FTC plan to regulate blogs borders on the absurd

The Federal Trade Commission plans to regulate
the First Amendment

It's no secret that I've been angry about how California Senator Barbara Boxer recently chastised Army Brigadier General Michael Walsh for acting in accordance with military protocol and addressing her as "ma'am."

When I saw that my friend and business partner Shana Kluck had tweeted something on the topic, I was about to spread the word to my Twitter followers.

Then I read this article, one which states that the Federal Trade Commission will probably be regulating disclosure on blogs in the immediate future:

New guidelines, expected to be approved late this summer with possible modifications, would clarify that the agency can go after bloggers - as well as the companies that compensate them - for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest.

It would be the first time the FTC tries to patrol systematically what bloggers say and do online. The common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer - and getting commissions for any sales from it - would be enough to trigger oversight. [...]

Any type of blog could be scrutinized, not just ones that specialize in reviews.

So parents keeping blogs to update family members on their child's first steps technically would fall under the FTC guidelines, though they likely would have little to worry about unless they accept payments or free products and write about them.

But they would need to think twice if, for instance, they praise parenting books they've just read and include links to buy them at a retailer like Amazon.com Inc. [...]

Still, the agency has a big job ahead as new communications channels continually emerge. Advertisers now are paying some Twitter users to post short items through the increasingly popular messaging service. The FTC says the guidelines would cover such arrangements, regardless of the medium.

If they want to go after product reviewers for fraudulent acts, there are already laws on the books for this and no new government powers are needed. Aside from this, the Internet is pretty adept at self-regulation of conflict-of-interest disclosures. When folks get busted on the web for not disclosing financial or other compensation in a reasonable manner, it's actually pretty ugly.

To be sure, I generally provide disclosure when I'm working for a political campaign, as in this example. However, I chose not to disclose that I am a partner in a consulting firm which specializes in social networking in this example, as I was writing the article from the perspective of a political activist about already completed projects for which I received no direct compensation.  Determining where to draw lines such as these will create a stack of regulations and long, tedious and confusing as federal tax code.  All this because someone wishes to exercise his or her First Amendment rights in an electronic format.

When no other crime has taken place, lack of proper disclosure is a political or business issue and no political entity or business chooses to look bad. Specifically because of it's free-market nature and lack of regulation, the Internet has done a wonderful job of policing it's own.  Throw government into the mix and you'll get people who are hesitant to start new blogs, continue writing at their current websites, or even update their Facebook status.

The situation gets even more ridiculous when one considers microblogging. Considering that most legal disclaimers are longer than the 140 characters allowed at Twitter, this borders on the absurd.  Just to illustrate, I'm going to retweet the message my business partner published to show how silly full disclosure can become:

TWEET ONE: RT@ ShanaJean Sen. Boxer reminded us that common courtesy is not so common- http://is.gd/19zA6 www.HowToSaveYourFamily.com #tlot #veterans..

TWEET TWO:...Disclosure: @ShanaJean is my business partner and she has a contract to promote the book advertised (but not the article she linked to)..

TWEET THREE:...in the aforementioned tweet. Because 5% of our firm's gross receipts go into a common account to pay for common expenditures, I'm...

TWEET FOUR:...receiving some financial benefit from retweeting her message. If enough people retweet this, it may even cover the expense of one...

TWEET FIVE:...business card.

To be clear, my partner wasn't paid directly for that tweet to promote Rebecca Hagelin's Washington Times opinion piece about Barbara Boxer. However, she is paid for promoting her new book.

Also note that I didn't have enough room for a full elipsis on each tweet. Perhaps they won't fine folks for imperfect grammer, so long as the point is clear.  Or perhaps they will.

DISCLOSURE: I get paid by the good folks at Examiner.com when people read this article.  You can make money writing for the Examiner by following this link (please be sure to use my name as your referral source).

DISCLOSURE II: I also get paid for referring writers to the Examiner.

DISCLOSURE III: As checks for what I write at the Examiner go into our business account, my partner will receive a financial benefit because you read this article.  For each thousand people reading this, she'll recieve a benefit (in the form of some common company expenditure like paper clips or pencil erasers) worth approximately sixteen cents.

DISCLOSURE IV: I forgot to mention that another five percent of our gross revenue goes into a deferred payment account, which we use for company cash flow.  We'll each receive short-term cash flow benefits for mentioning each other online. 

DISCLOSURE V: Oops, I forgot something else: I mentioned Rebecca Hagelin's name. It's important to note that I may receive some sort of indirect compensation worth up to a whole penny for this.

Note to self: Remember to call my attorney before I use Twitter or Facebook to promote this article. None of my disclosure statements have undergone a thorough legal review, yet.

DISCLOSURE VI: My attorney writes for the Examiner, too. As I just linked him and I also referred him to Examiner.com, I may need to disclose this, too. Probably not, but better safe than sorry.

Note to Shana: Remember, if you hyperlink any of this stuff over at UnitedLiberty.org, you may have to begin a long string of disclosure statements, as well.