Wednesday 7 July 2010

Smut, Twitter and you - Thoughts from Social Media Cafe

Tuesday's Social Media Cafe shone a light into the darkest corners of social media. It was a torch which illuminated the areas of Twitter and Facebook no one talks about in polite conversation; the seedy parts you wouldn't want your parents to see.

Local blogger Mindy Gofton brought an interesting discussion to the table. Her Manchester SEO company had recently acquired a contract for a firm which distributed, among other things, 'cheeky' e-cards. The debate focused on the ethics of promoting this type of blue content across social media and whether marketeers had a moral or ethical responsibility to shield the campaign from those who might deem it unsuitable.

But that's an issue for another blog post.

During the session, a conversation between Paul Greenhalgh and Gillian Donovan addressed an interesting point relating to the topic.

Were there any negative consequences for those who chose to follow these sorts of risqué accounts on Twitter?

It's a good question. The channel is notoriously public and, unless profiles are protected, anyone can access an account in order to see who is following who. Their conversation speculated whether it would be appropriate for relatives, friends or employers to discover you were following the profiles of Agent Provocateur or Nuts Magazine.

And people check to see who you're following; during the session, regular social media cafe attendee David Edmundson-Bird commented that he paid a special interest in the accounts his new followers were monitoring.

He isn't alone.

We all make assessments about people in the real world and our behaviour on social media is no different. When faced with a new Twitter profile, users make an assessment about character based on the relatively little information given to them.

Indeed, looking at the types of accounts a user is following is one of the easiest ways to judge someone's personality. We all have our own personal tastes and, naturally, these tastes are echoed in the users we follow on Twitter. Whether you’re interested in SEO, Top Gear, football or cricket, it's more than likely that you're following accounts which compliment these hobbies.

However, an issue arises when you've got an interest which might not be considered so wholesome. Do you necessarily want to convey your fondness for alcohol, gambling or naughty pictures to the world via your follower choices? Probably not.

You have a reputation to consider.

If one thing came from this social media session, it's that taste and decency are subjective; what you may deem suitable for consumption may not be shared by another user.

Your reputation can easily be damaged by the appearance of a lingerie shop in your following list. And there are bigger issues to consider than ruffling some features; which employer wants to hire someone who spends their time reading updates written from behind a shelf of brassieres?

I'm aware that this line of argument may seem defeatist. Twitter is a wonderful channel for engaging with like-minded people. It's a service which enables users to discuss hobbies, chat about relevant topics and interact with people like themselves.

Surely, it defeats the point of social networks to suggest users filter their followers in order avoid offence or the merest suggestion of impropriety? If this were the case, Philip Schofield would be the only person with any followers.

Sadly, the reality of Twitter and its public nature means that, for the majority of the time, the person viewing your profile isn't going to share your own opinions. Especially those opinions relating to appropriate content. And, like it or not, they will use all the information available to form a judgement about you.

The only question is, what opinion would you like them to have?

Many thanks to Josh and Martin for organising another great Social Media Cafe.

No comments:

Post a Comment