Verily I say unto thee, that Johan Lindquist spake thusly:
> So anyway, it was like, 04:46 CET Dec 05 2008, you know? Oh, and,
> yeah, Homer was all like, "Dude,
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Johan Lindquist spake thusly:
>>> So anyway, it was like, 20:00 CET Dec 03 2008, you know? Oh, and,
>>> yeah, Homer was all like, "Dude,
>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Johan Lindquist spake thusly:
>>>>> So anyway, it was like, 03:42 CET Dec 03 2008, you know? Oh,
>>>>> and, yeah, Homer was all like, "Dude,
[snip stuff about television]
WRT television, I'm talking about what I am familiar with. For all I
know, Australian broadcasters might very well use subliminal adverts
during programmes (something that would /definitely/ be illegal here
in the UK) much less take any actual measures to ensure it was clear
a commercial break was in progress.
>> Even in print, publishers are required by UK law to clearly state
>> that a feature is an advertisement, under the CAP Code:
>
> [..]
>
> That's some strict laws you have there.
I take it you mean that it's unwarranted?
Well this is another area where we obviously disagree. AFAIAC any law
designed purely to protect the public from predators (and yes,
advertisers /can/ be predatory if unregulated), and has no hidden agenda
or ulterior motives (e.g. so-called "terrorism" laws) is fully justified.
> I'm not aware of such a law in this country
If not then there should be.
>> Given that we now know for a fact that "[Vendor] Recommends Vista"
>> is a paid advertisement, but that none of these vendors sites label
>> them as such, then they are clearly in violation of the CAP Code.
>>
>> What is so difficult to understand about that?
>
> Maybe UK is not the world
Like I said, I'm talking about what I'm familiar with and/or what is
pertinent to me. I would also hope that other countries have similar
regulations, but for those that don't, I pity them.
And the lack of such laws elsewhere does not excuse e.g. Lenovo's
behaviour, since IMO their actions (and that of other "recommenders" is
morally wrong, regardless of what any particular country's laws
stipulate. Also, since most of these vendors have offices in the UK
(i.e. are VAT licensed and registered UK businesses), and advertise in
various media in the UK, then they are subject to UK law (in that
limited scope). Remedial action taken against these vendors in the UK
might not have a far-reaching effect beyond these shores, but it
certainly won't do any harm to the better interests of at least some
portion of the public.
> and you falsely assume I'm either aware of where you live and your
> local laws
The only wrong assumption I made was that you would be as outraged as I
am about this highly immoral practise, and that your initial lack of
concern was driven by misunderstanding or ignorance. But you've made it
perfectly clear that you /do/ understand ... it's just that you simply
don't care. Of course that then begs the question: Why would someone who
doesn't care about others being manipulated by misleading advertising,
continue to engage in a distended debate on the subject? This would
suggest that you /do/ care, but unfortunately what you "care" about
seems to be entirely antithetical to what /I/ care about. But in the end
only you can answer the question and explain your motives.
> So do you think they and their sponsors need to be indicted along
> with microsoft and the computer companies then?
I believe the ASA would pursue, at the very least, the company that
placed the advertisement. They might also pursue the publisher or
broadcaster (if there were a large enough number of infractions), but
you'd have to check with the ASA for details.
>>> Do you really think all those professionals privately and
>>> professionaly use the brands they endorse, and nothing else?
>>
>> Irrelevant. The point is about transparency in advertising, not
>> brand loyalty.
>
> You were all up in arms about Lenovo not using the prodcuts they
> recommend just before, though.
Yes I was, and still am, but that is a separate issue which only
highlights the irony of Lenovo's position, and proves that their
"recommendation" is false. The newly exposed evidence now explains
Lenovo's contradictory behaviour - they were paid to lie, by making what
was ostensibly an impartial recommendation that was actually a paid
advert. The part where they were bribed to lie is certainly noteworthy,
but it is not the central issue.
>> When someone is /paid/ to endorse a product, then it should be made
>> /clear/ that endorsement is actually a paid advertisement, and not
>> an impartial recommendation.
>
> Apparently we're in disagreement on this part. I'd rather consumers
> learned to take advertising for what it is, it would make for a more
> aware general public who doesn't depend on the authorities as much.
Unacceptable. That is akin to the US Marines tolerating so-called "Code
Reds" because it "toughens them up". Why should innocent victims be the
ones who have to bend to fit the will of the criminals, when democratic
societies should have laws to protect the weak and punish the guilty?
