Home » Opinion » Book review
Guarding your good name on online
By Ni Tao |
May 8, 2010, Saturday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
RECENT years have seen a rash of scandals in China involving risque video clips and pictures posted online as revenge by rejected lovers. Oftentimes this is what happens: a relationship fails and the man, outraged at being dumped, decides to destroy his ex-girlfriend's reputation by spreading photos of their sexual intimacies.
In an era when Internet users are bombarded by a plethora of information, these malicious online sensations attract unsophisticated masses of viewers for a relatively long period of time.
Worse still, such episodes expose the hypocrisy of some Netizens. While they take pleasure in viewing steamy video clips and images, they have no qualms about castigating the "debauchery" of the sexual orgies depicted.
Hunger for more lewd detail even drives some people to probe and publicize the identities of female victims of these exposures.
Although police could track down the original disseminators of obscene images and bring them to justice, they often do not. Those who spread vulgar content can hide behind a wall of anonymity, secure in the knowledge that they often get off the hook in the virtual "Wild West."
In their book "Wild West 2.0," Michael Fertik and David Thompson begin by saying that the Internet has become the biggest battlefield after the courtroom where people clash with slanderers to safeguard their reputations.
Whatever the motives of those attacking reputations online, be they personal grudges or cynical attempts to undercut a business rival, one thing is certain: unsubstantiated claims litter the Internet.
Yet, though many of us are keenly aware of how far removed online information could be from reality, we may still be deceived by unscientific reputation ratings if we don't know how online reputation can be "shaped," Fertik and Thompson say.
Take Google. The widely used search engine prioritizes search results by popularity, as reflected by the number of clicks the results draw. The general rule is that Websites hosting the most negative profiles about somebody get the most clicks, and hence, rank higher in search engine findings.
It's natural that many Google users running searches about someone they don't know tend to believe the information gleaned from these Websites, even though it might be dubious, if not utterly slanderous and biased.
As the authors argue, "Dangerous information is often like an iceberg: What you see at the top of a Google search is often the tip of what is available online."
In the information age, it may take decades to build a good reputation, but only a moment's faux pas to ruin it. That's why veteran Netizens caution Internet rookies -- as some once cautioned me -- against postings that might elicit unwanted scrutiny by the country's fearsome Internet vigilantes.
On how to protect and restore reputation, Fertik and Thompson have few innovative ideas. All they suggest is that image-conscious people frequently conduct "online reputation audits" to gauge their reputations and examine what it is about them that gets slammed most often. Then take the initiative to cast themselves in a positive light through proactive self-profiling on popular social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter.
This sounds like wishful thinking. As the authors concede, "Anything that is said online may be available forever, no matter how hard anyone tries to delete it." I wonder whether a sensible person would bother to take action if the damage to his or her reputation doesn't warrant the clean-up effort. Sometimes the best way to confront smears is not fight back, but take th?em as an odd form of compliments.
After I did a Google search on how many enemies I've made due to my critique of writer and racing car driver Han Han ("Han Han is hardly a hero of our times", Shanghai Daily, April 9), it turned out that I was spared the worst of name-calling by Han's staunch supporters. I was merely labeled "a clown," "a government hack" and "a miserable wannabe." I had expected more colorful insults.
In an era when Internet users are bombarded by a plethora of information, these malicious online sensations attract unsophisticated masses of viewers for a relatively long period of time.
Worse still, such episodes expose the hypocrisy of some Netizens. While they take pleasure in viewing steamy video clips and images, they have no qualms about castigating the "debauchery" of the sexual orgies depicted.
Hunger for more lewd detail even drives some people to probe and publicize the identities of female victims of these exposures.
Although police could track down the original disseminators of obscene images and bring them to justice, they often do not. Those who spread vulgar content can hide behind a wall of anonymity, secure in the knowledge that they often get off the hook in the virtual "Wild West."
In their book "Wild West 2.0," Michael Fertik and David Thompson begin by saying that the Internet has become the biggest battlefield after the courtroom where people clash with slanderers to safeguard their reputations.
Whatever the motives of those attacking reputations online, be they personal grudges or cynical attempts to undercut a business rival, one thing is certain: unsubstantiated claims litter the Internet.
Yet, though many of us are keenly aware of how far removed online information could be from reality, we may still be deceived by unscientific reputation ratings if we don't know how online reputation can be "shaped," Fertik and Thompson say.
Take Google. The widely used search engine prioritizes search results by popularity, as reflected by the number of clicks the results draw. The general rule is that Websites hosting the most negative profiles about somebody get the most clicks, and hence, rank higher in search engine findings.
It's natural that many Google users running searches about someone they don't know tend to believe the information gleaned from these Websites, even though it might be dubious, if not utterly slanderous and biased.
As the authors argue, "Dangerous information is often like an iceberg: What you see at the top of a Google search is often the tip of what is available online."
In the information age, it may take decades to build a good reputation, but only a moment's faux pas to ruin it. That's why veteran Netizens caution Internet rookies -- as some once cautioned me -- against postings that might elicit unwanted scrutiny by the country's fearsome Internet vigilantes.
On how to protect and restore reputation, Fertik and Thompson have few innovative ideas. All they suggest is that image-conscious people frequently conduct "online reputation audits" to gauge their reputations and examine what it is about them that gets slammed most often. Then take the initiative to cast themselves in a positive light through proactive self-profiling on popular social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter.
This sounds like wishful thinking. As the authors concede, "Anything that is said online may be available forever, no matter how hard anyone tries to delete it." I wonder whether a sensible person would bother to take action if the damage to his or her reputation doesn't warrant the clean-up effort. Sometimes the best way to confront smears is not fight back, but take th?em as an odd form of compliments.
After I did a Google search on how many enemies I've made due to my critique of writer and racing car driver Han Han ("Han Han is hardly a hero of our times", Shanghai Daily, April 9), it turned out that I was spared the worst of name-calling by Han's staunch supporters. I was merely labeled "a clown," "a government hack" and "a miserable wannabe." I had expected more colorful insults.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
