The policy on PayPerPost is that bloggers need not disclose that they are being paid to express a specific opinion about a product. Also, in an astroturf-like move, PayPerPost has launched DisclosurePolicy.org which helps people develop disclosures for their sites (and pays them to display it). The trouble is that they want people who have nothing to disclose to also display one.
This blog does not accept any form of advertising, sponsorship, or paid insertions. We write for our own purposes. However, we may be influenced by our background, occupation, religion, political affiliation or experience.I'm not going to say that, because I'm writing my opinion, and of course my opinion is going to be influenced by who I am, that's why its mine. They're trying to desensitize readers to advisories like this, conveying that everyone has an agenda, and it shouldn't matter what motivates them. So as soon as the kickbacks start rolling in, I'm going to have a disclosure posted on every article.
But rest assured, I'm not going to stoop to this. Granted there's no reason to believe me; but if I recommend a product, its because I really like and endorse it. Not because I'm being paid to suck up. Unless you see me on a Subway commercial talking about how I lost 400 pounds eating chicken subs, then it will be for the money.
1 comment:
Yes, Google is much safer than anyone was predicting before the acquisition because of the safe harbor afforded to it in user submitted materials. Part of this is because Google has the budget to go to court and fight every complaint, so they're not going to be bullied by frivolous claims. Another part is that the youtube service agreements prohibit infringing material and under the ordinances of the DMCA and copyright procedures it is the infringed upon party's duty to object to the use. Youtube complies immediately with all requests and does not continue infringement. They're not the same trouble as Napster because they are hosting the material and they can stop hosting it. Yet another piece is that Google and Youtube bribed the RIAA to lay off with the copyright claims for six months by giving them a butt load of stock that skyrocketed after the acquisition. Yes, Youtube will be fine for a while until the fickle masses move on to the next social paradigm. (unless Google can energize it and keep interest with new services and features)
But this post isn't really about copyright, de facto copyright, copyright infringement, the DMCA, or online video at all. Its about disclosure to a consuming audience about the various outside influences an author or reporter may have that affect his favor. Like if I owned a part of Google and raved about it all the time, I would probably tell you that I have a vested interest in that company.
Am I missing something in the link that makes it more pertinent?
Post a Comment