Gambling was ruined for me after I took Psychology 101 in college. Learning that slot machines were programmed on the same ratio of reinforcement that makes rats ask for cheese made me feel controlled and conned. I mean, who wants to give hard-earned money to somebody who’s training you like a rat? Now our screen devices are jumping us through hoops, with addictive features and profitable scams. If your kids are on YouTube, then they’re ready to learn about the “business side” of social media.
Buyer Beware
The Internet is a “buyer beware” environment. That means it is up to us to discover where the tricks and scams are.
There are regulations about collecting information and marketing to children because they do not yet have the sophistication to make sound, informed financial decisions. However, marketers online can’t be sure who is watching their content.
That means they can create marketing funnels that kids can fall into. Publicly, YouTube celebrities would insist they are only marketing to adults. But if that’s the case, why are so many kids and teens spending money online?
Celebrity Endorsement
When celebrities endorse a product, they lend their credibility to it. Viewers think, “I trust them. If they like it, I like it.” Viewers can spot celebrity-endorsed products when Youtubers say they are sponsored, affiliated, or teamed up with a company.
For example, Tana Mongeau (2.8M subscribers), Gabbie Hanna (6.5M subscribers), and plenty of others[2] were paid by Kenza Cosmetics[3] or Bermona[4] to advertise “great deals” to their subscribers. To maintain credibility with their fans, celebrities must be honest about their support of a product. However, YouTube influencers who are out for quick cash with little regard for their credibility and reputation scam their fans with inflated prices and hidden shipping costs.[5]
Scarcity
Scarcity is a classic marketing technique that refers to the “buy now before you miss out on a one-time limited offer.” The urgency drives consumers to impulsively buy. YouTubers commonly say three things that reflect scarcity.
They will say:
the product is amazing and insist you’re getting a great deal.
the product is in short supply, or the deal is a limited-time offer.
“I don’t want you to miss out on this”.
Beauty guru Jeffree Star (13.9M subscribers) used scarcity to sell his collection of eyeshadow palettes priced around $80 each in only three minutes.[6] No wonder he’s worth $50 million!
Pester Power
Ask any child what they want to be when they grow up, and they’ll say “YouTuber.” Many kids believe that all they have to do is post a video, and in a few months, they’ll be raking in the cash. To prepare, they hang onto every word of their favorite influencer, imagining that they too will one day be rich and famous. They adopt their lingo, accents, and interests, and want to buy what they have. This leads kids to pester their parents for online products or even use their parent’s credit cards without asking.[8]
Provoking Minions by Creating Conflict with Other Celebrities
Creating large-scale competitions or beef (having a grudge or dislike for another person) is one technique influencers use to increase subscriber rates. Spurring online fans into promoting your “win” creates drama with dollar signs. Superfans promote content for you, sweeping their friends into the frenzy with them. Free of charge!
Superfans who become radicalized to show support for their ingroup is a process social psychologists call deindividuation. Deindividuation is a psychological state where people get so caught up in their cause, they become disinhibited and fail to self-evaluate. It’s an intense state of belonging where one seems to lose oneself in the service of their chosen tribe. Famous examples are usually negative, like mob violence, but positive behaviors can occur as well. Teens and young adults are particularly susceptible as they are innately motivated to find and enthusiastically support their tribe.
An example of this type of marketing campaign is YouTube Red’s 2018 Boxing Match between YouTube Influencers KSI (20M subscribers) and Logan Paul (18.8M subscribers). The finale of their feud was a pay-to-view event where the two “boxed” for around 20 minutes, bringing in 13 million viewers and 7 million dollars of profit.[1]
The Apology Video
Wondering how YouTubers survive unfair marketing techniques directed at their subscribers? More marketing and PR. Here are some tactics we identified that seem to clean up celebrity marketing mishaps.
