One of the drafts sitting in my blog posts folder is my formal comments policy. I have written social media plans and policies for many clients, and I also created the policy for Eastwick, the agency I worked at before going the independent route, but just recently decided I ought to have one of my own. I advise clients never to allow gratuitous obscenities on their corporate social media sites, but perhaps the rules are different for personal blogs. (It is hard to convey nuance in a comments box, but I am sincere in asking this question and not being antagonistic.)

In April, I wrote a column in which I used the word b***s***. A reader of this blog took me to task for it, saying that it was not in keeping with my audience and my role as a professional corporate communicator. I think it’s just a matter of personal preference, but I really don’t like posting profanity on my blog, whether in an original post or in comments.

I did notice that in addition to the various epithets directed at Mr. DiFiore, that you had approved the comment you mention that was aimed at you. I could see even before our discussion that you are consistent and transparent in handling comments.

I was too harsh in calling your “behavior” “inexcusable.” I suppose this is something that still needs to be worked out, whether a blogger is responsible for the editorial content (and I use the term quite loosely) of comments on her/his blog, or whether four-letter words are less important than they used to be and are now a natural part of our language when we are in heated discourse. I do think we tend to gang up on people who show poor judgment (or those who are immoral), and that sometimes the conversation goes a little beyond what I think is merited.

I too am grateful we were able to have had this chat, and I have learned much from it, including a heightened respect for you.

Lastly, I will be contacting my optometrist about getting the prescription updated for my blogging glasses.

Joel

For the record, I moderate comments in my blog for spam and for libel; I do not moderate them for opinion. If I moderated them for opinion, I would have screened out the “You’re being a total b*tch, and way out of line. Stop blogging you f*cking b*tch” comment you can see on the post you discuss. Were your assumption that I endorsed all of the comments appearing on my blog correct, I would ipso facto endorse that one, and I think we can both see the logical fallacy in that.

So in case it is not clear: I have an open conversation policy. Putting a comment through is not an “endorsement” of the opinion, position or language of that individual on my part. I have no issues if people choose a different editorial approach to their comments, but that is mine.

As to being unaware of the second post and it’s companions, I’m confused as to how that is possible with a “careful reading” since both follow-up posts ARE linked to as updates from the bottom of the first post; the entire flow of posts is cross-linked. But then, I really didn’t see your link to my post up above, either, so apparently we both need glasses — or possibly longer attention spans, or both. In either case, I apologise for my mis-statement. I was wrong there.

And as to astroturfing, when I first used that term (in a comment to Dan, two hours after this all kicked off) I did in fact already know that that was exactly what he was doing. Throwing his fake username into Google turned that little nugget up in 0.30 seconds. You are correct that I did not substantiate that in the comment (and in retrospect, I accordingly cut too wide a swathe in the comment), but certainly had the evidence at the time.

I do neither want nor need to be “credited” with calling foul on MOLI. My sole concern is that when you do so, identifying me by name, that you are accurate. However it came about, I’m glad you now have a fuller picture of the events that look place.

We are, as you point out, really not very far apart on this at all; we agree that Daniel DoFiore’s behaviour was, shall we say, sub-optimal. The part where my feathers get ruffled is where you state that my behaviour was likewise inexcusable.

My language was not particularly salty, (I used the F word once), and NONE of my comments were anonymous. My comments are all ascribed to me, on a website with a URL that is my name and my business name.

Perhaps the real point of departure for us is that you think I should moderate and take responsibility for the content of my visitors’ comments, and I do not. Certainly I don’t want to make assumptions about your thinking, but I’m curious if that is really the root of this unforgivable transgression I seem to have committed.

Anyway, I’m glad that your comment policy, whatever it may be, allowed us to have this exchange. So, regardless of anything else, thanks for that.

For example, I’m not sure what you mean by “kindly link to the post in question so that people can make their own assessments.” In my second paragraph I DO link to the same post you provided a link to. Did you actually read my post? Perhaps I should be begging your pardon. I am sure you regret the error.

In your post of Tuesday, 29 January, 2008 you comment “that is … Called astroturfing.” You made this claim BEFORE you had evidence that Mr. DiFiore was engaged in any organized scheme, yet you stated it at the time as a matter of established fact. You did not have sufficient evidence at the time you made the assertion, and that this later turned out to be an astroturfing scheme does not change the fact that you originally called it one without substantiation.

I was unaware of the second post, so I did not have that information at hand. You do not link to it from the original post, so it is understandable that I would have missed it, but based on the additional information, of course I agree that Mr. DiFiore was engaged in a deliberate campaign of deception, in this case, fairly called astroturfing. I was, as I said, reacting to the facts that YOU laid out in your blog post, which simply did not support the charge. I am sorry that your original post did not include all of the information needed to justify the astroturfing claim, but that is your fault, not mine.

Most of this argument, however is a red herring. We both agree that Mr. DiFiore’s actions were wrong, that he stepped well into unethical territory, and that he dug in and resisted doing the right thing for far too long. I made all of this clear in my post, so your objections to the precise language I used to describe Mr. DiFiore’s decision to apologize are not material.

It is also apparently important to you that you are credited with “unearthing” Moli’s practices, and I don’t dispute that either, though it is of no importance in this discussion.

What I object to most is the name calling and the deluge of obscenities that were rained down on Mr. DiFiore via your blog. I assume you support all of this, because either you moderate comments and approved these or you don’t moderate comments and didn’t delete them, so as editor of your blog, you endorse all of it. Either way, I find them highly disagreeable and out of proportion to the “crime,” and I know I am not alone in that.

I have learned nothing from your comment or a careful rereading of your blog that causes me to change my opinion. I stand by my original assessment that the behavior that went on on your blog in connection with this is inexcusable and that you hold some responsibility for that.

This piece is inaccurate. If you’d like to write about my “inexcusable behaviour” than kindly link to the post in question so that people can make their own assessments: http://tinyurl.com/2m6xqj

Second of all, by your own definition, astroturfing is:

“…not a single act of misrepresentation in a blog comment. It is a bogus grassroots campaign, an organized, broad based effort at deception, and there is no evidence that Moli embarked on any such thing.”

Except there is, as was highlighted in a follow-up post less than six hours later: http://tinyurl.com/29k8co

Daniel DiFiore, MOLI.com’s Director of Customer Service, used the Hawk5721 handle for nothing except the posting of booster comments from June to January (when he got caught) on sites including Digg, TechCrunch and GetSatisfaction.com, where he attempted to lure people from Facebook to “a great new site i found.”

Lawn, meet green. That is astroturfing.

Finally, Daniel did not decide “eventually to reveal that he was actually Moli’s Director of Customer Service” — he continued to comment incognito under his anonymous handle until AFTER I posted his name and corporate title in a second post: http://tinyurl.com/29k8co

If you would like to use my unearthing of MOLI’s astroturfing practices as an object lesson for PR professionals, please do — but I would very much appreciate it if you could get the story straight.

Thanks.