Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Blog regulation at the FTC

posted at 10:11 am on June 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Maybe we all mistook which alphabet agency would come after blogs first.  Originally, blogs fought against regulation from the Federal Election Commission, which hinted darkly at categorizing blogs as campaign speech and enforcing McCain-Feingold restrictions on bloggers.  Only a concerted and bipartisan effort at the time put an end to that foolishness.

Unfortunately, the effort to regulate blogs in the Obama administration will come from the Federal Trade Commission, as the FTC announced over the weekend:

Savvy consumers often go online for independent consumer reviews of products and services, scouring through comments from everyday Joes and Janes to help them find a gem or shun a lemon.

What some fail to realize, though, is that such reviews can be tainted: Many bloggers have accepted perks such as free laptops, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post. Bloggers vary in how they disclose such freebies, if they do so at all.

The practice has grown to the degree that the Federal Trade Commission is paying attention. New guidelines, expected to be approved late this summer with possible modifications, would clarify that the agency can go after bloggers – as well as the companies that compensate them – for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest.

It would be the first time the FTC tries to patrol systematically what bloggers say and do online. The common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer – and getting commissions for any sales from it – would be enough to trigger oversight.

I participate in the Amazon Affiliate program, which gives me a small percentage of sales realized through my links to books, movies, and other products.  I disclose this on my show posts but not on every post I write about books or movies, because I assume that readers understand that a link back to Amazon when discussing such products isn’t just a selfless offer of help to Jeff Bezos.  I declare this as income at the end of the year — in fact, I get a 1099 from Amazon for that very purpose.

No one has ever approached me to write a blogpost for “thousands of dollars”, not at 200 words or 20,000 words, to sell a product or not.  If there are bloggers making that kind of money for 200 words, well, God bless you.  I don’t know who’d be foolish enough to make that kind of offer.  Maybe it’s from the new Government Motors marketing department, because I’m not sure the blog exists that can generate the sales necessary to make that a cost-effective strategy.

The FTC apparently sees this as the payola scandal of the 21st century, but that’s really ridiculous for a couple of reasons.  Payola deals with licensed broadcasters using public airwaves, a limited resource, to engage in personal corruption that harms others, namely the artists who don’t bribe show hosts to play their records.  In fact, the broadcasters themselves hate payola, because hosts also used to promote products without compensating the station itself, as well as choose records on the basis of bribery.  As a part of our agreement with AM 1280 The Patriot, the NARN had to sign anti-payola agreements.  They’re serious about keeping it out of the studio, and for good reasons.

More to the point, though, an Amazon affiliate program doesn’t make you rich, or anywhere close to it.  It gives bloggers some pin money at best.  The FTC, though, apparently has this program specifically in mind:

But they would need to think twice if, for instance, they praise parenting books they’ve just read and include links to buy them at a retailer like Amazon.com Inc.

That’s because the guidelines also would cover the broader and common practice of affiliate marketing, in which bloggers and other sites get a commission when someone clicks on a link that leads to a purchase at a retailer. In such cases, merchants also would be responsible for actions by their sales agents – including a network of bloggers.

Bloggers do not occupy either a public-airwave space or a space with shortage of bandwidth.  They speak openly and freely, and have to maintain their credibility with their readers in order to maintain the kind of readership where these links start to accrue revenue back to the blogger.  If readers think the blogger is nothing more than a shill, then readers will disappear.  The free market takes care of itself in the blogosphere, especially in terms of credibility.

This is the equivalent of using a bazooka to kill a fly.  If the trade and consumer issues in the US are resolved to the point where the FTC’s biggest problem is bloggers recommending books and DVDs to their readers, they’ve just made the argument for their dissolution.

Update: James Joyner agrees.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

about time!! ed, allah.. they comin for ya!..lol

j/k

moonbatkiller on June 22, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Big brother is watching you.

Mr. Joe on June 22, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Or rather big IRS, so where’s my cut?

Mr. Joe on June 22, 2009 at 10:14 AM

This is the equivalent of using a bazooka to kill a fly. If the trade and consumer issues in the US are resolved to the point where the FTC’s biggest problem is bloggers recommending books and DVDs to their readers, they’ve just made the argument for their dissolution.
— Captain Ed

Ed -

Sometimes a bazooka is all that’s left in the arsenal…

Mew

acat on June 22, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Well they have to find SOME way to go after you guys…can’t have you spreading right-wing hate to all of us extremeists. It could lead to national tax protests or something.

