Could FTC decision about bloggers & reviews affect CPF policy?

fenix-store
G

gooseman

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
72
I was just reading over at MSNBC that bloggers will now be required by the FTC to clearly disclose freebies or payments they received for product reviews. I think some folks that provide reviews for CPF already do this.

"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."

I'm not sure about the FTC's precise and technical meaning "blogger" and "review" are ...

You can read more about it here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33177160/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/

And the FTC news here:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

Personally, I would welcome that disclosure. What are your thoughts CPF?
 
Besides that, what about jurisdiction? Who knows where a site or blog is based?

Very hard for legislators of any individual country to regulate a global thing like the Internet...
 
gooseman said:
I was just reading over at MSNBC that bloggers will now be required by the FTC to clearly disclose freebies or payments they received for product reviews. I think some folks that provide reviews for CPF already do this.
Click to expand...

I think a good review should be open on any thing related to conflicts of interest, such as did they receive freebies or payments to review them. I would be glad if this generally was considered reviewers "best practice", or a "soft rule" (i.e. breaking the rule has no legal implications, but will degrade your standing in the community).


But dictating a hard rule to this effect may not be the best idea. How do you control and enforce it? And proving someone guilty of breaking this rule will be difficult, not only technically (a.k.a. tedious, hard work), but also legally because you need to access stuff like bank records. Collecting those is legally VERY problematic, lots of issues with what charges that justify such a break of your right to privacy. You are entitled NOT to be scrutinized by authorities unless there are some very specific reasons to believe you've committed a nasty crime. Is posting something on the blog nasty enough for such scrutiny? Then there is the question of freedom of speech: I am entitled to say what I want even if someone gives me a salary. Then there is the question of jurisdiction: To which court does this apply? Good luck with sorting out all those issues...


The U.S. of A. is a pretty big place, but the internet does not stop there.... I am always amazed when someone in the U.S. wants to regulate what is legal on the internet. U.S. only legislation to regulate internet content will be pretty impotent.
 
This has nothing to do with Flashlights, as far as I can see. Moving it to the Cafe...
 
luckily, I always state information like that, but... wtf?

I agree with all that has been posted at the moment.
 
Sounds like another case of uncle government interference, business as usual. With all the problems we face today you'd think they could find better use of their time. As far as CPF policy, I'm sure thats Greta's call....................
 
Hey, I'll bet there will be a huge upswing of renting storage space on international servers. Big side step.

And with everything else going on in the world, this is what they feel deserves their immediate attention.:shakehead

@ ypsifly:

Your avatar goes great with what you posted!
 
Gee, I wonder if that means all of the Cree and SF employees that post slightly biased comments on CPF will have to disclose that they work there. :rolleyes:
 
Allright, here's my 2 cents. I used to work at the relevant agency and in the relevant Division. The FTC's jurisdiction is "interstate commerce." For practical purposes and to simplify, that applies to all of the 50 states. Nobody with the government has claimed that the FTC can regulate anything in other countries, as far as I know. So, I don't understand the accusation here that they are doing that or attempting to do that.

Moreover, nobody is doing anything to prevent anybody from saying anything. This particular rule applies only to people who are paid by the companies whose products they are endorsing in their blog. All they are requiring is a disclosure that they are paid by the company whose products they are endorsing. It does regulate content to a small degree, but that's on the side of disclosure of information that avoids misleading advertising. That's the point-- and the FTC was given a right to regulate and prevent false and deceptive advertising in 1915. This is nothing new and is not doing anything to impede free speech and "truth" from being disclosed.

Smearing government workers as a whole is easy and helps one avoid looking at reality. In reality, there are many, like me, who serve the public because we believe in helping people, even though we get paid far less then we would in private employment and we have to take a lot of ignorant abuse from people who have no idea how hard we work and what we actually do.
 
mightysparrow said:
Allright, here's my 2 cents. I used to work at the relevant agency and in the relevant Division. The FTC's jurisdiction is "interstate commerce." For practical purposes and to simplify, that applies to all of the 50 states. Nobody with the government has claimed that the FTC can regulate anything in other countries, as far as I know. So, I don't understand the accusation here that they are doing that or attempting to do that.

Moreover, nobody is doing anything to prevent anybody from saying anything. This particular rule applies only to people who are paid by the companies whose products they are endorsing in their blog. All they are requiring is a disclosure that they are paid by the company whose products they are endorsing. It does regulate content to a small degree, but that's on the side of disclosure of information that avoids misleading advertising. That's the point-- and the FTC was given a right to regulate and prevent false and deceptive advertising in 1915. This is nothing new and is not doing anything to impede free speech and "truth" from being disclosed.

Smearing government workers as a whole is easy and helps one avoid looking at reality. In reality, there are many, like me, who serve the public because we believe in helping people, even though we get paid far less then we would in private employment and we have to take a lot of ignorant abuse from people who have no idea how hard we work and what we actually do.
Click to expand...
Nobody is trying to smear you personally. However, growing larger and snooping into others business is what governments have historically always done. Thus the comments are not based on ignorance, they are based on past and present actions by said governments. There are also many government workers that believe the public serves them, so the "abuse" goes both ways. That's all I will comment on it as I'm sure anything else will go to the Underground. :tinfoil:
 
MarNav1 said:
Sounds like another case of uncle government interference, business as usual. With all the problems we face today you'd think they could find better use of their time.
Click to expand...


ypsifly
One step closer to establishing a Ministry of Truth.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
Click to expand...



With you two guys posting thoughts I don't even have to bother. You're elected! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

raggie33
Anyone know about classic vintage air rifles?
Replies
10
Views
331
raggie33
raggie33
A
Lost a CPF member
Replies
3
Views
528
Monocrom
Monocrom
Street Survival
How about Everyday Hacks?
Replies
13
Views
495
raggie33
raggie33
SCEMan
What could possibly go wrong?
2 3
Replies
49
Views
3K
letschat7
L
raggie33
anyone know about medical stuff?
5 6 7
Replies
131
Views
5K
Monocrom
Monocrom

Latest posts

Top