social media explorer

While I agree it's doubly important to make sure what you present online is something you want to have permanently associated with you, isn't this example more to do with the person as opposed to the tool?

Say there had been an instance where Eric was having lunch at a diner, or drinks at a bar. He offers the same info, except it's to the person sat next to him. Again, this is down to Eric (the person) as opposed to the bar or restaurant (the tool).

We all need to work with self-censorship, but when that fails it's not always the tools that are to blame.

While I agree it's doubly important to make sure what you present online is something you want to have permanently associated with you, isn't this example more to do with the person as opposed to the tool?

Say there had been an instance where Eric was having lunch at a diner, or drinks at a bar. He offers the same info, except it's to the person sat next to him. Again, this is down to Eric (the person) as opposed to the bar or restaurant (the tool).

We all need to work with self-censorship, but when that fails it's not always the tools that are to blame.

While I agree it's doubly important to make sure what you present online is something you want to have permanently associated with you, isn't this example more to do with the person as opposed to the tool?

Say there had been an instance where Eric was having lunch at a diner, or drinks at a bar. He offers the same info, except it's to the person sat next to him. Again, this is down to Eric (the person) as opposed to the bar or restaurant (the tool).

We all need to work with self-censorship, but when that fails it's not always the tools that are to blame.

While I agree it's doubly important to make sure what you present online is something you want to have permanently associated with you, isn't this example more to do with the person as opposed to the tool?

Say there had been an instance where Eric was having lunch at a diner, or drinks at a bar. He offers the same info, except it's to the person sat next to him. Again, this is down to Eric (the person) as opposed to the bar or restaurant (the tool).

We all need to work with self-censorship, but when that fails it's not always the tools that are to blame.

While I agree it's doubly important to make sure what you present online is something you want to have permanently associated with you, isn't this example more to do with the person as opposed to the tool?

Say there had been an instance where Eric was having lunch at a diner, or drinks at a bar. He offers the same info, except it's to the person sat next to him. Again, this is down to Eric (the person) as opposed to the bar or restaurant (the tool).

We all need to work with self-censorship, but when that fails it's not always the tools that are to blame.

While I agree it's doubly important to make sure what you present online is something you want to have permanently associated with you, isn't this example more to do with the person as opposed to the tool?

Say there had been an instance where Eric was having lunch at a diner, or drinks at a bar. He offers the same info, except it's to the person sat next to him. Again, this is down to Eric (the person) as opposed to the bar or restaurant (the tool).

We all need to work with self-censorship, but when that fails it's not always the tools that are to blame.

While I agree it's doubly important to make sure what you present online is something you want to have permanently associated with you, isn't this example more to do with the person as opposed to the tool?

Say there had been an instance where Eric was having lunch at a diner, or drinks at a bar. He offers the same info, except it's to the person sat next to him. Again, this is down to Eric (the person) as opposed to the bar or restaurant (the tool).

We all need to work with self-censorship, but when that fails it's not always the tools that are to blame.

Is Eric's tweet any less damaging than a Court TV reporter–should one do this–live blogging a trial?

Is Eric's tweet any less damaging than a Court TV reporter–should one do this–live blogging a trial?

Is Eric's tweet any less damaging than a Court TV reporter–should one do this–live blogging a trial?

Is Eric's tweet any less damaging than a Court TV reporter–should one do this–live blogging a trial?

Is Eric's tweet any less damaging than a Court TV reporter–should one do this–live blogging a trial?

Is Eric's tweet any less damaging than a Court TV reporter–should one do this–live blogging a trial?

Is Eric's tweet any less damaging than a Court TV reporter–should one do this–live blogging a trial?

It is up to the individual, Danny, but it's also up to the community to ensure we're helping establish the norms with the tools. Frankly, he should have known better and followed the judge's instructions. Not communicating about the trial applies everywhere. Social media is no different.

No, it's not up to Twitter to ensure jurors aren't using it inappropriately, but if we, the user base, don't make sure we're recognizing there are appropriate times and inappropriate times, the court will for us. And that, my friend, will suck.

Thanks for chiming in.

