FTC Cracks Down on Reviewers

[Kingrex]

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.

The FTC came up with this regulation on its own.

100% agree. I go to my friend at the FTC and hand that person a brown paper bag, full of money and a note inside. Soon a new law is handed down that favors my business while negativity impacting a competator or mine. Thats how I see it work.

I'm not making a political statement or endorsing anyone. But I totally get the concept of Drain The Swamp.

I think @Kingrex is saying, this had ro come from somewhere. What was the motivation for it.

Yes. Someone put a bug in someones ear at the FTC.

I was thinking they were targeting Consumer Reports, but I believe you are more correct about Amazon and other places as such. Home Depot is one I.look at a lot. I wonder if this is going to be a lever to attack Google and validate breaking it up.

 

[Kingrex]

FTC Cracks Down on Reviewers​

......... its about time lol .

Horn/ set reviewers/ afficionados first please


View attachment 137829

Is that a picture of Ked?

 

[Kingrex]

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.

Lets hope they use the law for good purposes.

 

[Ron Resnick]

100% agree. I go to my friend at the FTC and hand that person a brown paper bag, full of money and a note inside. Soon a new law is handed down that favors my business while negativity impacting a competator or mine. Thats how I see it work.

I am sorry, but you are watching too much TV.

What you're saying doesn't even make sense because this is a pretty neutral anti-deception / pro-disclosure regulation which doesn't choose between honest market participants.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

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.

Nice and I posted to reinforce what has been articulated here.

 

[Kingrex]

I am sorry, but you are watching too much TV.

What you're saying doesn't even make sense because this is a pretty neutral anti-deception / pro-disclosure regulation which doesn't choose winners and losers.

My perception is you are very analytical and focused thought. Your not looking outside the box. Your so microscopic you may loose the broader picture.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Is that a picture of Ked?

.

Bail is set to the equivalent amount of 1 pair of Altecs and a SET

 

[Mike Lavigne]

100% agree. I go to my friend at the FTC and hand that person a brown paper bag, full of money and a note inside. Soon a new law is handed down that favors my business while negativity impacting a competator or mine. Thats how I see it work.

no; you find a way to get the ear of Senator Warren, and 'wa-la'......a new FTC direction gets hatched. then data is created/spun to justify it. that is the real power source here. not the lowly admin's. she is pulling the strings. she hand picked the FTC head.

so says the manufacturer's Congressional lobby guy briefing auto dealers.

like i said, it's not all bad....but it's coming to/for us. so be ready.

 

[Iamrael]

no; you find a way to get the ear of Senator Warren, and 'wa-la'.

A brown paper bag full of money and a note inside.

 

[PYP]

like i said, it's not all bad....but it's coming to/for us. so be ready.

with all due respect, if you mean audiophiles I find that very unlikely (as others have said). This market is so small. The targets seem to be huge organizations like the big 5 tech firms.

We are like the youngest child in a family. The parents will be exhausted by the time we come along and are allowed more freedom than the rest.

When the regulation is applied to the big 5, the legal-industrial complex will respond with full force. The big 5 also have their congressional lobbying folks. These folks can do the rope-a-dope 24/7.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

with all due respect, if you mean audiophiles I find that very unlikely (as others have said). This market is so small. The targets seem to be huge organizations like the big 5 tech firms.

i agree and was not really addressing audiophiles, only @Kingrex and his comment about who might be viewed as having an influence on rule making.

and......was simply expanding on the "who is actually doing what 'to whom'. the who is Warren. if you read Elizabeth Warren's bio and her focus she is in the middle of all of it calling the shots, and the demo power brokers are ceding that leadership to her.

but maybe spin-offs of this FTC rule might have an effect as time goes by as common views toward reviews could adjust. if Celebrity endorsements get curtailed, and that enters the consciousness of the public, it might adjust acceptance of such in areas such as the high end and influencers. i say 'could'.......not 'will'. public sentiment evolution is not anything entirely predictable. this could be a minor speedbump, or a major detour, or anything in between.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

A brown paper bag full of money and a note inside.

progressives already have assets, more than the other guys. whoever they might be. they print the money. it's all about power, and keeping it.

