Steam has begun warning users not to use a high-profile Counter-Strike: GO gambling website after its ownership turned out to be two YouTube stars - who were also using YouTube to promote the site.
Trevor "TmarTn" Martin and Tom "Syndicate" Cassell are listed in newly-uncovered business records as the president and vice-president, respectively, of online gambling site CS:GO Lotto.
The news of CS:GO Lotto's ownership came as a surprise to viewers who have watched the pair promote the site on their channels, where both YouTube stars can be seen gambling - and winning big money - while using it.
Neither had publicly disclosed their full roles in the site. TmarTn had not even disclosed his videos as being promotional tools.
No, it's betting on in-game item unlocks. That's how they avoid gambling regulations. You can't win money, just virtual goods so they say it's not gambling. Thing is, these virtual goods can just as easily be sold for real money again.
Aye, the 'won' goods can be used to buy 'paid' goods too and as you said, easily converted into real money. So these goods have a monetary value, it's gambling
Might even find a money laundering racket in there somewhere
[color=red] . : [/color][size=85] You knows you knows [/size]
up next: is Marzia actually a hooker that Pewdiepie has been paying to pretend she's his girlfriend? did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?
Wasn't this long known? I thought Totalbiscuit and Jim Sterling (among others) had already exposed the conditions for a pre-release review copy of Shadows of Mordor?
It was. And those two did sound the alarm. It's just back in the news because WB got in trouble with the FTC about it. Corridor Digital was one of the YT channels that didn't disclose properly, but I think PewDiePie did mention it being a sponsored deal.
[quote="YourGrandpa"]I'm satisfied with voicing my opinion and moving on.[/quote]
The posted article states that he didn't announce to his viewers that money exchanged hands n all. If he did then WB wouldn't have gotten in trouble I spose
[color=red] . : [/color][size=85] You knows you knows [/size]
Influencers were advised to disclose the video's sponsored status under YouTube's "Show More" section, but some did not,
Some, not all. TBH I don't really know for sure if PewDiePie is one of the ones who didn't disclose, as I don't watch his videos normally nor follow YT drama for the most part. I know Corridor Digital didn't disclose, because I used to watch their channel until they did the sponsored Mordor video. It felt phony watching it, and I suspected at the time that they were trying to ingratiate themselves to the devs for future access. Then I found out it was a paid video, so I said fuck them and unsubbed.
YouTube is still the Wild West. It will take time before regulation catches up, but I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
[quote="YourGrandpa"]I'm satisfied with voicing my opinion and moving on.[/quote]
Influencers were advised to disclose the video's sponsored status under YouTube's "Show More" section, but some did not,
Some, not all. TBH I don't really know for sure if PewDiePie is one of the ones who didn't disclose, as I don't watch his videos normally nor follow YT drama for the most part. I know Corridor Digital didn't disclose, because I used to watch their channel until they did the sponsored Mordor video. It felt phony watching it, and I suspected at the time that they were trying to ingratiate themselves to the devs for future access. Then I found out it was a paid video, so I said fuck them and unsubbed.
YouTube is still the Wild West. It will take time before regulation catches up, but I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Even if it was under 'show more' it's hidden and still a violation
Influencers were advised to disclose the video's sponsored status under YouTube's "Show More" section, but some did not, and the FTC says this would not have been enough to skirt the rules anyway, as the disclaimer would not have been visible on videos watched through Twitter, Facebook, or other social media sources.
[color=red] . : [/color][size=85] You knows you knows [/size]
chunk: Kind of like the legalese at the end of ads on the radio, sped up to sound like the Micro Machines guy. Nobody pays any attention to them. WB doesn't have any excuse for not being more clear about disclosure; it's not like they haven't been selling ads for decades or anything. They should have been checking on these content creators they had deals with, if only to cover their own asses.
emka: I've seen a few articles like that one over the years. I don't trust most game reviews because of shit like that. I'd rather wait until a game comes out and see how it does. It's all a bit skeevy.
[quote="YourGrandpa"]I'm satisfied with voicing my opinion and moving on.[/quote]
The point of having those things sped up, the same as having small print at the bottom of the page is that it is disclosed information and not hidden, otherwise they could just put a link to their website that has the full terms, such as 2500% APR on a small loan.
I think you're right though, the youtubers should shoulder the blame if that's the point you're getting at. The responsibility for disclosure essentially resides with them imo seeing as they're the ones presenting the information.
[color=red] . : [/color][size=85] You knows you knows [/size]