It is up to the individual, Danny, but it's also up to the community to ensure we're helping establish the norms with the tools. Frankly, he should have known better and followed the judge's instructions. Not communicating about the trial applies everywhere. Social media is no different.

No, it's not up to Twitter to ensure jurors aren't using it inappropriately, but if we, the user base, don't make sure we're recognizing there are appropriate times and inappropriate times, the court will for us. And that, my friend, will suck.

Thanks for chiming in.

It is up to the individual, Danny, but it's also up to the community to ensure we're helping establish the norms with the tools. Frankly, he should have known better and followed the judge's instructions. Not communicating about the trial applies everywhere. Social media is no different.

No, it's not up to Twitter to ensure jurors aren't using it inappropriately, but if we, the user base, don't make sure we're recognizing there are appropriate times and inappropriate times, the court will for us. And that, my friend, will suck.

Thanks for chiming in.

It is up to the individual, Danny, but it's also up to the community to ensure we're helping establish the norms with the tools. Frankly, he should have known better and followed the judge's instructions. Not communicating about the trial applies everywhere. Social media is no different.

No, it's not up to Twitter to ensure jurors aren't using it inappropriately, but if we, the user base, don't make sure we're recognizing there are appropriate times and inappropriate times, the court will for us. And that, my friend, will suck.

Thanks for chiming in.

It is up to the individual, Danny, but it's also up to the community to ensure we're helping establish the norms with the tools. Frankly, he should have known better and followed the judge's instructions. Not communicating about the trial applies everywhere. Social media is no different.

No, it's not up to Twitter to ensure jurors aren't using it inappropriately, but if we, the user base, don't make sure we're recognizing there are appropriate times and inappropriate times, the court will for us. And that, my friend, will suck.

Thanks for chiming in.

It is up to the individual, Danny, but it's also up to the community to ensure we're helping establish the norms with the tools. Frankly, he should have known better and followed the judge's instructions. Not communicating about the trial applies everywhere. Social media is no different.

No, it's not up to Twitter to ensure jurors aren't using it inappropriately, but if we, the user base, don't make sure we're recognizing there are appropriate times and inappropriate times, the court will for us. And that, my friend, will suck.

Thanks for chiming in.

It is up to the individual, Danny, but it's also up to the community to ensure we're helping establish the norms with the tools. Frankly, he should have known better and followed the judge's instructions. Not communicating about the trial applies everywhere. Social media is no different.

No, it's not up to Twitter to ensure jurors aren't using it inappropriately, but if we, the user base, don't make sure we're recognizing there are appropriate times and inappropriate times, the court will for us. And that, my friend, will suck.

Thanks for chiming in.

It's much more damaging, Ari, because he is a juror – an integral part of the justice system for that trial (and any trial speaking generally). One of the people who is charged with making a guilty/not-guilty verdict is violating the sanctity of the judge's orders and the integrity of the trial by communicating openly about it in a public forum (on-line or off-). A court reporter is different because they don't play a role in the outcome. (Keep in mind the jurors are supposed to not consume media coverage of trials on which they are working as well.)

But thanks for the push back. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

It's much more damaging, Ari, because he is a juror – an integral part of the justice system for that trial (and any trial speaking generally). One of the people who is charged with making a guilty/not-guilty verdict is violating the sanctity of the judge's orders and the integrity of the trial by communicating openly about it in a public forum (on-line or off-). A court reporter is different because they don't play a role in the outcome. (Keep in mind the jurors are supposed to not consume media coverage of trials on which they are working as well.)

But thanks for the push back. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

It's much more damaging, Ari, because he is a juror – an integral part of the justice system for that trial (and any trial speaking generally). One of the people who is charged with making a guilty/not-guilty verdict is violating the sanctity of the judge's orders and the integrity of the trial by communicating openly about it in a public forum (on-line or off-). A court reporter is different because they don't play a role in the outcome. (Keep in mind the jurors are supposed to not consume media coverage of trials on which they are working as well.)

