Advertising Ethics - Shoe Marketplace

Brief 

As someone who loves to shop, I am absolutely keen on cool-looking sneakers. I currently own three nice pairs of shoes and the rest are sandals and boots because being in college makes you aware of splurging. Shoe companies: like Nike, Adidas, Puma, New Balance, and many more allow third-party sites access to sell their personal shoes with no penalties. This has worked well for years until it hasn't when sellers on these sites steal money from the buyers by sending fake shoes. 

By the sellers tricking the consumers, it not only affects the credibility of the company itself, but the actual brand of the shoes looks bad. Everyone is trying to make money and these sites are going to milk it any way that they can even if it means that you don't get the real deal.

StockX

Stockx is a forum through which you can sell your shoes through the site as well as purchase them from other users. This site is similar to other outlets like Mercari, Poshmark, eBay, and many more. The idea of reselling name-brand shoes at a lower price than previously bought is a great idea for those who want the latest sneakers, but do not have the equivalent amount of money. 

The problem with the company is that all of the shoes are not authentic- meaning they are fakes or remakes of other shoe brands like Nike for instance. The full Scoop of the issue can be found on complex.com. Around this time last year, Nike was suing StockX for selling fake Nike Sneakers and also calling them out for selling other fake sneakers.

If Nike had not got complaints from customers of StockX about the Nike sneakers, then I feel as though the issue wouldn't have arisen. To add, the representation of Nike Brand also purchased sneakers from the 'legitimate' site, and to their surprise, those sneakers were all fake as well. 

StockXs response to the issue was basically denying the claim, without fully saying that. They explained the process by which sellers send in their shoes for an authenticity test and if deemed real, then the seller would make that profit or deny it with no profit.

The return policy for fake shoes or any of their products depends on the description of the shoes beforehand, so if it doesn't say anything about returns then you cannot. In other instances, if the company feels as if their product is false from a seller, then the matter will be put into the hands of the authorities according to wallstreetsurvivor.com.

My Remarks

If the statement about Stockxs' authenticity test were true, how does this continue to happen? My next question is what does the authenticity test consist of I am not a sneakerhead, but I can spot a fake shoe up close with my left lazy eye.

Outcome

After researching, it is neither confirmed nor denied if there has been a solution or not, but it is very clear that StockX does not care about its consumers and they still continue to sell false name brand shoes on their site.

 CIA Drones Acknowledgment

Brief

What is the Freedom of Information Act? Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), is known to supply the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency. This Act was enacted in 1967 by Lyndon Johnson but wasn't effective until the summer of July.

History

According to eff.org, the proposal for the Act was first created by Democratic Congressman John Moss in 1955 during the Cold War when the government began to swear to confidentiality. Though it was pushed by Lyndon Johnson, John Moss was still providing his support in the matter by helping push the bill once again. 

The only issue with the new bill was the fear that the government wouldn't hold up its part of the bargain and ultimately take complete control of it until John Moss pushed for the bill once more, but this time with very specific guidelines and rules that must be applied. The ruling was unanimous, though it was extremely difficult to give the bill legs to stand on.

How it is being used today

After in-depth explorations, the bill is practical to protect all forms of  records that are accessible to the public which include:

Drafts 

Emails

Notes

Recordings of any conversation

CCTV recordings

These are just a few imprints that are secured by the Freedom of Information Act but are not limited by any means since one can find information about someone in a quick matter.

Examples of FOIA

In 2013, Wired expressed that there was an issue with the Freedom of Information Act not being used when asked to do such. This issue was when the CIA refused to come forth to provide the public with the claims of the killer Drones that were used by al-Qaeda.

Though the CIA was not upfront with the information that they had, the past president Barack Obama stepped to the plate and put out a statement that the United States has known about the Drones, the rumors are true, and the US is the one responsible for them.

The CIA still was silent on the matter, though it further exposes the claims of the Freedom of Information Act being broken. The case was brought upon by the American Civil Liberties Union when the CIA was not willing to cooperate in giving further information about the killer drones that were being used in the military without prior knowledge to all.

