Slashdot Mirror
FTC: Machinima Took Secret Cash To Shill Xbox One
jfruh writes: The Machinima gaming video network took money from a marketing agency hired by Microsoft to pay "influencers" up to $45,000 to promote the Xbox One. Crucially, the video endorsers did not disclose that they'd been paid, which has caused trouble with the FTC. For its part, Machinima notes that this happened in 2013, when the current management was not in charge.
So if the management changes, the current management is not responsible for anything.
I'm not sure the judges will agree with that.
Slashdot took money to shill for Dice.
Just a reminder: Machinima is not a "youtuber". It's a professional gaming publication with accreditations to major industry events (like E3) and 15 years of experience, and that's merely using youtube to deliver their own content, including reviews, previews and yes, "native ads". So before any professional publication takes the distance from Machinima just remember that most of any other major gaming site or gaming journalist is or has been in the past guilty of doing the same things.
1. Not surprised
2. How many other marketing agencies are getting away with it?
Seriously, the past couple years it has reached the point where I'm questioning if half the things I'm reading online are even genuine, or just shilled marketing from some PR team to push an agenda or product. It's happened on imgur, on reddit, even 4chan. Nevermind the gawker media rags, gaming media, and even mainstream media. I wouldn't even be surprised if it has happened here. We've all probably seen it - these people we've never heard of who suddenly get mass exposure for no reason, or things that nobody would've given two shits about, but every network carries the story. (Hurr, is the dress black and blue or white and gold!?!)
It's like mass advertising has become mass propaganda, and there's nowhere you can go to escape it.
Remember everyone: #GamerGate is about harassing women and excluding minorities from gaming. It's absolutely not about ethics in gaming journalism and "pay for play" coverage, which never happens.
This message brought to you by gaming journalism.
Took secret cash from Microsoft? As far as the article (and others) say, Microsoft didn't know Machinima even did this!
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
Come on now. This has been going on for years. Isn't it better to just treat all reviews as tainted in this way?
1) Deepfreeze.it: http://www.deepfreeze.it/ does a great job of digging into and revealing the ties, 'backscratching' and outright corruption behind most of the gaming journalists on the big sites.
2) http://www.gamespot.com/forums... or at least the general question: "Gaming 'journalist' - seriously? It's a multibillion-dollar industry, and yet most of the "journalists" are freaks sitting in mom's basement desperately trying to pretend they're the next Perez Hilton, and who are tickled if someone even mentions they exist. None of them have the credibility of even the shammiest movie review shill.
-Styopa
I work in marketing, and have paid for "advertorials" many times. The most effective ads are ones not marked as advertisements. I don't see any problem with this, it's way more common than you think.
and it's still shit now
For its part, Machinima notes that this happened in 2013, when the current management was not in charge.
But you stopped taking this kind of money as soon as the new management came in, right?
[crickets]
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
I had the impression this is a common practice in the industry. A lot of so called "generally reputable techie" sites have a Microsoft agenda. For example neowin.net .
Most brands use the same practice. Look at Samsung and Apple reviews. Both negative and positive they all start with a hidden agenda to market or discredit a competitor.
Even some comments here seem slightly artificial especially when it comes to a big brand or nsa, movie industry and co privacy issues. So it seems pretty obvious that there are individuals payed in some mode to lobby ideas products and so on. If this practice is legal or it is done through some shady economical mechanism / law that is another story. However most of the times it is not as obvious to the reader as one would expect.
So if hidden debt or undisclosed tax liabilities were discovered, would the fact that these were the byproduct of a previous management regime negate the culpability of the current management regime?
And for good measure, crucify a random _half_ of the current one. Maybe that will send a message....
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
But, sirs, that was YEARS ago--way back in the 2013 era. You can't hold us responsible for what happened in the long-long-ago!
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
For its part, Machinima notes that this happened in 2013, when the current management was not in charge.
Why it's the classic "It wasn't us it was somebody else" defense.
I have never heard of the Eggs Box before, but with a price tag of 3.60 what's not to like?
the shills in congress instead.
No .. .corporations give continuity to a legal entity which can outlast humans ... if we start saying corporations have no culpability when their management turns over they could essentially give themselves a get out of jail free card ... "Oh, sorry, we have a new board so we get a clean slate".
And that will pretty much mean we're all completely fucked, because corporations will never be liable for anything every again.
As an entity, the corporation better still be responsible, or you can expect every company to start playing music chairs with the board to allow them to engage in egregiously illegal activity.
