<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Owing your soul to the company store: does your employer own your Twitter account?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://theyearofthecat.com/2010/01/29/who_owns_your_tweets/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://theyearofthecat.com/2010/01/29/who_owns_your_tweets/</link>
	<description>sex, truth and advertising.  tales of life online, digital and adland. Spitting truth bullets. If you&#039;re a lie, you&#039;d better duck. Warning: blog posts can be overly earnest.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:41:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: event mechanics &#124; The Conservatism of Mumbrella?</title>
		<link>http://theyearofthecat.com/2010/01/29/who_owns_your_tweets/#comment-431</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[event mechanics &#124; The Conservatism of Mumbrella?]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:12:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theyearofthecat.com/?p=402#comment-431</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] at stake in these online exchanges that he perceives trouble public-private lives in a comment to another blog post on the topic: The problem with that suggested policy [of separate personal and professional online [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] at stake in these online exchanges that he perceives trouble public-private lives in a comment to another blog post on the topic: The problem with that suggested policy [of separate personal and professional online [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rin</title>
		<link>http://theyearofthecat.com/2010/01/29/who_owns_your_tweets/#comment-270</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:29:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theyearofthecat.com/?p=402#comment-270</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is the way I see it, basically if an employee does something good the employer gets some credit, but if he does something bad, the company doesn&#039;t want to have anything to do with him. Depending, of course, on what the company considers good or bad.   

Regardless whether you&#039;re on the Internet or other media, I think this issue, if it&#039;s an issue at all, is a long-debated [or just pondered] since there was employment-ism. Office rules and ethics are not something new and it used to be [and often still] extends to the personal domain of an employee.

The question now is the scope of the damage done. I think it is somewhat unfair for, as you put it, a company to have its cake and eat it.

But I do see your point. It&#039;s not easy to run a successful business and have an employee going loose cannon on you.

The solution, a policy if needed, would not be a cookie cutter one. Like any other company rules, it should be clearly communicated [corny I know] and understood. Requiring a separate social network account will ultimately create a &#039;toothless tiger&#039;.

From my personal point of view, a company&#039;s website link on a social network page does not make him or her a spokesperson of the company. I have always understood a personal view as a personal view and the person just happens to work at ABC company.

I guess the bottom line is there&#039;s always risk involve if you want higher return.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is the way I see it, basically if an employee does something good the employer gets some credit, but if he does something bad, the company doesn&#8217;t want to have anything to do with him. Depending, of course, on what the company considers good or bad.   </p>
<p>Regardless whether you&#8217;re on the Internet or other media, I think this issue, if it&#8217;s an issue at all, is a long-debated [or just pondered] since there was employment-ism. Office rules and ethics are not something new and it used to be [and often still] extends to the personal domain of an employee.</p>
<p>The question now is the scope of the damage done. I think it is somewhat unfair for, as you put it, a company to have its cake and eat it.</p>
<p>But I do see your point. It&#8217;s not easy to run a successful business and have an employee going loose cannon on you.</p>
<p>The solution, a policy if needed, would not be a cookie cutter one. Like any other company rules, it should be clearly communicated [corny I know] and understood. Requiring a separate social network account will ultimately create a &#8216;toothless tiger&#8217;.</p>
<p>From my personal point of view, a company&#8217;s website link on a social network page does not make him or her a spokesperson of the company. I have always understood a personal view as a personal view and the person just happens to work at ABC company.</p>
<p>I guess the bottom line is there&#8217;s always risk involve if you want higher return.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anon1</title>
		<link>http://theyearofthecat.com/2010/01/29/who_owns_your_tweets/#comment-267</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[anon1]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 03:52:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theyearofthecat.com/?p=402#comment-267</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you put your photo and name up there, along with the fact that you work for Company X, then anything you say can reasonably be taken as coming from or reflecting on that company.

If your Twitter feed (or blog or whatever website) is *personal* then don&#039;t plaster your work details all over it.  Don&#039;t mix in tweets on how much you drank last weekend with updates on your company&#039;s new product news.

It&#039;s really not hard to have &quot;barrycrocker&quot; and &quot;barrycrockerHP&quot; as two separate Twitter accounts.  It&#039;s not like they charge (yet anyway).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you put your photo and name up there, along with the fact that you work for Company X, then anything you say can reasonably be taken as coming from or reflecting on that company.</p>
<p>If your Twitter feed (or blog or whatever website) is *personal* then don&#8217;t plaster your work details all over it.  Don&#8217;t mix in tweets on how much you drank last weekend with updates on your company&#8217;s new product news.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s really not hard to have &#8220;barrycrocker&#8221; and &#8220;barrycrockerHP&#8221; as two separate Twitter accounts.  It&#8217;s not like they charge (yet anyway).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: uberVU - social comments</title>
		<link>http://theyearofthecat.com/2010/01/29/who_owns_your_tweets/#comment-260</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[uberVU - social comments]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jan 2010 07:21:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theyearofthecat.com/?p=402#comment-260</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;Social comments and analytics for this post...&lt;/strong&gt;

This post was mentioned on Twitter by acatinatree: New blog post - Owing your soul to the company store: does your employer own your Twitter account? http://bit.ly/8ZQJwQ...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Social comments and analytics for this post&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This post was mentioned on Twitter by acatinatree: New blog post &#8211; Owing your soul to the company store: does your employer own your Twitter account? <a href="http://bit.ly/8ZQJwQ.." rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/8ZQJwQ..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Burrowes - mumbrella</title>
		<link>http://theyearofthecat.com/2010/01/29/who_owns_your_tweets/#comment-256</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim Burrowes - mumbrella]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:42:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theyearofthecat.com/?p=402#comment-256</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The problem with that suggested policy is that it&#039;s naive about how journalists would interpret someone&#039;s personal vs professional persona.

&quot;I&#039;m tweeting in a personal capacity&quot; may be a disclaimer, but it&#039;s not a cloak of invisibility.

If what you say is relevant to your day job and you are identifiable, then you need to treat Twitter as you would any other broadcast medium.

If you don&#039;t want your tweets public, then either protect them, don&#039;t do it in your own name, or don&#039;t tweet stuff that could get you into trouble.

That doesn&#039;t mean your employer owns your Twitter account. But it does mean the sensible employee doesn&#039;t publicly pick fights with those with whom their company may have business - or if they do, they shouldn&#039;t be surprised if that target reacts and it reaches the public domain.

Cheers,

Tim - Mumbrella]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with that suggested policy is that it&#8217;s naive about how journalists would interpret someone&#8217;s personal vs professional persona.</p>
<p>&#8220;I&#8217;m tweeting in a personal capacity&#8221; may be a disclaimer, but it&#8217;s not a cloak of invisibility.</p>
<p>If what you say is relevant to your day job and you are identifiable, then you need to treat Twitter as you would any other broadcast medium.</p>
<p>If you don&#8217;t want your tweets public, then either protect them, don&#8217;t do it in your own name, or don&#8217;t tweet stuff that could get you into trouble.</p>
<p>That doesn&#8217;t mean your employer owns your Twitter account. But it does mean the sensible employee doesn&#8217;t publicly pick fights with those with whom their company may have business &#8211; or if they do, they shouldn&#8217;t be surprised if that target reacts and it reaches the public domain.</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Tim &#8211; Mumbrella</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

