Are You Ready To Register Your Blog?

[BPSCG]

Okay, the guy here clearly has an axe to grind, and I find some of the statutory language impenetrable, but...

S.1 has been introduced in the Senate as "lobbying reform" -- which in this case means "First Amendment infringements." An amendment has been attached, which requires registration of bloggers with more than 500 readers, and who comment on policy issues. Violation would be a criminal offense.

I looked it up on the Library of Congress webpage (which is essentially unlinkable) and have attached section 220 in extended remarks, below. As the bill is reported, it appears to cover any "paid" grassroots lobbying, that reaches more than 500 people. But a blogger who receives contributions might be classed as a "paid" grassroots type. It looks like Congress wants to keep an eye on annoying people like Porkbusters. It may be significant that S.1 was introduced by Harry Reid, one of the Kings of Pork.
Link (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/01/register_blogge_1.php).

[hgc]

Terrible. The Internet has given rise to the possibility of a real political discourse outside the control of the media elite. This attempts to strangle it in the cradle. It's none of the government's bidness if I "comment on policy issues" to more than 500 people and get paid for it.

[Quixote]

But a blogger who receives contributions might be classed as a "paid" grassroots type.

The problem is not with S1, but with the bizarre interpretations of the phrase "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying". Unless a blogger has somebody who's bankrolling him and dictating content, his blog is not a paid effort to stimulate grassroots lobbying as that is defined in the bill.

[Architect]

Is it an attempt to stop "fake" corporate sponsored blogger sites?

Indymedia and other similar groups are absolutely convinced that this actually happens, although to be honest I can't really be arsed looking into it.

[hgc]

Is it an attempt to stop "fake" corporate sponsored blogger sites?

Indymedia and other similar groups are absolutely convinced that this actually happens, although to be honest I can't really be arsed looking into it.
Yeah. They need to get off their fake asses and impeach Cheney and Bush. Jesus, Nancy, the brass ring is in reach - just grab it! You can even take it on a caretaker basis, run again for your House seat next year, and resume the Speaker's chair in '09. The beauty of it is you get to rob Hillary of the title first woman president!

[BPSCG]

Is it an attempt to stop "fake" corporate sponsored blogger sites?

Indymedia and other similar groups are absolutely convinced that this actually happens, although to be honest I can't really be arsed looking into it.

Yeah. They need to get off their fake asses and impeach Cheney and Bush. Jesus, Nancy, the brass ring is in reach - just grab it! You can even take it on a caretaker basis, run again for your House seat next year, and resume the Speaker's chair in '09. The beauty of it is you get to rob Hillary of the title first woman president!Huh? What does that have to do with the OP, or anything else in this thread...? :confused:

[hgc]

Huh? What does that have to do with the OP, or anything else in this thread...? :confused:
I don't know; I was hoping you could tell me.

[BPSCG]

I don't know; I was hoping you could tell me.Ah, you've been drinking and posting again! :D

[hgc]

Ah, you've been drinking and posting again! :D
Yeah. I bellied up the bar and said, "fill me a tumbler of obsessive indignation." :boggled:

[Mycroft]

Is it an attempt to stop "fake" corporate sponsored blogger sites?

Indymedia and other similar groups are absolutely convinced that this actually happens, although to be honest I can't really be arsed looking into it.

On a corporate level there have been instances where corporations have given prominent bloggers expensive merchandise to encourage them to blog good reviews on them. I have also heard allegations of corporations creating blogs (by employees doing it on company time) for the purpose of trashing competitors and hyping their own products.

I think there has also been allegations in politics where they guys that run blogs such as the daily KOS have accepted money to promote some candidates over others.

[This Guy]

Okay, the guy here clearly has an axe to grind, and I find some of the statutory language impenetrable, but...


Link (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/01/register_blogge_1.php).

Yea, I hate reading legalieze, and political legalieze is even worse.

But, it appears to me from my very limited understanding of what I tried to read, that this would be better handled by a disclosure requirement than a registration. But I tend to lean against any registration that isn't clearly necessary.

On the other hand, if I could find someone foolish enough to give me $25,000/Quarter to run a blog for them, I'd have no problem registering ;)

When you consider the allegations (I'm not sure how much truth there is behind them) that big companies are supporting web sites that in turn post information favorable to the companies point of view/profits, I think some form of disclosure is not unreasonable for both Blogs and web sites.

However, I don't think newspapers are required to disclose their biases, and I don't know that Fox has ever stated openly that "we believe the Republicans are right, and the Dems are wrong, regardless!"

