"We underestimated influencers in 2016. How do we neutralize them?"
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (95)
sorted by:
But, you're not doing everything the same...your content is the same, but you're bringing it to a different platform, which benefits that platform.
Take your game, for example. And this was actually happening all the time when Epic Game Store was trying to get in on the market. Say your game gets some level of fame before your 1.0 release. You're independent, doing your thing. Now say Epic reaches out, and says they want your game exclusively on their platform for X time, but you retain all control. You're doing the exact same thing, you're not beholden to anyone, but you're now giving Epic value by being on their platform, and drawing people who were interested in your game there.
Now, I'm not even saying you should take that hypothetical deal, and I'm personally no fan of Epic, but it's not inherently sleezy (unless you've made promises to other platforms, which was part of the controversy around Epic), it's above board, and it may very well be an excellent deal for you. Again, you don't have to change anything, and you get more money. It's why so many people did jump at that.
That's essentially what Tenet was doing; they wanted names with some draw to provide some exclusive content, but did not themselves have any editorial control over said content. Take Tim Pool; they had him license a show he was already producing to their network. Everything was the same but the channel.
No. Again, completely missing the point. I'm not saying "take the deal," I'm saying it's alright and understandable to take the deal.
Yeah.
The organization is not foreign. The investors were not Russian on paper, but may have been Russian citizens, perhaps either planted or allowed by US feds. Again, though, nowhere is it alleged any content was changed, or any creator was doing the bidding of Russia.
Even if the allegations are completely true, it still doesn't make the creators the bad guys, and the DOJ, media, and bots still end up looking awful.
You keep saying how this is a government trap...but then blaming the victims. Weird as fuck. And, look, it's not a "technicality" if you get to produce whatever you want, and are just paid to do so on a particular channel. That's pretty dang exonerating.
Are you being intentionally dense, or...?
You, about the government, from various comments:
You, about the victims, from various comments:
So...it's a setup by the DOJ, but they're guilty.
A bunch of outright attacks, and 'where there's smoke, there's fire' reasoning. When, again, there's smoke because well known enemy entities are saying there's smoke.
Where's the misrepresentation? You say the government is out to get them...but blame the people who are getting got by the government. I'd say that's a fair characterization, no?
You also keep accusing people of defending glowie ops, when that's what you're doing...
Tencent is a Chinese company. Tenet Media is an American company, by Americans, and friends of the commentators. Again, totally different scenario. Also, anyone taking Tencent money is in the know, for better or worse. Working for Tenet has no assumed foreign connection.
Also, the whole 'foreign' thing is a total dodge, when we have our own government and corporations spending so much more. This is like the $100,000 on Facebook ads "Russian collusion" all over again. Even if it were true, it gets nowhere near the level of what Zuckerborg was doing, or the illegal influence the government does, or the lawfare against candidates and election integrity.
Basically, even if true (which it's not), don't care. Once again, even if the allegations are totally correct...the Russians didn't accomplish any influence here.
Again, you're ignoring what everyone is saying. It wasn't for doing nothing, it was for doing the exact same thing they were doing, but at a new company. Tenet was building their brand on big names like Tim Pool; that's where the value is. They were paying for his audience, not to change his content, and certainly not for nothing.
LOL.
Look, let me break it down. You're accusing people of "defending" and "fanboying" for the creators.
I don't think there's even anything to defend against. The allegations are bullshit, because they're from extremely unreliable sources, in an obviously coordinated attack.
Also, I'm going to ask for the third or fourth time, try not to dodge again.
In a hypothetical situation, where the UK government, known to be hostile to groups like the Lotus Eaters, releases an indictment saying Lotus Eaters unknowingly took money from Russian citizens; the BBC, also known to be hostile to them, runs with it and exaggerates the already flimsy government claims to make them out to be traitors; and bot farms attack the Lotus Eaters online on their various locations...do you condemn the Lotus Eaters?
What if it's Dankula, and Scotland goes after him (again)? Do you condemn Dank?
Because that's what you're doing here.