

Is the FTC being used to marginalize independent bloggers? - StevenHodson
http://www.inquisitr.com/41069/is-the-ftc-being-used-to-marginalize-independent-bloggers/

======
idm
While I think this is an interesting move, and that there's probably a problem
worth addressing somewhere in there, I don't think the FTC has the right angle
with this move.

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.

------
drusenko
Even if the rules aren't applied to traditional media -- that seems to be more
a bug than a feature. Quit your whining. This isn't some grand plot to put the
blogger down.

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.

~~~
chris11
"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."

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

~~~
sethg
It's not possible to police millions of bloggers, but IIUC if some company
with deep pockets enlists thousands of bloggers in a stealth "social
marketing" campaign, and the ruse is discovered, the company can now be fined
for deceptive trading practices.

~~~
chris11
While this would be a good use for the guidelines,
<http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm> seems to imply that the onus
is on the blogger to declare material connections. So while it might help with
astroturfing, I don't see it really stopping a company with deep pockets from
sending out cash and items to review to bloggers.I also would not see the
guidelines increasing liability for the company if the ftc is holding bloggers
responsible for declaring endorsements.

------
anamax
From [http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/10/ftc-going-after-
blogger...](http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/10/ftc-going-after-bloggers-and-
social.html) (Althouse is a law professor)

"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."

------
Hoff
Wonder what happens if (when?) the FTC disclosure requirements collide with
non-disclosure agreements? NDAs can certainly steer public discussions and
opinions, though in a more subtle fashion than "blogola."

~~~
wmf
Maybe you can give an example (hypothetical would be fine). Should bloggers
disclose what they _aren't_ writing about because of NDAs? Or are you talking
about embargoes where some bloggers have been briefed ahead of time?

