Slashdot Mirror
FTC To Monitor Blogs For Paid Claims & Reviews
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."
You wanted to replace the "old media", now stop crying. With power comes responsibility.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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?
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
I don't know why anyone believes what is written in a blog without first checking it out. They're opinions given without any standards - professional, ethical or otherwise that apply. On the other hand, people do tend to believe whatever is communicated in any medium - talk radio, television, the internet so I suppose requiring full disclosure or potential conflicts of interest is necessary. So when will the FTC require all broadcast journalists and commentators to disclose their sources of income?
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Havent been declaring all those 'free' gifts on your taxes have you mister blogger...
Full disclosure is a common practice elsewhere and doesn't result in the negative consequences TFA claims people are worried about.
1. Post a disclaimer when you're referencing something that you have no involvement with.
2. Post an admission when you get something from someone you're writing about.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
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.
Dont you read slashdot replies?
I'd believe you, but I have now way of checking out your claims.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
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?
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Sites created by people like you and me, who happen to have a lot of free time in their hands, and like to do something useful with it instead of reading/posting to /. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, and NO blog should be seen as an authority on anything.
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.
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?
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
As you have written it on /., it must be true.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
You're not that important. And if you are, then you have the resources to deal with the inquiries you might attract.
"What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
"Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
I'd definitely like to see bloggers identify when they get financial compensation from a company. Especially if the blog is running a review on a product/service. I wouldn't want to buy a product only to find out that the blogger was paid $100 to rewrite some boilerplate company-supplied text into their own style. On the other hand, I'm not sure that the government needs to step in here. Perhaps if, on a case by case basis, it is found that a company is buying many positive reviews and using sleazy tactics to silence critics, but otherwise full disclosure should be a "best practice policy", not an "enforced by the Federal government rule."
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
It depends on which media you are talking about. CNN/Fox/MSNBC? Doubtful. CNBC? Absolutely. You can thank Elliot Spitzer for that, whether you like him or not...
There are very stiff penalties in the financial world for not disclosing conflicts. When CNBC has a speaker or guest, you'll notice they put up a disclosure screen that shows information on whether the speaker has any conflicts with the company he is discussing. It's not perfect but it is a step in the right direction. It wasn't always like this....back in the day, there were serious and glaring conflicts that were known but never discussed outside of those "in the know".
One that comes to mind is a stock analyst who's employer does investment banking for the company the analyst is writing about. ie: Citibank does invesment banking business with Wal-mart. The Citibank analyst who covers Wal-mart has a conflict because if he pans Wal-mart, they take their investment banking business elsewhere. So there is a strong incentive for the analyst to write glowing reports, despite whether or not they are true. That is precisely what Spitzer put a stop to. Henry Blodget was the worst offender but he was not alone.
Irony is completely lost on you, isn't it?
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Any time you have a source of communication that has a lot of eyes or ears on it, whether it's a celeb talking on the radio, TV, a blog, or even twitter, people are going to want to leverage that source for ads. It's really not a big deal, and actually it's a healthy thing(it pays the bills so these people can keep doing this), so long as there's disclosure.
If there's disclosure then readers can make up their own mind about the writer's credibility.
The big hubbub right now is that this has been moving away from the big names(for example, Slashdot has sponsors) into the everyday blogger. You don't have to be TechCrunch to make money blogging anymore and now that it's gotten pervasive, keeping it ethical has become the hot topic.
Plenty of people blog with high ethical standards. Certainly higher than every disgraced journalist we have seen over history (and it isn't like they are always at tabloids).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
When has there ever been any expectation of reliability or accuracy in blogs? If I want to accept kickbacks and from someone and write my heart out about how wonderful they are, that is my own business. No one should ever take a blog at face value. If they do, they deserve to be duped. I can only see this making any kind of sense, if the blogs in question purport to be legitimate and fact based.
I remember back when Yahoo's management were still equipped with spines and allowed users to comment on news stories, that the number of duplicate and near duplicate theo- and neocon posts grew like topsy, particularly around election time (circa 2002, 2004). Somebody was obviously paying for this, given the spam-like volume. I suspect this is a not so subtle propaganda suppression technique.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I don't know why anyone believes what is written in a blog without first checking it out.
The next thing you know, some website will start "summarizing" news items, and hordes of people will believe them without first checking it out.
Ah, but you disclosed a relationship with them.. You first need to go "Carl Jr's is great" without disclosing it's brought to you by said company. Then the FTC investigates, and then you can try and get compensation....
Wait.. something here still seems backward.
I put on my robe and wizard hat..
