
In our newsletter, you might have detected a note of cynicism regarding the tech industry and a call for tougher regulation. It would seem logical then that we would welcome these statements from the leaders of two of the biggest and most controversial social media platforms. We don’t rule out good intentions on their part but it’s important to understand exactly what they are doing from a lobbying perspective.
Engaging with other stakeholders, particularly regulators, is a very well-established and smart way to control the future of your industry.
Rather than confront regulation, you insert yourself into the solution.
This allows you to influence and shape it in the direction you want.
If you want to know why these leaders are feeling personal pressure, look no further than these stories:
Singapore plans to introduce tough new laws to hold online outlets accountable for the spread of fake news.
Social media bosses could be liable for harmful content, leaked UK plan reveals.
Australia passed sweeping legislation Thursday that threatens huge fines for social media companies and jail for their executives.
If you can’t fight the future, then you must control its direction.
Apologies and perceptions
Two really interesting incidents with politicians at totally different places in their careers.
Apologising is a process
After allegations from women claiming they were made to feel uncomfortable by former Vice President Joe Biden’s behaviour, he posted an apology video.
While you could question the morality behind this apology, there is some communications skill in it.
It says sorry without admitting fault.
Remember Biden has relatively good polling numbers, especially from older and more conservative Democratic voters — there is a large audience that wants to believe he did nothing malicious.
What happened next, however, was a huge error.
Here’s what he did wrong:
He followed up this at a public event by making jokes about touching people.
Within the first minute of Biden's speech at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on Friday, he told the crowd, "I just want you to know, I had permission to hug Lonnie," mentioning Lonnie Stephenson, the IBEW president, who just introduced him.
Biden spotted several children in the room and invited four of them on stage. After introducing himself, Biden joked as he draped his arm around a boy that "he gave me permission to touch him."
This undermines the effectiveness and sincerity of the apology video.
For public figures, criticism never ends with the apology.
It is a permanent reference point, which can be turned against you.
The purpose of an apology is that when confronted about the issue, you can refer back to it and (hopefully) end that line of questioning.
All Biden achieved was to reignite the controversy.
AOC and fake accents
We’ve had quite a few people ask us our view on this especially as we’ve joked about modulating our accents when working with colleagues from different countries.
A number of critics of the congresswoman claimed Ocasio-Cortez was using a “fake African American accent” or faux "Southern accent” at the convention, which reportedly had an audience made up largely of African Americans.
This was an interesting (albeit minor) incident that shows how perception is everything.
If you think she is a person of more style than substance, then this was a great example of that.
In less emotive terms, AOC was using a form of “style shifting”.


This is a well-documented sociolinguistic behaviour to fit into an environment.
Here’s what we think: for AOC’s young, liberal and multi-cultural base, this kind of switching is part of their day to day existence.
From a communication perspective, is it appropriate for a politician to do this to engage with an audience?
For example, should you change the way you dress to connect with the socio-economic circumstances of your audience?
How about reading remarks in a language you don’t understand?
Is this pandering or good faith engagement?
Answer, comments and feedback to rh@winsocially.com and see you again next week!