Mord on June 22, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Book reviews
today political reviews coming soon

angryed on June 22, 2009 at 10:19 AM

goodbye ad networks too if blogs have to disclose this crap to the big brother federal govn’t

how about a little parity with what newspapers have to disclose? Oh, wait – they DON’T!

gatorboy on June 22, 2009 at 10:19 AM

The Internet… Capitalism’s last frontier.

mjbrooks3 on June 22, 2009 at 10:20 AM

This is the equivalent of using a bazooka to kill a fly

Heck, Dear Leader doesn’t need no stinking bazooka.

rbj on June 22, 2009 at 10:22 AM

But remember, Obama wants to use a “light hand” in government intervention. A “light hand” — and jack boots coming next.

johnsteele on June 22, 2009 at 10:22 AM

So who’d actually be in worse shape if this was legislated, as far as false claims or conflicts of interest, the right or the left?

Jeff from WI on June 22, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Such info might be recorded on your doctor’s chart…

mjbrooks3 on June 22, 2009 at 10:22 AM

It is about power and control, not consumer protection. An unregulated internet is dangerous to those in power.

JIMV on June 22, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Iran’s just more straightforward about it.

Jim Treacher on June 22, 2009 at 10:24 AM

So for all those bloggers that recommended voting for Obama (who then has gone on to break all his promises) can we sue them for any “for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest”.

albill on June 22, 2009 at 10:25 AM

So who’d actually be in worse shape if this was legislated, as far as false claims or conflicts of interest, the right or the left?

Jeff from WI on June 22, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Obama will not allow his FTC to go after his leftist buddies, so it would hurt the right more, regardless of which side actually does the abusing.

zmdavid on June 22, 2009 at 10:26 AM

This is the equivalent of using a bazooka to kill a fly. Maybe they can call Bazooka Joe Biden to handle this.

Ed, missed another money making opportunity. Just should have formatted the statement as I did above.

This could be part of the stimulus to create more government jobs.

WashJeff on June 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Take a look at the editorial content in a magazine (or newspaper)… a review of a product or restaurant, for example. Then flip through the magazine and most every time you will find an ad in the magazine for the product or place.

They claim editorial is completely independent of the sales department, but it’s a blatant lie. So, where’s a full disclosure requirement for the publishing business?

This is going to be used selectively to silence critics.

Shameful and un-American.

FreakyBoy on June 22, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Anybody who has watched a car commercial and sees the “nanosecond fine print ethics” these ads apparently comply with knows that the blogosphere just needs to rent the appropriate politicians, and holes the size of a new Chevrolet will appear in the next regulation. Our “revenuers” are just trying to find their angle to get a slice of the virtual pie.

Patrick S on June 22, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Existing FTC rules already ban deceptive and unfair business practices. The proposed guidelines aim to clarify the law and for the first time specifically include bloggers, defined loosely as anyone writing a personal journal online.

Actually, I think this is the issue, not the limited bandwidth issue that you cited with Payola. I don’t know much about this, but it looks like it’s an extension of simple advertisement law.

I’m sure First Amendment lawyers will be chomping at the bit to contest this. And regardless of whether it’s constitutional or not, it’s clearly bad policy. Personal blogs that people share with their friends and family would come under scrutiny.

tneloms on June 22, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Obama won’t like what the FTC is doing and have a Blog Czar coming to a website near you….

cmsinaz on June 22, 2009 at 10:30 AM

This looks to me like a couple things going on. The free flow of information on the blogs is threatening to major news outlets. The veil of anonymity is threatening to major corporations when their products are bought, sold, and reviewed by bloggers. By restricting content on blogs we all have to rely on filtered information advocated by big brother.

fourdeucer on June 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM

They claim editorial is completely independent of the sales department, but it’s a blatant lie. So, where’s a full disclosure requirement for the publishing business?
FreakyBoy on June 22, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Freedom of the press is specifically mentioned in the First Amendment. Evidently they still pay attention to the Constitution at least that much, though I’m sure they’d love to regulate magazines and newspapers if they could.

zmdavid on June 22, 2009 at 10:32 AM

“The free market takes care of itself in the blogosphere, especially in terms of credibility.”

True. But I’m quite certain this current cadre of white house buffoons don’t really care about the free market, only their power.

I’m sure huffypoo, the dailykus, et al will applaud this FTC effort which will mysteriously not apply to them….

locomotivebreath1901 on June 22, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Ed… This story does a poor job explaining a real problem.

