Anonymous Hate
Many years ago, I remember my grandmother going to the newsagent and purchasing a “Golden Kiwi” ticket (a lottery ticket), she would never write her name on it, instead choosing a nom de plume, a pen name. I asked her why she did this and she explained that should she win the lottery she didn’t want people to know about it. While my grandmother never did strike it rich I think that, at that time, her neighbours would probably have known that she had ‘come into money’. There would have been signs, possibly in the form of a new household appliance, that would have given her ‘away’.
While that form of gambling no longer exists, the idea of a hiding behind another name to achieve a particular result – whether it is influence or mischief still does. Social media has enabled millions to hide behind user names and fake personas; allowing opportunities for less desirable behaviours and activities to flourish. However, there is the equivalent of seeing my grandmother take delivery of a new appliance, in the form of social media analytics. Legal and ethical pairing of a person with a behaviour (that behaviour being in the form of an online contribution) is now possible and it opens up a world of transparency.
Transparency is important, particularly if you are employing anyone into a position that requires trust and a high standard of behaviour. A 2022 report from the EU (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/05/risky-online-behaviour-almost-normalised-among-young-people-says-study) of young people aged 16-19 found that one in ten had been involved in hate speech or hacking. In fact just under half, yes under half of the 8000 young people surveyed, had been involved in an activity that would be considered illegal in most jurisdictions. What we can extrapolate from that is, a large proportion of young people entering the workforce have engaged in activities that may represent future risk to your business. It is overwhelming in its implications.
Along the same lines the statistics about ‘reach’ of online hate messages is sobering: in New Zealand 15% of adults report being the victim of online hate speech in the 12 months prior to the study (conducted in 2019, Measuring-trends-in-online-hate-speech-report-2019%20(2).pdf) or https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3501977 ). In the US the statistics are worse with 52% of Americans saying they have been exposed to online hate (https://www.ana.net/miccontent/show/id/aa-2023-10-brands-battling-hate-speech).
Taking hate speech as just one example, risky online behaviour is something that should be discussed at the Board level. The number of people using online platforms to spread messages of hate or intolerance, coupled with the number of people who are victim to it should be a clear red flag to brands to monitor online content from staff, have rules and guidelines in place for online and brand use, and to vet staff prior to appointments. After all, just one person spreading something hateful, using a company email or wearing company clothes can result in staggering brand damage (see for example (InstatData Case Study).