Individuals might be in some ways shielded from legal/criminal liability ... but no way in hell we need to be thinking about how to give corporations a legal loophole which will allow them to do anything they please.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The whole fucking internet is an advertisement.
If the business has a debt, or any other liability, that liability of course continues regardless of changes in management. Assuming it's incorporated, the business carries liabilities completely independent of management or ownership. Which is why you can sue the business, you don't have to sue each individual stockholder for $1 each.
CULPABILITY is essentially a moral issue. Culpability refers to knowingly doing WRONG, to being guilty in an ethical sense. One cannot possibly be guilty (culpable) of something you didn't even know about, of an act that you had no part in.
For those that don't remember history M$ had astroturfers on $lashdot for quite some time. As a matter of fact $lashdot is now a shill-piece much like Machinima. Today it is no different except M$ is now paying M$ addicts to shill for Vista 10 and their failed Xbone. Vista 10 takes almost all control and privacy away including criminally changing the default browser settings to M$ Internet Exploder Edge. Remember, extend, embrace, and extinguish is M$ motto. Shrub gave M$ a get out of jail free card and they are back to doing the same thing, regardless of management. M$ should be broken up with all assetts seized and given to the free software community then have the execs and shareholders arrested for intimidation and fraud.
--
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.
The actual order (probably not linked in the article because why would you do that?)
Belief is the currency of delusion.
There is a difference though between the company being liable and the management being liable. It for instance means that the directors wouldn't get prosecuted, but the company could get a fine. Of course that still means the current management take a hit in their paycheque, while the previous management get away scot free. Not entirely fair.
Why do all your 'S' characters have lines through them? I think your keyboard might be broken.
I fine Microsoft's Natural Keyboard to be quite comfortable and reliable. Give it a try! I think you'll like it.
Cheers to you, good sir!
So, I suspect we will see the horde of angry assholes who sent death threats to women ramping up attacks on Machinima? /s
Because, apparently, they're about ethics in gaming broadcasting. And we know what that means.
"For its part, Machinima notes that this happened in 2013, when the current management was not in charge."
So what? Corporations all want to be treatred as citizens and have the same rights as people, the corporation, in it's current state, should still be punished for wrongdoing.
Since i can't tell if the parent is being sarcastic or doubly sarcastic, i'll say this.
If GG had only focused on issues like this, i for one would be cheering them on. But GG didn't come into existence when, for example, Jeff Gerstmann was fired under pressure from a game developer whose game he reviewed poorly, way back in 2007.
They didn't erupt into fury until an indie female developer had sex with a journalist who never even reviewed her game. _That_ was the ethical violation so shocking that it demanded the creation of a movement. And then followed up by throwing a hissy-fit about Sarkesion's and Wu's op-ed pieces. And because there was no rational reason for the level of objections they were raising they resorted to misogynistic threats and insults of anyone who disagreed with them.
So now actual violations of ethics in game journalism are being overshadowed by the group that's using ethics as a flag to wave over their apparent rage that women are involved in gaming and have opinions about it. Claiming to be concerned about "ethics" while focusing almost exclusively on categories of people you dislike is like saying "think of the children" while drafting laws to enable spying on and imprisonment of the kinds of people you dislike.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
The FTC REALLY needs to investigate the Microsoft hired "reputation managers" which post online in various forums and social media platforms! ANY paid post needs to be disclosed! I tire of seeing post after post defending their hideous practices...most of which show up right at 8am pacific time...yeah, those aren't paid shills at all....
It for instance means that the directors wouldn't get prosecuted, but the company could get a fine. Of course that still means the current management take a hit in their paycheque, while the previous management get away scot free. Not entirely fair.
No, it would mean either the current employees take a hit to their paycheck or the customers end up paying more for the product. But the top management? Never.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
You can't hold us responsible for what happened in the long-long-ago!
In a network segment far, far away.
Machinima notes that this happened in 2013, when the current management was not in charge.
Yeah, but did they know about it?
If yes, why didn't they disclose it to the authorities?
If no, why are they not aware that something like that went on in their company?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
When you watch a TV show in the UK that has product placement in it, the warning appears before the show or movie telling you. The U.S. should start doing this.
The FTC got involved as far back as December in direct response to Gamergate pressure, and Gawker was forced update their disclosure policy (and tons of articles that were then clearly in violation). And just recently they updated their disclosure guidelines (guess who was running an ethics campaign asking for exactly that?):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Kotaku...
