They should be sued for every penny they’ve won ever, and every penny of sponsorship they received, triple that amount in punitive damages, then banned for life from any competition of any kind. I hope fishing contests were their livelihoods and they lose everything.

Cheaters deserve whatever they get. Lots of pissed off fishermen there.

But Eileen Gu is the classic American Capitalist. She follows where the (sponsorship) money is. Expert at her sport AND doublespeak. She's living her American Dream!

It's not kowtowing to China. It's just "smart business" if you take off that racist lens.

If Walmart is so patriotic, then they can stop sourcing from China.

If the American Auto Industry is so patriotic, they can stop buying their parts from China.

If Corporate America is so patritotic, they can stop opening up factories in China.

China's not forcing shit on America. It's America that love lapping up the cheapest shit they can find in China and beyond. Corporate America is not willing to pay a fair wage in America, they're even less willing to pay of living wage anywhere else, many forcing a "996" work schedule on staff (https://www.npr.org/2021/08/30/1032458104/12-hour-6-day-996-work-schedule-illegal-china-deaths-tech-industry).

"China"... it's an American addiction. Not the other way around.

Hmm. 5.5 minutes of good info, making us think about tricky ways that online stuff gets us to click or pay attention to stuff that isn't good for us (the audience) but can benefit the creator/host.

And then there is a brief cut to black that doesn't obviously mark an endpoint, continued background music that doesn't mark the change, followed by a paid sponsorship shill for "hey, if you're worried about this shit, TOTES BUY THIS VPN DUDES" plus icons for "obviously you want some merch or to donate to my patreon!".

insert [I don't want to live on this planet anymore.jpg]

Maybe I'm just a cranky bastard in my old age.

I think your overestimating how much money is in charity appearances for an vegan audience(which is something like 1% of the population). Wouldn't be easier to make money from a product that targets the other 99% of the population?

If he wanted to make money, he can make a lot more by simply being a doctor. And a helluva lot more by prescribing statins and all of the other drugs used to counteract the side-effects of statins.

Or if he wanted the blogs and lifestyle thing, he could sell Paleo/Ketosis diets because it's a lot easier to sell books that tell people to eat bacon instead of vegetables.

You'll notice that his blog doesn't make money like other blogs do, as there are no ads, and he's got no industry sponsorship's.

If he's trying to make money, then he's doing a poor job.





As for cherry picking data, yes his opinions are formed by the studies that aren't clearly B.S. industry funded designer studies - The studies that are repeated over and over with small adjustments to make the outcome positive. But I know he reads even the industry funded studies, because he often points out why they are poorly constructed studies, designed purposely to show a specific outcome.


He makes a new video nearly every day, and has been doing so for nearly 10 years. That's some 3000+ videos. He's allowed one mistake.
But it's not even a mistake. This blogger is trying to discredit all of this work because of semantics about a W.H.O. report. (She didn't read the W.H.O report correctly, because it does actually say that poultry *may* be carcinogenic too).

You say that as though those are the only two candidates. And you would prefer a felon and compulsive liar? She's way more terrifying than Drumpf. Nothing he talks about he could ever get passed. Hillary has enough corporate sponsorship in her pocket that if she is elected (and I use that word lightly), certain doom and woe is upon us.

@Payback
>>>If they're saying she couldn't get sponsorship AFTER winning major competitions?
She was 8 times best surfer in Brazil and 2nd in the world twice. Isn't that proving yourself?

@Babymech
>>> I just don't think we owe it to the people who are the best at a form of exercise to provide them with a living.

Well, there's a whole other discussion we could have about how the world would be a better place if a) people who were really good at anything were paid to do it and b) people in general were owed a universal basic income, but that's probably too broad for this topic.

So let's take it as read that, in the world today, NO-ONE is owed a living based on what they do. I write software, I am not inherently entitled to be paid just because I'm good at it. I'm paid because I provide value for my employer.

