Is the FTC being used to marginalize independent bloggers?

While I think this is an interesting move, and that there's probably a problem worth addressing somewhere in there, I don't think the FTC has the right angle with this move.<p>Specifically, I think this regulation is intended to target the "little guys" who are getting big enough to get real attention.<p>I would rather the target were the "big guys" who are astroturfing (i.e. acting like little guys) for commercial purposes, if there's going to be any regulation at all. For one, this is going to be easier to enforce (since there are fewer big companies engaging in astroturfing) and it's more likely to cause legitimate harm to consumers.<p>I recognize, though, that this is a slippery slope, and that by regulating big-time astroturfers, you could well have unintended consequences for small-time bloggers.<p>I can imagine the current move as a slippery slope too, and it sounds ripe for abuse... As others have said, it's unenforceable, so it really is just selectively enforceable.<p>So, all told, it would be better to not regulate this at all.

Even if the rules aren't applied to traditional media -- that seems to be more a bug than a feature. Quit your whining. This isn't some grand plot to put the blogger down.<p>The net result is that the FTC seems to have made a very good call, and we (the blog consumers) should all be the better for it: We'll now know up front if/when and what incentives a blogger has received to write a post. That seems like good progress to me.<p>If you're a blogger and you're really upset about this, you're telling me that you're now pissed that you have to now disclose all of your back-room dealings, and that doesn't instill much confidence in your reporting.

From <a href="http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/10/ftc-going-after-bloggers-and-social.html" rel="nofollow">http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/10/ftc-going-after-blogger...</a> (Althouse is a law professor)<p>"The most absurd part of it is the way the FTC is trying to make it okay by assuring us that they will be selective in deciding which writers on the internet to pursue. That is, they've deliberately made a grotesquely overbroad rule, enough to sweep so many of us into technical violations, but we're supposed to feel soothed by the knowledge that government agents will decide who among us gets fined. No, no, no. Overbreath itself is a problem. And so is selective enforcement."

Wonder what happens if (when?) the FTC disclosure requirements collide with non-disclosure agreements? NDAs can certainly steer public discussions and opinions, though in a more subtle fashion than "blogola."