Where were the FTC's economists?
I hope--I certainly hope--they protested vigorously but were overruled. The new blogger-disclosure ukase is extremely dopey. Walter Olson critically comments and he links to other critical comments.
Megan McArdle--". . . it's so transparently stupid that I don't even know what to say"--agrees.
Jack Shafer at Slate--"The guidelines have to be read to be believed. They are written so broadly that if you blog about a good and service in such a way that the FTC construes as an endorsement, the commission has a predicate to investigate"--does, too.
And Dan Costa at PCMag.com snaps:
. . . I thought it would be worth my time to wade through the 81-page guide of regulations. After all, the penalty could be $11,000 per violation. Near as I can tell, the regulation will require every blogger to disclose payments, gifts, and professional interests for every tweet, post, or email that supports a given company. In other words, this mess of regulations misunderstands media, creates unenforceable rules, and, quite possibly, violates our First Amendment right to free speech.
And one thing is certain, if it can be abused by government, it will.
Posted by: kyle8 | October 13, 2009 at 06:41 AM
Sure, a few snake oil peddlers will be caught.
But my concern, as someone who was falsely suspected on some blogs and accused in person of being on the take from Wal-Mart when I blogged about it, is that all that will really needed to start an "investigation" of a blogger is an alleged abundance of suspicion by those with political connections.
Those bloggers who hold unpopular opinions about commerce or finance or economics and disclose no payments -- because they have absolutely nothing to disclose -- will find themselves defamed, and never absolved.
Posted by: Kevin Brancato | October 13, 2009 at 08:38 AM
I hope those bloggers who are in favor of government run health care take a good, long look at this. These are, essentially, the same people who will be in charge of health care.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie | October 13, 2009 at 02:41 PM
Acquiescence is your only option. If it fails now, it will be represented in Obama's second (or his Republican successor's) term. This action is no where near the culmination of the road on which the U.S. set foot in 1932.
The only solution is to abolish most of the powers of the government at any level: federal, state, county, and city.
Posted by: tehag | October 13, 2009 at 06:31 PM
I have a feeling only conservative bloggers would be sued.
Posted by: jorod | October 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM