Attn Bloggers: FTC's stringent new guidelines take effect Dec. 1st | Hacker News Reader

Attn Bloggers: FTC's stringent new guidelines take effect Dec. 1st

slate.com

12 pointsmiked7 comments

From the article:

In new guidelines (PDF) released Oct. 5, the FTC put bloggers on notice that they could incur an $11,000 fine if they receive free goods, free services, or money and write about the goods or services without conspicuously disclosing their "material connection" to the provider. The FTC guidelines extend even to Facebook and Twitter posters. If you received a gratis novel from the publicity department of a publisher and posted a tweet about it without disclosing that the book was a freebie, you become an "endorser" in the FTC's view. It could—in the name of consumer protection—hit you with a fine. The 81-page guidelines, which also mandate stringent celebrity endorsements rules, will take effect Dec. 1.

Open articleView on HN

Enough arbitrary regulation, and everyone becomes a criminal...

The distinction between "news organization" and individual also makes very little sense to me. When someone contributes original work via twitter or a blog, why is this any less "news" than the writings of some large media company? Perhaps some (many?) blogs admit a significant reduction in "quality", but this seems a less than compelling argument. Just read the editorial section of an arbitrary newspaper...

The distinction between "news organization" and individual also makes very little sense to me.

The lack of a significant distinction becomes even more obvious when you consider a group of people sharing a blog vs. a media organization.

Yes, where is the line? Is TechCrunch a "news organization?" It's got a staff and lots of traffic, but isn't it just a really successful blog? Is Joel on Software or 37 Signals a blog or a very elaborate ad? How about Seth Godin or Guy Kawasaki's which are really just ads for their own stuff. They get their own stuff for free. Do they have to disclose that?

I don't think they are saying that a blog is not news, I think the issue is that (in their opinion) a consumer can reasonably expect that a newspaper or magazine will receive samples from the manufacturer to review, but a consumer would not expect this from a blog.

From section 255.5 of the guidelines linked in the article:

"When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed."

For example, if I read a positive review of a Mac notebook on nytimes.com, I am going to assume they get free products from Apple to review and I won't be surprised if the criticism is less than vicious, even if the product is awful.

On the other hand if I read this pg essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html, I believe that is his actual opinion based on using a computer that he purchased and liked. If it were disclosed that he was receiving anything of value from Apple, I would read the essay differently.

Here's a question I haven't seen raised yet: how does this affect commenters on HN? Products and companies get plugged here all the time. It's hard to see how commenting is much different than a blog post.

Thank you but I'm an adult. I'm perfectly capable of figuring out for myself if a blog is crap. I don't need the federal government to tell me.

It should be interesting to see how this pans out. There may be an agenda at play here to get a foot in the door of forcing media entities to acknowledge who is paying for exposure. This is a serious problem with media, particularly what we call news. I'm not sure this sort of regulation is the right approach though, time will tell.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com