FTC Cracks Down on Reviewers
- Thread starter miniguy
- Start date
and hence why many legal scholars claim these are illegal. The government doesn't have the legal mechanism nor authority to give itself additional powers or departments unless the STATES give it that power. And since they did not, then it cannot exist. It deals with the theory of delegation. In essence, can congress delegate power and responsibility to others or is it only allowed to be exercised by them. For instance, can congress delegate the authority to declare war to a class of 4th graders? There also exists no legal mechanism for them to delegate their powers either. Why? Because they feared a rogue congress could simply delegate its authority to the president and then you have a dictator.
This is all discussed in depth in the Federalist papers.
Last edited:
I think the best thing about the new FTC regulation is that it protects free speech. It prevents big(ish) companies threatening legal action on a small youtube reviewer for a semi-negative comment or even full-blown negative comments regarding a product. I guess they could still threaten but at least now the youtube guy has something to point at to say "leave me alone".
Although the DCS affair is a nice case study. They enlightened others on exactly what not to do. Who has the bigger stick? The big corporation with their lawyers or the lowly guy with a voice on youtube? This isn't the 1990's.
Although the DCS affair is a nice case study. They enlightened others on exactly what not to do. Who has the bigger stick? The big corporation with their lawyers or the lowly guy with a voice on youtube? This isn't the 1990's.
More fake, delegated government leading to a cesspool of selective enforcement via influence peddling and agency capture. That's just what is needed.
Because: some bureaucrat had a 'bright idea' and was allowed to write it large without balance, input or debate. It is fertilizer for corrupt practices.
I've seen proliferation of these agency virtue signaling 'bright ideas' in my own profession, and it leads to greased palms, paper chases, obnoxious overseers and undue, oppressive influence, not justice. It generates an 'enforcement industry' de novo, and then, of course, the enforcement industry becomes self perpetuating along with its bureaucratic roots. It's also a clamp on the First Amendment by another disguise. It generates a targeted lawfare weapon, which we see, is always abused by the government.
I'd rather sort out the puffery and disinformation myself. Thanks, but no thanks, nanny state.
Because: some bureaucrat had a 'bright idea' and was allowed to write it large without balance, input or debate. It is fertilizer for corrupt practices.
I've seen proliferation of these agency virtue signaling 'bright ideas' in my own profession, and it leads to greased palms, paper chases, obnoxious overseers and undue, oppressive influence, not justice. It generates an 'enforcement industry' de novo, and then, of course, the enforcement industry becomes self perpetuating along with its bureaucratic roots. It's also a clamp on the First Amendment by another disguise. It generates a targeted lawfare weapon, which we see, is always abused by the government.
I'd rather sort out the puffery and disinformation myself. Thanks, but no thanks, nanny state.
Feel free to vent -- I don't mind listening (ah, reading). But this characterization is so incorrect as to suggest you do not understand the process.
The entire purpose of the notice of proposed rule-making, the months long public comment process, the iterative communications process between commenting interested parties and the administrative agency, and the internal deliberative process at the administrative agency means there is balance, input and debate.
Thanks for reminding us about the comment period for U.S. rule-making. It is important to understand the actual process in order to understand how/when such rules are established (I'm not taking sides here). And if you think no one comments, just look at one or two of these kinds of rules.
I think it is reasonable to believe that this rule is meant to, in large part, reign in the large tech companies. The rest of the world, in different ways, is trying to do this too (see Brazil vs. Musk and France vs. Pavel Durov as two examples). No one understood just how influential these companies would become in everyday life. The possibility of abuse is enormous.
Well, it depends on what you vent about.
There are also many informal conversations about code, regulations, rulings and procedures. I’ve participated over several decades in the process both formal and informal.
It makes a lot of comments in this thread humorous. Everybody is sick of the emails they receive offering stuff for reviews including regulators.
LOL! You're talking about an internal process overseen and ajudicated by whom exactly? Seems to illustrate the point rather than banish it. "We have had a clear an open discussion before making our entirely arbitrary decision, likely having nothing to do with the discussion." You see bureaucrats doing this kind of thing all the time, then the 'authority' is rationed out to an equally arbitrary enforcement apparatus.
In .edu world the decision is made and then a committee comes to life to assure it is seen as the result of a deliberative open process. Bureaucrats are cya adepts.
With the Securities and Exchange Commission and with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a hedge executive represented by very specialized legal counsel I have been involved with this exact process numerous times. Have you?
Have you read the 163 page release? If you have, then you would know that what you are writing is incorrect.
I won't be responding further to uniformed rants on this particular topic.
I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I'm describing from experience you have had which may appear superficially to be similar. I don't know how the educational world operates, but based on what we see from the heads of these colleges and universities there is nothing analogous to the process I described for administrative agencies: public notice of proposed rule-making, a months long public comment process, the iterative communications process between commenting interested parties and their attorneys and the administrative agency, publication of a revised rule, additional comments on the revised rule, additional iterative process, final rulemaking.
Of course it's bureaucratic. It's the Federal government. But considering it's the Federal government in practice this particular well-established process actually is genuinely interactive and provides genuine input to the administrative agency, input which they do take seriously.
