Social Media Self-Moderating: A Discussion

In these days of the modern web, people are finding themselves connected in ways that were never before imagined. With these new venues of networking, there also comes a new class of personal responsibility when it comes to how people receive and interpret your internet behavior. Twitter and Facebook both have status updates that can instantly send any random thought you post to every contact on your list - or further (global!), for those who have a public profile. How seriously do you consider the repercussions of what you type?

Having been guilty of not self-moderating my own lifestream at times, I have often regretted some of the things that I’ve posted online. At 140 characters, what can be typed may not always be an accurate reflection of what was thought or felt at the time. But I’ve found that the internet usually forgives quickly, everyone moves on, and time always heals. Although, each infraction does seem to create a tiny and permanent chip in the perception people have of who you are as a person. Inevitably, your contacts will respect you just a tiny-bit less than they did before.

In the past, I had a rebel attitude about things - feeling that I could just say what I want, when I want, and let that be that. If people felt the need to judge me on those criteria, then they could just go burn up in the atmosphere, for all I cared. However, not only does time heal, it also has the power of enlightenment. I came to realize that the perception of myself through these services is quite often nothing at all like what I though other people were seeing of me. That if I had the same point-of-view as one of my own friends, and saw how callous I approached social media, I might be surprised at the results. Which is pretty much what happened, over time. Because I care more now about representing myself as a professional than I did before, I need to be more cautious about when and where I express particular opinions. From this, I no longer publicly speak about things such as religion and politics unless it’s in an appropriate context, and I’ve also cut down on the swearing.

With that said, I’ve approached a group of other professionals on this topic, to see what they think about how we represent ourselves online, the things we say, and how we can balance the thin line between audience-pandering and our freedom of speech. Let’s see what they have to say about the subject, shall we?

Dave McNally [http://davemcnally.net/]:

I have thought about this in the past but haven’t acted on my thoughts much.

There are most definitely repercussions of what you post in these streams, how severe these are though would naturally depend on the content you post and if it is taken in the correct context. For example, if I were to post something in a joking manner, I would expect people would see it that but each persons perception is different and it could always be taken the wrong way. Even if we were to see such content that gave out a certain perception of others and thought nothing much of it or were able to understand the way it was meant, that feeling is always there – even if only subconsciously.

A minimal amount of controversial posts may not have a huge impact on your image. I think it’s more of an overall image people form about you based on the average content of your posts and so the content you post most often is more likely to be remembered. Even then, if the occasional post that falls into a controversial category is that extreme, it may stand out above the more meaningful content you post and so people would always remember that about before anything else. We are all constantly forming our own opinions of others depending on what they say, whether these opinions are good or bad can not only depend on the person posting the content but those interpreting it.

On the other hand, I think there should be a kind of exception or expressive freedom given to content posted to the likes of Twitter. It may be talked about as a marketing and networking tool but above all, it’s an informal diary of what we’re doing and thinking day to day. Or at least it’s supposed to be. For this reason, I don’t monitor too much what I say there. I do however, make sure I’m not writing anything too offensive and hope anything I do write isn’t taken too seriously. If I had something to say that was of any major importance, it’s most likely that I couldn’t sum up those thoughts in 140 characters anyway and so I would end up writing a blog post about it instead. In those situations, you are not only given much more space to correctly get your opinions across but you are giving others a lot more information to think about before they form their own thoughts about the content and you. If you are posting something to Twitter, a lot of the time that can be impulsive and once posted, people have read it and formed opinions. Writing a blog post allows you that time to think about the image you are putting across from the overall content.

Jonathan Snook [http://snook.ca/]:

I’ve always self-censored – on the blog, on Twitter, and on any service where I present a public face. Sometimes it’s constraining. Most of the time, though, it’s not an issue. A derogatory joke is best left with close friends. Troubling thoughts might be best left with a therapist.

On my blog, I’ve always tried to keep it professional. I’ve only blogged about personal stuff a few times. Twitter is weird, though, because it feels more personal. More one-on-one. But even there, I’m very self-conscious about what I write. I have this unspoken ratio in my head that I try to maintain between useful tweets, joke tweets, insightful tweets, and @ replies. I’ll even make sure that an @-reply has enough context to stand alone.

