-
Website
http://www.chrisbrogan.com/ -
Original page
http://www.chrisbrogan.com/my-thoughts-on-the-ftc-disclosure-rules-and-bloggers/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Let's look at other relationships that are not disclosed but surely impact that way the world works.
1) Does Tiger Woods really drive a Buick or use Accenture Consulting? Yet airport signs and TV ads abound. What would that be called in the social media world? (Disclosure needed or not?)
2) White House correspondents shape their stories on whether the Administration (not just this one any one) will continue to grant access to them, especially access that is a tad better than the other correspondent sitting next the them in the press room. (Disclosure needed or not?)
3) What if a consultant is not writing about an issue, but merely sharing links to topics in the industry area in which they have a client. (Disclosure needed or not?)
4) Disclosure is I suspect a good thing up until it taints the very nature of making a living. If the typical reaction to disclosure is to the doubt the words of the discloser this is a bad thing. It's a cultural thing in our society that I'd be interested to learn more about. What is the typical reaction when people read, "Hey I got this product or I get paid to give counsel to x company who participates in the industry I'm writing about." Has this predisposition to doubt caused the decline of trust in institutions like government and corporations? Are we now extending this predisposition to individuals commenting online?
5) My point is this, our democracy has been undercut by a minority of cheating politicians who have been granted power by their constituencies. Their actions have caused our government to enact sweeping, almost ridiculous "ethics" rules that go so far as to require disclosure of pricey lunches. My fear is we will all be viewed in the same manner as politicians and is that a good thing?
1) Tiger Woods- under the FTC guidelines, Tiger Woods would have to drive a Buick at least some of the time and have a basis from first hand experience to endorse it. Likewise with Accenture consulting. This effects celebrity endorsements in particular, and you'll start to see more and more "Not an actor" or "paid actor" in ads after the ruling goes into affect on December 1.
2) White House- this is news, not a strictly commercial relationship- the news agency isn't paying the White House for access- friendship, relationships, etc. don't require disclosure, but any quid pro quo does. We've acquiesced to the fact that Journalists ride Air Force One, I assume, at the Country's expense and not that of the individual news channels, but who knows? Maybe they get a bill after each trip- I have no idea. But again, I don't think anyone gives a President a free ride just because they got to ride Air Force One and got a beer, do you?
3) Sharing links on topics in an industry where you have clients is not enough to trigger the regulations covering testimonials and endorsements- you should read them- they aren't all that deadly, and if you hve any more questions, please ask and I'll be happy to help.
4) All the FTC is asking is that people put their quid pro quo relationships in the open, and let people know when you received something for free and when you paid for it yourself, if you are endorsing it or panning it for that matter. What will be interesting to see is if this crosses over into things like the conference industry, and whether speakers who pay a company to present t their conference will have to disclose that.
In the end, I think disclosure is a good thing and lets consumers know there's business involved- and I think Chris is a great example of how disclosure actually builds more trust than adds distrust into the mix.
I'd certainly rather know if my doctor is prescribing X meds because the company set him and his family to the Bahamas all expenses paid for a week- in fact, that's why the pharma industry is now regulated on what they can do in this regards so the formerly routine wining and dining of physicians has come to a halt. Shouldn't this be true for everyone?
1) just because I may get paid doesn't taint my opinion. I think our culture is predisposed to believe that. It's something that will change only after transparency is an accepted practice over generations
2) Wait you are kidding me right about the White House thing? The Washington press corps has missed so many stories in the passed decade or more, Enron, WMD, Causes for the bank bail out. No I don't buy that one, it's about networking and who has got access to the first interview, to the new angle from the power players.
Are you with the FTC?
As far as ethical behavior, you've pretty much wrote on that before and the community went a bit pitchforky forming two groups of good-faith bloggers and results-oriented advertisers against each other. (here)
That said, I find it a bit ignorant of the FTC to issue considerably "harsh" mandates for essentially editorial matters on the Web. I hope they know, American bloggers and advertisers aren't the only ones gaming the system and it opens up the opportunity for such advertisers to advertise through ulterior means, pay-for-playing with international bloggers and their ad firms.
