Not Alyssa Bereznak. Obviously.

I’m not ashamed to say that I’m a bit of a nerd, and right now the nerds online are all flustered over a recent Gizmodo post where blogger Alyssa Bereznak wrote some pretty offensive things about a recent online dating experience. The basis of the story is this: she went out with a guy who she deemed to be way too nerdy for her and proceeded to write an entire post making fun of the guy, even though he didn’t really do anything wrong. The “moral” of her story was that you should research a person using Google before you go out together.

Gizmodo is a popular tech gadget blog, so as you can guess, most of their readers are a lot like Alyssa’s date. The vast majority of comments on the post and the comments I’ve seen on Twitter, Facebook, etc. are negative, and many are extremely negative. There are a lot of things I personally find offensive about her post, but what I (and many others) keep coming back to is this: Why is a post dumping on nerds be allowed on a major tech blog, where most of the readers fall into the nerd category?

Some have speculated that Alyssa’s post was purposely offensive to her readers in order to drive traffic. Maybe that is the case; I don’t know. If that’s what happened, who made that choice? Alyssa? Gizmodo? Again, I don’t know.

What I do know is that baiting your readers in this manner is a bad idea.

Sometimes linkbait works, and sometimes it doesn’t – but if you’re being purposely negative, you’re playing with fire. I fully believe that you should write posts that express your opinion, even if your readers aren’t going to agree. If that makes sense for your blog, do it. But it’s a fine line to walk, because if you’re expressing an opinion simply because you want to drive traffic, that choice is going to come back to bite you. Here’s why:

• For some people, this will be the first time they hear of you or your blog.

Who hasn’t heard of Gizmodo? It’s a huge blog, right? Well, yes…but there are definitely people who have never heard of it. Maybe this is the first you’re hearing of it – and let me ask you, what is your impression of Gizmodo? Even if you’ve heard of Gizmodo before, this might be the first time you’re hearing of Alyssa. What is your impression of her? The point is, the first experience a new reader has with you is their only experience with you. Make sure it’s a good one – or at least one that represents you well.

• Some of your regular readers won’t be back.

If you’re being completely honest on your blog and people don’t like you and what you have to say, that’s one thing. Let them go. It’s better to have 100 readers who really “get” you than 1000 readers who feel “meh” about you. However, if you’re writing bait posts, some of your regular readers are going to stop reading your site. You don’t always have to agree with members of your community, but at least respect them enough not to stomp in their faces by making fun of them. The nerds who Alyssa offended and who may very well have been some of Gizmodo’s biggest supporters might not be back – and that’s some pretty hefty revenge for any blog.

• Traffic spikes are just that – spikes.

Let’s say you have a post that is super helpful and goes viral. You’re going to see a huge traffic spike, which is awesome. When things calm down again, some of those people are going to stick around to read more, and even though it might be a small percentage, that’s how you build a traffic kingdom, block by block. But what if you write a post that goes viral for a negative reason, like the Gizmodo post? When things calm down, what’s the likelihood that anyone will stick around to read more? So not only do you run the risk of losing regular readers, but you also won’t gain new ones for more than a day or two. Spikes are only spikes, not sustainable.

• It’s ethically questionable.
  

There’s no law that says you can only write what you 100% believe. Frankly, though, the ethics behind doing something like that are questionable about best. It’s a personal choice, I guess, but I would have a hard time sleeping at night if my name was attached to a bunch of stuff I didn’t actually believe.

Overall, I think the Gizmodo post was a really bad idea. I’m not just saying that because I was personally offended by what she wrote. I’m saying that I think it simply didn’t make sense to be posted on a site where nerds are your fanbase. Was the post purposely meant to bait readers? I don’t know. Maybe. And if so, I think it was an even worse idea. There are a lot of really positive ways to get traffic that take the same amount of effort and have much better long-term results.

Have you read the Gizmodo post? Has it changed your impression of Gizmodo or the writer? Do you think there are any benefits to baiting readers with an offensive post?

The blog, ThePsychoExWife.com (which is currently down), was created in 2007 to attract others going through difficult divorces and custody situations – offering support and information via forums, news, and articles. A portion of the site IS dedicated to telling a story, based on true events, regarding a very contentious divorce and custody battle with the father’s ex-wife. But the father claims no ownership of the blog.

Judge Diana E. Gibbons issued the following order:

Father shall take down that website and shall never on any public media make any reference to the mother at all, nor any reference to the relationship between mother and children, nor any reference to his children other than “happy birthday” or other significant school events.

