After sharing a post from my Google Reader, I was pulled by one of my colleagues for being a bit controversial (especially first thing in the morning). My retort was that sharing content created by someone else, it didn’t matter that it might offend some people, after all it was shared content, not created. There are many things that I don’t really discuss on my blog or Twitter feed. I try to (with only a small degree of success) avoid the three social faux pas; money, politics, and religion. However, I quite happily share content around these topics.
Afterwards, this got me thinking about the differences between shared and created content and if putting content alongside your name into the public sphere, whether you penned it or not, still puts you at risk of being ‘tainted by association’.
There is a definite line between shared and created content online. Putting out someone elses content and claiming it as your own is a big no-no online, and though it does happen a lot (many brands are guilty of steal ideas from the web), when the creators find out they can pull the thief up on their activities and expose them online.
There are places where much of the content is re-posted, such as many tumblr blogs and viral sites like 9GAG. However, these sites tend to follow the rule of crediting the source of the content. Most of the content I post on this blog is my own, but if I ever use infographics or quotes, I always point the reader in the right direction of the person who created it. I like to keep the line between the two very clear, so at one stage even had a short-lived tumblr so as to have a place to share interesting content I find online, though now I just use my Google Reader Profile.
So in my eyes, there is a very clear line between the two and one that I try to maintain. So when I share content I find that then subsequently appears in my Twitter feed, the line is blurred. People may mistake me for the creator and if, like in this case, the content is designed to stir things up a little, the creator should probably be the one arguing his/her case rather than the people that just happen to agree or decide the content is interesting enough to share.
But this is just the solution in a perfect world. In the real world if you spread something, then you’re in line to take the flack. This has repercussions for how we behave online in the same way that you make sure drunken or offensive pictures don’t find their way onto your Facebook page, lest it cause your future job application to end up in the shredder. The case, then, should be that if you think that clicking the ‘share’ button might end up coming back to haunt you in the future, then perhaps you just continue to scroll, hiding away any opinions and feelings you may have.
Of course this then also renders us without any online personality and defining characteristic too, so I suppose it’s down to whether employers prefer an applicant with some well-formed opinions, or a ‘black canvas’. I suppose Dali isn’t to everyone’s taste…
Image credit – Salvator Dali, Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bee Around a Pomegranate a Second Before Awakening
In a world of ‘publish then filter’ (Shirky 2008) the sharing is often more important than the creation. The act of sharing is a powerful endorsement or recommendation.
On a legal point, it’s no defence (if we share it) to claim that a mistake or a libel is someone else’s problem. We have to take responsibility for what we publish – and for what we share.
David Meerman Scott says ‘we are what we publish’. We are also what we filter – and who we know (follow/followers).
Edelman likes reminding us that every company is now a media company; but so is every connected, online individual.
This all sounds difficult and dangerous. I guess that’s why we have degree courses in public relations and it’s why organisations need public relations advice – now more than ever.
Some great points and further reading Richard. I bet there aren’t many PR companies now without a guide for what their employees can and can’t say online. We’ve all seen the stories of those who have been fired from jobs and venting about the boss on Facebook.
With the new ASA rulings that may soon come into force (http://www.1000heads.com/2011/02/alert-the-asa-cap-code/) this even goes as far as what you say in a Twitter ReTweet when you’re working on behalf of a brand.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ClareSiobhan Callery, ClareSiobhan Callery. ClareSiobhan Callery said: Shared vs online content, what are the rules? http://bit.ly/ijXDOy #blog [...]
Hey Clare,
Read your post and found we have some similar ideas! I’m guy that really like current affairs, used to gather news updates to produce a new article that provide a holistic view on an event. But now I’ve changed. I find repeating others’ content is a waste of my time and my readers’ time since they can read the same thing elsewhere (a bit extreme I would say). I find sharing through clicking Facebook’s ‘like’ button or other ways of directing friends to a site.
Cheers,
Marx
Btw, you might want to see my article (http://thecriticalangle.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/a-21st-century-commentator%E2%80%99s-career-and-how-he-disemploys-himself/ ) if you’re free ’cause it’s quite long.
Many interesting points Clare. I will address just one: I see the reTweet as rather like wearing a badge to show your support for a cause or because you want to associate yourself with a band or team. In my teen years (when all the streets were lite by gas…) I would have a dozen or so badges on my favorite jacket showing my musical (The Jam, The Specials) political (Greenpeace, Anti Apartheid) and social (Tufty Club – look it up, well ‘hardcore’) allegiances. Now, you know me by my reTweets and ‘Likes’.
And just as I would not associate with someone smelling of Patchouli Oil and wearing a Genesis badge (musical snob as I was), I would think twice or three times about accepting a friend request from someone who ‘Liked’ the EDL or reTweeted anti-science guff.
‘A man is known by the company he keeps.’
Chronicles of Clovis, ‘Saki’ (H. H. Munro), 1912
Hey Clare,
You are using an unbelievably sexy theme, keep it up, haha. As for this article, I have one issue in mind when it comes to “shared content”. You see, I’ve written over 30 guest articles and 80% of them have become the victims of people who use BlackHat SEO methods with programs like SEnuke and ScrapeBox.
I wrote an article called “Why Auto-Bloggers Must Die” (http://comluv.com/tutorials/blogging/why-auto-bloggers-must-die/) discussing similar issues. In that article, I show with images how terribly my articles were plaigarized, abuse,d and not even credited. It’s a shame what happens online, but I agree with Tim that the only way to solve that issue over twitter is using retweet functions
.
Good work on the article, hope to read more!