Shell Called Out For Promoting Fossil Fuels To Youth Via Fortnite Game 168
Climate activists are calling out Shell for partnering with popular video gamers and online youth influencers to promote fossil fuels to a younger generation. From a report: The oil giant, which in July reported quarterly profits of more than $5bn, worked with Fortnite creators and paid popular gamers on multiple platforms to showcase its "ultimate road trips" promotion, part of a marketing campaign for a new gasoline it calls V-Power Nitro+.
According to the group Media Matters for America, the company is targeting young players on Twitch, TikTok, Instagram and YouTube, encouraging them to fill up virtual vehicles at interactive Shell gas stations and post screenshots of the game with a #Shellroadtrips hashtag. Research by the non-profit group revealed Shell sponsored livestreams of gameplay on Twitch by at least six streamers with a combined 5.5m followers. It also identified three more content creators on other platforms who were paid to promote the campaign in their videos. Those influencers, Media Matters said, have a combined 1.5 million Instagram followers, 8.5 million on TikTok and 11.6 million on YouTube.
According to the group Media Matters for America, the company is targeting young players on Twitch, TikTok, Instagram and YouTube, encouraging them to fill up virtual vehicles at interactive Shell gas stations and post screenshots of the game with a #Shellroadtrips hashtag. Research by the non-profit group revealed Shell sponsored livestreams of gameplay on Twitch by at least six streamers with a combined 5.5m followers. It also identified three more content creators on other platforms who were paid to promote the campaign in their videos. Those influencers, Media Matters said, have a combined 1.5 million Instagram followers, 8.5 million on TikTok and 11.6 million on YouTube.
Future of the human race? Who cares! (Score:4, Insightful)
There is MONEY to be made!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You overlook one thing: Those 1500 "breeding pairs" back when significantly increased how many are needed for species survival. Currently we are at around 30'000 needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, math and science gets modded down. Omg, some of you mods are so stupid, it makes me laugh so hard.
Re: (Score:2)
You did not post any "math" or "science". You posted some numbers meaningless to the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah one of my NPC stalker trolls joins in.
I'm sorry you can't do division or multiplication and need the math spelled out for you. I thought it was super obvious and I did not need to "show all steps" like in grade school. My error. I forgot I'm dealing with a grade school mentality here.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not illegal. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's actually the opposite dynamic happening.
The most likely people to own an EV are in the suburbs, because they can charge it at home.
People in "dense urban environments" have to park in garages which very rarely have any charging infrastructure... and most public fast chargers are on highways outside cities.
Most EV owners are suburban currently. It will take a huge amount of investment and policy changes to get them more practical in the urban environment.
Re: (Score:2)
In urban environments, SDC-ridesharing-EVs make more sense than owning.
That way charging and parking are someone else's problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fossil fuels are still essential.
And will be for at least another 80 years.
Until the average person can obtain a small portable fusion device, or passively generate biodiesel from from yard waste productively enough to cover their own energy needs in a timely manner, electric vehicles are are just toxic fire hazards used as toys within dense Urban environments where car charging is subsidized by employer.
Not only are fossil furls essential, so are petro-chemicals. Our entire cushy modern way of life depends on products made from them
Re: (Score:2)
Plastics can be made from soybean oil or synthesized from CO2 pulled from the air.
We use oil because it's cheaper, not because it's necessary.
Re: It's not illegal. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's not illegal. (Score:2)
Not the problem [Re:It's not illegal.] (Score:2)
Not only are fossil furls essential, so are petro-chemicals. Our entire cushy modern way of life depends on products made from them
Petrochemicals are not the problem. It's the fossil fuels we burn that are the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only are fossil furls essential, so are petro-chemicals. Our entire cushy modern way of life depends on products made from them
Petrochemicals are not the problem. It's the fossil fuels we burn that are the problem.
The "just stop oil" people don't make that distinction
Re: It's not illegal. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong on all counts. Making battery-powered cars doesn't inherently produce particularly more "toxic emissions" than gasoline cars (that's a myth promulgated by the oil companies), and gasoline-powered cars turn out to catch fire [hotcars.com] a lot more often than battery cars do; it's just so commonplace it doesn't make the news unless it burns a celebrity [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fossil fuels are still essential.
An proposition that can be reasonably defended.
And will be for at least another 80 years.
An assertion completely lacking in support. Technology is being developed on time scales shorter than this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fossil fuels are still essential.
And will be for at least another 80 years.
They're essential only for a small percentage of the use cases where they are used now. That includes at the moment aviation and production of many goods and materials. Alternatives are very rapidly being researched and developed.
