= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pjeby comments on Mandating Information Disclosure vs. Banning Deceptive Contract Terms - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (74)
Interestingly, this seems to be the logic of the FTC of late; its new guidelines for the use of testimonials take the position that if somebody is convinced by an atypical testimonial that they will get the same results, it doesn't matter that the advertiser never claimed they would or even explicitly said the results were atypical.
(I have mixed feelings about this, since on the one hand I think deception is bad. On the other hand, they seem to be making advertisers responsible for how illogical or self-deluding their customers might be.)
"Results not typical" really doesn't give enough information. I think that a "results not typical" disclaimer really ought to be required to include what the typical results actually were.
my P(advertisers are aware they are exploiting people) is very high, and my Expected Value of people not being exploited is similarly high.
My Expected Value of not being paternalistic is relatively low, especially since the FTC has some knowledge specialty, so their being founded could be taken as a mutually beneficial contract with average people to help the average people avoid exploitation.
My P(obfuscatory terminology helps) begs to differ.