You seem to be advocating anarchy and barbarism.
>> So basically you're saying that it's OK to manipulate people if
>> they're gullible enough to be manipulated, and that the law should
>> not protect such people by enforcing certain advertising standards?
>>
>
> If there's a law that says "advertising should be clearly marked as
> such", then it should obviously be followed. I wasn't aware of any
> such law until you pointed out the existance of one in your country.
Well that's an unenthusiastic answer, if I ever heard one, and a rather
institutionalised one. Your shoulders must hurt from all that shrugging.
> I don't quite see the need for such a law
Yes, I get it.
>> Does that include children too?
>>
>> Just curious.
>
> Ooh, nice "who will protect the children?" card you managed to play
> there.
It's not a gambit at all, it's a perfectly legitimate question based on
your rather naive belief that "everybody understands" when they're being
manipulated, and that society doesn't have an obligation to protect
people from con-men.
> Since you're curious, I can tell you I haven't really considered how
> many children buy computers and get tricked by the type of
> recommendation we're discussing.
Obviously you don't have any children, or you'd understand that they are
very much influenced by such things, and that they "buy" by exerting
pressure on their parents for what they want. Ask yourself why certain
adverts directly and exclusively target children. How do these
"penniless" kids buy any of that stuff?
But the point WRT children or (as the other example I gave) the elderly,
is that not everyone in society is necessarily as astute as you think
they should be, and that certain people /need/ protecting from the
predatory advances of those who would manipulate them. In fact I was
being rather kind by limiting my remarks to just those two groups; there
are probably just as many people in between those age groups who are
easily manipulated. I merely used those two extremes to counter your
sweeping "people are smart" assertion.
> However, if the children are old enough to have their own money to
> buy things with, unsupervised, then I think they should have received
> some sort of teaching from their parents or legal guardians on how
> to interpret "messages from our sponsors", regardless of being
> clearly labeled as such or not.
Maybe the government should make self-defence classes mandatory too,
then they can just scrap the police and armed forces. Who needs 'em, eh?
> In fact, I think the type of television advertising that is usually
> aired during children's shows is far less obvious
In Australia? I'd have to check.
> in its manner of trying to trick the children into persuading their
> parents to buy the latest cool stuff than a "Lenovo recommends Vista"
> sticker could ever be to the parents themselves.
I see you just answered your own earlier question.
> Since you apparently have these laws in your country, in what manner
> does the TV commercials that sell "Transformer" toys there point out
> to the children who are just watching the "Transformer" animated show
> that they're no longer watching the show and should be aware that
> the following messages should not be taken at face value?
WRT to all programmes, not just that one specifically: When a channel
breaks (in the UK) it does so quite obviously. The details vary from one
channel to another, but typically the programme will end; the sound will
mute; the screen will fade to black; the channel's logo will appear
(often subtitled by the name of the programme currently showing, and
sometimes accompanied by the channel's jingle); the screen will go black
again; followed by 6 x 30 second adverts for a total of 3 minutes (this
also varies depending on the time of day ... late night advertising
tends to be very brief).
Additionally, broadcasters (again, in the UK) deliberately increase the
sound volume during the commercial breaks. I once read somewhere (in a
newspaper I think) that the reason for this is advertisers were aware
that most viewers left the room (e.g. to go make a cup of tea) during
the adverts, and that by increasing the volume those viewers would at
least still be able to hear the adverts. This theory seems to be
supported by the fact that power companies report a surge in electrical
power use during the commercials, as presumably everyone simultaneously
switches on their kettle. You may also notice (again, in the UK at
least) that many channels synchronise their advertising slots so viewers
can't escape by simply channel hopping.
The lengths advertisers will go to brainwash us is quite astounding.
WRT programmes interspersed with adverts for products related to that
programme itself (i.e. merchandising) and invariably sold by the same
company that also makes the programme, it's not exactly misleading,
since obviously a company will endorse its /own/ products. Although I
think that in such cases it needs to be made clearer that these
"programmes" are, in and of themselves, basically just one big advert -
like watching The Shopping Channel.
>> The meaning of the word ["recommend"] is not in dispute, it's the
>> context in which that word is used which is misleading.