But, again, as always, it comes down to doing the right thing. The FTC is trying to communicate to businesses and would-be sole proprietors out there, do the right thing or be slammed for it. It gives bloggers in general a bit more of credibility, like TV. Television ads are heavily regulated -- introducing those "results not typical" safe harbor rules.
It's /not/ just limited to bloggers, but they are impacted. This also impacts any Web sites who provide customer testimonials ... they must also provide data on the actual results, nullifying the previous "results not typical" safe harbor.
This impacts advertising and marketing as a whole, not only bloggers. The 81 pages of regulatory-ese is worth the read this time around. (PDF: Get ready to see what your tax dollars go to author.)
The guidelines are very loose and are aimed for catching the big offenders. It shall be interesting to see how the first case becomes enforced. I could easily consider the 1st Amendment as a solid defense if I was a defense attorney for a blogger.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, Chris. I just wanted to get a few of mine off my chest, too. :-)
~Joe
I find it interesting that so many people are having issues with it. This seems to me to be a simple ethics test.
What am I missing here?
FYI see this link http://fermentation.typepad.com/fermentation/20... (not mine) for why these rules are asymmetrically unfair. It's not that disclosure is a bad idea, it's that social media is being held to a higher standard than if the person was writing in traditional media.
When I used to work at the Dayton Daily News, publishers, studios, etc sent book, DVDs, software, etc all the time unsolicited to the newspaper for review. No journalist kept that stuff as personal property. And the DDN was/is a small paper compared to the NYTimes, WaPo, etc. I can't imagine those papers don't have a similar policy. The ethics are straightforward and fairly simple. There seems to be some implication here that "traditional media" journalists keep the stuff and profit from it. Far from the truth. (Anyone at the NY Times, WaPo want to weigh in here...)
Traditional media is not being tied to the new rules because they have policies in place already and published penalties for behaving badly. Social media is now being held to a higher standard because some high-profile bloggers (or wannabes) didn't have the brains to figure out that freebies aren't really free. They failed to police themselves and just handed leverage over to the FTC. Same things happened with restaurant wait staff and tips.
Follow the dollar, people, follow the dollar. This is not about honesty, integrity, protecting the consumer and all that other crap. It's about money. And while we're arguing all the other stuff, the IRS is probably slowly revising the tax code because they have a singular focus; money.
But my concern is that the Guidelines go too far. And they leave many situations as gray areas.
Take for instance Twitter -- it is going to be very hard for people to disclose all their relationships in a tweet.
And like Albert says below, "3) What if a consultant is not writing about an issue, but merely sharing links to topics in the industry area in which they have a client. (Disclosure needed or not?)"
And what about other relationships? Getting paid to review something is one thing that is crystal clear. But there are many many bloggers who engage in arrangements that they don't get paid for, but which bring them value. What about bartering arrangements that we KNOW go on all the time -- how many will disclose those? What if you're invited to speak somewhere and you don't get paid, but you are getting valuable marketing visibility -- are all the blogger speakers going to "disclose" the value of their marketing exposure when they write on their blog about where they will be speaking?
And what about those "scratch your back, scratch mine" situations among friends that we know go on? How many will disclose those?
It's just a minefield of uncertainty....
I dig transparency and I've always felt bloggers (or anyone) should disclose when they're being paid to blog about a product or service, but I wonder about who is going to be the first to have an example made out of him for not doing it the "right" way.
I think as long as the authorities and we as writers, apply common sense, then all will be well. Let's hope that's the case.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with testimonies and/or endorsements. We do it for other friends often and they do us. This is America. It is protected in the 1st Amernment. It is called "free speech". In some countries such as Iran, N. Korea, Libya etc. it is unnallowed. For those against it, these are ideal contries in which to live where censorship rules (except for the "more moral" i.e. those with the most cash".
