I swear this is becoming like an annual post.

Last year on March 19th I wrote about Why I Left DreamHost, and here we are a year later discussing why I left BlueHost.  Unlike the DreamHost debacle where I was angry enough to spit fire, the BlueHost split has been a bit more amicable.  There were some definite rough moments this year, but overall it wasn’t that ugly.

Over this past year I discovered that I just simply no longer fit in a shared hosting environment.  While they promise you the world in unlimited storage and bandwidth, they really can’t deliver.  At least once over the past year all my sites were shut down and threatened with deletion as I had too many files on the server.  It seems they don’t want you to have more than 50,000 files, and due to a script I was running with Mark Hopkins to test a new site, it had auto generated over 250,000 files.  No problem, we deleted them, but BlueHost gave us no warning we were in violation, they simply shut down the sites and told us to get out.  After begging with them, I got them to turn the sites back on, and we got the files cleaned up.

In general shared hosting accounts simply aren’t going to work any more except for the smallest of sites.  These companies work on an idea of volume, and while departing BlueHost, I did some checking and discovered that somewhere around 1,000 sites were hosted on just my one server.  While servers can take a pounding, that is just way too many sites on any one unit.

So, I have moved over to HostGator … hold on, don’t scream, “But they’re a shared host, too!”  Yes, they are, but they also offer dedicated servers, and that’s what I’m renting now.  Yes folks, I’ve gone crazy and just said “I’m done with this!” and gone for my own server.  HostGator leases their servers from The Planet, and while I could have gotten it slightly cheaper by going direct, HG offered better phone support, and considering how many times I’ve had to call them, it’s been worth the extra money.

While I do feel like I’m paying through the nose, and I don’t make anywhere close to how much this costs me back in advertising, I’m a lot happier.  All of my sites are on this server now (which is nine), plus I am hosting two sites for friends.  One is paying me a small hosting fee each month, while the other gets like six hits  a year, so I’m not charging them.  So, I am much deeper in the hole financially, but if I really want to keep my sites going, this was the only option, and I have to say I love having complete control over the server.  I am nowhere near it physically, but I can reboot it, run diagnostics, the whole bit from the comfort of my desk.

I have no clue how HostGator is as a shared host, but as a dedicated server host, I’m loving them.  All of my technical problems have been handled quickly, my server was set up in no time and I feel you can tell how much faster the site is.  (SeanPAune.com has been on the server now for a few months)  Expensive?  Yes.  Worth it?  I think so.

I know most blogs just starting out have to go with shared hosting so as not to break themselves, and I wish you all luck because all the shared hosts I have been with have ended up driving me insane.  Here’s to (hopefully) never moving again.

In the age of social media, there have been many pundits that have said it shouldn’t be used as a “weapon”, but the question is: Why not?

Companies are putting customer service reps on to sites such as Twitter with increasing regularity due to users turning to that site more and more as a place to vent their frustrations with a company.  Last night service rep for Southwest Airlines got a definite work out as film writer and director Kevin Smith took his anger with the airline to the masses.

The creative mind behind such films as Clerks, Chasing Amy, Dogma and others was taking a flight from San Fransisco to Burbank on Southwest Airlines last night.  After he had put his luggage in the overhead bin, and been seated, he was informed that the Captain of the fight had decided that due to his extreme weight that he was a “safety risk” and had him removed from the flight.  As is the way in this day and age, Mr. Smith took to his Twitter account, and what followed was a slew of Tweets, the name for the messages on Twitter, from the director (language left intact for impact):

Dear @SouthwestAir – I know I’m fat, but was Captain Leysath really justified in throwing me off a flight for which I was already seated?

Dear @SouthwestAir, I flew out in one seat, but right after issuing me a standby ticket, Oakland Southwest attendant Suzanne (wouldn’t give

last name) told me Captain Leysath deemed me a “safety risk”. Again: I’m way fat… But I’m not THERE just yet. But if I am, why wait til my

bag is up, and I’m seated WITH ARM RESTS DOWN. In front of a packed plane with a bunch of folks who’d already I.d.ed me as “Silent Bob.”

So, @SouthwestAir, go fuck yourself. I broke no regulation, offered no “safety risk” (what, was I gonna roll on a fellow passenger?). I was

wrongly ejected from the flight (even Suzanne eventually agreed). And fuck your apologetic $100 voucher, @SouthwestAir. Thank God I don’t

embarrass easily (bless you, JERSEY GIRL training). But I don’t sulk off either: so everyday, some new fuck-you Tweets for @SouthwestAir.

