Slashdot Mirror


FTC States Bloggers Must Disclose Paid Reviews

An anonymous reader writes to tell us that in the first revision of how endorsements and testimonials work since 1980, bloggers will now be required by the FTC to clearly disclose freebies or payments they received for product reviews. "the commission stopped short Monday of specifying how bloggers must disclose any conflicts of interest. The FTC said its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final guidelines, which had been expected. Penalties include up to $11,000 in fines per violation. The rules take effect Dec. 1."

5 of 310 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Astroturfing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Oh please. It has not prevented David Pogue fapping over every Apple thing ever. And he writes for NYT.

  2. Re:US only by MarkRose · · Score: 1, Troll

    Then they don't suffer such fascist oppression. Unless, of course, their country happens to have an extradition treaty with the US...

    --
    Be relentless!
  3. Re:enforcement by bonch · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's not intended to be enforced. It's supposed to get people used to the idea of the government passing regulations for the internet. We have a White House that can't even stand the idea of people criticizing the president without getting reported to flag@whitehouse.gov. As time goes on, we'll see more and more government control of this crazy, uncontrolled haven of free speech. Basically, the government wants the internet back.

    Is it really so hard for people to use their brains and exercise their own judgement when reading a review online? The danger of the internet is that you accept what you read at your own risk, but it's also the reward.

  4. Re:The unregulated internet by bonch · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's the FTC.

    This is unenforceable. What counts as a blog? How would you report the blog? Do you shoot an email to flag@whitehouse.gov so Obama can get on the case? Will the government employ people to clean up the internet? Will there be an internet taskforce?

    Because it's unenforceable, it's a meaningless regulation. All it does is get people used to the idea of the government passing regulations on the internet. They want their ARPANET back. If people get used to the idea of the government having control of the internet, then this crazy experiment of near-total freedom goes away.

  5. Re:Moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm the guy that modded many of your comments in this story down. It looks as though you are trolling. You've written at least a half a dozen rabidly anti-government, anti-regulation screeds in this story. I'm sick and fucking tired of a few libertarian types with loud voices attempting to convince everyone that the government is evil and everything it does is wrong and bad. Government and laws exist to protect the weak and powerless from oppression at the hands of the sociopathic and powerful. I modded you troll because you are an apologist for unrestricted tyranny of the rich and powerful over all other interests. You don't want regulation because you know it is a way for the powerless to stand up against the powerful, and in your mind, the powerless are powerless because they should be and the powerful have power because they deserve it. In your mind, anything that moves society away from this natural state of affairs where the powerful oppress the powerless is evil and unnatural, So, LOTS of troll mods for you today, buddy.

    Troll hunter OUT.