But like every rule, guideline or regulation, we'll know more over time as the regs meet the real world. And as in every case, the most egregious violators get caught up first, and over time, over years, the finer line distinctions get made. The closer you push it to the line, the more risk you run, as with anything else.
I really do urge you all to read the actual Guidelnes and examples- it's not too painful, I promise. Granted, I am a law school grad and have passed the bar in PA, but seriously, as far as legalese goes, these Guidelines and examples are pretty reasonable.
Overall, I think it's a good idea (if I'm reading the ruling correctly), because it goes past the internet faux-pas of not saying "whatever company gave me this item for free in exchange for me talking about it" and goes into actually undisclosed business relationships similar to Payola back in the day.
Maybe it is the twelve years of experience I have back when I had a real job in corporate and consumer finance, especially consumer, where multiple disclosure of the same issue was required to satisfy the rules of different governmental agencies even though they basically said the exact same thing if you read them.
The real question for the FTC is a matter of enforcement. Are they doing this to remain relevant? Keep the rules in check for a rapidly changing market? Enforcement will be difficult, but I have no doubt that some of the more blatant offenders are probably already on the FTC's watchlist and will be the first to feel the wrath of these new rules in order to serve notice that they are paying attention.
My only problem with the new rules is that there are so many examples being thrown around (in movie product placements, for example) that aren't necessarily subject to disclosure. And what about celebrity endorsements, I loved Albert's example of Tiger Woods driving a Buick. I have a friend that lives near him in Florida and has seen him in his Lambo, so I know that those Buick ads are nonsense, yet the dramatization wants you to believe that he just loves his Enclave.
Anyway, I'm not much a review guy on my blog, but when I do come across something that feels like a good fit, you can be sure that I'm going to tell the full story. I've worked too hard to develop the relationships with the people that visit my blog regularly to go and waste my social capital like that.
I don't see this ruling as a bad thing - it may make some people clean up their act a bit and I can see how it's an attempt to make blogging a more credible medium. I'll be curious to see how they plan to enforce it, given that there are millions and millions of blogs in the U.S.
A trend I've noticed lately is bloggers who are what I'd call "undisclosing" stuff - the minute they mention a company of any sort in their blog, they feel the need to put some sort of disclaimer on the post like "I'm not being paid by company X to say nice things about them, honest!". It could be a reaction to some flack they've gotten in the past from people for perceived lack of transparency, or it could just be paranoia.
But how far do we need to go? If I write a post about a tool, product or service on my personal blog just because I like it, am I going to have to make sure I've got a disclaimer of some sort? Will simply posting a page with said disclaimer be enough to satisfy people? Perhaps that's the way it should go, if transparency is going to be the priority.
It will be interesting to see if the CRTC here in Canada follows suit, and how quickly.
The FTC's getting involved in the internet, which in inherently a global communication service, not one that you can isolate country by country very well, is going to be interesting to watch. On one hand, I'm thrilled that they are officially recognizing blogging, podcasting, tweeting and more as valuable communication spaces for commercial messages worth regulating- it means we're no longer just a bunch of hobbyists on steroids, but real business people, further opening up the flood gates for people to make a living doing what we do every day. On the other hand, the web is almost the ultimate democratic platform, where everyone has their say and control left the station a long time ago, so how reasonable/feasible will enforcement become?
If it does take the wind out of the sails of some of the spam, I will be grateful. Do I believe it will probably just move overseas? You bet.
I would have to say that Chris provides significantly more disclosure than the guidelines mandate and meet and exceed audience expectations. Just my opinion, of course. :)
~Joe
How will these guides be enforced in a neutral fashion? Did the FTC enact the most narrowly tailored options? (I don't think so.) Did they hear from all different types of bloggers before promulgating the rules? (Don't think so again.) While it may not be their fault for not hearing from all affected parties, the fact is that the tiny business bloggers were probably not consulted. I think there should be an exemption, or at least the ability to request an exemption, for certain similarly situated bloggers whose proportionate connection to consumers is teensy. There's no reason to enforce these rules as written against a certain class of bloggers -- the vast majority in fact.
