1984 & Barack Obama…
A lot has been written in the political blogosphere about this video on YouTube. The MSM picked up on the controversy because it was posted anonymously. And it’s obvious that the person who created, Phil de Vellis, it would have preferred to remain anonymous. Huffington Post was able to get the scoop (take that mainstream media!). He subsequently quit his job and posted his reasons on HuffPost.Ah, but it won’t stop there. Consider this from a Wired article:
The video’s success has fired up a new round of debate about the impact of federal regulators’ decision a year ago to exclude unpaid online political activity from the detailed disclosure requirements that apply to political advertising in traditional media.
…
At the time, the decision was widely hailed by editorial writers and bloggers as a free speech victory for the lone digital pamphleteer. But some longtime politicos worried that the ruling would carve open a loophole through which large donors could fund stealth guerrilla campaigns to deceptively influence people.
But online political attacks are only a part of a much larger issue. In the future, it won’t be just politicians who are attacked. Companies could see attacks in much the same way. Jim Horton at Online Public Relations thinks so:
Corporations are next. It doesn’t take a great effort anymore to produce a video. The person who did this Anti-Hillary ad claimed that he finished it on a weekend at home. If that is the case, what is to stop any group from attacking a corporation and its leadership for their environmental policies or wages or health care? It is a matter of time before it happens.
The anti-Hillary video was viewed a million times before its creator confessed to producing it. He could have remained silent and continued on with his business. I suspect that more will do that so they don’t get fired from their jobs. Corporations in the news should monitor YouTube as a matter of course along with news and blog scans.
Some of these attacks are already out there. One attack on Sony’s Play Station 3 - “How Your Killed Your Brand” - is a great example of this. JetBlueHostage.com is another. There are countless more.
Some companies are trying to be proactive. Seth Godin pointed out that makers of Splenda were registering hundreds of domains that could be used as attack sites (such as SplendaKills.com or VictimsOfSplenda.com). But it’s not always enough.
Consider this post by Sterling Hager at AgencyNext:
This is the main website homepage of a company called Royal Dutch Shell, plc. Note the url: http://www.shell.com/. Note, too, there are no apparent blog offerings at this site.
Now here’s a blog entitled Royal Dutch Shell plc. which can be found at http://royaldutchshell.com/. Is this a Shell corporate blog? Not hardly. Click on that picture of a distinguished looking Mr. Alfred Donovan at the top of his blog and you’re taken to a June, 2005, Wall Street Journal piece which describes the then-88-year-old Mr. Donovan and his long-standing beef with Shell.
Imagine if Mr. Donovan were, instead, a large organization such a Greenpeace or National Resources Defense Council. The next form of “protest” will very well take place on line. And companies will be hard pressed to stop it from happening.
Is there a way out?
It might be flip to say “if you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em.” But that might be one possible avenue. Cleary Shell will never be able to pay Alfred Donovan for the rights to his domain. They might have a chance at CyberSquatting - but only because of existing provisions with most countries and ICANN.
But what happens when they can’t find their next attacker? Anonymity is cheap and easy these days. Lawyers can’t sue someone they can’t find.
Perhaps the only way to control the online dialogue is to be a very active player. Counteract protesters and attackers by being their first, with more information. Be candid about their attacks, provide transparency whenever possible (without divulging trade secrets, for example). The general public understands that some protesters can be wind bags… but if the only thing they are hearing are the attackers - they won’t know the whole story.
The iceberg’s tip has been seen. Just how big is this one?