But thanks for the push back. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

It's much more damaging, Ari, because he is a juror – an integral part of the justice system for that trial (and any trial speaking generally). One of the people who is charged with making a guilty/not-guilty verdict is violating the sanctity of the judge's orders and the integrity of the trial by communicating openly about it in a public forum (on-line or off-). A court reporter is different because they don't play a role in the outcome. (Keep in mind the jurors are supposed to not consume media coverage of trials on which they are working as well.)

But thanks for the push back. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

It's much more damaging, Ari, because he is a juror – an integral part of the justice system for that trial (and any trial speaking generally). One of the people who is charged with making a guilty/not-guilty verdict is violating the sanctity of the judge's orders and the integrity of the trial by communicating openly about it in a public forum (on-line or off-). A court reporter is different because they don't play a role in the outcome. (Keep in mind the jurors are supposed to not consume media coverage of trials on which they are working as well.)

But thanks for the push back. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

It's much more damaging, Ari, because he is a juror – an integral part of the justice system for that trial (and any trial speaking generally). One of the people who is charged with making a guilty/not-guilty verdict is violating the sanctity of the judge's orders and the integrity of the trial by communicating openly about it in a public forum (on-line or off-). A court reporter is different because they don't play a role in the outcome. (Keep in mind the jurors are supposed to not consume media coverage of trials on which they are working as well.)

But thanks for the push back. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

It's much more damaging, Ari, because he is a juror – an integral part of the justice system for that trial (and any trial speaking generally). One of the people who is charged with making a guilty/not-guilty verdict is violating the sanctity of the judge's orders and the integrity of the trial by communicating openly about it in a public forum (on-line or off-). A court reporter is different because they don't play a role in the outcome. (Keep in mind the jurors are supposed to not consume media coverage of trials on which they are working as well.)

But thanks for the push back. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

[...] When Twitter Isn’t Appropriate (Social Media Explorer) [...]

Excellent advice Jason, common sense is a concept that seems to get lost within the open free-flowing world of social media. Whether it is speaking, writing, or tweeting you should probably think before you do it.

Excellent advice Jason, common sense is a concept that seems to get lost within the open free-flowing world of social media. Whether it is speaking, writing, or tweeting you should probably think before you do it.

Excellent advice Jason, common sense is a concept that seems to get lost within the open free-flowing world of social media. Whether it is speaking, writing, or tweeting you should probably think before you do it.

Excellent advice Jason, common sense is a concept that seems to get lost within the open free-flowing world of social media. Whether it is speaking, writing, or tweeting you should probably think before you do it.

Excellent advice Jason, common sense is a concept that seems to get lost within the open free-flowing world of social media. Whether it is speaking, writing, or tweeting you should probably think before you do it.

Excellent advice Jason, common sense is a concept that seems to get lost within the open free-flowing world of social media. Whether it is speaking, writing, or tweeting you should probably think before you do it.

Excellent advice Jason, common sense is a concept that seems to get lost within the open free-flowing world of social media. Whether it is speaking, writing, or tweeting you should probably think before you do it.

You couldn't be more correct. Common sense still applies, now more than ever! I suspect many of the mishaps have more to do with generational differences and inexperience, thus “lessons learned the hard way” come into play.

From a business perspective, companies must include social networking sites in their acceptable use policies. Only including email and broad Internet usage is a big oversight! Once those policies are in place, companies must equip their employees for success (Zappos style).

Great thoughts!

You couldn't be more correct. Common sense still applies, now more than ever! I suspect many of the mishaps have more to do with generational differences and inexperience, thus “lessons learned the hard way” come into play.

From a business perspective, companies must include social networking sites in their acceptable use policies. Only including email and broad Internet usage is a big oversight! Once those policies are in place, companies must equip their employees for success (Zappos style).

Great thoughts!

You couldn't be more correct. Common sense still applies, now more than ever! I suspect many of the mishaps have more to do with generational differences and inexperience, thus “lessons learned the hard way” come into play.

From a business perspective, companies must include social networking sites in their acceptable use policies. Only including email and broad Internet usage is a big oversight! Once those policies are in place, companies must equip their employees for success (Zappos style).

Great thoughts!

You couldn't be more correct. Common sense still applies, now more than ever! I suspect many of the mishaps have more to do with generational differences and inexperience, thus “lessons learned the hard way” come into play.