Wanna tell me I’m too wide for the sky? Totally cool. But fair warning, folks: IF YOU LOOK LIKE ME, YOU MAY BE EJECTED FROM @SOUTHWESTAIR.

Via @byrneification “save the anger for SModcast” Believe it, Son. @SouthwestAir? You fucked with the wrong sedentary processed-foods eater!

(1/2) @pigz “I know several people bigger then u who have flown on other airlines” I saw someone bigger than me on THAT flight! But I wasn’t

(2/2) about to throw a fellow Fatty under the plane as I’m being profiled. But he & I made eye contact, & he was like “Please don’t tell…”

Dear @SouthwestAir, I’m on another one of your planes, safely seated & buckled-in again, waiting to be dragged off in front of the normies.

And, hey? @SouthwestAir? I didn’t even need a seat belt extender to buckle up. Somehow, that shit fit over my “safety concern”-creating gut.

Hey @SouthwestAir! Look how fat I am on your plane! Quick! Throw me off! http://twitpic.com/1340gw

Hey @SouthwestAir! I’ve landed in Burbank. Don’t worry: wall of the plane was opened & I was airlifted out while Richard Simmons supervised.

This wasn’t even all of them, but I shared with you the most important ones to follow the story.

The Southwest employee charged with monitoring Twitter for the evening did reply to Mr. Smith on several occasions, and claimed that calls had been placed to him to try to make amends, but the damage was certainly done by that point to the airline’s reputation.

My question is why is this such a bad thing?  Mr. Smith was being wronged by the airline, publicly humiliated in front of a plane full of people, and he shouldn’t use the tools at his disposal to talk about it?  Mr. Smith has been very upfront about his weight in interviews and on his podcast, Smodcast, and if his weight was such an issue, why wasn’t anything said at the ticket counter?  At the gate?  Why was he let on another Southwest flight after being removed from the first?  He had a legitimate complaint to make, but I am sure the “social media purity police” will wag their fingers at Mr. Smith for sullying their Utopian society of social media tools as a weapon.

I have a dog in this fight as someone who used to need a seatbelt extension on airplanes, but that isn’t why I’m taking Mr. Smith’s side in this fight, and nor is it because I’m a fan of his work: it’s because companies and brands should be held accountable for their actions, and now the consumer has a way to do this.  In the old days you would write them a letter, you might get a voucher if you were lucky, but usually you would hear nothing of substance.  You’d tell your friends about it, and that would be it.  Mr. Smith has over 1.6 million followers on Twitter, and with just a 140 character message, he was able to tell all of them about the situation.He shouldn’t do this?  There is some sort of shame to this?

The shame is that people feel that you shouldn’t, and I plan to explore this more through out this week.

Are you on Twitter?  Are you following TV personality Drew Carey?  If you aren’t, why aren’t you?

Drew Carey, the current host of The Price is Right, is on a crusade to give $1 per Twitter follower he has by 11:59 pm on Dec. 31st, 2009 to the Livestrong Foundation.  He has promised to donate up to $1 million dollars in the fight against cancer, but the donation is pegged to how many followers he has.  Mr. Carey has even said he doesn’t care if you unfollow him on Jan. 1st, 2010, he just wants to raise awareness of the cancer research being done.

This was all inspired by Drew Olanoff, a well-known individual in the social media scene, auction off his Twitter username, @drew, to raise money for cancer research.  Mr. Olanoff recently had a fight with cancer himself, which it thankfully appears he has won, and he felt auctioning off a desirable four-letter Twitter username was a way to go.  His minimum bid was $10,000, but Drew Carey was the first to bid, and he went right for $25,000.  See, Mr. Carey got stuck with the username @DrewFromTV, so of course he wants @drew.  Well, the problem was that it appeared he scared off other potential bidders, so he said if he had 100,000 followers by Nov. 9th, the end of the auction, he would pay $100,000 for the name.  When he easily beat that goal, he extended it to Dec. 31st and $1,000,000 for one million followers.

As I write this, Mr. Carey is at 307,212 followers with a week to go.

… what is wrong with you people?

