When things are out in the open, in open systems, things like authority, trust, and integrity play key roles and the community/network help float good stuff to the top.
J.D. Meier´s last blog ..Lessons Learned from Bruce Lee

You make some great points here. What is the government’s ROI? Who is going to man this program and police it? And like you said, many times things like this are just small little clauses or additions to a bigger bill congress wants to get passed.

The biggest problem I have with this proposal is the fact that no one else in the world has to abide by the FTC. Now if this was a huge problem which really scammed people out of money here in the US, maybe then I could see the government wanting to get involved; however, I don’t think it’s really that big of a deal.

The beauty of this proposal, if an Orwellian concept is more beautiful than fearful, is that it is cloaked in the guise of consumer protectionism. Sort of like, “Warning: Coffee is hot!” This is one of those “No $hit, Sherlock” requirements government is so fond of.

The irony is, the FTC, if this proposal is enacted, will be spending more money monitoring and reporting on this issue to collect more money for the government, which will in turn evaluate the ROI vs. the revenue produced and allocate more funds to expand the program! The sound you are hearing is me beating my head against the wall.

Please, let’s not kid ourselves. While the FTC may sloganeer all it wishes to induce the thought that it’s in the consumer protection business, any regulatory agency offsets its operating expenses with revenue extracted via permissions, fines, and even garnishment or seizure. This money is as green as that which accompanies the tax forms we and our businesses currently send in.

Watch for the disclosure measure, if enacted, to spur changes in the tax code. Jannie will pay additional tax on her $96.00 because her gain was somewhat nefarious. The Internets are scary, after all! Or, our ability to make money will be impacted negatively. Look at what happened this week in North Carolina with Amazon Affiliates. Don’t think the FTC is going to stop with the individual blogger. Who has deeper pockets – you or Google?

The price we currently pay – having to put up with those sites you mentioned, or allowing tastelessness and general nastiness of content – to keep the freedoms we have on the Internet seems small by comparison with the vast slippery slope this measure will send us hurtling down.

Now, let’s also remember: the FTC is but one regulatory agency. With the vast number of presidential orders and congressional approvals – most of which are voted/enacted without our elected representatives even reading them in rush-rush hush-hush scenarios – occurring in this government on a daily basis, it’s a safe bet that there is lots of stuff like this we aren’t even aware of. Transparency, anyone? Internet national sales tax anyone? Use tax? The train is fixing to leave the station.
Betsy Wuebker´s last blog ..ADVENTURES IN CUSTOMER SERVICE: WELLS FARGO DUMPS ON A GRIEVING MOTHER

I bet you’re probably right. It wouldn’t matter much.

But then you really have to think about how much time and effort would go into this, not to mention money, and for what kind of results? Probably nothing much would change other than many Americans making less money.

I agree, it’s no big deal if we could simply add a “disclosure link”, but if we have to start disclosing every little detail everywhere there is an affiliate link, that could get ugly.

And yes, the Washington Post would have to disclose things on their site as well. They use and run AdSense.

Jim
I have to ask myself, does our government really have nothing better to do with their time and money? Are they going to pay dozens of “blog monitors” in our government to police this? Disclosures would be nice, though.

Jannie
Better watch out then, you don’t want the hammer coming down on that $96 fortune! hehe