Even between the notice of proposed rulemaking and the submission of formal comments by affected companies and interested parties there often is a great deal of in-person meeting and email and telephone interaction between such companies and parties and the regulators at the agency involved in the rulemaking.
Another element of which you may not be aware is that many of these government regulators are lifers or near lifers. Over time they come to know personally many of the business players and many of the attorneys in their regulated industry. Both sides may work with each other again and again over many years. Both sides do have a genuine desire to come up with a rule that everybody can at least sort of live with.*
Also the regulators have to administer and enforce their own new rules. They do want to understand the way their industry actually works. The rulemaking process is actually very educational for the administrative agency itself.
*Please be aware that I have had no direct experience with the FTC. As a hedge fund executive I have had direct experience with the SEC and with the CFTC. The same rulemaking process applies in general across administrative agencies.
Lina Kahn may very well have ripped up at the FTC the long established general process I am describing. She has over-reached many times, and her positions have been rejected repeatedly by courts. Similarly under Gary Gensler, the SEC does not appear to be as collegial with the industry as was my experience. This is what happens when you have regulators who want to be legislators.
Last edited:
Tim, it’s posts like this that cause me to doubt your powers of observation. And your qualifications to be a reviewer.
But will it be enforceable? If a reviewer is promised a reward. who will be raising the red flag and will it ever be proved in Court? It is in both the reviewer's and brand's interest be keep mum, so any freeby or "bribe" is unlikely to come to light.
Better perhaps would be to ban "amateurs" from conducting reviews - a qualification and sworn statement that reviews will be truthful and comprehensive should be required before a reviewer is "licensed" to undertake this job? OK, that is also impractical as it would be too wide ranging, perhaps. However it would rid Youtube and other places of "reviews" from people that have no greater experience of the subject than most here - or likely less!
This was my initial impression at midnight on Friday evening when I discovered the regulation.
After reading the entire 163 page release and working with the regulation all day yesterday I believe that the "particular sentiment" element of the prohibition on the purchase of reviews would make it difficult for the FTC to prove a case against manufacturer advertising, accommodation discounts and long-term loans. While the regulation absolutely applies to the high-end audio industry in general, and to professional reviews in particular, it is not the very big deal I thought it was initially.
The regulation does not prohibit the purchasing of reviews. Regulations like this are very specific and very technical. They have to be read carefully to understand the precise elements of the activity which are proscribed.
After reading the entire 163 page release and working with the regulation all day yesterday I believe that the "particular sentiment" element of the prohibition on the purchase of reviews would make it difficult for the FTC to prove a case against manufacturer advertising, accommodation discounts and long-term loans. While the regulation absolutely applies to the high-end audio industry in general, and to professional reviews in particular, it is not the very big deal I thought it was initially.
The regulation does not prohibit the purchasing of reviews. Regulations like this are very specific and very technical. They have to be read carefully to understand the precise elements of the activity which are proscribed.
Reviewers and designers will be obselete in 10-20 years . 
Just upload all high end amplifier schematics into optimus and he will tell you what works best .
Upload all digital reviews into optimus as well and he will make a nice story every time you ask for it
And It wont take weeks , just a couple of minutes probably
Say hello to my new friend .
Just upload all high end amplifier schematics into optimus and he will tell you what works best .
Upload all digital reviews into optimus as well and he will make a nice story every time you ask for it
And It wont take weeks , just a couple of minutes probably
Say hello to my new friend .
isn't it possible to discuss rule-making and how this rule might or might not apply to audio without dipping into political discussions and opinions about the regulators? Seems contrary to the rules of this site to discuss politics vs., for example, policy and process. And discussing politics does not appear to advance our ability to predict the future. We are all speculating, even those with actual experience.
@Ron Resnick , in your experience did you see instances where regulations were re-defined in practice (not modified in writing) by both parties after a little experience with implementation? What I've observed over time, is that when the pendulum swings there can be posturing, but the practical day-to-day implementation brings the pendulum nearer to equilibrium. In other words, practice can point out impracticalities with procedures as written. That doesn't mean everything stops.
@Ron Resnick , in your experience did you see instances where regulations were re-defined in practice (not modified in writing) by both parties after a little experience with implementation? What I've observed over time, is that when the pendulum swings there can be posturing, but the practical day-to-day implementation brings the pendulum nearer to equilibrium. In other words, practice can point out impracticalities with procedures as written. That doesn't mean everything stops.
should not say TESLA, but rather XX. The guy loves Xs. I think one of his kids is name Xylophone. Or Xylophone 458. Something like that...Reviewers and designers will be obselete in 10-20 years .
Just upload all high end amplifier schematics into optimus and he will tell you what works best .
Upload all digital reviews into optimus as well and he will make a nice story every time you ask for it
And It wont take weeks , just a couple of minutes probably
Say hello to my new friend .
View attachment 137947
X ( Optimus ) will be reviewer / designer / accountant / regulator / moderator ... president all at the same time
Last edited:
Similar threads
