zlacker

>>tortil+(OP)
Isn't this illegal? The FCC should investigate. These 'reviews' are paid sponsorships which need to be disclosed.

>>yellow+N02
Paid reviews are legal in most of the world. In most of the world you don't even need to disclose that it is paid.

>>london+l72
> Rotten Tomatoes is located in San Francisco, California

>>willci+wi2
But do they have an employer / employee relationship with those critics or are they doing a section-230-compliant resharing / publicizing of those critics' personal opinions?

>>shadow+xj2
That defence hasn't worked for social media sites, they have had to enact tools and policies to let users know when a post is sponsored.

>>willci+Cn2
If you mean on, say, YouTube, that's something the FTC requires content creators to do, not YouTube. YouTube requires content creators to disclose to them for a separate reason: their advertising guarantees to advertisers include things like ad exclusion, so if your video includes a paid sponsorship from Pepsi, Coca-Cola can automatically not waste money injecting an ad into the middle of that video (they consider that impression run directly next to their competition while the competition is being actively painted in a good light to be a waste).

I only know about YouTube's policies, but I do wonder if the story at other social networks for paid-sponsorship disclosure is similar, since they all have an advertising component.