Are we legally associated with advertised services?

[Synchronice]

I think that this case of signature campaign advertisements is very different from the other ones. Here, you just wear the signature and that's all, you don't have to suggest and don't recommend anyone to use the product/website that's in your signature, you don't have to review the website you promote and you just can say zero word about it. You just wear it under signature and that's all, how can I be legally charged for anything if the service turns into scam?
I mean, imagine I wear Balenciaga's t-shirt and the next day I hear news in TV that this company runs bad campaign, etc (you probably know what happened around it recently). Am I legally associated with Balenciaga this way? Should I be charged because I wear their T-shirt with their logo and somehow promote them? Even if I am a celebrity and the company pays me money to wear their t-shirts, I think that I can't be touched.

[1715031752]

1715031752

[1715031752]

1715031752

[1715031752]

1715031752

[1715031752]

1715031752

[1715031752]

1715031752

[BlackHatCoiner]

I addressed a lawyer. Positive answer. No direct association.

Since a lot of the campaigns users advertise here are legitimate businesses that have been operating for years, this isn't likely to be a concern for many.

You don't know what a service does behind your back, though. An entire exchange which were accounted for billions of dollars was caught to launder money. And there are obviously countless of similar, other examples. Sure, I might trust ChipMixer, but in this crazy world we live in, despite the odds it launders their money, we even might have "mixing bitcoin" an illegal activity.

[Saisher]

I addressed a lawyer. Positive answer. No direct association.

I guess all the lawyers will say that too, the main developer or operator is the one who has the burden on all the cases because he is commissioning a campaign to pay people to promote.

Majority of the campaign here do not have affiliate code so they are not really earning from commissions only from posting and showing the banner from their signature campaign, maybe if they are actually leading people or recruiting people directly and they made money from recruiting like they do on Ponzi schemes like Bitconnect, then there's legal liability.

[KingsDen]

I addressed a lawyer. Positive answer. No direct association.

I guess all the lawyers will say that too, the main developer or operator is the one who has the burden on all the cases because he is commissioning a campaign to pay people to promote.

Majority of the campaign here do not have affiliate code so they are not really earning from commissions only from posting and showing the banner from their signature campaign, maybe if they are actually leading people or recruiting people directly and they made money from recruiting like they do on Ponzi schemes like Bitconnect, then there's legal liability.

The laws differ country by country, but there should be a general understanding of the whole scenario.
In my country I have seen ponzi schemes and/or scammers who advertised on national TV and Radio stations and in the end when the scam must have manifested, no agency went to the radio stations or TV to sue them or implicate for whatever reason.
I think that should be our fate in this forum, unless other countries policies differ.

[Accardo]

I think it will depends on how popular you are and what's your power/position on that's project.

That won't be feasible in the forum since the forum cancels any project once it's dictated to be a scam project. I think the law enforcement agencies only focus on the advertisers if they promote a company which has been classified scam. According to OP's complaint, I'd say if the project is working fine and you promote them it's not a problem. The problem begins when you promote a known scam that's wrong. It's not your fault if a genuine company turned a scam in future. You are not guilty by any means. Look at 1xbit the promoters are getting negative reviews in the forum for promoting a known scam it's actually their fault and members can be considered guilty for promoting them, because they help in deceiving people.

Let's take it to the outside world, celebrities like DJ Khaled, May weather etc in 2018 was charged for promoting a scam project using their social media platform. These people are influential in the society and can easily be detected if they do anything fishy with their influence on people. In such situation they'll be considered guilty and fined for misleading their followers.  Here in the forum, you are not having followers, but people can trust you, therefore trusting any company you promote here too, if need arises for investigation on you for promoting a company, you'll be charged according to what you got paid. Though, it's rare because how would all the participants get charged to pay regarding the difference in locations and identity.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Majority of the campaign here do not have affiliate code

Affiliate code isn't necessary to be considered affiliated. The fact that I'm getting paid from them to advertise them does add an affiliation.

That won't be feasible in the forum since the forum cancels any project once it's dictated to be a scam project.

I didn't say the project scams. I said it launders money. The former can be instantly detected, while the latter may not be detected ever.

I think the law enforcement agencies only focus on the advertisers if they promote a company which has been classified scam.

I'm more than sure that law enforcement will focus on the prosperity of a service that is proved to launder money.


Also, just because it happened once with 1xbit, it doesn't mean the court will penalize in the same manner, regardless the service.

