Dalhousie's Nightmare - Facebook

Once again, an imbroglio over a Facebook group raises the question How can organizations best deal with criticism and targeted activism in social networks or social media?

Early last week, Dalhousie University in Halifax asked Facebook to remove a group called “Stop Dogs and Puppies from being murdered at Dalhousie University" created by Amy Scott claiming it was defamatory, factually incorrect and therefore counter to Facebook's Terms of Service.

It will come as no surprise, however, that the group is back online and with membership in the neighbourhood of 21,000. Dalhousie's precipitous legal action, no matter how justified, also meant that the whole mess has become a media story. And according to news reports this morning, Dalhousie is still conferring with counsel about next steps even though its previous legal approach created arguably more reputation damage than the existence of the Facebook group itself.

Here are a few alternatives:

1. Ignore the group and it will likely go the way of many other Facebook communities; that is, a rapid descent into boring obscurity.
2. Set up a counter group on Facebook to discuss and debate openly appropriate limits on research.
3. Offer the group's creator the opportunity to meet with some senior official to review her concerns and to determine what might satisfy her that the university is indeed telling the truth when it insists there have been no dogs or cats used in research at the university in ten years.
4. Ignore the group . . . again. As Dalhousie staffer, Ryan McNutt, recognizes in his blog about the problems with Facebook groups many of us who engage in these networks understand there are often serious limits to the so-called "wisdom" of crowds.

And remember, organizations should always think cautiously about pursuing legal remedies: Social networks react quickly and angrily against what they perceive as anti-democratic actions by institutions.

   

Comments

[Robert Merrick]

A very insightful example! However, neither of the "ignore" options seem very viable. There may be limits on the potential "wisdom of the crowd", but the boldness of the group can outweigh the need for wisdom, no?

[Brendan]

I would suggest that the system is, to a degree, self-policing. In reading the comments, you see a lot of folks supporting Dal's arguments. The question becomes whether Dal itself should seek to participate on this forum or let the masses fight the battle for them.

Additionally, I would argue that when the "author" or "instigator" hides behind anonymity (or a name only), or is in no real position to comment with authority (as seems to be the case here - I understand the creator of the group was a janitor), credibility also gets further questioned... which diminishes the overall reputation impact.

Ultimately, would a direct response from Dal (via the Facebook group, or on its own site) have done anything to prevent the issue from hitting the mainstream media? I don't think so. It might, however, have provided supporters with additional ammunition to counter the "instigator".

That said, it's an interesting example of this rapidly changing communications dynamic that we're facing today.

[vibert]

Believe me, it is an interesting example, particularly when you are in the middle of it, as we are at Dalhousie Communications. The facts are that a countergroup emerged almost immediately, so we did not need to "create" one. Further. while the initial group permitted discussion, we were quite content to allow that to proceed. We only moved to remove the group when the "creator" ended the discussion. We also posted a story on our own website, setting the record straight on animals and research at Dal.

Indeed, the story in the traditional news media has been a whole lot more about dealing with this communications dynamic, and a whole lot less about research involving animals. That's fine by us.

As for the initial posting here, would our friend from H&K argue there is no point at which he would act to have the misinformation quashed? Surely, when the group's originator shut down discussion, closing off the most direct avenue to correct her misinformation, we had a responsibility to the Dalhousie research community to act.

[Boyd Neil]

A tough situation indeed . . . and thanks for your comment. I don't know if your question is directed at me, but I would suggest that many, many organizations confront misinformation about their actions on the Web (on Wikipedia for example) and in mainstream media all the time. Advocacy groups are notorious for presenting junk science as fact, and using questionable sata selectively. From my point of view, though, trying to shut something down in social media seldom works. Let supporters challenge wonky ideas through their online channels. By reacting with legal force, rather than letting the 'demos' correct any lies or misrepresentation, you open the door to being portrayed by critics (and we all have them)as anti-democratic when you are clearly not.

[Brendan]

Personally, I think Dal did the right thing. Once dialog was stifled then the line was crossed. As another blogger mentioned earlier: "free speech is both a right and a responsibility". Facebook is a third-party forum with defined rules and conditions. It is not a personal blog. And while the actions Dal took to protect its reputation did cause some stir - largely among audiences that were perhaps not aware of the original issue (the speech stifling not the animal testing) - there's no doubt that you had a responsibility to act to ensure that both sides of the debate could be heard. That said, had this situation occurred outside of Facebook, the legal implications might have been very different. However, the impact might have been significantly less also.

Now what about these little ponies we're hearing about?

[Mary Ellen]

I am finally glad someone is speaking up about Dalhousie. I wish I had.

[Mary Ellen]

I am finally glad someone is speaking up about Dalhousie University. I wish I had. I did things to animals at Dalhousie that I feel very guilty about. But we were encouraged to use animals and I felt that I had to for my thesis.

[Bonnie C.]

I am glad someone is speaking up for these animals. Dalhousie will NOT be getting anymore donations from me as an alumni. I am appalled as the more research that I do about my old school.