24

Janrain

and LinkedIn are increasingly taking the view that user identities should be visible and legitimate – and that authenticity drives high quality engagement – anonymity remains popular.

The time barrier Whilst user registration is acknowledged as a sensible approach to combating online defamation, some publishers are reluctant to introduce it as a mandatory requirement – believing it presents a barrier to engagement. So how can publishers provide a low barrier for interaction whilst at the same time creating a higher barrier for responsible commenting? Moreover, how can they establish user identity and authenticity without driving people away?

Social identity The most effective solution is to maximise social registration technologies. Customer profile management, enabled by social login, allows users to register for websites using the online persona of their choice – Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and LinkedIn. For users, this simplifies the registration and subsequent login processes. For site owners, it strengthens accountability. Why? It’s much harder to fake a social media account, and to attempt to do so places a greater burden on any potential troll.

Social login solutions collect information in a way that satisfies legal requirements. They also lower registration effort to prevent abandonment. Furthermore, social login subsequently gives site operators – keen to preserve consumers’ desire to comment anonymously – two options; they can choose not to publish a user’s social identity alongside blog comments (but retain the information at the back end for their own knowledge), or they can force an element of the social profile – such as the Twitter handle or Facebook profile image – to be exposed. The latter can reduce a user’s likelihood of posting defamatory comment since they feel it is linked to their social identity.

A passport to personalisation The use of social registration to mitigate the risk of online defamation is just one example of how tying users to their true identities can benefit brands. User registration also presents a powerful marketing opportunity; data captured at registration can inform targeted content, and bolster the commercial proposition to advertisers. Moreover, robust registration processes enable publishers to be transparent about why they want users’ personal information and how they plan to use it.

The long-term value lies not just in social login, but in customer profile management – the idea that

www.lawyer-monthly.com

JULY 2014

a site should be managing a profile for their users that will help them personalise content, match them against more relevant advertisements, improve their experience, and create richer engagements over time. In combination with robust UCG commenting platforms, the ability to customise and improve users’ online experience can only enhance interactivity and drive brand loyalty.

The most effective online brands will be those with the strongest sense of identity – both in the distinct definition of their content profile, and also in their recognition and understanding of individual users.

As publishers strive for the Holy Grail of user- generated content, the rapid growth of the digital channel is creating increased opportunities for online defamation. But social login can help with both; it supports brand engagement and strengthens regulatory compliance. In the precarious age of the real- time, global conversation, it really can help publishers develop the Brawn Identity.

At-a-glance: the Defamation Act 2014

• What’s defamatory? A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause ‘serious harm’ to the reputation of the claimant. Businesses must be able to prove that a statement caused, or had the potential to cause, serious financial loss.

For individuals, claimants must show that the words could cause them to be shunned or avoided, expose them to ridicule, hatred or contempt or disparage them in their office, business, trade or profession.

• What’s the defence? For website operators, it is a defence to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the site.

But the defence is defeated if the claimant shows:

a) It was not possible to identify the person who posted the statement,

b) The claimant gave the operator a notice of complaint in relation to the statement and

c) The operator failed to respond to the notice of complaint in accordance with any provision contained in regulations