Recently I came across an article in the New York Times that addressed the ethical issues that main social media organizations have been dealing with. The main question that these companies face is how they should react to their customers using their services for political agendas. The growing issue was further aggravated by an incident that occurred recently in Egypt, when Hossam el-Hamalawy, a user of social media web site Flickr, posted under his profile pictures of police officers that were involved in acts of violence against Egyptian activists. He did so in an effort to expose the identifies of the officers that used their authority unduly. In response the management of Flickr removed the questionable pictures under the argument that the web site user's activities were not in compliance of website user agreement. According to the agreement the users can only post pictures that they personally take, and since Hossam posted the pictures that he found on a CD, Flickr claims to have the right to remove the content.
Even though Flickr management is technically correct in this particular situation, a biggest question arises: Should social media companies interfere with the content and opinions of their users (customers) or should the company merely act as a conduit of user interaction. It can be argued that the lack of company's enforcement of guidelines and opinions is what made the social media so popular today. People want to use the services offered by companies like Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter because it liberates them. These companies offer a space where people can express how they feel and connect with others that share their views. Imposing limitations on such freedom could hurt these companies and destroy some of the goodwill that made these services popular in the first place.
On the other hand, an argument can be made that these companies should step in and stand up for the values that they believe in and promote. For example, last week the chief executive of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, received a letter from an Israeli minister of diplomacy and diaspora affairs asking him to remove a group profile page for a Palestinian group that is looking for support in starting an uprising in the occupied Palestinian territory, an action that would bring a tremendous turmoil to the nearby countries. The group now has more than 240,000 members. As of right now Facebook management has not taken any action to remove or limit the use of the group page. The management is speculating if shutting the page down would be limiting the definition of acceptable speech.
From the two example sited above we can clearly see that social media has an ability to be a force for good and evil. The users of their services mainly decide how such force will be applied within the bounds set by the policies of these companies. It remains to be seen what course of action companies as Flickr and Facebook will take in this ethical dilemma and what exactly their level of involvement will be going forward.
The following is the link where the original articles was found:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/business/media/28social.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=business