[Saisher]

Majority of the campaign here do not have affiliate code

Affiliate code isn't necessary to be considered affiliated. The fact that I'm getting paid from them to advertise them does add an affiliation.

What I mean is being specific if you have an affiliate code and working as an affiliate you are directly recruiting and you are directly working on the site and actively recruiting because you are getting paid based on the action of your referrals you have your own affiliate account your own affiliate manager and you are putting up a budget to promote a project.

Whereas in a signature campaign, you are doing specific you are just posting in a forum so your signature space will show up the project you are promoting, other than that you are not doing anything more, Google is showing ads but they aren't affiliate on those ads, Facebook is showing ads and accepting payment but they are not affiliated to those products and services.
It's a bit different for a promoter working on a desk and getting direct instructions from the managers or owners and a guy just getting paid or hired to distribute flyers.

[Synchronice]

Let's take it to the outside world, celebrities like DJ Khaled, May weather etc in 2018 was charged for promoting a scam project using their social media platform. These people are influential in the society and can easily be detected if they do anything fishy with their influence on people. In such situation they'll be considered guilty and fined for misleading their followers.  Here in the forum, you are not having followers, but people can trust you, therefore trusting any company you promote here too, if need arises for investigation on you for promoting a company, you'll be charged according to what you got paid. Though, it's rare because how would all the participants get charged to pay regarding the difference in locations and identity.

Don't compare yourself to celebrities because laws are different for you and for them. Okay, let the police forces arrest you for possession of hard drugs and then compare yourself to the celebrities who were arrested for the possession of hard drugs. You'll easily end up in jail but celebrities will still be free because it's the fame, status, money that protects them from everything. Imagine Lionel Messi decided to use drugs, do you really believe that any government ever arrest him? Can you imagine what would happen in the world if any police force arrest him?

Wearing the signature on this forum to me looks like wearing a company's t-shirt in public. How can anyone arrest me if I wear some company's logo and url? Even if I print amphetamine logo on my t-shirt and paint a tattoo on my face, I think I'm safe.

[Apocollapse]

You'll easily end up in jail but celebrities will still be free because it's the fame, status, money that protects them from everything. Imagine Lionel Messi decided to use drugs, do you really believe that any government ever arrest him? Can you imagine what would happen in the world if any police force arrest him?

I think it will depends on where you live and the independency of the court, there's no way you can bribe an independent and professional judge, but if you live in a corrupted country and the judges isn't professional, you can escape from the punishment.

Messi, Elon Musk and any other celebrities can get jailed, I don't think if Messi get jailed, you and other Messi's fans will attack the judges or will try to defend him.

Wearing the signature on this forum to me looks like wearing a company's t-shirt in public. How can anyone arrest me if I wear some company's logo and url? Even if I print amphetamine logo on my t-shirt and paint a tattoo on my face, I think I'm safe.

Are you sure? will you try to wear anything with black color and carrying a big bag outside? I'm completely sure anyone will stay away from you and they might call cops since you're seems like a terrorist.

[hilariousetc]

Search Engines like Google literary advertise Ponzi schemes, exit scams, phishing sites every day for so many years, but I have never heard of a lawsuit against them for advertising even when known frauds such as Ponzi schemes or 1xbit

I think this is also similar to advertised service here, except that most service advertised here aren't even scams at the time of being advertised, with a few exceptions.

Like I said before, there are sadly different rules for massive corporations where there are often little to no consequences other than fines. I don't think tech companies are immune from being prosecuted about advertising certain scams though. I'm sure the laws will change soon enough to become more in line with things like TV advertising where there needs to be standards. On Youtube and Google now it's pretty much the wild West with most people coming across scams: https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-google-scam-ads-fraud-technology-2021-4?r=US&IR=T

Youtube probably has the technology to autoblock porn etc so I'm sure they will or can develop something similar. A human vetting the adds should be the least they do right now until they have the tech.

Majority of the campaign here do not have affiliate code

Affiliate code isn't necessary to be considered affiliated. The fact that I'm getting paid from them to advertise them does add an affiliation.

I believe people have been prosecuted from sharing darknet affiliate codes/links. Perhaps a little different as they're illegal marketplaces that sell drugs and guns etc but don't think it's above the powers that be trying to make the case that Chipmixer is also an illegal service which it may in fact be in certain countries so I would still advise caution.

[NotATether]

You could be considered "affiliated" by accepting payment for advertising the service.

No, it's not the kind of affiliation you're thinking about. This is company affiliation not affiliate program.

