apowell

I agree that the data isn't surprising, but I don't think the headline should frame it as a slight against IE users.

Also, I think that people overestimate the influence of Adblock, even among Firefox users.

Perhaps 'receptive' would be more accurate?

I was about to make the same point about monopolies, fairness, and evil. I agree that this particular example isn't strong support for the "Google is evil" thesis.

For Google, forgiveness was easier than permission. For anyone else, forgiveness won't be an option.

The settlement and ruling applies to Google and only Google. Perhaps in the future some organization will slog through the legal system and change that situation. If that happens, it won't be a monopoly anymore. But today it is.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/the-fight-over-the-wo... (Questions #17 - #21 make the point much better than I am able)

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/google_books/

Translation: We make so much money that the piddling revenue your entire industry generates means nothing to us.

I don't have any hard evidence (such as an A/B test) to support my decision, but I'm selling monthly subscriptions to businesses and felt the impression of credibility was worthwhile.

Furthermore, cameras used in the example are quite different -- the more expensive camera shoots 720p video, has optical image stabilization, and a larger display.

Overall, I can't say that I agree with the premise -- I haven't found online subscription billing to be very painful. However, if I can be convinced that this service adds value without creating third-party risk, I'd be interested.

As for the bar code scanning, isn't that what these folks are trying to accomplish? http://www.redlaser.com/

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.

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.

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 hand-wringing that went along with the long essay, which has become the icon of the college application, has spawned a cottage industry of consultants, companies that edit students’ essays, and overnight camps where students can seek help."

And if you haven't watched Randy Pausch's "Last Lecture", you should.

I had to train myself not to close my entire browser window when all I wanted to do was dismiss the lightbox modal. The first few times I saw one, I reflexively closed my browser window and then... "oops!".

Edit - To clarify, I think that making information in the public domain more accessible is a very worthwhile project.