The father – who chose to remain, and continues to remain, anonymous through the entire process so as not to involve his children – plans to file an appeal on the grounds that his civil rights (including the 1st Amendment) have been violated. And the results of this appeal will be crucial to the future of parenting, divorces, custody, and children. It could impact your social media usage as a parent – pictures, Twitter updates, blog posts, everything.

Whether or not you agree with the father telling the particular stories on the blog, this does bring up a larger issue of what you can and cannot post on social media sites and forums.

As Save ThePsychoExWife.com says: We must win this appeal in order to protect our freedom of speech – just because you are divorced doesn’t mean you give up your civil rights … We must stand up to this violation of the First Amendment. We must protect our freedom of speech and not allow family judges to use our rights against us when deciding custody.

You can learn more, read the judge’s orders, and offer your help at Save ThePsychoExWife.com.

While most people were looking at the infographic summing up the rumored iPhone features, I was thinking about non-disclosure agreements. (I have an Android phone; I’m not always in lawyer mode.) If this was truly a slip, Stringer could be facing serious consequences if there was an NDA in place. But, as Calvin Lee of Mayhem Studios was quick to point out on Twitter during a brief discussion, no one ever seems to get sued when these Apple leaks happen. So, no NDA or planned?

Non-Disclosure Agreements
NDAs are contracts between two or more parties, companies or individuals, that define confidential information and how access to confidential information should be restricted. This type of agreement is frequently used to protect trade secrets, which are generally not known to the public and by which competitors could gain an advantage if such information was made public.

An NDA may be used by companies that are considering entering a business relationship, but wish to protect their confidential information until a final determination is made. In some cases, employers may use NDAs with their employees.

Contents of a Non-Disclosure Agreement
The NDA must define who is a party to the agreement. Next, the NDA will typically define what is considered confidential information. It is important to note that information that was already available to the public will not be considered confidential. The parties may agree to other terms that tweak the definition of what information was public. If a dispute arises, the definition of public information could play a critical role in resolving a dispute.

An NDA must also define what the confidential information may be used for and how it should be maintained. It is common that an NDA will request that confidential information be returned if the parties sever the business relationship.

NDA agreements often contain a provision for liquidated damages. If the NDA is violated, there will be a set figure that the violating party is required to pay.

The Impact on Social Media
NDAs are commonly used between brands and the bloggers who promote them. If you sign an NDA, ensure that you only share the information that you are permitted to disclose. Do not share any future advertising campaign information or product releases with your audience or even your family. Don’t try to bolster your SEO by using keywords for a future campaign that is about to be released that you have inside information on. This type of activity could easily backfire, leaving you in breach of the NDA and with a severed relationship with your brand.

Conclusion
NDAs are commonly used. If you have questions about the terms, ask before you sign. Most importantly, protect the confidentiality that you’ve agreed to and you shouldn’t have any problems.

Not just for you, but for the people around you.

THINK ABOUT IT: Any time you honestly, sincerely and candidly share your opinion about something that matters to you, there’s always that one insecure, cynical twit who just has to remark…

“Why don’t you tell me how you really feel?”

Um, I just did, you think.

But it doesn’t matter. Most people are standing by for sugarcoating. And when you say something that’s too real, too close to life, it makes them squirm.

As George Carlin once said:
“People have trouble dealing with reality. They can’t face the truth, so they invent soft language to protect themselves from it. It’s a grotesque evasion, and language makes me want to vomit. Well, maybe not vomit. It makes me want to engage in an involuntary personal protein spill.”

And I admit it: I’ve dabbled with dishonesty before. And I completely understand why human beings do it.

It saves face, shifts the blame, avoids punishment, evades confrontation, protects your situation, spares people’s feelings, helps you get your way, makes you feel better about yourself and manipulates the way others perceive you.

What’s not to like?

THE ONLY PROBLEM IS: I’m a horrible liar. Honesty is too much a part of my personal constitution as human being to do it. And when I don’t tell the truth – to myself, to others and to the world – my body broadcasts it like a drive in movie.

So I just tell the truth. As often as possible.

Which doesn’t mean I never lie. But I’m doing the best I can.

AND DON’T GET ME WRONG: I would love to be dishonest. But frankly, it’s simply too much work. And I’ve got books to write.

That’s what I never understood about the corporate world: They treat honesty like it’s some sort of organizational initiative.

