汪世界

想繼續在網路上這個「大融爐」裡面講一些有創意、有內涵(insightful)的話，難免撞到和你完全不同世界的人，提出「他不懂」或「他不爽」的回應，這時候，就要有「對策」，這對策許多不只是憤怒的打回去，更重視的是要和某種「內修」結合。兩篇文章舉的例子，全是一些英雄式的反擊法，整理這兩篇文章後，順便加入一些想法，提出10種處理線上攻擊的「對策」（尤其前三條是100%原創呵）：

對策一，接受它，順著它走：這點是大家最不願意的，他們說的都錯，為何我要「順著走」？Well，或許有些部份，他們是說對了，只是我們自己不想承認罷了；譬如他們說你就是一個金錢導向的人，你很生氣的說，我哪是！我有理想好嗎！但靜心下來想一想，的確，相較於這些願意一輩子奉獻給實驗室的人來說，我們的確是商業導向，的確是什麼事都要思考能不能有商業價值的，那，第一個對策，就是「乾脆就正視它」並且跟著走了罷，算了。

對策二，「反向強化」現象：有些事很巧妙，當有人攻擊，把一個明明是綠色的東西硬就掰成「紅色」的，這個攻擊者至少幫你證明了「這個東西是彩色的」，不是嗎？當對方在說你是個「高高在上、不聽人說話、自以為是就做決定的胖子」，其中胖子、自以為事等等可能對你來說是不公平的負評，但是那「高高在上」、「做決定」卻是正評，反而告訴每個人你是一個可以做決定、可以高高在上的人，塑造另一種形象。對一間公司或個人來說，不見得是不好的形象，所以第二個對策就是，企業可以揪出這些形象，反而去強化它。

對策三，事實「遲一點知道」會更美好：有些事，明明就不是事實，卻有人講得言之鑿鑿，幾近毀謗，在沒有明確的事證下，先不要急著回應，也不要浪費時間去回應，可繼續在自己的路上行走，總有一天，當事實出來，這個事實的「威力」會更大，大家會突然覺得，原來當初是多麼的愚蠢，也會讓那些爆料者更為警惕，下次不敢再亂說了。所以對策三就是，與其在第一時間就回應，不如更努力去證明他說的是錯的，並且花時間準備，當事實重見天日的那天，可以用最大的大砲「轟回去」！

對策四，特地開一個新網站，打回去：有些比較嚴重的，或許會想在第一時間「轟回去」。報導舉例歐巴馬被流言攻擊他的背景與宗教問題，就開了一個網站「Fight The Smears」特地來處理這件事。有個新聞系教授被「Rate My Professors」上面有學生批評，他直接錄一段影片，罵他們「我們不是在這邊照顧嬰兒，我們是專業的老師，該長大了你們這些白痴！」這種對策，雖然不見得是最好的方法，但若以「行銷」的效果來看，可將它視為一種「抓住最佳時機」的反向的線上行銷活動(online campaign)。由於這種線上活動是搭在先前的風暴之上，所以不必什麼宣傳，效果就會在第一時間自己出來了。

對策五，收集足夠資料，再提出告訴：有時線上的資訊太多太雜，不知道哪些是比較嚴重的，報導說了一句，「線上的每一個悄悄話都會在Google上面出現」，這句話其實反而幫了這些被攻擊者一個小忙，提醒我們可以透過Google來「收集資料」。要知道，若要針對任何線上攻擊提出告訴，必須第一：有明確事證證明對方的身份，第二，這件攻擊造成某些商業或收入上的損失。一次的攻擊是無法收集到任何足以提告的資料，但Google可以幫忙收集「很多資料」，有些痕跡就露出來了，而且很久都洗不掉的。該篇報導也引述Google專門負責排序的Matt Cutts的話，他建議大家可善用「Google Alert」，每次你的名字出現在某網站，就會寄一封email給你，平常就可以開始收集。

對策六，同流合汙，以同樣泥巴戰回擊：一個攻擊者，常常同一個人在好幾個「地方」發動攻擊，抓都抓不完。但以此類推，我們其實也可以在好幾個地方保護自己。對方一人可做，我們一人也可做；對方三人可做，我們也找來三個朋友一起做。報導指出，「回應爛發言的方法，就是『更多的發言』！」，用大量的善言來沖淡惡言，以來保護自己，美國有公司專門在做這樣的事，像Reputation Hawk幫你「救回」Google第一頁的搜尋結果，一個月要付他們1500美元（台幣5萬），這種事其實靠一個人就做得到了，只是一間公司可能得安排半個人的人力天天在做這件很沒意義的事就是了。

