Comments on: Dear FTC, You Can Kiss My Blogging Ass!

By: Will Franco

Will Franco — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 04:42:38 +0000

I agree. Yet another half-ass attempt from the American Government. They are trying though, and that is more than I can say for some governments. I believe they had good intentions when drafting the new rules�to get rid of the �I lost 300lbs in 2hrs� crap. However, along the way they lost sight of the goal. Bureaucrats :-)

Great post!!!!

I would very much like to chat w/ you one of these days. You have my email feel free to connect.

By: Jim Canto

Jim Canto — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:51:18 +0000

Well said, John.

So, I looked up “celebrity” on Dictionary.com (NOT PAID TO SAY THAT)

.. ok.. sorry.. back to my point…

Only two definitions and they include the verbiage; “well-known person” and “renown” .. with synonyms; “distinction”, “note” and “eminence.”

Umm… yeh… savvy attorneys all over the country must be licking their chops while browsing the brochure of their dream cars.

I’m not even a “blogger” and I can easily see the injustice and unequal field of play here.

I do see a positive in this.. but I’ll have to think it through some more before I write it out. Need to be sure my instinct is correct.

Thanks for the thought-provoking post.

By: When does information become incentivisation? « WOM UK

When does information become incentivisation? « WOM UK — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:42:31 +0000

[...] we’ll soon see. This week the guidelines finally came into effect and the continued debate around their usefulness will almost certainly have implications for future UK, European and global [...]

By: Chris Jean

Chris Jean — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 05:07:41 +0000

Just another example of the government wasting my money to threaten me with criminal punishment for doing something that the majority of people would never believe is either wrong or criminal.

We have media organizations destroying citizens’ lives to make an invalid claim appear valid while distorting the legal system in the process. Hardware conglomerates are colluding to remove all consumers’ fair use rights to purchased content. We have ISPs leveraging their power to deny the ability for citizens to build their own local ISPs in order to provide better, faster service. There is a huge mess with software patents that allow companies to use patents not to protect their own ability to produce products but to suck money from genuine innovators and small software companies.

Yet, the organization, that according to its website “advances consumers� interests”, cares more about making a ridiculous policy that declares that their undefined category of “celebrity” constitutes a group of people more important and legally-privileged compared to a normal consumer than addressing these huge issues. No. Don’t fight for the protection of my rights that have been encoded in the constitution, statutes, and case law yet is slowly eroding due to pressure from lobbyists (the same groups that the FTC is meant to defend the consumer against). I’d much rather you focus your sizable budget and manpower on something much more important: deciding whether or not I should trust the next toothpaste advertisement I see based upon the vague notion of the celebrity of the person selling it to me.

Oh… And I say “government” not in a way that represents a body of citizens that legally constitute the government, no, I mean an unelected body of people that are so far removed from the control of the citizenry that they more or less constitute an oligarchy inside the main government.

By: Davepak

Davepak — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 05:07:31 +0000

Great comments John. I have to agree that I think the basic concept is very reasonable (i.e. disclosure) and I originally felt that this was a good thing…as many bloggers somehow feel the internet is their personal playground, and societal rules on speech do not apply.

HOWEVER, these exemptions you point out are WAY OUT OF LINE!

Ah, the fun nuances of “celebrity” – which, btw sounds like you need to make a video with vanilla ice.

Dpak

By: Dave Peterson

Dave Peterson — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:21:09 +0000

This just feels like one of those cases where a government entity (any government entity) notices something in the world is moving around and past them, and decides to spin around in circles making its best approximation of meaningful noises for a bit, in an attempt to look less than totally oblivious to its surroundings. The less knowledgeable about the subject matter any random observer is, the more likely the government entity is in accomplishing its effort to not look so clueless. And the government actually realizes here, I think, how little they understand what they are trying to regulate, evidenced by the wide spread of official messages about whether there will, won’t, or might be any enforcement of the guidelines. Incoherence goes up as understanding goes down, resulting in guidelines that look like they were written with a Salad Shooter.