We heard last week that the Federal Trade Commission in the US is attempting to regulate bloggers by asking them to disclose any payment they receive in return for coverage. After an initial positive reaction, a lack of detail has led some to wonder if this will ‘censor’ the way that people write online. But is this simply a backlash to the idea of being regulated?

If we cast our minds back to Text 100’s global blogger survey, conducted earlier this year, over 80% of those that took part from Europe said they ‘should acknowledge that their blog post is ‘supported’ when making positive comments in return for some sort of compensation’.

The majority of bloggers are very open about how their content is created, and some (like Tom Coates of Plasticbag.org) are vehemently against ‘selling out’. In this regard, the penalties for promoting a brand while appearing on its payroll are a good thing, catching out those that effectively sell their content to assist with SEO rankings.

Yet a lack of detail in these rules make them appear to be poorly executed, suggesting monetary motives and restriction, rather than an attempt to introduce good practice to the online space.

There was a great deal of controversy last week about the launch of Brands in Public. Engineered by the now infamous guru of social media, Seth Godin, the service collates consumer/customer comments from the web on a branded page. Seth is charging brands $400 a month to brands to have access to the site, so that they can manage their reputation. And whilst they can’t remove the negative comments, the rationale for forking out cash is that companies will be able to rebutt any attack.

Aside from the brandjacking of a company’s reputation, there is still no real benefit to brands participating in this way. Just for starters, like all hostage situations, if you give in to Seth, then a whole rash of aggregator sites will optimise for the search engines and start demanding ever increasing fees. After all, the monitoring tools used in this mash-up are all free and pretty basic.

Nick Giles, UK MD of Text 100 spoke of the questions raised by the new guidelines; “do the rules apply to online news sites? Do they apply to journalists for print titles that only write online? Do temporary loans, junkets or free passes to events need to be disclosed as a ‘material connection’? They are written so broadly that almost anyone who might say something positive about a product or service online could be considered an ‘endorser’, and vulnerable to an investigation from the FTC.”

There are in fact many similarities between this discussion and the way that some brands treat employees’ use of social media. Many have said that common sense is actually the best approach, simply pointing out that putting your company’s name on a social network profile means that you are in some way representing the company. Whereas others take a ‘big brother’ stance and restrict access.

Though the technicalities are of course different, the reaction to this strict enforcement on bloggers (who are typically by nature, rather free spirited) has been seen as a warning, rather than a guideline for good practice. As such, will this make a huge difference to the way that brands and bloggers work together online? Will bloggers become even more wary for fear of being penalised? Or will those already unsure of how to engage online shy even further away from digital communication?

Neville Hobson covered this point on his blog, also talking about the strong need for training and guidelines to ensure that both side of the coin take responsibility for their actions. “As more of our activities are online, and as it becomes ever more easier to create content and share opinion that may influence others, being able to place trust in such behaviours (and opinions) for their truthfulness and transparency is essential.”

As he goes on to say, it sounds simple, but in a world where brands are used to paying for coverage, and many bloggers see these guidelines as a threat to their honesty, we’ve got a long way to go in bridging the gap between those that get this consistently right – and those that fail spectacularly.