Comments on: Social Media: Ethics, Ethics Everywhere, too bad they don’t Exist

By: Steen Seo Öhman

Steen Seo Öhman — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:29:51 +0000

Well about ethics it's sort of a one way street for Google. They really would like if Google and Google alone could decide the rankings, in a world where no one manipulate the ranking results.

So if you make automated queries it’s probably because you want to manipulate the rankings!! Most or all ranking checks are scraping Google, and are in violation with Google rules.

If you make to many checks they will close the access to Google down – for a limited time (been there got the T-shirt)

By: Simon Salt

Simon Salt — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:52:59 +0000

Interesting use of the word Ethics here, you state that "social media is too new to even understand what its ethical parameters are as of yet." Social Media isn't new, its discovery by Marketers is new, but many people have been using social media tools for nearly a decade (I launched my first podcast series in 1998, before there was an iPod and so they were called webcasts), so there has been plenty of time for ethics. The dictionary defines ethics as "the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group,culture" Justifying your use of Social Media by saying I am here to make money, so the world is grey and therefore what I do is ok because I dont disguise it, doesnt make it ethical. Thats just blatant, its not even honest. You say the rules are not equal for everyone – does that mean then that if you use social media for making money then you should be using a different set of rules than those people who use social media to be social? Wouldn't that then extrapolate to the real world, I'm in the real world to make money so the laws by which the rest of society is governed don't apply to me. That's a pretty thin argument you have there – or perhaps AIG doesn't ring any bells!

By: paisley

paisley — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:50:44 +0000

Dave,
Ethics… SEO or Social..
I have one statement..

"Google's Terms of Service do not allow the sending of automated queries of any sort to our system without express permission in advance from Google. Sending automated queries absorbs resources and includes using any software (such as WebPosition Gold™) to send automated queries to Google to determine how a website or webpage ranks in Google search results for various queries."

When was the last you think someone violated this rule?

Some rules are monitored and enforced, some are not..

@linn barringer: you are a blind, naked sheep according to your comment.. if you don't understand, no worries.. but look up "jim jones" and "kool-aid". you might get it. or maybe it's just too late.

By: Marketing Man

Marketing Man — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:41:44 +0000

Social Media Optimization is still in its infancy, and the rules are hardly cast in stone yet, so expect loads of people trying to leverage advantage for their brands / customers.

It will get better, but for now there is a wild west kind of new frontier vibe about SMO / SMM in general, which this post serves to illuminate.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:15:05 +0000

@Jill- Not sure I agree. Whether new mediums like Twitter get trashed won't be decided by self-restraint. Email, blog, twitter, serp, MFA spam… it's all the same problem. Protecting the usefulness of these services always has and will always be a technology arms race. But I do agree with you… that's not a free ticket to constantly play on the spammy side of that arms race.

Social media sites have the inherent incentive to police themselves and ensure that whatever "spam" is to them doesn't pay (or at least not reliably well).

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:51:56 +0000

@jill, you think this article is going to speed something along that as you said is imminent. Any technology that's "social" goes down this path…from IRC to FB, there's no stopping it.

However I think the "rules" are relatively equal. "Spammy" people that are still around must be producing content/deals/info for their relative inquiring minds. Right?

By: Linn Barringer

Linn Barringer — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:02:45 +0000

Here is Jill Whalen doing what I believe she has always done – giving sensible, measured, thoughtful, far-sighted, non-destructive, right-thinking advice. Think just a tad beyond this year's bucks and who's getting more bangs-per-tweet. Don't allow the internet, and particularly social networking, go the same way as the world's banking. The EXCESSIVE money-grabbers bringing it to it's knees, and further…
P.S. I found this item through following Jill on Twitter.

By: Jill Whalen

Jill Whalen — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:04:38 +0000

Dave, Dave, oh Dave…

First of all, the Twitter guidelines you posted said right there:

Some of the factors that we take into account when determining what conduct is considered to be spamming are:

Emphasis mine. They take those things into account, then make a judgment. They didn't say those things were spam.

Now don't take offense at the rest of this. I'm saying it in a most loving manner because I know you're a good guy.

Here's my problem with articles such as this: as soon as people read them, they think everything is gray, so everything goes.

And you know what happens then? Yet another tool or internet thing that we all love gets ruined by the spammers. It happens every time, just like comment spam, or even search engine spam. So why speed up its imminent demise with articles like this? Just so you can make money off it?

Others besides marketers use Twitter, and I know that you use it for more than just promotion. How are you going to feel in 2 years when it's no longer useful because social media marketers like you ruined it for the rest of us?

By: John Serra

John Serra — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:58:24 +0000

I agree with you when it comes to being on the profitable side of the line, but I also believe we have a responsibility to not devalue the medium both for our own future and others.

By: Steen Seo Öhman

Steen Seo Öhman — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:11:23 +0000

Great post Dave

Rules are as you point out not followed by a lot of Twitter accounts – they could be considered spammers. Ethics well I don’t know, maybe the lack of rules and ethics is the beauty of Twitter.

Twitter is viral, potent and fast moving, and the rules and ethics will probably change and evolve with Twitter as it grows older.

I’m pretty new using Twitter, and so far I think the retweet spam is the biggest problem, together with automated posting of random/old blog posts. Retweet is a problem, if large parts of the people you follow also follow each other.