When Ashton Kutcher said, “Hey, I want a million followers!”, people flocked to follow him with nothing in return.  When a man is trying to promote the fight against cancer and is willing to give away a million dollars of his own money, people turn apathetic?  All you have to do is click the follow button … that’s it.  Nothing more.  If you don’t like Drew Carey, fine, unfollow him on Jan. 1st, but come on, folks, follow the man for just the next week!

I normally don’t believe in guilting people in to doing things, but come on folks: You click a button, and someone else gives a $1 to charity.  All you have to do is click a button.  That’s it.  Nothing else is required of you.  If you’re a Twitter user, please do it.

MillionDollarDrew has more information and is tracking the progress to the goal.

It’s time to make my annual look back at my goals for this year on this blog, and what I want to do with it for the next year.

In 2008 and 2009 I did this post as part of a blogging project, and while the project went a different direction this year, I decided to keep up the tradition of posting this for my own reference and to maybe get some others to think about how they approach their own blogs.

The Goals For 2009

Measurable

Comments -I wanted to see the number of comments go up this year.  They did increase, but still not at the levels I would like to see, but they are better.

Daily Page Views – I was hoping for a 50% increase in page views this year, to date they are up 282.61% … I’m floored and unbelievably grateful to all of the new readers this year.

Daily Revenue – I wanted to see an increase of daily revenue of at least 50%, and while I don’t have the exact number, it is way up beyond 50%.  Again, thank you.

RSS Subscribers – I hoped to be at 120 RSS subscribers by this time, and I am at 132.  Would love to be higher, but at least I beat my goal.

Social Bookmarking – I hoped I would some day get to the front page of Digg … well, I didn’t, and I just don’t care.  I did, however, have a really good year on StumbleUpon!

Immeasurable

Writing Skills – I wanted to improve my writing skills, and … well, I think I’ve had some success in this area, but they could still use some polishing.

Internet Goals For 2009 – Other

Scattercast – Scattercast is still nowhere near the quality I’d like it be, but its getting there.  I also wanted more iTunes subscribers, and that number has crept up, but very slowly.  You could help by subscribing via iTunes!

Twitter – I hoped to be at 2,000 followers by now, and I’m over 3,000, so I made it!

The Goals For 2010

Measurable

Comments – Would still like to get more discussion going on.

Daily Page Views – I really have no clue how I’m going to continue this stratospheric growth.  I am blown away by the 282.61% jump over last year, but I’m going to keep working at it!

Daily Revenue – Sure I’d like to see it keep growing, but that really isn’t why I run this blog, so if it goes up, it goes up.

RSS Subscribers – I really don’t know what I can do to keep this number growing, but I’m sure going to try!  Maybe 200 by next year’s post?  (Why not help out and subscribe to SeanPAune.com right now!)

Immeasurable

Writing Skills – Going to keep working on them!

Internet Goals For 2010 – Other

Scattercast – Going to keep working on improving the podcast, but I really feel like I need a full-time co-host.  Any time I have a guest on, like when Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins joined me to discuss sci-fi TV shows or the Diabolical Miss M came on the show to discuss journalism, it just works so much better.

Twitter – My opinion of having tons of followers has changed, but they are still nice to have.  Make sure to check me out @seanpaune.

What Would You Like To See?

So what would you all like to see happen on SeanPAune.com in 2010?  What types of posts do you like?  Which do you loathe?  Is there anything you wish to praise or pan?  Tell me in the comments!

From the “You have to be kidding me” file, rumors are circulating in the British media that Amazon is looking at opening retail store fronts.

According to The Sunday Times, a secret American retailer has been talking to “high street” (the British version of a main street in the USA) landlords about renting retail space.  While no names have been mentioned, the landlords have been hinting that it is indeed the leading online retailer.

Why would such a successful company, that has never had to deal with the headaches of a storefront, suddenly decide to do this?  Some speculation centers on the idea that consumers are really beginning to take to the idea of ordering online and picking items up at a storefront at a time of their choosing.  I could see this being tested in a smaller market such as the U.K., but the overhead this is going to add to Amazon’s operating costs is going to be staggering.

I can see why they would ponder this, but as someone has gone from retail to Internet only operations … you couldn’t pay me enough to go back to having a retail shop.  Sure it had its good moments, but it’s like a giant anchor around your neck.  I hope this does prove to just be rumor, but we shall see.

What do you think?  Good idea or bad?

With the news that Dollhouse has been cancelled, show creator Joss Whedon is examining his options, and at least one of those includes binge drinking.