Even though the premise behind the new rules is good, and people will get used to them, I feel the rules are too far reaching and will be nearly impossible to enforce in a fair and neutral manner by a regulator that has not begun to understand how small (and I mean teensy small) bloggers operate.
I agree with David B. Thomas (below) that the rules, which clearly affect laypersons in new ways, are not written for your average everyday person to understand. For anyone interested, I posted my analysis and commentary on the rules at my blog right after they were issued. I am an attorney who works with very small business owners so I tried my best to analyze and summarize things using words people on "main street" can actually understand and apply to their particular circumstances.
Regardless of the FTC and all of these rules, it still comes down to being honest. People aren't stupid. Much of this full disclosure stuff is a bunch of smoke and mirrors where bloggers want us to THINK they are being honest or being a a good guy.
Albert's comments are excellent. He makes this point clear - regardless of what the FTC is trying to do, we already know. That's the point I was trying to make in my own blog last week on this very topic. My point was actions speak louder than words.
What does that mean with respect to blogs, where we are mostly reading comments? It means how you say it matters even more than what you say. The disclosure itself means something. You could even call this "over-disclosure." And over-disclosure is really a veiled advertisement. Nope, no laws against that, it's just not being totally upfront with your community.
It's that middle ground that seems to be the slippery slope - where one may even be in compliance with the rules, but not the spirit of the community. That's what I was getting at.
Hopefully these new FTC rules will wake some people up. For the rest of us, it acknowledges the power that bloggers are wielding these days, and that's certainly good for the community.
Certainly endorsements and testimonials are covered in *certain aspects* of other industries (mostly diet pills and celeb endorsement deals).
Bloggers and social media users are *particularly* singled out, and Old Media is left to do as they will.
A newspaper man can go to a movie for free, and not disclose. That's fine.
If a blogger does the same, he can go through a painful investigation with the FTC, as can the advertiser.
Moreover, the most important part of the Guidelines is as follows:
The Guides in this part represent administrative interpretations of laws enforced by the Federal Trade Commission for the guidance of the public in conducting its affairs in conformity with legal requirements. Specifically, the Guides address the application of Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising. The Guides provide the basis for voluntary compliance with the law by advertisers and endorsers. Practices
inconsistent with these Guides may result in corrective action by the Commission under Section 5 if, after investigation, the Commission has reason to believe that the practices fall within the scope of conduct declared unlawful by the statute.
In other words, the guidelines provide a basis for voluntary compliance with the law, by advertisers and endorsers- its whole purpose is to clarify the legal stance of endorsements and testimonials in advertising, and includes those on the web.
So, if it's not an advertising message in any way shape and form, it may not be covered. I can see where this could be interpreted as a safe harbor for traditional media. But in the examples given regarding a blogger who reviews video games, I have a hard time seeing how that is substantially different from when David Pogue reviews gear in the New York Times.
We'll just have to wait and see what the FTC starts to do to enforce these Guidelines, as is always the case- the individual cases flesh out the real boundaries and contours of the law.
*Part* of the purpose of the *guidelines* is to define *specifically* how
bloggers define disclosure of financial relationships that could be
nebulously construed as endorsements.
Do you do consultant work for one of your clients then write about something
from your industry in a comment on a blog? If you don't properly disclose,
and that comment shows up on Twitter or Facebook or some other place where
your name and face appear in a lifestream, you could be guilty of improper
disclosure, since the money you receive could (and probably
does) influence your worldview in the opinions you express.
Then, you and your employer could be held liable.
The FTC needs to stay out of my speech. This isn't right.
PDF: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005endorsement...
I've seen it happen, and if the FTC coming in helps to clean up the shillers, I'm all for that.