Delete the Evidence
Although celebrities delete the videos that got them into trouble in the first place, we all know that anything that appears on the Internet is there to stay. If the video promises to draw further attention, drama vlogs (YouTube videos about YouTube drama) will rebroadcast the offending video while criticizing the decision. Not only does the new vlogger gain subscribers from spilling tea, but it also drives new subscribers to the screwup’s site!
Get Ahead of the Narrative and Focus on the Fans
By making an apology right out the gate, the celebrity attracts more view time and takes control of the narrative.[9] By also showing dramatic concern for those hurt by the mishap, they may humanize themselves, making it seem that their fans are more important than fame.
Logan Paul (18.8M subscribers) is an example. In 2018, he released a video of him and his friends laughing as a suicide victim in Japan’s infamous Suicide Forest.[14] Media, including Dr. Bennett who was appearing as a parenting expert on Access Hollywood Live, expressed grave concern over his lack of discretion and empathy. In his apology video, he spent the first 30 seconds quickly going over what he had done and then focused primarily on his followers and all those who were affected by his actions.
Tears and Relatability
When a YouTuber makes an apology, they change up their appearance to seem more personal and relatable. Placing themselves in a lower position than the camera, wearing neutral colors, and choosing casual loungewear make the celebrity look less threatening.
Next, they get sad…really sad. Laura Lee, for example, apologized for racist remarks using every tactic talked about in this article, including dramatic crying and brushing away nonexistent tears.[15] Although it seemed effective for some, others remarked that the evident lack of sincerity was a show in itself.
Provocative Victim
One method of gaining fan support is sparking conflict and then crying about it for the next few weeks. Dr. B calls this the provocative victim technique. Trisha Paytas (4.8M subscribers) is famous for making over a dozen 15-minute videos of tearful breakdowns. Viewers don’t even care about what the topic or apology is about. They just come to see the spectacle.
Project Blame
Some YouTubers will try to blame other celebrities or even their own subscribers. For example, Gabbie Hanna made an apology for scamming her audience with Kenza Cosmetics, claiming that her fans should’ve done their research before purchasing.[13]
How to Prevent Marketing Manipulation
Even with education, children don’t have the experience or brain wiring to identify slick marketing techniques. But it shouldn’t stop you from educating them anyway. Here are some helpful tips to stay Internet safe.
YouTubers are not our friends.
Recognizing that YouTubers are strangers with no particular skill set or expert training is the first step to a healthy approach to viewing content. No matter how much they try to sell the idea they’re your “close friends,” they don’t know you nor do they care about your particular vulnerabilities.[16]
Don’t turn a blind eye.
Dr. Bennett believes the most important aspect of screen safety is forming a fun, cooperative alliance with your kids. By adopting our free GKIS Connected Family Agreement and reading and sharing our weekly GKIS blog articles, you’ll have lots of ideas for important and challenging family discussions. Just as parents teach their kids about screen issues along the way, kids also teach their parents.
Raise a smart consumer.
Taking the time to teach your kids how to be clever, savvy, and assertive is far more important than encouraging blind obedience. Help your kids build resilience and protect them from the unpleasant aspects of the online culture. Use discretion, yes, but don’t allow complacency and ignorance.
Use supportive resources.
GKIS helps families become smarter and more connected. Want some easy-to-use, affordable tools to get started? Here are some options for you:
OUR FREE GKIS CONNECTED FAMILY AGREEMENT AND WEEKLY BLOG ARTICLES: Once you enter your name and address at GetKidsInternetSafe.com, you are scheduled to receive your agreement and weekly articles. Snuggle in for a cup of tea and a quick read once a week to set your teaching agenda and build a closer, empowering parent-child alliance.
CYBERSECURITY & RED FLAG SUPPLEMENT: Don’t miss your Cybersecurity and Red Flag Supplement for your Connected Family Agreement. Not only will my cybersecurity tips improve your family’s privacy and security, but your kids will benefit BIG from knowing what kind of red flags to look out for online to avoid danger. You’ll also love the red flags you should look out for in your children’s behavior that may signal they need your help. Early intervention can make a big difference between making a mistake versus suffering from serious digital injury.
