Stephen Russell wrote: > <http://tinyurl.com/y92cjjz> > > I read this yesterday and it caught my eye again today. > > Do you think that it benefits the consumer if the blogger now tells > you that they get paid by ABC company and you have to identify that as > WHY the reviews for ABC co are so good all the time? > > I use to review SW for our PCUG back in the 90s. If you wrote the > stroy you got to keep it if you wanted to. Granted it was a lot of > shareware and free ware at the time as well as a few big products. I > got to keep AMI Pro and thought that it was superior to all other WPs > at that time. It was way ahead of M$ Word for large document use at > the time. Guessing that was 93-94? > > So what are your thoughts on transparency requirements on blogging? > Will it keep a few of the douche-bags out of the industry? Probably > not enough from MPOV >
You do remember the huge stink over this a long time ago, right, when MS gave laptops to bloggers to positively right about their new offering, right? HUGE stink. We talked about it on here, so I'm sure it's in the archives. Made folks like Ted Roche add disclaimers to several of his posts, iirc. -- Mike Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC President, Chief Software Architect http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com http://twitter.com/mbabcock16 _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