They are not essential for electricity production. This is a solved problem via wind, solar and battery storage.
For $deity's sake, the planet is already f*** now. Please share your estimates on where we'll be if we continue like this for 80 more years?!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Slave labor was essential too."
So it was. And it took millennia to make it no longer necessary. Don't expect fossil fuels to disappear overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
There is still slavery on this planet. Real, honest to god, one human buying and owning another as property slavery. We're not done with it, yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Slavery still exists, true enough, but most societies no longer find it necessary. Ironically, given this discussion, it was fossil fuels that made it so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it wasn't. Only economically.
Ie, exactly same as fossil fuels, and likewise slaveholders screamed bloody murder that the society will collapse otherwise.
And it's not even about power needs, because apparently power generation is unimportant enough to switch from nuclear to lignite. It's about who gets to profit.
So shut down the bastards, fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Slave labor was essential too.
Slave labor was never essential. From Ancient Rome through the Antebellum United States, the only people in favor of slave labor were the rich, because duh, you don't have to pay them. Slave labor was ultimately detrimental to the economy of every power that made slavery into an institution. It has always relied on making the slaves into the "other" because that's the only way to con your poor citizens into supporting an institution that comes at the expense of their economic well being. This practice r
Re: It's not illegal. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slave labor was essential to keep the economic system of the time rolling. What changed was the economic system, and many years later it was recognised to not be necessary and laws were passed to ban the practice.
You can start by cutting our dependency on oil, then we can talk about banning it.
How Dare They? (Score:2)
Maybe we could just agree to leave all sorts of concert promotions or marketing gimmicks out of games that kids play entirely?
Or point our venom at the corporate whores at Fortnite who apparently will happily do literally anything for a buck?
Wha? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are calling out a company for promoting its products? Pretty sure that is not only perfectly okay to do but expected.
Re: (Score:2)
More that it's a stupid promotion targeting a large base that does not, and will not, purchase anything from them anytime soon. There are way better promotions they could spend their money on.
Re: (Score:2)
More that it's a stupid promotion targeting a large base that does not, and will not, purchase anything from them anytime soon.
No worries. Their parents (mostly) won't let them freeze.
Shoulder Shrug (Score:2)
But a V8 engine is a good start for me.
Think I'll drive to find a place to be surly.
Lame on multiple levels (Score:5, Insightful)
1). Fortnite is in decline
2). Fortnite players likely don't care if Shell stations appear in-game or about any cross promotions with Shell. Lots of them aren't even old enough to drive. Those who are old enough and have a car will probably go to whichever gas station happens to be nearby.
3). Shell isn't "promoting fossil fuels". They are promoting their brand of gasoline over competing brands of gasoline. You're either gonna run a gas burner or you aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
1). Fortnite is in decline
I'd like to live in your fantasy world, but I don't. 2023 numbers aren't out yet but there's every expectation that it'll be a record high, just like 2022 was and 2021 was. Personally I don't get it, but the fact of the matter is there's still 250million monthly active users.
2). Fortnite players likely don't care if Shell stations appear in-game
Marketing is not about making people care. It's about engraining an idea. That idea doesn't need to be relevant now, it just needs to stay resident in peoples minds long enough that they can act on it. There's an entire industry around
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have missed the part where the revenue from Fortnite can't prop up Epic as well anymore, which is why they recently announced layoffs for 600 employees.
As for engraining, I don't think it'll work, which is my point.
Media Matters ? (Score:3)
More like Media Whiners.
What a clown source to use.
Those amoral heartless jerks! (Score:2, Insightful)
Teenagers, never, NEVER think about cars and driving and long trips with friends. Shell should have kept their mouths shut - they've opened a HUGE can of worms!
As A Tesla-Driving Fortnite Player... (Score:2)
Why are people so triggered by every damn thing these days.
Sacrilege! (Score:2)
Sacrilege! Sacrilege! Silence them now! Off with their heads!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep - I really don't think this is the worst thing in the world. A company advertising their product. Big Deal.
Re: left wing group whines about gasoline (Score:2)
Normally I'd disagree with that, but given the way they're trying to redefine violence to include mere words that they find insulting, or they the believe that if you say something they hate, they're somehow entitled to physically assault you... They don't really give you a lot of ground to delineate right from wrong when it comes to that.
Re: (Score:2)
One is a legal product we all use.
The other was/is a powerful and shadowy blend of handshakes and smokey rooms occupied by DC and the military companies dependent on DC's largesse.
I'm sure you can see the difference.
Speaking of handshakes, one is a legal entity called NATO and the other one is a legal product that powers it. Quite literally. They're about as different as two sides of the same coin.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh what? The MIC is not NATO. But the MIC gets some funding from NATO activities.