Scammers are now setting up “blogs” to scam people.

A few weeks back we had the “Government Grant Blog” wave.

These “Blogs” are usually just static HTML set up to look like a WP template. (complete with fake comments) The “posts” are about how much money they made. (or how much weight they lost etc)

All the comments (surprise) Are “Oh my gosh it really works, I got a Govt Grant for $72,000 in just 3 weeks.“- And of course, there is no form to leave a comment yourself.

Every link on the fake blogs is either an affiliate link or a reverse billing scam. (most often the later)

This is a MAMMOTH problem and growing every day. These scammers are leveraging YOUR work and reputation as a blogger to make their crap look legit.

Google knows these scamemrs are buying ads on their network to promote their “blogs” but refuses to boot these ads.

This is a real problem right now, but MSM reporter (surprise) got the details wrong.

BTW Public Service Announcement:
NEVER ENTER YOUR CELL PHONE IN ANY SITE LIKE THIS

Elastic Jordan on June 22, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Hey, if Iran can shut things down then so can our government. Ogabe is taking lessons from the foreign crisis.

Bishop on June 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Any way they can get in, they will. They are like roaches.

OldEnglish on June 22, 2009 at 10:35 AM

the agency can go after bloggers – as well as the companies that compensate them – for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest.

First they came for the Cheerios … .

davidk on June 22, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Trans-Parent. See?!

Shy Guy on June 22, 2009 at 10:38 AM

The free market takes care of itself in the blogosphere, especially in terms of credibility

Ah yes, but we forget that the Obama adminstration is now “taking care of” the free market.

Miss Molly on June 22, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Ed – I think you got it.

If there are bloggers making that kind of money for 200 words, well, God bless you. I don’t know who’d be foolish enough to make that kind of offer.

Imagine replacing the “buying” of 2,000 copies of a senators book with “paying” for a link on the spouse’s blog.

barnone on June 22, 2009 at 10:40 AM

First they came for the hyperlinks…

LibTired on June 22, 2009 at 10:41 AM

This article specifically refers to blogs.

Any idea if regular boring old HTML websites are affected by this?

My little cash cow of static HTML pages doesn’t openly advocate one business over another, so I shouldn’t fall under the FTC’s power-money-free-speech grab, right?

VibrioCocci on June 22, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Said it before and I’ll say it again… if this is considered “commercial speech” and therefore needs to be regulated then so does the OBama Infomercial that ABC is running.

Now, personally, I want the government out of ALL speech, altogether.

This just smacks to me of socialist control of free speech.

Skywise on June 22, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Reviewing for a percent of sales is OK as public relations. But it’s not a true review.

AnninCA on June 22, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Ed, Obama expects all journalists to either work for Big Brother (Obama WILL over-run all media outlets AND non-profits) for a paycheck, or else work for nothing. But working in journalism will be taxed, whether you earn any income or not; postings will all be taxed to subsidize the government’s regulatory process. They can’t police you for free; you must PAY to write.

Obama already ridiculed those who donate charitable contributions for wanting a break from the government’s “right” to tax AND RETAX everything, including charity.

There is no middle ground so far as Obama is concerned. Either you are his, or you are his.

maverick muse on June 22, 2009 at 10:44 AM

We have the right to the free opinion of government regulated information, but everyone elses opinion, if it can’t be regulated it has to be taxed out of existence, or outlawed.

fourdeucer on June 22, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Meet your Cyber Czar…

mjbrooks3 on June 22, 2009 at 10:42 AM

That thing is like a booger stuck on your finger.

davidk on June 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM

One question to the FTC. “Source?”

Coronagold on June 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Not good at all.

modnar on June 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Payola eh? Like, say, the governor of Illinois selling Obamas Senate seat to the Unions?

percysunshine on June 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM

I don’t recall ever reading a blog by an average person where they didn’t brag to the high heavens that someone had given them a free flip video camera or book to review.

It’s generally a big deal if one’s blog is “big” enough to start getting freebies or percentage deals. I’m thinking mainly of “mommy” or “daddy” bloggers for these examples although ProFootball Talk is also pretty open about the deals they get to tell their readers how great something is.

myrenovations on June 22, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Elastic Jordan on June 22, 2009 at 10:33 AM

The Bell curve.

So ’some’ percentage of the population is classified as ’stupid’. That means the rest of us have to be regulated just to make it fair to the stupid. After all, we are our brothers keeper, right? And we have to care for, and protect the stupid.

