Tag: twitter

My take on the story of “Chris”

A recent post on bitrebels.com details the story of “Chris” who was recently demoted for some of his Twitter posts that his company’s loss prevention department apparently took exception to. It is unfortunately very scarce on details, so there’s not much for me to comment on.

I find it difficult for a company–especially the loss prevention department–to find anything to really take exception to anything that can be said on Twitter short of “wow, I hope this million-dollar embezzlement goes down smoothly, then I can book the plane to Hawaii and leave this %$*@# dump,” leaking trade secrets, or financial info for a privately held company. Something tells me it’s not any of these kind of things.

Usually, it is obvious the rank-and-file employees of a company speak for themselves. Now if “Chris” is the PR or marketing guy, or high up enough in the company to have some kind of chief officer position, the rules change a bit. Usually the CEO/CFO/COO/etc are responsible to at least the shareholders for a publicly held company.

I’ve known of at least one friend who has had e-mails taken out of context and construed to mean something entirely different, and was fired for it. Thankfully he bounced back in the months after that incident. And this was back in 2002, long before Twitter and Facebook.

This company, whoever they are, could have handled this much better. Instead of taking a “submarine” monitoring approach, they should have worked with “Chris” so that this never would have had to happen. I certainly would like to know who this company is, and if the circumstances are what I think they are it will be tempting to boycott them.

Twitter and Facebook banned at some college sporting events

I can’t believe I’m reading this, much less blogging about it.

The St. Petersburg Times recently reported on the Southeast Conference (SEC) issuing an edict to its twelve member schools, further limiting the amount of audio, video, and real-time blogging allowed at practices, games, and news conferences.

The truly disturbing part, is that according to this same edict, fans are now barred from updating social networking sites from the stands. This includes updating Twitter or Facebook, posting pictures to Flickr, or uploading videos to YouTube, and (I would assume) live blogging during a game.

This policy is not just galactically stupid, it’s an enforcement nightmare and has untold masses of sports fans in an uproar.

This quote is about as direct and to-the-point as one can get:

“I would guess,” said Mike Masnick, the editor of the respected blog techdirt, “that they’re realizing that anyone can be a reporter or a broadcaster these days.

A.J. Liebling’s famous quote, which I’ve used here before, “Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one,” is about to become about as quaint as the printing presses of his era.

Information wants to be free. Technology has advanced to the point where video cameras can be combined with a device that’s nominally a telephone. This policy, even if nominally a success, will still reflect very badly on the SEC as an inept attempt at censorship, doomed to failure in the long term.

(Note: I now also see the quote attributed to H.L. Mencken. I’m not sure which attribution is actually correct. If anyone knows for sure drop me a line using the comment form.)

One giant step over the line in Illinois

Pete Cashmore’s recent article for Mashable and an article in Salon report on Governor Pat Quinn signing into law a bill that prohibits registered sex offenders from using social media sites.

At first glance, to the masses, it looks like common sense legislation aimed at protecting us from the likes of child predators and serial rapists. The problem is, some offenses considered sex crimes that require registration are as piddling as public urination, a misdemeanor. That’s just one small example; many other offenses that fall far short of the stereotypical child predator or rapist one thinks of when they hear “sex offender” would also be barred from using Facebook, Twitter, et al. For life.

It disgusts me enough that Facebook feels it necessary to bar access to anyone who is a “convicted sex offender” when that term is not clearly defined elsewhere in Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (SRR). One must assume that this is any offense for which registration as a sex offender is required. I voted against the revised SRR for this reason, and I feel no particular shame for having done so.

If society as a whole does deem this kind of law necessary, I think the least we can do is restrict it to those who have exhibited actual sexual predatory conduct or are at high risk of doing so, not college kids who got caught peeing behind the frat house.

It’s also time to put an end to rubber-stamping conditions of probation for any remotely sex-related crime with prohibitions on any Internet use. That, in 2009, makes about as much sense as prohibiting someone from using a telephone.

In case anyone is wondering, no, I am absolutely, positively, not related to the governor of Illinois, despite sharing the same last name. To be honest, that makes his signature on this bill all the more embarrassing. Thus, the reason I’m debuting a new tag, “box-of-rocks-dumb,” for when “galactically-stupid” just plain doesn’t do justice.

“Sue first, ask questions later”

Mashable reports on what at first glance appears to be a run-of-the-mill libel lawsuit. Horizon Realty is suing a former tenant, Amanda Bonnen, for US$50,000 over the one line:

Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it’s okay.

The alarming thing is that, according to the story, Amanda had maybe 20 followers at the time of the account’s deletion. The most alarming part of this story, however, is this statement from a Horizon employee named Jeffrey Michael:

Bonnen wasn’t contacted before the suit was filed or asked to remove the Tweet, [Michael] said: “We’re a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization”.

If Horizon does have a reputation to protect, aggressively filing lawsuits of dubious merit and making statements to that effect are not the way to uphold it. Actions speak far louder than words; I think Horizon’s reaction to the whole incident will do a lot more to scare tenants away than anything Amanda might have said or done in response to the incident.

To Amanda, if you’re out there reading this: You’ve got the right to trial by jury. Use it.

To Horizon: You need to hire a PR firm that knows what they are doing, and not try to do it yourself.

AP sticks their nose in reporters’ Facebook profiles

Wired.com’s Threat Level reports on a new Associated Press policy aimed at reporters. The intent of the policy is “to make sure material posted by others doesn’t violate AP standards.”

That would be all well and good. Except this is for employees’ personal Facebook profiles–and that is where I think this policy goes over the line. The policy is also vague, quoting from further down in the article:

It’s a good idea to monitor your profile page to make sure material posted by others doesn’t violate AP standards: any such material should be deleted.

This is in addition to these ominous and censorious directives:

[E]mployees also should avoid including political affiliations in their profiles and steer clear of making any postings that express political views or take stands on contentious issues.

Further down, in the Twitter-specific section:

Also, when tweeting, remember that’s there a big difference between providing an observation (“I nearly bumped into Chris Matthews outside Penn Station”) and an opinion (“I nearly bumped into the loudmouthed and obnoxious Chris Matthews”).

And it gets even worse:

Do these guidelines apply just to AP employees who are journalists?

They apply to all employees, just as the Statement of News Values and Principles does. We cannot expect people outside the AP to know whether a posting on Facebook was made by someone who takes pictures, processes payroll checks or fixes satellite dishes. We all represent the AP, and we all must protect its reputation.

This edict is most troubling when combined with the fact that the Facebook terms of service only allow one account per user. If you maintain two identities, you run the risk of losing both of them. So it’s not like AP employees can make a “work account” and a “non-work account.” Facebook has this as a term of service for several reasons, the first being that it provides one easy way to clamp down on flagrant dishonesty.

I can see an issue if one heavily advertises that one works for the AP right before launching into a heavily political tirade, but this is different than expressing one’s political views outside of working hours under one’s own name.

To draw an analog, I avoid wearing my work uniform outside of work; I made it a point to bring a change of clothes when I played in my bar poker league after work, and would change out long before the game began. (I will concede that comfort was a contributing factor, but I probably would still have changed clothes even if it were not.)

It’s the same with the AP. There’s a difference between “on the clock” and “off the clock.” Within reason, “off the clock” conduct should be “off-limits” for company policies.