Google Bomb discusses reputation management companies and search engine optimization techniques for combating defamatory attacks in detail. The chapter on the top ten steps you can take to build up your own online reputation is probably the most valuable prescription in our book.
Now the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender is coming out with this 45 page diatribe: Internet Defamation As Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harassment. It is a veritable attack on specific reputation management companies and the industry as a whole. Here is the gist:
“First, these companies have economic incentives to foster conditions online that perpetuate acts of online harassment, as the more harassment there is online, the greater the number of potential clients. These companies are also incentivized to create fora with hostile climates and to stir up trouble themselves.”
JWD THOUGHTS: Police are incented to incite lawlessness, doctors motivated to spread illness and disease, and firemen encourage arsonists? (And I guess law professors encourage legal disputes and illegality and corruption and crime so they can have full classes of new lawyers to meet an ever increasing demand.) Geez.
“Second, these companies have economic incentives to oppose legal reforms that might enable online defamation and harassment victims to seek recourse from law enforcement agencies or through the courts.”
JWD THOUGHTS: First, I know them. They have no political strength and will not even have a seat at the table. And since the author targets Michael Fertik and Reputation Defender, I will note that although I do not know Michael, he wrote the foreword to Google Bomb. Our book is chock full of calls to action to change the laws. The absurdity of this argument is self evident.
“Third, though they cloak themselves in the mantel of protectors of the innocent, their real agenda is to sell their services to wealthy corporations and individuals for far more nefarious purposes; to help bad actors hide negative information about themselves.” <
JWD THOUGHTS: Some of this goes on, just like in PR firms in the offline world, and in business marketing groups, but the benefit of protecting children, families, loved ones, and small businesses from devastating false attacks far outweighs this minor problem of true facts becoming buried and hidden. And it is not their “real agenda”. Although the part about selling services to wealthy corporations and individuals is true. You will find not a speckle of socialism in the motivation of any of these private enterprise, free market driven businesses fueled by capitalism. God bless America.
Clearly the law professor author has a very narrow view of the industry, and nothing to suggest in her background any real understanding of the industry other than what she read about it. If you tried to come up with arguments against having businesses provide reputation consulting and management services, these would be the three most convincing arguments. But that is not saying much, since none are convincing in the least. I’ve had some harsh words over the years for the Harvard crowd pushing a far left, radical, free speech expansionist view of the world from the ivory towers. And it is not like I praise the reputation management industry in the book. I even tell you what they do and how easy it is to do it yourself. But this article seems like just more of the same from Harvard. Attack the defenses available against the defamatory attacks that are crippling our society and ignore the very notion of a balanced perspective.
As for Dozier Internet Law, over half of our law practice is protecting victims from online attacks. The problems will all but go entirely away if my suggestions in Google Bomb for immediate legislative changes are embraced. What’s my “real agenda”? To lose half of our law firm business overnight?
The question is…what is your “real agenda”, Ms. Bartow?
And what is your “real agenda”, Harvard? Oops. I almost forgot. We already know about Harvard and all of those radical free speech expansionist groups under its umbrella. A little balance would be nice. For once.
Let’s hope no one takes this article seriously.
