Forum Moderators: open
According to security specialists at London-based mi2g, senior executives are losing more sleep over websites delivering hate messages about corporate products than they are to the more traditional threats.
Interesting article. The growth of anti-corporate and corporation/product specific hate sites is increasingly becoming a major concern for large corporations.
It would be nice if the article went into more depth, but they hint that some of the sites have ulterior motives, such as blackmail, or silent backing by competitors to deflect bad press about their own products.
You just know there's a few webmasters in the bush making a buck of this somewhere.
Notsomuch of a shocker, really, but what's interesting is that the mainstream media is starting to clue into the power of anti-corporate sites.
Almost 5 years ago I bought a new Saturn - my first new car ever.
Within the first week I started to have trouble with the transmission.
At one instance it jumped into neutral by itself after turning left at a red light and refused to go back into drive, leaving me stranded in rush hour traffic. The shifter wouldn't budge though it was in the proper selection.
3 dealerships couldn't figure the problem out so I returned the pig for a full refund.
I could have saved myself alot of hassle and trouble if I had known of websites (just do a net search for the phrase "Saturn sucks") that told about the problems that plague Saturn cars.
Business leaders ought to be up at night, worrying. In real earning power people have rarely experienced more gouging than they have of late.
Modern corporation's methods of profit calculation, bean counting & chiseling down quality in the name of offering value to people (I HATE being called a consumer) leave an awful lot to be desired.
the problems that plague Saturn cars
Mine is 4 years old - no problems ever - bad luck for you though!
Firstly, the use of the words "hate sites" and "hate groups" and making a correlation between campaigning or anti-corporate websites and "viruses, hackers and network sabotage" is pure disinformation. There is no correlation whatsoever between a simple website which criticises either a particular company or a particular business practice and an attack by a hate group or a hacking attempt. The article in its entirety is a completely unfounded attack on both me as a professional as well as my clients.
As skibum says, the net is a great leveler, and the companies have to deal with and accept the presence of legitimate criticism from identifiable groups, with sites usually promoted by viral marketing, blog links and basic Google-bombing.
If I were to build an anti-corporate or parody website, and subsequently promote it using standard, 100% legal methods, then that site has its place in the SERPs as a legitimate informational site. The targetted companies might prefer that they have a free run, but this is no different than a demonstration held in front of their store or restaurant.
Very few anti-corporate sites are fuelled by hate, and even fewer use any illegal methods in order to devalue that company's corporate brand. It is a phenomenon which mostly touches large multinationals at the moment, but online campaigning isn't going away, and its existence is perfectly legitimate.
The words "freedom of exprension" come to mind when I read that article, and as encyclo pointed out, the way they shoved critical sites into the category of "hate/hacking/illegal" is just rediculous.
If someone takes the time to writte a site that speaks badly of a company, it is generally because of a darn good reason. Some people will do things with bad intentions, but that type of people can be found in any industry, through any medium.
Corporations have always held a huge control over press with huge budgets, and now that they can't control what is being said on the internet, they cry and bad-mouth anything they don't like.
Bless the internet and its leveraging power.
The most worrisome aspect of that whole article, to me, is that some companies are viewing the whole thing as a security & legal issue. It makes me concerned that it might eventually spawn a new wave of RIAA-Like lawsuits and dis-information campaigns, only this time targetting activist groups.
I don't recall who said it offhand, but "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." Now everyone can own their own press for $600, or much less if they just get a blogger-type account and use a library or university computer terminal to access it...
HA! So take that, Madison Avenue! You've got your glossy multipage ads in the big magazines, your monstrous television advertising budgets and your billboards... I've got Google. Bite me.
The BBC is reviewing its procedures on web-based research following a hoax interview on the anniversary of the Bhopal disaster.
A member of campaign group the Yes Men posed as a representative of the Dow Chemical company. He said that Dow claimed full responsibility for the 1984 disaster at a chemical factory in which thousands of Indians died and tens of thousands were disabled.
The Yes Men use slick websites as part of their campaigns and described the hoax as their most successful stunt yet.
Syzygy
