Facebook "Likes" for Japanese Relief Offer Sparks Outrage

[masher]

"Every 'like' is a child I -don't- shoot! Come one, come all, and -love- me!"
or
"Look at me! Look at me! I -love- helping people! Don't you -love- me for helping people? You should!"

 

[ekkaman]

If you do not like it then first thing to do is click like so they have to pay up second is to not buy and of their products.

 

[Lokithrsourcerer]

companies and celebrities have exploited tragedy for years its nothing new its why things like comic relief exist. I'm not saying they don't do good work but a lot of the celebs and businesses that get involved wouldn't do so if there was nothing to gain its just a fact of life.

So there getting publicity from it I'm sure a press release saying they will donate 25k to the relief aid would have made it into the public eye anyway i don't see the big deal

 

[Dogstile]

Just like the page and unlike it after the promotion if it really bothers you that much. Finally, a like group that actually does something other than "yeah, we hope you do alright, now i'm going to sit here and feel good after achieving nothing" and people are complaining?

Fuck these people.

 

[Verlander]

You're attacking an attempt to raise money for people in trouble, and your attack is backed with exactly zero valid reasoning. You're the one trolling and purposefully being negative. And ignoring the very good reasons why what you're saying is comprised of 100% Grade A hogwash.

That you're playing the "don't talk back to me, I have a bigger post count and I'll tell the mods" card tells me how flimsy your soapbox is. My post count could be in the single digits and yours could be in the millions, and you'd still be dead wrong. And any mod who would honestly reprimand me for saying "hey, what you're saying is untrue and you're being purposely thick-headed in not acknowledging it" would make me question posting here in the first place.

I've not drawn attention to post count, you have. You are new to the forums, so I informed you of what goes on around here. I haven't threatened to call the mods, I've warned you what happens here. They wouldn't come down on you for stating an opinion, but they will for childish name calling and suchlike.

I'm attacking a publicity stunt. If a religious/atheist group made a big fuss about how they were donating money, they would be self publicising. If Coca Cola donated x amount of money per drink sold, they would be profiteering off of a tragedy. Likewise, Mastiff are as well. They are selling advertising, playing off of emotional commitment and other people's tragedy. This is simple, and if you still don't get it, no amount of explaining it will make the information penetrate your little bubble.

Right, back to my post. It's patronising in that it's condescending to the Japanese. Why? Because they've turned aid into a competition, and not only a competition, but one for a relatively pitiful amount.

Proof. It's what you lack, what makes your argument wholly invalid, and what makes your attempts to silence me via attacks on post count and mod threats very, very sad.

Since you don't have that proof: they haven't turned it into a competition. Compete with whom? For what? Other organizations looking to donate and asking people for FB Likes, something that FB users aren't limited to finite amounts of? Other charitable aid events, on FB or otherwise?

The reason you're getting a fair amount of venom from me is because you're making a claim not backed by evidence, which is not an opinion; it's an objective assertion backed by jack squat, like claiming a cat is a reptile.

And that's all that needs to be said, because the rest of your post is just more of the same logical fallacy-ridden bunk, unworthy of my time. Or anyone's.

I'm not making mod threats or assertions about your post count. Maybe you should fully read what I'm tying before you reply, then these things won't get so lost in translation

You were the first to comment on my post, so don't try to just dismiss me when I answer your poor insults and incorrect assumptions. Proof? What proof am I missing? Maybe you don't fully understand what's Mastiff are doing, which would make sense as to why you are going on like this. I don't know what "evidence" I'm supposed to need, apart from an understanding of what the campaign is and what they've done, something I've already proven that I'm more aware of than you seem to be.

Mastiff are promising to send money to Japan, based on a "like" campaign. They are saying "like this, and we'll send even more money to Japan!". If they honestly gave a shit, they'd send it, and move on, without advertising the fact that they are. Even ignoring the potential tax benefits they'll get form this act of charity, they have chosen to personally benefit from it by using it as a platform in which to advertise their product.

I refer to it as a competition, as it challenges people to participate in an event (even if all it is, is to "like" their page) in order to send money to Japan. These people are rewarded with emotional gratification for doing nothing other than buying into this cheap advertising, while not actually take any action themselves.

Look, if you are gonna look down on me, because I am proactive enough to have already done my part for Japan, while being able to see through a ridiculous self publicising campaign, then go you. I hope you feel good about yourself. If you need these kind of promotions to care about what's happening across the world... well that's you. Whatever it takes, right? If you want to defend this promotion, then that's your choice. Just don't look down on me and make some massive fucking assumptions about me, because you clearly know nothing about me or people in general. If you want to look like an asshole, that's fine, but don't feel the need to inflict me with it. Apparently your "time" is precious anyway...

 

[cactuarr]

i made this account only to refute this guys completely idiotic argument.

I'm attacking a publicity stunt. If a religious/atheist group made a big fuss about how they were donating money, they would be self publicising. If Coca Cola donated x amount of money per drink sold, they would be profiteering off of a tragedy. Likewise, Mastiff are as well. They are selling advertising, playing off of emotional commitment and other people's tragedy. This is simple, and if you still don't get it, no amount of explaining it will make the information penetrate your little bubble.

yep, they would be profiteering off a tragedy and they would still be donating money to the tragedy.

