author’s note: this is a repost cause I accidentally deleted my blog! Thank goodness for backups!

The other side of the ethics debate is the issue of censorship.   Or even more close to home is self-censorship.   What can you and can’t you say online these days?  We assume that whatever we talk about online, photos we share, etc are part of our small social circle, and thusly invisible to say ‘the unintended audience’ member.   Social Media has changed the game as to the idea of ‘communication’.

Where it would be easier to shape opinion and categorically deny any wrongdoing with communication really being in a vacuum and traditional media having a monopoly on the message, politics has changed drastically due to the ability to look through archives and records of people’s communication online.   There is only a perceived layer of security from the ‘unintended audience’ of your communications online.   I covered in one part of my presentation “The Art of the Conversation” that there are some things that you shouldn’t talk about online.   The reasoning is not because you don’t have the freedom to talk about what you want.  However, most people aren’t prepared for the consequences that responsibility holds.

Something very chilling to me was reading the initial report about someone getting sued over a tweet.  It was pretty high profile.    Regardless, I do have a few cardinal rules, a personal code for myself and my online communications.  The big one is not to make personal attacks or vindictive statements about entities.  There are always exceptions to the rule, and bigger brands usually fall into that exception (I doubt AT&T will sue everyone who has had something negative to say about the company, since it has become a trending topic on twitter quite often lately)  However, the idea is that there is a tangible liability to the information that you post.   Libelous information, even in electronic form, can land you in court.  (Later on, it was revealed that the suit was a counter-suit to an original problem.   However, I believe the damage has already been dealt, regardless of the well-intentioned.)

Taking legal action against social media counterparts however usually doesn’t bode well for the brand making the suit.   The RIAA is a perfect example of this.   Even worse, denying your imperfections after the fact leads ‘patriots’ to dig up even dirtier laundry about the company.   Very simple transactions can turn into MAJOR PR nightmares.  Some brands have decided not to go that route, and actively search for and silence all critics by resolving their needs quickly.   They know the value of communicating that their brand takes care of issues and problems quickly as soon as they come to light.

Of course, this can be taken advantage of, which is always the danger.  But the benefit of resolving issues online in the Social Media space, despite the opportunity for a brand to resolve the issue legally is to broadcast your good name in front of the respective complainer’s audience.   This is better than any marketing platform, or message controlling campaign you could put together.  It’s called word of mouth marketing.