Originally Posted by
Adam1222
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."
That's your claim about my line, but it's not my line now or before. My line is far more nuanced than the above caricature would try to make it seem.
The whole point of consumer protection is not that there may be asymmetrical information -- the whole point of consumer protection legislation/regulation is to protect consumers. Whether or not there is asymmetrical information.
Just because muckrakers and yellow journalism have at times been helpful in filling in informational gaps that led to consumer protection doesn't mean that consumer protection's entire point is to address informational asymmetry.
It seems that some of the major FT-spawned bloggers are on a limited sort of credit card "warning to consumers" kick. Pleased?