Perception

I was struggling now for some time juggling two pieces of news, until I realized the sword is the answer to Gordian knot (as always).

So the news speaks for itself:

“I don’t know how many of my letters have fallen intro trashcans over the years, but if my online activism is getting ignored, it’s getting ignored in front of the world. That’s a lot of pressure on a world leader, for good.” Aaron Sherinian, VP for Communications and PR for the UN Foundation in “How the UN Foundation Plans to Meet Its Goals With the Help of Social Media”.

“It’s two sides of the same coin; here in the Netherlands, Fox-it protects Dutch consumers and has recently helped the government to get out of trouble with the security certificates issue. However, the same company also makes eavesdropping devices.” MEP Sargentini says the experiences of Fox-it show that certain technologies can be used for good as well as evil in “EU wants stricter control of censorship software”

How do these two fit together? Perception.

The first example shows that you of course can keep your mouth shut. But remember that with Social Media you are on stage, always-on, everyone. So keeping a low profile does not mean, you are off stage, but that you deny to say something on stage, an that is statement (remember Warhol’s can of soup?!)

In the second example it is perception, not the law that crucifices a company. As Social Media is about perception, it is not important whether the company mentioned has broken any legal law, but the decisive factor is the perception of an ethical misbehaviour, and the consideration on law are only following.

As a consequence it is not enough for a company to obey the law, but also to master the perception, and this includes proactive behaviour and deploying ethical standards beyond obedience of the national laws.

regards
gerald