If you’re a critic and stand up, you risk charges of heresy and burning at the stake. There is an infrastructure of people with a vested interest in advancing the social media movement. Even calling out the potential issues with that trend can bring a load of pain down on your head (that’s one reason some folks prefer to avoid social media at all.) So, you can take a pseudonym and speak more freely — hence the relationship to political speech in this post.

(Forgive me if I’ve missed the big picture of your thoughtful posts. I ain’t much for fancy web learnin’.)

H – I get the relationship between my personal brand and those who know it (and therefore me), where the trouble begins is in extending that brand awareness beyond my personal sphere. The “work” me and the “personal” me are pretty much the same. The comment with respect to anonymity is the question about accountability in Web. I’m developing this idea of sources being judged largely by the content of their postings and less by who they are — but this causes an authority/accuracy issue. Alan Greenspan was the foremost economic authority in the world for what, 18 years. Now everything he says is taken with a pound of salt — his content is subordinate to his identity. (yeesh, really academic stuff…) Warren Buffett made billions, but people who could follow his investment directions didn’t — surely it isn’t because of either content or identity. My model breaks with Buffett. Finally, the Web seems to be a steaming pile of manure most of the time. You find a little something buried in it that’s valuable, but even the good stuff is reeking.

J — Agreed; why does anarchy need to reign on the Web? Scientists have been working on an alternative ‘Net for a while, seeking a distraction-free conduit for their esoterica. Will we get alternative channels? The subscription model might work — imagine a porn-free Web for those who want one. Or an all-access one… Within the enterprise, businesses are using Web. 2.0 tools to create communities of knowledge and facilitate cross-functional teamwork, so I think it’s likely that the rules/guidelines based approach is a good starter.

Particularly in regard to an organization or firm leveraging social media to chronicle collective knowledge or insight, why can’t guidelines be established in order to address the issues of the 4 As? These guideline would “go both ways,” meaning there are protocols for contributors (like refraining from profanity) and protocols for leadership (no direct retaliation for opinions, how to effectively respond, etc). Indeed there are risks for both contributors and leaders; conscientiously approached, trust in this form of communication is eventually earned and maintained. (Think of all the other professional environments where trust needs to be established over time. There’s structure there, too). And because business—like social relationships—is dynamic, the guidelines can be strategically planned to evolve short term and long term with the use of social media. The guidelines can be responsive to changing usage patterns so that contributors and leaders grow to trust (and rely on the benefits of) the institutionalized use of social media.

No other communication paradigm/practice is anarchic, why assume that this one can be. A former instructor of mine once said “Bad design done on a computer doesn’t make it good design.” So why should a form of communication be unstewarded yet assumed to be accountable/accurate simply because it’s technology-based?

(Ha! Heather, I can ramble without the wine!)

I think social media has a somewhat imperfect self-policing model. The lines between personal and professional, anonymous and open, can become quite blurred if you’re not careful. There are known voices in the realm of social media, and generally anonymous voices are inherently less credible. Though if they express an opinion or idea you relate to, they can provide validation for you and possibly even validation in the eyes of the public at-large when there is no other outlet for open discourse. When there is a critical mass of people who flock to an idea, the anonymous voice can have great power.

Thinking about your recent experience, maybe it goes back to control after all. When someone steals your identity — whether online or in person — it is a personal violation that results in losing control of something most of us have come to feel is a basic need. Your identity online is as much an expression of who you are — your credibility, your personality, your knowledge and experience — as your personal appearance, relationships or anything else you do in everyday life. When someone tries to take away that control, it is very scary. But, most of us still take the risk. We use credit cards, carry a driver’s license with a Social Security Number on it, neglect to shred those dang checks the credit companies send in the mail every day… similar risks to putting ourselves out there with an opinion or a name that someone else could easily alter or lay claim to.

OK, so my glass of wine has got me rambling now. The point I think I want to make is… you got burned; you did the right thing by reaching out to fix the situation in the only way you could; and you may be more cautious and take a few more precautions now than you might have otherwise. But you are still you. Those who know you and seek your credible voice still believe in who you are and what you do. We’re all learning to navigate this new tool, but it is just that — another tool in our arsenal to use so that we may be better able to communicate with each other. Many of the same rules and dangers still apply. And I, for one, will continue to take the risk to engage as myself, and trust that those who know me will respect the boundaries I have set between personal and professional. We’ll see what tomorrow brings.