Corporate Blogging and Dissent
January 9, 2006 | Filed Under Compliance, In the News
What happens to corporate blogging policies when a blogger disagrees with the company?
Microsoft is learning about this in real time.
Late last year, Microsoft deleted a blog posted on its MSN Spaces service in China. According to a report in The New York Times:
The site pulled down was a popular one created by Zhao Jing, a well-known blogger with an online pen name, An Ti. Mr. Zhao, 30, also works as a research assistant in the Beijing bureau of The New York Times.
The blog was removed last week from a Microsoft service called MSN Spaces after the blog discussed the firing of the independent-minded editor of The Beijing News, which prompted 100 journalists at the paper to go on strike Dec. 29. It was an unusual show of solidarity for a Chinese news organization in an industry that has complied with tight restrictions on what can be published.
Commentators, including the influential Rebecca MacKinnon, have taken Microsoft to task over this (here is her first post). Ms. MacKinnon notes that Microsoft blogger Robert Scoble has some opinions on this. Here’s the first, then a second, then some rather understandable clarifying.
Microsoft’s view was blogged by Michael Connolly (product manager for MSN Spaces) here.
I’ll resist past temptations and leave the political angle to others (or another day). My focus today is this: have the legion of companies that adopted corporate blogging policies thought through how they will handle an employee-blogger disagreeing with a politically-motivated move by the company?
Some of the companies have an item in their policy along the lines of “stop blogging if we say so.” See #6 here from Feedster.
Mr. Scoble has probably stepped further out on a short pier than most would. This is from his second post:
I have been talking to lots of people today, though, inside and outside of Microsoft. In every instance they asked me to keep those conversations confidential. Why? Cause we’re talking about international relations here and the lives of employees. I wish I could go into it more than that, but I can’t. Not yet. See, it’s real easy as Americans to rattle the door and ask for change, but we don’t live there. Saying “give them the finger” isn’t that easy when there are real human lives at stake. And I don’t need to spell out what I’m talking about here, do I?
Many companies were pushed or dragged into encouraging employee blogging for such worthy reasons as “putting a human face on the company” or providing a way current or future customers could learn facts from front-line personnel that weren’t scripted by Madison Avenue. That is fine when the posts are in the vein of “my Company X is doing cool stuff” or “here at Company Y we really care about our customers.” But when Company Z reads an employee blog post saying “We are wrong on this (to become an agent of a government and censor an entire blogger’s work)” what would most do? What would the legal department recommend? It’s a credit to Mr. Scoble (and maybe even Microsoft) that his first post on this issue is still up.
When technology moves around the world, standard communication systems run smack into divergent political systems faster than ever before. Some companies may start to have second thoughts about employee blogging. I think it’s going to be hard to put that genie back in the bottle.
Law 2.0 — Is The Train Leaving the Station?
January 8, 2006 | Filed Under Law 2.0, In the News
Dion Hinchcliffe has published a helpful summary of various “offshoots” of the Web 2.0 “revolution”.
There’s a convenient graphic here.
And what do you know–right between Library 2.0 and Media 2.0 is Law 2.0. (Typical of us lawyers–always hanging around libraries…).
Mr. Hinchcliffe calls Law 2.0 a “relatively full-blown new movement.” He links to the recent comprehensive article on Web 2.0 in LPT by Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell, and to this post on Law 2.0 by some nameless guy.
Wex is given as an example of Law 2.0 by Mr. Hinchcliffe; if we look at the hallmarks of Web 2.0 in his graphic linked above, there are probably other examples out there. Dennis and Tom mention a number of general ones in their article that could have applications to the law.
But if you look really closely at the graphic, there is some text on the right edge of the bubble, that appears rather faintly in yellow. I think it reads “cost effective scalability.” If there is one thing the dominant business model in the law can’t stand (with initials something like “B.H.”), it’s applications which grow fast, and can do so with minimal cost.
Horrors!
Technorati tag: law2.0
The VC’s Lips are Moving
January 6, 2006 | Filed Under New Services, General
It’s early in 2006, and thoughts of many in business turn to new ventures. And of finding the money to finance them.
So who ya gonna call? One option is your friendly neighborhood venture capitalist. For those of us a long way from Sand Hill Road, we can spend a lot of time looking.
When you finally meet one, you might want to really listen closely to what is said. It may be one of the Top 10 Lies of Venture Capitalists, courtesy of Guy Kawasaki.
Here’s #7:
“This is a vanilla term sheet.” There is no such thing as a vanilla term sheet. Do you think corporate finance attorneys are paid $400/hour to push out vanilla term sheets? If entrepreneurs insist on using a flavor of ice cream to describe term sheets, the only flavor that works is Rocky Road. This is why they need their own $400/hour attorney too–as opposed to Uncle Joe the divorce lawyer.
At the end, Mr. Kawasaki notes that he writing this blog entry from Hawaii. I am very jealous. Never feel sorry for a man who owns a plane–or one who blogs from Hawaii.
Updates (08 Jan 06):To be clear, there are some shining examples of VCs in the blogosphere. Brad Feld is one, and Fred Wilson is another. Mr. Feld had a great series on term sheets last year. As Rob Hyndman notes, Mr. Wilson has a devastating view of the recent disclosure that some telcos may be trying to charge extra for iTunes or Google downloads that go through their systems. Hugh Macleod is also a fan of Mr. Wilson, and offers a great sign-off on the view initially raised by Mr. Kawasaki:
Jason Fried also agrees (with 10 more of his own); Jeff Jarvis dissents.
Texas 41, USC 38; Sandra Day–Priceless
January 5, 2006 | Filed Under In the News
What a game! All hail ‘Horns.
I’ll defer to Tom Kirkendall and his 4 am post for a link with details.
My favorite memory: Rose Parade Grand Marshall and retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, carefully, deliberately, and impartially tossing the coin in the standard pre-game ritual. The winner–Texas. Sort of an omen, as it turned out.
The game and the pomp and the press were all over the top. But for a brief shining moment, Justice O’Connor showed more class and grace herself than everyone who will cram into a certain Senate hearing room in Washington DC on January 9th.
It was never more clear to me how much she will be missed.
Why Abramoff Matters
January 4, 2006 | Filed Under Compliance, In the News
Washington “lobbyist” Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty yesterday to federal charges of fraud, conspiracy to commit bribery, and tax evasion. Why does this matter to business and its lawyers?
– It isn’t because the recent outbreak of sleepless nights in the Capitol.
– It isn’t because there is the loud ka-ching of retainer checks being cashed by the White Collar Defense groups of major Washington, DC law firms.
– And it isn’t even because the Democrats are sitting back and letting the news media emphasize the connection to certain Republican legislators (some may disagree with this one).
For me, the reason Jack Abramoff matters for business is that he confirms the stereotype that “lobbying” is really about buying influence. And for the 99%+ of businesses that legally participate in the legislative process, this is terrible.
So the best thing business can hope for is that this investigation proceed quickly, and that those involved are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
It is also not lost on the public that many implicated in this matter are lawyers. Again, another day, another stereotype reinforced.
One thing is clear–the color of Mr. Abramoff’s hat.
Search
Powered By
Links
| ||||
 | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
