FTC Tells Search Engines to Disclose Paid Links 197
linderdm writes "CNN has an article describing how the FTC wants search engines who receive payment for higher rated links, to disclose this to users. The concern is that users go to search engines looking for the best results for their search criteria, not the highest paid results for their search."
Stacking engines based on being paid... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stacking engines based on being paid... (Score:5, Insightful)
While this is good news for helping net newbies, i don't think they did this for the consumers. Probably a few well-known companies were a bit pissed off that search engines linked to competitors over them.
But if they are in it for the proper reasons, more power to them, and start addressing spyware.
oh really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do they really believe that? The average joe really isn't going to care, and he probably thinks that if a site can afford to pay the search engine, it must be good.
Stupid Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
If a privately owned search engine wants to get money for prioritized links, more power to them, that's free enterprise, it is their perogative to do business that way! If users dislike it they will go elsewhere and that search engine will be out of business. That's how the market works, the government doesn't need to interfere at all, the government is not your mom!
Google's Method (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, if I don't want to go to a site that will most likely be wanting to sell me something, then I don't have to.
Seems like it's the best solution all way round.
Re:Stupid Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
The more the government interferes with business, particularily online business the less of a free market it actually is.
This criticism doesn't work even from a pro-free-market perspective. Free markets depend on informed actors. If you really believe in free markets, then the government absolutely has an obligation to ensure that economic actors can base decisions on reliable information. (See WorldCom, Enron, Xerox, et al.). The more consumers know, the better the free market works.
Truth in advertising? (Score:3, Insightful)
With the current state of affairs, you have something that looks like a gas station, is labelled like a gas station, has credit-card operated pumps like a gas station, and, after you insert your credit card, pump a tank full, get billed, and go to start your car, you find out they are actually selling chocolate syrup, but pretending it's gas, because no one wants to buy chocolate syrup.
I think that this is as necessary as the little label bars with "Advertisement" in them above and below fake magazine articles in magazines these days.
-- Terry
best use of their time? (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as the site isn't outright claiming that they don't bias searches based on 'ad revenue' (payola), I don't see that they have done anything wrong in doing it. Could be an unwise move to do it if there is a public backlash, but it doesn't strike me as anything that tax paid "public servants" need to stick their nose in.
Re:Totalitarians begin small (Score:4, Insightful)
Please check to see that your brain is in gear before letting your mouth run off.
The FTC isn't saying anything about how these corporations can conduct their business, or how they do their rankings, or who they accept money from. They aren't forbidding search engines from making money, or placing some sites ahead of others based on how much they have been paid.
All they are saying is that, when the results are presented to the customer, "matches" which are made primarily based on sponsorship are simply marked as such, so that the customer is able to make an informed choice.
Re:Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe this is a non-problem. People will go towards the site that gives them the most reliable results. It's easy enough to learn which search engines are upfront about paid links, and which aren't. Caveat emptor, the better sites will win out. Having the State mandate behavior just encourages users to stop taking responsibility for their own behavior. People start assuming everything is safe and on the level, because hey, the State must be controlling it.
Re:Good for me? Sure. Fair? No. (Score:2, Insightful)
Search Engines... MMMMM-Kay (Score:2, Insightful)
They should indicate why that page was given the ranking, be it because of paid sponsoring, customer satisfaction, link popularity, etc.
Sure this will help other stack pages and compete, but a good search engine will help filter the crap out, especially if visitors can moderate the link.
Finally the FTC is doing something that will make the web better.
Search Engines that indicate why the link is rated higher will become more useful as people will find that they get what they need more often.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Deceptive advertising? (Score:4, Insightful)
Search engine positioning is a new issue. It's not an absolute rule that advertising has to be marked as such, but it's often considered deceptive to run an ad that isn't distinguishable from a story in a publication that runs both. Arguably, mixing paid and unpaid placements in a search engine should be treated similarly.
Actually, it's the selling of something advertised deceptively that's illegal, not the advertising itself.
Re:Good for me? Sure. Fair? No. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a simple application of truth in advertising laws that have applied to other media like newspapers and TV for a long time. That's why drug companies have to ruin those pretty commercials with talk about all those nasty effects like diarrhea and vomiting. "And if your immune system is not normal due to advanced HIV infection, make sure your doctor knows to avoid a possible complication! Improvement was similar in patients that took a sugar pill." They try to distract you with high pressure flowers / colors / babies / fields / pretty people, but they have to say this stuff- it's the law. One type of ad that appears often in newspapers uses the format of a fake newspaper article- like "Amazing New Investment Makes Investors Rich". They try to make the fake article look as much as possible like the other, real articles. When they do this, they have to put the word "ADVERTISEMENT" in the corner, so you know it's an ad and not a real article. If you show a commercial with fat people turning into thin people, or poor people turning into rich people, you have to show "Results Not Typical" on screen. It's been that way for years without anyone making a stink about their First Amendment rights being violated. If you're going to advertise to me you'd better tell me what you're doing. You have the right to say anything you want but you have no right to deceive and there are laws in place to protect the public that prevent you from doing it.
Now, of course I'm against any corporation defrauding the public as to what they do or how they operate, but is saying that a link was paid for really fraud?
No, fraud is not saying that a link was paid for when it was.
Yeah, it sucks that they can lie to you, but anyone can lie to you, it's your responsibility to be paying attention, not the government's to make sure that lies don't happen.
Ha ha ha, yeah. "It sucks they can shoot you, but anyone can shoot you, it's your responsibility to be paying attention, not the government's to make sure that nobody gets shot." Uhh, I think it is the government's responsibility to regulate fraud. What are the responsibilities of government supposed to be, then? To maintain a standing army, and nothing else? You must be a troll. It fits with the big deal you make about being a Republican and how of course people are going to flame you for being a Republican.
Now I'm not insane, I'm glad that I'll know that a particular link was a paid advertisement, but do we have to go to the lengths of legislating such a thing? Cut the red tape already...
The FTC hasn't even said the sites broke the law. They're sending out a letter saying hey, point out your paid links, we don't think you should hide the fact that these are paid links if you are going to call yourself a "search engine", because that is not what a search engine does. The search engines show every indication that they will comply, and it looks like this story is over. The FTC did its job. The current no-bullshit standard for a "search engine" was preserved. The Internet's value as a public resource was conserved. And as even you yourself note, you're glad that you'll know if a particular link was a paid advertisement. So what is your problem? What is your point? Any regulation is evil?
Search Engines=Yellow Pages vs. Rated Engines (Score:2, Insightful)
But they couldcreate a fair and consistent and also reliable rate system so users could relate theirs experience on the search.