 

[Iamrael]

Hmm. Menendez?

 

[Kingrex]

no; you find a way to get the ear of Senator Warren, and 'wa-la'......a new FTC direction gets hatched. then data is created/spun to justify it. that is the real power source here. not the lowly admin's. she is pulling the strings. she hand picked the FTC head.

so says the manufacturer's Congressional lobby guy briefing auto dealers.

like i said, it's not all bad....but it's coming to/for us. so be ready.

You said it better. Lowly people have no power. Its at the top. Money comes in different ways. A paper bag is a metaphor. Its more likely millions in corporate election donation money and nepotistic employment. Pay me give a speach. Ex president's make a lot that way.

 

[tima]

I am sorry, but you are watching too much TV.

What you're saying doesn't even make sense because this is a pretty neutral anti-deception / pro-disclosure regulation which doesn't choose between honest market participants.

That's one take but it begs the question
That you are not targeted does not certify your honesty.

 

[tony22]

I don’t know if this has been mentioned yet, but in this month’s Stereophile Editorial Jim Austin discusses this, and mentions that he contacted the FTC for clarity. He was told this new regulation “does not affect journalism” and that Stereophile (and I’d assume TAS) are “unaffected”.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I don’t know if this has been mentioned yet, but in this month’s Stereophile Editorial Jim Austin discusses this, and mentions that he contacted the FTC for clarity. He was told this new regulation “does not affect journalism” and that Stereophile (and I’d assume TAS) are “unaffected”.

I address this in full detail in my video.

 

[Synaxis]

I think many are missing the point:

1)

I don’t know if this has been mentioned yet, but in this month’s Stereophile Editorial Jim Austin discusses this, and mentions that he contacted the FTC for clarity. He was told this new regulation “does not affect journalism” and that Stereophile (and I’d assume TAS) are “unaffected”.

Whew.....glad to hear the government now claims - contrary to past repeated actions - that it's not going to go after journalists.

If some person in the government said it, then I'm sure it's true (sarcasm is not aimed at you personally Tony).

It's not like they'd lie (cough, cough, Pocahontas).

While transparency is always a good thing, the thought that the government won't selectively enforce this, or take it far beyond its intention is simply contrary to what we see played out before us every single day. Remember Louis Lerner? If you forgot or you don't know what she did shame on you (generally speaking - not at you Tony). How many times have we seen government weaponized? And yet we are still foolish enough to think this won't be?

As someone who did a video a month ago on the dishonesty by reviewers and YouTubers in the industry (let's be honest, the prices certain reviewers charge are an open secret discussed by many) in hifi and the need for transparency in this industry, I can state unequivocally the government is NEVER the answer to just about any question.

At the end of the day we can't protect people from making bad purchasing decisions or being naive. No one is forcing them to buy anything. What's next - going after the shills on forums that are paid by hifi companies to promote them secretly? Are we going to turn into Robspiere and suspect and go after everyone? Are we going to go after Bounty paper towels for claiming to he the Quicker Picker Upper? Or the pizza place who claims to be the best pizza? Or people who post on Yelp that a restaurant is good in exchange for a free meal? It's all the same thing - people making marketing claims that do not force anyone to do anything.

That's all I'm going to say on this as it's dangerously close to political and I don't want to get into that. I suggest people reread the Enumerated powers before they decide if this is legal. It's written at a fifth grade level for all to understand so you don't need to be a "Constitutional Scholar" to understand and it's very specific.

 

[tony22]

I think many are missing the point:

1)


Whew.....glad to hear the government now claims - contrary to past repeated actions - that it's not going to go after journalists.

If some person in the government said it, then I'm sure it's true (sarcasm is not aimed at you personally Tony).

It's not like they'd lie (cough, cough, Pocahontas).

…

I didn’t say I think we could take that as gospel, did I? No one knows just what will come out of this until it… does.

 

[Synaxis]

I didn’t say I think we could take that as gospel, did I?

Hi Tony - that's why I explicitly said it wasn't aimed at you. I know you weren't claiming that.