Wow. I would have imagined an article from the FTC to be more... Bland, for want of a better term.
Clear, direct, confident, not overloaded with qualifiers, not afraid of metaphor, self-summarizing, signposting, and most importantly it always has an energy of some kind that government communication (in seeking to appear neutral) regularly lacks - having that energy is why it doesn’t feel “bland”. I wonder if they have internal documents to guide their writers, or if it’s mostly information stored in the heads of Lesley Fair and Michael Atleson (who between them seem write most - all? - of the posts).
Democracy is dead.
If other people continue to have access as well as the '3 letter agencies', the same power will still exists for the agencies, except that there will also be an essentially unlimited number of other people who could be used as scapegoats.
If only '3 letter agencies' have access, they would obviously be the first ones to come under scrutiny if a case of misuse were discovered.
Without that, we'll just never know, and Joe Blow who never saw a deepfake of Joe Biden praising the stickiness of the latest OG Kush will trust anything.
> The FTC Act’s prohibition on deceptive or unfair conduct can apply if you make, sell, or use a tool that is effectively designed to deceive – even if that’s not its intended or sole purpose.
It seems like an awfully broad rule? But they probably could go after this startup if they noticed it.
There are some kinds of businesses where making sure the regulators like what you’re doing is pretty much a prerequisite. On the other hand, plenty of companies got where they are today by pushing the limits.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/03/chatbots-...