Tag Archives: Silicon Valley

Reputation Case Study, , , , , , , , ,

Mark Zuckerberg’s recent entry onto the national political stage, which culminated earlier this month with his first public speech on immigration reform, highlights how many of the key tools in online reputation management can be part of a strategic approach to political involvement and activism. (Strategic political involvement is also often an essential aspect of reputation management.)

Silicon Valley’s elite includes political donors from across the political spectrum. Top tech companies like Twitter are forming PACs and hiring lobbyists. But with his leading role in FWD.us, an immigration reform lobbying group that he launched earlier this year with longtime friend Joe Green, Zuckerberg has taken a step further into the political realm. He “is building a new social network, and this time it’s political,” Jennifer Martinez declared in a recent article for The Hill. Zuckerberg “is using his clout as a top business executive and American success story to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform.” With the right approach, Zuckerberg has the opportunity to repeat the success of Facebook with FWD.us, and build a network that will harness significant political influence. After all, the majority of the public now conducts their research online – and makes significant types of political donations online.

Difficult terrain

Unlike building a friend-based social network, however, that task requires navigating a perilous and intensely divided political landscape. FWD.us didn’t make it far before stumbling. Just a few weeks after its formation, the group faced backlash for ads supporting politicians such as Lindsay Graham and Mark Begich and lost a couple of high-profile members, including influential entrepreneur Elon Musk. In the future, FWD.us might be able to avoid such problems by hewing closer to Zuckerberg’s other political activities. By donating to both New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Newark Mayor and Senate candidate Cory Booker, he was recently able to prevent himself from being pigeonholed or harshly criticized for a more partisan stance.

In his New Yorker essay, Robert Packard skewers Silicon Valley for “solving all the problems of being twenty years old,” rather than looking at bigger-picture solutions. IN that vein, FWD.us has been criticized for wanting to do “little more than securing more coveted H1-B visas, essentially granting an influx of foreign, skilled technology workers to fill the Valley’s talent shortage.” Zuckerberg wisely addressed that point in his speech. “We talk about high-skilled H1-Bs and full comprehensive immigration reform as if they are two separate issues,” he said. “But anyone who knows immigration knows that they’re not.” He described the goals of FWD.us in more detail in a Washington Post piece back in April, and being more vocal about those issues in the future could help the group rise above the political fray. While Zuckerberg and FWD.us can undoubtedly cultivate a powerful political network in support of immigration reform, Elon Musk offered some valuable advice when he left the group: “I have spent a lot of time fighting far larger lobbying organizations in D.C. and believe that the right way to win on a cause is to argue the merits of that cause.”

 
 
Internet Legal Issues, , , , , , , ,
Tech Pioneer Sean Parker Weighs in on Internet Privacy

Parker’s history as a Silicon Valley pioneer makes his perspective on Internet privacy particularly notable. The Internet and social media have “helped foment revolutions, overturn governments, and give otherwise invisible people a voice,” he says, but they have also been “used to extend the impact of real-world bullying” and “form massive digital lynch mobs.” In such a climate, Parker asserts, “we are all at risk of becoming ‘public figures’ in a world where the media has expanded to include nearly everyone.”

New problems, new solutions

It’s clear that a truly sufficient solution will require our lawmakers to step up and take action. And Parker has some suggestions:

“In particular, we need to consider stronger privacy laws here in the U.S., a basic right to privacy along the lines of the laws enjoyed by the citizens of most Western European nations … In such a world, our defamation laws need to be updated to provide individuals with the protection from public persecution that they deserve. We also need to reinforce our personal privacy by beefing up the intellectual property laws that govern the personal content that we generate and share via services like Facebook.”

 Legal frameworks for dealing with digital media are outdated

“It’s increasingly clear that our legal frameworks for dealing with these new mediums are outmoded at best,” Parker says. Recent revelations about the NSA’s surveillance and data collection programs have underscored the inadequacy of current laws. The gap continues to grow. “Every looming technological breakthrough, from Google Glass to driverless cars promises to make our every move and download a little easier to track,” New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote last month. This trend applies not only to government surveillance, but also the kind of every-citizen and “blogging for dollars” journalism that Parker is troubled by.

Significant legislative changes needed

While it may seem futile to try to keep our privacy from being swept away by such powerful currents, The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf argues that there is hope. “Americans facing even longer odds have succeeded before in bringing about social or legal change, and even in amending our founding document,” he writes. “At some point in time everyone, whether they engage actively with these new mediums or not, will experience a violation of their privacy, will find their reputation besmirched publicly, and may even find their sanity challenged,” Parker predicts in his TechCrunch post. He will likely be right—unless we find the will to enact significant legislative changes.