The ability for users to decide what is valuable content on ratings sites like Digg and Technorati, to create content on sites like Wikipedia, to engage in meaningful dialogue and to get to the top of search results for given keywords is a shining example of free speech online. And it can be used against free speech online.
An article in the Wall Street Journal’s Far Eastern Economic Review titled China’s Guerilla War for the Web http://www.feer.com/essays/2008/august/chinas-guerrilla-war-for-the-web brought to my attention by an article by journalist Mike Elgan http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/columns/article.php/3795091/How+Chinas+50+Cent+Army+Could+Wreck+Web+2.0.htm sparked this blog post for me.
Apparently since 2005, the Chinese government has been paying an army of people - 270,000 plus strong - to influence public opinion by swarming onto the internet and “assert supremacy over online public opinion, raise the level and study the art of online guidance, and actively use new technologies to increase the strength of positive propaganda.” The Chinese government feels they have to do this because they believe Western governments are doing something similar.
Do you think more than a quarter of a million people could have an effect on public opinion, news and information? It could certainly affect sites run by “the wisdom of the crowds”.
Of course, organisations have been caught trying to pervert grassroots opinion for years. Called “astroturfing”, there have been various web sites that supposedly reflect consumer opinion, chat room commentators and Tweeters posing as private individuals but uncovered to reveal corporate employees posing as satisfied consumers.
Last year, NAB got some bad PR advice when advised to seek out popular blogs and leave comments amounting to SPAM. http://kerryj.com/2008/06/25/nab-justifies-spamming/
So - what can be done? I think we need to fight the battle on a few fronts:
1) Train new internet users in the art of discernment and skepticism. As a journalist, I had credible resources I would consult when presented with “facts”. I would consult a minimum of three.
My criteria for credibility?
- Level of accountability. What sort of trouble would the source get in if they were telling furphies?
- Vested interest involved. Why is this particular person or organisation telling me this story in this way?
- Reputation for bias. Don’t use overtly conservative or liberal publications or ones heavily advertised/endorsed in by the organisation or individual into which you are researching.
- What does the source say? Always go to the source of a story when possible. Unless you think the source wouldn’t be truthful with you.
- Interest/impact on you and your audience. Is this important for a wider audience to know? Or is someone tooting their own horn?
- Business or charitable organisation registration. Before I invest my reputation in a cause, join a group, buy a product or donate money - I want to know about accreditation and credentials.
2) Build your own information army — your network. More and more I am turning to people in my delicious, diigo and Twitter networks for answers before I search Google. I want to find answers from people I trust whenever possible. So build networks in a variety of areas covering what interests you.
3) Stay transparent. Not talking stealth technology here but disclosure. If there is a negative comment about you or your organisation/institution that needs to be addressed, respond to it transparently by revealing your association and/or interest. If you want to use social networks for marketing and promotion - learn to do so with respect. Don’t always ask of people, give back.
4) Keep it real. If you start a Tweet in your name, you need to be the Tweeter. Some politicians and celebrities get it. Social networks and Web 2.0 only work as relationship-building tools between you and the public if you are involved. If you want to use these tools to engage with the public, know in advance how you’re going to handle the people who don’t like you or your organisation.
5) Be vigilant on your own web sites. Does a comment sound like it came from a boilerplate? Does that email sound strangely familiar? Copy a phrase or two and paste it into Google.
Let’s face it — information is never going to be unpolluted by someone else’s opinion. Just in writing this article I chose resources based on my personal set of criteria. Isn’t that bias?
So let me know what you think about all this. Do your own research.
To paraphrase the Free Open Source Software movement, perhaps we all need to keep in mind that free speech isn’t free as in beer. It’s free as in unfettered by top-down controls. Let’s use all the tools at our disposal to keep it that way and arm new users to do the same.
Post a Comment