Influenced by license holder

Yup, this could be a setting according to the BBC. It started on March 19th 2022 when I wrote ‘57 seconds until the next sucker’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/03/19/57-seconds-until-the-next-sucker/), there I discussed two types that go for your budget. The deceptors and the influencers. Now we see (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60787296) that gives us ‘Influencers in Australia risk jail for breaking finance tips rules’. In this article we get to see “The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) says they may need a licence to give such advice. A 2021 ASIC survey suggested 33% of 18 to 21-year-olds follow financial influencers. And it also found that 64% of young people in Australia changed a financial behaviour because of an influencer.” And here the issue starts. You see, the difference between a flaccid proclamator and the gung-ho prosecutor are mere results. So If “A 2021 ASIC survey suggested 33% of 18 to 21-year-olds follow financial influencers” means that 1-4 people are now facing prosecutions, we could say OK, thats nice, but 1-4 out of? It implies that the female influencers are about meeting a man who can skin a gator so that they can get a really cheap handbag and the male influencers would be about how to best poach a gator and turn that into a handbag to score the sheila in the wild (a subtle Crocodile Dundee reference). But if this implies that you are reporting on 50-100 influencers the message becomes “So, WTF are you waiting for?” Influencers have been on the radar for years, as such reporting on this NOW implies that you need to find your viagra stash, that stash has tablets that looks like (see below)

So as we see “In February, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) urged caution over the use of influencers in the marketing of financial products. “Retail investments’ use of social media influencers on various platforms to market investments is becoming a concern for us,” the financial watchdog said. “Firms should ensure they have taken appropriate legal advice to understand their responsibilities prior to using influencers.” And there has been particular concern about the use of influencers in cryptocurrency marketing.” I personally wonder why this news is not 2+ years old. Because as I personally see it at present influencers will now react to the degree of “I did not know it was illegal, I only saw the news last Tuesday”, impeding prosecutions. Yes, that a really bright idea. We would like results, not excuses and according to one source an influencer “is someone with a loyal and larger than average social media following. Some influencers have as few as 3,000 followers! Influencers are paid by brands to create and post promotional content.” So we get two settings now, the influencer and the brand who engages the influencer. I would state that the brands warrant investigations as well. And lastly we get “In the same month, Spain’s National Securities Market Commission also revealed plans for new rules for advertising crypto-assets, including promotions by social media influencers.” As such Spain might be 2 years late, but Australia? How up to date were they, how many influencers were confronted, how many brands were confronted? We see nothing of that here and that beckons questions. How behind are the lawmakers and their governmental watchdogs exactly? A simple question and train of thought that the article raised, are you not curious how protected you actually really are?