Social media ethics and differences between libraries and publishers

 When posting on a social media platform, an individual is required to follow the ethical guidelines that are laid out in the terms and conditions of the social media platform. It is not often that one person is following the guidelines to the last detail, as we have seen in apps such as Twitter or Facebook in which increasingly negativity in words and media are shown. In that regard, you and I as just any ordinary person usually does not have to pay fines or have our accounts locked on the overall. 

It is, however, an entirely different outcome when it is the official accounts of an organization or corporation whose reputations precede them. In the recent Social Media Ethics policy paper for my LIS 558 course, I sought to look at the policies and guidelines that the publishing company Penguin Random House has initiated. In short, the policies are put into three sections: influencers, employees and distributors/suppliers. Each section has to follow strict guidelines related to transparency and marketing tactics. As is commonplace among corporate executives and employees, the primary goal of posting on social media is to promote the company and its subsidiaries in a positive manner. Engagement with the public at large is limited to authors and like-minded figures who have a considerable media presence. Often that will result in more playful banter, or even an acknowledgment of congratulations. As well, the policy of promoting newer works does not entail that PRH can post negativity on works from other publishers. A wise position, one that is commonly followed by other published entities. 

Having mentioned this, authors have a greater degree of latitude when using social media. To begin with, when cross pollinating with PRH's official accounts, an author can state their opinions on a number of matters in different fields of presentations including live chats and interviews. If the opinion is different from others, PRH can and at times does post a disclaimer along the lines of "the views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the views of PRH". More often, the author maintains their own personal social media accounts where opinions are more freely expressed. It is one reason why an author such as Stephen King can state his opinions and promote his work in his own name, and why Scribner/Simon and Schuster (King's publisher) limit their social media presence with respect to Mr. King on promoting his new books. These policies make sense when noticing that the authors hold the copyright of their published works, and only in rare occasions does the publishing company. 

In another contrast, the social media policies that a library must follow are generally more centered on engagement with the community. It is therefore limited in scope as compared with publishing firms and even authors and influencers. Yet, a significant difference is with respect to the knowledge that a library is mainly taxpayer funded and is governed by a board of directors voted in by people who live in the nearby community. So, while discussions on books and authors do appear every so often, the promotion of a library is focused on special events and civic engagement. Any specific discussion regarding a new or classic book is typically found on the library's website, depending on the number of volumes and even branches a library has. 

The social media world is one in where a reader, an author, a publisher and a library can have the potential to interact with each other and to form at the very least an ongoing conversation on the internet and interconnected relations between all parties. None the less, that sort of interconnected dialogue is rare and, in most cases, nonexistent. This ranges from matters of conflicting interest to discussions as to if the needs of the reader far outweigh the needs of the other entities. And the same can apply to those other entities too. So, we get connected yet we seem farther apart from the connection between the four groups. Let me know if this seems like there is a validity to this observation. Perhaps another opinion can help in achieving a better conclusion. 

Speak to you soon,

Robert Kelly