>
> Yes, and that is the part we're disagreeing on - whether the context
> is sufficiently misleading to warrant legal action against the third
> party who apparently paid for the recommendation, especially in the
> light of all the other forms of paid advertising that's out there.
You obviously don't make a distinction between an avert that is clearly
an advert, and one that is masked as impartial advice. The difference
can be described with the single word "deception".
>>> If you think it's sufficiently misleading to warrant a lawsuit,
[...]
>> The correct procedure is to make a formal complaint to the
>> advertising standards authorities, who then investigate that
>> complaint and take remedial action if required. It's highly
>> unlikely that a civil court case instigated by the complainant
>> would be necessary.
>
> Fair enough, let's call it "legal action" instead of "a lawsuit"
> then, and you can tell me if you or anyone you know of are currently
> taking such actions instead of teaching me how it should be done.
You've still missed it.
I (the complainant) do not take any legal action at all. Ever. The /ASA/
takes the action (if warranted), which (in the first instance) will most
likely not be legal action either, but (what I believe is called) a
notice of compliance. As the complainant, all /I/ have to do is
/complain/ ... to the ASA. For all I know there may well have already
been many such complaints made to the ASA on this matter. I have no way
of knowing, since AFAIK such complaints are taken in confidence, but if
you really; really want to know if any such complaints have already been
received by the ASA, then by all means ask them.
>> And again you show more sympathy for the violators than their
>> victims.
>
> "Violators" and "victims", now? Are you going to start comparing it
> to some heinous crime soon, or what?
Does a crime need to be "heinous" for it to still be a crime? Do
non-heinous crimes not really matter then? Are people who suffer the
consequences of non-heinous crimes not really victims? How much does
someone need to suffer (in the Personal Damages sense of the word) to be
entitled to describe himself as a "victim".
What objections do you have to those terms, I wonder? After all it's
perfectly correct to refer to someone who violates a code of practise as
a "violator", and to the people who suffer the consequences of that
violation as "victims".
Or maybe, as you've alluded to repeatedly in your diatribe, people need
to toughen up; stop whining; take it on the chin like a man, ad nauseam.
After all, crime is perfectly acceptable, and should be tolerated. Right?
I find your attitude sickening.
[snip analogy]
> Oh, hey, deadly accidents and predators. Close enough.
I think you've already proved you don't give a damn about people's
rights; compounding your indefensible position with yet more sarcasm
isn't helpful.
> Unless you get back to the perspective of economics
Ah, and here we come to the root of your dissent.
Are you by any chance related to this (and I use the word reservedly)
gentleman:
http://static.slated.org/whydannycarltonisblocked.html
> rather than, subtly or not, make it all into some sinister plan to
> wipe out the human race anytime soon
Your hyperbole might be funny if it actually made any sense.
In what way does dishonest marketing threaten life?
Or perhaps you mean to suggest that such things are unimportant /unless/
they are life-threatening.
> I don't think I'm all that interested in discussing truth in
> advertising with you.
You certainly don't seem to be interested in discussing the truth behind
your motives for defending these marketing scum, but you've spent quite
a /bit/ of time discussing the rest, so clearly you have quite a bit of
interest in the matter.
>> Without those laws, society would descend into a corrupt cesspool
>> of thugs exploiting the weak ... victimising our children and
>> grandparents. Maybe you don't give a damn about them, but I do.
>
> "Thugs"?!?
Yes thugs. There's more to thuggery than bashing in heads with a
crowbar, you know. Just like there's more to crime than murder. You may
be shocked to discover that so-called "white collar" people commit
crimes every day, sometimes even whilst wearing a suit and tie. The kind
of people who would advertise so deceitfully have a thug mentality.
> Don't try to make this into some "you're an evil dude" who don't care
> about the sick and elderly now.
If you want to describe yourself as evil then go right ahead. Personally
I was just going to stick with "apathetic", but frankly I don't quite
know what to make of you. You're certainly not very charitable (and no,
I don't mean anything to do with money) that's for sure.
> "thugs [..] victimising our children and grandparents"? Seriously? Is
> it so bad now that if grandma buys a computer with microsoft windows
> on it because she read that it was recommended by the laptop
> manufacturer she's a victim of a brutal crime?
Again with the hyperbole.
Does a crime need to be "brutal" for it to still be a crime?
"Grandma" would be a /victim/ of (in a very literal sense) a confidence
trick. Does that make her any less of a victim?