From a business perspective, companies must include social networking sites in their acceptable use policies. Only including email and broad Internet usage is a big oversight! Once those policies are in place, companies must equip their employees for success (Zappos style).

Great thoughts!

You couldn't be more correct. Common sense still applies, now more than ever! I suspect many of the mishaps have more to do with generational differences and inexperience, thus “lessons learned the hard way” come into play.

From a business perspective, companies must include social networking sites in their acceptable use policies. Only including email and broad Internet usage is a big oversight! Once those policies are in place, companies must equip their employees for success (Zappos style).

Great thoughts!

You couldn't be more correct. Common sense still applies, now more than ever! I suspect many of the mishaps have more to do with generational differences and inexperience, thus “lessons learned the hard way” come into play.

From a business perspective, companies must include social networking sites in their acceptable use policies. Only including email and broad Internet usage is a big oversight! Once those policies are in place, companies must equip their employees for success (Zappos style).

Great thoughts!

You couldn't be more correct. Common sense still applies, now more than ever! I suspect many of the mishaps have more to do with generational differences and inexperience, thus “lessons learned the hard way” come into play.

From a business perspective, companies must include social networking sites in their acceptable use policies. Only including email and broad Internet usage is a big oversight! Once those policies are in place, companies must equip their employees for success (Zappos style).

Great thoughts!

Proof that common sense isn't so common. I tweeted a link a while back to a newspaper article wherein a multi-million dollar federal trial had to be dismissed because jurors were tweeting and looking up info about the case on their BlackBerrys/smartphones. Of course, they had been instructed not to. I suggested that the offending jurors be billed for the amount of money (taxpayer money) wasted in the first trial.

It's unbelievable to me that anyone would do that, but again, my main point: common sense isn't that common. It is when people cannot govern their own behavior that it becomes necessary for others to do it for them. Take away the cell phones at the start of the trial, and yes, this is punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

A fair trial is one of the foundations of a legitimate system, and should be treated with the reverence and respect that it deserves from those who are being asked to–literally–pass judgment on another.

Great post, Jason…

Proof that common sense isn't so common. I tweeted a link a while back to a newspaper article wherein a multi-million dollar federal trial had to be dismissed because jurors were tweeting and looking up info about the case on their BlackBerrys/smartphones. Of course, they had been instructed not to. I suggested that the offending jurors be billed for the amount of money (taxpayer money) wasted in the first trial.

It's unbelievable to me that anyone would do that, but again, my main point: common sense isn't that common. It is when people cannot govern their own behavior that it becomes necessary for others to do it for them. Take away the cell phones at the start of the trial, and yes, this is punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

A fair trial is one of the foundations of a legitimate system, and should be treated with the reverence and respect that it deserves from those who are being asked to–literally–pass judgment on another.

Great post, Jason…

Proof that common sense isn't so common. I tweeted a link a while back to a newspaper article wherein a multi-million dollar federal trial had to be dismissed because jurors were tweeting and looking up info about the case on their BlackBerrys/smartphones. Of course, they had been instructed not to. I suggested that the offending jurors be billed for the amount of money (taxpayer money) wasted in the first trial.

It's unbelievable to me that anyone would do that, but again, my main point: common sense isn't that common. It is when people cannot govern their own behavior that it becomes necessary for others to do it for them. Take away the cell phones at the start of the trial, and yes, this is punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

A fair trial is one of the foundations of a legitimate system, and should be treated with the reverence and respect that it deserves from those who are being asked to–literally–pass judgment on another.

Great post, Jason…

Proof that common sense isn't so common. I tweeted a link a while back to a newspaper article wherein a multi-million dollar federal trial had to be dismissed because jurors were tweeting and looking up info about the case on their BlackBerrys/smartphones. Of course, they had been instructed not to. I suggested that the offending jurors be billed for the amount of money (taxpayer money) wasted in the first trial.

