110 Wild West 2.0
maintains that the story is true but insists that he never intended
such severe consequences for a student who suffered a temporary
lapse of judgment on what was ultimately an inconsequential school
assignment.
13
It remains an open question whether such strong vigilante en-
forcement of social norms is beneficial. It certainly encourages social
compliance. There is a very strong disincentive to misbehave if, at any
moment, one faces the risk of permanent damage to one’s reputation
for violating a public norm. And there are many norms worthy of
strong enforcement: The self-explanatory “New York Subway Mas-
turbator” committed a contemptible act deserving of punishment
and deterrence. But it is not clear that the violation of smaller
norms—often taken out of context—deserve such severe sanction.
The “dog poop girl” committed an indefensible act, but it is far from
clear that she deserved to lose her job over it; the normal sanction for
dog defecation is a citation from the sanitation department, not the
loss of a job and a permanently ruined reputation. Further, overzeal-
ous norm enforcement can discourage legitimate forms of difference:
Some people think that street protests are distasteful, but street
protests are also an important part of our democratic dialogue as a
means to air disputes. Overzealous enforcement of a perceived norm
against this form of protest could chill legitimate discourse, to the
harm of our society. And there is always the risk that somebody in-
nocent will be falsely accused, that the next “dog defecator” or “sub-
way masturbator” will be falsely identified and that the real culprits
will remain unsanctioned.
If you have been the victim of overly aggressive social norm en-
forcement, then you have an uphill reputation challenge. No matter
what you do, your top priority is to avoid fanning the flames of con-
flict higher. An online argument or conflict will just draw more at-
tention to the problem. Your best bet is to quietly build some Google
walls around the negative content to help slow down the spread of the
story. If the story has been exaggerated in a way that is clearly and ob-
jectively false, you may carefully try to correct the story by trying to
111Why People Attack Each Other Online
post or e-mail your clarification where the story appears; at all costs,
remain calm and never argue with your accusers. Instead, provide
cool, collected, rational, and objective factual clarifications to the
record. Because vigilante norm enforcement taps into social emotions,
you will have difficulty getting any allegations removed from the In-
ternet unless you can verifiably prove that it wasn’t you or that the
events alleged absolutely did not happen.
Politics
First, they smear the candidate. Then they
smear his party. And if that doesn’t work,
they smear his supporters.
—MODERN POLITICAL REALITY
Politics is infamously dirty, and one of the most common forms of
dirty politics has always been to smear the other side—be it the op-
ponent, his family, his party, his associates, or even his supporters. In
the era of 24/7 news, blogs, and political chat, it is no surprise that
this form of dirty politics has moved online. If anything, the Internet
has made politics substantially dirtier because it creates a race to the
bottom for attention and allows supporters of a candidate to smear
adversaries without the candidate having to get her own hands dirty.
Political smears are knowingly false accusations designed to dis-
credit a candidate or party. Smears targeted at a candidate can be any-
thing from classic allegations of marital infidelity, to McCarthy-style
allegations of supporting communism, to more modern smears im-
plying that a candidate has used illegal drugs. But not all smears are
limited to attacking the candidate or politician herself. Today, politi-
cal smears are deployed against the candidate’s family, in a form of
guilt-by-association. Attackers also target a candidate’s party, to make
it appear that the candidate is favored only by some undesirable group
(depending on the candidate and the office sought, the allegedly un-
desirable group may range from hippies to carpetbaggers to racists).
112 Wild West 2.0
Attackers target the media, alleging bias or untrustworthiness. And
attackers target a candidate’s financial backers and vocal supporters in
an attempt to intimidate them out of participating in the political
process.
Gossip and smears about politicians are relatively easy to spread.
There are discussion sites based around most major political parties
and political positions. These sites are filled with like-minded parti-
sans who are eager to learn more about their opponents. A smear—
be it a false rumor, a faked photograph, or anything else—that starts
on one of these political sites can be seen by thousands of politically
active individuals in a single day and then be quickly spread by them
to other websites that reach a larger audience. The content of the ru-
mor can range from an unsourced false allegation that a candidate
engaged in some misconduct, to a faked photograph, to a faked news
story, to lists of names and addresses of supporters of a candidate in
an effort to keep them from participating in the political process.
