FTC is coming for the bloggers

[Adatise]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

Why worry about the FTC when there are bigger things to worry about.

Aliens
Obama
Iran
UFO's
Mayan Calendar
Aliens
global warming
fossil fuels
NASCAR
Panthers 0-3 start
Jon and Kate spliting up
Aliens

There is nothing to worry about with aliens. The vast majority are benevolent and the few that aren't, we are protected from them by higher benevolent aliens. Aliens are our friends and relatives. Oh, except the the reptilians but they have enough human breeding stock now to keep them satisfied and not kidnap to many more humans to eat. They live 100 to 200 miles underground. There are about 65,000 of them and they have been here long before man.

[bd77]

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Google has a complete stranglehold on information flow within the United States, and the FTC is worried about bloggers?

The difference is Google has lots of friends in Washington because of their lobbing efforts. There won't ever be an investigation into Google's stranglehold on information in this country especially with their friends in power.

Originally Posted by HarveyJ

This legislation is aimed directly at douchebags like Mike Filsaime who get other douchebags with "big names" like Eben Pagan to circle jerk endorse each others products, then they host a seminar that they charge people hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to attend, get rich off it, and leave the poor schmucks who went on the advice of someone who's blog they trusted out of pocket by a few grand.

Shit like the launch of 'The Arbitrage Conspiracy' is a text book example of what this case is about: People claiming an "info product" or some rubbish had earnt them thousands with little to no effort even before it was released, or they'd had any real contact with the "creator".

This is almost entirely aimed at forced continuity / rebill offers, and mostly in the BizOpp, Health, and loan niches.

What ever happened to personal responsibly? If people are dumb enough to buy certain products because they here about from a blogger its their own fault. Its not the governments job to regulate stupidity.

[thevirtual]

Originally Posted by bd77

What ever happened to personal responsibly? If people are dumb enough to buy certain products because they here about from a blogger its their own fault. Its not the governments job to regulate stupidity.

The new republican response to every issue: calling average americans stupid.

[Doc Com]

Its not the governments job to regulate stupidity.

Thank God! Y'all are safe to continue on as member of this forum.

[Vision]

According to Bloomberg it is time to buy Blog Insurance --

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aEqiwjlSjLZ4

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Vision

According to Bloomberg it is time to buy Blog Insurance --

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aEqiwjlSjLZ4

I wonder when the "license to blog" law will be enacted. Also how they will set up the "free speech zones" on the internet.

[HarveyJ]

Originally Posted by bd77

What ever happened to personal responsibly? If people are dumb enough to buy certain products because they here about from a blogger its their own fault. Its not the governments job to regulate stupidity.

There's a difference between people just being regular stupid, and other people praying on stupidity in a criminal manner. That's known as "Fraud".
Also, if your government bothered to fund your education system decently, people wouldn't be so amazingly retarded as to fall for this shit often enough to make it profitable.

There's a reason why a lot of CPA based networks won't accept traffic from Europe or Australia for these sorts of offers. By and large, we have fewer idiots that convert on the back end, per capita.

[thevirtual]

You're saying that anyone who buys something based on a Blog review is an idiot?

That sounds like a stupid assumption.

[Doc Com]

Just gotta look at the source:

Originally Posted by thevirtual

That sounds like a stupid assumption.

Also, much of this is going after bloggers has to do with "brandjacking".

If you don't know the name Seth Godin, you are really missing a guru of marketing.

So Seth has a very popular blog. And he blogs about products. No biggie right?

Well, he took it one (two?) step further and started a new site and new service for his readers. That is where this gets kind of quirky.

In Defense of Godin, Google, and Open Systems
The blogger and the search engine spark separate but related controversies by reminding us that we've lost control of our brands, information, and ideas
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...gn_id=rss_tech

Pity Seth Godin. The management guru and überblogger poured a tempest into a teapot in late September when he announced Brands in Public, a series of Web pages that collect online chatter about companies. Godin wanted to build a portal for brand conversations, but he made a critical mistake. Instead of inviting companies to participate, he launched Brands in Public with 200 sample pages, posting public gossip from Twitter and blogs about brands, whether they opted in or not. Marketers could "curate" their pages, such as by adding their own comments, if they paid a monthly fee of $400.

