Clear Night Sky explores themes of digital communications and culture from a variety of sources and points of view and is brought to you by Clear Ink.
Social Media: Loosening the Grips on Personal Identity
Submitted by Steve Nelson on Tue, 2008-08-05 12:44.
employment | Facebook | identity | social media | Social Networking | soul
I'm starting to form some ideas about online projections of personal identity and the degree to which an employer can say "yea" or "nay". Here’s a post by a fired CNN blogger Chez Pazienza that includes CNN's new "Policy Regarding Personal Writings Online”, where CNN spells out what an employee can and can’t say on a site such as Facebook.
In my collection of Facebook profiles of friends and colleagues I see very few that are designed to represent only their corporate side; something about the medium induces them to project a more complete view of their character in full.
Yet companies such as CNN interpret this view through a very special filter: this soul is mine.
Personal blogs by people who also happen to work for someone have been around all decade (and then some), and their mass may be mined to determine what’s in the head of any individual. But the physiology of Facebook is based on a structure that reveals more about an individual in fuller context, very digestible. Yes, you’ll see someone’s work network and associates, but alongside their college buddies, neneighbors and lifelong friends. You’ll see the business books they’ve read on the same shelf as their manga or pulp novels. You’ll see their next business conference and their next kegger. You’ll see who they work for and who they’ll vote for. You’ll see who they really are.
Among other things CNN doesn’t want you to list your political affiliation on your Facebook page, because they don’t see CNN as being a part of you, but you are a part of CNN.
I don’t think the new social media is going to work that way; I see people developing a wider sense of free agency. Their character does include their employer, but is more widely defined. Of course, CNN is ultimately free to make their own rules as to who they will hire or fire, but I don’t think that’s such a good idea.
Perhaps the middle ground (at least in the case of Facebook) is that an employer can establish standards for employees who wish to identify with the employer’s network (a Facebook-specific construct requiring a company email address). Identifying with a network is voluntary, but can also be seen as a privilege based on accepting certain conditions. You don’t accept them, OK, you’re free to express yourself, but not fly the network tag.
Is this actually a new turn of the page, has the medium changed the rules, or does the old work-life balance still prevail?
In my collection of Facebook profiles of friends and colleagues I see very few that are designed to represent only their corporate side; something about the medium induces them to project a more complete view of their character in full.
Yet companies such as CNN interpret this view through a very special filter: this soul is mine.
Personal blogs by people who also happen to work for someone have been around all decade (and then some), and their mass may be mined to determine what’s in the head of any individual. But the physiology of Facebook is based on a structure that reveals more about an individual in fuller context, very digestible. Yes, you’ll see someone’s work network and associates, but alongside their college buddies, neneighbors and lifelong friends. You’ll see the business books they’ve read on the same shelf as their manga or pulp novels. You’ll see their next business conference and their next kegger. You’ll see who they work for and who they’ll vote for. You’ll see who they really are.
Among other things CNN doesn’t want you to list your political affiliation on your Facebook page, because they don’t see CNN as being a part of you, but you are a part of CNN.
I don’t think the new social media is going to work that way; I see people developing a wider sense of free agency. Their character does include their employer, but is more widely defined. Of course, CNN is ultimately free to make their own rules as to who they will hire or fire, but I don’t think that’s such a good idea.
Perhaps the middle ground (at least in the case of Facebook) is that an employer can establish standards for employees who wish to identify with the employer’s network (a Facebook-specific construct requiring a company email address). Identifying with a network is voluntary, but can also be seen as a privilege based on accepting certain conditions. You don’t accept them, OK, you’re free to express yourself, but not fly the network tag.
Is this actually a new turn of the page, has the medium changed the rules, or does the old work-life balance still prevail?
Blogging and Social Media