I wrote about my take on it a while back:
http://dannybrown.me/2009/04/22/why-social-medi...
It's not a crackdown on bloggers per se, more the ones that work with companies and offer a view that's nothing more than an outright lie.
Bloggers, according to the guidelines, can be fined. Rich Cleland has been spinning it in the press as if they cannot, but read the guidelines for yourself, and you'll see otherwise.
Bloggers and social media users (Twitter, Facebook, etc) that are employed and use social media to promote their work can be held liable as well, if the FTC isn't particularly satisfied with the style disclosure they use.
You should read the guidelines and the proposed changes, as well as much of
the analysis over at SiliconANGLE.
regulations.
Given how nebulously these guidelines have been written (they never *once*
define terms within the guidelines), and the fact that guidelines haven't
been updated in thirty years, you hafta at least admit the fact that in 30
years, let alone one or two, the lattitude that the FTC has granted
themselves here can be widely interpreted to start regulating a lot of
things with this set of guidelines.
This is government creep at it's finest. Sure, if you believe every word
Rich Cleland has uttered the last several weeks, they sound pretty
innocuous. Truth is, though, most of what Rich says is in direct
contradiction to what's actually in the guidelines.
Before you ask a blatantly stupid question like that, perhaps you should go
through and do a Google search on my name. Go ahead. I can wait.
I've been covering these FTC guidelines for months and months, before anyone
in the PR, marketing, tech or blogging world picked up on it, let alone the
mainstream press. I've been on numerous podcasts, guest posted, and been
quoted in the press dozens of times on this. I've read this document more
times than I care to admit, and I find your question more than a little
insulting.
Here's a little test for you - find me the word "blogger" defined in section
255 (not section 255.1 or any other subsection - section 255 where the
definitions are).
You won't find it.
The word blog is used once or twice in the examples, but never is it defined
what the FTC considers a blog. Surely, if you read Chris Brogan's site,
you're well aware of the liberal definition of the word blog in today's day
and age. Never once does the FTC document clearly define what social media
users they're targeting, and though the examples try to enumerate that, the
press statements from the FTC (Rich Cleland is who I'm referring to) have
made it clear that they're not sure they have a handle on it and wish to
create an environment of FUD so that everyone and their dog will hafta worry
about this.
This is the definition of Chilling Effect. Chilling effect is even
mentioned by name in the FTC documents (see: "Analysis of Comments
Concerning What Communications Should Be
Considered “Endorsements” Under § Section 255.0 of the Guides").
Unfortunately, the FTC chose to ignore such analysis and dip their little
paws into First Amendment regulation.
Mark my words - the first time this goes to court because some Twitter user
didn't say the right thing the right way, these guidelines will see the need
for revision. No judge with any respect for the constitution will allow
this.
thread.
It's great that you disclose your commercial links, however there is a big difference between you doing it because you are responsible, and the FTC forcing it. It's very important that journalists understand the difference.
To quote from a comment I attempted to post elsewhere:
"This is great news, if we don't want free speech or individual rights.
It has come to a point where few people understand the line between freedom and protection, on the one hand, and government overstepping its bounds and violating our rights, on the other. Without this understanding, free speech is doomed and so are the rest of our rights.
If someone makes a statement in an online review regarding a product and fails to disclose payment from a third party it does not violate my rights, because I am free to make up my mind either way based on the information that *is* provided. Failing to provide information is not a falsehood, nor does it necessarily constitute fraud, which is the only legitimate reason to investigate it. I can simply *not accept it*, if I choose.
If I want to ask the blogger about their relation to the companies involved I can do that, and they can either tell the truth, not answer, or answer falsely which would be fraud and could be prosecuted.
It is not a journalist's *duty to provide information* that I need to make a decision simply because they choose to blog on a topic; to impose this sort of positive obligation on media outlets is to make them a veritable slave to others. If the government steps over this line and forces media to provide information, it is government that has committed a transgression, not the blogger. In such a case, government has used force against a citizen who was not violating anyone's rights. That is the definition of the violation of freedom and of individual rights: unprovoked use of force.
