There are standards in advertising in just about every country that has an advertising industry for a reason. The use of the medium comes with the suggestion that it has a significant impact on culture and, as such, needs to be guided by certain principles.
Social media is still new and its impact and reach still being defined and although we have already seen some excellent cases of social media disasters they were to be expected in the brand new world of social media transparency.
Social media, like everything on the web, matures fast. We are entering the second phase of widespread adoption before we have even properly addressed all the issue regarding its use and this means that we have to work out the rules of usage on the fly.
Cue for this week’s lesson in social media responsibility and ethics courtesy of Melissa Stetten and Brian Presley. Two relatively ordinary people even if the first is a model and the second an actor whose chance encounter on a redeye flight from New York to LA led to one of the most extraordinary social media cases in recent days.
The story is short: Brian, married with a son, happened to sit in the seat next to Melissa. They struck up a conversation and he lightly flirted with her, talked about his work and hers, had three Heinekens, ordered a light chicken salad, talked about divine inception (sic) and discussed his views on gay marriage and growing up in ‘Homa (Oklahoma).
The reason we happen to know all this, along with the fact that Brian is a recovering alcoholic with a cross-addiction problem is that Melissa Stetten Tweeted the entire encounter to us and her 30,000 followers, live.
Now here comes up an entire truckload of issues including the sense of implied expectation of a measure of confidentiality of what is a private conversation, the responsibility to perhaps stop a self-acknowledged recovering alcoholic from having a drink by at least asking if he thought that would be a good idea, and a display of a lack of empathy for one person, however boorish, simply wanting to connect with another for the duration of a flight.
Brian Presley’s life went into the expected public meltdown. He experienced problems with his wife, became the butt of many an online conversation and had to go on a number of talk shows to explain his behaviour, addictions, drinking and implied attempt at infidelity (that last one, quite a stretch given that he never even asked for Stetten’s number).
As far as Melissa Stetten’s motivation and attitude go, her Tweets can be found here, and you will need to draw your own conclusions.
Social media however is a tool which has the ability to create radical transparency in every situation it is applied in. As a tool, it should not be exempt from the same degree of responsibility which governs our use of almost any other tool in our world and this means accepting some ethical standards.
The debate about how ethics should apply in the ever changing social media landscape however does present some challenges. Jay Shepherd, author of the book Firing at Will: A Manager’s Guide, sums up unethical behavior with a sentence.
“It’s like pornography: You know it when you see it. It’s as simple as knowing the right thing to do, then doing the wrong thing.”
Did Melissa Stetten know she was doing the wrong thing in this case? Her final Tweet where she wonders if she ruined Brian Presley’s life may imply that she did. Either way the case of what should have been a non-event, two strangers meeting on a flight and having a chat, has now become a test case for our ability to use social media in a way that does more good than harm.
When Melissa Met Brian: A Lesson in Social Media Ethics
Authored by:
David Amerland
David Amerland's latest book is "Google Semantic Search: Search Engine Optimization (SEO) Techniques That Gets Your Company More Traffic, Increases Brand Impact and Amplifies Your Online Presence" which is available to pre-order on Amazon. He is the author of: 'The Social Media Mind: How social media is changing business, politics and science and helps create a new world order' details how to ...
» Already a member? Login now to comment!
» Not a member? Register to comment!
Heidi Miller says:
David--
You bring up another nuanced point, which is that Twitter can be a tad passive-aggressive. Some folks (women in particular, but not exclusively) are uncomfortable simply saying directly, "I'm not interested; thanks." In fact, I used to teach a communications class in which I had the participants role-play saying a polite "no" to a simple request. It was absolutely stunning how many people couldn't do it and would end up saying a qualified "yes" instead!
You are most likely correct in that if Stetten had simply said, "I'm not interested in flirting with you," she might not have felt the need to express her feelings and experiences on Twitter quite so extensively. But then we get into the whole can of squirmy beans of whether one-to-many communication is replacing one-on-one communication, and that might not be the best rabbit hole to go down.
Again, thanks for an intruiging thought experiment.
Heidi Miller says:
Hello! Left a comment two days ago taking an opposing view, but it appears still to be in moderation. This is absolutely a thought-provoking discussion and lead me to diagnose what is considered polite and ethical in terms of social media commentary. I actually believe Melissa was in the right and even take issue with imposing the responsibility on her of preventing an alcoholic twice her size from taking a drink. This is a dangerous venture, in my experience, and not one to be imposed on a complete stranger!
