(no subject)

[catsittingstill]

I found this article in the Washington Post by way of an interesting blog called Feministe

The short version is that there is a website I won't link to that, among other things, trashes female law students by publishing their pictures, their names, and various unwelcome sexual speculations about them by a bunch of wannabe-stalkers who are apparently (appallingly) also law students. This website is apparently popular enough that when prospective employers Google the names of women they're thinking of hiring, this objectionable material comes up high in the ranking. It is suspected that this is why women whose personal information has been posted on this site are having a hard time finding jobs. And the money quote from the site owner, who categorically refuses to do anything about it?

Asked why posters could not use their real names, he said, "People would not have as much fun, frankly, if they had to worry about employers pulling up information on them."

Translation: it's perfectly okay to damage the careers of innocent women whose personal information was dragged onto the site without their consent. It would be wrong to allow the careers of the trash-talking wannabe stalkers to be damaged by their own despicable actions.

I was talking about it with my friend Donald Clarke, and he had an idea. So here's my major question.

Is it worthwhile trying to Googlebomb the names of these women attached to some sort of page (perhaps the Washington Post article, or the Feministe post?) explaining what is going on? So that when potential employers search on the women's names, the first thing they find is a page explaining that these women did not willingly join this "beauty contest" and are the innocent victims of this trash sex-talk? We might have to get a lot of links to do it; the site in question is pretty popular.

Comments

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Hunh. Maybe. I think if these people can be identified, no bar would have them. That might be another project; it's really hard to protect an internet identity from determined attack. Come to that, chances are some of them are already criminals, and a bit of investigation might turn up evidence.

[alymid.livejournal.com]

amen, that is just what I was thinking - do we know any justice minded hackers?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I love the idea, but don't know anyone who could do this--certainly not me.

Can't pursue it until after the weekend, alas.

[alymid.livejournal.com]

http://finallyfeminism101.blogspot.com/search/label/Jill%20Filipovic speaking of google bombing . . .I can't do this on my lj because its locked and as such doesn't get cataloged by google.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Alas, this does not lie even remotely within my area of expertise. But setting up a page that links names to an explanation of the phenomenon--that I could do. Persuading friends to do likewise also lies within my powers.

Alas, not until after the weekend, though; I'm going to Dave's memorial and must leave soon.

[braider.livejournal.com]

Y'know, you may want to go to Neil Gaiman with this one. No, really.

Few reasons:

1) He has successfully incited at least one google bomb.

2) His son works for Google, and might be able to affect things a little more directly.

Go to NeilGaiman.com and go to the Ask Neil section.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Good idea. I don't have time to mess with it probably until after the weekend, but then maybe I'll give it a try.

[pondside.livejournal.com]

I've had to help google bomb a few times to help friends who were being victimized by someone who should be tied to an internet point-of-entry and trampled severely.

I like both suggestions and am continually appalled by the lack of interest in pulling the plug on creeps.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I'd pull the plug if I knew how, but maybe we can help minimize the damage. I can't pursue this until after the weekend, but if we start a Google bomb, I'll ask for your help.

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

I just looked at autoadmit. The list of threads strongly suggests that there is a problem. I've just circulated a link to the article on the Oregon State Bar solo and small firm practice mailing list.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I appreciate your help.

However I'm concerned that the anonymous posting practices on autoadmit means that the reputation destroyers can't be traced by the firms that might consider hiring them.

Unless you think that pressure from law firms might end anonymous posting on autoadmit--that would be one way to solve the problem.