The section of the FTC's website that deals with disclosures was updated late last month:
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advic...
Some of this new guidance directly reflects the language and particulars of the concerns GamerGate asked the FTC to address.
"Is “affiliate link” by itself an adequate disclosure? What about a “buy now” button?"
Consumers might not understand that “affiliate link” means that the person placing the link is getting paid for purchases through the link. Similarly, a “buy now” button would not be adequate
Does this guidance about affiliate links apply to links in my product reviews on someone else’s website, to my user comments, and to my tweets?
Yes, the same guidance applies anytime you endorse a product and get paid through affiliate links.
The revised webpage contains a great deal more language that needs to be analyzed but these two examples in particular reflect specific complaints GamerGate had about how Gawker Media handle their affiliate link disclosures. I know of no other group of people who were vocally complaining about this specific practice to the FTC. In addition, the FTC emails from my previous posts confirm that, yes, the FTC tailored part of their new guidance because of frequent complaints sent by GamerGate.
And then there are the many, many sites that have updated their ethics policies. It's shameful that you will lie about an entire group of people because you and the press want to pretend that GG isn't the driving force behind all this ethics reform.
If GG had only focused on issues like this, i for one would be cheering them on. But GG didn't come into existence when, for example, Jeff Gerstmann was fired under pressure from a game developer whose game he reviewed poorly, way back in 2007.
OK, try this. Go discuss Gertsmann's firing (or any other AAA corruption) on a bunch of game/tech news websites' forums or article comments and see if the discussion is censored on almost EVERY one of them.
Now try to discuss Nathan Grayson or Patricia Hernandez and see how much censorship and pure venom you encounter, by contrast.
Also notice that Gertsmann's firing was somehow not subject to a week-long, industry-wide news blackout in hopes it would go away. And that the people reporting on it weren't called harassers or mysogynists or terrorists in an attempt to intimidate them and distract from the criticism.
It is the behavior of the press that is the difference. The long-running popularity of Gamergate is the response to the gaming press's cover up of journalistic corruption and long-running smear campaign against gamers. None of the media's lies can ever change that fact.
P.S. AAA review "agreements" (for youtubers, etc.) similar to these were publicized by Totalbiscuit (a major pro-Gamergate guy) a year ago, long before the journalists caught on. GG has nothing against exposing AAA nor indie corruption.
They didn't erupt int
Oh, what a surprise, you forgot to post that evidence he asked for.
.).
Here, let me show you how it's done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That is direct video evidence of an anti-Gamergate Sarkeesian supporter threatening physical violence against a pro-GG guy. We unquestionably know exactly who that guy is (and which side he's on), exactly who he's talking to, and exactly what he said. It took me less than a minute to find the link.
But I bet almost no one reading this has heard of it until now. If there were a video of a guy promoting Gamergate and threatening Sarkeesian, everyone knows we would never hear the end of it, ever, across dozens (probably hundreds) of sites. It proves that those sites are not anti-threats or anti-harrassment; they're just anti-GG (i.e. anti-ethics).
Even so, if you tell me that Sarkeesian isn’t responsible for what that jerk said, and he doesn’t represent her, I would 100% agree with you (and ask you to put two and two together . .
P.S. As a bonus, here are journalistic ethics experts confirming unethical game journo behavior:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
We knew for a long time that Machinima was up to no good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
[NSFW - As most of the stuff by Oney]
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
"The failure to disclose payments for what the FTC called "seemingly objective opinions" violated the FTC Act"
seemingly objective opinions
objective opinions
opinions
As this is the kind of thing they've been saying its all about from the beginning.
What is this bs? Why is everyone assuming only 1 or the other is guilty. They can both be punished? The company can still be fined by the ftc, and the old management can face criminal charges for bribery.
There is a difference though between the company being liable and the management being liable. It for instance means that the directors wouldn't get prosecuted, but the company could get a fine. Of course that still means the current management take a hit in their paycheque, while the previous management get away scot free. Not entirely fair.
Directors are hardly ever prosecuted unless it's really egregious fraud, like Enron.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"Machinima Inc" is the one they're talking about, not Machinima in general, which is the creation of cinema using virtual machines, mostly games that let you control or script characters. Everywhere I see this story, the editorial never mentions that it is a particular company called "Machinima Inc". Please don't forget the "Inc" part of the name as this distinguishes it from the concept of Machinima itself.
Twinstiq, game news