Originally Posted by
Adam1222
Sure, that's one theory of economics- called the invisible hand. If one simply ignores and stays silent about businesses that have troubling practices, market forces will drive those businesses out of business.
I alas am not a Keynesian.
I have yet to see any evidence that bloggers have gotten richer off of mine or other criticism. Indeed, I have seen some slight alterations in practices that, based on timing, appear to be responsive. These blogs don't thrive from the attention on inside baseball posts like these. They thrive off of Rolling Stone articles and the false presentation that they live luxurious lives for free.
I also don't believe that most of the blogs were discussing currently are in compliance with the FTCA.
But you will continue to impugn the motives of people who are critical of blogs, and we will continue to have intelligent logical points about the problematic business practices, thriving off of your attacks. America, man.
If a business is in violation of applicable law and it is offending, then the persons who feel wronged are free to try to get the government to go after those failing to comply with applicable laws and regulations. Has that happened with any of the bigger boardingarea.com blogs?
The invisible hand is applicable, whether or not a business is lawful. But legal courses of action are available when and where the invisible hand has parties in violation of the law.
I have no doubt that some of the criticism of bloggers on this part of FT have resulted in making some of those blog businesses more financially successful than they would have otherwise been. When people are unhappy with a business -- such as a particular blog -- that thrives on attention, then why give it the attention that fuels its revenue? It doesn't seem to be effective, rational strategy for the critics, hypocritical or otherwise, of a business to fuel the business by giving it ever more attention of the sort that actually helps add toward its financial success.