For many reasons that could be inferred, the CIA's claim to not provide information to the public about this matter is because they felt as if they would be exposing more than needed to be shedding any light on the situation. In basic terms, they just did not want to tell of their plans and now that everyone knows of the devices, it makes it even harder to keep the secret under-raps. 

Honestly, if it were completely exposed, I do feel as though it would make the situation worse since other leading countries have been suspected of using those same devices for years.

My Remarks

The reason that the United States is getting such backlash on the situation is that when any other matters have happened in the United States, all forms of government and securities have been compliant in providing information until now. This country is known as the 'Land of the Free', so when such a statement is made, it raises concerns that the US does not have their civilians' best interest at heart by telling them everything especially when it comes to their safety. 

Conclusion

The United States is not exempt from doing the right thing by protecting its people by any means possible, even if it interrupts their plans, so be it. In the future, the United States has to be up-front with its plans of any such when asked by the public due to the Freedom of Information Act that they agreed on years ago.

Global Media law in Turkey

Brief

Media Laws can be described as restrictions that are put upon countries, states, nations, and etc. regarding how and what they present things to the media. The United States Citizens' are so lucky because of the different rights that they have as ‘US Citizens: like the Freedom of the Press Act, Telecommunication Law, Privacy Act, and many more.

Generalities

A lot of countries have totalitarianism, communism, Monarchy, Oligarchy, and a few more. Some of the listed rulers provide their citizens with little to no say on who is to be elected, restrictions on how many children they can conceive, or even how they can wear their hair.

This goes to the media where the ‘freedom of speech users’ (US Citizens) freely speak out on behalf of the silenced, who either create change, get someone harshly punished, or sadly die. Please be grateful for the power that you have and do not overuse it!

Turkey’s Media Revision

In late 2022, Turkey’s authority decided to revise its law on what content can be made regarding any matters that are happening in Turkey. The revision pushed by Turkish President ‘Recep Tayyin Erdogan’, will silence the use of any opposition, opinions, or disagreements made by civilians in Turkey.

They also pushed for different social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter to be banned by the higher authority when someone steps out of line with narratives that don’t fit Turkish customs. The unlawful individuals are punished for four to five years in a penal institution. Though at the time the citizens were not worried about these new regulations being put into play, after much thought, it is believed that this new ruling will be put into place during election time in 2023.

Turkey has even gone to the lengths to say that those said charges can be seen as the expulsion of putting people at risk by telling the public about health, safety, and anything else in that spectrum. 

Social Media

It would be thought that Turkey stopped their demise on the citizens' media rights after the first push, but they decided to take it further by making users give up their privacy of WhatsApp regarding ‘assumed lies’ made online about the Country. 

Not to mention, earlier it was also said that Facebook and as well as Twitter individual accounts would be more so hacked by authorities if any foul play was assumed to be made.

This is not the first time that Turkish authority has tried to ban social media in Turkey, but instead, they did in 2014, according to amp.theguardian.com when a private conversation was exposed on the platform.  They even attempted to block Twitter for similar reasons and it was denied by the courts.

Ultimately, Turkey has a very strict hand on its citizens and any mishap will lead to imprisonment, or the cutting-off of a media outlet. After much research, Turkey isn’t known for killings dealing with the media as much as other countries so in hindsight that is alright. 

 Sandy Hook Defamation Trial

Brief

 

According to merriam-webster.com Misinformation refers to incorrect or misleading information. Indubitably, a great deal of paranoid and otherwise irresponsible. It is quite common for news outlets to provide misinformation to the public as well as people in your everyday life due to the lack of factual content. Misinformation can be alarming to the public because if they are continuously seeing the false content over and over and it sets confusion, belief, and finally realization in your mind once the facts are known.

 

Podcasts have become a staple for information and opinions in the YouTube community over the past two years. 

 

It is said on Globalnews.com that these creators and/or groups have been notable for spreading misinformation that can sometimes be biased. 