In a comment on the Joss Whedon fansite Whedonesque, Mr. Whedon came to share the news of the show’s cancellation, but discovered he had been beaten to the punch.

Hmm. Apparently my news is not news.

I don’t have a lot to say. I’m extremely proud of the people I’ve worked with: my star, my staff, my cast, my crew. I feel the show is getting better pretty much every week, and I think you’ll agree in the coming months. I’m grateful that we got to put it on, and then come back and put it on again.

I’m off to pursue internet ventures/binge drinking. Possibly that relaxation thing I’ve read so much about. By the time the last episode airs, you’ll know what my next project is. But for now there’s a lot of work still to be done, and disappointment to bear.

Thank you all for your support, your patience, your excellent adverts. See you again. -j.

Hopefully this may mean he has the opportunity now to do a follow-up to the popular Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog which was a Web only series.

Mr. Whedon has said in previous interviews that he imagined that Dollhouse would be his last foray into television, and he was more interested in pursuing ventures on the Internet and films.  Considering what happened with Firefly and Dollhouse, and some hiccups with his biggest success Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, I can’t say as I really blame him.

It seems if you are the daughter of a former Republican presidential candidate, you are expected to dress a certain way when even in your own home, staying in for the evening.

Megan McCain, the 24-year-old daughter of John McCain, has set off a veritable storm of controversy when she chose last night to post a picture to her Twitter account of the book she was staying in and reading for the evening.  It wasn’t the book that caused the uproar, but the fact that she was wearing a tank top.

Oh no, the horrors.

What Ms. McCain that was a perfectly innocent and fun photo led to an evening of her being called a “slut”, and in turn, her having to defend her choices of what she chooses to wear in her own home.  What follows is her responses to her followers, strong language left intact for impact (if they seem broken up, remember you are only allowed 140 characters per message, or Tweet):

so I took a fun picture not thinking anything about what I was wearing but apparently anything other than a pantsuit I am a slut, this is

why I have been considering deleting my twitter account, what once was fun now just seems like a vessel for harassment

I am going to take some more time to think about it but seriously I was just trying to be funny with the book and that I’m a dork staying in

when I am alone in my apartment, I wear tank tops and sweat pants, I had no idea this makes me a “slut”, I can’t even tell you how hurt I am

ok I am getting the fuck off twitter, promise not to delete my account until I sleep on it, thank you for the nice words supporters

I do want to apologize to anyone that was offended by my twitpic, I have clearly made a huge mistake and am sorry 2 those that are offended.

I guess I can clearly define myself as not being a prude at this point. Was the tank top tight? Yes. Is her choice to wear this in the privacy of her own home validation for calling her a “slut”? Not even close.

Yes, she opted to take a picture of herself and share it with her 60,000+ Twitter followers, but big freakin’ deal. I have a news flash for every one out there: Meghan McCain is a female and females have these things called “breasts”, and sometimes, just sometimes, they are partially visible.  Just because a woman’s breasts are visible does not instantly equate her with being a “slut,” although it would seem that some people have a hard time with this concept.

To be honest, I wasn’t even aware Ms. McCain had a Twitter account until this morning, but I’m following her now.  Why?  Because anyone who gets verbally attacked like this over something as simple as opting to wear a tank top (while staying in for a night to read a book … I can’t get over that part) deserves support.  This is the 21st century folks, not Victorian times where cloth doilies were placed around the feet of furniture because it might remind men of a woman’s bare ankle.  (Think I’m kidding?  Look it up.)  Shall we return to a time where women wore floor length skirts so men would never see something as scandalous as a woman’s foot?

Kim LaCapria over at The Inquisitr said it well:

… and here’s to hoping Meghan comes around and sees the criticism for what it really is and doesn’t quit Twitter. None of us like pantsuits, Meghan, and we need women like you to kill them good and dead for the rest of us. You can never Spanx away big tits and a curvy ass, and whole nation of voluptuous women need you to not apologize for your breasts so we don’t have to apologize for ours. Keep fighting the good fight!

True, I don’t have the “voluptuous” problem Kim mentions here, but I agree with her overall point.  They’re breasts folks, they aren’t going anywhere, stop acting so shocked when you see them.

Day 3 of “The Blogopshere vs. the FTC” brings us the full set of guidelines, and wow are they head spinning.

