By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - FTC cracking down on blogger payola

Tyrannical on 26 June 2009

I wonder when the IRS will take notice. Reviewers are suppose to declare the fair market value of the swag they receive by developers. Given the Ebay prices of what some of that stuff goes for the IRS may have a case.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

Around the Network
NJ5 on 26 June 2009
ironman said:

Yes, it is a violation of freedom of speech. I don't believe anybody has the right to tell you that you must tell people who is paying for what you are saying. It is the consumers responsibility to research the data. However, if you are in the public spotlight, you should have the scruples to disclose who is paying you to say what.


Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can defraud or deceive other people for personal gain. Posting a "review" which is actually a disguised advertisement is clearly deception.

I think the companies doing those bribes should be punished even more than the bloggers though.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

ironman on 26 June 2009
NJ5 said:
ironman said:

Yes, it is a violation of freedom of speech. I don't believe anybody has the right to tell you that you must tell people who is paying for what you are saying. It is the consumers responsibility to research the data. However, if you are in the public spotlight, you should have the scruples to disclose who is paying you to say what.


Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can defraud or deceive other people for personal gain. Posting a "review" which is actually a disguised advertisement is clearly deception.

 

You cannot "defraud" a person without their concent on this matter. People have a choice to take a sleezy blog poster at face value if they wish. 



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

famousringo on 26 June 2009
ironman said:
famousringo said:

Is it a violation of freedom of speech when political ads are forced to disclose who paid for the ad?

Yes, it is a violation of freedom of speech. I don't believe anybody has the right to tell you that you must tell people who is paying for what you are saying. It is the consumers responsibility to research the data. However, if you are in the public spotlight, you should have the scruples to disclose who is paying you to say what.  

So you must figure that none of these political organizations are challenging this obvious violation of their freedom of speech because they're so morally scrupulous that they don't mind disclosing their funding.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

ironman on 26 June 2009
famousringo said:
ironman said:
famousringo said:
 

Is it a violation of freedom of speech when political ads are forced to disclose who paid for the ad?

Yes, it is a violation of freedom of speech. I don't believe anybody has the right to tell you that you must tell people who is paying for what you are saying. It is the consumers responsibility to research the data. However, if you are in the public spotlight, you should have the scruples to disclose who is paying you to say what.  

So you must figure that none of these political organizations are challenging this obvious violation of their freedom of speech because they're so morally scrupulous that they don't mind disclosing their funding.

I wish! lol



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

Around the Network
NJ5 on 26 June 2009
ironman said:

You cannot "defraud" a person without their concent on this matter. People have a choice to take a sleezy blog poster at face value if they wish.


Go tell that to a judge after you cheat someone, then come back and tell us how it went...

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

ironman on 26 June 2009
NJ5 said:
ironman said:

You cannot "defraud" a person without their concent on this matter. People have a choice to take a sleezy blog poster at face value if they wish.


Go tell that to a judge after you cheat someone, then come back and tell us how it went...

 

See, that's a different situation, People are not wronged in any way other than given false information from an already sketchy media outlet. Nothing is physically taken away from the people reading the blogs (save for a few brain cells) Nobody loses anything in misinformation, and quite frankly, if they don't check more creadible sources, then thats their problem.  



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

famousringo on 26 June 2009
Zlejedi said:
famousringo said:
Zlejedi said:
 

How many small bloggers will not be afraid to write bad review about game x if they know they can be prosecuted for it and in best case they will have to do few hours of paperwork.

It will be much safer to never criticize anyone too much.

You're blowing this out of proportion. They're not going to be flinging lawsuits around challenging every petty remark on the internet, as that would be such a ridiculous waste of time as to make the law unenforcable.

Nobody is going to prosecute unless:

1. There is a provable conflict of interest and

2. The blogger fails to openly disclose it.

There no violation of freedom of speech, because people are still free to say whatever they like. But if they speak about a subject which involves their livelihood, they have to add a little bit of information which they might otherwise prefer to be left unsaid.

Is it a violation of freedom of speech when political ads are forced to disclose who paid for the ad?

Of course there will be lawsuits it's only a matter of finding company which will be asshole enough to try to hunt all negative opinions about it's product (activision comes as first possible candidate to the mind)

And for most cases it will be same autocensorship as ESRB introduced to games - where authors are afraid of putting risky content in fear of receiving AO.

With no evidence at all of a conflict of interest? If that was a viable tactic for silencing critics, why doesn't Activision just accuse their enemies of violating some law that's already on the books? Oh yeah, wrongful prosecution.

I'm not sure what that last sentence has to do with anything, since it's a case of voluntary self-censorship. The ESRB is an industry organization, not a government regulatory body, and nobody is forcing developers not to make AO games. Heck, I'd argue that there's been far more sex and violence in video games after the founding of the ESRB than there ever had been before it.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

NJ5 on 26 June 2009
ironman said:
NJ5 said:
ironman said:

You cannot "defraud" a person without their concent on this matter. People have a choice to take a sleezy blog poster at face value if they wish.


Go tell that to a judge after you cheat someone, then come back and tell us how it went...

 

See, that's a different situation, People are not wronged in any way other than given false information from an already sketchy media outlet. Nothing is physically taken away from the people reading the blogs (save for a few brain cells) Nobody loses anything in misinformation, and quite frankly, if they don't check more creadible sources, then thats their problem.

Are you kidding me? Of course people lose something in misinformation... they lose their hard-earned money on products which don't fulfill expectations created by false advertisement disguised as an honest review.

Look, this is very simple:

1- False advertisement is wrong and it's forbidden.

2- Bribed bloggers are a new way of doing false advertisement.

3- Therefore, bribed bloggers should be forbidden from doing false advertisement.

Your defense of saying it's a sketchy media outlet doesn't work in reality... the legality of false advertisement shouldn't be affected by where things happen, after all law is supposed to be as universal as possible.

If I rob someone in a dangerous neighborhood I'll still get arrested if I get caught. Saying that the robbery happened in a "sketchy area of town" doesn't defend the criminal in any way. Yeah, people may be stupid for trusting blogs, and they may be stupid for going into dangerous neighborhoods... but that doesn't mean it's legal to cheat and steal.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

ironman on 26 June 2009
NJ5 said:
ironman said:
NJ5 said:
ironman said:

You cannot "defraud" a person without their concent on this matter. People have a choice to take a sleezy blog poster at face value if they wish.


Go tell that to a judge after you cheat someone, then come back and tell us how it went...

 

See, that's a different situation, People are not wronged in any way other than given false information from an already sketchy media outlet. Nothing is physically taken away from the people reading the blogs (save for a few brain cells) Nobody loses anything in misinformation, and quite frankly, if they don't check more creadible sources, then thats their problem.

Are you kidding me? Of course people lose something in misinformation... they lose their hard-earned money on products which don't fulfill expectations created by false advertisement disguised as an honest review.

Look, this is very simple:

1- False advertisement is wrong and it's forbidden.

2- Bribed bloggers are a new way of doing false advertisement.

3- Therefore, bribed bloggers should be forbidden from doing false advertisement.

Your defense of saying it's a sketchy media outlet doesn't work in reality... the legality of false advertisement shouldn't be affected by where things happen, after all law is supposed to be as universal as possible.

If I rob someone in a dangerous neighborhood I'll still get arrested if I get caught. Saying that the robbery happened in a "sketchy area of town" doesn't defend the criminal in any way. Yeah, people may be stupid for trusting blogs, and they may be stupid for going into dangerous neighborhoods... but that doesn't mean it's legal to cheat and steal.

 

Nobody is physically robbed of anything here, and that is the distinction I am trying to make.



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!