• OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    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:

    that featured young-looking models wearing belly-exposing crop tops, ripped jeans and jean jackets with a bright color scheme.

    What exactly is bad about this unless we assume these models were underage? Which they almost certainly weren’t

      • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • HessiaNerd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          They clearly weren’t marketing to existing smokers to move away from a harmful product, to something slightly less harmful.

          • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

            slightly less harmful.

            Over 20 times less harmful