The dilemma
Individuals and businesses may make good use of social media to promote themselves or their companies. When does social media marketing cross that ever-changing boundary between marketing and deceit?
The hotelier who posts false reviews on Tripadvisor. The author who tries to hack the bestseller list on Amazon to push it up the rankings. The PayPerPost model of marketing, where a corporation that pays bloggers to blog favorably about them without a disclaimer. Knowingly lying to journalists and blogs and sending emails, writing comments, or tweeting under false names in order to generate controversy and publicity. Hacking prominent journalists? Twitter accounts or posting fake articles under their names, as Bill Keller of the New York Times recently found out.
This is an important personal and professional issue for me, as the one of the hats I wear is an advisor to small business owners who wish to enhance their online presence through SEO and social media marketing. How far should I advise them to go in their pursuit of internet stardom in their field?
The facts
The dramatic arrival of Web 2.0 with its army of independent bloggers, Tweeters, Facebookers, amateur video and music producers, trolls and hackers (and their equivalents around the world) has brought democracy to the media and publishing industries.
Some celebrate the loosening of the media and publishing industry?s stranglehold on what gets out into the public domain, like Paul Graham in this interesting article on Web 2.0 (2005, but still relevant). So-called produsers, as Alex Bruns terms the media-using public, play an active role. Sally can now connect with friends on Facebook. Michael can lambast local politicians on his blog. Anonymous bloggers and Twitter users globally can expose corruption and abuses by their authoritarian governments, in relative safety.
Some vaunt the benefits that democracy brings to the world, such as James Surowiecki in his recent book, The Wisdom of Crowds. He claims, as his blurb says, that ?large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant?better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future.? (For a critique of this online democracy, see ?Principles? below.)
Some bemoan the drop in quality of writing, fact-checking, spelling and grammar. Others fear the lack of clarity produced by the ?information glut?. David Shenk?s book Data Smog, published in 1997, showed great foresight.
Many both relish and fear the speed with which the news cycle comes and goes ? news has become a ?headline-driven market.? This article in the New York times about a news-obsessed blogger captures that dynamic perfectly.
As Nicholas Carr argues in his book The Shallows, and as many people are now starting to accept, our limited attention span has been burnt down to the wick. (Luckily for us, we don?t remember this long enough to care.)
And some abuse the loopholes of this openly flawed system. A recently released book by self-described ?social media manipulator? Ryan Holiday, entitled Trust Me, I?m Lying, explains with boastful clarity how he lied, cheated and abused the trust of bloggers in order to gain free publicity for his clients.
In the book he describes how the media is now an interconnected web resting on the unfirm foundations of small-time blogs, whose owners are care little for integrity and factual correctness, and only about page views, advertising clicks and being the first to break a story. He then sets out a series of tips on how to manipulate the media through the use of false email addresses, deceitful tip-offs, openly falsifying evidence and lying to people whom he knew did not have the time or resources to check up on him.
I created false perceptions through blogs, which led to bad conclusions and wrong decisions ? real decisions in the real world that had consequences for real people.
In sum, then, Web 2.0 has made it easier for marketers and public relations professionals to be deceitful. In traditional marketing, there are industry and government rules which regulate what you can and cannot claim. In traditional journalism, sources are thoroughly checked and journalists have the training and integrity to recognize and expose a bad egg when they see it. Editors have the time to reflect and review before the news appears on the shelves the next day. With Web 2.0?s speed and democracy, those traditions have flown out of the window.
Companies and marketers who play by the old rules will be left behind at the back of the herd, to be picked off by the predators or just left to die alone. Playing free-for-all is the only way, currently, to succeed online.
What we do about this dilemma, individually and as a society, affects everything and everyone. It affects marketing, reputation, outreach, PR. It affects trust in information, and trust in one another. Ryan Holiday should know. He writes:
I can?t shake the constant suspicion that others are baiting, tricking, or cheating me, just as I did to them.
Values
The truth is, we can rationalize any behavior with any values or beliefs.
I might say that honest, openness, integrity, truth and self-respect prevent me from manipulating the media for the benefit of myself and my client or company.
On the other hand, I might say that I value innovation, courage, ambition and independence of spirit. I might argue that I am smart in leveraging available tools and new methods of publicity, in pushing the boundaries of marketing and technology.
Who decides ? apart from our gut ? which set of values is the ?correct? one?
To the person who says it is dishonest to act online under a pseudonym to avoid detection, I give the example of Mujtahidd, the Twitter user who tweets about corruption in the Saudi ruling family. The big picture of values and systems of belief may look clear from afar. When we attempt to focus in on particular details, however, we see that it?s low-resolution, fuzzy and blurred.
We may attempt to legitimize our beliefs and values through making them consistent with one another. As the Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, S.J., and Meyer point out in their paper Consistency and Ethics for the University of Santa Clara: ?Ethics requires consistency in the sense that our moral standards, actions, and values should not be contradictory. Examining our lives to uncover inconsistencies and then modifying our moral standards and behaviors so that they are consistent is an important part of moral development.?
This approach yields a little more success. For instance a hotelier might ask himself: ?Should I post false Tripadvisor reviews in order to boost my ratings?? and compare it to: ?Would I falsify the guestbook??. A small business owner facing stiff competition might ask: ?Should I give an anonymous, false tip-off to a blog about a competitor in the hope that it will spread and smear their reputation?? and compare it to: ?Would I spread a dirty, untrue rumor about a colleague so that I have a better chance of being promoted over her??
