Our learned friend never ceases to amaze me in the way that he is so keen to suggest that what we do on line should be entirely discrete and separate from our real lives and that when individuals act like idiots in twitter or other social media Jezza wants them to be immune to any blow back when their targets take umbrage and seek to find out who they are and who they work for.
Oh dear our learned friend is stretching credulity with this one. In the Andrew Crook piece that our learned friend links to at the end of his post the main example cited concerns Jim Schembri contacting the employer of another journalist Josh Taylor. Call me naive but wouldn’t some one like Josh Taylor’s employer be very well known?
I have the luxury of being able to play on the net when ever I please but I can’t help thinking that so many of those who tweet incessantly should really just put the smart phone down during work time and concentrate upon the tasks that their wages are paying for. Further to that its incredibly stupid to think that their is any real separation between on and off line in any real sense any more. There in lays the biggest problem with Jeremy’s argument here; in an age when there is such convergence is it realistic to think that what people do online should be immune from any criticism or that an employer has to be protected from the knowledge of what their employees are doing, often during work time, on the net?
Its like I always say about internet anonymity, post as if you are doing so in your own name and always do so in a manner that is polite and affable because that way when you are inevitably connected to the words that you have published you will not suffer any unpleasant consequences for the silliness and indiscretions that you thought were so hip and cool when you sent them out into the ether.