I don’t think this is audience pandering. It’s about maintaining an image that you think is more reflective of who you really are. People aren’t inside your head 24 hours a day. They only see these glimpses of you that you put out there and people try and build this image from that. It’s why we’re always so surprised to discover what people really think of us.

With that said, we should be forgiving of those who may appear to step over that unseen line once in awhile.

And I almost never talk about religion or politics unless other people bring it up first. Mostly because I’m too ignorant of either to really have much of an opinion to begin with.

Lea Alcantara [http://www.lealea.net/]:

I’ve written about this subject before on my own blog, after Freelance Switch posted something about taking care of your internet persona:

http://www.lealea.net/blog/comments/internet-personas-and-self-branding/

I take a more professional tone with explaining myself. You can quote from that regarding this subject at length.

Now to add a personal twist, I want to say that people should never be afraid to actually say what’s on their mind if they feel it’s important. However, there needs to be a level of awareness of environment and context. In short: A time and place for all things. On Facebook, with high privacy settings, I can be as bawdy and amusing as I want. However, I do warn my sisters to take down photos of me that aren’t exactly the most flattering, keeping in mind I have clients and potential clients on my Facebook anyway. Flickr I use the same way as Facebook – more for personal, really succinct glimpses of my life. Twitter, it is pretty stream-of-consciousness and definitely feels like a micro personal blog; I don’t censor myself there as much as on Lealea.net. Lealea.net is my professional space and I keep it that way.

It feels awkward for me to even use the word “censor” because I don’t feel like I’m being dishonest or hiding a part of myself, as opposed to just picking and choosing which avenues I can show genuine parts of myself. I also am not always consciously thinking about it, and I don’t believe people should. There are overlaps over where I think I am more open vs more cautious. The danger lies when people start to micromanage their own image and then come off as inconsistent or worse, dishonest.

I think it’s important to be yourself, but you don’t have to blurt out everything that comes to your mind when it happens. I think restraint is good in all aspects of social interaction, not just online. However, when it’s time to fight for what you think is right – discrimination, injustice, etc – I think it’s time to let yourself be heard. Otherwise we’re just becoming an echo chamber. The worst crime of all may just be apathy. If you feel online is the best avenue for being heard, I don’t want to discourage that.

I am friends with people of varying races, faiths, politics, and beliefs… some of which I strongly disagree with. I think, however, that conversations that touch on those subjects are better broached in person, especially to acquaintances and strangers, if you decide to broach them at all. Friends and family are already different. You can broach a lot of taboo subjects to them online and in-person, but because they understand the context of your character, and you them, that it blurs the need to be as aware of time and place. I suppose then, that people need to realize that not everyone is your friend online.

Paul Armstrong [http://paularmstrongdesigns.com/]:

Let’s face it: we all need to vent sometimes, and these social network streams have made it really easy to quickly vent and be done with it. So many of us have been guilty of this at some point in time, but not everyone has learned from their mistakes or let time heal the scars they’ve left, as Anton said.

For me, my Facebook and Flickr accounts are private. “Unflattering” photos of me and crass remarks are only shared with people who know me well enough to be able to separate them from professional settings.

When it comes to LinkedIn, Twitter, my Blog and a few other social spaces, my attitude benchmark is to never say anything that I wouldn’t say in front of a client, but still let my personality come through. It’s a battlefield, this social media Internet that we participate in. In order to stand out in a crowd, we need to let our personalities fly; in order to stay professional, we need to be reserved.

Sean O’Dwyer [http://www.designicu.com/]:

I agree with much of what’s been written so far: it’s sensible to manage what’s out there floating in the cloud. But too much self-censoring leads to blandness. I don’t worry too much about things I post turning people off. I suspect it sometimes acts as a filter, meaning I’ll only end up working with people who are more or less on the same page as me, or get me, or think they’ll enjoy working with me in some way. So I’ve made positive comments about Obama recently, knowing GOP-lovers may take note and decide I’m not the kind of person they’d want to hire. Too bad for them. At the same time, I’m not saying “f_ck” a lot on Twitter or FaceBook, or posting pictures of my large _ss anywhere. It wouldn’t be hard to find forum posts of mine with “f_ck” in them but, again, I think if someone was to do that kind of research on me with a mind to taking offense, I probably wouldn’t enjoy working with them anyway.