 

The Scandal

 

The Sandy Hook tragedy is known worldwide and is known as the day in 2012, where everyone started to become more caring and protective for their children. The tragedy was that 20 children and six teachers were wrongfully murdered by a school shooter. cnn.com

 

Since the story was well-known, everyone was giving their condolences to the children, parents of the children, as well as the teachers and their families. Podcaster Alex Jones took to his platform and disregarded the tragedy as a global disaster in the education and safety of the world by saying that he believes that it was a joke or trick.

 

The real question is who would go out of their way to plan a practical joke to endanger the youth and educators. From his statement, I felt like he was insinuating that it was pre-rehearsed to which we all know it was not, but possibly premeditated.

(Clip ends at 1:44). (Clip starts at 0:55 - 1:50)

 

To add, Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist who believes beyond the belief of other opinions dealing with supernatural or superficial facts that he believes are true to him. Since he is known for being the person that he is, it was believable to many that his statement could potentially be true. That is also known as having influence - changing a person or thing in an indirect but important way.

 

Consequences 

 

After the cruel and unjust claim made by Alex jones, he was summoned by the families to pay 1.44 billion dollars (about $4 per person in the US) for the claims as well as an extras $473 dollars for spreading the alleged claim. 

 

                                                       

His Remarks

Today and all the years after his takedown, he still believes that it was not a real tragedy and that it all did not actually happen, though when he was on trial he said that he knows that it did happen.

This is not the first time that he has gotten in trouble with the law, viewers, and civilians over his lack of empathetic statements, but in fact one out of three that included the Connecticut Defamation Trial and Massacre of Newton. bbc.com

Closing Remarks 

 The career and following that Alex Jones had has tremendously depleted or in this generation has 'canceled' him. I would hope that he has learned his lesson from the amount of death threats, legal issues, and his conscious to stop, but there are people in this world who have no remorse for their actions.

 

Child Stars Exploitation

Brief

According to Merriam-Webster Exploiting refers to “making use of meanly or unfairly for one’s own advantage”. The film and television industry plays a major role in exploiting child stars that has a lifetime effect on them unless the matter is treated properly.

Exploitation happens everywhere, not just in the film and television industry, but the fact that people are paid to exploit their children for money is insane.

Film

In the movie "Pretty Baby", starring Brooke Shields, she is portrayed to be a little girl who in short, is actioned off by older men for their own guilty pleasures. In other terms, she is a child prostitute throughout the film. More prerogative accounts happen in the film, but that one is what made my stomach boil.

Since the movie was filmed in the 70s, matters pertaining to sexualizing children in all forms were seen as normal, but in the century that we live in today, our generation is not putting up with nonsense. There were even scenes in the film where the young girl was getting undressed in front of older men as well as nudity scenes.

                                                                                                    clip ends at (0:29)

                    

To add, Hulu has even joined in on the matter of her story by creating a documentary specifically about the film.

Overall, I feel as though her late mother should have felt disgusted for exploiting her 11-year-old child to such bad activities that she has to answer to being a 57-year-old adult.

 

Television

Actor, Jennette McCurdy is known throughout the television industry as a child star. She began to act in supporting roles, but her stardom was when she appeared as a main character in the show "iCarly'." Since the show, she has disappeared from acting until the release of her memoir, “I’m Glad My Mom Died”, in early August of last year. 

Her memoir is about the obsession that her mother had with her becoming a notable well-known actor. Throughout her story, she explains that one of the most enduring things that her mom did was cause to have her on a strict diet counting her calories at the age of 10, Buzzfeednews.com), to which caused her to form an eating disorder in the prime of her life when we were all gushing over her casting in the televised show ‘iCarly’. It is also said on Pagesix.com that her mother was so controlling to the point the she would make her (11-years old)  and brother (15-year-old) shower together and it made them both uncomfortable.

There is even a reboot of the show that premiered in 2021, of which Jennette declined to be partly due to her childhood trauma cast upon her by her mother as well as the well-known producer ‘Dan Schneider’ on the set of her debut appearance ‘iCarly’.