GKIS SCREEN SAFETY TOOLKIT: Ready to dial in safety at the device level but too overwhelmed to know where to start? We’ve got your back with our Screen Safety Toolkit. Start building your family’s custom digital toolkit with the tried-and-true recommendations from our guide. Have you wondered how to check their browser history, filter and block inappropriate sites, and monitor use? You won’t want to miss what we offer in this super low-priced, comprehensive guide.
GKIS CONNECTED FAMILY ONLINE COURSE: Early on, I realized that many avenues feed fun family connections and screen safety. My Connected Family Course offers ten quick steps to create a happier, healthier home. Filled with creative and fun tips that are family-tested and outcome-based, these are far more fun and effective than the free parenting tips offered on safety websites.
COACHING WITH DR B: Feeling like you need a little support and shame-free TLC? I have reserved office hours to coach you through the most challenging issues. Whether you love the privacy of 1:1 coaching or the vibrant energy of a motivated parenting group, I’ve got easy-to-schedule coaching options ready to go!
Thanks to Jack Riley, GKIS intern, for watching hours of YouTube for the research on this article and his clever insights.
Onward to More Awesome Parenting,
Tracy S. Bennett, Ph.D.
Mom, Clinical Psychologist, CSUCI Adjunct Faculty
Works Cited
[1] Hale, J (2018, August) How Much Did Logan Paul And KSI Make From Their ‘Youtube World Boxing Championship’? A lot. tubefilter.com
[2] Tea Spill, BEAUTY GURU’S ARE LYING TO YOU!?, YouTube.com
[3] kenzacosmetic.com
[4] bermona.com
[6] JEFFREE STAR SOLD OUT MAKEUP IN 3 MINUTES
Rich Lux., YouTube.com
[7] Mansson, E (2018, December) Sister Stocked? Not A Chance. The James Charles x Morphe Palette Has Sold Out For A Second Time, thetalko.com
[8] Dr. Bennetts Marketing Manipulation advice
[9] Forbes Communications Council, Seven Tips To Improve Apologies During A PR Crisis, forbes.com
[10] Morris, C (2018, December), Popular YouTube Streamer promotes Channel that publishes Anti-Semitic Content, Fortune.com
[11] Aja, R (Feburary,2017), The controversy over YouTube star PewDiePie and his anti-Semitic “jokes,” explained, Vox.com
[12] PewDiePie’s Teammate gets killed, he says it with a hard R out of frustration, Livestream Fails, YouTube.com
[13] Cancelled, gabbie hanna kenza cosmetics scam, YouTube.com
[14] Logan Paul Vlogs, I’m Sorry., YouTube.com
[15] Deceased Laura Lee apology with original captions, YouTube.com
[16] Oldford, S (2018, October) Manipulation in Marketing: How It’s Used, and How to Use It Ethically, entrepreneur.com
Kids and teens love YouTube’s colorful celebrities who cater to their specific interests. But many influencers use their celebrity status to lead fans into harmful situations. In today’s GKIS article, find out how these YouTube celebrities promised big earnings from online gambling, offered poorly planned conventions, attacked other influencers, and encouraged fans to harass other online competitors. Using unethical tactics and no disclosure, many of these profit-making schemes succeed unchallenged.
What’s a YouTube influencer?
A YouTube influenceris a person with a YouTube profile that has a large number of followers and can influence trends, products, and purchasing habits. Their content is typically videos of product recommendations or reviews. Other times, it’s a video (vlog) with influencers talking to their audience about anything that strikes their fancy. Most vlogs include colorful opinions, vulgar language, and provocative topics.
Most influencers are trained marketers who profit from ads, partnerships, and paid sponsorships. Although some provide harmless entertainment, others intentionally mislead or introduce content that can harm their followers.
