Jason Kottke posts on a case whereby major blog content aggregator Technorati complained about content on an employee’s personal weblog. Employee Niall Kennedy then “took the post down after Technorati … complained about it and replaced it with [a notice that the firm prefers that employees do not] express an opinion on issues such as corporate blogging policies that are affecting the world of weblogs.”

Kennedy further states that he “was threatened with ‘serious consequences’ for not seeking corporate approval for a weblog posting relating to an industry issue,” and musing about the implications of “a blogging company applying strong filters to employee weblogs about public issues that affect the community.”

Hence, I would reiterate Kennedy’s question in his original blog post: Whose voice is it, anyway?

Kennedy came to the conclusion that even if he was not a Technorati executive, content in his blog is more or less perceived by the public as reflective of the company’s own views. To quote:

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.
…


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.


…


My interpretation of Technorati’s current blogging policy is to make sure employees are aware of the weight their words carry in this new medium and new industry … 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.

On this note, Kottke writes:

For a company that relies on aggregating content by scraping full posts from almost 8 million blogs, vetting their employees’ personal writing seems like a curious (not to mention ironic and hypocritical) position for Technorati to take. Aside from this specific incident, I’ve noticed that blogs written by people who go to work in the blogging industry usually get updated less, are less about blogging than they were before as well, and are also less critical of blogging. If everyone who’s really into blogging gets snatched up by blogging companies and eventually clam up, I don’t see that as a positive thing for the industry as a whole.

Personally, I am unfazed by incidents like these, since I feel that my posts are not as drastic as Kennedy’s, and hence would not warrant similar reprimands. I still do like posting about blogging itself, since blogs and blogging has come to be an advocacy of mine in the recent months. I just try to ensure that I take adequate precautions when writing. After all, my voice and actions may indeed be strongly identified as that of my employer. There’s always that thin line between a personal opinion and an official view, or perceptions thereof.

Comments are welcome.

Tags: internet, technology | Viewed 1204 times