When one posts on the internet, not every one would know whether you are creating a persona of someone else or yourself. Freedom of thought and expression is a great democratic value portrayed by online blogging community, but misusing it and bending ways around it is a threat to the whole concept of blogging theory and against the very core deal of ethics. I am committed to the idea that blogs are a huge and wide communication tools ever, but that is were you have the problems of falsifying information being provided too.
No one would know whether you are just an average Joe or a CEO when you post on the internet. I came across an interesting article in the TIMES magazine about CEO of Whole Foods John Mackey who had an online handle “rahodeb”, in personifying as some one who has been a good customer of Whole Foods. He posted articles in favor of his own company and criticizing his rival Wild Oats. He continued this for a long period of eight to nine years. If some one gave a bad review of a product we straight away take into consideration that “maybe the product is bad”. After a long run as rahodeb, Mackey ended up buying the company Wild Oats, which he despised as rahodeb. One might consider it a clever approach but it is a crime and an immoral way of making his business profitable and betraying the community.
We need to confront the anonymity of users, but again confronting has its own disadvantages. One cannot exchange information on certain forums without anonymity, as there is a back lash to it. The Malaysian government has imposed strict ban on bloggers who defame the king and the Government. People who are against the Government rule and oppose them on forums could legally face detention without trial. Controlling the fourth media has become a necessity in certain countries where democracy has fewer choices.
Blogs are a vocal power to the world and they stick out as a poisonous scorpion in context of being against the government’s corruptions and it is also a useful guidance tool to many information’s and events that happen around the world. Controlling blogging may not be a good idea but also one should think about how we can overcome the issues such as Whole Foods and the falsifying informations that are being provided over the web 2.0.
1 Comments:
Do you really think that readers of blogs are that naive? I don't know anyone who wouldn't be on to a scam such as John Mackey's. These days it would be seen straight through. Although the writer may be 'misleading' their audience (in theory) the audience is usually much smarter than that.
With the rise of the internet, and the ease with which one can find many many reviews on various items and services, nobody (or perhaps an ignorant few) would take one blogger's word as law.
I just don't believe that people are that short-sighted. The internet is littered with these kinds of attempts at marketing. In no way do I think that this is "betraying the community", the community is smarter than you think.
The falsification of personal information is likewise a way of life, everybody (well nearly everybody) uses a different name online, at least in public situations. It is assumed these days that if a random blogger on the internet is saying something, especially things that are critical towards companies or products, that it should be taken with a grain of salt.
It's kind of like an infomercial. They talk to people in what is often portrayed in an "unscripted" way, who all give their two cents about how great the product is, and yet, despite these people who could seemingly be anyone on the street giving it a very enthusiastic thumbs-up, we still are extremely sceptical of their legitimacy.How is this really any different? There is an assumed mis-trust of these kinds of media. Especially when the name given is obviously not a real one.
Post a Comment
<< Home