Excuse me, but that’s freaking ludicrous.

First of all, if you have to tell people you are – you probably aren’t.

Second, honesty shouldn’t have to be a policy. If you have to tell your people to tell the truth, you need new people.

Third, if your company wants to earn a reputation of truthfulness, make honesty a constitutional ingredient – not a corporate initiative.

That’s what blogging is all about: Honoring the truth. Honoring your truth. Honoring other people’s truth.

So what if it scares people?

Tell them how you really feel.

It might change everything.

LET ME ASK YA THIS…
How are you branding your honesty?

LET ME SUGGEST THIS…
For the list called, “11 Ways to Out Google Your Competitors,” send an email to me, and you win the list for free!

A collective of bloggers and activists have launched a blog to campaign for the release of Ali Abdulemam, a blogger and the editor of Bahrainonline.org (recently shut down) in Bahrain. Abdulemam was considered an icon among Arab bloggers for his courage in speaking the truth and pushing for government transparency and reform.

Unfortunately, Abdulemam was arrested last week for “publishing false news” and there’s speculation that he’s been tortured for the crime. After one week he is reported to be in solitary detention and has not been allowed to see his family or lawyer.

The blog (http://freeabdulemam.wordpress.com/) is a place to find news and aggregate posts from those pushing to free Abdulemam. Bloggers, from Morocco to Bulgaria have taken up the cause and have demanded that Bahrain authorities free him as soon as possible. They urge you to tweet about Ali and send a message to Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Khalid Al-Khalifa (@khalidalkhalifa) – but they request that you be polite and respectful to protect Abdulemam’s safety.

I, for one, am planning to join in and support his release.

It’s been about three weeks since Keith Elam, one of the most accomplished artists of my generation passed away.

As one-half of Gang Starr, Elam was truly a Gifted emcee who pioneered an ill poetic street corner philosopher’s eloquence not yet heard prior. Between his Gang Starr catalog and his groundbreaking Jazzmatazz work, he proved to source of seemingly Unlimited Rhymes. And his willingness to discuss everything from the writing process to manhood to parenthood to politics to crime made his lyrics truly Universal.

Looking back, April 19, 2010 saw the passing of perhaps the only non-east Indian who could rightfully call himself a guru with a straight face. Elam’s death also got me thinking about all the other so-called gurus out here…

A while back I met a guy who’d penned the definitive book on Twitter. I know it was the definitive book on Twitter because he said so. And so had his publisher. Now the guy admitted to never having worked for Twitter. To my knowledge he didn’t even know anyone who did. He hadn’t even been using Twitter very long himself. But no matter.

He had a book, a title, and full schedule of speaking gigs and media appearances to validate his self-inflicted gurudom.

Now, the easiest thing would be to insult, slander folks like this. That’d be the one-off sureshot that would garner plenty of RTs, comments, and e-daps. But instead, I wanna try something different, beginning with a question:

What if all the gurus, particularly those of us in marketing, PR and social media, just said—out loud:

“I don’t know.”

What if all the so-called trend-spotting gurus and trendsetting fashion gurus stopped for a second and said, “Mr. & Mrs. Talk Show Host: To be perfectly honest, I just wrote this book to get a few speaking gigs and make some quick cash. But to answer your original question, ‘I’m really not sure.”?

What if we all told our clients we’re not infallible gurus and added, “at this stage of the game, no one is. The space is just too new and too fluid for anyone to be claiming otherwise. We’re all students learning as we go. And the fact is, what worked last year, or even last week, might not work tomorrow. But we’ll do our best.”

What would happen to all the gurus then?

Would billings get cut? Would contracts be lost? Would our LinkedIn connects turn on us? Would we lose followers? Would we get less sex?

Would the conference circuit dry up due to a lack of “rockstar panelists,” most of whom would’ve long since admitted that they’re really no so hot after all?

Seriously, what would honestly happen if all the gurus all took, let’s say: 6 months… or 60 days or even 6 days and just shut up—

and listened.

And by “listen” I mean, no more whitepaper decks. No more self-aggrandizing tweets and blog postings. No more “ain’t I a genius” podcasts. No more keynotes or panels that invariably devolve into just how forward-looking and ahead of the curve you and your company are…

In fact, no more anything that doesn’t begin and end with listening.

Listening to people who are actually doing the things so many of gurus claim to have somehow mastered before anyone else… Listening to how regular people are actually living and moving and working and playing… Listening to people who spend way more time offline than on… Listening to people who buy more than they try to sell… Listening to what people with no vested interest in who/what we claim to be are paying attention to and ignoring.

