How Far is "Too Far"?

 And who will set the limits?

While the internet and social media have been incredible forces for building community, pursuing and disseminating information, and even helping to overthrow oppressive regimes, it seems that every week in the news there is some internet-related story that makes you wonder just how far humans have evolved from apes.

For the benefit of the younger members of this class, I am going to tell you about an earlier age, when the big communication medium was network television. We had broadcasts of scripted, weekly performances, usually sponsored (paid for) by consumer goods manufacturers and retailers. It was a wonderful world back then. Watching these shows was evidence that the world was good, and that there were no divorces, gays, minorities, or drug use (unless you count Geritol and cigarettes).

You didn't need to talk back to television shows (unless you were a crazy person), since communications experts (ok, the sponsors) knew what was best for you, and made sure nothing was offensive. Their financial power took care of this, with the helpful enforcement of the network censors and the FCC (still on nipple concealment patrol to this day).


Then things loosened up, and sponsorship of shows went away in favor of individual advertising spots. With the advent of cable, it seemed as though everything was going to hell in a hand-basket (those of a certain age still jump when they hear foul language coming out of the box in the living room). But, as they always do, advertisers found opportunities here, but could still pull back nervously if the public seemed to tack against what was shown.



Rush Limbaugh booking photo, Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, April 2006

Prominent personalities such as Don Imus, with his comments about the Rutgers' Womens' basketball team, and Rush Limbaugh, with his comments about Sandra Fluke were not immune from advertisers' ire (although, in time, after intense soul-searching - aka: looking at the ratings - they returned from purgatory. 

Now with the internet and social media, we have a lively forum for a serious exchange of social, cultural and philosophical issues. As if. There is often debate in the United States as to where freedom of speech ends and harassment, obscenity, etc. begin, and social media is the new playground for this. It was always possible, but not always feasible or practical to publish (on your own, if no one else was willing), but with the ease and lack of financial considerations for blogging, posting or commenting on web sites (or for that matter, having your own web site), the floodgates seem to have opened wide.

But things seemed to have reached a new low this past week, when Michael Brutsch, a user on Reddit.com (an open forum/aggregator type site) was outed.

"...last week when Gawker revealed the identity of user Violentacrez, who was known to start hundreds of forums, including one called “Jailbait” that featured pictures of underage girls. After the Gawker article appeared, Brutsch was quickly fired, and a debate about anonymity on Reddit ensued. " - Slate Magazine, October 19, 2012

 

When interviewed on CNN, Brutsch claimed that he was just being provocative, and said:  

"Reddit needs to step up....if I hadn't been allowed to run wild, I wouldn't have"

 

 

 

So what does this have to do with us? You may now need to consider what the relationship between those wishing to advertise/exploit social media sites and who the audience/participants on those sites will be. While engaging the groundswell, there may be pitfalls for your organization (or in some cases, perhaps opportunities).

 

As the old saying goes, "You are known by the company you keep". In the "Violentacrez" case, it is likely that while Reddit has an all-encompassing variety of material, it will be known for the more questionable sections. You may have tactics for responding to adverse information about your product or organization, but what about offensive information not related to your business, but simply appearing in proximity?

 

Will marketers (whether commercial, political -as if there's a difference), activists and interest groups pull back, and avoid sites with lack of control? Will they hold their noses and go where the clicks and eyeballs are (even while pretending to be aghast), or simply try to exert pressure as they did in the old sponsorship days?

 

Any of the "free" social media services come with the tacit agreement that, just as with the network broadcasters, we will have commercials put in front of us. This advertising revenue is the lifeblood of these sites, so I am pretty sure that while a provider may fight for free speech against government intervention, advertisers with cash on the line will have the greater say.

 

But in the meantime, when attempting to manage your "brand", pay attention to where you can be found on the internet. As my mother used to say, "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas". In fact, I found a song about it:

 

 

 

Uh oh, I just listened to all the lyrics. Stop playing that right now! Instead,  let's leave with this one, from the Alan Parsons Project:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Late breaking addition: This group using social media to raise awareness of the need for cancer diagnosis might find an audience with "edgier" forums that traditional groups may avoid. We'll see if it goes viral.

Found on http://www.socialmeteor.com/