This article directly opposes my argument because the whole thing is a story about how much social transparency helped the author out of a rather sticky situation. I think it's great because its not some research article saying "this is why social transparency is great" but is instead just an average person's positive experience when social transparency saved her reputation. It really is a nice story, but I think it shows the idealistic nature of social transparency in general. Most people don't have their reputations restored via the internet. They more often lose their reputations there. So I don't think it's particularly plausible to say that because the author had a postive experience with social transparency we should assume it will be positive for everyone, or even form the better society MZ seems to think it will. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=111&sid=d907321e-aff9-4acb-b6bc-fd3b20fa8b24%40sessionmgr113&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=51469032