Wednesday, October 07, 2009



FTC to Regulate Blogging‏

This sounds very much like the thin end of the wedge. What will they try to regulate next?
"The Federal Trade Commission will try to regulate blogging for the first time, requiring writers on the Web to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products. The FTC said Monday its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final Web guidelines, which had been expected. Violating the rules, which take effect Dec. 1, could bring fines up to $11,000 per violation. Bloggers or advertisers also could face injunctions and be ordered to reimburse consumers for financial losses stemming from inappropriate product reviews.

The commission stopped short of specifying how bloggers must disclose conflicts of interest. Rich Cleland, assistant director of the FTC's advertising practices division, said the disclosure must be "clear and conspicuous," no matter what form it will take...

The FTC's proposal made many bloggers anxious. They said the scrutiny would make them nervous about posting even innocent comments. To placate such fears, Cleland said the FTC will more likely go after an advertiser instead of a blogger for violations. The exception would be a blogger who runs a "substantial" operation that violates FTC rules and already received a warning, he said.

Source

17 comments:

Toejam said...

Take cover.....

Big bro Liberal government is going to take a shot at the "Conservative" bloggers.

That means Conservative blogs are having an effect on the Dear Leader's plans to impose Socialism on America!

Anonymous said...

Paranoia abounds here.

Anonymous said...

Paranoia abounds here.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you.

The FTC wants to regulate if a blogger receives an item for review, they have to report the item to the FTC. The FTC fears that people may distort their views in a blog if they get something for free. Is that a fair concern? Maybe. But the FTC goes deeper and farther than that by wanting you to disclose EVERYTHING that you receive, whether or not you blog about it and no matter the source.

So if the blogger receives a camera for a present from their significant other, and writes their opinions about it, they have to report the gift to the FTC. If a company sends them something, they have to report it no matter whether they blog about the item or not.

Will this stand up to a court challenge? Probably not. At best the FTC can claim that the blogger is writing an entry on an item that is not truthful.

Hardly a crime and hardly worth worrying about.

Anonymous said...

Well Natin of Fools, HE promised you change and now you're getting it. Oh, he forgot to mention the change would be from capitalism and democracy to Marxism? Too bad. Next time, (if there is a next time) pay attention "and think" instead of listening and obeying, unless of course, you truly are the sheeple. In that case, just follow.

Anonymous said...

"At best the FTC can claim that the blogger is writing an entry on an item that is not truthful."

But that would include the entire MSM.

Anonymous said...

"But that would include the entire MSM."

That's a bold claim. Care to back that up with real facts (not manufactured conservative facts)?

Bobby said...

The last thing we need is the FTC regulating the internet. If I had a blog and people click on my ads or give me any other income, it is my duty to file for taxes like everyone else and declare my income. If the IRS thinks I'm lying they are free to audit me. But forcing people to disclose stuff would place undue burden on them, people unlike companies don't have access to lawyers and can't be writing legal disclaimers every time they post something.

Anon said...

Here is a link to the "guide" the FTC used to describe these changes.

There is a lot of wishy/washy terms. But, it boils down to: If you are a blogger with an audience that is the target audience of the manufacturer, and you write something good about a product that you received for free, you have to report it.

If you are part of "traditional media" and write something good about something you received free, the fact that you received it free is not important.

Sounds a lot like "traditional media" had a big hand in these revisions.

Stan B said...

Anonymous 2:19 - you seem a bit hostile. Perhaps your mother didn't hug you enough, or your father didn't play with you as a child, but you really need to chill out.

The truth is, the MSM has done a horrific job of late reporting negatively on anything associated with "the One."

Van Jones, ACORN, the latest "Doctored Photo-Op", they're either asleep at the wheel, or they're under Obama's spell.

Anonymous said...

" or they're under Obama's spell."

Now you are accusing The President of being a sorcerer? How low will you people go?

Anonymous said...

Bobby,

sorcerer |ˈsôrsərər|
noun
a person who claims or is believed to have magic powers; a wizard.

idol |ˈīdl|
noun
an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship.

I used the word sorcerer, not idol. Sorcerers cast spells; idols do not. You said, "they're under Obama's spell"

Your redefinition of words will not work here. Try again.

Bobby said...

"Your redefinition of words will not work here. Try again."

---Have you ever heard of a metaphor? "Casting a spell" is a popular expression that doesn't necessarily have to do with magic. That's like accusing someone who says "do the math" of being bad at algebra.

Obama is a "sorcerer" in the sense that he has half the country under his spell.

Anonymous said...

Bobby,

No wonder you are taken for a liberal at times with your ambiguous statements. How do we know when you are using a metaphor and when you are not? I take your words at face value. Damn liberals...

Anonymous said...

Bobby, all you had to post was this link as proof:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story

Bobby said...

Hey 10:23 AM.
Thanks for the "Obama the Magic Negro" article by the the LA Times.

"No wonder you are taken for a liberal at times with your ambiguous statements. How do we know when you are using a metaphor and when you are not? I take your words at face value. Damn liberals..."

---When have I ever made an ambiguous statement here? I'm either for or against something.

Anon 2:07 said...

Anonymous 2:19 said...
"That's a bold claim. Care to back that up with real facts (not manufactured conservative facts)?"

I'd be happy to;
CBS
NBC
ABC
CNN
MSNBC
NY Times
Washington Post
etc, etc, etc.

the wandering B said...

Whatever happen to freedom of the web. It sounds to me that those Demon-cratic Party want to control every single word.

It's downright stupid to regulate the internet.