I really don’t want to blog daily on this whole Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guideline debacle, but it just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

First off, I finally got a link to the full 81-page document (PDF link) from Steven Hodson, and although I have only read through 51 pages thus far, this is going to be mandatory reading for every independent blogger if you want to make sure to keep yourself from getting in trouble with the FTC.  That being said, be prepared for the extreme ambiguity of the document on many fronts.

So far I have still yet to find anywhere that describes in detail how disclosures are supposed to be written.  It mentions numerous times that you must disclose if you receive a product for free and then give it a positive review (there is some implication that disclosure is not required on negative reviews), but nowhere does it say how are exactly where it is to be placed.

The document also discusses new rules for celebrity endorsements and how they are supposed to disclose their relationship with anything they speak positively of.  The problem with this is that at no time do they define what a celebrity is.  On tonight’s episode of CobWEBs, Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins and I discussed this, and technically you could call iJustine a celebrity, but that is only to a handful of people on the Internet.  Heck, there was even a time when I was working for Wizard magazine that I was being asked for my autograph on a regular basis, would that have qualified me as a celebrity?  I was a celebrity to those people, but not to the other 99.999999999% of the population of the country, but would I have qualified for the FTC celebrity rules?  Who knows, their answers are so vague.

Then to muddy the waters even further, Richard Cleland, assistant director, division of advertising practices at the FTC (and someone Rizzn has been trying to get an interview with for 3 months with no luck) spoke with FastCompany, and made some of the most mind boggling statements ever.

Heather B. Armstrong, author of parenting blog Dooce: “Eleven thousand dollars is a little crazy for a post. Maybe I’m being naïve, but I think a lot of people who are in violation [of not disclosing] just don’t know that they’re supposed to.”

Richard Cleland: “That $11,000 fine is not true. Worst-case scenario, someone receives a warning, refuses to comply, followed by a serious product defect; we would institute a proceeding with a cease-and-desist order and mandate compliance with the law…

Excuse me?  When did the FTC start writing laws?  They are a regulatory body, they are not capable of making “laws”.  Perhaps he was misquoted, but if the FTC really sees this as “law”, we’re in bigger trouble than any of us first thought.

Brian Lam, editorial director of Gizmodo: “Some colleagues of mine just reminded me of how many freelance pro journalists take junkets. In the end, I’m glad these rules are being introduced, but it’s kind of stupid to attach unethical behavior to a particular publishing medium. Look at how shitty TV journalism can be, by and large.”

RC: “It’s not the medium, it’s the message. We want to establish a self-imposed ethical standard so people are aware of the conflicts of interest…

“We want to establish a self-imposed…” um … which part of this sentence makes any sense?  How does person #2 establish SELF-IMPOSED anything on person #1?

This is what we are dealing with folks: vagueness, ambiguity and a regulatory body that seems to have no clue what its actual job is.  If you aren’t scared yet, you aren’t thinking.

Sorry folks, but this Federal Trade Commission dust up is going to be front and center at this blog for some time to come.

In all of the hoopla yesterday, Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins, Steven Hodson and myself ran into many instances of being questioned over our vehement hatred of the new guidelines, and also more examples of just how messed up this whole thing is.

“Print media is already under these rules.”

No, they aren’t.

This was the most tired argument I have seen, and it simply isn’t true.  If this was true, I want you to point out to me where movie reviewers disclose that they got into a movie for free or got sent a DVD copy of the movie for free.  We all know it happens, but have you ever seen them disclose it?  Same goes for book, movie and DVD reviews.

Now, under these new FTC rules, if I decide to review anything, and if it was sent to me for free, then I have to write a disclosure every single time I do it.  Tell me how these are the same rules traditional media has been under.

“Facebook and Twitter fall under these rules also.”

Yep, all that fun you have on social media sites?  Well, prepare yourself to always disclose your relationship for any product you speak positively of.

Caroline McCarthy of CNET spoke with a Richard Cleland, associate director for the FTC’s advertising division, and here is the scenario he set up to explain the Facebook scenario:

Here’s a sample scenario: a celebrity or other prominent figure with loads of friends on Facebook receives free hotel says [sic] from Hotel Chain X in exchange for running Hotel Chain X ads on his or her blog. If that person then signs up as a Facebook fan of Hotel Chain X–which, remember, could mean that the person’s name can show up for his or her Facebook friends alongside Hotel Chain X display ads on the social network–he or she could be held liable by the FTC.

“It would be the same thing if you were going to pay the celebrity a thousand dollars to go register as a fan,” Cleland said. “In that case, there wouldn’t be any question about it.”