“Oops, I didn’t mean it.”
One-time mistakes are getting increasingly rare among YouTube celebrities. For some, a string of mistakes results in more fame and profit. For instance, PewDiePie is one of the world’s most famous YouTube celebrities with 91 million subscribers. In 2108, he was criticized for promoting an Anti-Semitic YouTube channel [1], delivering Anti-Semitic jokes [2], and using the hard N-word to thousands of viewers in a live stream video [3].
In 2019, PewDiePie stoked fan fires by encouraging “a fight” with a YouTube channel T-Series and Indian production house. Competing for subscribers, PewDiePie fanned a competition between American YouTube culture versus Indian YouTube Culture. The rallying cry resulted in hacking printers and Google homes, a vandalized World War II memorial in Brooklyn (“subscribe to Pewdiepie”), and, most horrifying, a Christchurch mass murderer yelling “subscribe to PewDiePie” during the live stream of his shooting.
YouTube Influencers Encourage Gambling
CSGOLotto: In 2016, YouTubers TmarTn and ProSyndicate promoted and advertised a site called CSGOLotto. On this site, players bought in-game items that were placed into an online pot alongside other people’s purchased merchandise. The goal was to gamble to win the biggest pot of merchandise.
Video ads for the GSGOLotto showed TmarTn and ProSyndicate having fun gambling large amounts of money trying to win big. Most times, they did win BIG – up to three times the amount they started with up to $20,000 worth of merchandise!
Based on our research, at no point in the ads or written copy did either influencer mention to their collective audience of 13.5 million that they owned this site and were profiting directly. We found the ads to be misleading, looking like the celebrities were simply players rather than profiteers.
Mystery Brand: In 2018, Jake Paul and RiceGum created a similar gambling site called Mystery Brand. In this game, players purchase $5 to $100 virtual boxes that would contain a mystery item worth either less or more than the amount paid. The promised a chance to win a $250 million house with only a $15 buy-in.
The influencers were reportedly paid $100,000 for promotion to their collective 30 million subscribers. In their videos, they narrated how they “teamed up” with Mystery Brand to show how “dope” it was to play.
After demonstrating the easy signup process, the two spent big. Once a player buys in, their money stays in. Players can’t cash out. They can only earn sponsored prizes shown on the site, like a virtual shopping mall. For example, in one video RiceGum shows off his $15,000 profit after only spending $3,000. Neither RiceGum nor Jake Paul refers to the site as “gambling,” but instead call it a “game” with “good value,” promising “there is no losing in this.” Based on our research, no place on the site states the players’ chances of winning.
A Poorly Planned Convention
Tana Mongeau is a content creator with 3.7 million subscribers. In 2018, 5,000 people showed up at a hotel in Anaheim to attend her convention, advertised to be a cheaper and more accessible version of Vidcon (which is a large-scale event hosted by YouTube to meet your favorite YouTuber). Due to poor planning, over 4,000 people waited for over four hours in the sweltering heat outside of the hotel. There were little shade, food, or water available, and many attendees got sunburned, passed out, and rioted due to poor accommodations and security.
Although promised to be free, it wasn’t. While 4,000 waited outside, the 1,000 inside were greeted with a $60 “VIP” pass, with a lack of entertainment, overcrowding, and almost the same issues as those outside the hotel. The videos of this event are upsetting to watch.
Using Their Platform to Attack People
When some YouTube influencers don’t like other content creators or other people in general, they sometimes rant with name-calling and unfair accusations. This cyberbullying can result in a cyber flash mob of dedicated fans that cyber attack through doxing(showing private information), pranking, and cyber-harassment.
False Accusations Against a Competitive Influencer
Jackie Aina is a popular beauty guru who creates and shares videos of makeup applications with 2.9 million subscribers. In 2018, she made a video accusing another YouTuber, Petty Paige (128 thousand subscribers), of stealing $1,500 from her personal bank account.
