Boing Boing's Undisclosed Paid Endorsements - Do They Violate FTC Guidelines?

[jlw]

The guy knows the location of every affiliate link on Boing Boing, ever, but can not spell Cory?

[Skeptic]

@jlw

The guy knows the location of every affiliate link on Boing Boing, ever, but can not spell Cory?

Hell, I can barely spell “jlw”.

But, no, I do not know the location of every affiliate link on Boing Boing. That’s kind of the point. Nor does anybody. You can’t tell by looking at the posts or the hypertext. Without your inside knowledge of which vendors are BB affiliates or trying to parse each URL for possible codes that could be Affiliate IDs, could you pass the “Spot the Paid Link” test on the Valentines Day gift list post?

[anon68952647]

LMGTFY

[miasm]

This is now a gif thread

[anon68952647]

@miasm

/devastating

[OtherMichael]

Let’s assume that the answer to the headline is “yes.”

What, then is the next step?

 

 

A thorough soul-searching on behalf of the BB staff, who will then say “yeah, I think we’re cool. Oh, and hey, check THIS out!”

And Cory will give Pesco noogies and send him out on a beer-run.

---

They’re guidelines. You know: guide + lines = guidelines. You can color inside of them… or not. It depends upon your level of creativity and OCD how you handles such lines, but when you start peering over at a classmate’s desk and telling them what color to use, and how they’ve crossed the lines and how they can’t cross the lines and why are they being so defensive all they have to do is use a slightly different color and follow the lines… maybe they’ll stick their hand up and say “Mr. Wiesberger! Skeptic is being an asshole again!” Or maybe they’ll just wait until recess when the playground monitors have disappeared for a smoke and slip a shiv into you.

 

A candy-shiv, of course. 'tis all in jest. Sweet, sweet humor.

[beschizza]

@Skeptic

Rob’s meandering litany of excuses, including the outrageous claim that disclosure is bad for consumers

That you hope people will believe I actually said that really says everything about this thread. No-one is fooled by the word games, but you’re just a liar, Skeptic, and that’s why you get such short shrift.

[miasm]

[OtherMichael]

 

[Skeptic]

@beschizza

That you hope people will believe I actually said that really says everything about this thread. No-one is fooled by the word games, but you’re just a liar, Skeptic, and that’s why you get such short shrift:

Terrific. I can add falsely calling me “liar” to your list of ever so reasonable responses to this issue, none of which, so far, include actually just following the FTC guidelines meant to prevent consumer confusion.

I was referring to this statement by you:

@beschizza

I’m generally dismissive of formal disclosures as a fig-leaf substitute for trust. They just make things worse, because their presence is (or easily can be) just a different and more subtle lie about how we get paid; a formality that hides whatever functionality is really in play. Once they’re there, they occupy a place that should be filled by trust.

[emphasis added[

Are you really going to say that can’t be summed up as you calling disclosures bad for consumers?

[OtherMichael]

[beschizza]

That paragraph, as you know, refers to the specific proposal of a formal disclosure (‘fig leaf’) immediately adjacent to each link, in contrast to the various other forms of disclosure discussed in the thread (such as those we currently have on the site)

You are a liar and a scoundrel and a dick, sir.

[goodpasture]

@Skeptic

Are you really going to say that can’t be summed up as you calling disclosures bad for consumers?

You can summarize it that way, if you were trying to deliberately distort his point.

Here’s another way: an ongoing relationship with readers based on years of posts and interactions are more meaningful than some government-mandated sticker that says “100% Non-Sponsored Content”

[OtherMichael]

[miasm]

[Skeptic]

@beschizza

That paragraph, as you know, refers to the specific proposal of a formal disclosure immediately adjacent to each link, in contrast to the various other forms of disclosure discussed in the thread (such as those we currently have on the site)

You are a liar and a dick, sir.

Wow. And you just added “and a dick” with an edit. Very professional.

You aren’t really convincing me that you have a valid reason why BB shouldn’t mark paid links as such in posts.

[miasm]

[rkt88edmo]

Why would anyone ever post a link to amazon that is not an affiliate link?

It does not affect the pricing to the end user (supposedly, and so far no one has called out AMZN for doing otherwise.

An afilliate link is simply revenue for generating eyeballs and clickthroughs if it results in a purchase. BB posts cool shit that they think you would like to have because it is extra shiny, or important to your mutant hood, or will improve your quality of living some how. Affiliate links at amazon have been in use for well over a decade. Every amazon link you see is likely an affiliate link, particularly from free blogs.

Affiliate links generally aren’t part of an “advertising campaign”.

Something like the VPN fiasco looks far more like a targeted campaign or at least a focused push than a normal affiliate link. The lack of homework done when making a recommendation is far more disturbing, particularly given the intended use and nature of their service, it isn’t just some $20 can opener doo dad that plays the theme to the jetsons, it is a serious privacy tool.

[anon63496581]