Re:left wing group whines about gasoline (Score:5, Insightful)
We cannot drill our way out of OPEC's price control, our size of the pie is too small. We can only change it a few pennies.
Hey, so, I'm not a "rightie", but we absolutely can decouple from OPEC's price control. Note I said decouple, not drill. The Western World is a net oil exporter. We get fucked because oil is a global market and OPEC has a large enough slice of production to influence prices with behavior that would be illegal if attempted by private sector companies. It's a literal cartel and the very opposite of a free market. Given what's currently going on in Ukraine and more broadly speaking with autocracy vs. democracy on the global stage, I'm trying to think of a good reason why it needs to remain a global market, as opposed to a purely Western/liberal democratic one. At the very least we no longer need to source our oil from countries that export radicalism that ends with 767s flying into our buildings. Let China try their hand at keeping that part of the world stable, they need Middle Eastern oil far more than we do, good luck with that one Winnie-the-Pooh. :)
There are other factors in play of course, it's not nearly as simple as moving oil around, in particular we have a shortage of refining capacity, but the point stands. We can (and arguably should) decouple ourselves from this abusive market. We are already net oil exporters, that isn't likely to change as fossil fuels are phased out and Western consumption goes down, and oil will still be needed for other important purposes besides burning it as an energy source.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah was gonna say, refinery capacity is a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
We cannot drill our way out of OPEC's price control, our size of the pie is too small. We can only change it a few pennies.
We can and we have. Why do you believe that the global oil market does not respond to supply and demand?
If that were so, why does OPEC cut production when they want prices to rise?
The more oil produced globally the less control any one producer or producer cartel has
Re: (Score:2)
At the very least we no longer need to source our oil from countries that export radicalism
One problem is many of our refineries were designed to process heavy Venezuelan crude, and they can't process light oil effectively.
Let China try their hand at keeping that part of the world stable, they need Middle Eastern oil far more than we do
The Mideast will continue to export oil whether it's stable or not.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really care if the Mideast exports oil. I care when they abuse their market position to artificially inflate prices and use the profits from their petrodollars to fund extremists that fly airplanes into buildings on American soil. I care when I see our leaders (in both parties!) go and supplicate themselves before a medieval regime because they want cheap gas prices when election season rolls around.
My point is we don't need to play this game, we're net positive on oil, and that isn't likely to c
Re: (Score:2)
One problem is many of our refineries were designed to process heavy Venezuelan crude, and they can't process light oil effectively.
See Why the U.S. Must Import and Export Oil [api.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Our oil usage is what elevated us from coal age, ensured we can currently feed between 12 and 16 billion people (while only having about 8 billion), and allowed the concept of personal freedom to exist in its current Western form.
This pretentious rhetorical wankery of Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion types who stand on the shoulders of giants and pretend that this elevation they're on is actually ground level is amazing.
Re:left wing group whines about gasoline (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't see a problem with trying to stop someone from marketing a product that is 100% legal to sell and use Gasoline, just because you don't like it?
You're not wrong here, except....
You sure seem to get upset when conservatives suggest maybe you should not be able to market sodomy and homosexuality to children in school libraries.
..... that's where you lost me boss. That's not actually happening. But keep banging that drum, your party needed a new social wedge issue after you lost the debate on gay marriage and won the gun one, and a lot of low information voters are buying it.
Re:left wing group whines about gasoline (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not gonna win me over being pro-book ban buddy.
I read Roots [wikipedia.org] in 4th Grade. It has rape scenes in it. Do you think that's appropriate reading material for a ten year old? I wager a lot of people would say no, but IMHO that book should be required reading in the United States of America, and I'm a better person for having read it in school.
I flipped through this list [nbcmiami.com], I can't claim to have read every title on it, but I've read dozens of them, and none of the ones that I've read are "smut".
In any case, if you can't see that you're being manipulated by demagogues that's on you. You think banning books in school libraries is going to keep your smartphone wielding internet accessing kids away from material you personally find objectionable? It's fucking laughable. This is a manufactured issue. I know it. You know it. The champions of this policy know it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
What I am asking is, does your "no book ban" policy apply to literally all books, or are you just OK with this particular list of books?
Re: (Score:2)
If you consumed more smut you'd know that Playboy hasn't published a magazine [vulture.com] for a few years now. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it absolutely is an answer, coward.
It is a smarky one, but an answer nonetheless. Go back to school if you don't understand this. Read Roots. Your school library will have it.
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, stupid hypotheticals are stupid.