Attempting to make online ethical dilemmas consistent with offline ones may help us decide which values we wish to adhere to in our online behavior. But ultimately, as Sartre?s book Existentialism and Humanism implies, we are at liberty to choose the values we live by. Sartre?s famous quote ?Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world ? and defines himself afterwards? simply means that no objective ethical standards precede our existence ? we are not forced to accept anyone else?s code of conduct or values
Principles
Utilitarianism ? the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people ? is unworkable if we attempt to apply it equally to the whole world and all living beings. I don?t feel I have a duty to maximize the happiness of a families in a remote village in Fiji with my daily actions.
But if I apply preference utilitarianism ? a popular form of the utilitarian theory developed by R.M. Hare ? I will act to maximize the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people involved in my action. In this case, the principles could be twisted to state that I should lie as much as possible to get ahead. This would lead to more profits for my business, which will help my employees, colleagues, shareholders, clients, vendors, family, friends and the local economy. (C.f. ?Loyalties?) Is this really what an ethical principle should say?
In any case, consequentialist ethical theories such as utilitarianism don?t, for me, hold much weight. The actual consequences of an action or less important than the intent of the action. If I attempt to sneak a bomb onto a plane with the intention of blowing it up, and get caught before I manage to do so, this is arguably this is as ethically wrong ? on a personal if not on a legal level ? as actually blowing it up. Intending to spread a dirty rumor about a competitor through social media, or lying in an attempt to get free publicity, are just as despicable whether or not you?re smart enough to achieve your goal.
The Christian ethical principle of treating others as you would wish to be treated yourself yields more fruit, partly as in the West we generally abide by this rule. Most of us would say we do not wish to be lied about online. A hotelier does not wish competitors to post false glowing reviews of their hotels and false negative reviews of his own. I can imagine Ryan Holiday, however, replying that if attacked online we should simply fight back harder or even try to leverage that publicity and turn it to our favor.
Kant?s deontological ethical system is a good rule of thumb but tend to break down when it comes to details. Do not lie ? unless it?s a white lie. Do not steal ? unless you?re stealing from a thief to give to the poor. Moreover, unless everyone subscribes to those rules, it?s impossible to compete ? as discussed above. We might liken this to doping in cycling. If everyone takes performance-enhancing drugs, is it right to take performance-enhancing drugs in order to be able to compete? Perhaps not, but it does show that we need a more sophisticated ethical philosophy.
The real problem with Web 2.0 is arguably that it is too democratic. We often take the principle that democracy is always right for granted. The Wisdom of Crowds is based on this myth. However, Plato saw problems with democracy that we do not often acknowledge. His famous and persuasive analogy of the beast likens the democratic populace to a giant, powerful but ignorant animal, and likens the social media manipulator (or his ancient equivalent, the public speaker) to his keeper.
Suppose a man was in charge of a large and powerful animal, and made a study of its moods and wants; he would learn when to approach and handle it, when and why it was especially savage or gentle, what the different noises it made meant, and what tone of voice to use to soothe or annoy it? But he would not really know which of the creature?s tastes and desires was admirable or shameful, good or bad, right or wrong; he would simply use the terms on the basis of its reactions, calling what pleased it good, what annoyed it bad. (The Republic, Book VI, 493b)
Citizen journalists do not know and do not care what is right or wrong. They do not have the experience or vision to predict the consequences of their actions. The cage ? the regulations which have contained marketing and publicity until now ? is a rickety structure, hastily put together and badly designed. The democratic beast is breaking free and will wreak havoc on our trust in the media and in each other.
What?s next is either a descent from controlled anarchy into total chaos or ? I hope ? some sort of independent regulation and whistle-blowing system. Scaremongering from privacy advocates and the anti-Big Brother lobby, however, has put many people off internet regulation, even if it could be achieved in practice.
I would personally like to see a regulatory framework arise from the ground up rather than be imposed from above ? i.e. an independent set of ethical standards that most people uphold, such as the Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics. This would help to level the playing field and define the boundaries where the game is to be played.
I would like to see the economics of the web change so that weak online businesses and blogs based solely on advertising revenue were forced to come up with more robust business plans that did not rely solely on traffic and advertising clicks. Much as I feel uncomfortable using Ryan Holiday?s arguments to back up my own, this analysis of the economics of the web is compelling:
The economics of the Internet created a twisted set of incentives that make traffic more important ? and more profitable ? than truth.
Loyalties
My loyalties are first to myself, then to my family and friends, my business, colleagues and employees.
Beyond that I feel a certain loyalty to clients, vendors and others in my industry, and beyond that to society at large.
However, I see my loyalties as a fluid system existing within a larger framework of values which, as discussed above, include honesty, integrity and self-respect.
Decision
On my journey through Potter?s maze, I have come to the conclusion that I would refuse to lie, cheat or give false information online in an attempt to better myself or my company.
Ryan Holiday may think he is smart for outwitting the bloggers and achieving free publicity for his clients through dubious means. I would like to be smarter, and achieve a more robust effect through more ethically sound means.
We?ll have to see how that goes.
duggar miscarriage roman holiday belize adele lyrics bruno mars best new artist 2012 grammys
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.