Well you are certainly correct that I am not from the US so my knowledge is somewhat limited, however I have witnessed enough ranting and drooling on the net about related issues in the past to have some vague idea about the kind of arguments that are made to support the special brand of capitalist freedom that many on that side of the pond seem to get excited about.
Indignation about the idea that the government would regulate the web in any way does not get much sympathy from me when it is applied very broadly. Existing laws prevent people from doing all sorts of things on the web without the sky falling in. You cant stir up violence or call for murder or bloody revolution or sell quack devices or illegal drugs or indulge in complete fraud or child porn without falling foul of the law. The web has never been an unregulated new wild west, despite the hyperbole of some. I also dont buy into the idea that this will bury people in paperwork or legal fee's or whatever, these are guidelines which simply require people who indulge in commercial activity to consider disclosure and ethical issues properly instead of only being guided by their own moral compass. Good. The global nature of the web certainly complicates issues such as these but I doubt it will cause too many issues in this case. Certainly I feel that noble ideas about self-regulation, codes of conducts, the blogosphere policing itself because those who do not disclose will ultimately fall foul of public backlash and will soil their own brand are all well and good, but just as with wider notions of industry self-regulation, I raise my eyebrows and feel it is not enough. Anyways Im sure the last thing this group needs is for me to take us back to the bad old days where my loud opinionating and sometimes harsh tone lead to headaches and a giant waste of peoples time, so I shall zip my cakehole now. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman <jay.ded...@...> wrote: > > > I am pleased that the FTC has revised its guidelines so that they cover > > bloggers who do not disclose fee's or freebies they receive from companies: > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8291825.stm > > I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are against > > this, though I start from the position of viewing their stance with quite > > some skepticism. > > Thou shalt not shill without disclosure sounds fair enough to me. > > You dont know the US very well. Criticism stands on complete anger > that the government would regulate the web at all. > --Who's going to keep track? Who pays for this supervision? More bureaucracy. > --Bloggers especially feel it's an attempt to limit their ability to > take on big power by entrapping them in legal limbo by silly lawsuits. > --it starts by regulating "disclosure". what will be next? It'll get > to the point where an individual person needs so much paperwork and > legal help to blog that only big companies can afford it...thus taking > away why the web has been cool. > --The web is global territory. So if you (in England) dont disclose > something on your blog, will the FBI come after you? Will they then > get Scotland Yard to arrest you? > > This a brief rundown of worries. > > Jay > > > -- > http://ryanishungry.com > http://jaydedman.com > http://twitter.com/jaydedman > 917 371 6790 >