> Regardless of whether it does, actually, work as advertised or not?
The misleading statement is not that "it works", but that it's
"recommended" ... when it isn't - it's commercially endorsed. You
apparently can't tell the difference, but I can, and the big clue that
gives the game away is the fact that there is no indication whatsoever,
anywhere on any of those vendors Websites, that Microsoft actually
/paid/ them to make that "recommendation". And just to be clear, this
isn't about the fact that they were paid, it's about the fact that they
/hid/ that subtle detail from their potential customers, because that
tiny detail changes /everything/ about the integrity of that
"recommendation".
>>>> So the chairman of Lenovo believes Vista is "not stable, it
>>>> could have some problems," and yet:
>>>
>>> Actually he didn't say right out that he thought it wasn't
>>> stable, the quote above is rather more conditional than you make
>>> it out to be.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> Hardly. If you're going to quote someone, do it correctly and don't
> change the meaning of their words.
No, it's irrelevant. The meaning hasn't changed at all, since the
chairman of Lenovo still lacks confidence in Vista, with or without the
presence of the word "if" in that sentence. Also, for someone who claims
to have such enhanced acuity, you seem to have missed the part where
Lenovo did in fact veto the use of Vista at the Olympic Games, thus
further supporting the probability that the chairman was merely offering
the polite and diplomatic version of the explanation.
>> The chairman of Lenovo lacks confidence in a product that his
>> company nonetheless "recommends" ... because they're /paid/ to. IOW
>> when Lenovo makes this recommendation they're /lying/ to fulfil
>> the obligation of a /bribe/.
>
> Ok, so you are confident he's lying. Well, by all means, then you
> should indeed work towards some sort of legal action
As I said, that's the ASA's job.
>> Why are you making excuses for them?
>
> I'm trying to provide a balanced view
What kind of "balanced view" is there of a company that is demonstrably
(and deliberately - i.e. by accepting a bribe) in violation of
advertising standards?
You'll be trying to present me with a "balanced view" of /Microsoft/ next.
> Do you have a career in politics at all?
Spot the irony in that question, coming from someone who justifies
supporting the indefensible with the "balanced view" gambit.
> So apart from the talk shows, how are the commercial blocks in
> broadcasted television indicated where you live?
See my answer to your "Transformers" question, above.
> Well, see, since I'm not as enraged as you are about the whole trying
> to trick the unsuspecting public with obviously commercial messages
It's not "obvious" according to the CAP Code.
> the advertisers aren't actually violating standards.
Perhaps you need to raise your standards then.
>> Do you think /all/ crimes should go unpunished, or just the ones
>> you don't care about?
>
> See, now you're doing the whole "you're an evil dude" thing again,
> but with the addition that I'm also somehow supporting criminal
> acitivies in general. It's not a really nice way of trying to discuss
> a subject, you know.
I have a problem finding the line between apathy and malice, when others
express a general disinterest in injustice.
Perhaps you can help me find that line
>>> Until the authorities clamp down on this despicable behaviour
>>
>> They /do/ if you actually bother to make a complaint.
>
> Let me know how that goes then. No, really, I'm actually curious.
More likely you're eager to see such a complaint fail, so you can gloat
over it, thus satisfying yourself that the world is once again safe for
predators to exploit the weak with complete impunity.
>>> I guess we'll just have to use our own criticism and awareness as
>>> consumers and/or human beings and not believe everything we
>>> read.
>>
>> That's all very well for those who actually have that capacity.
>> Others aren't so lucky.
>
> This is a case where luck really has nothing to do with it.
How else would you describe someone with a diminished intellectual
capacity, or is otherwise in a weak position, ripe for exploitation?
> I just don't see it as such a big deal
You've made that crystal clear.
What you haven't made clear is "why".
> Will you also take action against any other advertisers who are in
> violation of the code in question?
If any of them ever become as big a threat to society as Microsoft, then
yes.
> the goal here would unfortunately seem rather to go on a crusade
> against a particular software company
Why not, after all - /they/ are on a "crusade" against /us/, the Free
Software community. Personally I think that's a poor choice of word
though. I would have gone with "self-defence", but apparently you're
uncomfortable with people sticking up for their rights, which is why you
need to malign them.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
06:18:09 up 30 days, 14:01, 5 users, load average: 2.23, 1.40, 0.96
|
|
