IAB Takes On FTC Over Silly Blogger Disclosure Rules
from the good-for-them dept
While more disclosure is generally a good thing, the FTC's new guidelines for blogging disclosure have some pretty massive problems, and probably aren't legal. As more and more people are recognizing this -- and interviews with the FTC folks in charge of this suggest they either haven't put very much thought into this issue or they don't quite know how the world works outside of their government cocoon -- the backlash is growing. Now, the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) has stepped in with quite the open letter to the FTC, asking them to scrap the rules, while noting (snarkily) how impossible they are to follow, in practice:So there I was last Saturday, about to send out on my Twitter feed -- which automatically updates my Facebook page and links to my personal blog -- a photograph of this wonderful baked halibut dish I'd just made as a surprise for my wife. I was in the middle of typing a rave review of the recipe, which I'd pulled from my favorite cookbook, Delicioso! The Regional Cooking of Spain by Penelope Casas. But before I could press the "post" button, I stopped and canceled the whole thing.While this may seem silly, it really does highlight the problems with the FTC's rules. They're totally unclear and absolutely could concern things like this. Getting a free book here or there happens all the time -- and the FTC actually claimed that if people don't return them, then they may face sanctions. That's ridiculous. Last month, we ran a fun contest for people to win free copies of a Kevin Smith book. If the winners from our comments mention that book anywhere online, do they need to mention they got the book for free? If they mention it to a friend, do they need to do the same thing? Because most of the time when posting stuff online, people really are just talking to their friends.
I remembered that the book was a freebie, sent to me by an editor at the Alfred A. Knopf publishing house 13 years ago. And I didn't want you guys to haul me into court and fine me for violating the rules you've just promulgated to muzzle social media.
Again, it's not clear why people can't just sort this out themselves. People who post bogus reviews of things because someone pays them to, or because of something "free," are going to get called out on it eventually and lose their credibility. When people talk amongst friends, they don't reveal where they got the products they talk about, or if they happened to get a promotional sample -- and that's fine. While you can understand where the FTC is coming from, it really has gone overboard with these rules.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blogging, disclosure, free speech, ftc, liability, section 230
Companies: ftc, iab
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Jeebus
Y'know, it's just easier to shut up rather than leave myself open to prosecution. I'll be good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jeebus
Were the comics available at that price to the general public or was it a "special deal" just for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jeebus
Would that matter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jeebus
Yes, it would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jeebus
How? Either way, it's arguably compensation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jeebus
No, it wasn't compensation if that price was available to everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Btw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Btw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Btw
Have written one, out at Baen.
BUT THAT PICTURE IS AWESOME!!! I'm tempted to write a free eBook for fun with a story idea based entirely on THAT picture. I'd be happy to release it to TechDirt as well, again, just for shits and giggles. Is the pic copyright, to your knowledge, or do you by chance know the rights holder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Btw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Btw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I tell my friends when I get something free
That said, I don't think I need a law requiring me to disclose my relationship to MS or the fact that they sent it free every time I post about something that I like or dislike in a given MS product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some people just want to make stuff difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This rule is what's making it difficult. Are you seriously expecting anyone blogging about anything to keep a record of EVERYTHING they've been given, gifted, discounted, etc.?
And again, I do NOT see newspaper reporters and/or tv journalists following this rule...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you read the story you should have known that he knew perfectly well that he had been give the book. He apparently didn't want his readers to know that though.
And again, I do NOT see newspaper reporters and/or tv journalists following this rule...
Perhaps they should. There have even been cases where whole fake newscasts, complete with fake newscasters, that were actually just planted marketing schemes have been broadcast. It's just another form of payola.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It isn't about christmas gifts from aunt martha.
it isn't about your birthday present from your wife.
it's about stuff you got from companies for free. That isn't everything you ever got. Plus remember, to be completely legal, you need to track all commercial gifts you receive, and in theory, report their value on your taxes. So any normal writer / blogger would know exactly what was a gift, and who he got it from (and how much it is worth).
Tempest in a teapot. I suspect that some people (maybe even Mike here) will come out looking a little worse for it when we start to find out who has been paying for what, and who has been shipping the gifts. Perez Hilton might end up out of work!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transparency
I remembered that the book was a freebie, sent to me by an editor at the Alfred A. Knopf publishing house 13 years ago. And I didn't want you guys to haul me into court and fine me for violating the rules you've just promulgated to muzzle social media.
Well, that may have been his choice, but the rules certainly wouldn't have prevented him from publishing the review. He may have been required him to be honest about being given the book, but if he'd rather hide that fact than publish the review, that's his choice. However, a claim that he could be hauled into court and fined just for publishing the review ranks up there with some of the best lies put out by the copyright industry.
Once again, I note the contrast of Mike's support for transparency in gov't and opposition to it in marketing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transparency
Mike is full of shit on this. The FTC is merely requiring pro bloggers to abide by the same rules as every other professional media outlet. Congress has said over and over again that citizens deserve to know when they're being advertised to. When you're watching TV and the action hero uses a Brand-X widget to save the day, and then on the way to commercial it says "This feature brought to you by Brand-X". Then at the end of the program in the roll credits, they'll also list off Brand-X as a sponsor. THAT'S BECAUSE ITS REQUIRED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT.
Bloggers are just pissed because their free ride is over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
attention span needed to understand conflicts of interest
Anyway, my point is that the "naked transparency" Lessig pointed to seems to be equivalent to a "full disclosure" of bloggers. And despite I'm up for transparency and against this level of disclosure I don't know how to conciliate them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We Confess, The Obamanator Made Us Post This...
There are only two types of human beings.
One type just wants everyone to leave everyone else alone and these humans are students and advocates of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle.
The other type refuses to leave others alone and these humans are the Mobocracy Looter Minions with their hords of bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries that perpetuate the perpetration of the loot and booty gravy-train. Rob-peter-to-buy-paul's-vote bread and circuses of the doomed Amerikan Empire.
You are either the one...or the other.
The John Galt Solution of Starving The Monkeys is the only solution. Stop funding and forging your own chains and shackles. What are you leaving for your children and grandchildren and prodigy!?!
The Mobocracy Looter Minions must be allowed to consume everything around them, then each other, and finally themselves. There is no other way. Ayn Rand wrote about it over fifty years ago and it rings as soundly today as it did then.
Get your copy of Starving The Monkeys by Tom Baugh today, before the book is banned and the author is hunted down and Vince Fostered!
Sincerely,
John and Dagny Galt
Atlas Shrugged, Owner's Manual For The Universe!(tm)
http://www.starvingthemonkeys.com/
http://voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduc tion.php
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]