Faster than you can say "brandjacking," bloggers, usually in love with the kind Mr. Godin, cried foul. Posting discussions about brands without their permission? Lisa Barone of Outspoken Media called it "hostage taking." TechCrunch said Godin was forcing brands to "unlock" their pages for a price. Nevermind that all of Brands in Public's material was readily available from other free online sources, including Google (GOOG) and Twitter Search. Godin quickly took the sample pages down and made theprogram opt-in only.


So now you know why the FTC is getting involved.

It is kind of a twist on what domainers have been dealing with for eons - you do not have the right to use the domain if you do not own the brand.

It will be critical to watch just how far reaching this FTC attention goes.

If I were to post, "I bought a new Chevrolet Camaro", will I get into trouble? Silly, of course not. But if I were to say that the "new Chevy Camaro I bought is a lemon", then what? Are the brands going to only allow positive views and points?

[thevirtual]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

Just gotta look at the source:



Also, much of this is going after bloggers has to do with "brandjacking".

If you don't know the name Seth Godin, you are really missing a guru of marketing.

So Seth has a very popular blog. And he blogs about products. No biggie right?

Well, he took it one (two?) step further and started a new site and new service for his readers. That is where this gets kind of quirky.

In Defense of Godin, Google, and Open Systems
The blogger and the search engine spark separate but related controversies by reminding us that we've lost control of our brands, information, and ideas
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...gn_id=rss_tech

Pity Seth Godin. The management guru and überblogger poured a tempest into a teapot in late September when he announced Brands in Public, a series of Web pages that collect online chatter about companies. Godin wanted to build a portal for brand conversations, but he made a critical mistake. Instead of inviting companies to participate, he launched Brands in Public with 200 sample pages, posting public gossip from Twitter and blogs about brands, whether they opted in or not. Marketers could "curate" their pages, such as by adding their own comments, if they paid a monthly fee of $400.

Faster than you can say "brandjacking," bloggers, usually in love with the kind Mr. Godin, cried foul. Posting discussions about brands without their permission? Lisa Barone of Outspoken Media called it "hostage taking." TechCrunch said Godin was forcing brands to "unlock" their pages for a price. Nevermind that all of Brands in Public's material was readily available from other free online sources, including Google (GOOG) and Twitter Search. Godin quickly took the sample pages down and made theprogram opt-in only.


So now you know why the FTC is getting involved.

It is kind of a twist on what domainers have been dealing with for eons - you do not have the right to use the domain if you do not own the brand.

It will be critical to watch just how far reaching this FTC attention goes.

If I were to post, "I bought a new Chevrolet Camaro", will I get into trouble? Silly, of course not. But if I were to say that the "new Chevy Camaro I bought is a lemon", then what? Are the brands going to only allow positive views and points?

This measure seems to limit big companies not help them. It is supposed to prevent companies from buying bloggers to write good reviews for them. Obviously with blogging being as big as it is, this becomes somewhat of an important issue. If you aren't receiving compensation from companies that you are supposed to be writing objective reviews for, then this is nothing that should affect you.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by thevirtual

This measure seems to limit big companies not help them.

Yes, I am aware of that.

But I find it amazing that someone would come up with an idea to start a site, write about products and let all their viewers discuss/write, but to turn around and charge those companies $400 each to be able to defend their products or position.

As for the companies stopping to pay people to blog about their items, we know this is not going to change nor stop. This will simply create another sector of business dealings completely under the table and off the books.

I honestly can not see how the FTC could regulate nor have the time or funds to investigate each and every occurance or suspicion of.

[zurc.net]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

As for the companies stopping to pay people to blog about their items, we know this is not going to change nor stop. This will simply create another sector of business dealings completely under the table and off the books.

I honestly can not see how the FTC could regulate nor have the time or funds to investigate each and every occurance or suspicion of.

I agree, its going to be like starting another "War on Drugs".... billions are going to be wasted...


I can understand why they want to do this, it makes a lot of sense, but at this point, its too late.