對策七，偷偷將惡言處理掉：這對策一般不建議，簡單的做法，就是將留言狠狠的刪掉，再留，再刪。該不該刪留言，我自己也沒有一個準則，必須見招而定，若要刪，就要刪得乾乾淨淨並用一切方法回堵他繼續回來，若他還繼續回來，那相信網友不會再相信他了。但有些偷偷處理掉的方式，若被發現，就真的很慘了，譬如報導提到維基百科抓到偷偷處理掉惡言的就有好幾例，ExxonMobil試著改上面關於漏油的資訊，FBI市著改他們關恐怖份子的營的內容，還有Jimmy Wales也改了自己資料。

對策八，平常就先「養壞人」：好人和壞人打起仗，誰是好人誰是壞人很清楚，但好人混到壞人之中，壞人自己就亂了。華爾街日報報導，一共高達35%的「某某公司sucks.com」的這種「負面域名」，竟然是由該公司所擁有，這包括Wal-Mart Stores、Coca-Cola、玩具反斗城、Target、Whole Foods Market。其中最甚者為Xerox，竟然一連申請了xeroxstinks.com、xeroxcorporationsucks.com、ihatexerox.net等等高達20個「負面域名」。你說，企業買這些關於他們公司的負面域名，真的是因為「避免有人先買」？我倒覺得不止如此。若要買個「可口可樂很爛」的域名，至少有上千種的域名可以表達這個意思吧，怎麼買都買不完的！我反而覺得，這些公司也順便在幫自己「養壞人」，萬一遇到攻擊，可以做一個「看似攻擊站，其實是友站」來打回去。

對策九，平常也要先「養好人」：我常在演講中開以下玩笑：某個廠商想要造成「網路上一片看好」，只要辦個「徵文大賽」就夠了！一瞬間，幾百篇正面的文章，就這樣被塞到了搜尋引擎的嘴裡，這幾百篇一定在各大BSP上，有的是自己的域名，搜尋引擎的第一頁、第二頁、第三頁都搞定了也！有些企業不想辦徵文的，也事先請員工，先在各大BSP都先開始「鋪點」，開「分站」，萬一有什麼事情可以在很多個戰場同步開啟攻防戰，搜尋引擎可以「馬上變天」。

對策十，虛、心、檢、討：這還是基本盤的，也就是真的去看那些話，思考它其中的意義。報導講到其中一個案例，聖荷西的Razzberry Lips商店被客戶在網路上罵，她親自道歉，這個亂罵的人竟然就將原本的罵語，自動改成正面的評價。同樣的狀況也發生在eBay，香港商家提到因為太忙沒即時寄出商品，結果被給負評，他就誠懇的道歉，那個人竟然願意再給正評。這是對的，不過，我建議，應該一個月做一次這樣「虛心檢討」的事情，選在心情不被打擾的時候，一次看完，一次檢討，一次改進。

為何？

因為線上攻擊，表示你一定在創業、在做什麼大事，許多大事本來就是和99%的人不同，也不可能得到99%的人的理解，但這99%人之中天天都有一兩個給你「指教」，你就可能會慢慢的變成那99%其中一人，再也沒有獨特性，再也找不回當初的自己。若有「急件」怎麼辦？好，有人寫信建議你要去看某地方的負面聲音，那，你就請他幫忙看，然後轉述給你聽，這樣一來，就不必受到第一線的衝擊。而且要給自己心理建設，就算這些話沒有在網路上被講出來，平常在職場上、在人人背後，也常會有人閒言閒語或捅你一刀，只要行的正，實力總有一天被看到。

最後再「附贈」第11個對策，由於它還沒出現，所以是一個創業機會。

我們發現，網路上最可怕的，是人性「聚眾」的一面，從大家一起耳語開始，得到某種快感，這種快感讓大家繼續做這件事，而這個動作不知不覺的在幫那少數的戳樂助長聲勢，把謠言更加擴大。所以，攻擊者在網路上很容易「交朋友」。被攻擊者，反而不容易交朋友。我們常看到，咦，兩個團隊明明是同質性很高，卻竟然因為文人相輕，雖不致落井下石，至少樂於「坐壁上觀」，看到對方碰到與你一樣的事，就會說「活該」，自己比對方先碰到而對方再碰到，也會說「現在該你嘗嘗」。這對我來說是一個很有意義的創業機會了。網路上的攻擊者，可以因人性而串連起來，同仇敵愾，好像他們發起這些攻擊，原本就是對的！而網路上那些無辜被攻擊的人，卻可能因為各種原因，很少「結盟」，網路上顯然缺少的是一個正面的alliance，這樣的正面的聯盟由於人性的限制，實在太難成立、太難維持，所以，更必須一個網路創意，來幫他們成立、來幫他們維持這個聯盟

(摘自 Mr.6)


Maligned Online? How to Retaliate Against Web Attacks
Nasty breakups are bad enough. But what if your ex broadcast your dirty laundry to millions? That's what British actress Tricia Walsh-Smith did infamously on April 10, when she posted the first of three YouTube videos in which she slammed her soon-to-be-ex-husband for everything from his questionable character and inadequate sexual skills to his extended family, whom she disliked. Walsh-Smith's videos, which were collectively viewed more than 4 million times, reflect more than just the despair of a jilted woman. They're part of a larger and fast-growing problem: reputation-wrecking online.