It's unbelievable to me that anyone would do that, but again, my main point: common sense isn't that common. It is when people cannot govern their own behavior that it becomes necessary for others to do it for them. Take away the cell phones at the start of the trial, and yes, this is punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

A fair trial is one of the foundations of a legitimate system, and should be treated with the reverence and respect that it deserves from those who are being asked to–literally–pass judgment on another.

Great post, Jason…

Proof that common sense isn't so common. I tweeted a link a while back to a newspaper article wherein a multi-million dollar federal trial had to be dismissed because jurors were tweeting and looking up info about the case on their BlackBerrys/smartphones. Of course, they had been instructed not to. I suggested that the offending jurors be billed for the amount of money (taxpayer money) wasted in the first trial.

It's unbelievable to me that anyone would do that, but again, my main point: common sense isn't that common. It is when people cannot govern their own behavior that it becomes necessary for others to do it for them. Take away the cell phones at the start of the trial, and yes, this is punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

A fair trial is one of the foundations of a legitimate system, and should be treated with the reverence and respect that it deserves from those who are being asked to–literally–pass judgment on another.

Great post, Jason…

Proof that common sense isn't so common. I tweeted a link a while back to a newspaper article wherein a multi-million dollar federal trial had to be dismissed because jurors were tweeting and looking up info about the case on their BlackBerrys/smartphones. Of course, they had been instructed not to. I suggested that the offending jurors be billed for the amount of money (taxpayer money) wasted in the first trial.

It's unbelievable to me that anyone would do that, but again, my main point: common sense isn't that common. It is when people cannot govern their own behavior that it becomes necessary for others to do it for them. Take away the cell phones at the start of the trial, and yes, this is punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

A fair trial is one of the foundations of a legitimate system, and should be treated with the reverence and respect that it deserves from those who are being asked to–literally–pass judgment on another.

Great post, Jason…

Proof that common sense isn't so common. I tweeted a link a while back to a newspaper article wherein a multi-million dollar federal trial had to be dismissed because jurors were tweeting and looking up info about the case on their BlackBerrys/smartphones. Of course, they had been instructed not to. I suggested that the offending jurors be billed for the amount of money (taxpayer money) wasted in the first trial.

It's unbelievable to me that anyone would do that, but again, my main point: common sense isn't that common. It is when people cannot govern their own behavior that it becomes necessary for others to do it for them. Take away the cell phones at the start of the trial, and yes, this is punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

A fair trial is one of the foundations of a legitimate system, and should be treated with the reverence and respect that it deserves from those who are being asked to–literally–pass judgment on another.

Great post, Jason…

Agree, Stuart. Thanks for the comment, as usual.

Agree, Stuart. Thanks for the comment, as usual.

Agree, Stuart. Thanks for the comment, as usual.

Agree, Stuart. Thanks for the comment, as usual.

Agree, Stuart. Thanks for the comment, as usual.

Agree, Stuart. Thanks for the comment, as usual.

Agree, Stuart. Thanks for the comment, as usual.

No doubt, Cheryl. I was pleased when our most recent harassment training happened at Doe and social networking sites were incorporated into the thinking. (We have good lawyers.) Companies really need to focus on this emerging medium as one to apply policies for. Thanks for the thoughts.

No doubt, Cheryl. I was pleased when our most recent harassment training happened at Doe and social networking sites were incorporated into the thinking. (We have good lawyers.) Companies really need to focus on this emerging medium as one to apply policies for. Thanks for the thoughts.

No doubt, Cheryl. I was pleased when our most recent harassment training happened at Doe and social networking sites were incorporated into the thinking. (We have good lawyers.) Companies really need to focus on this emerging medium as one to apply policies for. Thanks for the thoughts.

No doubt, Cheryl. I was pleased when our most recent harassment training happened at Doe and social networking sites were incorporated into the thinking. (We have good lawyers.) Companies really need to focus on this emerging medium as one to apply policies for. Thanks for the thoughts.

No doubt, Cheryl. I was pleased when our most recent harassment training happened at Doe and social networking sites were incorporated into the thinking. (We have good lawyers.) Companies really need to focus on this emerging medium as one to apply policies for. Thanks for the thoughts.