                             (Original)                                                                (Reboot)

                        

To add, Jennette McCurdy is thriving and at peace since the passing of her mother, but she knows that if she were alive today, she would still be unhappy being an actor, having an eating disorder, and only used to pay the bills.

                          Clip ends at 0:43                                  Clip ends at 0:53

                        

Conclusion

It is sad to learn that many child stars that we grew up with admired and loving, didn’t feel the same way about themselves that we felt about them or the character that they portrayed. Ultimately, parents should consider that they are only children, and such young minds can not process such. Lastly, companies that are offering these roles to parents with the intent of making them money should think of other outcomes to get funded.

 

Copyright Piracy 

Brief

Copyright means that a person is utilizing someone elses’ work without their knowledge prior to the act. Many times, it is often that when someone is using someone elses’ material it not a malicious act, but infact a misunderstanding. Copyright Piracy is very similar to Copyright except it is the act of when someone replicates any copyright material and it is being capitalized on.

 

Consequences

According to Justice.gov it is said that the outcome of this act is:

1.      1 or more works with a profiting value of more than $2,500 is a sentencing of 5 years /or/ fined up to 250,000$ /or/ BOTH

2.      Previously pronounced wrong of this act could be charged up to 10 years maximum in prison /or/ fined up to $250,000 /or/ BOTH

 

Website Piracy

Zlibrary.com 

Z-Library is a website that is known for offering free digital eBook copies of just about any textbook possibly needed. They also provided multiple account plans that consisted: of 5 free downloads per day, 10 free downloads per day, and unlimited downloads any and every day.

 

This site has been in service since 2009 but its popularity grew in light of Tik-Tok the last few years due to influencers providing this site to its viewers to not only give them an outlet to purchase free textbooks if they do not have the funds and also just because its free and who doesn’t like free items.

         

 

The article on FastCompany.com shed light on the situation and that the government began to look into the site that was known for pirating known textbooks into e-book copies and profiting from them. In November 2022, the site was taken down and it’s creators Anton Napolsky and Valeriia Ermakova were charged with criminal copyright infringement, wire fraud, and money laundering.

 

Personally, I feel as though the act was very intentional, but I honestly believe that there was no malicious act towards it except stealing the works of the authors. Yes, they stole a significant amount of ebooks from various authors, but they were helping us broke college students out by providing us with free books. They found a problem in world solved it (illegally), but all in all they did help others, though the action was wrong.

Social Media Piracy

Youtube

The biggest site and or app used for broadcasting and viewing videos of any genre is known as YouTube. YouTube is an outlet that increases in some years in numbers and in others it depletes, so in a sense, it never really dies.

 

Influencers on YouTube are constantly being demonetized for copyrighted music and other products in their videos rather it’s a second-long clip or a minute-long clip.

clip starts at 0:32 - 1:01

                         

Ultimately, when their video is demonetized, it means that the content is taken down from the site in which they are not able to gain monetary value from it. Not only is unintentionally wrong, but YouTube also protects its creators by taking down their content instead of creating a criminal offense.

 

This act does not deliberately cause harm, but it is unlawful in a way. If these measures are taken for minor incidents like such, then explicit content rather than its imagery or wording should be treated as such, though it is the measures aren’t as drastic. 

      Reporters Privilege                       

Brief

Reporters Privilege in my eyes is a principle that states that reporters or journalists of that sort are not forced to provide the courts with any information that they received from their informants. Even though reporters are regular people as well, it is the simple fact that they aren’t. Once they are forced or served with a written order, their lives could potentially be at risk: like harm towards their well-being could be at risk, their family could also be at risk of insecurity, and lastly their career could be dissolved.

 

Shields law

As mentioned earlier, reporters lives are put at risk for disclosing on private information that they only know, but as a reporter it is always the code of law to not divulge their notifier. After much consideration of the reporter’s code, their safety, and career, the Shields Law was created. Though the first amendment has been around since 1791 and it was generalized as a law that provides everyone with the “Liberty to talk”, but it did not hold much weight in court.