Right, back to my post. It's patronising in that it's condescending to the Japanese. Why? Because they've turned aid into a competition, and not only a competition, but one for a relatively pitiful amount.

companies have no obligation to donate money to charity/tragedy and the only reasons they would do so is for good PR and the MINUTE number of companies who would actually care. i'm sure mastiff are actually in both boats considering they've already personally donated.

You were the first to comment on my post, so don't try to just dismiss me when I answer your poor insults and incorrect assumptions. Proof? What proof am I missing? Maybe you don't fully understand what's Mastiff are doing, which would make sense as to why you are going on like this. I don't know what "evidence" I'm supposed to need, apart from an understanding of what the campaign is and what they've done, something I've already proven that I'm more aware of than you seem to be.

this entire paragraph just boils down to "im right and im smarter than you! deal with it".

Mastiff are promising to send money to Japan, based on a "like" campaign. They are saying "like this, and we'll send even more money to Japan!". If they honestly gave a shit, they'd send it, and move on, without advertising the fact that they are. Even ignoring the potential tax benefits they'll get form this act of charity, they have chosen to personally benefit from it by using it as a platform in which to advertise their product.

again, companies are under no obligation to give a shit about anybodys personal suffering. businesses and companys are businesses and companys, they are here to make money. hence businesses are allowed to get people involved in their product in order to donate to charity. if this were an actual charity doing this kind of campaign (maybe not a 'facebook like' campaign, i'll get to that soon) then yeah i would agree with you.

I refer to it as a competition, as it challenges people to participate in an event (even if all it is, is to "like" their page) in order to send money to Japan. These people are rewarded with emotional gratification for doing nothing other than buying into this cheap advertising, while not actually take any action themselves.

it's a click on a webpage and a small video game company will donate $25k. if this were a competition surely they would instead be donating hundreds of thousands to millions? oh wait whats that? mastiff are a small company and any money donated to the relief is good money?

your second point is actually one i agree on. some people will pass this off as 'their charity' done. this shouldn retract from what they company is doing though, it retracts from the publics mindset.

to be honest you seem to be one of those people who places themselves on a personal moral highground simply because they donated to a charity during a disaster. if you actually cared about japan's problems at the moment, if you actually cared at all, you would be liking the facebook page and saying "every penny counts".

every penny counts kids.

 

[mechanixis]

I mean...wow. I guess I can see the marketing thought-process that led up to this, but it's made some pretty base miscalculations. By saying "We have the money right here, and we're willing to donate it...if you do something for our benefit first," they've basically elevated it to a hostage situation. They're holding $25,000 worth of the Japanese relief effort hostage until they get a free marketing boost.

I mean, let's think about this...if this small developer doesn't get however many 'likes' they demanded, then they're going to put the money back in their own pocket. That's not charity - that's an ultimatum. And it's pretty fucking low.

We need more petitions for them to give the money no strings attached, not more people giving in to their request.

 

[Axelhander]

I mean...wow. I guess I can see the marketing thought-process that led up to this, but it's made some pretty base miscalculations. By saying "We have the money right here, and we're willing to donate it...if you do something for our benefit first," they've basically elevated it to a hostage situation. They're holding $25,000 worth of the Japanese relief effort hostage until they get a free marketing boost.

Except that isn't at all what's happening, isn't what was said, isn't what was implied, and isn't an accurate descriptor of the awareness/fundraising campaign. As has been explained. Repeatedly. Exhaustively.

 

[Verlander]

i made this account only to refute this guys completely idiotic argument.

Considering you go on to criticise me by typing "this entire paragraph just boils down to "im right and im smarter than you! deal with it"." this is somewhat ironic, no? Well, either way, welcome to the forums, I hope you continue on to become a productive member of the community, rather than just joining to criticise others.

yep, they would be profiteering off a tragedy and they would still be donating money to the tragedy.

Well, I have to say that this "refutal" has gotten off to a poor start. You agree with my point? Probably not, but I'll make my point clear: I ahve no problem with donations to charity, I have a problem with people profiteering from tragedy.

companies have no obligation to donate money to charity/tragedy and the only reasons they would do so is for good PR and the MINUTE number of companies who would actually care. i'm sure mastiff are actually in both boats considering they've already personally donated.

No they don't have to, and the fact that they have chosen to do so in this manner places them in the PR side to me. Our opinions as to whether or not they've done it are just that: opinions. However, as they HAVE actually launched a PR campaign based on it, I'm pretty comfortable in my assumption.

this entire paragraph just boils down to "im right and im smarter than you! deal with it".

It boils down to exactly what it said: if I am missing any "evidence" in my statements, point it out to me. Good luck with that however, as my statements have been justified, and honest.

again, companies are under no obligation to give a shit about anybodys personal suffering. businesses and companys are businesses and companys, they are here to make money. hence businesses are allowed to get people involved in their product in order to donate to charity. if this were an actual charity doing this kind of campaign (maybe not a 'facebook like' campaign, i'll get to that soon) then yeah i would agree with you.