This accusation appeared to have no proof of legitimacy. Although she never stated Petty Paige’s name in the video, she put up a picture of a video Paige had made, making it easy for her subscribers to identify the accused perpetrator. Jackie Aina’s fans took to social media to harass Paige for weeks. Paige even stated that many business and job opportunities were canceled because of harassment.
Targeting Their Audience
The Gabbie show (6.4 million subscribers) is one of many YouTubers who have targeted everyday people with no regard to how the fan base would react to it. When a young girl in her audience made a negative comment on one of Gabbie’s tweets, Gabbie screenshotted it along with the girl’s account and posted it on her Twitter (2.7 million followers). This led fans to spam and harass the girl, flooding her inbox with hateful messages.
Are there legal consequences?
Too often, when malicious or unethical online behavior is identified, the scandal is fleeting. For example, in the case of TmarTns and ProSyndicate’s gambling scam, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a case for lying about ownership of a product. Yet somehow, both influencers avoided legal prosecution, only suffering a mild loss in subscribers and yearly income due to a damaged reputation. They still have a net worth of around $5 million.
For Jake Paul and RiceGum, absolutely nothing happened. RiceGum created a video justifying his behavior as the same as what others do. Jake Paul made a joke about the situation. When asked, “You loved being called out for selling a gambling scam to underage kids?” He responded, “Yes, love it.”
Of the influencers covered in this article, Tana Monogue probably received the biggest consequences. After months of backlash and hate from fans and YouTubers, Tana made multiple apologies. But she still suffered no legal consequences. And as for what Jackie Aina and Gabby Shows did, many just see it as insignificant errors in judgment.
What can be learned?
Influencers are not your friends and most often cannot be trusted.
Fanning follower anger is often fake and staged.
On the internet, bad behavior makes influencers money and often goes unpunished.
If you believe the hype, you’re gullible. It’s probably not worth the drama. Think for yourself instead of following blindly.
Thanks to GKIS intern Jack Riley for researching and writing this article. If you learned from this article, stay tuned for part 2, which details the irresponsibility and scams that YouTube influencers continue to feed their audience as well as the marketing and social manipulations used to make sure viewers keep coming back.
Onward to More Awesome Parenting,
Tracy S. Bennett, Ph.D.
Mom, Clinical Psychologist, CSUCI Adjunct Faculty
Works Cited
YouTube Influencers Encourage Gambling
Fluff, TMARTN GAMBLING ON CSGO LOTTO & DECEIVING OWNERSHIP (Full Video Reupload), YouTube.com
(2016, July) YouTube gamers caught in gambling row, bbc.com
Internet technology has brought us instantaneous access to global information. We see the latest news coverage in seconds with convenient notifications on our smartphones. Personal posts on Facebook delivers everything, including beheadings by ISIS and mass shootings like the tragedy in Las Vegas. Unregulated and increasingly pushing the boundaries of decorum, shocking information and violent images and videos constantly slice into our everyday lives. We at GKIS believe this comes at a grave price to our feelings of security and overall mental health, particularly for kids. Trigger warning: please beware that this post includes graphic news images.
Photojournalism: The First Graphic Images to Reach the Masses
Graphic popular news content is a relatively new phenomenon. Before the Internet, people primarily accessed news from newspapers. The first printed newspaper was written in Germany in 1605. The first newspaper photos in the 1850s were wood-engravings used for printing purposes rather than actual printed photographs. Though these images were not true to life, they still conveyed messages to the masses.
Roger Fenton, one of the first war photographers, captured images of the Crimean War in 1854. His photos revolutionized photojournalism. Due to the limited photo technology of the time, he could only capture stationary objects. As a result, his photos were often staged and depicted landscapes or posed people. He avoided taking pictures of dead bodies and bloodied soldiers.
In 1857, photographer Felice Beato pushed the envelope further to more graphically expose the devastation of war. He captured what may be the first popularly published photograph of a human corpse.