My issue is not whether or not anyone should be paid for surfing. If no-one was paid for surfing, I can live with that. But people ARE paid for surfing and my issue is that she's not being paid for two reasons: she's a woman and she's not a model.

Even if you wanted to say that all surfers have to be attractive, well, I'd think that was stupid, but I could deal with it. But no one tells Mick Fanning he's not hot enough.

Because he'd shark punch the shit out of them. Because Mick Fanning is awesome.

This is somewhat disingenuous. Companies with active sponsorship programs look for two things: marketability and marketability.

If they're saying she couldn't get sponsorship AFTER winning major competitions? Then ya, there's something screwy, but there's two ways to market a human being, through their looks or through their skill. Looks are immediately apparent, skill has to be proven. She proved her skill, she got sponsored.

Companies get 100s if not 1000s of requests for sponsorship. If you can't surf worth shit, at least you can sell the product... I'm more disgusted with that then a skilled athlete having to prove themselves...

OK, that sounds pretty messed up, but where are the women led businesses and their sponsorships?
Back when I raced off road, I went to hundreds of businesses looking for any sponsorship. I never got any. I don't think it had anything to do with how I looked, or even my personality (although I could be wrong there). Getting a business to put out money to MAYBE get mentioned during a competition is not an easy prospect, especially when you are relatively unknown. I wonder how many businesses actually said 'no' to her, if it's <100, she just didn't try hard enough.
OH....watching to the end, now I have to say the title is totally misleading. She got sponsorship from 'a very important brand', so obviously 'not being hot enough' was not the problem, she didn't suddenly get hotter this year. Now I wonder how many competitions she had won before last year, since after winning one in NZ she got fully sponsored.

I find podcasts the most intrusive for ads because often I'm listening to them while doing something else that doesn't afford me easy access to the player controls. I can't stand being trapped for minutes at a time forced to listen to someone drone on about fucking squarespace.com.

I don't refuse to watch tv shows with ad breaks or youtube videos with sponsored content, but I've absolutely dropped some of my favourite podcasts just because they got the wrong kind of sponsorship.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Podcast sponsorship sometimes works like this, with the presenters promoting products that they actually like and use. I agree it's the way to go.

I really love his approach to sponsorship at the end of this video. His honesty makes me actually want to check out his sponsor.

Haaaa... but you didn't really see any review on my channel now, did you?

Reviews are inherently biased and a mere opinion.

I must quote myself, from the "about" section of my channel:

Disclaimer:

- If the creator and producer of Factual Gamer ever decides to create an opinion-based YouTube show, he will do so in a completely separate channel, with a differentiated name, as so to maintain the editorial integrity of Factual Gamer.

- Factual Gamer can accept sponsorship and advertising, because none of the content being presented could be influenced financially. When and if, any such sponsored content or advertising is shown, it will be accompanied by text explicitly stating this fact (ex. the words "sponsored advertising" in the corner of the video).

Factual Gamer itself will never have content that can be influenced by opinion. And reviews fall under that category. At best I could do a preview of a game, simply talking about the game, who made it, what kind of game it is, showing gameplay, etc. But never, if it's good or bad, and in what amount. I will leave that to the viewer.

The only way to win this game is to not play it at all.

I'm with @newtboy. Do you actually read the responses or just cherry pick the parts that suit your agenda? Christ, even in the part you quoted I said "the first step". The paragraph before that explicitly outlined how that there were huge challenges to overcome.

And you're posting links from an organisation that

worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms... and is known "for its persistent questioning of climate science, for its promotion of 'experts' who have done little, if any, peer-reviewed climate research, and for its sponsorship of a conference in New York City in 2008 alleging that the scientific community's work on global warming is fake."

Whoa...as in throw a bunch of people into churning surf then introduce the out-of-control outboard motor on a Zodiac?
Hard to see the sponsorship deal for that one.

Johnson and Johnson? (Bandaids?)