Proposed Regulation of Social Media: More of the same from a “Nanny” Government or a Legitimate Safeguard?

image userpic
April 3, 2009 | BY Glenn Seaberg
  


Glenn Seaberg
Spyder Trap Online Marketing

The Federal Trade Commission is moving quickly to limit speech on social media channels including Facebook and Twitter (FT.com). Can anyone be surprised? At first glance this appears another overreaching big government power grab. After all, social media has become a phenomenon that government neither created nor even predicted.

Pushing my stubborn cynicism aside, I’m cautiously changing my mind. It appears that the regulation is aimed at preventing commercial enterprises from corrupting the collective conversations held on social media. The regulation aims to prevent untruthful or fraudulent statements from those receiving compensation for those opinions. In other words, the days of companies secretly compensating “private” citizens for their “unbiased opinions” may be over.

However, anytime the government starts to regulate speech, I find myself becoming more and more skeptical. I’m left with questions to which I only have opinions, but no real answers. Is this a good move? Is it even necessary? Can social media participants police themselves? Can social media offer legitimate channels for commercial speech? Where does the role of government start and end with regard to social media?

Let me know what you think. Your comments will further this discussion on an important topic that will affect us all.

Tags: , , .
Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.twitter.com/bradwellman Brad Wellman

    I think this is more for preventing advertisers from paying prominent bloggers for their “opinions” (i.e. stacking reviews).

    I think there’s a difference between making an opinionated statement and making false representations (and this is aimed at combating the latter). I don’t think that this is anything that we didn’t see coming, as there are ad regulations in place in main stream media aimed at protecting consumers from shoddy products and false claims.

    While I do agree that it may be too soon to regulate this new and growing medium as it may have “chilling effects on blogs and other forms of viral marketing, as bloggers and other viral marketers will be discouraged from publishing content for fear of being held liable for any potentially misleading claim,” I do feel that some form of regulation may prove necessary if social media fails in its ability to self-regulate.

    I just don’t want it to become commonplace for advertisers to pay people to talk-up their products, to the point where consumers can’t discern between legitimate opinions and paid reviews…

  • Glenn Seaberg

    Good points, Brad. But say you’re a big fan of a product and you say so on a blog or a tweet. How does the FTC know whether you’ve been compensated or not? Should you then expect a visit from the FTC? Maybe not at first, but God knows government likes to incrementally expand.

  • http://www.twitter.com/bradwellman Brad Wellman

    Thats a good point, and I was actually asked that by another person too. My response is that I’m not sure how the FTC can determine whether you were compensated or not. It seems that we all have to rely on the honor system, but what about those people that aren’t truthful?

    I would hate to write something positive about a product/brand and then have the FTC grilling me about if I received payment from that company to say those things.

    I think that social media is doing a fine job of being self-policing because those blogs that are indeed funded by brands to hype up their products being found quickly and subsequently bashed by the community. Its like the golden rule of social media: be honest, because if you aren’t people will find out and it will only destroy you in the long run…

  • http://webmarketcentral.blogspot.com Tom Pick

    This is another completely unwarranted intrusion by an over-reaching federal government into the private sphere. Am I any more “harmed” by reading a positive (though possibly inaccurate) post by blogger who wasn’t compensated vs. one who was? Shouldn’t we always “consider the source”?

    Furthermore, what constitutes “compensation”? Does it have to be cash? Are links a form of compensation? How about business referrals? A trade of services?

    We don’t need anymore “full employment for lawyers” acts. This country has way too many as it is.