The Advertising Standards Authority is to take responsibility for more online content, not just the paid-for advertisements it currently regulates. The ASA already covers content like banner adverts, pop-ups and paid-for search terms. From 1 March 2011 the new ASA rules cover content hosted by companies themselves, such as their …
Does this mean
...an end to the "your friends have found friends using friend finder" adverts on facebook? Now I can believe that some of my friends may be stupid enough to use the tool but clearly not all of them have, it's obviously just a lie.
It tells my friends that I have
Blatant lie bordering on the libellous I'd say
On whose authority?
ASA is a self regulatory unaccountable bunch of advertisers. In my experience it cannot regulate anybody who does not want to be regulated.
I've seen their decisions blatantly ignored and when challenged say they can't do anything aboput it beyond making their displeasure known. The recent cauldwell mailshots being a case in point.
Why can't governments/agencies keep their snouts out of our business?
I thought Cameron was trying to slim governments, etc. down?
All an web entity has to do is add "Editorial Opinion", "Political Statement" or "Press Release" and these interfering a*seholes will be out of business.
The provision that "It can ask search engines to remove links to non-compliant pages" is futility itself - ask the Chinese - as all a user has to do is to use Google, for example, with a different suffix.
As for allowing the ASA "place its own paid-for adverts to highlight a company's failure to comply" will either signal to users that a web site owner won't bend over and say "Do it again" making him/her/it a martyr or the owner could use advertising tools to block such adverse ASA adverts appearing on their web pages.
Web sites registered in a U.S. domain are particularly resistant to this sort of interference as speech is protected by The Constitution and is the reason why Al Quaida hangs their hats there, and is the best place for a libel proof forum.
Promulgating such rules simply demonstrate just how technically ignorant the ASA is.
And what gives with Google giving them sees money?
What has the ASA got to do with "government" exactly? Well, beyond the traditional sense of the word, as in to govern.
It's an industry body that works by policing the industry rather than having oversight imposed by central government ... for all true, blue-bloodied capitalists this is a good thing? no?
Until the ASA are given some more useful powers to deal with serial offenders and inject a greater sense of urgency into their rulings, they'll doubtless be as ignored and abused online as they were in print.
Good, about bloody time
I hope that astroturfing ratfucks like Denon, Monster, and all the other sleazes get caught out with their sock puppets on. There's been a little too much wild west in that respect for too long, and it has been far too blatant.
Members can opt-out of online adverts
In 2008 the Information Commissioner's Office concluded that online advertising appearing in a logged-in web space constitutes direct marketing. This is because a connection must exist between the online user and a database containing their personal data for the individual to be logged in. Thus, it is similar to putting a marketing leaflet inside an envelope and addressing that envelope to an indiviudal - the generic marketing leaflet inside the envelope is considered to be direct marketing even though the leaflet itself is not targeted at anyone. Howerver, because the method used to deliver the leaflet was directed at an individual, then the leaflet too becomes direct marketing. It's the exact same principle in a logged-in account area.
If you're fed-up with direct marketing simply submit a Section 11(DPA98) notice to the organisation. Further information can be found on www.mindmydata.co.uk.
Drove my levy to the levy but the levy was levied
"All this will be paid for by levying a 0.1 per cent levy"
They'll be ruling rules next.
What does this mean...
...for sites like El Reg? Given that not only are the comments one of the best features of the site but that they are actively moderated, can El Reg get a fist shaken at them for having commenttards run around and take the piss out of everything/everyone? What about websites whose only reason to exist is to be a giant forum?
So many questions about the implications of this…
'Truth is subjective' websites
Hopefully this ruling will stop some of the more blatant websites that offer 'home businesses' and the like. Some of the claims made on these sites regarding how much money can be made and how many people have been successful etc are just downright lies and amount to deception and fraud.
Yes I know people should be wary, but if you were a stay-at-home mum with young kids, wouldent you be tempted by a 'business in a box' affair wrapping chocolate bars for parties and weddings and so on. Spend a few hundred precious quid or more for the box and find out the hard way that it takes ten times the effort claimed, so not 'easy' at all!
Loads of sites around like this and some companies have several 'franchises' like this running at the same time.
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- 20 Freescale staff on vanished Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked
- Did Apple's iOS literally make you SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1