And as for new media darling Twitter?

As for Twitter, the FTC isn’t letting you get a pass with the excuse that 140 characters–Twitter’s famous text limit–is simply too short. “There are ways to abbreviate a disclosure that fit within 140 characters,” Cleland said. “You may have to say a little bit of something else, but if you can’t make the disclosure, you can’t make the ad.”

So, think you will be exempt from this if you aren’t a blogger.  Too bad.  If you have any sort of relationship with a product, and you make a comment anywhere on the Web about it, you better be prepared to disclose your relationship.

“This is all about going after sploggers.”

No, it isn’t.

In a discussion between Steven Hodson and Matt Cutts of Google on The Noisy Channel, they brought up the discussion of how this will cut out bad marketing:

Steven: “No degree of FTC intervention is going to make any difference to splogs or other such garbage…”

Matt: At a respected search conference last year, I sat in the audience and watched a presenter recommend “sock puppet” marketing by coming up with fake personas to promote products. With this new guidance from the FTC (plus similar recent guidance in the UK/EU against sock puppet marketing), that sort of bad advice will be much less likely to appear at search conferences. That’s one easy counter-example.

No, Matt, it isn’t.  You are talking about advice given at a conference, big deal.  The Sock Puppet marketers will simply start hiring people from Africa and India off of GetAFreelancer or other such sites and have them do that sort of marketing far from the reach of the USA, UK or EU.

And that is one of my biggest complaints about this whole thing is that the unethical people it is supposedly targeting will just find new ways of working around it, while those of us who follow ethical blogging and online presence will be saddled with these idiotic new rules, libing under fear of some little slip up costing us a potential $11,000 fine.  Oh yeah, that makes things so much better.

“This will stop all those fake review sites.”

Are you kidding me?

Lets say that an “unethical” blogger is currently working out of the USA with their web site on servers that reside in the USA.  They want to get away from these new rules so they move their site to servers in another country, they put privacy protection on their domain name and then they sit back.

The FTC finds them lacking disclosure, they will have to get a court order to reveal the name of the person who holds the ownership of the domain.  So the FTC will have to weight taking the time to get the court order, and in some cases they will have to go through a court in another country, is it really worth all of that effort, time and taxpayer money for a possibly undisclosed material relationship?  You guessed it, I would go with “no.”  Of course, that doesn’t mean they won’t try.

All of the “bad” sites will simply move off shore to countries that don’t care about all of this hoopla, and the innocent people will yet again be left to jumping through hoops that should have never been required.

“This system is ripe for abuse.”

Yes, it is.

We have no clue what the investigation process will be like yet, but what is to stop people from reporting you for fun or revenge?  ”Oh, hey, I think so-and-so has a relationship with that company they just posted abut on Facebook.”  Oh won’t that be fun to defend yourself from false accusations?  This is why some people will be better off even disclosing when they purchased something to cut off any possible questioning to avoid any sense in impropriety.

In other words, people will be so annoyed by having to watch their behinds that they simply won’t want to talk any more.

“Aren’t you worrying about this too much?”

No, I’m not.

I have done more reading today, and the tone of the conversations have changed quite a bit in the second day.  Check out SiliconANGLE’s FTC vs. the Blogosphere Day 2 Roundup to get a better sense of what is being said everywhere.  (disclosure: I am linked to in that article and I work for SiliconANGLE … see … won’t that get annoying?)

Also make sure to check out Steven Hodson’s questions that he is still waiting for answers to:

1. Will these same ‘guidelines’ be applied against “traditional media” and if not – why not?

2. What exact form do these disclosure need to take? Per post? Per page? Per comment?

3. Is this retroactive? Does this mean that sites like Gizmodo, TechCrunch, Mashable, – well every single blog past and present will have to go through all their archives and add a disclaimer. Because we all know that posts that are even months or years old can resurface.

4.Will book publishers make signing a disclosure form a part of bloggers doing book reviews and is it really worth the effort at that point?

5. Does the country of origin of the writer matter as to whether a disclosure is included?

6. Does it matter the country of origin of where the blog served from come into play?

7 Does the country of origin of the product, service or book come into play at all?

(disclaimer: I know Steven and make fun of his Canadian citizenship on a regular basis)

The FTC has got to start defining this whole thing better, but somehow I don’t see that coming any time soon.

