Add your comments
DLS Archives
May 2013
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
Essential Windows Apps | Do Not Track | Microsoft Office | SayNow | LibreOffice | Zeam Android Launcher | Dead Space iPhone | Firefox 4 Mobile | Firefox 4 Release | PlayStation iPhone App | Excel Tips | Android Launcher | Google One Pass | Dead Space | Google Cloud Print | Songbird for Android | NBA Jam | Internet Explorer 9 | Windows 7 Connector for Mac | Office Mac 2011 | IE9 RC
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
(Unverified)Oct 6th 2009 4:38PM
Dude - did you actually read the FTC ruling!? And any of the history? This is an AMENDMENT to an existing ruling. it is about the requirement of paid for content to say so. That's what material means. And that is why none of the examples you list would be included EXCEPT for the Ballmer Porsche - under the rules that would be a material relationship - at least if you got to keep it. In addition the commentary SPECIFICALLY states that in all but the most truly egregious cases the FTC would be going after the ADVERTISER not the blogger.
Sorry about the shouting but this is precisely the kind of thing that does get bloggers a bad name - shouting off your mouth about something you haven't looked into properly. I'm a blogger. I love blogging. I love your site. But please look a bit deeper.
By the way - there are plenty of things wrong with the FTC proposal - they just aren't the ones that the blogosphere is blowing up about.