In Europe, privacy is considered a human right. Online harassment is considered a human rights abuse.
In the U.S., there are few laws protecting us against having our personal data published online, or even collected and sold by data publishers. On the internet, any of us can be impersonated, harassed or the focus of “fake news.”
The personal and professional damages caused by online harassment can be so disruptive that my online reputation management practice supports bringing a version of the “Right to be Forgotten” to America—even though the CDA 230, the law that prevents that, is effectively the source of much of our business. We also support the passage of laws that will better protect the online privacy of U.S. citizens and protect them from anonymous harassment and other forms of hate speech, while through our business we find practical ways to protect them now.
My new article on Medium addresses the reasons why it is time to bring the “Right to Be Forgotten” here.
Since the COVID-19 health crisis has swept the world, some elected officials have become famous because of their effective crisis communications response. People from all over the country and even different countries tune in to hear from Mayors and Governors that are not their own.
These are three traits these leaders share:
They are continuously sharing critical available data with the public.
They are using simple, straightforward language to deliver that data.
They are delivering their messaging in a setting that conveys trust, power, and leadership.
How can police chiefs take a page out of their playbook? The Hetty Group, interviewed me for my top 3 tips, including communicating regularly and often; going virtual and why the optics matter. Read the article here.
At times like these, some of our thoughts turn to divorce. Divorce filings spike in times of duress.
The bigger the financial stakes, the deeper the reputational pitfalls before, during and after a divorce.
This is not a pleasant topic. But here is what you need to prepare for if you are a high-end reader and anticipate you may be one of those January statistics:
Media leaks favoring your partner
We have seen strategic media campaigns initiated by a spouse once s/he realizes a divorce filing is imminent. These include society profiles intended to elicit favorable public opinion and generate high visibility. This ensures their partner knows they now face a more formidable opponent.
False accusations via stealth blogging
Accusations of child, financial or substance abuse are just some of the insinuations that spouses can — and do — make anonymously on blogs and other platforms. The goal? Plant seeds of doubt among colleagues, friends and acquaintances before a divorce heads to court. Extortion to receive guarantees of financial awards or child custody before a hearing is often the reason.
Boasting or retaliatory claims via social media
Depending on the prominence of the couple involved, once a partnership ends, it’s the person “left behind” who might choose to air dirty laundry online. The one who feels scorned might share intimate details about the couple’s romantic life, live-blog about a reported mistress or cast aspersions upon the now-ex-partner’s financial or personal image. This could be real, or complete fiction. It doesn’t matter. The impact can be severe.
We’ve seen instances where attorneys representing one of the parties are aware of this planned reputation assassination. They might prepare appropriate actions to counter these reputation attacks to prove the rumors and allegations are untrue.
Too often, we have seen the fallout: Content about a contentious divorce still on the first page of Google results a year or more later.
We hope you do not need this information. If you do, please evaluate the level of reputation risk you, your board affiliations or your organization may face if you find yourself affected by this statistical trend. We’re here if you need us.
A media explosion occurred when the Duke and Duchess of Sussex — Prince Harry and Meghan — announced their decision to step away from their Royal roles, leave England and step into the private sector.
Until Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II made her first official statement days later, headlines and speculation continued. But the Queen’s statement quieted them:
My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.
Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.
It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussex’s will spend time in Canada and the UK.
These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.
Days later, she released this statement:
Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson and his family.
Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family.
I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life.
I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family.
It is my whole family’s hope that today’s agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be superb Ambassadors for England while continuing their philanthropic initiatives, a commitment that appears important to both.
The Royal Family will continue their reign. So will media speculation — the Duke and Duchess are young, glamorous and progressive, hence significant “clickbait.” Nonetheless, a crisis has been averted by the Queen’s deft management of the Royal message.