[draggar]

Originally Posted by HarveyJ

This legislation is aimed directly at douchebags like Mike Filsaime who get other douchebags with "big names" like Eben Pagan to circle jerk endorse each others products, then they host a seminar that they charge people hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to attend, get rich off it, and leave the poor schmucks who went on the advice of someone who's blog they trusted out of pocket by a few grand.

Shit like the launch of 'The Arbitrage Conspiracy' is a text book example of what this case is about: People claiming an "info product" or some rubbish had earnt them thousands with little to no effort even before it was released, or they'd had any real contact with the "creator".

This is almost entirely aimed at forced continuity / rebill offers, and mostly in the BizOpp, Health, and loan niches.

I have common sense. You have common sense. Most of the people here have common sense.

But - while I do agree with you (about the people who promote each other) should be watched closely IMO this would be an easy scapegoat for people to blame someone else for their own ignorance and.or bad luck. You mentioned that is fraud - which it is and is already illegal - why make a redundant law (or are they just doing this to pad their own resumes?).

I like my office jet 6480. I think it is a good little machine and say I write a blog about it.

Someone else goes out and ends up with a bad unit and saw my blog about it they can sue me. Now, they'll dig and find out that I worked for a company that was outsourced by HP to conduct trainings (retail to corporate) and claim that I solely did it because of my previous affiliation - ignore the fact that I worked for them over 10 years ago and the only affiliation that I have with them now is that I use, and like, their printers.

The law would be abused and there will be lawyers lining up to help people sue. I even see ads now, "Want to sue anyone for any reason? Call us!".

I think it is sickening that I now have the potential to need to spend thousand of dollars on a defense (plus travel and time out of work) to defend my opinions on a product as well as my constitutional rights to the freedom of speech and press.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by draggar

I like my office jet 6480. I think it is a good little machine and say I write a blog about it.

Oooo...Me TOO!

Very nice printer.

[JMJ]

So when are the TV networks, radio and newspapers going to start disclosing their earnings for endorsing products and services? Can we sue actors and athletes for their endorsements?

[zurc.net]

Originally Posted by JMJ

So when are the TV networks, radio and newspapers going to start disclosing their earnings for endorsing products and services? Can we sue actors and athletes for their endorsements?

read the fine print at the bottom of eachc commercial / advertisement... they are covered...

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by zurc.net

read the fine print at the bottom of eachc commercial / advertisement... they are covered...

Hmm I didn't know all of those stars/personalities had fine print written on them somewhere. Do they all have to get tattoos or what? Learn something new every day. Going to have to start more attention. So we can sue them as well? That should be fun.

[zurc.net]

Originally Posted by JMJ

Hmm I didn't know all of those stars/personalities had fine print written on them somewhere. Do they all have to get tattoos or what? Learn something new every day. Going to have to start more attention. So we can sue them as well? That should be fun.

They are spokes persons, nothing else. Please at least open your eyes to something so petty before trying to turn athletes endorsements into some type of conspiracy.

You must be the guy suing Michael Vick for funding Al Qaeda and the Taliban...

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by zurc.net

They are spokes persons, nothing else. Please at least open your eyes to something so petty before trying to turn athletes endorsements into some type of conspiracy.

You must be the guy suing Michael Vick for funding Al Qaeda and the Taliban...

Where did I say conspiracy? Those people take payment and free products for endorsing products and services. Same thing, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm the guy showing how stupid and petty these laws are. You're the guy defending them.

[zurc.net]

Originally Posted by JMJ

Where did I say conspiracy? Those people take payment and free products for endorsing products and services. Same thing, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm the guy showing how stupid and petty these laws are. You're the guy defending them.

Originally Posted by zurc.net

I agree, its going to be like starting another "War on Drugs".... billions are going to be wasted...


I can understand why they want to do this, it makes a lot of sense, but at this point, its too late.

Yeah, I am defending them alright...

Athletes are known only to be spokesman for the endorsements they receive, jesus christ, they have press conferences just for these types of events... You are trying to compare a world wide known athlete to a random blogger without knowing the direct intentions of this person?

You know why a Athlete is endorsing a product (money), but you definitely do not know why a blogger is (remember why blogs were started)...

Like I said, I know where the FTC is coming from with this regulation, but it is far too late to start it... they can try, but its only going to waste more of our tax dollars as is the war on drugs...