view the rest of the comments
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
They also had some pretty hefty advertising directed at kids.
Such as?
I feel like a lot of this is insinuation, like "young-looking" models - rather than marketing with old people? Like literally almost all marketing. Look at this:
What exactly is bad about this unless we assume these models were underage? Which they almost certainly weren't
And you're not interested in whether they actually did anything, not even enough to respond to my point. I'm not interested in "simping" for them, but I am interested in whether there is any substance to the accusations. That article provided insinuation, not substance.
They clearly weren't marketing to existing smokers to move away from a harmful product, to something slightly less harmful.
I really don't understand this - what would be different if they were? I have no problem with the idea that Juul was irresponsible or whatever in their marketing but it's weird to me that this all seems to be based on generally eyeballing the marketing and being like "yeah this isn't for smokers/This is directed at kids" with basically nothing to back it up.
Over 20 times less harmful