So why don't those "books" appear on the ban list, then?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
If the kids' parents allow them to read porn on their smartphone on their own account that's up to them. They have parental rights to do so. I think it's a bad idea but whatever.
But it is not ok to use my tax dollars to peddle porn to kids.
I'm sure you can see the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not here to educate you. You're not smart enough to learn anything outside your bubble. Others have already posted links several times which of course got modded down.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, actual real links about actual real porn books in actual real tax payer funded schools. You wouldn't know because Vox/masnbc/cnn/NYT/etc never does articles on facts that show the left in a bad light. You live in a far left wing bubble where as I read everything from all over the spectrum. I'd feel bad for you except you're not a real person with agency.
You're the kind of NPC who still thinks Hillary lost due to Russian interference and not because she's an unlikable cunt who insulted half the count
Re: (Score:2)
You don't read everything from all overt the spectrum, you clearly consume right-wing garbage in quantity. They're aren't porn books in schools. This is an alternative fact from the pro censorship crowd.
Also for the record I love your nonsensical insults like "MPC" or whatever. AN insult just like a joke: it's best if it needs a detailed explanation to make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
nobody is arguing for book bans. Want read it? get it amazon, get it at the local library but in the adult section where it belongs, have it in the high school library if its actually worthy of academic study...
This is EXACTLY the same thing, can't market gas and petrol fueled cars to impressionable youth in a video game right?
See its purely liberal hypocrisy except it. And it is LIBERAL hypocrisy because they are the ones actually moving the goal posts. It was also acceptable to market/glamorize petrol
Re: (Score:2)
Weird, because the group that sexualizes children the most are conservatives.
Who is most like to molest children? Conservatives.
Who has been sent to jail the most for child pornography and/or sexual misconduct with a child? Conservatives.
It's almost like conservatives don't understand what is sexual to begin with. Oh wait, they don't, because all conservatives are morons.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, those kinds of broad sweeping accusations sans evidence don't really help our cause boss.
If you want to call out something specific and topical, there was the time the sitting Republican President endorsed a credibly accused child molester for a US Senate seat [wikipedia.org]. I wouldn't lay that at the feet of all Conservatives though. Most of them not named Trump dumped him like a hot potato, even the crazies like Ted Cruz [texastribune.org]. When something is a bridge too far for Ted Cruz you probably ought to ask yourself what ki
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not without evidence. I'm just not the one providing it. But pulling public records of those that have been convicted of the related crimes shows an overwhelming majority of conservatives. A lot of religious leaders and a lot of actual republicans either in an office or trying to run for an office. I'm not saying every single conservative is a predator, just that predators overwhelmingly tend to be conservative. Down to pure overall statistics, children are safer with and around liberals.
Re: (Score:2)
This is nowhere near the same thing. You are trying to conflate the actions of a private group of activist citizens with the actions of a State Government that has men with guns to enforce its laws. When the people whining about Shell's marketing campaign have men with guns to enforce their viewpoint you can make your nonsensical comparison.
As I said to the other poster, this is where you lose me boss. I rolled my eyes at this, same as you, despite not being on the same side of the political fence. Att
Re: left wing group whines about gasoline (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, if you think the Daily Caller leans left, you must consider Atilla the Hun a moderate.
Re:left wing group whines about gasoline (Score:5, Informative)
It is happening. Here is an article from the Daily Caller, a left leaning publication,
This Daily Caller [wikipedia.org]?
The Daily Caller is a right-wing news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C.[7] It was founded by former Fox News host Tucker Carlson
Like I'm not sure if that was an attempt to mislead, a joke, or you're actually insane.
which is trying to qualify an obvious pornography as an "autobiography"
Yeah, none of that is porn.
There's some more explicit books about that I assume are aimed at teens, but all the shown excerpts are informative, not erotic.
And the "10 and up" book doesn't show genitals, it's basically an early sex ed book.
Re: (Score:2)
> Here is an article from the Daily Caller, a left leaning publication,
Liar, liar pants on fire.
> The Daily Caller is a right-wing news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C.[7] It was founded by former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and political pundit Neil Patel in 2010. -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: left wing group whines about gasoline (Score:2)
It was founded by Tucker Carlson.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/
Nice try though.
Re: left wing group whines about gasoline (Score:2)
I'm not saying all material is appropriate for young kids but I will claim the far right is making this issue far bigger than it actually is.
Plus FL is a shithole. Give it a couple decades when the beaches have been eroded from storms and there will be no redeeming quality.
Re:left wing group whines about gasoline (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I am. There shouldn't be a bible in a tax dollar funded school anymore than there should be porn in tax dollar funded schools.
