I generally dislike any reference to "slippery slopes" as that argument is the kind of thing that gets used against gay marriage and, really, it's a fallacy in a lot of ways.
Still I can't deny that this worries me. Especially since blogs are being singled out. I don't see why that's necessary...

Members of the reigning administration have already spoken of governmental control of the internet. "Yes We Can"...."Do Whatever The Hell We Want With People's Rights."

Get it?

The thing is, the fine is UP TO $11K. It all depends on the situation I guess, like getting a free car as opposed to a $60 game with a subscription to Rolling Stone for reviewing Brutal Legend.
Generally, traditional print and TV media disclose this information regularly--for example--albeit a different situation-- the Chicago Tribune always disclose that they own both WGN Radio/TV and (used to own) the Chicago Cubs at the end of every article they wrote about them in the interest of fair and unbiased media. Print media thrives on reviews for their readers--so naturally they need copies of games and other such media provided to them-- but having worked for national print mag myself, I can say with absolute certainty that advertising is usually the real payout that companies give to them for a "glowing review". It's the very heart of any media outlet to stay afloat.

The same should hold true today--especially in this age of guerrilla media--where everyone can be the next Edward R. Murrow in their own mind. Far too often any shmoe with more than 500 hits to their blog site can get "credibility" with companies to ask for product to review, and if the companies feel they'll get enough impressions from it, they'll provide it. Keep in mind that this very site grew from nothing, with no corporation backing it up, and probably did the exact same thing; asking for review material, possibly a few perks--all the FTC is doing now is saying to the newcomers "listen, you may think you're hot sh*t now that you've got companies sending you free stuff, but if you don't disclose that like a professional reviewer/journalist does, you're going to find your bank account missing a few more zeros than usual". Bloggers want to be seen and heard--and if they find out they might be able to profit from it as well, then accountability is in order.

It keeps them honest.

It's the same for college sports players recruited from high school--in decades past it was a rampant gift influx of cars, money, even houses to lure the best (if not the brightest) talent to their colleges--scholarships just wasn't enough for the kids. Now college leagues being watched like a hawk.

And really, isn't honesty what we want most from reading a review when we log on? The last thing I want is reading a blatantly brown-nosing article because some blog got the first advance copy or got invited to a Superbowl or a gentleman's club for "drinks".

Honesty truly is the best policy in today's gossip and third-hand fact media, and from the looks of it, the FTC is trying to maintain a slim modicum of that very idea.

"...the FTC does not consider "traditional" media like print and TV shows to be accountable..."

Bullshit! If anything they should be more accountable then a blog.

Without wanting to sound like a paranoid psychopath with a tin foil hat, I think this could get bad. Generally guidelines like this are only precautionary, so this hopefully won't have much impact, but I'm not keen on the idea that bloggers are now being held so accountable for ostensibly trivial circumstances.

Um... how do they plan on enforcing this?

Is this going to apply only to American sites or American bloggers? What about American sites with non-American bloggers? What about non-American sites with American bloggers? What about non-American sites with non-American bloggers but American companies? What about non-American companies selling their wares outside the US but reported on by American bloggers on American websites?

I love it when the government believes it can, from both a legal and logistical level police ANYTHING that happens on the internet.

It also doesn't make sense. How can you target blogs which are, essentially, personal lines of communication. Could they apply it to say a telephone conversation? A letter? What if I get a free game from EB Games and then tell my friend how awesome EB Games is? Am I required to disclose that they gave me a free game? What makes text online any different?

Fuck, fuck, fuck. I am sick and tired of fat, balding, useless, impotent old men telling me how my digital lifestyle should be run. Someone get 4Chan on this. They'll set the FTC straight right quick.

When the government is concerned about accountability in private matters the first thing that ought to be asked is whether or not they are even accountable for themselves.

Ok, this is some scary stuff here folks.
When a government decides that it will meddle with your rights on the tubes, then mark my words, shit will start hitting the fan.

And writing this as an European, I can't take it as something that happens in America. Shit tends to travel in a tube.

It's government intervention of this nature that made me worry about the Patriot Act and the domino effect it represented. I do love how pathetic the government tries to restrict the global Internet. They just can't handle the fact that people have an unfiltered medium to express ideas freely, for better or worse.

Hey guys, i'm back!

Topher wins.

Holding sites and blogs to higher standards than TV and print reviewers will only end badly. This will get thrown out, because the major media corps that control certain blogs will never stand for it, and it will crumple beneath the constitution the first time it hits a courtroom.

I see most people are trying to jump on the "its all the government conspiracy"bandwagon which I think its absolute crap, grow up for gods sake These guidelines seem to have nothing to do with censorship or limiting rights, its about making printed blogs more transparent. We all log on to the likes of destructoid for an honest opinion the product that we spend our cash on, do we not have a right to know what possilbe vested interests bloggers may have? Where there is money to be made corruption will follow, hopefully these guidelines might improve this. Its not all a conspiracy ya know.

This is practically unenforceable unless they somehow develop omniscience overnight. Or maybe they're depending on the millions upon millions of always-rational, sane, intelligent internet dwellers to be their eyes and ears? Yeah, great idea, FTC.

The act is designed for bringing transparency is advertising. By principle its a good thing, though there are still questions about enforcement; though the FTC has said it will allow self-policing to occur for the time being and will deal with incidents on a case-by-case basis.

For good blogs there are many positives to what the FTC is doing, its holding blogger to the same standard as print journalist. Good blogs can gain legitimacy, bad ones will be exposed. The real target seems to be viral and guerrilla advertisers rather then journalists themselves.