Touchy issue. I'm strongly behind freedom of the press, and I think the Internet is to a large extent, the "New Press". It provides the opportunity for much greater information exchange. At the same time it allows any nut with a PC to express his/her nut case ideas (they even let me play! ;)). And it allows those with hidden agendas (political or economical) to hide their identities while promoting their points of views. Where do you draw the line, or should there even be a line? How should we provide for disclosure, or should we?

I honestly don't know the answers :confused:

[Beerina]

Yeah. They need to get off their fake asses and impeach Cheney and Bush. Jesus, Nancy, the brass ring is in reach - just grab it! You can even take it on a caretaker basis, run again for your House seat next year, and resume the Speaker's chair in '09. The beauty of it is you get to rob Hillary of the title first woman president!

The Republicans stomping on Clinton towards the end of his term helped resurrect him in popularity. The Democrats might wisely not want to pursue that course, regardless of how happy it would make the true believers. Especially since most of their current frontrunner candidates are in the Senate and would take a huge hit if it did backfire.

[Beerina]

It'll get thrown out.

"Yes, I blog to more than 500 people. Yes, I get paid. I refuse to register with the government."

"You are forbidden from webbing."

Supreme Court: No, he isn't.

[daredelvis]

I think there has also been allegations in politics where they guys that run blogs such as the daily KOS have accepted money to promote some candidates over others.


Are you saying he got paid to promote a candidate on his blog, or that he did some work for a candidate outside of his blog? Did he get paid and not disclose it?

Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just spewing right wing BS again?

Daredelvis

[Architect]

Surely it would be a left wing concern that big industry and lobby groups were exploiting blogs?

[Random]

Surely it would be a left wing concern that big industry and lobby groups were exploiting blogs?

The nature of Blogs however make it good medium for liberals though. Rich corporations can squeeze liberal thought off the radio and TV simply by buying up all the ad space (or in some cases, the stations themselves). It takes a lot of dirty liberal hippies to equal the spending power of one evil corporation. (Here’s a fun exercise. Watch the Sunday morning news shows, and make a list of all the ads that don’t actually seem to sell anything.)

Blogs however can be set up cheaply, can request funding directly from their readers, and the spending advantages of big corporations are squelched. A million dollar website won’t look a thousand times better than a thousand dollar website, and any amount of money they spend will be meaningless if the words and ideas the corporate blog is pushing are not popular.

[daredelvis]

Originally Posted by Mycroft
I think there has also been allegations in politics where they guys that run blogs such as the daily KOS have accepted money to promote some candidates over others.




Are you saying he got paid to promote a candidate on his blog, or that he did some work for a candidate outside of his blog? Did he get paid and not disclose it?

Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just spewing right wing BS again?

Daredelvis

Again, any evidence for this or is it just B.S.?

Daredelvis

[Mycroft]

Again, any evidence for this or is it just B.S.?

Daredelvis

Oops! Did I accidentally gore a sacred cow of yours? :D

Google "kosola" or "ko$ola" and do some reading to get a rundown of the allegations made.

[Random]

Oops! Did I accidentally gore a sacred cow of yours? :D

Google "kosola" or "ko$ola" and do some reading to get a rundown of the allegations made.
There were plenty of allegations, but none of them panned out. Basically the blogger known as "Kos" informed his readers that he would be taking time off from his blog to work on a democratic politician's election campaign. He then took some time off from his blog to work on a democratic polititian's election campaign. The right wing echo chamber then tried to gin up some phoney outrage about it, making various silly claims about left-wing blogger payola, studiously ignoring the original postings by Kos about this, even when informed of them repeatedly. Kos told his his readers to ignore the silly people on the right, since it was all silly nonsense and all that would ever come from it is baseless accusations that could be refuted in two minutes by looking at the original posting. Right wingers then made a baseless accusation that he was trying to cover it up, etc...

[geni]

I'm in the UK. How exactly were they planning on inforceing this?

[daredelvis]

Oops! Did I accidentally gore a sacred cow of yours? :D

Google "kosola" or "ko$ola" and do some reading to get a rundown of the allegations made.

I asked you for evidence to back up your allegation. I'm sure that you can find a LGF post with a Malkin column to back it up. In a discussion of astroturfing through blogs, this is the best example you can come up with? Just more of your normal twisted little world B.S..

Daredelvis

[Mycroft]

I asked you for evidence to back up your allegation. I'm sure that you can find a LGF post with a Malkin column to back it up. In a discussion of astroturfing through blogs, this is the best example you can come up with? Just more of your normal twisted little world B.S..

Daredelvis

You seem to be confused on the difference between making allegations and reporting on allegations someone else makes. I was doing the later; your beef seems to be with those doing the former.

You challenged me on post #10 where I said; "I think there has also been allegations in politics where they guys that run blogs such as the daily KOS have accepted money to promote some candidates over others."

