FTC To Monitor Blogs For Paid Claims & Reviews 129
PL/SQL Guy writes "Many bloggers have accepted perks such as free laptops, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post. Bloggers vary in how they disclose such freebies, if they do so at all. But now the Federal Trade Commission is paying attention. New guidelines, expected to be approved late this summer with possible modifications, would clarify that the agency can go after bloggers — as well as the companies that compensate them — for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest. Bloggers complain that with FTC oversight, they'd be too worried about innocent posts getting them in trouble, because the common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer — and possibly getting commissions for any sales from it — would be enough to trigger oversight."
stop crying (Score:5, Insightful)
You wanted to replace the "old media", now stop crying. With power comes responsibility.
Conflicts of interest? (Score:5, Insightful)
for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest
Since when is disclosing a conflict of interest a legal requirement? Ethical, of course. But a legal requirement? Aren't people free to express their opinions regardless of what their motivations might be?
Unfortunately - too many believe what is blogged (Score:5, Insightful)
The IRS is next. (Score:1, Insightful)
Havent been declaring all those 'free' gifts on your taxes have you mister blogger...
Spend $2 to recover $1 - Gov't at work (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not laying this on Obama in any way. We've been on this path of gov't overspending, and over-intervening for awhile now. Although Obama looks to maybe take these things to a whole new level, and he does have support in congress to do so. I just find it interesting that they're going after things that are quite small, and will end up investing likely more resources than they get out of it.
My comment can be summed up in four words.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good luck with that.
There's no chance that this would ever work and the only people they would catch are the most blatant offenders. One other thing that springs to mind, what about blogs run by people outside the US. Does it affect them if they write a review about a US company?
Take blogs for what they are (Score:3, Insightful)
If a blog gives too glowing reviews of whatever product, try to corroborate the opinion by reading another blog, or product review.
As for TFA, goodluckwiththat.
Re:Unfortunately - too many believe what is blogge (Score:5, Insightful)
so I suppose requiring full disclosure or potential conflicts of interest is necessary
It is? It has not been a legal requirement before, as far as I know.
What is worst thing that can possibly happen if we don't pass new laws? People might take bad advice from someone they never should have trusted in the first place, and buy overpriced consumer crap that they don't need, and maybe be disappointed with it.
What's the worst thing that can possibly happen if we do pass new laws? People's legitimate opinions may be silenced on the mere accusation that they aren't disclosing everything that they should. A lot of these bloggers have very little keeping them going aside from personal interest, so even if they are doing everything 100% ethically, an offhand accusation and a letter from a government agency will shut them up quickly. How long before these new laws are applied to public policy opinions, and they can silence underfunded opposition?
Re:It's Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Full disclosure is a common practice elsewhere and doesn't result in the negative consequences TFA claims people are worried about.
It's not a legally requirement though, is it? Just because something is ethical does not mean it should be made into law.
The problem is that you're increasing the stakes for everyone that writes opinion blogs. Before, they just had to avoid libel, inciting violence, and other blatantly illegal speech. Now, rival bloggers can stir up suspicion about your blog, complain to the FTC (and maybe get their readers to join in), and then the FTC might sue.
Keep in mind that the FTC files civil suits, which mean that they don't have to have probable cause. They don't need search warrants, because they can just force you to turn things over during "discovery". By the time they realize that you're doing everything legally, you might be out a lot of money in legal fees.
Who wants to be exposed to that kind of risk if they are making peanuts and just doing it out of interest? They will be afraid to make enemies with rival blogs, and just stick to bland observations that don't challenge the opinions of anyone else.
Re:stop crying (Score:0, Insightful)
"Ok, do members of the old media have to disclose all their potential conflicts of interest? Do they face penalties if they don't?"
To state the obvious, yes.
Wait one fucking second... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes, they do (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, though that's rather specific to the financial industry. The securities market is more (though not nearly enough, apparently) heavily regulated than commerce at large.
Since this is the FTC and not the FEC, it doesn't seem to be as narrowly limited to a particular arena of business. Also, I don't know that similar penalties to the ones that are supposedly to be imposed on bloggers are in place for newspapers, broadcasters, etc.
Re:Unfortunately - too many believe what is blogge (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know why anyone believes what is written in a blog without first checking it out.
See, the problem is that the people you know are the minority that aren't complete idiots.
Re:It's Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you are creating a new barrier to entry to a new market which is currently providing serious competition for an existing market (traditional media) in which there are stong structural barriers to entry already, thus restoring the status quo ante in which the few masters of that established market are secure against much substantial new competition.
Are you sure that's a problem, rather than the purpose?
Re:Conflicts of interest? (Score:3, Insightful)
Internet veracity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:stop crying (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not obvious. It's the case (as another poster notes) for financial commentary because it has implications in the securities markets.
I don't know if it's the case or not for other topics/genres of media that they're subject to the kinds of regulation that are supposedly being proposed here.