Wednesday - Apr 27, 2011
The short answer is “you are”–you and the 2 billion other people who use the Internet. More on this in a moment.
There’s also another “anonymous,” an amorphous group of people around the world who claim they’re fighting for free speech. Because of their cyber-attacks on targets as diverse as Sony’s PlayStation Network (Anonymous denies stealing any customer data) and the governments of Tunisia and Egypt, Anonymous has been branded as criminals. But depending on your point of view, this rebellious band can also be seen as Internet freedom fighters.
According to their YouTube manifesto published last December, “We are not a terrorist organization as governments, demagogues, and the media would have your believe. Rather, Anonymous is a spontaneous collective of people who share the common goal of protecting the free flow of information on the Internet.” Anonymous has compared their actions to those of American Civil Rights workers of the 1960s.
Members of the collective reportedly include software programmers, professionals and IT types. They take down websites by using denial-of-service attacks. Anonymous harnesses an army of zombie computers to direct simultaneous service requests to a website, causing the server to overload and then crash. They claim, “We do no damage to the computer hardware.”
Anonymous attacked Visa, MasterCard and PayPal when the companies stopped processing donations for Wikileaks. The group crashed Egyptian government websites in retaliation for taking the country offline. More recently, they embarrassed HBGary, a computer security firm with numerous high level government and corporate clients, by hacking into its network.
In many ways, the Internet remains a new frontier. There’s a certain romance to a band of outliers who pledge to protect free speech by challenging multinational corporations and governments. Of course the targets of the attacks hardly see it that way and are actively trying to round up these outlaws. Will they succeed?
Being anonymous is one of the great strengths of the Internet. We don’t hesitate to research subjects online that might prove too sensitive to discuss face-to-face with a research librarian. We buy products online that we might be too embarrassed to purchase in a retail store. Then there’s the porn industry, which makes billions of dollars from its anonymous clients. Concealing one’s identity has advantages.
The only way to unmask Anonymous is for all of us to reveal ourselves as well. The question is, are we ready to pay that price?
Wednesday - Apr 20, 2011
Last week writer Jonathan Tasini filed a $105 million class action lawsuit against publisher Arianna Huffington and Kenneth Lerer of the Huffington Post, and its new owner, AOL, which recently bought the online publication for $315 million.
The Huffington Post, launched in May 2005, initially just aggregated content from other sources. But aided by an estimated 9,000 bloggers who contributed their work without payment, the site has become a successful and valuable media property.
Over a five year period, Tasini contributed 216 unpaid articles to the site. Why would he and other writers work for free? In a word–exposure. HuffPost provided them a platform, a voice and an audience for their ideas and talents. Some bet the exposure would lead to paying jobs or open other doors.
Huffington never agreed to pay the bloggers, but now that AOL has paid out the $315 million, Tasini wants compensation for his work and for the work of the other writers. Tasini reportedly said, “The Huffington bloggers have essentially been turned into modern-day slaves on Arianna Huffington’s plantation. . . She wants to pocket the tens of millions of dollars she reaped from the hard work of those bloggers…”
Huffington has dismissed the lawsuit as “utterly without merit”, claiming that the writers willingly contributed to the site. “Without a shadow of a doubt (legal or otherwise), Tasini understood and appreciated the value of having a post on HuffPost — and was only too happy to use our platform’s ability to get his work seen by a wider audience.”
Yet Huffington certainly profited from all the free content. As a self-styled Progressive, why not reward the bloggers as a goodwill gesture with a few million dollars from her windfall?
Regardless of what the courts decide, the big picture is that in the Internet age, the value of writing has declined dramatically. Where writers were once paid one to two dollars per word, the rate today–if there’s payment at all–has fallen to 25 to 50 cents–a 75% reduction. As with HuffPost, exposure is seen as payment enough. Here’s an excerpt from a recent Craigslist job post:
“IMPORTANT: Initially, compensation is primarily the opportunity to build your portfolio of experience by having your work published in an upscale magazine.
AND… if you are an unemployed, bitter, negative-thinking “writer” (whiner) with nothing better to do than criticize—please, save your limited mental energy for something productive. Don’t bother sending a reply!”
By no means is this ad unique, although it’s unusually blunt.
What do you think? Should bloggers be paid for their work or just shut up and be glad that anyone wants to read what they have to say?
Wednesday - Apr 13, 2011
Much of the value of popular sites like Yelp, Open Table, Amazon and many others lies in reading customer reviews. Before I buy a product, reserve a restaurant or book a hotel I will often browse what others have to say. It’s a great way to cut through the hype to learn from someone”s unvarnished experience.
User comments reward worthy businesses and products and steer people clear of undesirable ones, so I encourage you to add your feedback. Think of it as a public service. But can your comments come back to bite you?
The short answer is yes. People who have posted negative comments have found themselves as defendants in lawsuits, charged with defamation. According to Leita Walker, a Minneapolis attorney, “The rule is you’re responsible for what you say.” It doesn’t matter where you say it.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines defamation as “A false written or oral statement that damages another’s reputation.” The key here is “false.” Plaintiff must prove that a statement is indeed false and not just a matter of opinion.
If you critique a restaurant and comment that the service was slow, that’s just your opinion, as there is no objective standard for speed of service. But if you write that it took 30 minutes for your meal to arrive and the proprietor can prove that your food was served in 10 minutes, oops, now you’ve made a false statement.
Do you really need to worry about this? Given the millions of online comments, the number of lawsuits is very, very small. Businesses that do sue may be motivated more by silencing critics than collecting damages. Their real aim is to limit free speech.
These lawsuits, know as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or SLAPP, may be limited by law. Twenty-seven U.S. states have anti-SLAPP laws that allow a judge to dismiss a complaint and compel plaintiff to pay the defendant’s legal bills.
Still, it’s no fun being on the receiving end of a lawsuit.
You can avoid trouble when offering feedback by following these tips:
1. Don’t post in anger. Sure, you might be pissed off, but before you post, cool off. Write your comments, put them aside and then review them carefully in light of the next two points.
2. Be constructive. Offer useful information for others; don’t try to mete out revenge.
3. Tell the truth. Don’t exaggerate. Make sure you can back up your story with facts. If appropriate, take a picture with your smartphone, save receipts, have someone who can verify what happened. Armed with evidence, a litigious business should back off.