No doubt, Cheryl. I was pleased when our most recent harassment training happened at Doe and social networking sites were incorporated into the thinking. (We have good lawyers.) Companies really need to focus on this emerging medium as one to apply policies for. Thanks for the thoughts.

No doubt, Cheryl. I was pleased when our most recent harassment training happened at Doe and social networking sites were incorporated into the thinking. (We have good lawyers.) Companies really need to focus on this emerging medium as one to apply policies for. Thanks for the thoughts.

Thanks Jen. You're right. It is confounding that people would just blatantly disregard the instructions of the judge. Our judicial system is too important to adulterate that way. Hopefully, these discussions will help remind folks of that.

Thanks Jen. You're right. It is confounding that people would just blatantly disregard the instructions of the judge. Our judicial system is too important to adulterate that way. Hopefully, these discussions will help remind folks of that.

Thanks Jen. You're right. It is confounding that people would just blatantly disregard the instructions of the judge. Our judicial system is too important to adulterate that way. Hopefully, these discussions will help remind folks of that.

Thanks Jen. You're right. It is confounding that people would just blatantly disregard the instructions of the judge. Our judicial system is too important to adulterate that way. Hopefully, these discussions will help remind folks of that.

Thanks Jen. You're right. It is confounding that people would just blatantly disregard the instructions of the judge. Our judicial system is too important to adulterate that way. Hopefully, these discussions will help remind folks of that.

Thanks Jen. You're right. It is confounding that people would just blatantly disregard the instructions of the judge. Our judicial system is too important to adulterate that way. Hopefully, these discussions will help remind folks of that.

Thanks Jen. You're right. It is confounding that people would just blatantly disregard the instructions of the judge. Our judicial system is too important to adulterate that way. Hopefully, these discussions will help remind folks of that.

hmmm let's try this again (think there might be something going on with Disqus – my last comment simply dissappeared…)

Anyways – what I wanted to say is that I agree it's critical for people to understand that the internet is not a blackhole where you're words flash up and then dissappear, it's more like a permanent tattoo of everything you've ever written or posted. With social networks becoming a bigger part of every activity we do online you're identity is more public and visible than every before and you have to protect and present it like you would offline. I wrote a similar post about “online manners” (http://www.socialmedialand.net/2009/01/21/stori…) but this example and others that have been in the news lately have inspired me to tackle the topic again from another angle. Thanks for the insight!

hmmm let's try this again (think there might be something going on with Disqus – my last comment simply dissappeared…)

Anyways – what I wanted to say is that I agree it's critical for people to understand that the internet is not a blackhole where you're words flash up and then dissappear, it's more like a permanent tattoo of everything you've ever written or posted. With social networks becoming a bigger part of every activity we do online you're identity is more public and visible than every before and you have to protect and present it like you would offline. I wrote a similar post about “online manners” (http://www.socialmedialand.net/2009/01/21/stori…) but this example and others that have been in the news lately have inspired me to tackle the topic again from another angle. Thanks for the insight!

hmmm let's try this again (think there might be something going on with Disqus – my last comment simply dissappeared…)

Anyways – what I wanted to say is that I agree it's critical for people to understand that the internet is not a blackhole where you're words flash up and then dissappear, it's more like a permanent tattoo of everything you've ever written or posted. With social networks becoming a bigger part of every activity we do online you're identity is more public and visible than every before and you have to protect and present it like you would offline. I wrote a similar post about “online manners” (http://www.socialmedialand.net/2009/01/21/stori…) but this example and others that have been in the news lately have inspired me to tackle the topic again from another angle. Thanks for the insight!

hmmm let's try this again (think there might be something going on with Disqus – my last comment simply dissappeared…)

Anyways – what I wanted to say is that I agree it's critical for people to understand that the internet is not a blackhole where you're words flash up and then dissappear, it's more like a permanent tattoo of everything you've ever written or posted. With social networks becoming a bigger part of every activity we do online you're identity is more public and visible than every before and you have to protect and present it like you would offline. I wrote a similar post about “online manners” (http://www.socialmedialand.net/2009/01/21/stori…) but this example and others that have been in the news lately have inspired me to tackle the topic again from another angle. Thanks for the insight!