If you haven’t heard of Spotify yet, don’t worry, many others haven’t also. However, don’t be surprised if it doesn’t become a household name within the next few years.

Spotify is a fairly young music service that launched on Oct. 7, 2008 in Western Europe.  While it has been in its invitation only beta stage the service has stayed tied to Europe for licensing reasons, but a United States release is expected in the not too distant future.

So, why is this service a game changer?  Well, the answer is pretty simple in that with the licensing agreements the service has struck you can essentially pull up any song by any artist at any time and listen to it.  If you want a free account you will have to go through advertisements every so often, but if you have a paid account you don’t even see the ads and can enjoy endless musical selections of all your favorite performers.

Where Spotify is really set to change the game is with its just released iPhone & iPod Touch and Android applications.  The apps, just released today, is only for use by the paying customers, but one feature alone may be worth it.  I have embedded the demo video below for you to watch, but essentially you make a playlist of your favorite music, tell the Spotify app you want that playlist to be available while you have no 3G or Wi-Fi access (i.e. on an airplane), and it will save the music to your device memory so you can play all of the selected tracks while you aren’t near a connection.

Now mind you that you do not own these tracks, and they can’t be transferred off of your device, but who will ever need to buy music anymore when you can just have a monthly Spotify subscription and make a bunch of offline playlists?

While I have been a huge fan of services such as Pandora for ages, the problem is that I need to have some form of access to listen to it.  I also have no say in what songs come up on Pandora, but with Spotify I can have access to a basically limitless stream of music from just about any artist you can think of.  Once this hits the United States, you don’t think this is going to be the most talked about music service on every college and university campus?

Take a look at the video and I think you’ll quickly why this is such a huge game changer for the mobile music market, and quite possibly the music industry as a whole.

I’ve mentioned in the past that I am fascinated by Google Trends. Being able to see a snap shot of what people are looking for is like an odd little snapshot into the lies of the Internet in general.  However, sometimes you see things that just make you go, “Really?  Are you all this stupid?”

While I am never going to endorse the use of illegal torrent files, let me give you all a clue here: if you find a torrent through a public search engine such as Google, there’s a good chance that it either contains a virus or may be a trap to track your IP address.  HBO has been fairly strict about hunting down torrent users in the past, so if you’re going to use a public search to find a publicly reachable file… it kinda screams “TRAP” to me.

I know a lot of people have turned to torrents as an option for watching their favorite television shows, but do yourself a favor and at least educate yourself about general safety of their use if you’re going to do it.  And, honestly, unless it is something like True Blood, just don’t do it (even then, don’t do it), there are too many legal ways to watch TV shows on the Internet for freenow.

StumbleUpon has to be one of the oddest sources of Web traffic ever invented.

For those unfamiliar with StumbleUpon (SU), it is a social bookmarking site that allows you to recommend pages to other users by giving them a “thumbs up”.  Other users can then discover pages you favorited by “stumbling” through pages people have saved.  While it can be a powerful tool for generating traffic, I find “the StumbleUpon effect” far more powerful than “the Digg effect”.

Ever since Digg took off, people have gone nuts trying to get on the front page of the site for the crush of traffic it will bring you for the time you are on the page.  The problem is that once you scroll off the front page, you get next to no residual traffic over the following months.  With StumbleUpon, you may or may not get the initial traffic rush, but you do definitely get a long simmering source of traffic.

Back on May 8th of this year I posted an article of Who Is The Best Star Trek Captain.  While the post did get some traffic during the initial few days, it quickly died off to a trickle of as few as single-digit readers some days.  Now, on Monday, June 8th, I have no clue what happened, but you can see the traffic report from during the evening below.  (click for a larger view)

I don’t normally share my traffic numbers, but this is so odd that I just had to.  What caused this explosive upswing in traffic is beyond me, but I know for sure it all came from StumbleUpon.  This isn’t the first time I have seen this happen, but it was one of the best examples of it, and with the best graphical representation of the situation.

While I have heard other bloggers talk about this bizarre jump in traffic from SU before, no one seems to completely understand what causes it, but we all enjoy it.  This is also why I have given up even caring about Digg.  Sure it’s nice to get that big bump on the first day, butI would rather continue getting traffic long after that first day, and it also tends to be traffic that will explore your site more than the typical Digg user will.

Of course this doesn’t happen to every post that gets on to StumbleUpon, but more often than not it does.  Why the bump happens in a mystery, but not one I plan on arguing with anytime soon.