There's a slippery slope here, and it worries me, particularly as the FTC can pretty much just make it up as they go along. I want to live in a nation ruled by laws, not one ruled by men.
I agree, MikeD... typical big government thinking: expensive, intrusive, & ineffective...
"For bloggers who review products, this means that the days of an unimpeded flow of giveaways may be over."
Really? Does anyone actually think bloggers who review products PAY for the stuff they review? Did Kirstie Alley pay to enrol in Jenny Craig? Does Roger Ebert pay to see movies? C'mon...
I'd rather see the FTC spending taxpayers money to teach people about naivety: "And remember, when someone blogs about their breakfast and tells you that 'Super Sugary Maple Pops are part of a well balanced diet' you might want to question their motives."
What's next? Maybe the FTC should tackle Buzz marketing.. When a stranger strikes up a "random" conversation about "these new shoes that stimulate your chakras as you walk," should the FTC be monitoring the conversation? Good luck (and good night).
I think that savvy organizations are going to bury these disclosures in their Terms & Conditions (or perhaps a new "Disclosures" page will become common?) along with everything else they don't care if you read, but still want you to be 'notified of' and bound by.
With regards to how the disclosure should be made, the FCC are leaving it quite open ended, but it has to be, and I forget what the exact word is in the FCC document but it's something like, "prominent."
Thank you for the clarification. I'm not sure if that makes things better or worse -- now, without specific case law, it will be impossible to know whether you are in compliance.
For instance, is a disclosure page enough? What if you link to it at the bottom of the post? What if the disclosure itself is at the end of the post? Does the disclosure need to be on top? Does it need to be on top and more prominent than the rest of the text?
In general, I'm very uncomfortable with the creation of regulatory hurdles for bloggers. The penalty for the infraction itself isn't the only regulatory hurdle - it's a hurdle just to become familiar with the regulations that exist and confirm that you are in compliance.
Taken to the extreme, this makes it more challenging for any private citizen to use any form of media, including blogs and social networks, to express an idea, opinion, or endorsement.
The "it exists, lets regulate it" mentality scares me. Here are the likely results of this move:
1. Yet another step away from laws made by elected law makers. Over time, the accumulation of these can threaten democracies. (Of course, each one in isolation is "no big deal".)
2. Another cost of doing business for companies providing freebies. Another junior lawyer on the payroll.
3. A few bloggers will be singled out and ruined federal style, while the vast majority will skate on by living with the low but present risk of being among the unlucky hanging over there head.
My wife had lunch with a guy who works at the FCC on Saturday. You know what the big issue they are battling internally is? On Friday they banned accessing Hulu.com because so many people were streaming instead of working that it was killing the bandwidth for all. Is this who gets to tell society if a blogger is on the level or not? Why am I as a blog reader less trusted than an FCC/FTC/Any Other Agency employee?
I'm reading YCombinator at work because it pays to be educated and up to date. This is where the smart people are so this is what I read. I doubt watching "Glee" at work provides FCC employees the same benefit.
What I really want to know is, where in the constitution does it say they can do this? I know where it says they can't, but they seem to have found some way to twist that so as to get away with it.
Where does it say you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre? Where does it say you can't advertise your new wonder drug by claiming it cures cancer and has no side-effects? Free speech is not an absolute right, and commercial speech is the most regulated type of speech act; when you take a payment for what you say then you are obligated to disclose this fact.
If bloggers want to be treated like real, grown-up journalists then they have to start living by the same rules that these journalists live by.
In the first case, the speech becomes an action in the same way that politely requesting that a bank teller give you all the money in the bank or you'll set off a bomb is an action. In the second case, you're defrauding people and endangering their lives, but it's not the speech that's regulated; it's the selling. There's no law that says I can't publish an article saying that eating a pound of carrots a day will cure cancer.
Of course, I do think professional bloggers should hold themselves to standards of journalistic ethics, possibly even forming an organization that gives out certifications.
Where does the rule say anything about "journalist"? The rule appears to apply to anybody who says anything on Facebook to their friends. It appears to apply if you got a free ticket in your cereal box for a movie, then talk about it on Twitter. At all. $11,000 if you don't "disclose" in an unspecified manner. It appears to be incredibly broad.
