With websites like Facebook and Twitter more popular than ever, more people are using social networking sites to meet new people, keep in touch with old friends, and share their experiences with the world. Of course, as we’ve written about extensively on the Reputation.com Blog before, the same rules that apply to regular social interaction are not always adhered to online.

For instance, would you tell a close friend about how drunk you got on St. Patrick’s Day? Maybe. Would you shout it so that anyone in the immediate area could hear to? Probably not. Despite this, however, on Facebook, and other social networking sites, users constantly post messages, updates, photos, and videos of behavior that they wouldn’t want exhibited anywhere else. More and more, this material can come back and hurt an individual later in life.

So what’s the way to prevent your online reputation from spiraling out of control? According to a recent report from MSNBC.com, the right thing to do is learn good social media etiquette. In other words, act the same way online that you act in real life.

From the article:

Social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace and Twitter can seem like the Wild West — anything goes. But even with the access and enormity of the Web, the rules you once learned on the playground still apply.

“There has been a major cultural shift in the way we communicate and document our social lives in recent years, but we have not been taught digital or online manners,” says Jo Bryant, an advisor for U.K.-based etiquette authority Debrett’s, which added a section on social networking etiquette to their “A-Z of Modern Manners” in early 2008.

The No. 1 rule? Treat others with kindness and respect, Debrett’s advises.

With the rise and blossoming of online networking sites like LinkedIn and ClaimID, many people, especially younger people, are doing the majority of their business networking online. This phenomenon is not anything new, and it has been covered in this blog and elsewhere.

But while it may be easier to sit in front of the computer screen and interact with your peers, it is hard to think that interpersonal relationships can ever be fully fleshed out (if you will) in the digital sphere. Face-to-face networking will never go away. The information on the Internet is not always accurate (although that doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant, according to Google’s algorithms), and there is a lot to be said for looking someone in the eyes.

Today people should try to balance their “new school” digital networking with the “old school” tried and true methods. The approach will literally double the amount of chances a person has to make an impact with a potential employer, and the effort required to do so is not unreasonable (point of fact, until a few years the “old school” method was the only game in town).

LinkedIn and other popular business networking sites thrive because they offer an alternative to actually speaking with a fellow networker. The information you put in the profile becomes the equivalent of a hand shake and a greeting. Thus, a user profile, for business purposes, should be looked at as an opportunity to distinguish yourself as someone others want to know and be connected to.

There are small and effective steps one can take to achieve this. Focus on brevity. 100 words is enough to grab someone’s attention and establish a positive image. If done correctly, a LinkedIn profile can, for practical purposes, be the difference between just another interview and a job offer. Conversely, a poorly written profile can have you knocked out of the running before you even get started.

Many employers look at LinkedIn as a sort of research tool. A resume can only say so much about a person, and employers are always looking to find out the little bits about a potential employee that are not immediately apparent. This fact has had disastrous consequences for some people whose Facebook and MySpace profiles contain otherwise unflattering images/language/etc. We’ve blogged that story here more than once.

Online business networking profiles are still just a piece of the puzzle, though. A successful blend of the old and the new networking techniques will counteract the deficiencies inherent in both approaches. A human touch in the new digital landscape goes a long way towards maintaining awareness and crafting image, while drawing in more localized business and opening channels previously untapped.

A recent article from Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald reveals the plans of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to fine people who create hyperlinks to sites on the Authority’s official blacklist. Which raises the question, how much is a hyperlink worth? The Australian Communications and Media Authority recently threatened the host of an online broadband discussion forum with an $11,000/day fine over a link, if that’s any indication.

 At present ACMA’s list of banned sites doesn’t impact Aussies too much, but that could all change if their government begins to apply a proposed Internet filtering program. Until then web surfers from Down Under may feel that they’re OK, but this most recent revelation shows how far ACMA is willing to go to control Australians’ activities online.

 Wikileaks, a site that has been placed on ACMA’s blacklist had this to say: “The first rule of censorship is that you cannot talk about censorship.” Wikileaks has come under fire from regulatory bodies for its mission to publish anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive governmental, corporate, or religious documents. Wikileaks has exposed the banned list of sites of several countries, including Thailand, Denmark and now Australia.

 Regarding ACMA’s efforts to restrict user access to Wikileaks, Electronic Frontiers Australia noted how ACMA’s own list of banned sites may someday find itself in the public sphere. “We note that, not only do these incidents show that the ACMA censors are more than willing to interpret their broad guidelines to include a discussion forum and document repository, it is demonstrably inevitable that the Government’s own list is bound to be exposed itself at some point in the future. The Government would serve the country well by sparing themselves, and us, this embarrassment.”

 Australia has become a new focus for those concerned about controlling information on the Internet, with Reporters Without Borders placing the South Pacific nation on its “watch list” of countries that are enforcing anti-democratic internet restrictions.

 The larger report from Reporters Without Borders on the state of freedom of information on the Internet was seized by Australian Senator Scott Ludlam, who is quoted as saying “This report demolished the Communications Minister’s contention that Australia is just following other comparable democracies, we are not. The Government is embarking on a deeply unpopular and troubling experiment to fine-tune its ability to censor the Internet. I agree with Reporters Without Borders. If you consider this kind of net censorship in the context of Australia’s anti-terror laws, it paints a disturbing picture indeed.”

 However, dissenting groups are lauding the proposed Internet censorship scheme. Citizens such as Jim Wallace, the head of the Australian Christian Lobby, have expressed their desire to see the sex industry and online gambling sites go broke as a result of the censorship scheme.

The New York Times has an interesting write up of a recent TRUSTe survey that reveals that online privacy is a rising concern for over 90% of online users.

As arguments swirl over online privacy, a new survey indicates the issue is a dominant concern for Americans.

More than 90 percent of respondents called online privacy a “really” or “somewhat” important issue, according to the survey of more than 1,000 Americans conducted by TRUSTe, an organization that monitors the privacy practices of Web sites of companies like I.B.M., Yahoo and WebMD for a fee.

The survey also found that users were not comfortable with data gathering by advertisers to deliver targeted brand messages.

When asked if they were comfortable with behavioral targeting — when advertisers use a person’s browsing history or search history to decide which ad to show them — only 28 percent said they were. More than half said they were not. And more than 75 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, “The Internet is not well regulated, and naïve users can easily be taken advantage of.”

The survey arrives at a fractious time. Debate over behavioral advertising has intensified, with industry groups trying to avoid government intervention by creating their own regulatory standards. Still, some Congressional representatives and the Federal Trade Commission are questioning whether there are enough safeguards around the practice.

Last month, the F.T.C. revised its suggestions for behavioral advertising rules for the industry, proposing, among other measures, that sites disclose when they are participating in behavioral advertising and obtain consumers’ permission to do so.

Reputation.com is committed to protecting online privacy and ensures a safe online experience for students and professionals.

Michael Fertik will be speaking at SXSW (South By SouthWest) this weekend and addressing the emerging trend of digital narcing. In the information age a variety of forces are shaping a voyeristic digital world wherein companies, individuals and governments can compile data to make more accurate decisions, for good or for ill.

From the NSA warrantless wiretaps to GPS targeted advertisements to monitoring flu outbreaks on Google, it is truly a brave new world.

Check out Michael Fertik and other panel speakers this Sunday at 5 if you are in the area.