Youth Protection and Social Media: Don't Talk ' Or Else!

To quote artists slightly more contemporary than Harry Nilsson, 10,000 Maniacs, “We will talk, talk, talk, about this, when your head is clear. I'll discuss this in the morning, but until then you may talk, but I won't hear.”

Stanley P. Jaskiewicz, a business lawyer, helps clients solve e-commerce, corporate, contract and technology-law problems, and is a member of e-Commerce Law & Strategy's Board of Editors. Reach him at the Philadelphia law firm of Spector Gadon & Rosen P.C., at [email protected], or 215-241-8866.

In the late '60s, Harry Nilsson's “Everybody's Talkin',” the theme song to the movie Midnight Cowboy, bemoaned the communication breakdowns that challenged the social fabric of the times, between generations and societies.

“Everybody's talking at me, I don't hear a word they're saying,” he crooned.

However, that risk ' that your intended audience “doesn't hear” your social media message ' is greater today. Even though we live in an era of instant communication, online, sometimes it seems like everybody's talking at us, constantly, from all directions, especially through social media.

Despite the ease and volume of such communication, however, marketers risk not only that their audience is not listening, but also that it cannot hear what is being said. Many in an intended audience “don't hear a word [marketers are] saying” because of the speaker's inability to cut through all the talk ' which is, of course, a marketer's worst nightmare.

After all, how many different channels can anyone monitor meaningfully, much less follow closely? For example, The New York Times recently reported on the phenomenon of “too many choices” “for the plugged in” (see www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/fashion/digitally-fatigued-networkers-try-new-sites-but-strategize-to-avoid-burnout.html?_r=1&nl=technology&emc=ctb1).

The article described a generation experiencing “tech overload” and “slow death by e-mail.” One online devotee “had a really hard time justifying adding yet another social tool to (her) tool kit.” The result? “Everyone is still talking about filing e-mail bankruptcy.” (In a ray of hope for the industry, however, “At the end of the day, you still use (social media),” because it provides extremely useful content, from trusted referral sources.)

Getting the Message Out ' Or Not

Yet if you want your message to be heard ' and listened to ' then you must deliver it where your audience can be found. Today, for most of us (whether in business, or in the nonprofit world), that is the realm of social media (see www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-07-06-facebook-skype-growth_n.htm (Facebook.com reports 750 million members); www.alexa.com (report ranking Facebook behind only Google in web traffic); and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703518704576259252907505330.html (citing statistics on social media use, and recommending that firms take advantage of existing employee adoption of social media to implement collaboration initiatives)).

So, if your policies restrict access to your audience through social media, you must plan to work within those rules. As explained in the social media guidelines of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (www.usccb.org/about/communications/social-media-guidelines.cfm), “Social media are the fastest growing form of communication in the United States, especially among youth and young adults. Our Church cannot ignore it, but at the same time we must engage social media in a manner that is safe, responsible, and civil.” In fact, the Social Media Policy of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati (see www.catholiccincinnati.org/ministries-offices/youth-ministry/legal/social-media-policy), for example, encourages Facebook use ' even through private accounts, rather than a church account ' because Facebook is an “easy way to reach our young constituents. ' Facebook and other social networking sites are widely used by young people.”

What About the 'Have Nots'?

But what about those who cannot “listen” to social media, at all? For firms or adults who seek ' or need ' to speak to minors, whether as a marketer or youth-group leader, clutter is an issue they never reach, as a practical matter, because of the evolving ways that youth use online tools. As any parent of a teen or young adult knows, today even e-mail is not an effective way to communicate ' youth will read only what they prefer, and what they want is their own forms of communication ' texting, Facebook, and other social media, not old-fashioned methods such as e-mail.

In addition, and more objectively, adults may be blocked from communicating with minors by rules prohibiting or closely restricting such contact through minors' preferred channels. In some cases, the block is quite literal, for those who work in firms that do not permit Facebook, Twitter or other social media. For them, communication to minors must shift to off hours or personal devices.

Intricacies of Formal Policies

From Church, to Sports, to Scouts, and Beyond

In other cases, though, the blocks are imposed by formal rules to protect youth against unfiltered communication. For example, consider the recently adopted Addendum to the Standards of Ministerial Behavior and Boundaries promulgated earlier this year by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (the “Social Media Addendum”) (see www2.aoptraining.org for the Information and Communication Technology Addendum, and www2.aoptraining.org/images/aop_adden dum_to_standards.pdf for the Addendum to the Standards of Ministerial Behavior and Boundaries). Those guidelines govern not only “priests, deacons, religious (and) pastoral ministers,” but also “administrators, staff and volunteers,” i.e., adult volunteers ' e.g., sports coaches, Scout leaders, robotics coaches ' who are considered “ministerial” for this purpose.

