Society/Culture "Grifting" versus ethics: Is it anything goes?

[Gethelred]

The words 'Grifting' and 'grifter' pop up a lot on the SRP, so it's probably worthwhile to have a thread dedicated to discussing the ethics of online marketing versus the full kit of manipulative tactics used in online spaces to obtain revenue.

Is it clickbait? Is it shilling? Is it taking money from an advertiser or pumping your own products? Is it stunts? Is it deliberately dogwhistling in your content to bring in the right wing crowd?

Is there such a thing as ethical dealings under capitalism, anyway? If there isn't, why is grifting any different from what every business does or how they operate?

Where is the line for you between legitimate advertising or marketing and producing good or worthwhile content to make money and being a no good, never good, souless grifter?

Standard board rules apply. Go nuts.

 

[Spearman]

When I use the term grifter, I mean it in the confidence game context: knowingly peddling false or misleading information for gain. Carlson is an example. He doesn't believe some the shit he spews, but does it anyway for the power. Jones as well, makes millions off the BS he sells.
There are others who prey off the lies they spread, but how much they believe them is uncertain. I think most know they are not true conspiracies. A grifter jumps on the bandwagons of ignorance. The political grifters are bandwagoners.
In this information overload age, consumers need to evolve into smarter ones. Impossible I'm afraid for the majority 'first worlders', let alone less worldly or advanced societies.
Misleading advertising, clickbaiting, and outright fraud have always been a part of sales, ever since people started trading stuff tens of millennia ago. (think stone age Michael Palin hawking a lovely piece of rock )

 

[ElectricG]

When I use the term grifter, I mean it in the confidence game context: knowingly peddling false or misleading information for gain. Carlson is an example. He doesn't believe some the s**t he spews, but does it anyway for the power. Jones as well, makes millions off the BS he sells.
There are others who prey off the lies they spread, but how much they believe them is uncertain. I think most know they are not true conspiracies. A grifter jumps on the bandwagons of ignorance. The political grifters are bandwagoners.
In this information overload age, consumers need to evolve into smarter ones. Impossible I'm afraid for the majority 'first worlders', let alone less worldly or advanced societies.
Misleading advertising, clickbaiting, and outright fraud have always been a part of sales, ever since people started trading stuff tens of millennia ago. (think stone age Michael Palin hawking a lovely piece of rock )

I would add political commentators whose viewership and therefore income depends on causing as much controversy as possible. If you are making all of views more incendiary because you’ve worked out it makes more money, then they’re not really your views are they? And if you’re getting rich saying things you don’t mean, then you’re full of shite.

 

[Sqotty from office works]

Grafter and spiv generally go together.
Since I can remember my dad would always tell us never trust a man of the church, man in uniform or a spiv.
Learnt to pick one from a mile away.
I think gift is an americanism of spiv.

People these days don't get taught about spivs until they get taken for a ride.
eg scommo was a spiv.

 

[Malifice]

Grifting runs the gamut from pre-Internet shit (think Scientology and associated snake oil salesmen) to the current social media-based model.

1) Post inflammatory crap on social media (X, YouTube, Instagram) etc.
2) Let the algorithm do its job.
3) Profit.

The system rewards flame wars, controversy and misinformation. Those stories are then copied and linked, and go viral, and the next thing you know a lot of vulnerable people are utterly cooked (polarized and radicalized) by nonsense.

The Lauren Southerns, Alex Jones and Avi Yemnis of the internet.

There are tons of 'influencers' who know exactly what they're doing, and simply dont give a ****. Vaccine misinformation was a perfect example during the COVID crisis, with a significant amount of misinformation being deliberately spread by 'influencers' who knew exactly what they were doing, and why.

The outcome was literally hundreds of thousands of people unnecessarily dying (in agony) when they didnt need to.

But as long as the AdSense revenue and sponsors rolled in, the grifters simply saw it as a win.

I personally can't stand the campaigners. I loathe cookers generally, but the reality is for most of them that it's not really their fault they're cookers. They've been fried by the algorithm by grifters who should ****ing know better and where my true loathing lies.

 

[FireKrakouer]

I think it's incredibly wrong when people knowingly and dishonestly push misinformation to benefit themselves at the expense of others. It's less evil when they push something that is incorrect but they genuinely believe in it and have no bad intent.

IMO Joe Rogan is an example of the latter. He platformed unscientific views during covid, but they were views that he seemingly genuinely believed and that he was not directly profiting from. He would also throw in disclaimers to the effect of "Hey I'm not a doctor, I'm an idiot. Go get vaxed, I just think we should also prioritise people improving their general health via diet and exercise".