Affiliation with a company or a service means you are taking a commission from a part of their earnings. It does not mean the money that they pay for marketing. Just think about it. These websites that have ads on them, aren't affiliated with the companies in the ads. They just paid some ad broker to put them on other peoples' websites.

Youtube probably has the technology to autoblock porn etc so I'm sure they will or can develop something similar. A human vetting the adds should be the least they do right now until they have the tech.

The only reason they are doing that (porn filter) is to avoid a public outcry which would, you guessed it, damage their revenue.

People would still use YouTube even when it's full of scams, as evident today. So clearly (and sadly) there is no outcry to hit their bottom line. These guys only do stuff for their own pockets and not for their users.

[Accardo]

Let's take it to the outside world, celebrities like DJ Khaled, May weather etc in 2018 was charged for promoting a scam project using their social media platform. These people are influential in the society and can easily be detected if they do anything fishy with their influence on people. In such situation they'll be considered guilty and fined for misleading their followers.  Here in the forum, you are not having followers, but people can trust you, therefore trusting any company you promote here too, if need arises for investigation on you for promoting a company, you'll be charged according to what you got paid. Though, it's rare because how would all the participants get charged to pay regarding the difference in locations and identity.

Don't compare yourself to celebrities because laws are different for you and for them. Okay, let the police forces arrest you for possession of hard drugs and then compare yourself to the celebrities who were arrested for the possession of hard drugs. You'll easily end up in jail but celebrities will still be free because it's the fame, status, money that protects them from everything. Imagine Lionel Messi decided to use drugs, do you really believe that any government ever arrest him? Can you imagine what would happen in the world if any police force arrest him?

Wearing the signature on this forum to me looks like wearing a company's t-shirt in public. How can anyone arrest me if I wear some company's logo and url? Even if I print amphetamine logo on my t-shirt and paint a tattoo on my face, I think I'm safe.

How many years is R Kelly in Jail, Kodak black served, 6ix9ine served, Surge tupac's boss still serving his jail time. What do you think of celebrities; little gods. Indeed it depends on your environment and the emotions you've got for these people. Law is above everyone depending on the level of evidence used on them. Nothing would happen in the world if the Police arrests Messi, his reputation would collapse like Terra. These are not even Government officials.

Are you paid to wear the company's Tshirt in street? so it's quite different from the forum signature since you're being paid to insert it on your signature space. Moreover, putting any code or url on your signature space doesn't guarantee payment.

That won't be feasible in the forum since the forum cancels any project once it's dictated to be a scam project.

I didn't say the project scams. I said it launders money. The former can be instantly detected, while the latter may not be detected ever.

I think the law enforcement agencies only focus on the advertisers if they promote a company which has been classified scam.

I'm more than sure that law enforcement will focus on the prosperity of a service that is proved to launder money.

You don't have any reason to be a part of the money laundry case, the law enforcement focuses only on two parties the company owner and the people that used the company to launder money. For instance, the recent news that Binance is used by drug cartels to launder money. Does it mean everybody that promotes Binance would be arrested? even the direct employees has nothing to bother about other than losing their jobs. CZ is the person to answer for it as the CEO, and if he can provide the names of the drug dealers he can go scot-free; proving to the court that he doesn't work for the cartel. That is if he's arraigned.

[BlackHatCoiner]

You don't have any reason to be a part of the money laundry case, the law enforcement focuses only on two parties the company owner and the people that used the company to launder money.

Well, I expected that I would have some affiliation in the eyes of the feds if I'm getting paid with laundered funds.

the law enforcement focuses only on two parties the company owner and the people that used the company to launder money. For instance, the recent news that Binance is used by drug cartels to launder money. Does it mean everybody that promotes Binance would be arrested?

No, but here's the thing. Binance isn't reliant on a forum. ChipMixer's signatures mean a lot for the service, because outside bitcointalk you'll mostly find scams. Bitcointalk is the "portal" of ChipMixer, and I believe it's already highlighted with a bunch of ads in every single page of this board. Also, just because Binance did launder part of their stash, it doesn't mean every service that launders funds is safe to advertise.

[hilariousetc]

Youtube probably has the technology to autoblock porn etc so I'm sure they will or can develop something similar. A human vetting the adds should be the least they do right now until they have the tech.

The only reason they are doing that (porn filter) is to avoid a public outcry which would, you guessed it, damage their revenue.

People would still use YouTube even when it's full of scams, as evident today. So clearly (and sadly) there is no outcry to hit their bottom line. These guys only do stuff for their own pockets and not for their users.

