Blanket social media clampdown not the way to go

The Interior Ministry does have a point when it comes to what many see as its draconian attitude toward Facebook. Even international studies have not been conclusive on its pros and cons, and big Western companies have taken the lead in prohibiting their employees from engaging with social media during working hours. This issue, however, requires thorough consideration and open-mindedness. Each coin has two sides, and, most importantly, the era of social media has just begun.

The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission did not win many friends, though, when it emerged last week that the active Twitter use by one commissioner, Supinya Klangnarong, was being scrutinised. Supinya herself also seemed to disappear from her favourite field of social media.

The former media activist has been publicly critical of several decisions of the NBTC, tweeting her opinions regularly on subjects related to the commission’s scope of power and responsibility. Reports that the NBTC was internally probing her Twitter use has triggered an outcry among various media professionals and academics, all of whom insist that everybody has the right to voice his or her opinion through social media channels like Twitter or Facebook.

Supinya’s is a clear-cut case of misperception about the social media. The Interior Ministry’s issue is a lot more complicated, or “grey”. Controversies involving social media are not new. In fact, fresh incidents happen every day. Employees are using Facebook posts to vent anger or frustration at their employers. Students are doing the same against their teachers. Politicians have found out how useful social media are when it comes to their opponents’ images and their own wellbeing. Lovebirds – famous or otherwise – are among the most creative users of social media when their romance turns sour.

The good news is that the whole world is facing the same situation and one country can learn from another. Many business and IT bosses overseas have blocked access to social networks and video-sharing sites during office hours, with UK business leaders known to be among the strictest in Europe. Facebook is said to be the most blocked website where British-based administrators are concerned. Among the cited reasons are company privacy and security breaches.

The argument against such drastic action focuses on “management failures”. Of course, social media has its negative sides, but if mankind had been afraid of fire when it was discovered, what would the world be today? Fire kept us warm, but it can also burn down houses or even wipe out a village. It’s the same with Twitter or Facebook. Nothing, least of all tools, has only a positive use. It’s our duty and responsibility to make sure that we use them to our benefit.

Another argument deals with the “generation” angle. Social media is described as “oxygen” to anyone under 30, vital to their communication, education, information and recreation. Depriving them of the oxygen can never be good for business success or productivity. 

To be fair, this is an “until it happens to you” situation. People opposed to bans on social media use by employees have most likely never been on the wrong end of, say, leaks of corporate secrets that spread like wildfire. Also, Internet “addiction” is real and can affect productivity of workers.

At the end of the day, control and leniency are both necessary, but a “blanket” approach is never the way to go. The “management failures” argument sounds reasonable. We need fire in our home; the trick is how to keep the matches away from the kids. There must be measures that take into account the pros and cons of social media. Finding them may not be easy, but it’s everyone’s job to help do so. Like it or not, social media will grow from strength to strength.