In a statement she posted on her blog on December 31, 2010 asking readers and followers to “respect NBC,” author Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez said that certain blog posts and tweets related to the TV adaptation of her novel The Dirty Girls Social Club would “will [sic] either be remanded to the dustbin of time (and google cache – doh!) or they will be reposted with updates.”
She has carried out on that statement by deleting most, if not all, the posts and tweets describing the initial TV script, which she called “racist and sexist.” For example, if people visit her official blog or search for any of her blogs published from December 23–31, 2010 related to producer Ann Lopez, producer Lynnette Ramierz, writer Luisa Leschin, NBC, or Creative Artists Agency (CAA), an error message such as this one appears:
On Twitter, an initial search of @alisavaldes on Twitter Search will also reveal that certain tweets from Valdes-Rodriguez that were shared between December 23-December 31, 2010 no longer appear. However, the search results still include any retweets (RTs) or tweets that other Twitter accounts shared. For example, if you Google the Valdes-Rodriguez tweet from December 24 which began “Dear NBC lawyers trying to gag me”, another error page from Twitter appears:
A Google Real Time search includes RTs of what she tweeted out, but no archive of her original tweets on December 24 and 25 about NBC’s request to cease and desist her social media actions.
We understand that this is in alignment to what the December 31 statement includes. This also raises some interesting issues that pertain to social media in general and how to clean up public accessible content in order to fulfill a legal request.
What do you think? Does deleting content from social networks mean that the content no longer is valid? Once it becomes public, shared, and digested by social networks, does having them deleted indicate that the request has been met? What about the hundreds, if not thousands of RTs, conversations, shares, and links that were critical of NBC and other players in this story? Do those go away as well as if they never happened?
We understand Valdes-Rodriguez’s (and her lawyer’s) wishes to respect NBC and see what happens when things play out. However, we are more intrigued by the themes this story raises regarding sharing a message on social networks and what the consequences are. We talk about transparency in social media, yet when resolutions need to happen and deals need to get made, there is less transparency. Makes us wonder.
We would love to get a dialogue going about this, either here or on Twitter. It raises some fascinating issues that speak to a different type of world, where communication can no longer be contained. At least, that is what we think.