In the late 1800s, newspapers developed a more efficient method of printing photos, called half-toning. These are the black and white images many of us are familiar with. By the 1920s this technology was very sophisticated and could produce high quality images which proved vital for eliciting public response.
A poignant example of graphic news coverage evoking public response was the Emmet Till incident in 1955. Emmet was a 14-year-old African-American boy who was senselessly lynched when a white woman claimed that he had disrespected her. Her husband and his brother abducted Emmet and beat and mutilated him before tossing his body into a river. When his body was discovered, Emmet’s mother allowed journalists to photograph his severely disfigured body. These disturbing images outraged the public and brought light to injustice in the South. Emmet became the face to The Civil Rights Movement.
News Video Coverage: A Revolutionary Medium
The introduction of film media added an even more sophisticated layer of interaction between news reports and the public. The first filmed news coverage, called Newsreel, was prominent from the 1910s to the 1960s, before Americans had televisions in their homes. Newsreels were short documentary-style films reporting on current events, most often shown before motion pictures in movie theaters. They tended to be informative and non-graphic in nature, often used as propaganda to influence public opinion on war and politics.
When televisions became common in American homes in the 1960s, TV stations began producing their own newsreels. Soon there would be entire programs dedicated to news, marking the beginning of nationwide news broadcasting stations like CBS.
In the 1970s, innovative technologies emerged that could record audio and video for television broadcasting, called electronic news gathering. With the onset of the unpopular Vietnam war, news broadcasters covered the battlefield in graphic detail. This exposed the world to raw and real depiction of the brutalities of war, fueling anti-war sentiments.
For example, on March 27, 1970, CBS News aired a graphic report with correspondent Richard Threlkeld. In the clip, Richard accompanies several soldiers patrolling the jungles of Vietnam. Suddenly shots fire, and Richard and the soldiers take cover. One of the soldiers, Kregg Jorgenson, is shot in both legs off camera. With gunfire sounds in the background, Richard briefly interviews the heroic soldier who earned his fourth Purple Heart that day.
In more recent memory, the graphic videos of 9/11 traumatized a nation. Millions of television viewers were entranced by the continuous hours of disturbing footage. Particularly horrifying were the images of victims jumping from the burning towers to their deaths. Richard Griffiths, the senior editorial director at CNN, ruminated with his colleges about whether or not to air “The Jumpers.” Ultimately, they decided to show a four-second clip of a person falling before impact. This decision was met with universal disapproval as audiences were shocked and deeply upset. How far is too far in television journalism?
Livestreaming: The New Frontier
With the advent of smartphones, we now have immediate, continuous access to the unregulated Internet. Not only can we conveniently view video coverage, but we also can take and share it real-time. Livestreaming is the ability to transmit live audio and video footage over the Internet. Popular livestream mediums are Facebook live, Twitter, Instagram, and Periscope.
The problem with livestreams is that it’s impossible to moderate and filter graphic content. It’s raw, authentic, and very real. Captured livestreaming incidents have included rape, torture, and murder. Most recently, the world looked on at the horrifying livestreaming videos of victims during the Las Vegas shooting. Viewing livestreamed events can feel like you’re actually there but helpless to do anything to aid victims. Just as we saw with 9/11 coverage, audience response has been emotional and, in some instances, symptomatic of secondary trauma.
Thank you Intern Mara Pober for giving us a great overview of photojournalism and how the tide has turned. Stay tuned for her article next week, “Graphic Livestream Horrors” to learn why viewing graphic video content can contribute to clinical distress for all of us, particularly children.
I’m the mom psychologist who helps you GetKidsInternetSafe.
“Monsters aren’t born. They are created”… Are you buying that?
