Niall Kennedy and the Spectre of Being Dooced

An incestuous “imbloglio” as Niall Kennedy, an employee at Technorati decided to self-censor a post he made on his personal blog after the company received negative comments about it. He apparently came to the conclusion that in today’s social media world, you can’t be an employee and at the same time make personal statements that are likely to be confused as the corporate position. This is a perception that I believe is profoundly flawed.

I failed to comprehend the effects of my actions on Technorati. I have always operated under the assumption that until I reach executive status at any company I work for I remain an individual voice and do not represent the organization. Just as weblogs and corporate transparency changed the world we love to interact with daily, it has also changed the way we see corporations. We establish relationships with companies through their engaged employees for better or for worse. The voice and actions of individuals become associated with the companies and organizations of their employ.

The past day has been a huge wake-up call. I see now that the voice of a company is not limited to top level executives, vice-presidents, and public relations officers. It is a huge responsibility on the individual and a bit difficult to fully comprehend until you have seen the effects of an economy of conversations. I need to be more aware of my actions as they are perceived as the actions of Technorati.

My interpretation of Technorati’s current blogging policy is an attempt to make sure employees are aware of the weight their words carry in this new medium and new industry. It is a really difficult thing to communicate and I am still not sure how to communicate this message effectively to new employees. I will give the issue of corporate blogging some more thought and post again soon with my experiences and observations. It is for this reason it is recommended that Technorati employees seek the opinion of a coworker if they are unsure of how a post might be interpreted by others, to lend a fresh pair of eyes and an experienced mind to your intended message. Technorati subscribes to the idea that markets are conversations. We are all about a direct line of communication to our users and I intend to help facilitate those important conversations.

His boss, Dave Sifry chimes in:

To address the censorship charge that was thrown about head-on: we do not censor people’s blogs, and we take the censorship allegation extremely seriously. I actively encourage our employees to blog, and to express their opinions. However, many readers do not make as clear a distinction between personal and work lives as many experienced bloggers do, and will view a provocative image on a blog in the worst possible light, especially when presented by the company’s Community Manager. Niall made the decision himself to post the things he posted, when he posted them. Other than the clear case of trademark violation (we asked him to remove the pictures that violated trademark, in order that we not be sued) his actions and postings have been completely his own, including his decision to take down his original post.

This is the confluence of a number of really bad trends:

• The current pendulum swing towards suppression of any sort of strong language, intense imagery, or controversial juxtaposition of ideas which has bubbled out of the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” and the FCC crackdown on dirty words — it’s a sort of social McCarthyism, where the worst of our puritanical impulses are being given full sway, to the point that TV stations are afraid to air “Saving Private Ryan” because the FCC wouldn’t say whether it is acceptable to do so or not. Who says that people can’t express dangerous ideas, hold contrarian views, or raise unpopular issues? This is why we will see another swirling controversy around the Blown-Up Soccer Players commercial produced by the UN is going to lead to heads rolling and all sorts of handwringing.
• There is a growing climate of corporate conformity, so if you hold a job you are expected — no matter what Dave Sifry states — to operate within the white lines that the company perceives to be painted on the roadway. Note that Sifry mentioned that “we [Technorati] asked him to remove the pictures that violated trademark, in order that we [Technorati] not be sued” — he didn’t say that Technorati had been sued, or that someone potentially suing Technorati for actions taken by a off-duty employee had any grounds to do so. He just asked Niall to remove the pictures to benefit Technorati. As was pointed out at SFist, “the use of corporate logos in the context is clearly an example of parody speech protected by the First Amendment,” so if Technorati were sued there is a solid basis for the company to defend itself based on individual free speech protections. But, clearly, it’s just easier to ask the employee to take down the pictures.
• Whether or not Niall says so, he may have feared for his job if he were to attempt to face down the social pressures leading him to self-censor. California (where Technorati is based), New York, Colorado, Montana and North Dakota has laws that specifically protect employees from being fired for outside activities, according to a recent story in CNet. Of course, most people are blissfully unaware of these laws, and they do not specifically mention blogging. But the litany of people getting “dooced” — fired for writing unacceptable or confidential material in their blogs — is getting longer all the time.

What does it mean? Even inside-the-blogosphere companies like Technorati don’t live in a vacuum: they are part of the real world, and they are subject to the same pressures that PBS, Boeing, and Delta Airlines are.

But we shouldn’t accept the premises that Niall has aquiested to. Individuals are individuals: they are not cogs in a corporate machine. There is a thing called free expression, and a life outside of work. We should protect the freedom that allows us to state our personal views — however unpopular — and not fear for our job because our employer doesn’t agree or is unwilling to stand up for that freedom.

[pointer from Ben Hammersley]