I think the only people that would be willing to jump through all the loop holes required by the FTC would need to make enough money off their blog that its their job. There are very few that can accomplish this. This will stifle free speech more significantly then the benefits it will reap. I honestly don't understand why they would want to try this.
So they want to bust bloggers who accept bribes, but does the FTC plan to go after every single goddamned magazine ever ? It's not like Gamespot invented the practice. I can think of very few print publications that I consider "impartial", at least to a degree where I can soundly make purchasing decisions based on their reviews.
The FTC should be monitoring the channels and their operation, not the content therein.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
========= please use s/email/blog/s below =============
your post advocates a
( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. your idea will not work. here is why it won't work. (one or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) no one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(X) it is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) it will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) users of email will not put up with it
( ) microsoft will not put up with it
( ) the police will not put up with it
(X) requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) open relays in foreign countries
( ) ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) asshats
(X) jurisdictional problems
(X) unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) huge existing software investment in smtp
( ) susceptibility of protocols other than smtp to attack
( ) willingness of users to install os patches received by email
( ) armies of worm riddled broadband-connected windows boxes
( ) eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) extreme profitability of spam
( ) joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) technically illiterate politicians
( ) extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) smtp headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) blacklists suck
( ) whitelists suck
( ) we should be able to talk about viagra without being censored
( ) countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) sending email should be free
( ) why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
(X) i don't want the government reading my email
( ) killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
furthermore, this is what i think about you:
(X) sorry dude, but i don't think it would work.
( ) this is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) nice try, assh0le! i'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
But what does our population think about referral links?
Shameless example: fulldecent.blogspot.com
I sometimes post reviews of thing I buy and recommend there. There are undisclosed (readable in the URL) referral links there.
Depending which side of the fence you are on, this could be a widespread abuse.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
thou shall not publish what is not the true ! there is no evil to report !
It's only irony if it's obvious that what you stated is not even close to what you actually believe. I have absolutely no idea what you actually believe, and you make no indication whatsoever in your post that you are being ironic.
So when will the FTC require all broadcast journalists and commentators to disclose their sources of income?
This is obviously ironic because it is an extreme. However,
so I suppose requiring full disclosure or potential conflicts of interest is necessary
is a view shared by others. If I knew you personally, it might be obvious that this is satirical, however, as a random poster on /. ... When I read your post, it seemed to me that you were in support of the FTC regulation, but you were weary of it going further than need be.
Morale of the story: Don't get upset when people misinterpret your poorly constructed attempt at irony.
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.
I am officially gone from
How are they different? I mean, every 'review' is just full of varying degrees of 'good'. Even the cars that clearly crappy, get something like 'this car was okay'. They would never give any direct negative information about their only significant revenue stream. I don't see why a blogger who got a free iPhone to blog about how awesome his iPhone is would be held to a higher standard.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
If there is one thing the Internet is good at, it is calling BS. If someone makes a bogus claim there are a thousand others ready to jump down their throats telling them how wrong they are for making such a bogus claim. We don't need more FTC regulation...
Plenty of people blog with high ethical standards. Certainly higher than every disgraced journalist we have seen over history (and it isn't like they are always at tabloids).
There are no standards that bloggers are held to. There is no recognized profession or board or any form of regulation or governance. There is no entrance exam, qualifications or licensing. It's just an activity anyone with Internet access can do. So only the bloggers' personal standards apply and those vary greatly from one to the other. If you find one that is consistently on the mark and accurate that you can trust, great, but you need to establish that trust first and not just believe everything you read. It's also pretty much true for "journalism" as well with the exception that journalists tend to work for organizations, some of which want good reputations so they enforce some standards. That's why I asked the question at the end of my post.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
"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." Don't forget free software and advertising. The sleazy practice of offering advertising income to people who have nice things to say about a product is pretty well established by now; I doubt many readers are fooled.
So when you read a satirical article or book you assume that certain sentences are satire and that the rest is quite serious? When you hear a long joke, do you only judge the punchline and not the set up? Have you tried parsing at a coarser grain than a single sentence?
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
We must protect at all costs the reliability of information online! Imagine if you had to question the veracity of everything you read! I wouldn't have the first clue what to buy!
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
Have you tried parsing at a coarser grain than a single sentence?
So, you are saying that your entire post was satirical?
I don't know why anyone believes what is written in a blog without first checking it out.
I thought you were being serious here, but obviously you really think that it is ridiculous to not believe everything you read in the blog.
