FTC States Bloggers Must Disclose Paid Reviews 310
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."
Astroturfing. (Score:5, Insightful)
What about politicians? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop calling it lobbying and call it by its real name: bribery. Will the politicians be fined to death in slices of $11K?
Re:Astroturfing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the astroturfing garbage will finally stop... or at least be more obvious.
That's pretty naive. Of course it will continue. Although it will be obvious to you or me, it will still be somewhat deceptive. They'll probably try and portray the freebies themselves as positive endorsements for Company X. "Luckily for me they even included a stylish bag to carry it around in! These will be sold separately and I must say they look super stylish!!!!1"
What's a blogger? (Score:4, Insightful)
So what exactly constitutes a "blogger", or a "paid review"? If I post a twitter update, is that a "blog"? What about a note on facebook, is that a blog? What if I don't call it a blog, but call it a public diary instead?
Re:Get paid... (Score:3, Insightful)
I do a lot of book reviews, I don't see that slowing down. I can't imagine anyone thinks book reviewers buy all those books, especially the ones they review before the book is publicly available. I also never imagined that movie reviewers paid to see the films they review, even though they didn't say it explicitly. Adding in some boilerplate about being given a ticket of the film or a review copy of the book isn't a big deal, so I don't care, but I don't think it is really necessary.
What else get's reviewed here? Some games sometimes. I think usually everything else is a link to a review done by someone else for the most part. So I don't really imagine it's going to have a huge impact on the reviews that are posted here. Maybe I'm forgetting something though.
What I don't see this stopping is the people who get paid to comment in the discussions of those reviews. Or anything talking about various companies products. Who's going to take the time to try and figure out who all those people are and then prove the link between them and their employer?
This is Crazy (Score:4, Insightful)
Legalized Bribes (Score:3, Insightful)
IMO, lobbying just needs to be completely gotten rid of as it has become simply a means to legally bribe publicly elected officials into corporate agendas into law.
Same for campaign donations.. every attempt, that I've seen, to put restrictions on either of these practices has been quickly circumvented.
Re:Astroturfing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing good will come of this except more $$$ for more government positions or contractors.
Re:Astroturfing. (Score:3, Insightful)
You should always assume everything you read is biased. If it wasn't biased why would you read it anyways? The best you can do is hope to find someone with your similar biases and even then you still have to make your own decision.
Re:Astroturfing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Free Speach or a Product Review? (Score:3, Insightful)
The FTC is wrong to suggest that a "product review" is some easy to identify thing. If I write that I love the Slap-Chop am I reviewing it? When does it change from opinion to review? Will a lawyer need to review everything before it's posted, or should we trust that government won't try to misuse this?
Writing on the web covers *all* modes, from babel to academic works. Regulating it as commercial is just wrong.
US only (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about politicians? (Score:3, Insightful)
It probably isn't about politics at present, but it probably should be. This grand dream of citizens collaborating to share information is going to run up against a wall of paid subversion one of these days, if it hasn't already. Requiring that people disclose who's paying them would be an obvious first step.
But then, we also need a change in the design of these collaborative sites so you really do know who you're talking to... I'm afraid "anonymity" just can't work in the long run. Everyone likes to imagine brave Daniel Ellsbergs hiding from the fascists, but it works even better for the modern-day Goebbels of the world.
Re:Astroturfing. (Score:1, Insightful)
Except that he hasn't fapped over every Apple thing ever. He pretty convincingly addressed all this with Leo Laporte on a recent episode of TWIT.
Re:Astroturfing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you hope for someone with similar biases?
For something like game reviews, yes, if the reviewer and I have liked the same games in the past then I have a better shot at liking the new game that just got the good review.
However for political and social commentary, what do I get from reading a web log written from the point of view of my own biases? Someone to tell me what I already believe so I can respond with how insightful the poster is?
If I read a web log written from a different perspective, I might actually learn something (I know--scary thought).
At least then when I walk away with my same old biases, they've been positively reenforced by standing up to counterargument rather than coming out of the echo chamber of people who all agree.
Re:What's a blogger? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:US only (Score:4, Insightful)
Companies won't even have to move their astroturfing overseas. They'll just have to redefine compensation and promotions.
It's much like what political lobbyists do to get around laws against bribery: call it something else. It's no longer a paid review; it's promotional consideration, a free sample, whatever the law did not yet address. The law will not get rid of paid reviews anymore than campaign finance reform got rid of influence peddling.
Re:Astroturfing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally for reviews I like to find the ones reporting problems or other low-scoring responses.
Great, 80% of the owners on the forum LOVE this car and think it's god's gift. Good for you.
I want to read from that other 20% where people are talking about rattling, quirks, and bad experiences.
Those 80% are usually from Joe Sixpack applauding the number of cup holders and the glovebox, or couldn't tell a quality DLP tv from a 10-year-old analog projector TV.
I like to get some of the good reviews too, and sometimes a bad review is just the writer's bias showing, but I find it informative.
Cure is worse than the disease (Score:1, Insightful)
I would rather see people educated instead of regulated.
You're So Funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's cut to the net net (Just reading Raymond Chens blog, and I decided to get with the Microsoft speak). I am not in the US. I do not post in the US. My English is excellent, and I am able to either compose my own "reviews", or would be willing to simply post your reviews.
My rates are reasonable, and I am willing to work under aliases.
Contact me via email for your astroturfing and viral marketing needs. Payment accepted in US Currency, Euros, Canadian Currency, or (if I can actually be convinced that the product doesn't blow), product.
==
In other words, WTF are you thinking? All that will happen is that the astroturf business will "offshored". Next, the buying of these services has to be made illegal, but that will take years (actually, I predict never), but when/if that happens, the astroturf campaigns will simply be managed in an offshored basis as well.
Biases (Score:3, Insightful)
However for political and social commentary, what do I get from reading a web log written from the point of view of my own biases? Someone to tell me what I already believe so I can respond with how insightful the poster is?
What do you get? You get to be like the vast majority of people. We (often unconsciously) seek out those that are similar to us as a way of validating ourselves. If others are like us, we must be pretty good people. If (smart|rich|famous|powerful) people think the same way we do, we must then be more valuable. Feeding our self-image leads to some pretty potent biases.
And while you certainly deserve kudos for seeking out those with conflicting opinions in order to challenge your world views, it is still highly likely you're seeking out those like you. (You're on Slashdot, for goodness sakes.) Most of your friends are likely of similar age, marital status, education, and ethnicity. They have similar interests to you.
Trying to overcome these biases can be a good thing. Just don't think you've beaten them.
Re:Moderation (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm guessing you got modded troll because you said "We have a White House that can't even stand the idea of people criticizing the president without getting reported to flag@whitehouse.gov". The purpose of that email was not because Obama couldn't stand being criticized. It was because republicans were blatently lying about health care in order to obstruct passing a health care bill. If all they are doing was criticizing him, I don't think Obama could have cared less. It was the trolling they were looking to be kept up on. Granted, I too have issues with the way they went about the process, but for you to say it was because he was being criticized...well, I too would mod you troll if you hadn't asked for an explanation.
Re:Gotta love these honest corps huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course they do. In a capitalist system, the government's primary job is to "protect property rights" -- i.e., to put its firearms at the beck and call of the business class.
If businesses didn't have government guns for enforcement, there would be few rent payments made.
Let me also direct you to the use of the historical use of the army and National Guard as strike busters. [wikipedia.org]