Keep ads to the navs! It’s the fair thing to do.

– “While I think the new FTC rule may be a bit overbroad and unwieldy in it’s application, I see nothing wrong per se with what is ostensibly the extension of consumer protection laws to new(er) forms of media.”

Well, somebody already gave at least one example of what’s wrong with it that also happens to rebut your naive belief that this is an extension of rules that already exist.

– Disgusted 10.08.09 at 4:02 pm

“What I am disappointed about is that this rule let’s big busines corporate media off the hook as far as disclosure, unless a reporter is directly receiving compensation. His/her manager or the corporation itself can be compensated in some way and not disclose it because the FTC has determined that I would not care. Starts at bottom of page 46.

http://ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005endorsementguidesfnnotice.pdf

Also, selective enforcement isn’t a problem for you? Why don’t we take that to its extreme and allow me to prove a point. Lets take the example of a lynching in the south 70 years ago. Is the local government complicit in the act because it elects not to prosecute the white lynch mob? Yes it is! Any law should apply across the board to anyone who breaks it. Instituting a policy of selective enforcement sends the message to do whatever you want, even murder, as long as it fits with governments agenda, whatever that may be. In this case we are talking about outright censorship of politically unfashionable ideals and unfavorable views on the current administration or in fact anything that the FTC decides they don’t like!

And you don’t see a problem with this?!

If you have nothing to hide, then you should have no problem disclosing that you have received an economic benefit for your endorsement of a product or service. And sorry, while the rule may be, as mentioned, a bit unwieldy in its application, it is not in the least unconstitutional, and similar consumer laws have been upheld over the years by the courts, time and time again.

I guess unique situations make for strange bedfellows. While I certainly know that blogging is not unique to any particular ideology, and many bloggers are libertarians and/or conservatives, it is funny to read the more liberal bloggers now trumpeting the laissez-faire economic philosophy of the Wall Street Journal (that paper even had an editorial criticizing the new FTC rule). I imagine once the brouhaha dies down, people will just step in line, and if they don’t, it’s not like the FTC every had any plans to “go after” any but the most egregious violators. But really, what’s the burden of saying you were paid or dropping a causal line like, “I had the opportunity to try out___ when I received a free sample from ___?”

Is it as a I suspect whenever I read any supposedly “unbiased” review, blog, post, etc. of any product or service: I should take it all with a grain of salt and simply do my own research and then decide for myself because none of the blogs, “social sites,” reviews, etc. are worth a damn, much like the “unbiased” reviews and product promotions one can find in the “traditional” media.

Is it just me, or does free speech seem less and less free every day?…