PR 101

This may come as a shock to lot of bloggers, but they are bound by the same rules on libel, slander and defamation as any reporter at an old media daily newspaper. I have written several times that the Internet is the wild west of the law. There have not been a lot of cases dealing with such things plagiarism, copyright infringement, and other areas of the law that govern publishing.

That is changing however.

“It was probably inevitable, but we have seen a steady growth in litigation over content on the Internet,” Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York, told the Los Angeles Times

“Although bloggers may have a free-speech right to say what they want online, courts have found that they are not protected from being sued for their comments, even if they are posted anonymously. Some postings have even led to criminal charges,” the LA Times reported.

This is my rant for this week. Just because you have a laptop and an Internet connection does not mean you can ignore the rules.  As many bloggers are now finding out, pretending those laws don’t apply get them into a whole heap of trouble.

Yet for some reason many bloggers continue to act like they can write and say what they want. There is something about the Internet and the feeling of anonymity that leads people to write things they would never say in person.

What also bothers me is that many blogger could not define libel if it bit them on the butt.

Here for your edification is the definition of libel from the Associated Press Style Book: “at its most basic, libel means injury to reputation. In some states libel is distinguished from slander, in that a libel is written or otherwise printed, whereas slander is spoken; in either case, the word defamation generally includes both terms. Words, pictures, cartoons, photo captions and headlines can all give rise to a claim for a libel.”

One of the very first things drilled into every rookie reporter are the rules of libel. Lawsuits are expensive. Editors don’t like to use their budgets on legal fees.

“Most people have no idea of the liability they face when they publish something online,” Eric Goldman, who teaches Internet law at Santa Clara University, told the LA Times. “A whole new generation can publish now, but they don’t understand the legal dangers they could face. People are shocked to learn they can be sued for posting something that says, ‘My dentist stinks.’”

Under federal law, websites generally are not liable for comments posted by outsiders. They can, however, be forced to reveal the poster’s identity if the post includes false information presented as fact.

That’s right, you cannot hide behind a false identity. Keep in mind that to everyone at your Internet Service provider – with the exception to those who send you the bill – you are a series of numbers. Those numbers are unique and cannot be changed by you. In other words, they can identify you quite easily.

“There’s a false sense of safety on the Internet,” Kimberley Isbell, a lawyer for the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University said to the Times. “If you think you can be anonymous, you may not exercise the same judgment” before posting a comment, she said.

So, think before you hit that publish button.

The Cole household needed a plumber last week.  The sewer lateral from our house to our village’s sewer lines was clogged. This happens to be a job that I cannot do myself. It calls for a specialized tool that I would use about once every 20 years. So I needed outside help.

Blogger’s note: One of the keys to a successful home repair is knowing your limitations.

Because I do most of my own home repair I did not have the name of reliable plumber. So how did I find someone who I knew was skilled and trustworthy? Google? An online directory? Online reviews?

Nope, Nyet, Nein.

I called some friends who I knew had recently had plumbing work done on their houses. I asked them what company they’d used and what their experience was. After a few phone calls, I settled on which company I was going to use and called them up.

What I availed myself of was the most basic, and probably oldest, form of marketing – word-of-mouth. I have a feeling when Oog wanted to trade for a snazzy fur for Mrs. Oog, he asked around the cave to find out who had the best pelts.

Remember, social media is just word-of-mouth writ large. Instead of talking to a few of your friends, you can now broadcast your opinions all over the Internet. Others can read them and make a decision.

That brings me to another point about word-of-mouth; the issue of trust. I called people who like me who know something about plumbing. I knew their opinions were of a value because they could evaluate the quality of work.

There’s one of the problem with social media – it is often hard to decide who to trust. There have been several instances of individuals creating false identities to tout their own companies or products. Obviously they are not providing an objective opinion.

So the key to is identify those people who are objective and honest. It is the same thing as talking to your friends about a store or a company. You soon learn who knows what they are talking about and can be trusted. Read enough on-line reviews and you’ll know who to believe.

Which brings to why marketers should care about this.

I grew up in a very small town in the Adirondack Mountains in northern New York State. My father was one of a small group of community leaders. Anyone wanting to do something in our village would usually run it by this group. These were the men – in the was early ‘60s, so they were all men – who could convince the rest of the community to go along with a project.

Those groups still exist. They have just moved on line. They are called influencers or early adopters now, but their role is the same as those men who sat around our kitchen table drinking coffee. Convince these people that your product is something worth buying and have your race is run. They will tell others who will tell still others, etc.

One advantage that these people provide is they are often looking for new things. You just have to dangle the bait for them to bite. It is how I found a good plumber.

There has been a debate raging over the future of the Internet for the last year or so. However, I don’t most people have even heard the term net neutrality, let alone had the time to delve into the subject. Yet in my opinion, if the debate goes one way, it will change the way all of us use the Internet. It will divide the web into groups of haves and have-nots.

Some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) want to create a two-tiered web. According to Wikipedia “neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms. Vinton Cerf, considered a ‘father of the Internet’ and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of network neutrality.”

Wikipedia goes on to define net neutrality as follows: “Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and governments on content, sites, platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and no restrictions on the modes of communication allowed.” Ian Paul wrote in the online edition of PC World that “Network neutrality is the principle that broadband providers should not be allowed to discriminate or restrict Web traffic based on its content.”

The bottom of those advocating net neutrality is that the Internet should remain like it is currently. Open access and no restrictions whether you are paying $10 a month for your access or $100 a month.

Paul goes on to note that what ISPs are asking for is the right to maintain a so-called private Internet to provide new services. Some examples of what private broadband services could be include health care monitoring, educational services, gaming and other forms of entertainment. This private service would be separate from the regular Internet.

What that means in practice, at least to me, is that some people are going to find that they cannot afford the new services. And that ain’t right.

Think about this from a social media point-of-view. A lot of social media involves video. What happens to a small company who finds that video is the best way to get out their message? Videos take a lot of bandwidth. A lot of ISPS don’t like video because its bandwidth demands. There are discussions about charging more for sending large files. Could a new company afford to market itself with a higher priced web?

One of the great things about the Internet is how it has given people who have never had a voice before a chance to say something. Think of all the governments that have been overthrown because people had ways outside of official channels to communicate. Look how people in this country has used the ‘Net to make themselves heard.

Or it could be as simple as finding out it will cost you more to download music because of the amount of bandwidth it takes. Online gamers might find themselves paying more to access such things as World of Warcraft.

What is particularly scary to me is how wireless access is being left out of the discussion. Earlier this month Google and Verizon released a proposal to maintain an open Internet while creating room for a broadband network of premium services. (my emphasis.) It left wireless out of the verbiage.

Doesn’t seem like that big of a deal. Morgan Stanley analysts predict that in five years more people will be going line via wireless access (smart phones) than computers. As the New York Times reported, as ISPs earn more revenue from private services, “they might have less incentive to invest in Internet capacity, pushing more content providers to these special services and creating alternative networks that look similar to cable TV.” And cutting many people out of the best parts of the Internet.

This scares me. It should scare you too.