Even in the journalism case I consider it dubious, but you seem to be doing the same thing the government is, assuming that all Internet traffic is "journalism" and must be regulated as such. That's not even remotely true. It is as true as saying all spoken words should be regulated as journalism, for pretty much the same reasons; sure, some vanishing fraction of spoken words are journalism but trying to regulate it all as if it were is an enormous category error.
If bloggers and twitterers want to hide behind shield laws that protect journalists then they get all of the baggage that comes with that label. They don't get to decide that they are journalists one day (when they want the protection that comes from that label) and are not journalists on the next (when they want to chat up the movie they just saw for free without mentioning that they were paid to do so.)
I would be more than happy to proclaim that nothing mentioned on the internet is journalism unless it came from someone that would have been classified as such before the internet came into existence, but I think that a vocal minority would bitch and moan about such a distinction. The internet's chattering classes created this problem in the first place by proclaiming blogging to be journalism and worthy of the protections provided to people working in this field and I am enjoying the prospect of watching them being forced to live up to the responsibilities that come with these rights.
You seem to have it out for "bloggers". That's a class distinction so worthless I'd say you should discard it; it's just people, talking, as silly a classification as "phoners". You want to talk entirely about journalism, then go pressure the rule makers to limit this to journalism. (The fact that you can't work out a definition of journalism, which you allude to, is your problem as someone who wants to regulate it, not mine. I'm underwhelmed by the need for this law even in old media.)
Meanwhile, a Facebook user who doesn't give a shit about whether you consider them a "blogger" and wouldn't know what an "A-list" was if you hit them with it, and ultimately isn't worth your derision for the mere fact that someone somewhere thinks it should be called "blogging" instead of just "talking", is going to incur liabilities for a crime they have no reason to believe is a crime. Again, this law isn't limiting itself to "journalism" anywhere that I can see. (I say "liability" because clearly the government is not going to be able to perfectly enforce this, but I consider a poorly-enforced bad law worse than a well-enforced one; a democracy has ways of dealing with the latter.)
Letting someone split your world into "bloggers" and "nonbloggers" is a terrible move. It's just people, talking. Some use the phone, some talk over the air, some post comments on Hacker News. There isn't a separate division of people called "bloggers" that are some sort of separate species that should have special restrictions placed on them. It's just a power ploy by people who want you to let them impose their power trip on just folk.
> If bloggers want to be treated like real, grown-up journalists then they have to start living by the same rules that these journalists live by.
And what rule would that be?
Journalists aren't required by law to disclose that they've been paid for reporting something. In fact, they seem to think that the first amendment protects their right to do so.
In other news, journalists also believe that they have a right to report falsehoods. There's a small exception if they report falsely and maliciously on a private person, but even that doesn't apply to public people and malice is almost impossible to prove.
> when you take a payment for what you say then you are obligated to disclose this fact.
Oh really? Or rather, nope, wrong again.
As Jarvis points out "The FTC also concedes that it treats critics at publications differently less stringently than bloggers. Don’t they realize that people on travel and gadget and food publications get freebies all the time. I’ve long believed that ethics alone should compel them to disclose. But the FTC doesn’t."
Jarvis is an interesting guy. He's started publications that became large. He's "committed journalism" across a wide range. He's currently a journalism professor among other things. In short, he's actually a "real, grown-up journalist."
Disclosing a conflict of interest is always a good thing.
I think some people are misinterpreting the rule. For example ..
>>The rule appears to apply to anybody who says anything on Facebook to their friends.
No, if you have no paid connections with the advertisers on your blog, the rule won't apply to you.
>>Taken to the extreme, this makes it more challenging for any private citizen to use any form of media, including blogs and social networks, to express an idea, opinion, or endorsement.
Why is is challenging for a blogger to disclose that his "review" was preceded by a payment from the company whose product he is reviewing ?
Disclosing a conflict of interest is always a good thing.
Agreed. But this isn't about disclosing a conflict of interest; this is about the creation of a federal regulation that is both vague and unnecessary.
Why is is challenging for a blogger to disclose that his "review" was preceded by a payment from the company whose product he is reviewing?
