Myth #4: Blogs Should Never Be Censored
(Part of a white paper on the 7 Myths of Business Blogging)
The History of Blog Censoring
When the Blogosphere first started, there were several key principles that were more or less recognized by the early bloggers. Transparency was one of those first key principles, and it remains a strong advantage and characteristic of successful bloggers in 2006.
The ability to form relationships with fellow bloggers online is hampered when one or more participants is providing false statements, hiding their identity, or providing information that is designed to falsely show evidence of expertise when none exists. As most of the early bloggers were motivated by politics and media, the desire to "root out" the dishonest led to a desire to provide access to all comprehensive and factual information that could affect an issue under discussion. This is not a special quality of bloggers, but a necessary community strategy for any digital formation. Transparency is a form of currency in a medium particularly susceptible to fraud.
Setting aside straw men with concerns about free speech (a debating tactic, not an actual argument unless the government is doing the censoring), the problem of censoring or deleting comments was decided by each blogger and a portion of the reputation of that blog was determined by how consistent a blogger was in following their own rules.
Some blogs opted out of comments (Instapundit). Some blogs held that they were paying for the space, and thus had every right to edit, delete or ban commenters who weren't following their rules (Daily Kos). Some blogs just banned flagrant violators and spammers (pretty much everyone). There was no formal decision on who was right or wrong, because there was no governing board of Blogdom.
Business Blogging
The original ethos of blogging was against money and corporate control. As late as 2004, blogs that sold ads or sold products were considered "dirtier" and less original than bloggers that remained amateur non-profit efforts.
As the ability to make money increased, the concern about authentic blogging quickly fell by the wayside. Bloggers and businesses begin to work together to determine the best ways to integrate blog campaigns with marketing, public relations, branding, employment and product launches.
A lot of mistakes were made, as businesses sought to circumvent the community standards with fake blogs, paid word-of-mouth marketing, and sponsorship of blogs without revealing a paid relationship. The backlash against these practices were sudden, overwhelming, and a created a sense of fear in the corporate world that bloggers were erratic, angry internet denizens more likely to start a mob then work with a business.
And that's where the nonsense of Blog Censoring came into the spotlight. Somewhere, somehow, someone said that All Blogs were Free Speech, and any censoring of a comment was tantamount to violating the essential liberties of a free people. Companies fearful of retaliation bought this line of reasoning, as the threat of negative press led them to avoid blogging entirely rather than be forced to create a platform for disgruntled customers or employees to vent. Public accounts of bloggers writing nasty comments to companies were picked up by the press, multiplied, and now the conventional wisdom, found in a lot of blogging advice, is that companies who wish to blog cannot censor or delete negative comments (unless it's comment spam).
To add to the fire, the government censoring in countries like China and Iran of bloggers, aided by Google, Microsoft and other high-profile tech companies threw more fuel on the fire. No one thought to ask some basic questions of whether a difference exists between a government using the threat of force to silence its citizens is the same as a business refusing to allow portions of the general public to use the business website as a megaphone.
The Truth Shall Set You Free
I have no official capacity in the blogosphere other than citizen, which means my voice matters only as much as the search engines and my fellow bloggers say I have. In my opinion, a business should be able to write a blog, censor comments, ban commenters, and in general control the topic of their blog.
The principle of transparency demands that companies be honest about their intentions. That does not mean that companies must answer every question or bow down to the whim of any web-surfer who stumbles on their site. The principle of whether a company should be trusted is the same as it was for the original bloggers - is the company consistent in following the rules it decides to establish for its blog. In effect, the company will be judged on whether they or contributing to the online discussion with their customers, or whether they're providing false and misleading information intended to benefit the company.
That's it. That's the point. A business blogger who writes about technology is not required to discuss third quarter results. An employment blogger who posts jobs doesn't have to answer questions about the latest sales products. It's a choice, and a company can best handle the situation by stating the obvious - those questions aren't ones I talk about. You control your cyberspace in the same manner you control your building. You don't let the public spray paint your building, so why would you let them spray paint your blog?
Two Concerns
1) Comments are only one way a citizen has to voice their opinion. Bloggers are already discussing your company, and just as you have every right to control your space, every blogger has the right to control theirs. When negative comments are written about your company on a blog you control, heavy-handed attempts to attack the blogger often backfire. A company has a right to protect its reputation, but a smart company will try to address the problem before sending threatening letters (letters that are often posted on the offending blog).
2) Comments on a company site can and should be edited, but only if they are clearly off-topic, or if they cannot be addressed because the commenter is not willing to engage in a civil discussion. A company that deletes every comment that isn't universally positive will rapidly lose its audience. When confronted with a negative comment, companies should consider the best way to address the issue, whether it's replying, taking the conversation private, or deleting the comment.
Summary
Censoring and deleting comments is not inherently bad. The goal of blogging is transparency and open dialogue between a company and its customers. To have that dialogue, the two sides must respect each other.
Providing a platform to the public in the form of a blog is a business decision. Smart companies can manage that decision with sound blogging and commenting policies.
Jim Durbin
Director, Corporate Communications
www.durbinmedia.com.