(Full disclosure: I am a leader in a parish-sponsored Scout troop governed by this policy. I do not intend this article as a critique of this particular policy, but instead, I am using it as an example of how I believe a well-intentioned plan to bridge needs for adult communication with youth can easily run afoul not only of the mores of social media, but also the way that its intended audience actually uses those online tools. For examples of many other social media policies available online, including those of many large business firms, see the links at http://socialmediagovernance.com/policies.php.)

Necessary Setbacks?

In other words, under the Social Media Addendum, volunteer leaders of youth groups face strict limits on how they may communicate with those youths they are trying to lead and, more importantly, develop into responsible adults ' in the very media that youth prefer for their ordinary communications. Such guidance is particularly important, because the youths will likely rely on social media in their personal and professional lives, without anyone helping them to avoid mistakes that could harm their education choices or careers.

Of course, some rules make common sense. (All quotes are from the Social Media Addendum.) “Permission of the parent or guardian must be obtained, in writing, in order for an adult leader to communicate with minors via telephone, cell phone, text messaging, e-mail, social networks or other electronic means.”

While such “permission to speak” may seem burdensome, as a practical matter, such consent can be obtained on a blanket basis through an initial registration form that parents sign to enroll their child in virtually any program, whether governed by a youth protection policy or not. And what parent will say no to such a request, even if “no” means that the parent has to be in charge of forwarding routine updates, and when the child must rely on his parent for such messages?

Likewise, despite the proliferation (and popularity) of online photo- and video-sharing sites (i.e., YouTube), “Adult leaders must seek permission from a parent or guardian to share a photograph or video with another party for any reason.” While many of us eagerly anticipate the first posting of photos and videos from games and trips, usually within hours after the event, the policy's cautions highlight another reality of the online world: “Electronic communication is not private. E-mails, text messages, and web postings establish a permanent record, which can be obtained and accessed. These means of communications can also be saved and forwarded.”

In an era when college admissions officers and job recruiters routinely screen applicants, in part, to eliminate those who disqualified themselves by ill-advised postings during a period of youthful exuberance, these warnings provide youth an exposure to the importance of controlled business use of the Internet.

e-Mail ' and e-Mail Policy ' Limitations

Similarly, “In order to protect the e-mail addresses of minors, the adult leader should use the blind carbon copy (BCC) feature when sending an e-mail to more than one minor.” In this age of heightened privacy concerns, for people of all ages, that rule is one that should be used in many areas of communication (regardless of the age or identity of the sender and recipient), especially when using addresses that are not otherwise published to all recipients (whether an opposing party in a business deal, or members of a networking group).

Additional policy limits seem less practical, however. “If it is not possible for an adult leader or volunteer to obtain a parish or school based e-mail account, the adult leader or volunteer will need to establish an e-mail account that is separate from his/her personal e-mail.” In other words, rather than use the e-mail accounts that must be monitored continuously for work or other reasons, leaders should create yet another account to manage and watch in addition to one's work and personal addresses ' another step on the steep slope to “e-mail bankruptcy.”

And Then There's Facebook

The situation gets worse when it comes to Facebook: “Adult leaders who use social networking sites, such as Facebook, to communicate with minors about their ministry should create a separate account and/or group for this specific use whenever possible” ' for example, to let teens know about weather-related changes to a game or trip, or to provide up-to-date meeting information.

Again, some common-sense rules apply ' the policy recommends using the highest privacy settings on the adult and youth sides of the dialogue, no access should be provided to the adult's posts independent of the youth group, and, as always, written permission from a parent or guardian is a prerequisite to any participation in the social networking site.

(Full disclosure: A nonprofit food cupboard on whose board I sit, Manna on Main Street ' www.manna onmain.org ' is using Facebook to promote what we hope will be a viral fundraising “Cause” to celebrate the organization's 30th anniversary, but I cannot monitor its progress because the generally available firewall used by my firm blocks all access to Facebook. (see www.facebook.com/#!/MannaOnMain and www.facebook.com/#!MannaOnMain?sk=app_2318966938).

Policies Can Appear to Be at Odds with Intentions

Perhaps the most impractical rule applies not to a social networking site, but to a conventional website:

Websites used to represent a parish or parish organizations must be owned and managed by the parish. An adult leader must obtain permission from the pastor or pastor's delegate to set up a web page that represents the parish.