In fact, I was so fascinated by the discussion that I researched the details and wrote up Social Media Ethics: Is It Your Job to Keep Someone from Being a Jerk? David, I would LOVE to see your comments on it!
David Amerland says:
Heidi, hi and thank you for the inivitation to comment. I am sorry your original message has not come up. I would love to have seen it here. I think the whole moderation thing in a social media world can go way too far at times.
I have read your article and I totally get your point of view. From a purely emotional angle you are right and Brian (any Brian in his shoes, single or not) had it coming. But that is something which has more to do with the way an entire film and advertising industry conditions men to behave with women and it is an issue for a different kind of post and a different subject matter.
The questions I raised regarding the ethics of social media have nothing to do with Melissa's looks and Brian's lies and a whole lot to do with the way social media has been used as judge, jury and executioner to present a one-sided conversation (we have only Melissa's Tweets to confirm how Brian really behaved or what he really said).
This highlights exactly the pitfalls which the use of social media creates. Whatever failings we may bring to the table as individuals they are only magnified in a social media environment and that is something which should give us all food for thought.
I have, incidentally, commented on your blog.
Heidi Miller says:
David--
Thanks so much for the blog comment! Fascinating discussion. Your comment here has me wondering about studies on sentiment and tone in women's social media posts vs. men's. While I hesitate to characterize broadly based on gender, I do wonder if sometimes the semi-private nature of social media posting in which one party of the experience is represented via social media and the other is unaware does facilitate a passive-aggressive approach to interpersonal communications.
For example, part of my job is to write about customer service issues. And it's not uncommon to see people expressing their frustration at bad customer service via social media rather than attempting to salvage the interaction as it is happening. In those cases, the question is less about ethics and more about effectiveness: is the best way to get the customer service issue solved to talk to the rep in front of you or to complain via Twitter without the rep knowing? The trick is that there is no right answer here: in some organizations, you'll have better luck talking to the rep and turning off Twitter. However, some organizations train their reps to turn a deaf ear, but the Twitter team is responsive and alert, so it's more effective to make your complaint known via social channels.
So the analogy is that in some cases, the woman facing unwanted attentions might be best served to simply tell the guy, "I'm not interested in flirting right now." And in others, the most effective channel might be a social one to which the public response will be more immediate.
David Amerland says:
Heidi, another great point made to the one you have already posted on your blog in response to my comments there. Indeed, had Brian become more persistent in his flirting and himself crossed a line, Stetten's response would have been easier to sympathise with. He didn't. She crossed a line by making her Tweets judgmental and personal and, by the same token, invited attention on herself.
Had she tackled it offline, as it were, it would have ended much more happily. This is a case to learn from more than anything else. Thank you for participating in this discussion. It has been incredibly enriching.
Amy Moore says:
I'm not exactly sure where you get the idea that tweeting something about someone else, particularly something personal without their permission, is ok. He was just another person and he may or may not have been trying to do what she thought he was trying to do. How would she have felt if someone had posted something like "Melissa Stetten, wannabe model, trying to take advantage of drunk guy on a plane". She would have had a fit. I don't care what the deal is because no matter how you look at it, it was irresponsible on her part.
Your comment in your blog post "Stetten simply reported on something that was happening to her live in a truthful and somewhat opinionated manner." is right but morally wrong. The fact is she should have kept his name out of it as, as YOU stated, it was happening to HER live. End of story.
Carl Setzer says:
She started with the assumption that Brian was attempting to cheat on his wife with her and ran with that. Probably an act of hubris/arrogance on her part. Be that as it may, she unleashed the mindless reactivity of the internet. It's amazing how quickly that can get launched and how nearly impossible it is to put that "genie back in the bottle".
Sure, it's important for us social media users to think before we post, but we should also consider thinking before acting on something we read. Always remember there are two sides to a story.
(Mea cupla: I saw this as it was trending hot on Twitter and though Brian a cad. As this has shaken out, I'm realizing he's not as culpable as first appeared).
David Amerland says:
Amy, thank you for making a very important point. Social media creates transparency even when we are not aware of it. Melissa may well have thought she was Tweeting about Brian but, as you so rightly suggest, she also placed herself on the social media dock, through her actions.
Barry Graham says:
Yes this is totally inappropriate, twitter or any medium, when you have a private conversation it's just that. The last tweet with that disgusting language just about sums it up. I think it shows up the tweeter more than it shows up Brian.
David Amerland says:
Barry, thank you for commenting here and you make an incredibly important point. The boundaries of private and public need to be redefined in the social media age. Inevitably, what we do and how will need to be guided by a degree of common sense.

About Social Media Today