Zachary Johnson [http://www.zachstronaut.com/]:

I had an experience where somebody who is trying to run a serious online business has a Twitter account named after their business and branded based on that business and said some things that didn’t fit into the content that business provides. I pointed this out and they responded emotionally and it was very unprofessional. You can’t go around telling people to p_ss off when they disagree with you if they are your customer and you are running a business. You have to be like “Thank you for your criticism, I will look into making my services better.” Even if you disagree. Even if the customer is being an A-hole.

I think we’ve all wanted to tell clients or customers off at some point — but I think any of us who were foolish enough to follow through on that impulse learned their lesson. I don’t hold a grudge against this business. There seemed to be quite the backlash from more than just me when this happened. I hope the person behind that Twitter account learned a lesson. If they want to apologize to me for the emotional DM they sent me, that would be nice – but it isn’t necessary.

If you have a personal Twitter account (named after yourself for example) and somebody disagrees with you then you can argue and debate all you want, and I think people will not raise much of an eyebrow.

I think the way you frame your Twitter presence sets certain expectations. If you run a business or professional community called Bob’s Web Tips, and have a Twitter account called BobsWebTips, then most of your followers and future readers on Twitter will be from that business audience. That audience is going to expect professional tweets related to the content they know you for. If you tweet some personal stuff about your favorite flavor of pizza, or start talking sh_t based on emotions rather than professionalism, I think that audience is going to be surprised, annoyed, or possibly offended.

On the other hand, if your Twitter account is a personal one called BobSmith, and you aren’t telling people to follow you from your business’s site... then you can be more personal and define the content you put on Twitter however you want. You haven’t set such a firm expectation of content, and I think people will be more understanding if you are Tweeting casually to your friends and being more off the cuff. If they find you on Twitter they were probably looking for you, and they can make their own decision about whether or not your personal tweets are of interest to them.

On a side note, Facebook is a terrible, awful place (I have an account) where way way too much of your personal life shows up whether you like it or not (since your friends can post pictures of you too). I keep my profile almost completely locked down. The only redeeming grace about Facebook is a) that it can be locked down a lot and b) it is understood that Facebook represents a personal presence not a professional one. I’m not going to look people up on Facebook that I have a purely professional relationship with.

Jonathan Snook:

Zachary said: On the other hand, if you have a personal Twitter account (named after yourself for example) and somebody disagrees with you then you can argue and debate all you want, and I think people will not raise much of an eyebrow.

Where it can get a little dicey is with people like myself. Sure, it’s a personal account, but I’m a freelancer. A lone gunman. And therefore, my reputation is still on the line regardless. I suppose I could set up a Snook.ca account but I’m not sure how much that would really differ from what I do now. (If anything, I’d probably just do a new personal account and make it protected.)

Likewise, even with personal accounts, things aren’t always so cut and dry. There was that agency representation that was visiting FedEx in memphis and didn’t speak too fondly of the place on Twitter. Turns out, there was a FedEx employee who followed him and poof, FedEx wasn’t too happy.

Lea Alcantara:

I agree with Jon. My business is also tied with my name, and as a fellow “lone gunman” my biz and myself is more tied than not. I think the reality is that when you’re in the public space, you are open to judgement by anyone and everyone. And some people unfortunately become “targets” for absolutely no reason e.g. Kathy Sierra who was targeted by internet trolls, interviewed in the NYT.

Anton Peck:

So far we’ve heard from a fairly diverse set of opinions on the article. The general consensus seems to suggest that there’s a fine balance between exercising basic freedom of speech (1st amendment for the US citizens) and knowing when to keep your keyboard silent. You want to be yourself, but how much of yourself should you monitor for the sake of business? Feel free to add your own thoughts, because I feel that this is an important topic that we should all keep in mind as more of our lives become public on the web.