–––
I’m so furious right now! I just got off the phone with my UCSB-student daughter, who informed me about a slasher film titled, Del Playa, being promoted for release. A petition with 20,000 signatures so far is being circulated by Santa Barbara college students calling for its halt, rightfully upset at the audacity of this writer/director capitalizing on the death of innocent victims from last summer’s Isla Vista shooting. The movie was filmed in Isla Vista, written and directed by a UCSB alumni, and has a protagonist stalker/murderer portrayed in a sympathetic light (“Monsters aren’t born. They are created”). The writer/director was quoted to say,
I’m more than skeptical. After all, the superficial, narcissistic online celebrity culture has taught us that profit and shameless self-promotion at the expense of others is acceptable. Everybody’s doing it!
Somebody’s feeling helpless and losing their composure? Film it and FaceBook it! Celebrate their downfall. Hilarious!
Sex on a yacht? Film it and arrange for it to be “stolen.” Publicly denounce the thief while signing your reality series contract.
Kids get gunned down in cold blood by a deranged murderer? Go to the same neighborhood and film a slasher film. Make the protagonist a bullied loner turned down by a beautiful cheerleader like the real-life murderer. Publicly apologize to the still-traumatized community while actively promoting the release of the film.
What the hell is happening to us? Have social media likes and potential for profit rented out the moral judgment center of our brains? Are we so jaded by disappointment that we no longer bother to speak out for the right? Are trolls now setting the tone of discussion just because they have no limits and limitless time? Please tell me my judgment is skewed from the perspective of a protective mother lion. Because I don’t like to think that we have, in fact, slid to such lows as a society.
I’m aware that I risk promoting this heartless film capitalizing on still-fresh pain and trauma. I’m honestly conflicted about it. But I also hope it sparks outrage that shames the film creators into pulling it from the shelves. Or maybe my article will remind us that six innocent kids were stabbed and gunned down in cold blood May 23, 2014, by a remorseless homicidal maniac; a young adult who wrote a detailed manifesto evidencing his evil plot to punish those who wronged him; a young adult who left a chilling YouTube video stating his indignation upon being rejected by beautiful women. It’s important that we don’t forget the victims and work harder for gun violence prevention.
I’m still sad for the murder victims’ families, as well as the Santa Barbara students stripped of their safety and sense of innocent celebration. I was a student at UCSB in the 1980s. My memories of Isla Vista are of partying hoards of sunburned college kids, laughing and playing Smash Ball at sunset at Dog Shit Park. In those days we feared midterms, finals, and that we might oversleep and miss one of the three parties we hoped to attend that night. These were the memories of innocence, our first try at independence and openly joyous friendship; the memories of university life outside of the library or classroom.
I have a daughter there now who heard the bullets and saw kids running in terror last summer, moments before she was planning to walk the same streets as the murderer’s bloodied victims. She came home and fell into my arms, afraid, confused, and sad.
We desperately tried to understand what had happened. We read the killer’s ranting manifesto on the living room couch, lit by the glow of news updates. We cried and ached for the parents who lost their young sons and daughters, the apples of their eyes, their lives taken when their futures were blossoming with possibility. We still work to patch together her recovery while trying to reclaim a fun-filled university experience.
Who in their right mind would think of filming a slasher film in the same community only one year later?
Somebody who spent hours with its creation somehow blind to the parallels and the pain it would cause? Somebody who thinks they can say there’s no connection when parallels are splashed all over the trailer like blood on asphalt? Somebody without basic empathy and compassion?
For those who know my work, you know I speak out against public shaming. You also know I’m a fierce advocate for the underdog, for families and kids. Today I’m calling for writer, director Shaun Hart and producer Josh Berger to pull their film in dedication of the grieving and the traumatized and reflect on their conscience. Or better yet, devote their creative enthusiasm in service of murder victims instead of providing violent fodder for the lost and the lonely.
Is this a first amendment rights issue or a human one? Weigh in, shout out, take a side! I’m proud of the Santa Barbara students speaking out. They give us hope that the world has not gone to hell in a hand basket. I’m with student writer Hector Sanchez Castaneda, who says
