C.G. Lynch has a well researched piece over at CIO.com today that looks at the need for young professionals to monitor their Facebook profiles in an increasingly wired world. The article, which does mention the damaging consequences of an unprofessional online profile, focuses on how to balance personal and professional networking needs.
As colleagues, customers, peers and upper management jump on the social networking band wagon, early Facebook adopters are posed with a significant question: Who Am I Online? As Alison Driscoll, a marketing copywriter, comments insightfully in the piece:
“My profile is private, meaning only friends can see it,” she says. “But I vacillate on whether this a good or bad idea. I feel like people reading my blog may want to check out my profile without having to friend me. However, I want to friend people who read or follow me, so it’s a catch-22.”
Setting up “Friend Lists” can help demarcate online boundaries. According to Justin Smith, these lists classify colleagues into different categories: “They enable you to add people to lists such as College Friends, Work Friends, etc.,” Smith says. “They set privacy setting per friend list instead of per friend.”
Other suggestions from leading online reputation managers include using Facebook for personal networking and other, professional services like LinkedIn to connect with business contacts.
University of Maryland Professor Chris Dellarocas sees online reputation management appearing in schools in the near future. He says learning to effectively manage public and private avatars “should be taught in high school.” Does that mean that student can look forward to a mid-term of super pokes and zombie attacks? We can only hope.
Bob Tedeschi writes an alarming piece in the New York Times that links hateful internet postings with the recent suicide of a Chicago Advertising Executive. From the page:
“Visitors to AgencySpy and AdScam, two sharp-tongued blogs written by advertising industry insiders, posted comments blaming the sites for contributing to the suicide late last month of Paul Tilley, 40, the creative director of DDB Chicago.
In so doing, bloggers and their readers added another chapter in a long debate about how, or whether, to manage anonymous posts that seem aimed at shredding a person’s reputation.”
Mr. Tilley’s tragic demise harkens back to the Megan Meier suicide that occurred last fall. Both individuals were driven, at least in part, to their deaths by hateful online speech. As one AdScam commenter posted: “I knew him. And I know that the vile attacks inflicted on him by you and others tortured his soul. He told me so.” What makes humiliating online speech so hurtful is that posts made anonymously allow users to vent offensive sentiments that they would never say in public. Additionally, online hate speech has a permanence that real world venom lacks.
Clearly, it takes more than just online postings to drive a man to his death. But friends and relatives made it clear that these personal web-based attacks on private citizens do have real world consequences. Once again quoting from the article:
“An AgencySpy commentator who identified himself as Brian Stallings and said he was Mr. Tilley’s uncle wrote: ‘This is a sad world we live in where a person can express his/her opinion in a faceless blog (in my day a cowardly act) without any thought for their fellow human being. Please think of the hurt your words cause next time you have time to waste on a blog such as this.’
Another commentator, who identified himself as Mr. Michael, wrote: ‘Are there ethics in blogs? Should people have the right to publicly and anonymously criticize and attack the private lives of private people simply for entertainment? This guy wasn’t a politician or a movie star — he didn’t opportunistically cast himself into the public domain. He just made commercials.’”
This last point is perhaps most salient here. Who, if anyone, is responsible for hateful, anonymous online speech? What responsibility do web sites have to monitor comments on their URL? Are these legal issues or moral and ethical matters? The NYT posed this question to its readers and the responses were varied and persuasive.
Tom B from Vermont feels that websites should be responsible for the comments and content they host, writing “There are consequences to what we say and do on or off the Internet. Anonymity should not provide a pass on civility.” While Laird Wilcox of Kansas disagrees; “Anonymous political literature has been a cornerstone of political liberty and has been protected by the Supreme Court.”
As a group, we support free, responsible speech and have consistently advocated for a more informed and responsible exchange of ideas in digital space. Our entire team offers its sincere condolences to Mr. Tilley’s family and friends.
We learned today that corporate recruiting thought-leader Lester Rosen gave a presentation about social networking and hiring practices at the California Employee Advisory Council (CEAC) Conference, where he gave a shout to what we do here at Reputation.com. Thank you, Lester!