On that topic, IIRC Neil Young removed his music from spotify due to them platforming Rogans show during this period. I respected that because, unlike many activists, instead of simply demanding that someone else be censored or lose income he decided to sacrifice a stream of revenue himself out of principle.

Compare this to the example I often give of celebrities taking private jets to climate conferences to lecture the poors on how it is them who need to make sacrifices to save the planet.

Is there such a thing as ethical dealings under capitalism, anyway? If there isn't, why is grifting any different from what every business does or how they operate?

I have seen lines like this and I think they're a bit of a defeatist cop out. Let's assume that it's true that there is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism. Ethics are still not a black and white binary. Littering and mass murder are both unethical, but obviously to very different degrees. An individual or organisation can at least minimise the negative impact they have.

When buying a dozen eggs at a supermarket, all of those products have involved cruelty to animals in their production. However, by spending an extra dollar to get barn / free range eggs instead of caged, we can make a minor sacrifice in order to fund the less cruel option, sending a message to the corporations by voting with our wallets. The egg thing is probably a terrible example, but you get my drift.

 

[Malifice]

I think it's incredibly wrong when people knowingly and dishonestly push misinformation to benefit themselves at the expense of others. It's less evil when they push something that is incorrect but they genuinely believe in it and have no bad intent.

IMO Joe Rogan is an example of the latter. He platformed unscientific views during covid, but they were views that he seemingly genuinely believed and that he was not directly profiting from.

Leaving aside the AdSense revenue and dollars per view on his YouTube videos (and his antivaxx ones got literally tens of millions of combined views on Youtube alone), there is also this:

Spotify has reached a new deal with star podcaster Joe Rogan that will allow his hit show to be distributed broadly.

Rogan’s fresh deal—estimated to be worth as much as $250 million over its multiyear term, according to people familiar with the matter—involves an upfront minimum guarantee, plus a revenue sharing agreement based on ad sales.

https://www.wsj.com/business/media/joe-rogan-podcast-spotify-deal-28eb5f74

These grifters make money.

I partly agree with you that the cooker seemed to actually believe the crap he was peddling, but he has an audience of 11 million people. He needs to be responsible when spruiking utter shit, and not be platforming shitcampaigners like antisemites, conspiracy theorists and anti vaxxers, or promoting obvious misinformation.

Check your sources for ****s sake.

MSM Journos are at least held to some standards of responsible and ethnical journalism. Freelance podcasters and the like are not. They just spruike whatever crap they want with whomever they want, with zero repercussions (beyond being cancelled by the platform).

In fact, the algorithm actively encourages them to spruike enraging bullshit like racism, conspiracy theories and politically charged comments, because that's where the money lies.

 

[demondavey]

The basic definition below

 

[demondavey]

We seem to have gone the online social commentary way first up. I am not really sure if that’s grifting. Or maybe it is? Online commentary and spread of misinformation is basically an industry. It’s opportunistic. People now generate revenue a different way, through revenue for marketing platforms. Social media has just evolved to minimise news content from broadsheets on the 7:50am train into town with personal space encroached whilst reading a page of news to snippets of content on an I phone screen, listening to influencers peddle ideas, and social commentators whip up frenzies.

Grifting to me implies it’s wrong but I’ll do it anyway. I am a thief etc. The question is that these people are either weaponising conspiracy theories deliberately (which should be a crime) or genuinely believe it which means that they aren’t grifting but have found an avenue to spread rubbish through their deluded views.

COVID must have made a lot of people a lot of money. I think these platforms are a dishonest way to make money. You’re just talking shit. It’s not a job, but idiots go there and big corporations pay for exposure. Since COVID we’ve had a massive reemergence of so many issues of conspiracy, also fuelled heavily by the Trump presidency and his basic inability to accept his country was in an existential health crisis because his right wing disciples needed a cause.

I know he was a murderer, but Ted Kaczynski really hit on something when he said technology was going to be problematic. If the guy didn’t murder people he might have had more traction getting his point across, but he did and deserved his whack.

 

[Chief]

Is this grifting?





A Canadian company offers a conservative media channel $100,000 a video.

That company then produces and distributes videos of Russian propaganda.

Turns out it was a Russian influence operation.

Despite the claims of being duped, these guys did zero investigation on who was offering them millions of dollars to post videos.