What if, god forbid we all listened to people who didn’t look like us? Listened to people from different cultural/ethnic backgrounds. Keith Elam was the only black guru I’ve met with any real following in the last 20 years. There’s something perversely ironic about the fact that superficial appearance seems to be an integral part of being a guru. As if people of color can’t be authorities on anything beyond certain musical genres. So what if we listened to ‘those’ people, too?

Listening. What if we all just listened…

Now let’s be clear: this is no swipe at actual experts or conferences that feature them. I wouldn’t be part of BlogWorld if i thought BWE was about that. And fter 3 years of knowing Dave and Rick, I can safely say that as a matter of a business model, they don’t want the type of folks this piece is aimed at involved in BWE in any way.

Instead, this piece is meant to challenge some of the hustlers and loudmouths amongst us who are so busy patting themselves on the back, yelling into bullhorns and looking for the next buck that they never ask, “What do I actually know? What am I actually contributing?”

I once stayed in a house fulla nuns in the middle of the Westside of Chicago. About twice a year, they’d take vows of silence while living in the middle one of the loudest neighborhoods in one of the loudest cities in America; and all they did was listen.

I mean, they still did their jobs—taught classes, shopped, all that… But they didn’t talk. They just listened. If they had something to say, then wrote it down and passed notes. It was surreal. (Especially once you read some of their notes.)

I wonder if all us gurus could do that…

I’m gonna try it myself and see how far I get. Something tells me there’s a whole other world out there once I stop pretending I know everything.

Meanwhile, I encourage you all to check out Guru’s work with Gang Starr and Jazzmatazz. It’s good listening.

R.I.P. Mr. Elam.

Hadji Williams is not a guru. He is a longtime ad industry vet, writer, social media junkie. He’s also the Entertainment Track Coordinator for BlogWorld2010.  He’s at: hadji@knockthehustle.com and @blackcanseco (This also marks the last time he refers to himself in the third person.)

I would like to see if Erin Andrews can dance her way through a hail of gunfire referring to her appearance on Dancing With The Stars.

Guest Blogger: Brian Cuban

I would love to shoot her with a Barrett rifle.

I disagree. I believe that his threats constitute unprotected “true threats” that can be prosecuted. What is a true threat? How can we tell the difference between a true threat and what may be 1st amendment protected hyperbole or other speech? Lets start off with the fact that there is nothing political about the threats made against Ms. Andrews. There is some hyperbole (dance through a hail of gunfire) that often distinguishes 1st Amendment protected speech but there are also specifics.  There is nothing being debated that I am aware of.  I doubt anyone laughed at the threats.   Because he said, “I would like to” instead of “I am going to ” Is not necessarily controlling.

What matters in these cases? I like to say that Context is King and intent is queen. What is the context of the statement? A disturbed individual sending at least a dozen e-mails since September threatening Andrews. The e-mails were at first sexual, but the most recent were explicitly violent and “threatened Erin with murder,”. They also had details about location and method. That is the context. He is not emailing her to debate Health Care reform. The intent is to threaten and intimidate. I could go through a primer on the law of true threats. I could cover Watts v. United States, Virginia v. Black or touch on Planned Parenthood v. ACLA and the rest of the muddled states jurisdictional division on what is considered a true threat but there is no need.  It is clear from the context and speech in the emails that the sole intent is to strike fear in the heart of Erin Andrews and put her in specific fear of her safety even referencing her prior stalker episode. Context and intent.  That is not protected speech. That is a true threat. The FBI needs to get off its ass and make an arrest of this whack-job.

Brian Cuban is a Dallas attorney and nationally recognized speaker in the areas of social media and hate speech on the internet. He writes extensively on these subjects on his widely read blog, The Cuban Revolution.
Twitter: @bcuban
Website: www.briancuban.com

The inspiration behind the panel was why it is a bad idea to inflate or increase your follower numbers just for the sake of a big number.  I was reading Seth Godin’s blog about bullhorns.  Yeah I know he has a way of speaking in metaphors better than anyone.  You have to read the post yourself to get the idea. In the post Seth talk’s about Anil Dash’s recent and often discussed series about being on the suggested user list and why having a million followers on Twitter is actually not really as it seems.  It seems among my brethren in social media and marketing circles that they are shouting from the mountain tops that size doesn’t matter and note that many of which don’t actually have the size spoken of and are not benefiting from Twitter with the same dollars that Kim Kardashian is seeing with her $10,000 per tweet budget.  Are any other people out there with 100 followers making that kind of coin? Not hardly.  Why? Because the size of your bullhorn matters.  If Kardashian get’s 10K how much would Oprah get?  I shudder to think of that amount.