Recent elections demonstrate the power of the Internet. Online
gossip about candidates, parties, and supporters has reached epi-
demic proportions. The effects of this change in politics have yet to
be fully realized, but it is certain that at some point there will be a
backlash against ever more intrusive personal politics. In the 2008
U.S. elections, one national candidate had her personal e-mail ac-
count hacked and its contents spread to the world (including family
photos),
14
another national candidate was repeatedly accused of hid-
ing his religion, and countless rumors swirled about other candi-
dates. The shenanigans extended to attacks on supporters of political
measures as well; in California, competing groups created “walls of
shame” listing the names and addresses of donors to the opposing
side during the campaign over whether to repeal the state’s contro-
versial gay marriage law; many donors reported being harassed at
their businesses after the lists were made public.
15
It is widely ex-
pected that the cyberwar over gay marriage will continue through
113Why People Attack Each Other Online
future election cycles, with supporters and detractors growing ever
more heated in their efforts to intimidate the other side in the debate.
Online smears can also be used by an autocratic government to
maintain control over a country’s population. While this behavior has
not been seen in the United States or Western Europe, there is no
way to know whether governments in other parts of the world have
engaged in such tactics. Government interference in online politics
can be as simple as paying staffers to spread rumors and lies about the
opposition and its leaders or supporters. An attack of this form can be
particularly devastating if a leading opposition candidate is convinc-
ingly targeted across online and traditional media. It is often said that
“1984 was not an instruction manual,” but many of the tactics in the
book can be used by autocratic regimes on the Internet today.
Nationalist politics also often motivate online reputation attacks.
While there have been relatively few incidents of this in the United
States, online smears have played a large and important role in in-
ternational relations in other countries. In Russia, for example,
there is a continuing campaign to smear many Estonian politicians as
Nazis.
16
Of course, the charge is groundless—many Estonians con-
tinue to despise Germany for its occupation during World War II—
but that does not stop the online smear campaign. And, in the same
area of the world, the nation of Georgia, formerly part of the Soviet
Union, recently engaged in a shooting war with Russia over the area
known as South Ossetia. During the war, both sides are alleged to
have attempted to use cyberattacks to take offline the other side’s
communication networks.
17
And, after the war, the Russian govern-
ment (or factions aligned with it) is alleged to have attacked the pop-
ular website Twitter.com in order to silence a pro-Georgia blogger.
18
Online combatants simultaneously engaged in a public relations war,
each trying to outsmear the other side and to spread (often false) ru-
mors and allegations of war crimes committed by identified oppos-
ing generals and leaders, sometimes accompanied by manipulated
photos and falsified news stories.
114 Wild West 2.0
Business and Greed
A reputation once broken may possibly be repaired,
but the world will always keep their eyes on the
spot where the crack was.
—JOSEPH HALL (PHILOSOPHER AND BISHOP)
Business rivalry has been a frequent cause of online reputation at-
tacks. Competitors are the most common sources for business-
related online smears. There is nothing wrong with a business
competing for customers by making honest comparisons between its
products, services, and prices and its competitors’. But sometimes the
competition goes too far and spreads lies or attacks company em-
ployees. These attacks may be disguised as fake reviews from cus-
tomers or even as fake regulatory or government warnings—such as
a fake health inspector’s report about a competing restaurant.
Similarly, disgruntled employees may decide to spread vicious
falsehoods about a company. These attacks are particularly dangerous
because the employee’s knowledge of the company allows her to create
a believable lie and because a disgruntled employee may often be able
to weave a sympathetic story about misconduct at the company. Of
course, most whistleblowers or disgruntled employees simply relay true
stories about what happened. But some disgruntled employees go fur-
ther and selectively leak internal documents to give a false impression
of internal affairs or create false documents from whole cloth. Or a dis-
gruntled employee may simply create lies about the company.
In a similar vein, activists for or against a particular cause may
falsely smear the reputations of companies. Truthful reports from ac-
tivists are (in the United States, at least) protected from legal conse-
quences, but some activists have gone further and created lies in an
attempt to smear companies whose policies they don’t like. Much like
whistleblowers and disgruntled employees, activists often know
enough about their targets to spin a plausible story. And, also simi-
larly, activists often receive a sympathetic hearing in the media.
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.