Constantly advertising scams will also hurt their revenue if it's becomes popular opinion that YouTube is just a wild west of scams and scammers. The whole adpocalypse thing a few years back was spurred on by advertisers being worried about their adverts showing up on problematic content and even terrorist videos etc and withdrawing their ads and Youtube just went full overkill and into panic mode. I'm sure that will happen again someday and they will surely start facing legal consequences when people are continuing to lose money. It's not a good look for them at all and if they don't implement some safety standards they will soon be forced to by regulatory bodies. This stuff wouldn't fly on TV or other advertising platforms so not sure why YouTube will be able to get away with doing little to nothing.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Constantly advertising scams will also hurt their revenue if it's becomes popular opinion that YouTube is just a wild west of scams and scammers.

Same could apply in Google, the search engine. Yet, they're accepting almost every advertising offer, including scams. Maybe users just don't care as much as to have their revenue lost.

[The Cryptovator]

We are currently renting our signature space on the forum for advertising purposes. We're not coworkers here; it's business, just like they say. As a result, low enforcement should not harass us for providing a service. When a brand advertises on television and the company ends up with Punishment, the TV company should not be punished. But, yes, low can compel us to remove our signatures and stop doing business with them.

[darkangel11]

We are currently renting our signature space on the forum for advertising purposes. We're not coworkers here; it's business, just like they say. As a result, low enforcement should not harass us for providing a service.

Shouldn't doesn't always mean it won't.
It depends on the jurisdiction. Fortunately, not many countries have the power to request anything from this forum. One of the countries that might have it is the US, but we aren't breaking any US laws... yet.

Let's say some third world country, like some Islamic enclave, decides you are breaking their rules and by reading your posts conclude that you might be a Muslim breaking the rules of their government and their faith. They won't be able to get your IP or anything like that. It's not like someone from Iran can force admins of this forum to share your IP or email address.

When a brand advertises on television and the company ends up with Punishment, the TV company should not be punished. But, yes, low can compel us to remove our signatures and stop doing business with them.

That's true because, by law, only those who can decide on the path the company takes can be held responsible. Take FTX as an example. If you were the owner, or a managing director of the company, you're held liable. If you were an employee who had to maintain the servers, make sure the domain is accessible, do backups of the exchange, you're not liable, even if you knew the company could go bankrupt. You did not make it go bankrupt and you had no way to stop it, just as someone who displayed their banner somewhere, or run a show wearing their t-shirt.

[ultrloa]

We are currently renting our signature space on the forum for advertising purposes. We're not coworkers here; it's business, just like they say. As a result, low enforcement should not harass us for providing a service. When a brand advertises on television and the company ends up with Punishment, the TV company should not be punished. But, yes, low can compel us to remove our signatures and stop doing business with them.

And they will law enforcement time will not spend some time do an investigation on people they cannot trace the identities since we are all anonymous here. We don't owe anything to anyone if the platform turns bad and scam since in the first place we tend to believe that they are just doing some good business and get reputation for providing good platform to their costumers. Somehow hard to spot scams in first glance so signature campaign participants should not worry anything since the company or well known individual are the one who get sued for this if they been a hardcore promoter of a scampany.

[BlackHatCoiner]

We are currently renting our signature space on the forum for advertising purposes. We're not coworkers here; it's business

I know that very well, but I wouldn't be 100% certain that's true from a legislation point of view. There's room for doubt, especially when this kind of advertisement is a necessity for the service.

When a brand advertises on television and the company ends up with Punishment, the TV company should not be punished.

The TV company, though, doesn't advertise anonymous services. Ever. Companies that desire to be advertised in the telly are registered trademarks.

[NotATether]

Constantly advertising scams will also hurt their revenue if it's becomes popular opinion that YouTube is just a wild west of scams and scammers. The whole adpocalypse thing a few years back was spurred on by advertisers being worried about their adverts showing up on problematic content and even terrorist videos etc and withdrawing their ads and Youtube just went full overkill and into panic mode. I'm sure that will happen again someday and they will surely start facing legal consequences when people are continuing to lose money. It's not a good look for them at all and if they don't implement some safety standards they will soon be forced to by regulatory bodies. This stuff wouldn't fly on TV or other advertising platforms so not sure why YouTube will be able to get away with doing little to nothing.

I want the hammer blow to hit YouTube sooner rather than later. Frankly, I'm disgusted at how it went from being a respectable video broadcasting service to a ruthlessly milked money machine where lawyers are taken 100x more seriously than their own customers.