Further thoughts on Authenticity in Social Media

I’ve gotten some responses to my original post on authenticity and transparency, with some agreement and disagreement (don’t we all get that though). But what interests me is that there is this trend to use these words rather uncritically within social media. And some of the responses have to one degree or another shared a common acceptance of the concepts of authenticity and transparency, without really questioning the definitions. We need to question the definitions, however, because these words are thrown by social media “experts” quite a lot and used as a way of defining social media and the expected interactions that occur on social media. The question is, are the definitions of authenticity and transparency useful definitions, or ones that create more problems than they solve?

To put it another way, we can say we want authenticity and transparency all we want, but if we censor what people say because we don’t like it, then the question is what is it we really want? I’m thinking of, as an example, comments people have made on their Facebook pages which has gotten them fired, lost a scholarship, etc., because what they wrote was deemed racist or discriminatory, or judgmental of their work or boss. Many people (myself included) will argue that its good that when such comments are made in a public forum, that consequences occur to discourage further comments in those veins. But if we argue for transparency and authenticity in social media and then censor those people, what are we really saying?

One commenter made an excellent point, when he said that he was authentic and transparent to a specific appropriate and professional extent, but didn’t share anything beyond that point. Fair enough…but let’s define what an appropriate and professional amount of transparency and authenticity is, before we start bandying these words around. Is it just talking about your professional achievements, with the occasional mention of family. Should we avoid all talk about politics and religion, beliefs and values? What is acceptable levels of transparency and authenticity? Lets also consider whether we should even use those words, if in fact we can’t really allow a truly authentic or transparent society.

We dance, in social media, and in other mediums, a very careful dance of what can be said and what can’t be said, who can say something, and who can’t. If you want authenticity and transparency that dance has to go away. The challenge with authenticity & transparency is how much we can really handle and whether we can accept dissenting offensive perspectives. We can claim we want authenticity and transparency, but when we censor expressions of it, we really just want a filtered public space, where our own perspectives are accepted and similar ones are embraced, while perspectives deemed radical or subversive are censored, in favor of the mainstream perspective.

Customers want to know that businesses hold similar values and care about the customer needs and problems. Businesses want to validate that they have the support of their customers, while trying to get more. Professionals want to further their career, look good to the boss or potential hiring company. And sometimes people will use social media to spark a revolution (see Tunisia, Egypt, etc), which is likely the most authentic and transparent usage of it yet. And all of these activities are fine, useful activities to be engaged in, but I don’t see social media ever being a truly unmoderated environment. We will moderate each other and only take so much transparency and authenticity before we say: “That’s enough” Or we’ll have a situation where people will make change, such as the revolutions, but then create their own censoring of what is considered acceptable authenticity and transparent. And perhaps admitting that authenticity and transparency can only go so far and that we need to use these words carefully, in a well-defined and critical manner will be the most authentic and transparent act we can do.