Anne Helen Petersen’s new article in Buzzfeed is a timely look at how celebrities used to be at the mercy of paparazzi…and are no more. (Well, not as much.) Now, social media allows them to manage their narratives. That includes responding to crises, as well as to invasive commentary and reporting about their personal lives. Key takeaways:
“In the past, in the midst of a scandal or a breakup, celebrities would agree to interviews to tell “their side of the story.” Now, they just post an announcement online, either on their own celebrity brand website (as Paltrow did on Goop when she “consciously uncoupled” from Chris Martin), or via screenshots using the Notes app, iMessage, or whatever weird thing was happening with Channing Tatum and Jenna Dewan’s separation announcement. The Notes app, screenshotted and posted across a celebrity’s social media channels, has become the go-to method of public apology, for anything from collaborating with R. Kelly (Lady Gaga) to stranding thousands of people on an island without adequate food or shelter (Ja Rule).
The Notes app apology provides more space than a tweet, more personality than a publicist’s statement, and — just like everything else that comes out of a celebrity’s “personal” social media account — the aura of authenticity.”
The article is behind a paid firewall. These are some key excerpts:
“The company states in a Google blog, “We do not use human curation to collect or arrange the results on a page.” It says it can’t divulge details about how the algorithms work because the company is involved in a long-running and high-stakes battle with those who want to profit by gaming the system.
“But that message often clashes with what happens behind the scenes. Over time, Google has increasingly re-engineered and interfered with search results to a far greater degree than the company and its executives have acknowledged, a Wall Street Journal investigation has found.
“…Google’s evolving approach marks a shift from its founding philosophy of “organizing the world’s information,” to one that is far more active in deciding how that information should appear.
“….Far from being autonomous computer programs oblivious to outside pressure, Google’s algorithms are subject to regular tinkering from executives and engineers who are trying to deliver relevant search results, while also pleasing a wide variety of powerful interests and driving its parent company’s more than $30 billion in annual profit.”
Both articles provide insight into the challenges facing Google…and the challenges inherent in trying to produce the world’s most accurate search results, which has long been Google’s stated mission.
Paul Sullivan, the “Wealth Matters” columnist for The New York Times, has published an article detailing an online harassment campaign that resulted in a rare jail sentence for the businessman who masterminded it.
He paints a revealing picture about how fake blogs were created to post false, defamatory information designed to ruin the reputation of a respected hedge fund manager. Like so many such campaigns, it was planned as retaliation for a perceived wrong.
It started in 2014, when the perpetrator asked a blogger to launch a “negative internet P.R.” campaign. He directed him to use search strategies that would produce the articles when people searched for the target’s name. He also paid him to use online services to send out press releases containing the false information, then “contacted someone who specialized in ranking negative articles high in searches, asking for assurances that the campaign would keep the negative articles visible.”
Over the years, the articles spread across the internet and came up high in searches, creating substantial reputational harm to their target. After spending “several million dollars on legal bills and security experts,” and filing a court case, he won. The wrongdoer — who faced $2 million in legal bills for the criminal and related trials — was sentenced to nine months in a county jail for criminal harassment.
Just take a look around a crowded train station or a public park and you’ll see people glued to their phones — taking selfies and scrolling through their Instagram feeds. We live in a time when the currency of how many “likes” you get for a post adds up to a certain kind of digital fame. Superficial or not, it’s a key part of everyday life. What does it mean to aspire to be the next trending topic on Twitter or subject of a viral video? To gain more insight into why so many people seek stardom on social media, look no further than Lincoln Fenner’s documentary, “Fame Us.”
Currently available through Amazon, Fenner’s film delves into our society’s obsession with social media and our hope to find affirmation online. Released in 2017, the documentary interviews a range of famous faces — both relevant stars and those whose 15 minutes might have run out — from “Baywatch” star David Hasselhoff, President Ronald Reagan’s son Michael Reagan, TV journalist and author Diane Diamond to the late actor Joe Polito, among others.
“Just to have fame as a goal is an absolute illusion,” Hasselhoff says in the film’s official trailer. The TV star might have a point. In June, the Pew Research Center revealed that about seven in every 10 people in the United States use social media regularly to connect, stay on top of the news, find entertainment and share information about themselves.
Fenner’s film is particularly relevant because what we post online can say a lot about how we wish the rest of the world to see us. From company hiring processes to online networking to even dating, the way we brand ourselves through social content is a big part of how we are assessed by other people. Fenner, who conducted interviews around the world for “Fame Us,” is tapping into big questions that should be on all of our minds right now.
