context - TheWayoftheWeb

Is your online identity in your control?

This post was inspired by a request by an individual to be removed from the voting on The Rock Stars of Web 2.0 list on Ditto.

We quickly complied and I want to make it absolutely clear that there’s no malice or irritation at someone wishing to be removed. If it had been an article of a blog post which was in the public interest, things would have been different, but the list is intended to be an interesting bit of fun, nothing more. Although I’d always suggest polite responses will get a quicker reaction.

But it raised some interesting questions about online identity, as the reason given for removal was that the profile listing (Image, name and main claim to fame) ‘was not approved’ by the individual in question. It’s lead me to wonder if anyone can really hope to control their online appearances to only those which are officially approved, especially if they have any level of internet ‘fame’.

A quick Google search for the name reveals many thousands of mentions, images, quotes etc. Are we right to assume that all of these have been individually approved? Or are they seen as valid if they are on established sources, blogs, or media sharing sites? Is it the voting mechanism which prompted the request?

And how would I feel about a similar situation? I’d be happy if I was considered a ‘Web 2.0′ celebrity (which I’m blatantly not), but what if I was at the bottom of the list? (Luckily at the moment it’s Jason Calacanis, who never seems particularly fussed about risking negative sentiment online).

And what happens if it was a list which I found distasteful or offensive? Something which was racist or homophobic for example? Would I even know it existed in the first place, if it didn’t pop up in a Google alert, or someone didn’t bring it to my attention somehow?

So:

How do I reassure myself I can find every instance in which I appear online?
Do I need to check the context of every appearance?
Should I expect to give my approval every time I appear somewhere?
Should I expect to be able to request my removal and have a prompt response?

The first task is tricky. A Google search will pick up a lot of things, but not all of them. There could be some bizarre story or rumour about me, hidden away on a tiny un-indexed website, that could, theoretically, suddenly make the front page of Digg at any time (It’s pretty unlikely though!). If my online identity and network are what I base my career on, one big article, image, or video could have a big effect on the people that know me, and a huge effect on anyone seeing me or my name for the first time.

That’s why I do tend to check the context if I see or hear my name mentioned somewhere. It’s not about checking mentions are always positive, and getting upset if they aren’t (Like famous actors, I never read reviews!). But checking that things haven’t been mis-attributed, taken out of context, or words put in my mouth.

But I definitely don’t expect websites to seek my approval before they publish anything about me, or for them to necessarily remove it if I complain. And a removal request wouldn’t be triggered by a positive or negative response. It’s dependant on whether the mention is truthful, although I would expect a right to reply for a negative response, and they should be asking for my response before publication. It’s good journalistic practice and also good from a legal standpoint.

And anything I do online is done with the knowledge that it could be re-used, re-compiled, or twisted with, or without my knowledge, and that although technology and good working practices should mean I have a chance to respond to any damaging mentions, hopefully I’m now findable enough that anything out of context will be obviously so, by comparison to my blogging, twittering, facebooking etc. There will be rotten apples online as well as offline, and having control of a brand, even a personal one, will have a limited impact at best.

At the end of the day, perhaps the best way to ensure a consistent online identity is to be open, and swamp anything out of character with quality insights into what you and I are really about?

I’m really interested to hear what other people think, although I’d like to stress this is about identity rather than a place to spam online reputation management services…

(Funnily enough I just logged into Flickr to find the above image: Who Am I by stevec77, and found a message asking to use one of my images for an article on lolcats. Having to register to agree to let them publish it, and in the process having to sign up for emails as part of the Ts and Cs is pretty rubbish, but hey, I’m always interested in crowd powered media. And lolcats.)

Buffer

A step towards furthering The Long Tail

As I said previously, the excellent Long Tail theory implies how major media companies will continue to co-exist with the long tail of prosumers, but doesn’t justify their continued existence.

That posed me with enough of a problem to email the author (and Wired Editor-in-Chief) Chris Anderson, who inspired me to continue with a thoughtful response. And to discuss the concept further with fellow blogger Dave Cushman from Faster Future.

Although I see major media companies forced to adapt to become agents for content creators, rather than creators themselves, there are some good reasons why we need these big players to continue, rather than fading away, or choosing to plug-in unpaid user generated content rather than backing artists with significant funding.

One major reason is Context. As much as we want increasingly more personal relevance from our niche entertainment, we still want to be indentifiable to larger groups. Tagging yourself with your favourite films on a site like Facebook is an art in itself, as you move between common signposts (Star Wars, Titanic, etc), and more obscure arthouse or indie movies. As much as the watercooler discussions about the latest hits have diminished, they’ve migrated to online debates on forums and message boards, and the cult of celebrity is as strong as ever.

Much of the current crop of user generated content is also based upon these reference points, whether it’s a mash-up of famous films (my favourite, here), a parody, or fan fiction based upon these titles. It can be much easier to gain popularity for an unknown prosumer by referencing these common cultural signposts than to begin with totally original material. How many film fans wouldn’t recognise the sound of a lightsaber being drawn in Star Wars?

Another main reason is Inspiration. Whilst the likes of Speilberg, Lucas, Cameron or Kubrick made interesting student films and could doubtless do wonders with the technology available to home users at the moment, there are still differences in what becomes available when you have several million or more to spend. And while OK Go can inspire a certain time of fan film for Youtube, there are doubtless many amateur filmmakers who aspire to making Schindlers List, or 2001.

The final of the trio of reasons in Financial Aspiration, often sidestepped in studies which proclaim prosumers just do it for the love of it and the recognition.
Many people do co-create and share to exchange knowledge and ideas, and to simply get their voice out there. Any audience they receive is valued and appreciated, and they fit their creative sides around their day jobs.

But that isn’t the total picture. Many amateur musicians, film makers and writers would give various body parts to ‘make it’ in ever bigger arenas. Partly for financial reward, and partly because, if you strive to do something better, it takes more time and effort. And the demands of a 9-5 job might not stop you from achieving your dream, but they complicate it immensely. Lauded indie directors such as Kevin Smith and Richard Linklater made their names with tiny budgets but certainly didn’t hide from major studios when they got the chance. Partly the old methods of film distribution made it a neccessity, but partly it meant they could get paid, use studio lots, and get access to a whole world of professional film casts and employees.

Writing, making music, or making movies isn’t easy. There are those who are naturally talented, and there are more resources than ever online to help guide aspiring talent. But in order to reach a reasonable level of quality takes time and practice, especially to hit that level consistently. If hopeful artists can’t aspire to paid employment then there is no opportunity for university, for example, which gives many people the time and space to find their voice, or for any further training, without indulgent and wealthy parents.

Artistic endeavour has always been interlinked with financial reward, since the first wandering minstrel received a meal and a pint of ale for producing entertainment.

I’d be very interested to hear how these ideas stand up, especially as I fully intend to use them the next time I hear the cry that big companies are now dead, or that we can cull all our paid staff because users will just churn out endless reams of content without any input. So as ever I welcome all comments and feedback, good or bad. Whatever happens, it’s an interesting time, especially for someone who works for a major media company 9-5.30pm at www.motorcyclenews.com, runs a publication which aspires to make money at www.disposablemedia.co.uk, and blogs purely to have a voice. Three sides of the same coin…

Buffer

A step towards furthering The Long Tail

Popular Posts

Categories

Search

Rankings