On the
Dark Side of Social Media - WSJ:
Several years ago, Ms. Holder discovered that dozens of her MySpace friends had received an anonymous email calling her a tramp and a home-wrecker.
For weeks, she tried to counter the allegations, which she says came from her new boyfriend's former girlfriend. She methodically contacted each person she believed received the email and explained that she hadn't started dating her boyfriend until months after he had broken up with his ex.
But the harm was already done. Family members called her and questioned her morals. Co-workers whispered about her behind her back. Several friends cut her off completely.
"It took me far longer to repair the damage than it took that woman to create it," says Ms. Holder, a 34-year-old customer-service representative in Austin, Texas, who eventually married her boyfriend. "In a matter of minutes, she spread a rumor internationally."
Negative Whuffie (Social Capital) is not anything I've seen the Gung Ho crowd give much thought to. But as the article notes, there is now a massive imbalance on the transaction costs of doling out sh*t vs countering it.
Thanks to the Internet, vengeance—let's call it "Webtribution"—is easier, and nastier, than ever. And it's also a whole lot more prevalent. The Internet permits us to be impulsive and anonymous. It requires a minimum amount of work: You can ruin someone's life while sitting on the couch watching TV. And it provides a maximum amount of pain.
I've been mulling this over for a few hours since reading it - do I have any thoughts on how to do better in countering it? Its a classic "Prisoner's Dilemma" game in that it has 4 states
- You Play Nice/They play Nice - win/win
- You Play Nice/They play Rough - they win
- You Play Rough/They play Nice - you win
- You Play Rough/They play Rough - both lose
The most successful sequential strategy in playing this game, over a number of simulations is "Tit-for-Tat" - play nice until they play rough, then play rough until they play nice again. Is it as easy as that in the real world?
So there are now 2 options:
(i) Do what she did - hugely time consuming, gets you most of your points back
(ii) Play Rough back - both lose, but at least the other person loses too.
The problem with option 2 is that the other party probably has more interest to devote time to this, so it will wind up costing you time anyway.
But, (I hear you say) wasnt Tit for Tat dethroned by another strategy? The answer is yes, but it was a group strategy in which the Good Guy team had a combination of Nice People who always co-operate and attack dogs who give don't (Sort of good cop bad cop). This is what happens when you attack High Whuffie people - they have disciples that attack you back, while they sail serenely on. (This is kinda the unwritten counter-point of Seth Godin's "Tribes" - recruit some serious disciples then no one will touch you)
So the obvious question is, how does Ms Holder play this game then, given that nice people probably don't run around recruiting rabid disciples either? Well, the classic games here are called:
- "My enemy's enemy is my friend" - one wonders what wonders could be wrought by reaching out to the attackers enemies. How to find them on a social net is interesting
- "Instant recruitment of your friends" - some of them may well be prepared to "go tribal" and make a noise
- "The Friendly Local Sleb" - imagine what a twt from the local Sephen Fry- U- Like would have had - "Gee, X's ex is such a tosser, didn't she know that ......."
One can even imagine e new job emerging, along with Community Curator is Community Hitmen, who can be paid to - ahem - "Asserively Reputation Manage" these situations. I also wonder, given its all in text, what one can do under good old libel laws? As the article notes:
In 2006, a Florida woman named Sue Scheff won a landmark $11.3 million decision against another woman who used the Internet to vent about her and the company she created to help families of troubled teens. "The first three pages of Google were all the most horrific statements about me—I abuse kids, I kidnap them, I was a con artist, I exploit families, I am a crook. You name it," says Ms. Scheff, 47. "Until you go through a vengeful attack on your good name, service or business, you have no idea what a Google bomb can do to you."
Where there's a willing lawyer, there's a way......