As I stated earlier, it's a hurdle just to become familiar with the regulations that exist and confirm that you are in compliance. Imagine that a person doesn't blog today but wants to get into it - that person may be deterred by knowing that there is a world of federal regulation out there that they don't understand.
if you take money from a company and review their products, disclose the conflict of interest. This is fairly simple. Most new bloggers can understand this and most new bloggers aren't going to get paid for writing reviews anyway.
Many new bloggers (or social media participants) may not know that the federal government has created regulations that pertain to what they do. And if they did know that the regulations exist, they may not know how to find those regulations, and they may not know how to be confident they comply (see my other message speculating on what sort of disclosure is necessary - do you really want to be the one in court arguing that your disclosure was prominent enough?). Creating this regulation adds a layer of complexity that I don't think is necessary.
Perhaps we have fundamentally different views on the role of the government in regulating speech. I agree that disclosing conflicts is desirable, and I think that people should behave ethically when reviewing products. However, I'm not sure why you feel government intervention is necessary here.
Commercial speech is already regulated. (unless you're also suggesting that all commercial speech be unregulated) It is inconsistent for you to suggest that bloggers should be given an exception.
Anyway, I'm not worried about the regulation bogey-man here.
New bloggers aren't going to be paid by companies to promote their products. If they are savvy enough to get a paid contract, it shouldn't be too difficult for them to publicly disclose their conflict of interest.
23 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 28.0 ms ] thread"For bloggers who review products, this means that the days of an unimpeded flow of giveaways may be over."
Really? Does anyone actually think bloggers who review products PAY for the stuff they review? Did Kirstie Alley pay to enrol in Jenny Craig? Does Roger Ebert pay to see movies? C'mon...
I'd rather see the FTC spending taxpayers money to teach people about naivety: "And remember, when someone blogs about their breakfast and tells you that 'Super Sugary Maple Pops are part of a well balanced diet' you might want to question their motives."
What's next? Maybe the FTC should tackle Buzz marketing.. When a stranger strikes up a "random" conversation about "these new shoes that stimulate your chakras as you walk," should the FTC be monitoring the conversation? Good luck (and good night).
O - one last rhetorical Q: what was the FTC doing when this stuff happened? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_administration_payment_of_...
For instance, is a disclosure page enough? What if you link to it at the bottom of the post? What if the disclosure itself is at the end of the post? Does the disclosure need to be on top? Does it need to be on top and more prominent than the rest of the text?
In general, I'm very uncomfortable with the creation of regulatory hurdles for bloggers. The penalty for the infraction itself isn't the only regulatory hurdle - it's a hurdle just to become familiar with the regulations that exist and confirm that you are in compliance.
Taken to the extreme, this makes it more challenging for any private citizen to use any form of media, including blogs and social networks, to express an idea, opinion, or endorsement.
1. Yet another step away from laws made by elected law makers. Over time, the accumulation of these can threaten democracies. (Of course, each one in isolation is "no big deal".)
2. Another cost of doing business for companies providing freebies. Another junior lawyer on the payroll.
3. A few bloggers will be singled out and ruined federal style, while the vast majority will skate on by living with the low but present risk of being among the unlucky hanging over there head.
My wife had lunch with a guy who works at the FCC on Saturday. You know what the big issue they are battling internally is? On Friday they banned accessing Hulu.com because so many people were streaming instead of working that it was killing the bandwidth for all. Is this who gets to tell society if a blogger is on the level or not? Why am I as a blog reader less trusted than an FCC/FTC/Any Other Agency employee?
I'm reading YCombinator at work because it pays to be educated and up to date. This is where the smart people are so this is what I read. I doubt watching "Glee" at work provides FCC employees the same benefit.
Speaking of which, as a non-US citizen, I'd like to invite companies to send me free products so I can say nice things about them on my blog!
If bloggers want to be treated like real, grown-up journalists then they have to start living by the same rules that these journalists live by.
Of course, I do think professional bloggers should hold themselves to standards of journalistic ethics, possibly even forming an organization that gives out certifications.
Where does the rule say anything about "journalist"? The rule appears to apply to anybody who says anything on Facebook to their friends. It appears to apply if you got a free ticket in your cereal box for a movie, then talk about it on Twitter. At all. $11,000 if you don't "disclose" in an unspecified manner. It appears to be incredibly broad.
