Originally Posted by
GUWonder
That's your argument, it's not mine.
Consumer protection -- if that is even it -- is as it is because of large scale consumer apathy and very intensive anti-consumer lobbying by market participants. In a supposedly open, democratic system where consumers have a right to try to get what they want to be the law of the land, consumers in the aggregate being failed by government is not just the fault of the sell-side of the marketplace.
Even if victim blaming is appropriate, your consistent line of attack is not that consumers bear "some" responsibility, but that criticism of marketing practices employed by bloggers is de facto illegitimate and "editorial dictatorship." You can't have it both ways. If consumer advocates critique industry practices, it is illogical to respond by saying criticism is illegitimate - "well it's consumers fault for not developing successful lobbying strategies." Criticism on fora like FT, and expressing dissatisfaction from members of the community, should play a role in encouraging change. Defending bad behavior by bloggers on FT tips the scale further in the favor of the party that already has the relative power
The whole point of consumer protection is that there is an informational assymetry- an informational assymetry that many of the members of Boarding Area exploit. To say that consumers should know better than to be fooled by bloggers is hardly a ringing endorsement of Boarding Area and the deceptive marketing practices many if it's "members" deploy.