[4ntonius8lock]

> I feel like it's generally understood that when mommy blogger talks about a product on their blog, they're being compensated for their time by whoever is calling them.

I edited it for you to see if you agree that what's good for the geese should be good for the gander. If that logic won't fly for Mommy blogger with the FTC, why should it fly with expert witness? The stakes are WAY lower in one than in the other.

To be clear, I'm not supporting the idea of the FTC giving fines to anybody. But the idea of rule of law is that laws should apply to everyone, which is clearly not the case.

Your argument BTW, feels weird. Why would you bring up the idea of 'generally understood' when that can equally apply to the other side? To me it feels like one of those subtle defenses for the current system that don't actually spell out a defense, but tries to remove criticism with offhanded comments.

[CocaKoala]

Blogging is a hobby for many people; being an expert witness is not. Does every expert witness donate their time out of the goodness of their heart? They're experts; they have a career doing something. They're taking time out of that career to consult for the case and appear on the stand; why would you not think that time is compensated for?

Edit: I could see an argument that normal witnesses are not compensated for their time, and so a layperson might assume that an expert witness is not? But normal witnesses are appearing in their capacity as a witness; expert witnesses are appearing in their capacity as an expert. They're consultants; consultants get paid for consulting.

[4ntonius8lock]

> They're consultants; consultants get paid for consulting.

Bloggers... get paid for blogging. The issue, just like the expert witness, is by who. That is literally the whole point of disclosure for mommy bloggers, disclosing conflict of interests. Why not for witnesses?

Again, you keep putting out arguments that seem to be defending the current system without actually stating as much. If you feel the FTC should be as it is, then say so. These off handed contrarian comments with subtle defense of terrible things... is a kinda dishonest way to communicate.

I will say, you did spell out the rationalization of this. But a rationalization is just that: "the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.". Your logic can also be restated in a way that really highlights the issue I have:

People are not to assume someone in a commercial setting is getting compensated for endorsement. So therefore a disclosure is needed and strong enforcement.

People who are volunteering (jury) are to assume that things that happen in a non-commercial setting happen for money. Therefore, no disclosure is needed and no enforcement.

Also, the commercial setting has low stakes. The court setting has high stakes.

Which again, brings us back to: what's your point with these off handed comments?

Edit: Reading your other comments on this page, I think you didn't even read the article, which is why your comments are coming off so strange.

[CocaKoala]

> People who are volunteering (jury) are to assume that things that happen in a non-commercial setting happen for money.

What? Jurors aren't volunteers. Jury duty is mandatory; if you get called, you have to show up or provide justification for why you can't be a juror. If you get selected, you can't just say "no sorry, this case actually sounds boring and I'd rather not". Also, jurors get paid. They are volunteers in no sense of the word.

Court is generally considered to be a professional setting; I agree that it's non-commercial but I disagree that there are only two options where one is "commercial" and the other is "if you're getting paid you have to disclose it". Who would you think is paying an expert witness for their time, if not the person who wanted them to testify?

I legitimately do not understand why you feel like this is a conflict of interest.

[4ntonius8lock]

> I legitimately do not understand why you feel like this is a conflict of interest.

And you legitimately didn't read the article, so I'm legitimately not surprised you legitimately don't understand the conversation going on.