Oct 6, 2009

Bloggers Regulated

The government wants to make it a little harder for bloggers to shill products online for fun and profit. Wait? You mean I could be making money doing this?! Yes, I'd like to learn more... And fun? Fun?! What?

New guidelines released by the Federal Trade Commission say bloggers must disclose any money or freebies they receive in exchange for writing product reviews, a fast-growing and loosely regulated way for companies to market everything from diapers to movies. I could have been getting free diapers!? Free movies?!

The move is an effort to apply the same rules that already cover broadcast stations, newspapers and magazines to the Wild West marketplace of the World Wide Web. Really? Wild West World Wide Web? Who writes this crap?

Obviously someone who owns a media outlet complained that bloggers have different rules and were all butt hurt about it, so, at some cocktail party they complained to their Congressman (who probably had zero idea what he was talking about and went to wipe his tie off thinking he had a booger). Congressman A then mentioned it to his intern, who did understand - and then filed a report to the FCC to make new rules for bloggers. Thanks a lot, bootlicker! Just a guess on how that process worked itself out.

Because fighting two wars, a no-recovery recession, mounting unemployment. North Korean and Iranian nukes, and health care aren't keeping the government busy enough, the power of the Federal Government needs to make sure that someone didn't get a free movie ticket and then wrote about it.

2 comments:

  1. The FTC issued a guidance document yesterday requiring bloggers who write testimonials about products to disclose large gifts or payments, or they will run afoul of the FTC’s regulations on advertising.

    Is that the right thing to do? Yep. Is that an appropriate thing to require in federal law? Absolutely not.

    The FTC is putting itself in the business of guaranteeing the veracity of speech and the honesty and straightforwardness of bloggers. “No” means no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.

    The “protection” in this regulatory scheme encourages consumers to be supine and irresponsible. State law should deal with frauds as they occur. There should be no law barring or limiting paid endorsements — certainly not a federal law.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Caveat Emptor.

    That all I'll say. If you get it, great. If you don't, well....

    you should probably read more.

    ReplyDelete