While the goals of the Social Media Addendum remain admirable, the ability to communicate quickly with large numbers of participants by posting online ' a rainout of a game, for example ' seems at odds with a requirement that the sponsoring organization's staff “manage” the site. How many sponsoring organization employees not personally involved with a sports team will be up early on a weekend morning to post a cancellation of a rain-delayed game, or even have the time to be responsible for a constantly updated site (even if only to spot-check for objectionable content)?

Certainly, anyone who has ever helped manage a youth-activity group can see practical concerns with the strict controls embodied in this social media policy. Even worse, for groups that try to teach youth leadership and self-management, such as a “boy led” Scout troop (e.g., www.scoutmaster.org/Boy%20Led%20Troop.pdf and www.boyledtroop.org/index.php?title=Main_Page), an underlying philosophy that fundamentally distrusts youth, such as the Social Media Addendum from which I have cited provisions, is directly contrary to providing an experience that recognizes that, “In order to teach leadership, you have to let the boys lead.”

Instead, the Social Media Addendum assumes that youth cannot safely lead or act, but must instead filter all communication through adults (who themselves may or may not be better qualified to assess safety risks, especially with social networking). In your house, for example, who best understands the nuances of Facebook or Twitter?

Corporate Blocks and Policies

Perhaps the most telling example of the nature of this type of philosophy appears in the social media portion of Mattel's Code of Conduct (http://corporate.mattel.com/about-us/pdf/CC_Mattel_CodeConduct_FINAL.pdf). In a warning to employees who receive authorization to speak publicly for the toy company in social media, Mattel cautions that they must “follow any business guidelines and rules of engagement adopted by your management for those communications.” (Emphasis added.) The choice of a distinctly military term ' rules of engagement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement) ' reveals a mindset totally inconsistent with the social aspects of the 2.0 web and focused instead on an adversarial, confrontational approach to an online world that business managers may not understand ' certainly not a desired approach for a firm interested in making the best use of social media for e-commerce profit from youthful consumers who are active online.

Certainly, given my personal involvement, I am not trying to single out the Social Media Addendum for criticism or for ridicule. Instead, I have cited selected rules to highlight the tensions between the ethos of social networking for the “plugged-in generation,” and the legitimate concerns of adults ' of whatever age ' of providing appropriate guidance and oversight.

Different Rules for Different Groups

In fact, other youth organizations take somewhat different positions in similar situations ' particularly if they begin drafting and implementing policy from the proposition that whether or not the adults like the choices their youth make, the youth will, in fact, be networking online, regardless of restrictive policies. (I will discuss below the risks of youth bypassing an overly restrictive protection policy.)

Learning-Site and Scouting Rules

For example, the website “jLearn 2.0: Jewish Learning in a Digital World” (see www.etheoreal.com/jlearn2.0/2008/11/16/friendly-advice), offers a succinct list of tips to promote “appropriate communication” with teens through “social networking sites.” The “Friendly Advice” emphasizes adult involvement in online youth communication as a method of teaching through “professional staff, advisors, summer staff, and volunteers coexisting with (youth) participants on social networking sites” while setting reasonable limits (much as does the Social Media Addendum) on riskier online behaviors. In the same way, the YMCA of Greater Rochester Social Media Policy (see www.rochesterymca.org/hr/pdf/SocialMediaPoliciesProceduressignpage-FINAL.pdf) recognizes that, “Because of the nature of their jobs, several YMCA staff members work closely with teen groups and need to communicate with them and their parents online. These staff members may get permission from the Director of Website Development and Social Media to create private social media pages for their clubs.” Likewise, the Girl Scout Social Media Guidelines (see www.girlscoutsofcolorado.org/index.cfm/ID/151/Girl%20Scout%20Web%20Sites) encourage members to participate by providing typical rules for online safety.

Not surprisingly given its emphasis on developing youth leadership, similar guidelines appear in the Boy Scouts of America social media guidelines (see www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Marketing/Resources/SocialMedia.aspx). In contrast to the top-down emphasis of the Social Media Addendum, the Scouting policy cautions that “organizations wishing to use social media must accept the fact that listening is just as important as speaking in these channels, and those wishing to participate in this space should be prepared to listen if they are to reap any value. ' Also realize that social media is a new and evolving form of communication that requires flexibility, patience, and commitment, but the rewards of increased connection with, and understanding of, your target audience can be great.”