I claim that allegations were made. I do not make any allegations of my own, nor do I make any claims about the truth of these allegations. When challenged, I told you how to find the allegations. I did this without endorsing or offering any opinion about them.

I also made statements about corporations encouraging their own employees to blog on company time to promote their own products while trashing competitors, and about corporations giving away expensive merchandise to bloggers presumably to encourage positive blog reviews. Those statements seem to have escaped your ire. I’m guessing because obviously anti-corporate “left-wing BS” just doesn’t get your dander up like “right-wing BS” does?

[daredelvis]

You seem to be confused on the difference between making allegations and reporting on allegations someone else makes. I was doing the later; your beef seems to be with those doing the former.

My beef is with the factually inaccurate statement you made. I asked you for evidence, and allowed you the opportunity to clear the record, but you passed it up. Instead you went with "I was only repeating what I heard ".


You challenged me on post #10 where I said; "I think there has also been allegations in politics where they guys that run blogs such as the daily KOS have accepted money to promote some candidates over others."

KOS was the example you chose. KOS did not.

I claim that allegations were made. I do not make any allegations of my own, nor do I make any claims about the truth of these allegations. When challenged, I told you how to find the allegations.
A search string with a dollar sign instead of an "S"?? Do you get all of your information about Clinton by googling "Klinton", or would you accept "chimpybush" for information about Bush? Some first rate quality accurate sources come up when you google "ko$ola". Like I predicted LGF is right up there.

I did this without endorsing or offering any opinion about them.


This is a weak excuse. You were the one who chose to post those allegations. Your might want to reassess your sources.



I also made statements about corporations encouraging their own employees to blog on company time to promote their own products while trashing competitors, and about corporations giving away expensive merchandise to bloggers presumably to encourage positive blog reviews. Those statements seem to have escaped your ire. I’m guessing because obviously anti-corporate “left-wing BS” just doesn’t get your dander up like “right-wing BS” does?
Are you suggesting those statements also factually inaccurate?

Daredelvis

[Mycroft]

My beef is with the factually inaccurate statement you made.

Okay, then find one. What factually inaccurate statement have I made?

I asked you for evidence, and allowed you the opportunity to clear the record, but you passed it up. Instead you went with "I was only repeating what I heard ".

I'm sorry if you confuse allegations with fact, but that's your problem. *I* chose the word allegations on purpose because it accurately described what happened.

A search string with a dollar sign instead of an "S"?? Do you get all of your information about Clinton by googling "Klinton", or would you accept "chimpybush" for information about Bush? Some first rate quality accurate sources come up when you google "ko$ola". Like I predicted LGF is right up there.

You didn't ask for general information about Markos Zúniga. If you had, I would have directed you to Wikipedia. Instead you asked specifically for the allegations that were made against him, and for that the searches I suggested were excellent.


This is a weak excuse. You were the one who chose to post those allegations. Your might want to reassess your sources.

Look, allegations mean that a charge was made. It doesn’t mean that they’re true or false, only that they were made. I used a neutral term, and you’re interpreting it as an affirmation of those allegations. That interpretation is wrong, and it’s entirely a product of your imagination, not my intent.

Are you suggesting those statements also factually inaccurate?

No, I'm suggesting you're selective in your outrage. The post was politically neutral, citing examples that might annoy people from the left or the right. You’re the one trying to make this into a left vs. right showdown.

[The Fool]

So whats new? Sites like LGF rely on thier members to parrot its allegations on other sites...its what they do.

[varwoche]

*I* chose the word allegations on purpose because it accurately described what happened. Allegation may accurately describe what happened. Of course when you fail to provide citations, it's impossible to assess.

Your post, however, is better described as innuendo.

in·nu·en·do (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innuendo)
an indirect intimation about a person or thing, esp. of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.

[Mycroft]

Allegation may accurately describe what happened. Of course when you fail to provide citations, it's impossible to assess.

Your post, however, is better described as innuendo.

No, the only purpose in providing citations would be to try to prove the allegations true or false, which had nothing to do with the purpose of the post.

The post, in the context of this thread, was merely a list of things involving blogs that people might think were unethical and reason to support some sort of legislation.

My personal opinion is that if Markos Zúniga did everything he was accused of, then it's still of little importance, with no real world relevence outside the circle of him and his fans.

[varwoche]

No, the only purpose in providing citations would be to try to prove the allegations true or false, which had nothing to do with the purpose of the post. Not really. It would also demonstrate if your claim is true that such allegations exist. No matter though, because this isn't my point -- my point follows.

My personal opinion is that if Markos Zúniga did everything he was accused of, then it's still of little importance, with no real world relevence outside the circle of him and his fans. All this means is that the innuendo you posted was incidental. It's still innuendo.