<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cybersquatting 2.0 &#8211; protecting your name in Social Media</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.prettysimple.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/06/cybersquatting-20-protecting-your-name-in-social-media/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.prettysimple.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/06/cybersquatting-20-protecting-your-name-in-social-media/</link>
	<description>about web design, accessibility, usability, social media and all that jazz</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:27:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://www.prettysimple.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/06/cybersquatting-20-protecting-your-name-in-social-media/comment-page-1/#comment-443</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:33:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.prettysimple.co.uk/blog/?p=515#comment-443</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your input Ken. I&#039;ll certainly be recommending that we verify the authenticity of our Social Media accounts via reciprocal links - it has the useful side effect of offering another channel of promotion from the corporate site (we could maybe post it as part of a press release, for example). As an easily achievable partial-fix it makes good sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your input Ken. I&#8217;ll certainly be recommending that we verify the authenticity of our Social Media accounts via reciprocal links &#8211; it has the useful side effect of offering another channel of promotion from the corporate site (we could maybe post it as part of a press release, for example). As an easily achievable partial-fix it makes good sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken Fischer</title>
		<link>http://www.prettysimple.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/06/cybersquatting-20-protecting-your-name-in-social-media/comment-page-1/#comment-442</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Fischer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:31:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.prettysimple.co.uk/blog/?p=515#comment-442</guid>
		<description>Agreed that for each user to click back and forth would onerous for every message. But social media is about long term relationships and reputation.  Many influencers routinely do a quick evaluation on whether to link to or follow an account.   Reciprocal linking is only suggested as a method when there is no better option for authentication.   It is not the best, but is doable in the current Gov 2.0 environment without requiring large or costly changes on either the government or social technology provider side.   It seems there should be some recourse for verification when there is a question in a users mind on whether the content is authentic before they take action based on it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed that for each user to click back and forth would onerous for every message. But social media is about long term relationships and reputation.  Many influencers routinely do a quick evaluation on whether to link to or follow an account.   Reciprocal linking is only suggested as a method when there is no better option for authentication.   It is not the best, but is doable in the current Gov 2.0 environment without requiring large or costly changes on either the government or social technology provider side.   It seems there should be some recourse for verification when there is a question in a users mind on whether the content is authentic before they take action based on it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