What the Navy Says

For another perspective on limiting use of social media, where the risks of a mistake are much higher than jeopardizing a future job interview, consider the approach of the U.S. military, such as that contained in the Navy Ombudsman's Social Media Handbook (see www.slideshare.net/USNavySocialMedia/ombudsman-social-media-handbook-summer-2010-web-version). This handbook offers several “options” for “adult” supervision of social-media use, not only for the military members themselves but, more important, for their families accustomed to the open flow of information common in social media. A generation that no longer recognizes information boundaries may be embarrassed if parents or friends see pictures of a college frat party, but similar information-sharing could be fatal if it compromises security of people in hostile areas.

In particular, the guide lists several categories of common information that is, in fact, “sensitive,” to avoid disclosures of “anything that may compromise the personal privacy of the crew and their families and the command's mission.” The guide also provides specific, alternative phrasing for families and leaders to communicate safely.

Inappropriate, Prohibited Use

Of course, some adult uses of social media are almost universally prohibited or inappropriate, particularly one-on-one contact outside the context of the youth activity.

Although it is beyond the scope of this article, much has been written about inappropriate “friending,” whether with witnesses in litigation, or teachers and students. Anything that transforms a person in a position of authority into an adult acting like a youth peer is generally frowned on, even when the intention of the friending is above-board (such as a teacher finding a better way to reach students).

See, for instance, publicity at the following URLs describing how Missouri teachers must “purge their Facebook friend lists to comply with a new state law that limits their contact with students on social networks.” They are:

• http://socialbarrel.com/missouri-law-forbids-teacher-student-facebook-friending/12453;
• www.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-07-25-banned-websites-school_n.htm;
• www.workplaceprivacyreport.com/2011/06/featured/addressing-social-media-userecent-ruling-on-students-social-networking-reaffirms-need-for-policies-and-training;
• www.kansascity.com/2011/08/02/3053598/new-missouri-law-on-social-media.html; and
• www.kansascity.com/2011/08/05/3058133/mo-teachers-protest-social-media.html#ixzz1UuZw86k8.

Finding 'Ways Around'

Finally, despite all these efforts to control social media, authors of restriction policies must recognize how easy it is for youth to bypass approved channels, and to find alternative ways to communicate online ' especially if young people do not want to speak to one another in a venue in which they know adults are present, or watching, even if only quietly in the background. While not directed at youth, the Navy Ombudsman Social Media Handbook specifically identifies this risk, in a warning against trying to shut down unauthorized postings:

Q: A family member has posted something to one of the social media presences that violates (Operations Security). What do I do now?

A: The first thing you should do is engage that person in as discreet a manner as possible and ask them to remove the post immediately. Explain that information isn't appropriate for conversation online ' use this as a teachable moment. If the person refuses or persists you have the option to block them or report them. This should be used as a last resort because it is difficult to undo and only shifts the problem to out of view ' the person will more than likely continue to post inappropriate content somewhere else. (Emphasis added.)

Q: Our Sailors have been extended on deployment and the families are not happy. There is a very negative feel to our social media presence right now. What do I do?

A: First off, do not get discouraged and DO NOT close the page. Closing the page will only result in your families creating alternative presence(s) to continue complaining and you will have less opportunity to understand or influence this conversation. (Emphasis added.)

' www.slideshare.net/USNavySocialMedia/ombudsman-social-media-handbook-summer-2010-web-version/download (free log-in account creation required)

Conclusion

More cynically, one might wonder why access to social media is any different than allowing youth access to all the good ' and bad ' information available on the Internet itself. If we can't restrict those connections, with online access freely available in schools, libraries, and on phones, then why should we believe that rules demarcating social media will be any more effective, especially for a generation far more tech savvy than the adults presuming to guide their online experience, and better able to find ways around those rules?

So if you are confused about how to create a social media policy, for communication that involves any group that requires some protection, you are not alone. But remember that a “policy in progress” is better than a policy that blocks communication altogether. Unless you strike a pragmatic balance between what is permitted and what is not, your audience may literally not “hear a word you're saying.”

To quote artists slightly more contemporary than Harry Nilsson, 10,000 Maniacs, “We will talk, talk, talk, about this, when your head is clear. I'll discuss this in the morning, but until then you may talk, but I won't hear.”

Stanley P. Jaskiewicz, a business lawyer, helps clients solve e-commerce, corporate, contract and technology-law problems, and is a member of e-Commerce Law & Strategy's Board of Editors. Reach him at the Philadelphia law firm of Spector Gadon & Rosen P.C., at [email protected], or 215-241-8866.