The line in the sand that is becoming obscured is that individuals should be free to say as little or as much as they wish, provide they do not make fraudulent claims. Otherwise, government should have no say and take no action whatsoever. Once this line is crossed, there is literally no significant principle standing in the way of government with regard to written content. Anything the public does not like, and tells government they should have, can be forced out of us.
What if regulators think that political writers should be forced to disclose their membership to past political organizations, because the public "needs" that information to make an informed decision? What if regulators think scientific publications should be forced to provide alternative theories, because the public "needs" all the facts to make a decision? What if regulators decide that companies need to forced to provide information against the products they are marketing, so that we can make a "balanced" decision. Oh, wait, they already have to do that ;)
Please, learn about individual rights, free speech, and fight for it. Free speech in electronic media is at stake."
See:
Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename...
Jeff Montgomery
http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com/
Just being sure I get where you're going there.
See any presidential debate.
For that matter, define important. What's important should be defined by the speaker (or content creator), not the government, and ultimately by the audience.
Audiences in social media tech typically demand transparency on sponsorship relations, and speakers and content creators who don't disclose should be free to blow their reputation.
Good question.
The reason is that disclosure consists of forcing information out of people, whereas laws against libel and fraud cover statements that have already been made.
With fraud and libel, laws do not compel a specific action; the action has already has been taken and is being questioned. Unless a false statement is made, the government adopts a hands-off stance. The crucial difference is between *compelling* and reacting. That is the essence of freedom; the right to act until a specific transgression has taken place against someone else, in which case the government steps in.
To use an example from criminal law (admittedly not an exact parallel), it would be like the difference between prosecuting a murder after the fact, and requiring us to notify the authorities when we go shopping, because we might commit murder. We wouldn't tolerate such disclosure rules regarding personal whereabouts, yet we readily accept it with regard to mere product endorsements.
I'll offer an insightful quote by Ayn Rand in this connection (the first paragraph in the link): http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_speech.html. In it, she says "A 'right' does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort." (this is what the Bill of Rights means when it mentions "the pursuit of happiness"; we have the right to pursue it, but not have it provided for us). That's exactly the issue here: the FTC's rule involves coercing the implementation of an alleged "right to know commercial connections"; it requires that journalists provide the 'material implementation' by supplying information rather than keeping silent, if that is their choice. However, it does not in any way constitute fraud to *not* disclose your influences. We are still able to do our own research and draw our own conclusion, so a reviewer not disclosing connections does not violate our rights in any fashion. If we consider it important enough, we can simply disregard further reviews by that person.
Hope this helps.
Jeff
As Chris Brogan pointed out in reply to a previous comment, not all people are honest. The reality is that the dishonest ones can and are spoiling the fabric of trust that is a basis of commercial communication and interaction among humans.
The anonymity, that the internet provides, requires re-considering the amending the rules (including the first amendment) because reality has changed.
Laws and regulations participate in a dialogue with norms.
I therefore applaud the FTC for contributing to the required change in norms, to accommodate the change in reality.
If someone makes a false statement, they can be prosecuted. Aside from that, restrictions constitute a violation of the *principle* of free speech and of individual rights, and this one seemingly innocuous prohibition is in fact one of many small steps by which our freedom will be lost in more important ways.
Jeff Montgomery
http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com
Are we trying to say that buyers shouldn't do their due diligence?
I agree with your position and it would be mine as well to disclose any significant client relationship or paid reason to post.
I also think Albert Maruggi has some brilliant examples of similar circumstances in the offline world that are neither regulated or subject to criticism.
This proposed legislation is misguided by the government and is similar to other ways that regulators and politicians waste their time and our resources. Investigating the steroid situation in MLB comes to mind.