The main goal is to make clear division between editorial and advertorial stories online. It likely won't be an issue unless there is some egregious ethical violation like the Gamespot-Gerstmann incident, and even such cases may not be targeted by the FTC due to them likely wanting higher-profile cases.

The only thing that surprises me about this is that America did it before Britain.

This is stupid and will prove fruitless in the end. Why think they are doing this is to help the falling print and tv media industry, that's why they are strangly exempt from the same treatment. Many of us would rather read a fan blog review of something, than that of a proper journalist who's just writing to get paid, and may know less about a subject matter (especially something like games).

You see, these days us net savvy peoples are on the rise, and pretty soon will dominate. A blog from a fan can now change the world for the better, and to tell you the truth, they totally fear the free power of the masses online. The birth of Dtoid, 1up etc sees fans in communities, focusing on what they know. Here, we are pretty much free to say what we like, and police ourselves to keep things on track.

If you take the recent Iranian elections as a an example, it shows just how, even one of the most draconian nations on the planet, could not shut up the people, or shut down the internet. Ultimately this is what all governments fear, and they'll try in vain to suppress and control us. Print and tv want our attention, and while this might sound reasonable to a degree for some, I doubt this will work. Those bloggers that do receive stuff, I'm sure never let it cloud their judgement or seem like some kind of seedy bribe. If they do receive something, there's always the option to return an item to the sender.

The true danger, is that they might start reaching beyond blogs and onto podcasts etc, and while that sounds scary, I think it will all be impossible to police. WTF...11K?? Why so much money, how'd they come up with that figure, and where's such potential money going? I'm betting its to feed lacking industries like print and tv, who I'm sure could easily afford such fees and hurt the small guy, but notice they never tell us about that bit. Indeed, what if you are a Brit like Jim, are you still expected to pay such extortionate money? And beyond U.S borders, how are they going to police that? Bloggers aren't just local all the time.

Best thing Dtoid, copy all those delivery notes for your preview stuff and send them to the FTC, to annoy them. Stupidly, they are the only ones who care about such tosh. Alternatively, it wouldn't hurt to say 'game purchased/supplied by company x for preview/review etc' above an article or review.

When video game reviews become outlawed, only outlaws will review video games.

Seriously, what do they consider to be "blogs" in this case? I mean, even ignoring big sites like IGN or Gamespot or whatever (because this should definitely apply to them if anyone), but just within blogging spheres there's a difference between, say, front page Destructoid, the c-blogs on Destructoid, and some random ass dude on LJ or whatever. Does this apply to all of these? None of these? Only some? Give us some goddamn clarity here, FTC. Jeez.

To steal an example I saw in the comments on gamepolitics, if I get a free tube of toothpaste in the mail (unsolicited), and then I write on my Facebook saying how fucking awesome and life-changing this toothpaste is, do I have to disclose that I got that tube of toothpaste in the mail or else face a $11,000 fine? I would assume no, but knowing how fucked up the government can be, who can really say? How deep into the rabbit hole does this shit go?

I'm all for accountability, especially when you have stuff like the recent Eidos shenanigans going on, but if there is one thing you can trust about the government, it's that they'll find a way to fuck this up somehow.

And just how are they going to see if you got anything for sure?

I agree... the government should keep it's nose out of the internet. Yes, it's the last bastion of freedom and like the wild west there are all types of scams and hooligans ready to gun us down - but that's what makes it the internet.

I'm thankful I'm Canadian... where they generally don't care what we do on the internet until the Americans start pressuring us to stop the piracy and all the other stuff we do that Americans just don't like - and thankfully we also tend to move really, really slowly when making those changes.

What's a video game blog? Is that like a site with comments and community blogs like Game Informer, or is that a site with forums and user reviews like Gamespot? Maybe it's a site with user written pages and uploaded photos like ... well, you get what I'm getting at. The line is blurring so fast that the FTC has no idea what to do.

So the FTC is trying to protect me from purchasing a video game I read a good review for that was only good because the reviewer was bribed to make the review good? No thanks. The fact that there are tons of video game blogs on the internet kind of makes this extra protection completely unneccessary. If, for example, if Mr. Jim Sterling writes up a praise-filled review for 3D Dot Game Heroes, and to my eyes it looks extremely biased, my first reaction would not be "Oh great and lovely FTC, please create a set of regulations that will force Mr. Sterling to divulge any evidence of bribery or bias". I would simply check out a bunch of other blogs that reviewed 3D Dot Game Heroes and see what the overall verdict of the game is over all the sources I check. What the FTC is doing is, to me, completely useless and is another instance of government nannying, where our dear government feels the need to save us from ourselves.

I don't need the government to decide for me that trans fat is too dangerous to be eaten at all, I don't need the government to impose a bicycle helmet-wearing law on me, and I certainly don't need protection from blogs that may or may not be trying to get me to buy a video game because they were bribed to do so,

Fuck that, government doesn't need to get involved.

A teenager just got a visit from the Secret Service for putting a poll on Facebook on whether or not the President should die.

You guys realize this probably doesn't affect a site like DToid and is instead targeted more at sites where much larger readers reading more general interest blogs right? What the FTC is saying is that if you're a blogger, and you're taking big kickbacks from a political party or a big corporation that you should be disclosing that so everyone knows who's pay roll you're on. The FTC doesn't care that some blogger got a copy of some game for free and didn't dsiclose that.

The FTC is worried about much bigger cases of straight out astroturfing. For example a theoretical GM or Aetna paying "bloggers" to blog about how nice GM cars are or how health reform sucks. Which has happened. Google "Astroturfing." You'll find out about the really shitty things big business has done in the name of PR and deceptive advertising. That's the target. Not some guy who got a copy of Hannah Montanna for DSi to review on his shitty blog.