The History of Blog Censoring
When the Blogosphere first started, there were several key principles that were more or less recognized by the early bloggers. Transparency was one of those first key principles, and it remains a strong advantage and characteristic of successful bloggers in 2006.
The ability to form relationships with fellow bloggers online is hampered when one or more participants is providing false statements, hiding their identity, or providing information that is designed to falsely show evidence of expertise when none exists. As most of the early bloggers were motivated by politics and media, the desire to "root out" the dishonest led to a desire to provide access to all comprehensive and factual information that could affect an issue under discussion. This is not a special quality of bloggers, but a necessary community strategy for any digital formation. Transparency is a form of currency in a medium particularly susceptible to fraud.
Setting aside straw men with concerns about free speech (a debating tactic, not an actual argument unless the government is doing the censoring), the problem of censoring or deleting comments was decided by each blogger and a portion of the reputation of that blog was determined by how consistent a blogger was in following their own rules.
Some blogs opted out of comments (Instapundit). Some blogs held that they were paying for the space, and thus had every right to edit, delete or ban commenters who weren't following their rules (Daily Kos). Some blogs just banned flagrant violators and spammers (pretty much everyone). There was no formal decision on who was right or wrong, because there was no governing board of Blogdom.
Business Blogging
The original ethos of blogging was against money and corporate control. As late as 2004, blogs that sold ads or sold products were considered "dirtier" and less original than bloggers that remained amateur non-profit efforts.
As the ability to make money increased, the concern about authentic blogging quickly fell by the wayside. Bloggers and businesses begin to work together to determine the best ways to integrate blog campaigns with marketing, public relations, branding, employment and product launches.
A lot of mistakes were made, as businesses sought to circumvent the community standards with fake blogs, paid word-of-mouth marketing, and sponsorship of blogs without revealing a paid relationship. The backlash against these practices were sudden, overwhelming, and a created a sense of fear in the corporate world that bloggers were erratic, angry internet denizens more likely to start a mob then work with a business.
And that's where the nonsense of Blog Censoring came into the spotlight. Somewhere, somehow, someone said that All Blogs were Free Speech, and any censoring of a comment was tantamount to violating the essential liberties of a free people. Companies fearful of retaliation bought this line of reasoning, as the threat of negative press led them to avoid blogging entirely rather than be forced to create a platform for disgruntled customers or employees to vent. Public accounts of bloggers writing nasty comments to companies were picked up by the press, multiplied, and now the conventional wisdom, found in a lot of blogging advice, is that companies who wish to blog cannot censor or delete negative comments (unless it's comment spam).
To add to the fire, the government censoring in countries like China and Iran of bloggers, aided by Google, Microsoft and other high-profile tech companies threw more fuel on the fire. No one thought to ask some basic questions of whether a difference exists between a government using the threat of force to silence its citizens is the same as a business refusing to allow portions of the general public to use the business website as a megaphone.
The Truth Shall Set You Free
I have no official capacity in the blogosphere other than citizen, which means my voice matters only as much as the search engines and my fellow bloggers say I have. In my opinion, a business should be able to write a blog, censor comments, ban commenters, and in general control the topic of their blog.
The principle of transparency demands that companies be honest about their intentions. That does not mean that companies must answer every question or bow down to the whim of any web-surfer who stumbles on their site. The principle of whether a company should be trusted is the same as it was for the original bloggers - is the company consistent in following the rules it decides to establish for its blog. In effect, the company will be judged on whether they or contributing to the online discussion with their customers, or whether they're providing false and misleading information intended to benefit the company.
That's it. That's the point. A business blogger who writes about technology is not required to discuss third quarter results. An employment blogger who posts jobs doesn't have to answer questions about the latest sales products. It's a choice, and a company can best handle the situation by stating the obvious - those questions aren't ones I talk about. You control your cyberspace in the same manner you control your building. You don't let the public spray paint your building, so why would you let them spray paint your blog?
Two Concerns
1) Comments are only one way a citizen has to voice their opinion. Bloggers are already discussing your company, and just as you have every right to control your space, every blogger has the right to control theirs. When negative comments are written about your company on a blog you control, heavy-handed attempts to attack the blogger often backfire. A company has a right to protect its reputation, but a smart company will try to address the problem before sending threatening letters (letters that are often posted on the offending blog).
2) Comments on a company site can and should be edited, but only if they are clearly off-topic, or if they cannot be addressed because the commenter is not willing to engage in a civil discussion. A company that deletes every comment that isn't universally positive will rapidly lose its audience. When confronted with a negative comment, companies should consider the best way to address the issue, whether it's replying, taking the conversation private, or deleting the comment.
Summary
Censoring and deleting comments is not inherently bad. The goal of blogging is transparency and open dialogue between a company and its customers. To have that dialogue, the two sides must respect each other.
Providing a platform to the public in the form of a blog is a business decision. Smart companies can manage that decision with sound blogging and commenting policies.
Jim Durbin
Director, Corporate Communications
www.durbinmedia.com.
posted by franki durbin @ 8:36 AM PERMALINK
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home