The FTC, and me, and thee

Ever notice how some people never pay you any attention at all?  It’s still the high school cafeteria, isn’t it?

I have a decent B-level-blogger existence on the Internet, but it does gall sometimes.  You can’t have all the Instalanches you might like, but I have nothing to complain about; and in general I have gotten my props.  But no question there are some cliques you just aren’t breaking into if you’re me.  There are certain bloggers who absolutely refuse to acknowledge the existence of anything I write,  or even my existence at all, even when it would appear that, on the merits — for all sorts of reasons that these calculations are based on — they ought to.  I could name them, but dignity does have to step in at some point.

And even then you’ve got other people paying attention to all the wrong things about me altogether!  Can’t win for losing, you know.

Well, Walter Olson (who certainly does pay me enough attention) has rounded up some notable posts, and his own thoughts, on the outrage of the new FTC power grab over blogger “disclosure,” a topic that I first got excited over two years ago by publishing this piece in LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® back before I had this blog and that one had to contain a broader range of topics.  Both Patrick of PopeHat and Glenn Reynolds have seen fit to link back to it, longingly, and as Patrick says, “Ron Coleman called this.”

If only anyone had paid attention to it then!  But, you know… no-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o.

2 Responses to “The FTC, and me, and thee”

  1. Required FTC blogger disclosure Says:

    […] welcome readers from Instapundit, Ron Coleman (who points out that he was on this issue earlier than any of us), […]

  2. Do LINKS Constitute A Violation Of Federal Trade Commission Regulations? | Popehat Says:

    […] post by Walter Olson, who along with Ron Coleman has been ahead of the field on the Federal Trade Commission’s decision to regulate blogs, […]

Attorney Ronald D. Coleman