boston.com— Beginning today, bloggers, Twitterers, and others who write online reviews or endorse products using new media must disclose it when they receive free merchandise or payment for writing about an item.
Dec 2, 2009View in Crawl 4
It's pretty funny that you think the quality of the comments section has anything to do with Digg profitability or attrasctiveness to potential buyers.Just so you know: Only one in a thousand users actually visit the comments page for any article, and only one in a hundred of those actually leave comment.The quality of the Digg userbase is measured in their ability to be marketed to, that's all that matters. Nobody gives a s**t if we are all morons or racists or whatever, they only care about the likelihood that we will succumb to advertising. And it's not a good thing for Digg that it's users are usually smart enough to not fall for advertising at all.I really can't believe someone would think that digg is unprofitable because the commenters are dumb as rocks, that's hilarious.
Obviously it's not a problem and most good bloggers/reviewers do... but it shouldn't be a law. IMO, it's the consumers place to decide when they trust a reviewer... things like voluntary disclosure of where the item came from could weigh into that decision. Most consumers don't buy stuff just b/c one person they don't know says it rocks.
absurdparadoxDec 3, 2009
Moran.
yankeedollarDec 3, 2009
Why does digg need to become profitable? Stop turning everything into a dollar sign.
kanojo1969Dec 3, 2009
It's pretty funny that you think the quality of the comments section has anything to do with Digg profitability or attrasctiveness to potential buyers.Just so you know: Only one in a thousand users actually visit the comments page for any article, and only one in a hundred of those actually leave comment.The quality of the Digg userbase is measured in their ability to be marketed to, that's all that matters. Nobody gives a s**t if we are all morons or racists or whatever, they only care about the likelihood that we will succumb to advertising. And it's not a good thing for Digg that it's users are usually smart enough to not fall for advertising at all.I really can't believe someone would think that digg is unprofitable because the commenters are dumb as rocks, that's hilarious.
fishnixDec 4, 2009
Obviously it's not a problem and most good bloggers/reviewers do... but it shouldn't be a law. IMO, it's the consumers place to decide when they trust a reviewer... things like voluntary disclosure of where the item came from could weigh into that decision. Most consumers don't buy stuff just b/c one person they don't know says it rocks.
Closed AccountDec 5, 2009
@Rhy: I have, this one and several others on the topic. What is it you think I've missed?