The Glade 4.0

I thought that went without saying, even though I've already said it. Smart people will not be misled; that's not the point.

Not sure why anyone should care that liberals are upset about the intent. It's essentially a form of parody or satire.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Heck, if it was parody or satire, I can see how Democrats might be upset about this. But it's not even that. It's just a campaign ad. It doesn't even try to deceive people. The only thing that's at all deceptive is the URL and the "Name for Congress" headline at the top. I think the Democrats may have a legitimately complaint for ICANN about the URLs being used, but other than that this news story is just retarded. In fact, this news story is what's deceptive. The title is a lie.

So advertising efforts with "fine print" in much more obscure locations than that site pass legal requirements for "not-libel" and "not-slander," as well as "not false advertising." By objective measurements, that site is doing considerably more than the bare minimum to alert the audience to their true goals.

Objections that the site are misleading, while technically true, are akin to saying that my website http://www.bigdonkeydick.com is misleading because I post research papers on the reproductive organs of equus africanus asinus instead of hardcore bestiality pornography or penis enlargement pills.

As an aside, since we are having a big to-do about what things are misleading because we don't want to read or think, don't click that link at work.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

I'm pretty sure more people are regularly mislead by not realizing articles on satire sites like The Onion are satire than that site will mislead Democrats to mistakenly donate money to Republican campaigns in the entire remaining lifetime of the Republican party.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

When I say it's deceptive, I don't mean it's intended to (let alone likely to) trick people into actually donating to the wrong candidate/party. I mean it's intended (and actually is likely) to (i) lure people who are trying to get to the Dem candidate's real site by use of a misleading URL and (ii) further trick those people into reading at least some of the anti-Dem content in the few seconds it takes them to realize they've been fooled. Basically, it's like junk mail that's made to look like a bill or an overdue notice. Yeah, only idiots and old people are likely to fall for it and send a check, but it's still a sleezy tactic that wastes people's time by trying to trick them into at least opening the envelope and taking a look.

What punishment would you suggest for such a heinous offense? I mean dirty politics? holy ****.. HANG THEM !!

RD:

I fail to see what's sleazy about it.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

After promises that they were going to have the most open administration, how it's all about hope and change, closing political prisons, improving the economy, putting people to work and OH so much more, liberals should be the last ones complaining about dispicable underhanded out and out lying types of misrepresentation in the course of an election cycle.

Democrats hold the record for misrepresentation in order to win an election.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Really? You don't think bait-and-switch is a sleazy tactic?

I can agree with this. As an aside, anyone that sends me an advertisement in a (seemingly) hand-written envelope can DIAF.

No, not when it doesn't cost the user anything; but rather offers additional information relevant to the user's search.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

A while back, we had ad campaign going around sending out yellow envelopes saying "X-rays do not bend" I forget exactly what the "X-ray" was, but it ad something to do with selling cars. Needless to say there were several stories of spouses freaking out about their SOs getting X-rays and not telling them.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. I consider bait-and-switch to be both unethical and annoying as ****.

I don't think information can be bait and switch by definition.

_________________

My time is a valuable commodity.

What is your point? An alternative viewpoint on a topic is not bait and switch. If you want to be an informed consumer or voter you should research both sides of the product you are buying into, anything else is willful ignorance. Is it bait and switch if I were to Google Santorum seeking information on Rick Santorum and the first page of results is Dan Savage referencing "frothy" nastiness?

_________________

Three things: first, my link, like the NRCC site, is a bait-and-switch because it "baits" you into clicking with a title that indicates one type of content and then "switches" to a different type of content at the actual site; second, accurately titled search results are vastly different than inaccuratley titled links and titles; and third, although it doesn't constitute a bait-and-switch, yeah, I think Google-bombing is dirty pool, and Savage was an ******* for doing that.

Registering that particular domain for an attack site is more or less click-baiting. It's a dick move, but it's hardly deceptive. It's blatantly obvious that it's an attack site to anyone with enough intelligence to successfully fill out a ballot.


To add to what Khross already said, "Coke" and "Coca-Cola" are registered trademark. The law forbids you from using someone else's trademark to promote your own product (trademark dilution). Pepsi certainly could use those trademarks on a website criticizing Coca-Cola or comparing it to their own product, though. There's a specific fair use exemption for that in the trademark law. Furthermore, "John Lewis" isn't a trademark and John Lewis isn't a product; he's a candidate.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

I'm sure the DNC sees John Lewis as a product. They're trying to sell him to the general public.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

It's no more bait and switch than the junk mail I get that is intentionally made to look like official government correspondence.

"Tax Information Enclosed", or "Important VA Loan Correspondence" on yellow envelopes with what appears to be a check inside, but is actually a re-fi solicitation.

Or the local Dodge dealership who mails an envelope with a car key inside and the words "The key to your NEW CAR" on the outside of the envelope.

Yeah, like I said, different laws for trademark and personal publicity rights. There have been a few interesting cases over the years involving celebrities in which some courts have moved towards a more trademark-like treatment of personal publicity rights, but I'm generally opposed to that. As for fair use, criticism and comparison are generally protected (as they should be), but you still can't use another person's trademark to promote your own product in a manner that is likely to confuse or mislead the public. Misleading headlines with clarifying text in a smaller typeface would likely be testing the boundaries, and coupled with the misleading url, I'm pretty confident the courts would nix that in a trademark case.

Um, yeah, those are examples of bait and switch. Not sure what you think the expression means if you don't think it applies in that case.

So we have a two page thread discussing something that compares to deceptive junk mail.

Seriously, what do you expect people to do about this? Should pass some more laws? Throw someone in jail? Have higher expectations of our elected officials?