jayeff

FSC are a membership-based organization funded by members' dues. Not only should they have to explain what they do, at least to their members (and the last memo went out in April if memory serves), but if the word "member" means what it usually does, members should collectively determine what they do.

When it was transparently obvious from the posts here at the end of May that very few people really did know much if anything about FSC, it was apparently okay to point that out. As you point out, they started out as representing the video part of this industry (this is a multi-faceted industry with many different priorities) and despite declarations from time to time about wanting to reach out to the online sector, you would be hard-pressed to find any evidence they have actually done so.

What "homework" would you have us do? Go to their site and there are no specifics about current issues, only brief reports of past activities. Ask here, as several of us did a few weeks ago about their actual aims and what precisely "membership" means, and there were no answers forthcoming.

In making these remarks, I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with FSC, only that a huge amount of faith is being placed on them based almost entirely on assumptions. And assumptions aren't always wrong, but for heaven's sake isn't this an important enough issue that people should want something more concrete? Anyway what on earth is wrong with asking FSC to be more transparent?

Back in May I wrote something to the effect of how foolish webmasters would feel if it turns out FSC are putting a large part of their effort into pressing for certain video labelling requirements and very little into the record keeping requirements being pressed on the online community. That isn't a hugely fanciful possibility, given the makeup of their membership (at least prior to their recent intake), but again I'm not saying that this is the case, only that we don't know.

This business doesn't consist of a homogenous group of webmasters with common interests except in the broadest terms: TGP owners for example, have different priorities from paysite owners. Nor does it consist of the relatively small number of people who attend trade shows and the even smaller number who can get to FSC meetings. If any organization genuinely wants to reach the whole industry - which btw is also the only way it isn't going to end up being pilloried by whichever sectors it will inevitably neglect - it has to reach out.