I can remember when people like Jason Calacanis and others were begging to be on the list and others were upset they were not included.  It’s about the numbers.  We all know that size doesn’t matter (it doesn’t right?).  If size doesn’t matter why do companies only want bloggers that have huge traffic numbers, and only pay attention to Twitter people that have large followings?  It is because they can put a metric on it and sell it.

Apparently, it is all about the Twilebrity?

Until we come up with a better metric or until we can stop “measuring”, size will always seem to matter.  To the people that are writing the checks and paying for Tweets or making lists of the tops in Twitter that has the most traffic it does matter.  Now, where did I put that stupid bullhorn?  Sorry Seth, apparently that is the game we are playing and until the rules change, those like you that have the largest will be the winners.

Thanks for your opinion on this Chris. You can read Chris’ post and perhaps give him your thoughts as well. Should Twitter be banned at conferences on stage?

Back in my blogging heyday, various traffic seeking bloggers inevitably rolled out lists of the “Top Bloggers” for each particular year. Thrown in at the very bottom of these lists, almost as if added in as an afterthought, was the name of a woman or two.

Comments and blog posts ensued. “Where are the women?” they asked.

A flurry of “Top 25 Female Blogger” type posts cropped up in reaction, but no one cared much about them. The important lists were the ones listing Robert Scoble, Darren Rowse and Seth Godin. These lists always irked me. I hated that women were considered “female bloggers” instead of simply ” bloggers.”

As blogging evolved and more women began taking up residence in the social media space, I thought we were over a lot of the inadvertent sexism, but little things continue to happen that make me wonder if women are still perceived differently.

Let me throw out a couple of cases in point:

• At SXSWi ’09, I attended a  “flash session” made up of community managers from brands such as Best Buy, Jet Blue and Crocs. It was a great and informative session, one of the highlights of the event. However, I wondered why there were no women on the panel. I knew of plenty of community managers from major brands who were attending SXSW – who also happened to be women -so why did the panel only include the guys?
• AT Blogworld ’08, I attended the highly anticipated super session of “Make Money Online” bloggers including Darren Rowse, John Chow, Jeremy Shoemaker and Brian Clark. However, I wondered why there were no women on the panel. Were none asked?
• I have been invited to sit in on “Mommy Blogger” panels at various online and offline events. I have a blog and I have a child. However, My child has nothing to do with my writing blog and vice versa. I don’t blog about time outs and dirty diapers, nor am I sponsored by green beans or laundry detergent. Yet, so many people consider me a mommy blogger because I am a mother with a blog. If this is the case, shouldn’t we refer to Brian Clark as a “daddy blogger?”
• I was invited to be a part of an online radio panel featuring the “Divas of Social Media.” (I blogged about this on my own blog yesterday, so go ahead and skip this item if it’s something you heard before.) Why is it men are called “ninjas” or “gurus” while women are considered “divas” or “darlings.”

I’m not a card carrying member of any women’s liberation group, but that doesn’t mean these little things are any less irritating. As someone who has been blogging as long as some of the “gurus” it’s kind of a pet peeve to see testosterone-laden super sessions and lists of top bloggers. I’m pretty sure the organizers of these events aren’t setting out to disqualify women, but the fact that we don’t automatically come to mind isn’t any less disturbing.

Yesterday’s startling revelation that blogger James Chartrand is really a woman served to stimulate a very important dicussion topic. Is it easier for a man to find a job? Do we take men more seriously as experts?

Is there a glass ceiling in social media?

The other day, Read Write Web came out with a list of social media predictions for 2010.  Click to page two and scroll down a bit and you’ll find “Women will rule social media.”

I’m skeptical.

Will women rule social media because they are making a difference in the space? Or are we ruling social media because we’re the ones who purchase diapers and make the buying decisions as the RWW post hints? If so, we haven’t come very far at all.

What do you think? How are women perceived in the blogosphere and the social media space? Will we ever be seen as anything other than the darlings of the blogosphere?

Deb Ng is a professional blogger and founder of the Freelance Writing Jobs network. Feel free to follow her on Twitter @debng.