All posts by Shannon M. Wilkinson

About Shannon M. Wilkinson

Shannon Wilkinson is the founder and CEO of Reputation Communications.

Internet Legal Issues, , , , , , ,
CDA 230

We rarely write about politics.

But President Trump’s attack on the legal loophole that allows online hate speech – Communications Decency Act, Section 230 — caught our attention. In short, he wants to do away with it.

We often lament the presence of the CDA 230, as it is known. In my recent article on Medium, I explain why:

On the internet, any of us can be impersonated, harassed or the focus of “fake news.” It persists because of the Communications Decency Act Section 230, a law that protects the platforms that publish such information — publishers like Google, Facebook, Twitter and millions of blogs, forums, and websites — against liability for third-party content on their websites.

We have helped many clients who have been adversely affected by the type of harassment the CDA 230 permits. So, we have been following this story with much interest. Why would President Trump want to remove that law? One reason: Twitter has been moderating his tweets and flagging content it considers questionable.

The New York Times described his intent:

The executive order that Mr. Trump signed on Thursday seeks to strip liability protection in certain cases for companies like Twitter, Google, and Facebook for the content on their sites, meaning they could face legal jeopardy if they allowed false and defamatory posts.

In another article, Times reporter Daisuke Wakabayashi explained how the CDA 230 works:

…Section 230 shields websites from liability for content created by their users. It permits internet companies to moderate their sites without being on the hook legally for everything they host.

Section 230 has allowed the modern internet to flourish. Sites can moderate content — set their own rules for what is and what is not allowed — without being liable for everything posted by visitors.

…Websites trading in revenge pornography, hate speech or personal information to harass people online receive the same immunity as sites like Wikipedia.

This topic will be in the news for weeks to come. Legal experts think it is unlikely that the CDA 230 can be substantially changed by President Trump’s action.  Our hope, like others who support updating it, is that it can be done through appropriate legislative channels.

Related reading: Removing Content from Google in the U.S.

 
 
Google, Internet Legal Issues, , , ,
Right to be Forgotten Law

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.

Read it here: The Case for Bringing the Right to be Forgotten to America.

 

 
 
Crisis Management, , ,
Police chief's crisis management

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.

 
 
Crisis Management, , , , , , ,
CEOs and Online Reputation Risks

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.

 
 
Crisis Management, , , , , , , ,
Queen Elizabeth II

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.  

 
 
Google, , ,
Right to be Forgotten on Google

“How Google Interferes With Its Search Algorithms and Changes Your Results: The internet giant uses blacklists, algorithm tweaks and an army of contractors to shape what you see”, an investigative report by The Wall Street Journal,  is a disturbing read. It has also raised much concern in the SEO (search engine optimization) community.

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.”

Barry Schwartz, a leader in the SEO community, published this article on Search Engine Land in response: “Misquoted and misunderstood: Why many in the search community don’t believe the WSJ about Google search.”

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.

 
 
General, Internet Legal Issues, , , , , , ,
Managing online harassment

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.

Related reading: An Attorney’s Advice for Removing Negative, Defamatory and Infringing Material from the Internet, by Christine Rafin, Esq.

What to Do When You Are the Victim of Online Defamation, By David Klein, Esq. & Christine Rafin, Esq.

Internet Legal Issues, our archive