In a satirical article or book there may sentences that are serious. These are obvious, however, because said article/book is longer than a few sentences and so there is an overall tone. The same goes for a non-satirical article/book. You know the author's sentiment, therefore it is obvious when irony is used. Like I stated in my original post, there is no way to know your actual thoughts on the subject, because no one here knows you.
In your post, you state:
1) People should not believe everything they read in blogs, because bloggers have no standards.
2) People are inherently gullible.
3) Full disclosure is necessary b/c of #2. (you think this is obviously ironic)
4) Hypothetical about when the FTC will overstep their bounds. (obviously ironic)
1 is your opinion.
2 is an unfortunate sentiment I agree with.
3 is poorly constructed irony.
4 is properly executed irony.
Save me, government! I can't tell the difference between real journalism and paid advertisements, but I believe you can! Save me from my own incompetence!!!
if they have little keeping them going, then they have little to declare, they will also be of little interest to the FTC, this is hopefully aimed at taking down FUD blogs and other shills that make it look like some random person's opinions when its in fact paid for by MS/apple/etc.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
...this refreshing Pepsi!
Futurist Traditionalism
The most ironic part of this whole thread is that it's not irony you 2 are talking about, but rather sarcasm.
Sarcasm is a form of irony.
The FTC should kill all of those fake review sites that are 100% paid advertisements. Like for hosting providers, marchant accounts (accepting credit cards), and I'm sure there is a whole host of others. It's damn hard to find real information on which of these companies are worth a damn and it's all because they flood the search engines with all that garbage.
Wow, I am shocked. I got 2/3 of the way down this page before someone tried to blame Obama for this. Come on Slashdot, you can do better than that!
Just think of what the situation would be if Hilary would have gotten the VP slot - the right-wingers would be positively foaming at the mouth that they could rip into Obama AND a Clinton at the same time!
"But this one goes to 11!"
... the evil Bushitler is out of office, and we all know The One would never, ever use government power to suppress dissent.
It will be OK. Really.
... that they could be monitoring TV News for unpaid advertising, product bias or factual incorrectness?
I mean, have they noticed all the PR infotainment that gets put on local newscasts as if it didn't come from some company promoting the health benefits of Orange Juice?
If Fox News can win in the supreme court for the right to not tell us the truth -- then maybe Joe Blow blogger should have the right to make stuff up too.
I would be very happy, if we got rid of all paid bloggers -- but who the heck is going to decide? And there are so many, that enforcement would be totally arbitrary.
Kind of like the $2.4 Million judgement against some poor lady who downloaded 24 songs. She is paying the cost for 2.3 million people who they didn't catch.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
He got a free laptop? Damn, amazon mechanical turk only paid me five cents for writing that blog entry...
This is really pretty simple.
"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."
What part of "no law" do people not understand? Despite this, the FTC has been regulating free speech for 40 years or so, if memory serves. Yet we put up with it. Corporate speakers have long since made their deal with this devil (recent example to wit: Disney shill Miley Cyrus pimping the "cyberbullying" bill, ie. political speech about ostensible civility, but inevitably about polictical speech, in other words, precisely the thing the Founders thought necessary to forestall with a 1st amendment.)
It's complete B.S. You cannot legislate ethics, you cannot compel honesty, and you don't alter reality by passing a bill or promulgating a new regulation. Unless and until people start fighting in court and in the legislatrures this insanity will only get worse.
We now return you to your previously scheduled carping about Iranian journalists being rounded up. Don't worry, of course it can't happen here.
How about putting the FTC on to tracking something really important! Like items that contribute to corrupt government. Want to talk about a conflict of interest? Payola? Have the FTC track lobbyist contributions to legislator's election campaigns.
Just one more way you are protecting me from myself. And forcibly taking my money (via taxes) to pay for the privilege. Geez, thanks a lot, government guys.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
ANY company that tries to tell its employees what they are allowed to do on their own time is in the wrong, both morally and legally. They have no more power to tell me what to do with my time than I do to tell you.
How about if, on their own time, they sell company secrets to competitors? Not necessarily applicable to newspapers, I know, but I don't think it's unreasonable to tell people they're not allowed to do that.
There are certainly many things that companies should never tell you you must or must not do outside of work hours, and should be roundly punished for attempting to control. However, there are also plenty of things that, for one reason or another, it is perfectly acceptable for a company to tell their employees they can't do and still keep their jobs. Various kinds of conflict of interest, for instance. (Maybe in certain kinds of investigative journalism the reporters could be prohibited from getting too close, personally, to those they're supposed to be investigating.)
Trust me, I'm no advocate of "corporate rights" or anything; I'm just a pedant who objects to absolutist statements like yours when the world's a more complicated place. :-)
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.