Comments on: …And There Was No One Left To Speak Out For Me http://www.seanpaune.com/2009/10/05/and-there-was-no-one-left-to-speak-out-for-me/ Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:24:03 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: seanpaune http://www.seanpaune.com/2009/10/05/and-there-was-no-one-left-to-speak-out-for-me/comment-page-1/#comment-43981 seanpaune Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:03:24 +0000 http://www.seanpaune.com/?p=4860#comment-43981 Just sent you an email ... I have NO clue what happened with your comment or my follow up reply Just sent you an email … I have NO clue what happened with your comment or my follow up reply

]]> By: Luis http://www.seanpaune.com/2009/10/05/and-there-was-no-one-left-to-speak-out-for-me/comment-page-1/#comment-43980 Luis Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:49:20 +0000 http://www.seanpaune.com/?p=4860#comment-43980 Sean: Did my comment not get through? I thought I had successfully posted it... Sean: Did my comment not get through? I thought I had successfully posted it…

]]> By: Sean P. Aune http://www.seanpaune.com/2009/10/05/and-there-was-no-one-left-to-speak-out-for-me/comment-page-1/#comment-43945 Sean P. Aune Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:43:53 +0000 http://www.seanpaune.com/?p=4860#comment-43945 We covered a lot of this on the special episode of CobWEBs today, and it still makes no sense why the FTC is going after the smaller bloggers (which is who this is pretty much directed at). And you raised a very good point, Luis, will you have to disclose you own Apple stock? That is why this new rule is so scary because it can be interpreted in so many ways that it almost reaches a level of having to put a disclosure on just about every thing ever said on the Web. They're even looking at Twitter for crying out loud! How are you going to put a disclosure on 140 characters? This is a very, very slippery slope, and it isn't even so much this first step that bothers me, but where it could lead. We covered a lot of this on the special episode of CobWEBs today, and it still makes no sense why the FTC is going after the smaller bloggers (which is who this is pretty much directed at).

And you raised a very good point, Luis, will you have to disclose you own Apple stock? That is why this new rule is so scary because it can be interpreted in so many ways that it almost reaches a level of having to put a disclosure on just about every thing ever said on the Web. They're even looking at Twitter for crying out loud! How are you going to put a disclosure on 140 characters?

This is a very, very slippery slope, and it isn't even so much this first step that bothers me, but where it could lead.

]]> By: Luis http://www.seanpaune.com/2009/10/05/and-there-was-no-one-left-to-speak-out-for-me/comment-page-1/#comment-43944 Luis Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:37:02 +0000 http://www.seanpaune.com/?p=4860#comment-43944 Not to completely defend their position, but I think the idea is that (a) people know that the professional reviewers themselves never pay out of pocket for the items; everyone understands that either the employer or the producer pays for the review item, so it is not necessary to state it; and (b) that everything a professional writer reviews is treated the same (all items are free [in fact, not-free items are unusual enough that the reviewer often states that fact out loud when it happens] and there is a standard policy about whether the reviewer gets to keep it personally), so there is theoretically no favoritism shown to those who give freebies. Now, if the reviewer gets something <strong>in addition</strong> to the review item, like a kickback, that's different. If there are no rules against that, then there should be, and if there is no rule that they must disclose stock ownership or other financial interest in the firm, there should be. (Which reminds me--due to this law, when I post anything about Apple, will I be required to disclose the stock I own? Hmmm.) But bloggers like us are not expected to work under the conditions I stated in the first paragraph. We are 'grass roots,' regular folk, and our readership does *not* expect that we get stuff for free, and it is almost completely likely that not everything we review is free--thus a bias is introduced that may not exist for professional journals. Just to throw a monkey in the wrench.... Not to completely defend their position, but I think the idea is that (a) people know that the professional reviewers themselves never pay out of pocket for the items; everyone understands that either the employer or the producer pays for the review item, so it is not necessary to state it; and (b) that everything a professional writer reviews is treated the same (all items are free [in fact, not-free items are unusual enough that the reviewer often states that fact out loud when it happens] and there is a standard policy about whether the reviewer gets to keep it personally), so there is theoretically no favoritism shown to those who give freebies.

Now, if the reviewer gets something in addition to the review item, like a kickback, that's different. If there are no rules against that, then there should be, and if there is no rule that they must disclose stock ownership or other financial interest in the firm, there should be. (Which reminds me–due to this law, when I post anything about Apple, will I be required to disclose the stock I own? Hmmm.)

But bloggers like us are not expected to work under the conditions I stated in the first paragraph. We are 'grass roots,' regular folk, and our readership does *not* expect that we get stuff for free, and it is almost completely likely that not everything we review is free–thus a bias is introduced that may not exist for professional journals.

Just to throw a monkey in the wrench….

]]>