On Liberty (or the problems of writing an internal corporate social media policy).

I have a passing interest in philosophy. Actually I am really quite interested. I even read philosophy on holiday and listen to the (very good) ‘philosophy bites’ podcast when driving. This makes me quite dull to sit next to at a dinner party but you might wonder what relevance it has to social media.


As you can imagine, saying you have an interest in philosophy in commercially led organisations is not encouraged. Like turning up to a meeting of ‘The League Against Cruelty To Animals’ and stating a mild amusement for bear baiting, or a bit of a thing for bull fighting.

For those who are still reading, it is very relevant for anyone set the task of developing internal social media policy.

Most people recognise that it is essential for a modern business to have a code of conduct, guidance or policy that sets out organisations expectations of the individual employee regarding their use of social media. This is as much to protect the employee as it is to safeguard the business against breach of confidentiality or damage to the reputation of the organisation.

The truth is that the expectations of any employer have not changed; it is just the amplification of new media combined with the ‘permanency’ of the self publishing model that have inexorably raised the stakes.

If somebody got drunk at a private party 20 years ago and started shooting opinions from the hip regarding the ‘immoral’, corrupt’ ‘hateful’ company they worked for, this wasn’t good, but there was no real damage done. A bit different if these opinions are posted on twitter and Facebook. There have already been examples in pharma of disparaging comments being placed on forums regarding competitor products.

This is where John Stuart Mill comes in for me. Mill was a nineteenth century philosopher who caused something of a storm with his 1859 work, ‘On Liberty’. In essence this work supported the moral and economic freedom of the individual from the state, an exploration of the struggle between authority and liberty.

I believe social media to be a great democratising force in society. There are already fantastic examples of people fighting authority through their use of the ‘personal’ web to affect great good for themselves and society at large.

A company does not own somebody’s opinions; they have a right to a personal life.

In the modern world this should mean the right to express their personality through individual platforms and through communities. This is expressed by Mill as the freedom to publish opinions, Very basic free speech. What we now understand as the freedom of assembly was expressed as "freedom to unite”, very relevant in the age of the social web.

However, as Spiderman knew only too well, with great power comes great responsibility. Mill shocked many a Victorian sensibility (usually a good barometer for many people still working in pharma companies) with his assertion that people should have a right to tastes and pursuits deemed ‘immoral’ by society at large. Only, however, as long as these pursuits do no harm to others.

Personal responsibility encouraged through education is the only sensible option for a modern pharmaceutical company. They need employees to be active in social media to help set the company up for the next decade, it is only through practice that you can fully appreciate the necessity for self moderation.

For those companies who do not allow use of social media at work it looks like a steep learning curve. You may as well ask students not to drink too much and avoid casual sex. You could try, but I would leave this to certain daily newspapers.