In this week’s
readings, we learn that organizations and individuals must strike a delicate
balance between setting overly restrictive—even ultimately illegal—social media
policies, and leaving themselves open to numerous dangers in the social media
world. Dangers include loss of proprietary or personal information, damage to
reputation by disgruntled individuals, and criminal predators.
Perhaps the
single best way to handle social media policy is to allow it to reflect a broader
overall conduct policy. Scott (2015) says in his book “The New Rules of Marketing and PR,” “Work with your managers and your organization’s legal team
(and perhaps the human resources department as well) to create guidelines that
you can operate under. Your company’s guidelines should include advice about
how to communicate in any medium, including face-to-face conversations,
presentations at events, email, social media, online forums and chat rooms, and
other forms of communication” (pg. 413).
In human
terms, if you wouldn’t say it to your CEO in person, don’t post it on Facebook.
If you wouldn’t leave your purse full of cash in an unlocked car with the
windows open, don’t leave a trail of personal information that can be compiled
and used to steal your identity online. Setting broad policies that deal with
conduct overall also helps avoid potential legal battles in terms of workers’
rights to free speech—as well discussed in the 2012 National Law Review pieces
we read this week.
The ways in
which we can think about navigating social media so that we protect individuals
and organizations are well illustrated in Tracy Mitrano’s (2006) example about
sending her child off to camp with the advice to “maintain personal safety;
explore all the opportunities the camp had to offer; and remember the golden
rule—treat others how you want to be treated.” She then offered this: “The essence of this message is as
relevant to students using Facebook, other social networking technologies, and
the Internet as it is for my boy attending summer camp. Might not the same
three principles serve national law and policy on communications technologies
as well? Criminals will always appropriate technology for their misbegotten
purposes. That pattern, as old as civilization itself, is no reason to quash
innovation. Why deprive law-abiding people of socially advantageous uses of
technology? Law enforcement must get smarter, on a continuing basis, about
investigating the criminal uses of technology, but no new legislation may even
be needed” (Mitrano, 2006).
As a news
reporter/anchor, I (Allison) have to watch what I write on social media, how I
write it, and always maintain a level of privacy. It’s difficult, at times, to
strike a balance of being open with people, but also remembering to think about
safety and how my words could influence others. I want to be open and free with
all thoughts, but at the same time I know I am a “public figure.” I always stay
appropriate, polite, and never negative, plus I stay me and who I am when I am
on social media!
Also, my
company expects more from us and has rules in place if we do not follow “camp”
guidelines. My company only wants us to represent ourselves and the company in
a positive light. Almost every company I have worked for has a social media
policy. Broad and vague at times. All have one goal: to make sure we are being
appropriate.
Not all
employees agree with social media guidelines. Though we do have our free time
and our right to free speech (and non-work sanctioned accounts), do we still
have to think about our employer in our off time? More importantly, our
security and safety?
In a recent Rolling Stone article, 6 HSBC employees this past summer were fired for posting on Instagram a mock ISIS beheading. Interestingly, those fired pointed out, “In their defense, the video was reportedly made during a work-sponsored team-building exercise” (Halper, 2015). This is probably something, obviously, the company didn’t look upon to fondly.
In a recent Rolling Stone article, 6 HSBC employees this past summer were fired for posting on Instagram a mock ISIS beheading. Interestingly, those fired pointed out, “In their defense, the video was reportedly made during a work-sponsored team-building exercise” (Halper, 2015). This is probably something, obviously, the company didn’t look upon to fondly.
There
is also the prison guard in Maryland who posted this on his social mediaaccounts and tagged his boss and the place he works, “Visiting the prisons...
haven't been groped this much since the flight on the honeymoon... and this is
just the guards” (Halper, 2015). His boss told him to remove the post and he
was fired.
While
frowned upon on many levels, do you think, on your personal accounts, you need
to think about your employer? Were these people appropriate in their posts?
Should companies be able to take action?
I wonder what
rules HSBC and the prison’s rules were as it pertains to social media?
Does your company have any social media policies? If so, what are they and how do you think they aim to keep the company safe and their employees safe?
Does your company have any social media policies? If so, what are they and how do you think they aim to keep the company safe and their employees safe?
References
Halper, K. (2015, July 13). A Brief
History of People Getting Fired for Social Media Stupidity. Retrieved February
22, 2016, from
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/lists/a-brief-history-of-people-getting-fired-for-social-media-stupidity-20150713
Mitrano, N. (1
January 2006). A wider world: youth, privacy, and social networking
technologies. Educause Review. Retrieved from: http://er.educause.edu/articles/2006/1/a-wider-world-youth-privacy-and-social-networking-technologies
Scott, D. M.
(2015). The new rules of marketing and PR. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.



No comments:
Post a Comment