Best report
ϟ
Apr 5, 2015
Even more interesting, it could be construed as theft of services (not paying for an advertisement), and Amy's post in particular as being a violation of the rules the FTC set in place to enforce the Truth in Advertising Laws. (She didn't disclose her relationship to the company she is endorsing on this blog. There IS likely to be some relationship, BTW -- her post came only about 14 hours after the original advertisement.)
My guess (and that's all that it is) is that Amy is an inexperienced SEO unfamiliar with the use of this site and the law, but very good at coming up with keywords or tags. She may think that's all there is to know about being an SEO.
My guess (and that's all that it is) is that Amy is an inexperienced SEO unfamiliar with the use of this site and the law, but very good at coming up with keywords or tags. She may think that's all there is to know about being an SEO.