undefined | Better HN

0 pointsperihelions2y ago0 comments

Strong agree. It should be core FTC rulemaking to prohibit this; it's a form of advertisement masquerading as independent review.

(If the subject of the review sets conditions on its content, to restrain the reviewer from discussing their negative observations, it has the character of an advertisement. The subject is enforcing editorial control; thus, they have partial authorship/editorship of their own "review". Either you sign your name to your *ad*, or, the reviewer signs their name to their unburdened conscience—there is no in-between).

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

jsnell2y ago

What's being described isn't an example of conditions being set on the content of the review. It's an embargo date on when a review may be released, and a restriction of what may be publicly disclosed before the review is published.

There's nothing wrong about that, and in fact forbidding embargo dates would have a pretty bad outcome. It would result in reviewers getting no early review copies, and having to rush out shoddy reviews ASAP after the release. Likewise the customers would have no access to reviews on the release date, and would either need to wait or buy the game blindly.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse