Originally Posted by BlueSquare
Epicski isn't "social media."
According to Boyd and Ellison (2007), a social network is a
. . . web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site.
Before I expand on my point, I admit that I used the term social media, not social network. However, given the broad definition of the term media, I find network to be both more specific and more fitting. Further, a network is encompassed in the term media. EpicSki is, in fact, a web-based service that allows people to create profiles within a limited system, share a common connection with other users (skiing, if there was any question), and view and negotiate their connections within the system. I don't think there is any question about the first two elements of the definition. A word on the third: although not all people follow other users, like Twitter, EpicSki has the follow feature, which allows its users the ability to follow others with whom they have become linked. Similarly, those same connections can be viewed by reading posts - although not as concise, this creates a list of connections.
So, a social network it is.
And the purpose of your post was, well, you know what it was... (to be threatening, join piss-on-bluesquare bandwagon, sound clever, etc)
Okay, you have a point. I was, in fact, trying to sound clever by showing off my popular culture prowess with the dated Kanye West/Taylor Swift allusion. As to the purpose of my post? Well, let's review. Here's the post:
Is it threatening? How? I created links to five articles. I in no way attacked you. I in no way indicated that I intended to urinate on you. Please, enlighten me. To be fair, I probably wouldn't have bothered with the few minutes I spent googling people who were fired due to their poor choices and lack of Internet etiquette had I not been irked by the tone of your posts. So, yeah, I was being a smart ass. However, I did not demean you in the manner that you chose to mock me (I refer here to your addressing me as Mizz Sloan . . . really?).
And my comments to Daveski7 were relating to online self-esteem, image, and things like that insofar as those things would be rattled by the trip down the "rocky road" that lies ahead for me.
Okay, so you weren't commenting on the issue of being fired or hired based on social networks. Do I really need to start citing articles on the incidence of Internet bullying and its effects? Although I don't see you as being at risk of falling victim to such things, if we're talking about paying attention to one's online personality . . . well, there it is.
On facebook, there is no anonymity (assuming any given post can be seen by some employer).
Like EpicSki, isn't this up to the user? Some people choose to use their full names on Facebook, some use pseudonyms. When I worked in a public field, I had a pseudonym.
Furthermore, anybody who was fired over facebook made some egregious inflammatory, defamatory, or otherwise upsetting post about a person at the company, the company's products/services, or the company itself. That's all they really care about. I've read through policies... they all specifically relate to things posted while at work, about work, about the employer/colleagues, etc.
Are you referring to the policies of your company? My previous job had a morals clause. It was a huge loophole, but it allowed for employees to be fired if they got pregnant out of wedlock or if photos surfaced that brought their morals into question. Neither has anything to do with being at work or doing something related to work (as a side note, I was not fired from this job - I moved to another position).
Now somebody such as yourself readily discloses their personality by creating a username with their real name/initials. That might make it easy for an employer to monitor your comments. Other members do have anonymity, at least as much as they grant themselves.
You're absolutely right. My profile allows for some pictures of me, which gives a clue to my gender (one would hope!), and I give an initial and a possible surname. I made that choice. I could have chosen to be more anonymous, but I didn't. I'm also comfortable with my online role - I try not to put on too many different personas. For the most part, I do not post anything that I would not say to a person directly. (Heck, I don't even leave anonymous feedback when asked to give a performance evaluation or to rate training. I own what I say.) The only exception was in my previous job. In the beginning, we were scolded - yes, scolded - for even having a Facebook. I kept it anonymous to avoid trouble at work. Fortunately and unfortunately, social networking sites have become more accepted . . . and more accessed (but I guess I am coming full circle now, aren't I?).
Now, BWPA, for example, has been more inflammatory and inappropriate online than most members, people know who he is, and Stowe Mountain Resort hasn't taken issue with it, even though to many people he has perhaps cast an ugly shadow on the ski school there (and even the resort). Bluesquare ==/== an identifiable person.
And even if I was, my employer could give a **** about what I say about someones POV videos.
Again, you're right . . . and you're lucky. However, I never said making a comment about someone's POV videos would get you fired. I was commenting on this statement: "I don't think any of us place [sic] too much importance on our online personalities . . ."
Like I said, it was a good effort; it has absolutely no relevance here.
You're still missing the point. I wasn't referring to your exact situation. I was simply underscoring the emphasis placed on who we are on the Internet . . .