Even in the journalism case I consider it dubious, but you seem to be doing the same thing the government is, assuming that all Internet traffic is "journalism" and must be regulated as such. That's not even remotely true. It is as true as saying all spoken words should be regulated as journalism, for pretty much the same reasons; sure, some vanishing fraction of spoken words are journalism but trying to regulate it all as if it were is an enormous category error.
I would be more than happy to proclaim that nothing mentioned on the internet is journalism unless it came from someone that would have been classified as such before the internet came into existence, but I think that a vocal minority would bitch and moan about such a distinction. The internet's chattering classes created this problem in the first place by proclaiming blogging to be journalism and worthy of the protections provided to people working in this field and I am enjoying the prospect of watching them being forced to live up to the responsibilities that come with these rights.
Meanwhile, a Facebook user who doesn't give a shit about whether you consider them a "blogger" and wouldn't know what an "A-list" was if you hit them with it, and ultimately isn't worth your derision for the mere fact that someone somewhere thinks it should be called "blogging" instead of just "talking", is going to incur liabilities for a crime they have no reason to believe is a crime. Again, this law isn't limiting itself to "journalism" anywhere that I can see. (I say "liability" because clearly the government is not going to be able to perfectly enforce this, but I consider a poorly-enforced bad law worse than a well-enforced one; a democracy has ways of dealing with the latter.)
Letting someone split your world into "bloggers" and "nonbloggers" is a terrible move. It's just people, talking. Some use the phone, some talk over the air, some post comments on Hacker News. There isn't a separate division of people called "bloggers" that are some sort of separate species that should have special restrictions placed on them. It's just a power ploy by people who want you to let them impose their power trip on just folk.
No, it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't getting paid by the company whose products they review.
If you're getting paid to review a product on your facebook page, disclose the fact that you're getting paid. If not, there is nothing to disclose
And what rule would that be?
Journalists aren't required by law to disclose that they've been paid for reporting something. In fact, they seem to think that the first amendment protects their right to do so.
In other news, journalists also believe that they have a right to report falsehoods. There's a small exception if they report falsely and maliciously on a private person, but even that doesn't apply to public people and malice is almost impossible to prove.
Let's see what an actual journalist says about all this. http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/10/05/ftc-regulates-our-spee...
> when you take a payment for what you say then you are obligated to disclose this fact.
Oh really? Or rather, nope, wrong again.
As Jarvis points out "The FTC also concedes that it treats critics at publications differently less stringently than bloggers. Don’t they realize that people on travel and gadget and food publications get freebies all the time. I’ve long believed that ethics alone should compel them to disclose. But the FTC doesn’t."
Jarvis is an interesting guy. He's started publications that became large. He's "committed journalism" across a wide range. He's currently a journalism professor among other things. In short, he's actually a "real, grown-up journalist."
I think some people are misinterpreting the rule. For example ..
>>The rule appears to apply to anybody who says anything on Facebook to their friends.
No, if you have no paid connections with the advertisers on your blog, the rule won't apply to you.
>>Taken to the extreme, this makes it more challenging for any private citizen to use any form of media, including blogs and social networks, to express an idea, opinion, or endorsement.
Why is is challenging for a blogger to disclose that his "review" was preceded by a payment from the company whose product he is reviewing ?
Agreed. But this isn't about disclosing a conflict of interest; this is about the creation of a federal regulation that is both vague and unnecessary.
Why is is challenging for a blogger to disclose that his "review" was preceded by a payment from the company whose product he is reviewing?
As I stated earlier, it's a hurdle just to become familiar with the regulations that exist and confirm that you are in compliance. Imagine that a person doesn't blog today but wants to get into it - that person may be deterred by knowing that there is a world of federal regulation out there that they don't understand.
if you take money from a company and review their products, disclose the conflict of interest. This is fairly simple. Most new bloggers can understand this and most new bloggers aren't going to get paid for writing reviews anyway.
Why do you see this as a problem ?
Perhaps we have fundamentally different views on the role of the government in regulating speech. I agree that disclosing conflicts is desirable, and I think that people should behave ethically when reviewing products. However, I'm not sure why you feel government intervention is necessary here.
Anyway, I'm not worried about the regulation bogey-man here. New bloggers aren't going to be paid by companies to promote their products. If they are savvy enough to get a paid contract, it shouldn't be too difficult for them to publicly disclose their conflict of interest.