I see it as something else. Someone got mad about something and created some wording and pushed it up through channels to get it to the place it is. It takes a lot of effort, influence and money to get a gov agency to create a law. More interesting would be to know who started it all and who is backing this law.
we have a progressive activist, Lina Kahn, as the head of the FTC, and she has a wild hair to go after everything. and unless there is a new Administration get ready for more stuff like this.
like anything, it's not all bad, but just hope you like more Gov rules. cuz they are on the way. my last 2 years in the Auto biz she was really throwing wrenches into the auto retail sales process with little or no real data to support it. just by writ and fiat. it got ugly. zero accountability to anyone. added lots of costs and silly rules.
There is an entire chain of causation and investigation required of this 'rule'. Enforcement, evidentiary discovery etc. would be ridiculous and nearly impossible, even under the loose aegis of administrative law. Audio reviews are so beneath the radar that audio industry shenanigans would probably never rate that level of scrutiny or enforcement.
Plus, SCOTUS just overthrew the Chevron decision, essentially stating that anything not officially legislated but imposed by arbitrary administrative law is invalid and unconstitutional.
That doesn't mean that 'progressive' bureaucrats won't attempt these 'oversights'. It happens all the time, but they will routinely be shut down if they ever make the grade of an appeals decision.
Maybe they are just jockeying for their own cut of the bribery pie. Create a rule, and some bureaucrats get a plain brown packet of money to ignore the rule in the briber's case.
The FTC's new ruling exposes hidden perks audiophile reviewers receive for glowing reviews. This crackdown aims to restore trust in audio gear reviews.
One could argue that audio consumers WANT to be deceived in order to maintain their sense of esthetics, art, status and inspiration around the hobby. They love the poetry, even if its ultimately the poetry of crass commercialism and wallet invasion. It's about the dream and the emotional transport.
So when the consumers are complicit with the targeted actors, even electing and encouraging them, or elevating them to priesthood status, what then?
The wild west. Influencers try to build the number of followers. One often sees influencers with less experience than a seasoned hobbyist. I don't think they are purposely misleading anyone, just asking viewers to watch them learn on the job. Unfortunately, they don't actually help beginners understand the basics. But perhaps a lot of this is just a consensual tweaking of the envy gland.
When I first saw this I did not think about audio. I thought about restaurant owners infuriated about less than favorable on-line reviews. I thought about sites such as Amazon with multiples of favoring reviews, many in the same broken English. I'd bet that nothing related to audiophilery had anything to do with the FTC inserting themselves
Someone got mad about something and created some wording and pushed it up through channels to get it to the place it is. It takes a lot of effort, influence and money to get a gov agency to create a law. More interesting would be to know who started it all and who is backing this law.
Nope. You're totally barking up the wrong tree here.
Pursuant to Section 18 of the FTC Act the FTC has freestanding authority to promulgate regulations against unfair or deceptive practices which affect commerce. This regulation is not a law. This regulation was not promulgated pursuant to a recently enacted law.
I'm not sure if you meant to follow this question with a sarcasm emoji or not. I was certainly tempted to make a snarky reply.
I tend to think of influencers as residing on social media (I would include YouTube) where they carefully cultivate a look and attitude/lifestyle. Followers want to look like that, live like that, have access like that to potential admirers. It is a vicarious thrill. Often, the more expensive the stuff the better, especially if that kind of stuff is completely unobtainable by the fan. Note: I am not a psychologist nor have I played one on TV.
Pursuant to Section 18 of the FTC Act the FTC has freestanding authority to promulgate regulations against unfair or deceptive practices which affect commerce. This regulation is not a law. This regulation was not promulgated pursuant to a recently enacted law.
The pendulum swings. At its extremes, there is too little and too much of something. Any system eventually finds equilibrium until the pendulum is put in motion again. So says the long-term view.
It is always "compared to what?" The Japanese Government has created its own dating app to encourage, well, dating, marriage and procreation in order to offset the very low birth rate. Governments are struggling with modernity.
I think Michael does wonderful work at Twittering Machines, and I enjoy his reviews very much. In my video about the FTC regulation I explicitly address Michael 's view in his piece.
I agree with others that audio reviews are pretty low on the FTC’s priority list, for the simple reason that we are the proverbial pimple on the elephant’s butt. Stereophile is probably the “biggest” audio magazine in the world, with monthly circulation of 80,000. Marques Brownlee, one of my fave tech reviewers on YouTube, has 20,000,000 subs and interviews Tim Cook. He seems like a stand up guy (who really knows?) but there are other influencers (who clearly shill for money) that aren’t. I’m thinking about the Kardashians and others of their ilk who have enormous sway. Glad many are getting their comeuppance from shilling questionable crypto schemes. Their greed knows no limits.
Marques Brownlee, one of my fave tech reviewers on YouTube, has 20,000,000 subs and interviews Tim Cook. He seems like a stand up guy (who really knows?)
I enjoy his reviews and follow his channel, but he recently released a wallpaper app called Panels, which sparked controversy due to its subscription model and pricing. It seems like he might have been swayed by financial motives. Although he later revised the subscription model and lowered the price, I think the damage to his reputation has already been done.
The amount lost to such schemes stretches the imagination. Google "celebrity endorsements for FTX" to get a sense of the star power behind an $8 billion loss. And interesting case study of herd behavior.