Derogatory comments spread easily online and off, but in the real world, they are often easily forgotten. The same kind of malicious statement posted online can spread farther and last forever. "Now we have this giant megaphone of the Internet, where every little whisper about someone shows up in Google," says Matt Zimmerman, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

These days, as more and more people join social-networking sites, comment on opinion-sharing sites like TripAdvisor.com and Yelp.com or otherwise participate in life online, personal attacks against individuals and businesses on the Web are being taken more seriously than ever. Barb-trading has escalated — sometimes in front of thousands of witnesses — and so too have the ways in which the maligned are fighting back. Many try to discredit their attackers by posting a rebuttal to the offending post or by asking website managers to remove disagreeable material. Some folks sue their critics for defamation. Still others take the ultimate step, hiring online-reputation-management firms to help re-craft their Web image from scratch.

If you had the resources, you could always launch your own counterattack: Barack Obama, frustrated with the false rumors being spread about his background and religious history, created a website in June called Fight The Smears to debunk them. But taking matters into one's own hands can be fraught. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales was notoriously outed in 2005 for attempting to whitewash his own entry on the site (Wiki contributors noted that he deleted references to his Wikipedia co-founder, Larry Sanger, as well as to a search site he founded that included adult content). Now a monitoring program called WikiWatcher aims to unmask similar transgressions on other Wiki entries — such as when ExxonMobil tried to downplay the environmental impact of the Valdez oil spill and when the FBI deleted aerial images of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp from the camp's entry.

If you can't mute your critics on your own, suing them for defamation might seem like the most effective way to stop the problem. But to win a case, you'd have to prove that intentionally false statements have damaged a lot more than just your feelings. You would also have to know whom exactly to sue, which can be virtually impossible since so many Web posts — especially on gossip sites like Juicy Campus, Faceliss and The Dirty — are anonymous or pseudonymous. What's more, the 1996 Communications Decency Act frees site operators from any liability for posts made by visitors to their sites. "It is ridiculous how you can post something on the Internet and not be accountable for it," says Chris Martin, founder of the online-reputation-management firm Reputation Hawk.

The primary goal of online-reputation-management firms like Martin's is to expunge the first page of a client's Google search results of all negative links. "We call the top five search results the 'danger zone,' because you don't even have to scroll down to see them," says Martin. For $1,500 a month, Reputation Hawk will actually create new Web pages that cast you in a positive light (usually with your name in the URL), post links to positive Web mentions of you on social-bookmarking sites like Digg and Del.icio.us and start positive blogs on Blogger or WordPress. (Keeping the blogs up-to-date is your responsibility, however.)

"You take all this new information we create and put so much pressure on the top 10 results in Google that the false negative stuff gets pushed down," says Martin, who says it can take months to burnish an online image. "Once it's pushed out of the top 10, they're pretty much O.K." (Of course, it's not a perfect solution — readers who click to the second page of your search results will uncover your cyberskeletons.)

If you don't have a few thousand dollars to spare, a more reasonable approach is to confront your detractors directly. "The answer to bad speech is more speech," says Google's Matt Cutts, who's in charge of ranking search results. To start, he suggests setting up a free Google Alert, which e-mails you every time your name appears in a blog post or on a website; this at least lets you know if you have a problem and, often, with whom.

Once you've found your critics, you have to figure out what to say. The right response will get you everywhere: Selena Kellinger, owner of the party-goods store Razzberry Lips in San Jose, Calif., apologized to a customer who had posted a critical review of her store on Yelp. Her critic, Jumoke Jones, was so impressed with Kellinger that she replaced her negative review with a positive one. Karl Idsvoog, a journalism professor at Kent Sate University in Ohio, took a more confrontational tack. He responded to students' accusations that he was a "rude, disrespectful, pretentious snob" on Rate My Professors by posting a Web video on Professors Strike Back that said, "We're not there to babysit. We're there to train professionals. Grow up."

The upside of the ever churning online rumor mill is that it does justice to those subjects who have come by their bad reputations legitimately. "Every fraudster in the world thinks that we're here to help them out, but we're not," says Robert Russo, CEO of Defend My Name. For bad guys, the megaphone of the Web can be a very useful thing. For everybody else, it's nice to know that when the virtual community starts to whisper, you can now shout back.