zlacker

But do they have an employer / employee relationship with those critics or are they doing a section-230-compliant resharing / publicizing of those critics' personal opinions?

>>shadow+(OP)
That defence hasn't worked for social media sites, they have had to enact tools and policies to let users know when a post is sponsored.

>>willci+54
If you mean on, say, YouTube, that's something the FTC requires content creators to do, not YouTube. YouTube requires content creators to disclose to them for a separate reason: their advertising guarantees to advertisers include things like ad exclusion, so if your video includes a paid sponsorship from Pepsi, Coca-Cola can automatically not waste money injecting an ad into the middle of that video (they consider that impression run directly next to their competition while the competition is being actively painted in a good light to be a waste).

I only know about YouTube's policies, but I do wonder if the story at other social networks for paid-sponsorship disclosure is similar, since they all have an advertising component.

>>shadow+Wz
I don't think youtube supports ad-exclusion from content within the video. The creator doesn't have any space to declare a list of the names of companies or products they are endorsing. They merely have a checkbox to declare that the video contains paid product placement (required by UK law for example).