Influencers over-editing photos in Social Media/Cyber-bullying accusations

Pistachios & cream

Graham wrote: »

Destroy someones reputation first, ask questions & check facts later is incredibly reckless when you know you have a vast number of followers that are likely to jump straight for the pitchforks.

I remember this and it happened once and the situation in question was unclear. AFAIR A blogger was selling an item as a certain size but it was a vintage item which wasnt specified in the listing so the actual sizing on the label was different. Going by the evidence it looked like the blogger was deliberately selling something as the wrong size whereas she had actually meant that it fit a certain size in todays clothing sizes. The blogger clarified this and updated her listing and BU shared that clarification

BU always posts the screeenshots and proof to back up her accusations and has even said that she could post way more but that she is wary of where the evidence iscoming from.

amdublin

I don't like the style of BU whoever they are...

I think they did some good for sure. Good for them

But there is a "meanness" or "bitchiness" in the style of their posting.

I no longer follow them on instagram and I feel a lot calmer not seeing their stuff

Graham

ahayes84 wrote: »

I remember this and it happened once and the situation in question was unclear. AFAIR A blogger was selling an item as a certain size but it was a vintage item which wasnt specified in the listing so the actual sizing on the label was different.

Sounds like it's happened a few times then because that's not the one I was referring to.

ahayes84 wrote: »

BU always posts the screeenshots and proof to back up her accusations and has even said that she could post way more but that she is wary of where the evidence iscoming from.

How's that working out.....

I Was The Target Of Bloggers Unveiled For 24 Hours - Here's What It's REALLY Like

witchgirl26

Graham wrote: »

Destroy someones reputation first, ask questions & check facts later is incredibly reckless when you know you have a vast number of followers that are likely to jump straight for the pitchforks.

Yes they should have checked a bit more first, course. I don't think it amounted to destroying someones reputation. The person in question is still writing and doesn't appear to have suffered any adverse affects career-wise from it. They showed that it was all real and legit and people moved on.

I wouldn't even pay much attention to one offs but people who are called out repeatedly for doing the same thing over and over do deserve criticism.

tostayorgo wrote: »

I agree they did some good things outing shady behaviour but they allowed people to post vile comments under their revelations. There was also no right of reply given. The whole thing was handled badly.

No one can control what is posted under their images on instagram unless they block people. I've seen bloggers I follow get horrible, unwarranted comments under pics. They don't "allow" people to post anything. Those people need to take personal responsibility for what they're putting up in terms of comments.

Look I'm not saying BU is perfect or anything but the account does highlight some fairly shady practices that are going on in Irish blogging. I've given up following a large number of Irish bloggers because they seem to be more about flogging you something of their own brand (or a collab with a brand) than actually blogging or vlogging about products and the good and the bad.

Pistachios & cream

Graham wrote: »

Sounds like it's happened a few times then because that's not the one I was referring to.



How's that working out.....

I Was The Target Of Bloggers Unveiled For 24 Hours - Here's What It's REALLY Like

I didn't see that one, my bad.
However i still think that the overwhelming amount she posts about are valid. The likes of the Avant Garde scandal show that there is serious fraud being perpetrated. The traditional news media show very little interest in invstigating this until they are already in the public domain.

Would i prefer if the world were a better place and influencers decided not to bother with defrauding people - yes. Then there would be no need for BU

I also don't bother to comment on BUs posts as im not a fan of many of the toxic comments but i still want to see the posts

GingerLily

ahayes84 wrote: »

Would i prefer if the world were a better place and influencers decided not to bother with defrauding people - yes. Then there would be no need for BU

This is exactly how I fell, it's a pity that they're needed - but irish influencers and business were getting away with awful sh*t for far too long. Transparency is needed and is good for everyone (well honest people) in the long run!

Graham

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Yes they should have checked a bit more first, course. I don't think it amounted to destroying someones reputation. The person in question is still writing and doesn't appear to have suffered any adverse affects career-wise from it. They showed that it was all real and legit and people moved on.

Like I said, it's reckless to go around throwing out anonymous (unfounded) accusations before checking the facts.

This anonymous blogger is calling out other bloggers for misrepresentation, is it not reasonable to hold them to the same standards?

Suckit

Graham wrote: »

Sounds like it's happened a few times then because that's not the one I was referring to.

How's that working out.....

I Was The Target Of Bloggers Unveiled For 24 Hours - Here's What It's REALLY Like

Not defending BU in that instance, but just something I noticed in that article.

I am not a blogger who makes a living from sponsored content directly. I don't stand to gain personally from this partnership, but it was me personally who was being accused of lying.

She got her hair done for free?
Doesn't that normally cost around €100+?
And the photos of her 'before' hair look particularly bad, like she was dragged through a bush, but that is something advertisers do all the time too. But if she got it done for free, then she did gain from it personally.

An account like Bloggers Unveiled shows the sheer power of social media. The account, which I am still a follower of, was created to unveil influencers who are scamming their audience. Thanks to this and other accounts like it, we as an audience have become more media savvy and the ASAI have started working to improve this.....

....I do wish they had messaged me first so I could prove to them prior to all the drama, that my hair was in fact real.

I guess it comes down to whether or not BU are doing more harm than good. I think at the moment they are doing more good, as they are one of the main reasons that tighter regulations are coming in.
But I do also agree that, when possible BU should probably contact the person first.
Unfortunately some people do get called out incorrectly, they should also look at rectifying this when that happens.

Pistachios & cream

Suckit wrote: »

And the photos of her 'before' hair look particularly bad, like she was dragged through a bush, but that is something advertisers do all the time too.

I noticed that too. If you look really closely you can see that her head is tilted differently in the two photos. It's tilted forward for the before photo and backward for the after photo which makes the hair look longer than it actually is.

I can kinda see why the mistake was made. And BU should have apologised for that one IMO

SusieBlue

Graham wrote: »

Like I said, it's reckless to go around throwing out anonymous (unfounded) accusations before checking the facts.

This anonymous blogger is calling out other bloggers for misrepresentation, is it not reasonable to hold them to the same standards?

Despite all the good done by that page you’ve had a massive chip on your shoulder about it from day 1.
You clearly don’t see why there’s a need for such a page and that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean other people can’t appreciate the information being posted on it.

I disagree about BU being incorrect in the instance you are referring to above, but even if she was, so what?
The times where she’s right far far outweigh the times where she’s wrong.
Pages like this are needed.

meeeeh

Suckit wrote: »

Unfortunately some people do get called out incorrectly, they should also look at rectifying this when that happens.

As far as I know that is slander and can be expensive if someone brings you to court for it. Doing proper research and reporting it is good, publishing stuff you don't verify and hoping it sticks is not. That situation could be easily verified with one email to the author of the article asking her for comment before publishing. Frankly there should be no need to rectify it. This kind of stuff is harming traditional media who bother to check their sources and instead we are getting people on social media either unethically or even fraudulently advertising or selling stuff or they are slandering people without consideration. After that you get morons targeting individuals and making their life hell. It's a complete mess and nobody comes well out of it: bloggers, antibloggers or their followers.

Edit: btw that's kind of brainless activity which affected couple of votes recently. Excepting something because it's right more often than not is fool's game.

RhubarbCrumble

RMC's spending diary is up again for the week. Almost €600 and the majority of that is on food.

Graham

Suckit wrote: »

She got her hair done for free?

That was quite clear.

We only work with a brand on Tried & Tested if we would really recommend their product, and we're strict on that. We also make sure that we are completely transparent with our followers and let everyone know that the piece is a sponsored partnership.

There is something particularly distasteful continuing to suggest there was anything untoward here in an attempt to justify the behaviour or somebody else.

Suckit wrote: »

I guess it comes down to whether or not BU are doing more harm than good. I think at the moment they are doing more good, as they are one of the main reasons that tighter regulations are coming in.

What's an acceptable number of false accusations?

Suckit wrote: »

Unfortunately some people do get called out incorrectly, they should also look at rectifying thins when that happens.

Shoot first, ask questions later?

GingerLily

RhubarbCrumble wrote: »

RMC's spending diary is up again for the week. Almost €600 and the majority of that is on food.

I spent 80e on food yesterday - and that was a very expensive day for me - VERY - its still under her average daily amount - jesus

Graham

SusieBlue wrote: »

Despite all the good done by that page you’ve had a massive chip on your shoulder about it from day 1.

I assume you're able to back up that accusation somehow?

SusieBlue

Graham wrote: »

I assume you're able to back up that accusation somehow?

Your only posts in this forum are either criticizing BU or criticizing how regular members of this forum conduct themselves.
I don’t recall ever seeing your actual thoughts or opinions (negative or positive) on a single blogger or influencer.
You seem to just pop in every now and then to sh*t stir.

Graham

SusieBlue wrote: »

Your only posts in this forum are either criticizing BU

Please point out ANY posts where I have even mentioned BU other than my posts today.

Suckit

Graham wrote: »

That was quite clear.

It wasn't to me.
I haven't written any articles, sponsored or otherwise so I am unsure if it was free, but if it was, then my point remains the same. That she did gain personally from it.

Graham wrote: »

There is something particularly distasteful continuing to suggest there was anything untoward here in an attempt to justify the behaviour or somebody else.

You've lost me on that quote, I did not suggest anything untoward was going on, nor did I try to justify the behaviour of anybody else.

Graham wrote: »

What's an acceptable number of false accusations?

I couldn't give you an exact number, although I toyed with 73. BU are not the first people in the media to make mistakes in print and they will not be the last by a long shot.
But when it becomes completely unacceptable, I am sure the powers that be will step in, which is what BU is helping to achieve. If BU makes mistakes, I think they should definitely be called out and proven wrong, and as i mentioned, they should apologise and take steps to rectify it.