Why? I don't understand this reasoning. If a person exploits the weak and needy, they're bad, but if a faceless company does it, it's morally justifiable?

You're right, companies don't have to do this. Therefore if they do, they're doing it because they either care, or are trying to use the situation. In this instance, it's to use the situation.

it's a click on a webpage and a small video game company will donate $25k. if this were a competition surely they would instead be donating hundreds of thousands to millions? oh wait whats that? mastiff are a small company and any money donated to the relief is good money?

It's good that they donate money, it's bad that they are profiteering from doing so. Simple. I'm not attacking them for donating, I'm attacking their facebook promotion. Had they donated, and got on with it, it would have been great, influential maybe. However, they used this as a platform for self promotion.

your second point is actually one i agree on. some people will pass this off as 'their charity' done. this shouldn retract from what they company is doing though, it retracts from the publics mindset.

It does detract from what the company is doing, even if that wasn't their intention. I'll give them kudos where it's due: they've attempted to get people involved. Due to the nature of facebook and social networking, however, it's possible that they've actually reduced the active support from individuals for doing so. Maybe I'd find the campaign more agreeable if they actually urged people to act on this, rather than just "liking" a page. However, they don't, they are just donating money for people to raise awareness of Mastiffs own page.

to be honest you seem to be one of those people who places themselves on a personal moral highground simply because they donated to a charity during a disaster. if you actually cared about japan's problems at the moment, if you actually cared at all, you would be liking the facebook page and saying "every penny counts".

every penny counts kids.

Maybe I come off that way, but I'm not. I donate when I can, I do community service (although not as much as I should) and generally like to help out about the place. This is not so I can achieve a "holier than thou" status, but more because I have an emotional attachment to life, and like to see people's lives improved.

I have previously stated, and I'll do so again, that I have no issue with any company or person donating to charity (that would make me a hypocrite), but I do care about the manner in which they went about it. To me, the ends don't justify the means, and I find taking advantage of tragedy to be tasteless and morally objectionable to say the very least. Maybe you guys don't, and good for you. It must be nice. I do, and I'm not afraid to speak up about it when I see it so clearly going on.

Yeah every penny counts, so maybe instead of "liking" a page, they should donate £2 instead and double the relief, rather than pandering to a small companies PR stunt. Why do people need some kind of commercial backing before they can actually act? People used to take their moral lead from a holy book: if this is what they take their cues from now, we're entering a dangerous world

 

[gbemery]

I like how a lot of people are acting like it is so horrible. It is their money if they want something as simple as people liking them on face book to give 25k to Japan then that is their prerogative. Do I agree with their choice? No. Is it because I think they are horrible for wanting some publicity out of a tragedy? No.

How is this any different then other businesses such as restaurants saying "Come in today and we will donate so much of every dollar to [insert charity name}?" Why don't they just donate a certain amount out right with not strings attached?

 

[Darkauthor81]

It may be a dick move, but I'll like them anyway because how can you say no to a company icon like that? It's so cute. Love mastiff dogs.

 

[Risingblade]

I'm going to like it, who the hell cares if it's a publicity stunt as long as It helps out those in need >.>

 

[TiefBlau]

Any money being donated is money well enough.

People can call this a cheap scheme or whatever they want, but at the end of the day, it's their money, and they're going to decide how much they're going to donate. You can call them greedy for using donation as an incentive to advertise them, I can call everyone else greedy for not donating period.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Let us also bear in mind that it's very unlikely that Mastiff just happens to have 25 large lying around in a box somewhere. Far more likely is that it's simply giving you the chance to siphon off a little more of its cash by clicking a button. If the company ends up forced to kick in another $12,000 above and beyond what it's already put in, I don't think it's unfair that it should get a little something out of it - and 12,000 likes on Facebook ain't much of a price to pay.

Seriously, would you rather that it had just made its donation and then said that's it, our work is done?

 

[CountChopula]

Seems to me that people are more pissed off at the blatant attempt at self marketing while also helping the people in the process because it's so obvious. But, so what? The company isn't asking you for anything more than a like, not money, not time, nor energy, just a like, even if it's for self promotional reasons, and in turn they donate 100 dollars for every 100 likes?

So let me get this straight. A company who is trying to self promote themselves while also using the money to legitimately help a disaster, used your little guilty strings so you just have to spend a fraction of a second to click on "like" and in turn they donate the equivalent of a dollar to disaster relief. And you are bitching about that? How goddam shallow. Bet you wear a Che Guevara t-shirt, and ***** at corporations at your local Starbucks drinking 5 dollar coffee.

 

[VincentX3]

Fricken ridiculous

There are people dying and in need and all they care about is likes? Greedy ****S
Compared to Nintendo and the real companies that donated 300m+ they are nothing.

 

[Thedarkness77]

Thiis is poor for their image but and does make them look like skum.