Is the FTC being used to marginalize independent bloggers?
inquisitr.com
inquisitr.com
Specifically, I think this regulation is intended to target the "little guys" who are getting big enough to get real attention.
I would rather the target were the "big guys" who are astroturfing (i.e. acting like little guys) for commercial purposes, if there's going to be any regulation at all. For one, this is going to be easier to enforce (since there are fewer big companies engaging in astroturfing) and it's more likely to cause legitimate harm to consumers.
I recognize, though, that this is a slippery slope, and that by regulating big-time astroturfers, you could well have unintended consequences for small-time bloggers.
I can imagine the current move as a slippery slope too, and it sounds ripe for abuse... As others have said, it's unenforceable, so it really is just selectively enforceable.
So, all told, it would be better to not regulate this at all.
The net result is that the FTC seems to have made a very good call, and we (the blog consumers) should all be the better for it: We'll now know up front if/when and what incentives a blogger has received to write a post. That seems like good progress to me.
If you're a blogger and you're really upset about this, you're telling me that you're now pissed that you have to now disclose all of your back-room dealings, and that doesn't instill much confidence in your reporting.
The first sentence points out that it is "discriminatory" while the last says that it isn't. Hmm.
As to "it's a very good call" argument, at least one real journalist who has actually read the proposal disagrees.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/10/05/ftc-regulates-our-spee...
> We'll now know up front if/when and what incentives a blogger has received to write a post.
Actually, you won't. In fact, NYT's "bloggers" and print version will continue to be just as free to accept money under the table or have other conflicts (like being married to someone who directly benefits from the coverage) without a peep.
Sure, it may require that bloggers report gifts and incentives. But the law is basically unenforceable. There are millions of blogs in existence and the FTC cannot police them all. While I'm sure that the FTC is only intending to go after the extremely successful blogs, it would be preferable to see some kinds of limits built into the guidelines so we actually know where the FTC is intending to enforce these guidelines.
Second of all, this is the internet. So if someone seriously wanted to get around this, they would just have to host their blog someplace where the FTC doesn't have authority.
Edit: changed FCC to FTC
Bullshit. This is akin to saying that if you're upset about the government running illegal wiretaps and eavesdropping on your cell calls, it must be because you have something to hide.
Perhaps we just don't like the idea of the government butting into one corner of the media world and spewing arbitrary and ambiguous guidelines that carry heavy fines if violates, despite the fact that it's not really clear how to avoid violating them.
Note: the author has received compensation from ComLine Systems or its PR company for this article.
You don't like the government butting into the media world? Fine, let's go back to the days of Payola, allow advertisers to make blatantly false claims without giving you any grounds for legal recourse (you'd think you could sue, but that really depends on the government's agreement that a tort has been committed) and just toss out any guidelines about keeping advertising and editorial separate. Screw the consumers - they may have a legitimate interest in knowing whether the author of a gushing article got compensated for their glowing words or not, but let's face it, th less they think, the more they spend!
"The most absurd part of it is the way the FTC is trying to make it okay by assuring us that they will be selective in deciding which writers on the internet to pursue. That is, they've deliberately made a grotesquely overbroad rule, enough to sweep so many of us into technical violations, but we're supposed to feel soothed by the knowledge that government agents will decide who among us gets fined. No, no, no. Overbreath itself is a problem. And so is selective enforcement."