Now who would you suggest should classify each of us to determine if we are ’stupid’ or not, and need to be cared for or regulated?

Skandia Recluse on June 22, 2009 at 10:52 AM

just an other power grab by uncle sugahhhh….

SHARPTOOTH on June 22, 2009 at 10:54 AM

HELLOOOOOO People! HELLOOOO!

Can’t you accept that this Job Creation is at its best?

ericdijon on June 22, 2009 at 10:57 AM

All the scares about gun control, civilian hope corps, ACORN, Fed take overs of insolvent States, yada yada yada is, and hasn’t been, the real boogeyman. It is the IRS and licensing agencies. The left is coming after every consumer product, every nestegg, every piggybank.

The jackboot will (if it hasn’t already) land on your wallet before it crushes your neck.

Limerick on June 22, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Elastic Jordan on June 22, 2009 at 10:33 AM

I was on my laptop in a hotel in Tapei, opened a browser that still has the msn homepage, and an ad says “women from Mesquite whitens teeth…” balh, blah. Since my company is in Mesquite, and I know that most people in Mesquite have an ordeal over the tooth they still have, I clicked it. I read the blog/ad. (I almost never click/read the ads.) I opened another browser and this time the ad/blog was from a women in Tapei.

ericdijon on June 22, 2009 at 11:03 AM

“They killed internet commerce. Those bastards!”

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on June 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM

This is the equivalent of using a bazooka to kill a fly.

Worse, it’s using a bazooka to kill air. There is no problem to solve. Period.

MarkTheGreat on June 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Why The FTC?
During the dot com explosion of small companies trading at artificially inflated values, they traded on what was known as Intelectual Properties. Those intelectual properties were considered high value. So the opinions of ED, Allah, and Michelle and some of the bloggers here have a high value opinion and influence that the government wants a piece of in the form of taxes. If you express yourself according to approved dogma its okay. If you don’t you have to be regulated.

fourdeucer on June 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM

But they would need to think twice if, for instance, they praise parenting books they’ve just read and include links to buy them at a retailer like Amazon.com Inc.

OK, so now wait. They are going all out to make sure someone can’t give a positive review and include the link to the book on it?

In other words, you can give a positive review as long as you don’t provide the link for the convenience of your readers?

Or you can give a link as long as your review is negative?

What incredible meddling.

As if EVERY blog post about ANYTHING isn’t full of links for the readers’ convenience.

Alana on June 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM

So who’d actually be in worse shape if this was legislated, as far as false claims or conflicts of interest, the right or the left?

Jeff from WI on June 22, 2009 at 10:22 AM

You assume that the govt would bother investigating anyone left of center.

MarkTheGreat on June 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Ed:

This is the equivalent of using a bazooka to kill a fly.

I disagree. Flies are pests, and deserve to get killed. Recommendations from credible sources are good things, and do not require or deserve attacks of any kind.

This is actually the equivalent of using a bazooka to kill your neighbor’s lunch, because you think he should have gotten the ham instead of the turkey.

Troll Feeder on June 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM

If there are bloggers making that kind of money for 200 words, well, God bless you. I don’t know who’d be foolish enough to make that kind of offer.

A Soros funded hit piece on Republicans.

Highwayman on June 22, 2009 at 11:13 AM

humpfh. MTG beat me to it. Please forgive the redundancy, please.

Troll Feeder on June 22, 2009 at 11:13 AM

So I go on eBay, give a positive review about a seller, and someone else gets taken for a ride by him. That makes me subject to the FTC? I received service from the seller (even if only ‘free’ shipping) and told everyone else the seller was AooK.

Limerick on June 22, 2009 at 11:14 AM

They were always going to do something like this. Just look at how the internet has been used in Iran! President Ice Cream and Gang have to proceed with shutting the internet down so they can then go after the guns. And Lord knows what else. Can you imagine if ACORN, and the new, new Black Panthers show up in Texas, start to disarm the public, and Texans take to the internet to tell everyone what is going on?

Beyond this, I agree the person here who asserted this is response to the dying newspapers. If President Skateboard tried to give the newspapers a bailout right now, WOW!, the public would go ballistic. So, what better way to get at bloggers, and blogging sites than to begin the begin in weakening them.

My first theory to some is probably going to sound hyper paranoid, but a milder view of this could also involved the next moves by this Administration concerning death care, amnesty, and cap and tax. The last three moves to totally kill Americans, and America. If bloggers can inform the public on these crucial issue, because we know the media will not, then they must be stopped post haste!

