Online Reputation Advocacy

Chris Silver Smith, SEO ExpertWhen he founded his agency a decade ago, Chris Silver Smith determined that it would focus in part upon the online marketing niche of Online Reputation Management. Online Reputation Management, or “ORM,” is a combination of disciplines intended to improve the impression made when the name of an individual or organization is searched-for online. ORM often relies upon SEO tactics very heavily, seeking to optimize existing positive or neutral materials (and create additional positive materials) so that the positive items could displace negative items in name-search results in Google, Bing, and other search engines.

In addition to providing ORM services through his agency, Smith also has served as an expert witness in legal cases involving online defamation, misrepresentation, and trademark infringement.

Chris Silver Smith finds online reputation work for individuals the most gratifying — helping people achieve some relief from harm in order to live their lives freely has been highly compelling.

Some highlights of Online Reputation work include:

  • Providing pro bono work for multiple Porn Revenge victims
  • Online Defamation Trafficking Victim2015 – Assisted a porn revenge and sex-trafficking victim as an expert witness in her lawsuit against her trafficker, who had extorted her with the threat of harming her reputation and her family’s reputation, and then he followed through with an extensive online reputation attack after she became free from him. Smith testified in court about his findings, which included evidence of long-term harm necessitating ongoing expenses to attempt to mitigate and manage. The court gave the victim a historic $7.25 million damages award for the egregious harm done to her.
  • Assertively campaigned for victims of various online reputation issues through advocacy efforts, including writing articles that urge for reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, which has shielded search engines and social media platforms from liability for content published on their systems.
  • As a result of articles written by Chris Silver Smith about online reputations and Section 230, he was cited in U.S. Senator Mark Warner’s white paper, “Potential Policy Proposals for Regulation of Social Media and Technology Firms,” where the paper described how online reputation victims carry a heavy onus in attempting to achieve relief from reputation damage while large tech companies are immune from responsibility to provide help in a timely and thorough manner.
  • Google Online Abuse Case Settled UKChris Silver Smith served as an expert witness in a case in the United Kingdom at the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court where an individual sued Google in an effort to compel them to assist him with his online reputation issues. Some of Google’s defenses included claims that suppression of content by the geolocation of internet users was technically infeasible, and that it was too difficult to identify defamatory materials without being provided precise URLs where the content was found. As a result of Smith’s assistance, Google agreed to settle the case the eve prior to the case being heard in court, and the individual received a portion of the requested assistance. This was one of a number of cases in the EU that helped drive the enactment of “The Right to be Forgotten” laws in the EU.
  • Australian Woman Wins 2nd Lawsuit Against Google Defamation Search ResultsSmith provided expert witness services at the Supreme Court of South Australia in “Duffy v. Google, LLC,” a case wherein an individual sued Google for not performing its duties under Australian law, namely that once notified of defamation appearing in the search results tarnishing the reputation of Duffy, Google only partially removed the materials and negligently allowed removed materials to become republished once more. Smith’s testimony in his expert report and court provided key information that assisted the judge in determining in favor of the plaintiff. The case is even more significant because the victim, Dr. Janice Duffy, has sued Google for assistance and now prevailed twice — with the distinction of having represented herself in court throughout this latter case.

Position on Section 230

Information found in the virtual world through search engine results and other websites deeply affects the quality of life and opportunities of individuals. While search engines have often improved life by making information easily available at our fingertips, it has arguably come at the cost of some human collateral damage. Section 230 was enacted to increase the speed at which internet commerce could grow and thrive, but the internet has now reached a mature phase, and the largest tech companies now enjoy revenue that exceeds the gross national product of many small countries. It is past time for Section 230 to be modified in order to protect individuals better and to provide greater human dignity. All individuals deserve the right to life and the chance to prosper in the real world.

Section 230 created an artificially-imposed special circumstance that generally would not have otherwise existed under traditional common law in the real world, wherein there are situations where individuals and companies can be unfairly harmed online, and there can be no real resource for relief. Even more seriously, in the instances where relief is theoretically attainable, it may only be achieved through conducting costly litigation which is far out of reach of the common man.

As such, it is time for a modification of Section 230. It has previously been modified to serve corporate interests in providing protection from copyright infringement, but there also needs to be further protection for the sake of individuals. As part of this, the United States needs to enact a “Right To Be Forgotten” law that will allow individuals to escape from willful, accidental or random reputation damage that frequently has occurred online since the advent of the publicly available internet.

~ Chris Silver Smith