Should Brands on Facebook Censor Offensive Fans?
17 Jul
While researching the Starbucks ice cream promotion on Facebook, I saw a Facebook user with a swastika in their avatar displayed on the Starbucks fan page.
Repulsive and hateful as the swastika may be, the law leans toward protecting individuals’ free speech rights. I don’t know what the laws are about swastikas, but this post isn’t about the law. It’s about how brands handle fans’ offensive behavior.
Should Starbucks — or Facebook, for that matter — take any action to prevent such a hateful symbol from being shown on their page? What are your thoughts?
Hi Scott, thought-provoking post. I wouldn't want to speak regarding the law or even a particular company's position but my personal opinion is YES. I believe brands should be able to censor (take action) as they see fit. After all, it IS their brand.
Interested to read what your other readers think. :-)
I believe Free Speech only comes into play when it's government or a government-entity limiting the speech. I think brands and companies like Facebook are free to censor if they feel that it would negatively reflect on their company.
I think a company should post a caveat on their fan page, as well as all media channels, alerting people that rude and abusive text or photos will not be tolerated.
Unfortunately, even if you did post such language on your Facebook fan page, I don't believe there is a way to delete the avatar of a fan.
Interesting topic. The page does belong to Facebook or the individual company so the law and free speech it a moot point. It's up to the owner of the site.
However, as Social Media goes – in it's purest intended purpose (theoretically), is supposed to be about authentic engagement, conversation, dialogue and community. A company has to take the negative comments with the good.
Fact of the matter is that many symbols are attached to beliefs that differ from others. One that makes me chuckle is the Chinese Ying/Yang symbol that people are so quick to associate themselves with in signage, coporate branding, t-shirts and tattoos. It's a religious symbol the same as a Christian cross. It may be offensive to some…just like the Confederate flag is to African Americans.
If the person behind the Swasticka avatar had a valid point or relative argument to the page, wouldn't it be appropriate despite the avatar's negative association?
Should Starbucks — or Facebook, for that matter — take any action to prevent such a hateful symbol from being shown on their page? Social Media is also about knowing your audience. If these company's truly know their customers, they have to adjust accordingly. My guess is they'd opt to block.
Without professing to be a legal expert, I'm pretty sure you're right about the government vs. company distinction, Kirk. The real question, though, is SHOULD a brand censor fans? And to what extent?
I'm with you on the “Community Guidelines” or “Terms of Use” concept, Scott…though I doubt anyone reads the legalese.
Is there a way to block an avatar on Facebook? Probably not. But I bet you could block a user.
Hi Scott, thought-provoking post. I wouldn't want to speak regarding the law or even a particular company's position but my personal opinion is YES. I believe brands should be able to censor (take action) as they see fit. After all, it IS their brand.
Interested to read what your other readers think. :-)
I believe Free Speech only comes into play when it's government or a government-entity limiting the speech. I think brands and companies like Facebook are free to censor if they feel that it would negatively reflect on their company.
I think a company should post a caveat on their fan page, as well as all media channels, alerting people that rude and abusive text or photos will not be tolerated.
Unfortunately, even if you did post such language on your Facebook fan page, I don't believe there is a way to delete the avatar of a fan.
Interesting topic. The page does belong to Facebook or the individual company so the law and free speech it a moot point. It's up to the owner of the site.
However, as Social Media goes – in it's purest intended purpose (theoretically), is supposed to be about authentic engagement, conversation, dialogue and community. A company has to take the negative comments with the good.
Fact of the matter is that many symbols are attached to beliefs that differ from others. One that makes me chuckle is the Chinese Ying/Yang symbol that people are so quick to associate themselves with in signage, coporate branding, t-shirts and tattoos. It's a religious symbol the same as a Christian cross. It may be offensive to some…just like the Confederate flag is to African Americans.
If the person behind the Swasticka avatar had a valid point or relative argument to the page, wouldn't it be appropriate despite the avatar's negative association?
Should Starbucks — or Facebook, for that matter — take any action to prevent such a hateful symbol from being shown on their page? Social Media is also about knowing your audience. If these company's truly know their customers, they have to adjust accordingly. My guess is they'd opt to block.
Without professing to be a legal expert, I'm pretty sure you're right about the government vs. company distinction, Kirk. The real question, though, is SHOULD a brand censor fans? And to what extent?
I'm with you on the “Community Guidelines” or “Terms of Use” concept, Scott…though I doubt anyone reads the legalese.
Is there a way to block an avatar on Facebook? Probably not. But I bet you could block a user.
What is or is not offensive will always be a subjective call. However, my advice to our clients is that they should censor flagrantly offensive or off-topic comments while attempting to remain generally tolerant. Genuine engagement means that you will have disagreements (if not, why bother talking) but just as in a face-to-face situation, that does not mean that you must be tolerant of every possible statement made by others. Just as in “real life”, applying common sense to social media content moderation is a good policy.
What is or is not offensive will always be a subjective call. However, my advice to our clients is that they should censor flagrantly offensive or off-topic comments while attempting to remain generally tolerant. Genuine engagement means that you will have disagreements (if not, why bother talking) but just as in a face-to-face situation, that does not mean that you must be tolerant of every possible statement made by others. Just as in “real life”, applying common sense to social media content moderation is a good policy.
It seems kinda ironic considering one of the founders of Starbucks is Jewish. I wonder what he would make of it.
A brand needs to take responsibility for its public persona. If I was advising Starbucks as a client, I'd suggest they contact the person involved and ask them to change their avatar, citing they don't feel it's suitable for a public forum. If the avatar isn't changed, remove the user.
I'm all for free speech and beliefs, but I think there's a distinct difference between a religious belief and a hate-filled one.
It seems kinda ironic considering one of the founders of Starbucks is Jewish. I wonder what he would make of it.
A brand needs to take responsibility for its public persona. If I was advising Starbucks as a client, I'd suggest they contact the person involved and ask them to change their avatar, citing they don't feel it's suitable for a public forum. If the avatar isn't changed, remove the user.
I'm all for free speech and beliefs, but I think there's a distinct difference between a religious belief and a hate-filled one.
I think that a brand/company has every right to censor anything offensive (such as the example given). It is obviously a huge debate when Social Media is brought up to Senior Managements at a variety of businesses—”what if someone says something bad about us?” Always a fun time explaining that this is exactly the beauty of Social Media–people can express their opinions openly and you have to take it (or risk being called out for deleting comments or 'censoring'.) However, you do not have to sit back and take offensive and inappropriate remarks or associations with your brand. It is your right to censor as a brand ambassador.
Great question. Definitely raises some interesting points!
I think that a brand/company has every right to censor anything offensive (such as the example given). It is obviously a huge debate when Social Media is brought up to Senior Managements at a variety of businesses—”what if someone says something bad about us?” Always a fun time explaining that this is exactly the beauty of Social Media–people can express their opinions openly and you have to take it (or risk being called out for deleting comments or 'censoring'.) However, you do not have to sit back and take offensive and inappropriate remarks or associations with your brand. It is your right to censor as a brand ambassador.
Great question. Definitely raises some interesting points!
I think that a brand/company has every right to censor anything offensive (such as the example given). It is obviously a huge debate when Social Media is brought up to Senior Managements at a variety of businesses—”what if someone says something bad about us?” Always a fun time explaining that this is exactly the beauty of Social Media–people can express their opinions openly and you have to take it (or risk being called out for deleting comments or 'censoring'.) However, you do not have to sit back and take offensive and inappropriate remarks or associations with your brand. It is your right to censor as a brand ambassador.
Great question. Definitely raises some interesting points!