Here is another tidbit:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31338666/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/

freeus on June 22, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Elastic Jordan on June 22, 2009 at 10:33 AM

That’s an excellent point. I wonder if we can find out whether this is the actual issue that the FTC is targeting. If so, it still may be problematic, but it would have a completely different flavor than targeting legitimate content on blogs.

tneloms on June 22, 2009 at 11:15 AM

How long until the ABA decides that it is unethical to the point of disbarment, for an attorney to challenge any of the edicts from this adminstration?

MarkTheGreat on June 22, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Reviewing for a percent of sales is OK as public relations. But it’s not a true review.

AnninCA on June 22, 2009 at 10:44 AM

What the [expletive]does that mean, woman? You have to be female because only a female could use that kind of logic.

Case 1 : Regulated
I list a products good points and bad points and point out that I get paid to do so. The money now negates everything I’ve just posted?

Case 2 : Unregulated
I list a products good points and bad points and point out that these are my personal opinions and have not been paid to posts them. This makes my expert opinion more valuable because no compensation was involved? WTF!
Case 3 :
I list a products good points and bad points and I lie. Now what? Sue me?

Skandia Recluse on June 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Freedom of the press is specifically mentioned in the First Amendment.

zmdavid on June 22, 2009 at 10:32 AM

So “Vanity Fair” qualifies as press, but “Hot Air” doesn’t?

MarkTheGreat on June 22, 2009 at 11:19 AM

My prediction is that Ed will decide his Amazon Affiliates money is more important than his integrity. Faced with the choice of getting nailed by the FTC if he fails to make a disclosure in a blog post, or with praising Obama (and thereby avoiding FTC scrutiny), I predict in a few months, this will be Ed’s first daily post:

Obama Tackles Healthcare – Republicans Pissed

In a deathdefying feat of glory, Obama today passed national health insurance to cover all Americans. I’m personally grateful for the President’s leadership on this most important issue. It truly is too bad we can’t just elect Obama as our Dear Leader for life.

Outlander on June 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Now, personally, I want the government out of ALL speech, altogether.

Skywise on June 22, 2009 at 10:43 AM

I’m still trying to find that section of the constitution that draws a distinction between commercial speech and other kinds of speech.

MarkTheGreat on June 22, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Reviewing for a percent of sales is OK as public relations. But it’s not a true review.

AnninCA on June 22, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Why do you believe that contact with lucre contaminates eveerything?

MarkTheGreat on June 22, 2009 at 11:23 AM

So will these rules apply to over the air media. Imagine your evening newscast.

Perky Katie
Next up a report on what the Big 3 are doing in the face of the tough economic climate. In full disclosure I must reveal that I once made a comercial for XYZ car company and did a hard hitting expose on Geneis motors 15 years ago and my husband drives a Beta Male car while my personal car is a Crumb Snatcher 2000. The producer of the piece refuses to drive a car but does have a subscription to Car and Walker Magazine. …..
Right after this break.

Just A Grunt on June 22, 2009 at 11:25 AM

The FTC apparently sees this as the payola scandal of the 21st century, but that’s really ridiculous for a couple of reasons. Payola deals with licensed broadcasters using public airwaves, a limited resource, to engage in personal corruption that harms others, namely the artists who don’t bribe show hosts to play their records.

Welcome to the latest word/concept redefinition.

baldilocks on June 22, 2009 at 11:30 AM

MarkTheGreat on June 22, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Sir, that should be ‘filthy lucre’, as I’m sure you know. Now please excuse me, I have to go kill some baby trees before I pop a blood vessel in my brain.

mumble.. grumble ..

Skandia Recluse on June 22, 2009 at 11:35 AM

So for all those bloggers that recommended voting for Obama (who then has gone on to break all his promises) can we sue them for any “for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest”.

albill on June 22, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Yes. We. Can.

Right_of_Attila on June 22, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Hey! Oprah does it. Why can’t you.

jeanie on June 22, 2009 at 11:41 AM

The loony left’s lust for control of every aspect of our lives appears to be insatiable.

T J Green on June 22, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Perhaps it’s more about Amazon – non-union, non sales tax collecting Amazon. Oh – and profitable, non-welfare taking Amazon.

wtis02575 on June 22, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Ironically, if going after bloggers for “conflict of interest” is the new norm, maybe the government will be going after the NY Times and MSNBC, et al, for their obvious conflict of interest in continuously plugging everything Obama. Hell, they even sell t-shirts with his face on them at the Times. Coffee mugs too, most likely, and shower flip-flops, which would be quite appropriate.

bradley11 on June 22, 2009 at 11:45 AM

I call bias!