I'm glad we can agree that neither belongs there.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the problem with porn? It's a stand-in for something the vast majority of humans want to do. And it hasn't killed hundreds of millions or people nor delayed scientific progress by ~1500 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm as far as you can get on the "keep religion out of the schools" spectrum, but even I can see the value of religious texts in the library. Not for religious instruction, but for context: a LOT of the world believes this stuff and if you want to understand them, you need to understand the basis for their beliefs. Religion has been at the core of a heck of a lot of world conflict throughout the ages; you simply can't cut it out of history with a pair of scissors.
Re: (Score:2)
Slavery has been at the core of a heck of a lot of world conflict throughout the ages; you simply can't cut it out of history with a pair of scissors. Both religion and slavery should be held in the same esteem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:left wing group whines about gasoline (Score:5, Insightful)
The only "groomers" I see are right wing types including the overly religious. Good thing someone is compiling a list. https://www.dailykos.com/stori... [dailykos.com]
If you can come up with a list of drag queens, librarians and arts majors who molest children, I'll gladly post them too.
Re: (Score:2)
"dailykos" If that's your source, why not just use 4chan while you're at it.
Every mention on that list is linked to the actual news story. You can't dispute that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We are the 4th largest exporter of oil in the world and before Biden took office we were the largest exporter of oil altogether. Of course we can impact the price!
A lot of that has to do with the type of oil found in the Americas vs the type the US is (currently) more geared to process and the resultant products. Heavy and light crude oil require different processing and are used to generate different products. From Why the U.S. Must Import and Export Oil [api.org] (and other sources):
And, while we’re still importing oil, why do we export domestic crude – especially when prices have risen at the pump? Why don’t we just keep American oil at home?
Quality
Crude oil is not a homogenous product. The U.S. continues to import and export crude oil because the viscosity of oil (measured by its API gravity) being light or heavy and its sulfur content being low (sweet) or high (sour) largely determine the processes needed to refine it into fuel and other products.
The ability to process the heaviest crude oils has vastly expanded the Western Hemisphere’s oil resource and supply potential, as these oils come mainly from Canada and Venezuela. Therefore, many U.S. refiners are configured generally to process heavy crude oil.
Shifting purely to light crude oil could underserve some product markets and idle (or even strand) the hundreds of billions of dollars invested in refinery conversion capacity. The supply, demand and prices for various crude oils and products have continually solved this equation for producers and refiners to determine the role that crude oils of different qualities should play in the market, in accordance with economic fundamentals.
Since the U.S. energy renaissance has accelerated, however, most of the 4.8 mb/d of new U.S. oil production the past six years has been light oil. With U.S. refining capacity geared toward a diverse crude oil slate, a key implication for U.S. petroleum trade is that it would be uneconomic to run refineries solely on domestic light crude oil. Consequently, the United States:
Therefore, differences among crude oils are important reasons why the U.S. continues to import oil in an era of domestic abundance and export light oil that can be problematic, operationally and financially, to handle with existing U.S. refinery capacity (but also is of great value to refineries globally).
Re: (Score:2)
This is more or less true. Although obviously it is a reconfigurable rather than fixed reality. Though I'm not sure it changes much about the fact that we overall have quite a bit of ability to impact global oil prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Although obviously it is a reconfigurable rather than fixed reality.
I think the limiting factor is cost and whether a refinery could or would want to reconfigure to go one way or the other and/or be more flexible in their capability to process light/heavy crude with possible undesirable components, like sulfur, etc... I imagine they'd be loath to bet wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Memory. But it took about 5s to find a couple.
Current https://www.worldstopexports.c... [worldstopexports.com]
2019 https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't even matter. This emergency is stretched over 100 to 300 years. A powerful, vibrant economy will produce technological wonders we can't imagine by that point, and none of the screetching will ever be an issue.
There's ways something. We're running out of oil, a lie, "let us control industry", is replaced by we need to pretend to run out of oil, let us control industry.
Solar maximum every 11 years [Re:left wing gro...] (Score:2)
We are going toward a solar maximum, will hit us in 2025: Solar Maximum [livescience.com]
There's a solar maximum every 11 years. It's not a big deal. And it's certainly not the cause of global warming, because it happens every 11 years.
(And the article you link says nothing about climate; it talks about the possibility of a large coronal mass ejection causing damage to electronics, which indeed is something we need to work on mitigating, but really, this is nothing new.)
Please, check out John Stossel's interview with dr. Judith Curry on YT. The climate alarmism is a cult, not too different from the Heavens Gate cult.
First cult ever with experimental confirmation, terabytes of measurements, and measured data matching predictions over a perio
Re: left wing group whines about gasoline (Score:2)