the same task. It was essentially similar to what I had done - write tons of templates, like Mad Libs, and then algorithmically fill in the blanks. Mine sometimes generated nonsense (e.g. "I love Mozart! I saw him in concert last year."). But for our purposes, or rather the purposes the marketing people came up with, it didn't matter much.
I saw the list of Narrative Science's investors and noted that In-Q-Tel was on there. Then I asked myself why the CIA's R&D funding arm would want that. The answer was obvious - to generate misinformation to spread to adversary orgs/states. Drown the real message in a sea of lies and your foes will waste more resources trying to find the truth.
I liked to think that maybe they just assumed the influencer was going to mention it was paid or everyone understood that was the case but me .... but it never was actually spoken about.
I couldn't help but wonder if the people paying for these services think that they are ever exposed to other companies doing the same? Do they care?
All major social media (Instagram, Youtube, ...) require you to disclose any promotions. It's absolutely normal in "old" media. I think that it's assumed if the audience was composed of actual business people.
"Thanks, Club Med, for a great week!"
and consider that "disclosing the paid nature of the item".
No one is saying "I'm running an AdSense campaign but forgot to tell Google that they need to mark it as an advertisement!" It goes without saying. These people are professionals same as anyone else and know the rules of their trade same as anyone else.
[1] "influencer" meaning someone with a significant presence on social media, blogs, podcasts, YouTube, etc.
[2] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...
If you answer no, see: Philip Morris, Lockheed, Beretta, etc.
There is a lot of evidence that organized crime is a substitute for opportunities in legitimate society, so that example is perhaps not applicable. The opioid crisis caused by US pharma may be a bigger and better example.
But yes, supply will provide every legal thing in demand. Indeed, that is how the invisible hand is "supposed" to work.
I could just as easily posit easy international travel, world trade, mass media, democracy, and many other things as more effective than h-bombs for bringing about the relative peace of the late 20th/early 21st century.
Those particular things have the added benefit that they generally don't risk the side-effect of world annihilation.
Yes, it's challenging to answer with certainty.
Though "easy international travel, world trade, mass media, democracy, etc." were not invented at almost the precise moment that all-out large scale wars ("world wars") on Earth ended.
There are moral implications to building weapons of annihilation in exchange for wealth.
Also, Lockheed's role in Manhattan Project era nuclear weapons development was non-existent. And the delivery aircraft was manufactured by Boeing.
For examples you might have been better choosing cases where the production rather than use by customers is problematic.
Radium paint and dials, asbestos, prior to 20th century regulations food and medicine fraud and adulteration so endemic that finding just the correct product was almost impossible. Which is what led those regulations in the first place.
Capitalism is what it is - an utterly amoral engine of profit. Without regulation and legal frameworks it will create slaves, destroy the environment, kill and maim people - there's almost no limit.
What the OP's anecdote illustrates is that there's also a deep cultural issue at play.
Many in the South abhorred slavery and segregation, but had no choice but to follow the law.
Killing and maiming people has been a State activity since they've existed. It's one of the things they're very efficient at.
Make no mistake, Slavery was an intended feature. Not a bug, nor a result of a state gone wild. It was considered part of their economy and part of their free market.
Slavery was only ended at the insistence of laws put in place by the state.
But I'd like to examine it with more nuance: Does it vary across time or across place? Is it different than the culture of the people from which the company emerged (e.g., how do private American citizens behave differently than large American companies)? Most importantly, on what factors does good and bad corporate behavior depend? My guess is that some of this research has been done - I'd love some pointers to it.
[0] A recent headline: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-israel...
Fake news is how free speech is supposed to work. People get to say what they want and the populace decides for themselves what is right or wrong. Liable and slander are still in effect.
I can't agree with your statement. Game news is the contrary of what free speach stands for. Free speach is about being able to express your opinions. Fake news are intentionally misleading and hurt other people's well-being.
> Fake news" isnt a problem the problem is a lazy populace that take any word for granted as long as the production value is good enough.
Blame the victim. If you cheat me, it is my fault to not see thru your lie, if you rob me it's my fault for not being more vigilant.
If I lie about my products, or about other things for economical gain. Shouldn't the state make sure that I'm punished for that? Should not be the same case that for breaking a contract?
As fake news is a form of expression, how do you propose to draw a meaningful distinction between protected speech and speech that may hurt the well-being of others? Especially one that does not risk chilling effects or becoming prior restraint, and is thus compatible with freedom of speech.
Fraud is one thing, but hiring some e-celeb to pitch your product isn't something we need jack-booted thugs kicking in doors for. We don't even have an objective definition of "fake news", and you'll never convince me the State should be the one defining or enforcing that.