Daily Mail Article

[misscrystal]

Basically you’ve made the point that you think these gigs are unethical and that’s ok.

Oh, no, I don’t think the gigs themselves are unethical. Yeah, I’m a cynic, but I think they can have a lot of practical use. Anything that lifts a person’s mood and builds self-belief can be useful.

I think it’s unethical not to put warning labels on things that could potentially have health implications, though. I believe warning labels should be put on these gigs to prevent serious addicts doing unadvisable things, like quitting cold turkey. Many addicts can be desperate, remember, and aren’t always thinking clearly when they make decisions. Some spellcasters may also not realise the dangers of extreme addictions. Remember, there are bad sellers in every category all over Fiverr.

I also believe warnings should be placed on drugs, at the start of health books, etc. Just so that a person doesn’t do something overly drastic, like start a diet that could harm them or take drugs that interact with other things.

Most people won’t require these warnings, but they may save a person or two from harm, so why not put them there?

So, yeah, that’s my summary. All of the strawmen, ad hominems and false dimelas (some from writers, depressingly), ended up making this debate seem much more complex than it was.

Did you read the description of that gig? I did. It does not say it will make someone quit cold turkey.

[ahmwritingco]

Did you read the description of that gig? I did. It does not say it will make someone quit cold turkey.

I’ll tackle the last of your two questions, as you did ask them repeatedly.

First, there are several gigs, some now closed, that were offering this service. Not all were well presented. Second, anyone could create a gig in that category and talk nonsense, even if they didn’t intend to. The category isn’t properly vetted, like most categories on Fiverr. Wouldn’t it be good to have vulnerable buyers in your category protected from possible unscrupulous sellers with a warning label on certain gigs? I feel those labels would make your category look better, and more reputable.

Second, about AA, I’m really no expert, and frankly, I don’t think what AA does is relevant to what Fiverr does. Warnings could be useful on the AA website, sure, but whether they do or don’t have them shouldn’t be an issue to Fiverr. Fiverr should do what benefits its users, regardless of what other sites or institutions do.

When there’s a chance of an horrendous outcome, albeit a small one, I say try to take precautions, especially when they harm no one.

It’s been good chatting.

[misscrystal]

I’ll tackle the last of your two questions, as you did ask them repeatedly.

First, there are several gigs, some now closed, that were offering this service. Not all were well presented. Second, anyone could create a gig in that category and talk nonsense, even if they didn’t intend to. The category isn’t properly vetted, like most categories on Fiverr. Wouldn’t it be good to have vulnerable buyers in your category protected from possible unscrupulous sellers with a warning label on certain gigs? I feel those labels would make your category look better, and more reputable.

Second, about AA, I’m really no expert, and frankly, I don’t think what AA does is relevant to what Fiverr does. Warnings could be useful on the AA website, sure, but whether they do or don’t have them shouldn’t be an issue to Fiverr. Fiverr should do what benefits its users, regardless of what other sites or institutions do.

When there’s a chance of an horrendous outcome, albeit a small one, I say try to take precautions, especially when they harm no one.

It’s been good chatting.

It’s the same thing as you advocating warning labels on all religions aside from the one you prefer. If it’s something you yourself believe in that’s perfectly ok but if it’s something you don’t believe in make sure to “warn” others about it. I get it.

People seem to often be very unhappy with other types of gigs they get on fiverr much more than spell gigs. Let’s warn people about logo gigs for a start.

It’s tiring hearing people target things that for the most part people seem to be very happy with simply because they themselves wouldn’t want to purchase that type of gig. People vote for things with their purchases and so far from what I can tell, people are exceptionally happy with spell gigs.

[misscrystal]

I’ll tackle the last of your two questions, as you did ask them repeatedly.

First, there are several gigs, some now closed, that were offering this service. Not all were well presented. Second, anyone could create a gig in that category and talk nonsense, even if they didn’t intend to. The category isn’t properly vetted, like most categories on Fiverr. Wouldn’t it be good to have vulnerable buyers in your category protected from possible unscrupulous sellers with a warning label on certain gigs? I feel those labels would make your category look better, and more reputable.

Second, about AA, I’m really no expert, and frankly, I don’t think what AA does is relevant to what Fiverr does. Warnings could be useful on the AA website, sure, but whether they do or don’t have them shouldn’t be an issue to Fiverr. Fiverr should do what benefits its users, regardless of what other sites or institutions do.

When there’s a chance of an horrendous outcome, albeit a small one, I say try to take precautions, especially when they harm no one.

It’s been good chatting.

Wouldn’t it be good to have vulnerable buyers in your category protected from possible unscrupulous sellers with a warning label on certain gigs?

Why not put that warning label on all gigs? Why not for example warn buyers that logo gigs might be done by people who have never made any logos before and are using some free logos they found online?

I don’t know why you insist on picking on MY category as if it’s a problem. It is not a problem except in your mind.

Your premise that people should be warned about sellers in MY category is incredibly insulting. And forum rules prohibit talking bad about sellers and that includes entire categories which you are implying are dangerous or harmful or in some way to be shunned. I hope you can find another outlet.

[psychicbunny]

You must have had some much better doctors than I’ve ever had because the only ones who ever did one thing for me 1. gave me antibiotics when I had strep throat, and 2. removed a kidney stone.

The rest were 100% worthless or actually much more harmful than what I went to them for.

I wouldn’t trust any doctor at all. My experiences have been beyond horrible.

I could go on for many pages about the horrors I’ve experienced from doctors. I actually have a scar on the back of one eyeball when I had a piece of lint in my eye and a doctor almost poked my eyeball out of my head and I had to run out away from him.

I wouldn’t trust any doctor at all. My experiences have been beyond horrible.

Majority of the doctors I’ve encountered these days are con artists. I went to a dermatologist to help fix a couple of minor imperfections and the dermatologist ran me up $1,000. I did some search and the average cost of the procedure should of been roughly $500-700. Probably much less since it’s literally not noticeable to the human eye unless you have a microscope. I seriously hate going to the doctor.

[ahmwritingco]

I wonder if the sellers mentioned have any recourse against the DM. Even if it’s just a strongly worded C&D letter.

I wonder if the sellers mentioned have any recourse against the DM. Even if it’s just a strongly worded C&D letter.

C&Ds rarely worry journalists, especially those working at papers with proper legal budgets. When I worked in the media, I didn’t take them seriously.

Most journalists know only three things will get them into trouble: faking a source, excessive harassment, and blatantly unprovable slander.

Everything else counts as “analysis” and is basically fair game. I could claim, for example, that your username “Dolly_donut” is dangerous as the donut part could fuel childhood obesity. It’d be a crappy article, but I could write it without worry of recourse. Now, if I claimed that was your intention, I’d get into trouble, cos I can’t even get close to proving that.

If I were worried you’d be lawyer happy, I’d take extra precautions when writing the article. I myself wouldn’t claim anything. I’d get “experts” or sources to do that for me. I’d just report their claims. This is largely how the Mail gets to be so sensationalist. It quotes an expert saying, “sure, that catastrophic situation could possibly happen.” Most things in life could possibly happen!

I did some search and the average cost of the procedure should of been roughly $500-700.

Whaaaaa?! That’s so much to spend on a couple of microscopic imperfections, especially when you look tanned. A tan hides almost everything! 🌞