I also see large lawsuits to the federal government…. i.e. loss of first ammendment rights.

upinak on June 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Barry: Payola for me, but not for thee.

Loxodonta on June 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM

This is the first attempt to try and get the MSM back to profitablility. They will censor bloggers and the money they would recieve, only to allow such rags as the NY Times to do the same.

djaymick on June 22, 2009 at 11:52 AM

The FTC action is important for it’s precedent value. It’s an ice breaker. It puts the camel’s nose of gubmit regulation under the tent of internet speech.

After this will come regulation from other agencies, such as FEC.

petefrt on June 22, 2009 at 11:53 AM

djaymick on June 22, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Yes, I fully expect the O-bots to use copyright, advertising, campaign etc. regulations to take some of the financial pressure of the internet off the print media.

petefrt on June 22, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Blogging has become the largest source of disseminating the free flow of information. The FTC sees large tax revenues generated from the hosts of blog sites. I just wonder how they will assign the tax rates and regulations. When we have to pay for blogging it will criple the first amendment, or kill the blogs.

fourdeucer on June 22, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Hmmmmm maybe I better setup a HA Twitter proxy now.

dogsoldier on June 22, 2009 at 11:59 AM

My company used to pay people to talk up products on line. The companies would pay us the marketing fee, and we’d put kids to work. Products form Nintendo, Coca-Cola, etc.

It’s just viral street marketing.

Now, on the other hand, back in 2000-2001, we would pay webmasters to mention products on their blogs. It definately was not unbiased reviews, so the FTC has a point about that.

We don’t do that work anymore, as a million companies stole our model and do it themselves.

Vincenzo on June 22, 2009 at 12:00 PM

How many IG’s has Bozo Hussein fired so far this month? I see so, he wants to attack bloggers but protect his Acorn pals. Check.

dogsoldier on June 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM

for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest.

So, the FTC is going to go after algore.

Johan Klaus on June 22, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Just wondering…

if this and other measures do come about, and bloggers here in the US are essentially shut down, would it be possible that ex-pat bloggers in other countries could use the internet as a sort of 21st century version of Radio Free Europe? Call it “Radio Free America”…

psrch on June 22, 2009 at 12:19 PM

I envision a distressing story about Ed’s movie reviews being bought for a pair of $9.00 movie tickets. Shame on you, Ed! You should have held out for a large popcorn and biggie Coke. A really shrewd negotiator might even have squeezed them for a bag of Twizzlers.

SKYFOX on June 22, 2009 at 12:31 PM

But only if you write something supporting a Book that’s on the undesirable list.

- The Cat

P.S. Hey, how about going after 60 Minutes for their highlights on their own books?

MirCat on June 22, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Bloggers do not occupy either a public-airwave space or a space with shortage of bandwidth.

That whole argument about “public airwaves” is bogus to begin with. Newspaper publishing plants occupy limited space on this planet. If you own a piece of real property, that means no one else can own it. The broadcast spectrum should be treated just like real property: you are allowed exclusive control over your turf, and have to stay on your side of the property line.

What you say on your property is protected free speech whether that property is a website or a newspaper.

The Monster on June 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Gee, Ed, I just clicked from your earlier piece to buy the Joshua Muravchik book on the “New Founders” at Amazon.

Do we both have to go to jail now?

J.E. Dyer on June 22, 2009 at 1:49 PM

They should look into the real crime of the illegal campaign contributions Obama got through the internet. Go Galt!

TrickyDick on June 22, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Microsoft is probably the company that spends the most money bribing bloggers. Most of the positive publicity that you see about Vista 7 is well paid for. Obama has appointed quite a few Microsoft insiders to high positions. It will be interested to see how this plays out. I predict highly selective enforcement.

thuja on June 22, 2009 at 2:05 PM

thuja — so what you’re saying is, if you’re a blogger, get cozy with Microsoft, tout de suite!

J.E. Dyer on June 22, 2009 at 2:08 PM

thuja — so what you’re saying is, if you’re a blogger, get cozy with Microsoft, tout de suite!

J.E. Dyer on June 22, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Hey, it’s the cheapest way to get a free laptop. I just wouldn’t mention any plans to install Linux.

thuja on June 22, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.