Up front the media company asked for a massive amount of money for non-exclusive video rights, when it was obvious there was no return on the investment but as an influence operation.

Not long after this started, Tim Pool had a left wing commentator on his show and claimed that his big private compound with underground skate park and his rich lifestyle was paid for with individual subscription money.

Lied about it publicly. In a video he was getting $100k to make.

Grifter or not a grifter?

(Of course we know it's grifting.)

 

[ElectricG]

Is this grifting?





A Canadian company offers a conservative media channel $100,000 a video.

That company then produces and distributes videos of Russian propaganda.

Turns out it was a Russian influence operation.

Despite the claims of being duped, these guys did zero investigation on who was offering them millions of dollars to post videos.

Up front the media company asked for a massive amount of money for non-exclusive video rights, when it was obvious there was no return on the investment but as an influence operation.

Not long after this started, Tim Pool had a left wing commentator on his show and claimed that his big private compound with underground skate park and his rich lifestyle was paid for with individual subscription money.

Lied about it publicly. In a video he was getting $100k to make.

Grifter or not a grifter?

(Of course we know it's grifting.)

Seems to be the way most of them go. Get a large platform on the back of speaking some “uncomfortable truths” and then, by sleight of hand, their channel becomes all climate denial and pro russian shite.

 

[dumb]

i think the operative part is fleecing the supporter base you've gathered. i've seen it from both sides of the political divide.

it is sort of a mirror of ye olde days. there's a groundswell for your ideas, and you attempt to pivot into actual political spheres with your supporters in place. however, the goal with the platforms we have in place nowadays is money and the power that comes with it is a by-product.

there's more benign ways of extracting dollars from your supporters. some of it comes down to how much money do you want to make? people on platforms though seem to feel/understand that the more radical stuff they spout, the more likely people are to part way with their money. very few people make a lot of money in the online world from sitting on the fence.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Now first of all I'm unsure if this is part of the thread re grifting, but I am calling out Panahi's recent fake news attack on the US Democrat Election campaign (as detailed in media watch)

Ep 35 - Sky News Election Lie - Media Watch

Sky News host Rita Panahi issues an on-air correction after broadcasting fake claims about a Kamala Harris campaign.

www.abc.net.au

Basically took the view of a "so called" investigative person ("Bad Hombre") that two people appearing in a Democrat ad were not ex republicans voting against trump but paid actors with a history of donating to pro democrat causes (the ubiquitous ActBlue organisation)

Because it aligned with her biases, she put the story on Sky News and itself was then retweeted and rebroadcast

Then it was found that Bad Hombre ****ed up.

She made a piss weak retraction

I call her grifter as she is making mint out of Sky news (being paid way more than her talent would deserve)

I have sent a complaint letter aiming to deplatform her

 

[Chief]

Basically took the view of a "so called" investigative person ("Bad Hombre") that two people appearing in a Democrat ad were not ex republicans voting against trump but paid actors with a history of donating to pro democrat causes (the ubiquitous ActBlue organisation)

This would be like that time some soldiers were paid to lie about serving with John Kerry?

 

[Crankyhawk]

This would be like that time some soldiers were paid to lie about serving with John Kerry?

I don’t recall that incident can you expand?

 

[Chief]

I don’t recall that incident can you expand?

John Kerry military service controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of the approximately 3,600 Swift boat sailors who served in Vietnam, the names of some 200 appeared on the group's statement against Kerry; most did not serve at the same time or in the same place as Kerry.[7] Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined SBVT.[8] He was not present on any of the occasions when Kerry earned his medals, including his Purple Hearts. Gardner appeared in two of the group's television advertisements. All other living members of Kerry's crew supported his presidential bid, and some frequently campaigned with him as his self-described "band of brothers". Kerry crew members have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations, calling them "totally false" (Drew Whitlow), "garbage" (Gene Thorson), and "a pack of lies" (Del Sandusky).[9][10][11][12] Several members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) served in the same unit as Kerry, although Gardner was the only one to serve on Kerry's boat.[13] A number of Kerry's SBVT critics were present on accompanying Swift Boats at one of the combat events for which Kerry was decorated with the Bronze Star Medal and a third Purple Heart.[14] Another SBVT member, Dr. Louis Letson, was the physician who claims to have treated Kerry for his first Purple Heart wound.[15] Larry Clayton Lee was the sole SBVT member to participate in the event for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star.[16] No SBVT member participated in events related to the award of Kerry's second Purple Heart.