There are much bigger fish to fry out there and that is where the regulators should be focusing their efforts. The saying has "buyer beware" in the world of commerce for a long time and I see no reason why that same approach can't be taken on the internet.
Just set your expectations low, read everything with a skeptical eye and use common sense. That is better than a new set of laws and reasons for lawyers to sue others.
Bill
The unfortunate result is that we expend precious energy in being overly suspicious of everything.
This regulation - in and of itself - is a sign of [albeit belated] normative social vitality. Had it not been issued by the FTC, with it's reputation for shooting first and asking questions later, I doubt it would have raised such a ruckus.
I've always adhered to traditional media standards wrt reviews. Yes, I receive product. I do not feel obligated to review it, report on it or sugar coat my thoughts simply because the product was provided to me. That's where, from what I can see, a lot of the bloggers are up in arms about - they seem to feel somewhat obligated to provide a positive review because they were given a product.
In addition, a lot of the FTC document (the part that I read... I didn't get all the way through the 81 pages) dealt with the *marketers* who were providing the product and less with the bloggers who were writing the product reviews etc. Maybe I just didn't get in deep enough through the document.
Seems as though parts of the community is up in arms about something that's really not that big a deal.
I'm fully supportive of full disclosure. It makes things so much easier all the way around. I wish that this would be a matter of common sense and business integrity, rather than having to be a legislated issue, with yet more regulation. That's the part I have an issue with. Let's not let a few bad (or misguided) apples spoil the whole bunch. If we're honest and straightforward it elevates us all.
Stop me if you've heard this one:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The FTC, acting on behalf of and on the authority of Congress, is creating what they're calling laws (even though they're really guidelines) that abridge the rights to free speech by individuals *and* the press.
Certainly disclosure is a good thing. I do it where it's practical.
These guidelines are overtly vague and have a chilling effect on online speech. I'm against them.
I'm sure you knew that already. :)
And welcome to my site,
Any thoughts on that?
And welcome to my site,
Tiffany Necklaces
Tiffany Bracelets
This morning's Orange County Register (same O.C. where you spoke at Chapman University a couple of weeks ago - great talk BTW) has an editorial on this ruling - http://bit.ly/3fnvPE.
One point that I particularly agree with is that "Regulating Twitter, Facebook and the blogosphere is like regulating word-of-mouth advertising." Of course they go on to note "Good luck trying to track down every blogger violating these new rules. Fortunately it would take a regulatory force the size of China's army to pinpoint every offender."
Another interesting point is that print journalists will not be subject to the same rules. Hmmm, maybe you're right about future encroachment on the internet. The Register editorial makes that point as well.
Full disclosure: The Register editorial board slants heavily toward a libertarian viewpoint. Not saying that it's good or bad, just trying to help out other readers.
Keep up the good work Chris.
I'm not screaming conspiracy here, just wondering if the FTC is being influenced by the legitimate news industry?
I think that full disclosure is always welcome and it makes sense to me.
I just hope we can move on quickly and get back to communicating and connecting to the best of our ability and if we get paid for it, there's full disclosure. Pretty simple to me, I guess. :-)
Ed
But when I read something-especially a glowing review--and the only link is to their product I'm suspicious. I can't help it, it feels like they are trying to slip something by me.
When they disclose though, even if it's the CEO, I pay attention to their words and accept their opinion as valid. I still do my own research of course, but I've allowed myself to be influenced.
Several of the companies I write for prefer that I don't write about them outside their purvue, so I haven't needed to disclose yet.
I can guarantee though that if the chance ever comes up, I'll disclose with pleasure!
My only problem is that the FTC is singling bloggers out. It's a total double standard. Traditional media is way more guilty of getting special treatment from companies, gifts, trips, dinners, etc... and they carry more influence (for now) than bloggers do. I find the penalty heavy handed, and insulting that they consider bloggers to be unprofessional, when in fact the bloggers who carry any influence at all are indeed professionals.