I'm finding these allegations of "fraud" to be extremely convoluted and all over the map, sharing more with internet conspiracy theorizing than sober allegations of specific harms. Some of the issues in the video and elsewhere, present longstanding staples of junk food marketing (e.g. cash prizes, vacations) as if they're in the category of crimes, which is nonsense and shows no sense of proportionality.

I also think the linked video got pretty ridiculous pointing to CGI explosions or edited in buildings evidence of "faked videos" when I think, again, not crime, and not even importantly misleading in the sense people usually are talking about when talking about faked videos: e.g. bigfoot being a guy in a costume. The kind of thing I would consider violating the contract with the viewer would be something more like integrity of outcomes in competitions.

Which is to say, the community of critics are some of the worst cases of deep friend internet brain imaginable, spinning narratives in a Trump-style "weave" [0] that can't decide what the issue is, and can't differentiate between importantly different categories of harm. Most of the time it's vague characterizations of "shady" without elaboration, which itself signals the kind of vagueness that people mistakenly think constitute a completely expressed idea.

That's why this article, at least, by contrast is able to coherently articulate a harm, but even that is fringey, pertaining to pinned comments did not comply with "CARU’s Ad Guidelines’." But at least, it models what it looks like to present a coherently stated harm.

0: The Weave: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/01/us/elections/trump-speech...