 

The Shield Law was established in 1979, and it SHIELDS reporters from disclosing content that was given to them that pertains to them composing an article and/or story. Crazily said, this law is very looked down upon when it comes to a criminal or judicial matter due to the severity of the case. Another thing to add is that this law only protects those who are journalist and or reporters that write for public consumption and less.

 

Different Variations of the Shield Law in action

According to (mtsu.edu), the shield law may look slightly different from state to state. This means that though the shield law is made to SHIELD reporters from having to defend themselves in court, a particular state can provide them with a complete dismissal or they could make them provide a little bit of details on the case.

            

For example, in Minnesota they have a law set in place that is called Free Flow of Information Act to which means that if the case includes any kind of slander that the privilege of having the Shield Law could be potentially forgot about in court. Though the Free Flow of Information Act is something that Minnesota encourages when a malediction is involved in the case, they are still lenient to actually go forward with the ruling unless the information needed had no other way to be spotlighted.

 

Fairness of Reporter’s Privilege Laws

Many believe that reporters shouldn’t be able to opt out of spilling the beans in court, especially when a life or law is at stake. My take on this is like what I mentioned earlier about the risk put upon the reporter’s life from telling someone else’s truth. The Shield law does not absolutely shield them from confessing in some cases, while in others they’re able to go scotch free. Without reporters, we would have no news and without the informants, we would have no journalists to spread or advocate the news. Overall, journalists do the grimy work for us and all we must do is stay invested in the drama. They’re the real saviors.

                     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Poaching in Fashion 

Brief

Though fashion is ancient, there have been lots of replicas or even straight up stolen work from a designer that was reiterated into the same concept by another designer. Not only does deception affect ones future career status or credibility, but it also harms their demand deposit. 

 
 

Fast Fashion Brands  

The year of 2022 was yet another year for the increase of ‘trendy fashion’. One brand that has skyrocketed is the China-based company named Shein. Shein is known for its impressively low prices on just about anything that you can think of. Their clothing in general has marked the brand to be an iconic affordable outlook for all.  

Since the popularity of Shein has enlarged, unethical measures taken unethical measures to keep the brand afloat by stealing inspiration from up and coming designers by using their social platforms to see their work. 

According to Plagarismtoday, though Shein has been accredited for plagiarizing small business companies, it has not shunned them from continuing such bad behavior, but in fact has made it an even more predominant ‘everything you need cheap company’. In the article, Bailey Prado rightfully accused Shein for stealing, producing and selling a grand total of 45 of her scale design depictions. She also expressed her pain that these ‘trendy companies’ will be able to go ahead with their everyday lives as long as they can continue to profit from these small under rated companies.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by @baileyprado

. 

High-Fashion Brands 

                                                                                                 It has become very accepting that a big sum of ‘trendy brands’ steal complete ideas from small businesses or companies, but it uncommon for big High-Fashion brands to steal from small businesses until now.  

In the mid of 2019 as reported by Hungertv , Billie Eilish merged her clothing identity with Siberia Hills to create some clothing concepts. After its launch, many spectators found that the chosen designs for Billie Eilish’s collaboration were looted from a young animation creator. Unlike other brands, Siberia Hills took proprietorship for their involvement of the scandal, apologized to the creator, as well as they ceased all production of the concepts. 

 

                                 

International Fashion

Due to me living in the United States, I don’t often apprehend much scandal on international affairs. After the proper research, I found that it has become an awful thing for these different countries outside of the U.S.A. are being targeted for their ethnical aesthetic. If you’ve ever heard of Mexican culture, then it is presumed that it consists of vibrant reds, yellows, purples, oranges, and often green. The prints in Mexican standards are a variety of stripes and beautiful line work. 

After thorough research, it was found in an article at Fashionunited, that civilians in Mexico came together to blast their claims of the fashion creator Isabel Marant for using patterns and colors from their everyday livelihood and exposing it into fashion for their own personal use. It is not uncommon for cultural aspects to be incorporated into fashion and the city of Mexico did not ‘let it slide’. Ultimately, the designer pleaded to give the humanities their applause when doing fashion going forward as well as a voice of regret.