disclosure (r)evolution.

I recently started looking into the developing regulations for sponsored social media and the blogosphere. FCC and FTC regulations have always been a societal point of contention, but creating disclosure rules must have been more clear cut in the post-computer world when publishing a message to the masses was a privilege of access, money and/or skill. Access to journalists and reporters; money to pay for coverage, ad space, etc.; skill to convey the message effectively and eloquently. Then the blogosphere exploded, diminishing the degree to which the aforementioned access, money and skill were needed to reach a sizable group of eyes. Access comes with a computer or smartphone and an Internet hookup; money doesn't need to be a factor if your writing isn't directly tied to your income; skill is debatable, but certainly not required for publishing.

Guidelines and rules seem to be developing too slowly for the influx of voices present on the Internet. Bloggers are required to clearly inform their readers of a paid message, but does that apply to John Doe with one follower – his mom? How many readers, followers, etc. does a person need to be held accountable by the FTC and FCC for disclosing if a message has been paid for? The girl who Conan O'Brien decided to follow saw her influential reach exponentially expand to 17k+ people with the blink of an eye. Does this formerly private citizen with no press credibility or industry clout need to say if Apple paid her to tweet about how great her new MacBook Pro is? Maybe it comes down to whether someone is a public figure or a private person.

Then there's the issue of private versus professional online identities of the journalists who did, or could have, written in the pre-computer era. Magazine, newspaper and broadcast journalists have developed their own online personas not tied to their employers – with sometimes unduplicated followers. If a NYT writer is approached as a private citizen to tweet on their private account about an upcoming event or product launch in exchange for some form of payment, will they be held liable if the paid nature of their message isn't disclosed.

Oy, that was a whole lot of rambling. Questions and scenarios are still mentally racking up, but at this point I think the most interesting approach would be to observe how disclosure surfaces naturally, before regulations are solidified. ReadWriteWeb recently reported a FTC supported WOMMA regulation that sponsored tweets have to include #spon #paid or #samp depending on the nature of the message. I haven't really seen this yet, but the presumably clear cut indications are already being dubbed unfit for clarity.

I'm sure the answers to my questions are somewhere on the interweb of knowledge already. Why? Because someone had access – even though their skill might be questionable. I would love to retake my Communications Law class after nearly a year working for an online publisher and seeing these questions come up in the real world.