hmmm let's try this again (think there might be something going on with Disqus – my last comment simply dissappeared…)

Anyways – what I wanted to say is that I agree it's critical for people to understand that the internet is not a blackhole where you're words flash up and then dissappear, it's more like a permanent tattoo of everything you've ever written or posted. With social networks becoming a bigger part of every activity we do online you're identity is more public and visible than every before and you have to protect and present it like you would offline. I wrote a similar post about “online manners” (http://www.socialmedialand.net/2009/01/21/stori…) but this example and others that have been in the news lately have inspired me to tackle the topic again from another angle. Thanks for the insight!

hmmm let's try this again (think there might be something going on with Disqus – my last comment simply dissappeared…)

Anyways – what I wanted to say is that I agree it's critical for people to understand that the internet is not a blackhole where you're words flash up and then dissappear, it's more like a permanent tattoo of everything you've ever written or posted. With social networks becoming a bigger part of every activity we do online you're identity is more public and visible than every before and you have to protect and present it like you would offline. I wrote a similar post about “online manners” (http://www.socialmedialand.net/2009/01/21/stori…) but this example and others that have been in the news lately have inspired me to tackle the topic again from another angle. Thanks for the insight!

hmmm let's try this again (think there might be something going on with Disqus – my last comment simply dissappeared…)

Anyways – what I wanted to say is that I agree it's critical for people to understand that the internet is not a blackhole where you're words flash up and then dissappear, it's more like a permanent tattoo of everything you've ever written or posted. With social networks becoming a bigger part of every activity we do online you're identity is more public and visible than every before and you have to protect and present it like you would offline. I wrote a similar post about “online manners” (http://www.socialmedialand.net/2009/01/21/stori…) but this example and others that have been in the news lately have inspired me to tackle the topic again from another angle. Thanks for the insight!

Thank you, Katie. And thanks for the link to your post. We'll check it out!

Thank you, Katie. And thanks for the link to your post. We'll check it out!

Thank you, Katie. And thanks for the link to your post. We'll check it out!

Thank you, Katie. And thanks for the link to your post. We'll check it out!

Thank you, Katie. And thanks for the link to your post. We'll check it out!

Thank you, Katie. And thanks for the link to your post. We'll check it out!

Thank you, Katie. And thanks for the link to your post. We'll check it out!

When Twitter isn’t appropriate http://bit.ly/pf7Mm

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

RT @annenwood: When Twitter isn’t appropriate http://bit.ly/pf7Mm

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

When Twitter Isn’t Appropriate http://tinyurl.com/cpfvc2

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

When Twitter Isn’t Appropriate – @jasonfalls – http://jijr.com/ZzD

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

Aside from breaches of confidential information, like in this jury case…. I can think of hundreds of cases where Twitter isn't strategically appropriate or likely to likely to be very effective, especially for corporations.

It a very good tool for certain kinds of companies and individuals to connect with others, but it's no panacea or cutting-edge revolution for many types of people and businesses I've spoken with. Many of them lack the commitment, curiosity or the right kind of business model to use it advantageously.

Aside from breaches of confidential information, like in this jury case…. I can think of hundreds of cases where Twitter isn't strategically appropriate or likely to likely to be very effective, especially for corporations.

It a very good tool for certain kinds of companies and individuals to connect with others, but it's no panacea or cutting-edge revolution for many types of people and businesses I've spoken with. Many of them lack the commitment, curiosity or the right kind of business model to use it advantageously.

Aside from breaches of confidential information, like in this jury case…. I can think of hundreds of cases where Twitter isn't strategically appropriate or likely to likely to be very effective, especially for corporations.

It a very good tool for certain kinds of companies and individuals to connect with others, but it's no panacea or cutting-edge revolution for many types of people and businesses I've spoken with. Many of them lack the commitment, curiosity or the right kind of business model to use it advantageously.

Aside from breaches of confidential information, like in this jury case…. I can think of hundreds of cases where Twitter isn't strategically appropriate or likely to likely to be very effective, especially for corporations.

