Some of you may recall my article about cybersquatters and higher ed from last year and the followup University Business article.
Now cybersquatters are invading higher ed’s social media presence by starting Facebook groups. Fortunately, Brad Ward at squaredpeg has their number. If you haven’t already seen it, go and read this article and protect your brand’s presence on Facebook before someone else takes control.
People rarely use gossip as a way to delve into the psychological depths of others, but rather consume it like a form of greasy fast food.
This article is part of a virtual reading group for Daniel Solove’s book The Future of Reputation (schedule here).
There is a longstanding argument made against privacy advocates that says someone who isn’t engaged in criminal behavior has nothing to hide. This method of thinking allowed the US government to slowly sap away our civil liberties in the wake of the 9/11 attacks–many have just accepted that trading privacy for security is acceptable and used the “nothing to hide” argument to rationalize what was, essentially, a decision based on fear. However, limiting the government’s ability to intrude in our private lives is easy compared with attempting to control how personal information spreads on the internet via gossip. Rather than spies or wiretaps, gossip is often gathered by those we trust and spread online by people who don’t understand or appreciate the potential for the damage it can do. The second half of Chapter 3 of Daniel Solove’s book The Future of Reputation nicely counters the “nothing to hide” argument by pointing out how personal information can only really be understood in context. Out of context, a person’s secrets are likely to foster snap judgments based on misunderstandings and irrational reactions to social stigmas. (Not surprisingly, Solove is the author of a paper on the subject.) In reality, privacy is about much more than concealing wrongdoing.
There is an argument made against privacy that says someone who isn’t engaged in criminal behavior has nothing to hide. This method of thinking allowed the US government to slowly sap away our civil liberties in the wake of the 9/11 attacks–many have just accepted that trading privacy for security is acceptable and used the “nothing to hide” argument to rationalize what was, essentially, a decision based on fear. However, limiting the government’s ability to intrude in our private lives is easy compared with attempting to control how personal information spreads on the internet via gossip. Rather than spies or wiretaps, gossip is often gathered by those we trust and spread online by people who don’t understand or appreciate the potential for the damage it can do. In reality, privacy is about much more than concealing wrongdoing.
Internet-based abuse (‘cyberbullying’) and privacy / relationship issues are still massively misunderstood. The complexities of online sociality are probably the biggest ‘generational divide’ between modern teens and adults. To help put it in perspective a bit, here are some numbers…
Wired picked up a story yesterday on a lawsuit in Florida dealing with the emerging legal issue of ‘cyberbullying.’ Reading this, I think there is a gap that new law should seek to fill–a law addressing defamatory opinions when wielded against a citizen in an international context when that citizen is not otherwise newsworthy.