Graham wrote: »

Shoot first, ask questions later?

I said in my post that I also agree that when possible BU should probably contact the person first.

I can see by the nature of BU that isn't always possible.

Prominent_Dawg

GingerLily wrote: »

BU is not responsible for the death threats!

I wouldn't say they are responsible for the death threats, but they are responsible for the backlash of their decisions and thats what this is!

GingerLily

Prominent_Dawg wrote: »

I wouldn't say they are responsible for the death threats, but they are responsible for the backlash of their decisions and thats what this is!

I feel like your minimising the situation while also shifting partial blame onto BU.

The person who made those threats did a vile thing and there is no justification for it.

Boards.ie: Niamh

Mod I've had to remove a number of posts that were not up to standard for this forum. Discussion of the issue is allowed but personal remarks or further accusations about the person accused of being behind BU are not acceptable.

Please re-read the charter, in particular

Keep it civil. If someone suggests something you don’t agree with, simply state that and why you don’t agree with it. Snide or petty comments about other posters or influencers will not be tolerated and warnings will be given.

amdublin

RhubarbCrumble wrote: »

RMC's spending diary is up again for the week. Almost €600 and the majority of that is on food.

Who is RMC please so i can follow!

Suckit

amdublin wrote: »

Who is RMC please so i can follow!

Rosemary MacCabe

Prominent_Dawg

GingerLily wrote: »

I feel like your minimising the situation while also shifting partial blame onto BU.

Im not shifting partial blame, I would say partial blame is on them!

The person who made those threats did a vile thing and there is no justification for it.

Reason being everyone involved should be held responsible including BU!

amdublin

Graham wrote: »

Like I said, it's reckless to go around throwing out anonymous (unfounded) accusations before checking the facts.

This anonymous blogger is calling out other bloggers for misrepresentation, is it not reasonable to hold them to the same standards?

I think BU is a loose cannon.

I think there are lots of people like this our there on the internet these days.

Another example is people who find themselves the owners of what has grown into a popular page or group on Facebook. With no experience of moderating things the pages are like the wild west of racism and xenophobia. In some cases tolerated or even encouraged by the do called moderators.

GingerLily

Prominent_Dawg wrote: »

Im not shifting partial blame, I would say partial blame is on them!


Reason being everyone involved should be held responsible including BU!

I don't agree - luckily the guards won't agree with that either if they manage to track them down!

witchgirl26

Graham wrote: »

Like I said, it's reckless to go around throwing out anonymous (unfounded) accusations before checking the facts.

This anonymous blogger is calling out other bloggers for misrepresentation, is it not reasonable to hold them to the same standards?

Yes but BU is not making any money out of those misrepresentations whereas bloggers are.

In fairness the article you showed - I would at least say that the 2nd picture has been filtered. I've had treatments done to my hair and pics afterwards by the salon. They're often filtered to look brighter etc before posting. I'm not saying that's inherently dishonest but it should be noted if you're trying to show a product. Like how mascara ads can no longer show people wearing fake eyelashes without noting it clearly.

tostayorgo

But we have the ASAI to deal with these misrepresentations, if you think they are doing something wrong report them. I know most people are going to say the ASAI do nothing but that's the law and it is the right way to deal with things

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Yes but BU is not making any money out of those misrepresentations whereas bloggers are.

In fairness the article you showed - I would at least say that the 2nd picture has been filtered. I've had treatments done to my hair and pics afterwards by the salon. They're often filtered to look brighter etc before posting. I'm not saying that's inherently dishonest but it should be noted if you're trying to show a product. Like how mascara ads can no longer show people wearing fake eyelashes without noting it clearly.

Pistachios & cream

tostayorgo wrote: »

But we have the ASAI to deal with these misrepresentations, if you think they are doing something wrong report them. I know most people are going to say the ASAI do nothing but that's the law and it is the right way to deal with things

The ASAI only deal with advertising which is only a part of the behaviour and actions that BU has unveiled. I for one wouldn’t have a clue as to who the relevant authority is in many cases to even report things.

Until recently we weren’t even aware that the ASAI was the relevant authority for bloggers/influencers. It was the spotlight placed on them by forums here, on Reddit and BU that has meant the ASAI became aware there was even an issue here and have tried to address it.

GingerLily

tostayorgo wrote: »

But we have the ASAI to deal with these misrepresentations, if you think they are doing something wrong report them. I know most people are going to say the ASAI do nothing but that's the law and it is the right way to deal with things

Public figures are regularly exposed in the media for shady behaviour - that's how newspapers etc, make their money - why should influencers be the only group exempt from fair critiquing?

If no one agreed with BU they wouldn't have as many followers - people want to know what's going on - because the industry looks suspicious - and often is!