It a very good tool for certain kinds of companies and individuals to connect with others, but it's no panacea or cutting-edge revolution for many types of people and businesses I've spoken with. Many of them lack the commitment, curiosity or the right kind of business model to use it advantageously.

Aside from breaches of confidential information, like in this jury case…. I can think of hundreds of cases where Twitter isn't strategically appropriate or likely to likely to be very effective, especially for corporations.

It a very good tool for certain kinds of companies and individuals to connect with others, but it's no panacea or cutting-edge revolution for many types of people and businesses I've spoken with. Many of them lack the commitment, curiosity or the right kind of business model to use it advantageously.

Aside from breaches of confidential information, like in this jury case…. I can think of hundreds of cases where Twitter isn't strategically appropriate or likely to likely to be very effective, especially for corporations.

It a very good tool for certain kinds of companies and individuals to connect with others, but it's no panacea or cutting-edge revolution for many types of people and businesses I've spoken with. Many of them lack the commitment, curiosity or the right kind of business model to use it advantageously.

Aside from breaches of confidential information, like in this jury case…. I can think of hundreds of cases where Twitter isn't strategically appropriate or likely to likely to be very effective, especially for corporations.

It a very good tool for certain kinds of companies and individuals to connect with others, but it's no panacea or cutting-edge revolution for many types of people and businesses I've spoken with. Many of them lack the commitment, curiosity or the right kind of business model to use it advantageously.

The first rule for company employees when using their respective online spaces is, “Don’t be stupid.” http://twurl.nl/2v51mc

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

RT @GrowMap The first rule for company employees when using their respective online spaces is, “Don’t be stupid.” http://twurl.nl/2v51mc

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

Casting agents can make casting calls through IamAnArtist as we have the best network of the most talented resources in the art and entertainment industry.

Casting directors can find young and energetic film producers who have done some remarkable pieces of work. IamAnArtist has many film production jobs listed on it so that the right opportunity meets with the right talent.

Jason Falls – When Twitter Isn’t Appropriate: http://twurl.nl/q2pwjf

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

Reading: When Twitter Isn’t Appropriate from Social Media Explorer http://bit.ly/kZTJ

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

RT @IdoNotes: Reading: When Twitter Isn’t Appropriate from Social Media Explorer http://bit.ly/kZTJ

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

RT @corvida When Twitter Isn’t Appropriate by @jasonfalls http://bit.ly/kZTJ Hint: don’t Twitter a from the courtroom!

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

when twitter isn’t appropriate : http://twurl.nl/asennr

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

buy prednisone – prednisone,buy prednisone – prednisone,buy viagra – viagra,buy fioricet – fioricet,buy ativan – ativan,buy tramadol – tramadol,buy lexapro – lexapro,buy synthroid – synthroid,buy valtrex – valtrex,buy cipro – cipro,buy prednisone – prednisone

Thank you for this posting. Clearly, jurors' use of social media to conduct research about a case is causing quite a stir. Kansas, Colorado, New Jersey state or federal courts allow it. Georgia and other states do not. Post trial jury interviews show that despite court admonitions, jurors want to know everything they can about a case in order to make a decision they can be proud of. An admirable goal no doubt. As in the case of other jury trial innovations, we are likely headed toward eventually accepting this tendency of jurors since it is compulsive behavior that is not likely to cease with court instructions. Instead of trying to cure the problem with an instruction, we might try a brief training or orientation session with jurors to quell their desire to look for outside information. We would also be well advised to conduct advance research on the Web to identify the information and sources of information about the case that appear on the Web in order to see it before jurors do and deal with it directly in court.

Thank you for this, Dr. Waites. Great thoughts here. Hopefully some
legal scholars can weigh in. What you offered sounds good on my end.
Training jurors on how to be effective and law-abiding in their
efforts can't be bad and you're right: they won't stop using the
technology available to them.

I am also a XX fan who really like this! I also like XX, and purchase lots of it every time, like-minded friends can have a look ,we can communicate by the way~~

I really like this type of Merchandise too, can you help me look at which one has higher price point?
http://vibramshoesonline.com/

This post was mentioned on Twitter and it is really good site!

This post was mentioned on Twitter and it is really good site!