Can my company force me to have a Twitter account?
April 6, 2010 8:09 AM   Subscribe

Can my company force me to have a Twitter account?

I work for a small web company (about 17 employees). I just got an email saying that they'll be creating Twitter accounts for every employee who doesn't have one, including a picture. For those that do have a Twitter account already they've requested that they hand over their username and password. I don't understand the reason they would need that information and would never hand that over to anyone. Apparently this is some sort of marketing initiative.

I don't currently have a Twitter account and don't plan on having one. Something about this does not sit right with me. I know it seems harmless enough but I feel like it's a violation of my rights somehow.

Is there something I'm missing? Can they actually create a Twitter account for me without my permission?
posted by bingwah to Work & Money (35 answers total) 4 users marked this as a favorite
 
While I don't know about the legal standpoint it does sound like something you should address to them. I would not frame it as a violation of your rights, but as a conflict of interests. You don't want someone representing you online who is not you. Get more information about what they are doing and see if you can come up with a creative way to not have to be a part of it. If you make this about your Rights early it limits your ability to get the outcome that fulfills your ability to "make it sit right" while not denying your company the initiative they are attempting and excited about.
posted by elationfoundation at 8:15 AM on April 6, 2010


I am certain that they cannot expect people to just hand over their twitter password. That is ridiculous.
posted by ORthey at 8:16 AM on April 6, 2010 [11 favorites]


I'm sure plenty of people have to participate in social media sites as part of their jobs. Creating accounts for people and getting credentials for personal accounts are big privacy violations, though. (IANAL, just speaking in terms of ethics.)

You're one of only 17 employees, so I'm sure they value your opinion. Raise your concern, and maybe you can participate under a pseudonym, or opt out.
posted by domnit at 8:21 AM on April 6, 2010


Not sure how that'd be different from forcing you to have a work email account and putting your work id photo on the company homepage....as long as they do not provide to the public that would not normally be available on the company homepage/in your email signature I'm not sure there is a substantial difference.

However I would like to know exactly what this marketing initiative entails.
posted by koahiatamadl at 8:21 AM on April 6, 2010 [2 favorites]


Rather than oppose the creation of an account, you might rock the boat less by suggesting that you already have an account, and that you consider it to be for personal purposes. If you frame it as something you consider to be personal then it might be more understandably why you would not be happy for the business to take ownership of it.

You could also suggest that if the company is keen on sharing private information, that the marketing department could get the ball rolling by sharing their online banking usernames and passwords, as that's just another third party website that you'd like the company to share access to.
posted by Simon_ at 8:24 AM on April 6, 2010


They may want to rethink that strategy for any number of reasons, especially the picture. I work for a place with a big "name" and public face, and therefore we do a lot of interacting with the public (it is also part of our mission to do that). The pressure to be accessible to the public is rather great, as you can imagine. One office thought it would be a good idea to not only put email addresses online (there was already an online staff list with email addresses for everyone) but they also put photos and other info. about each staff person online on their web page. So, you probably guessed what happened next - one of the more attractive female staffers started getting harassed/stalked. They took her photo down, but the damage was done.
posted by gudrun at 8:29 AM on April 6, 2010 [6 favorites]


FWIW, Twitter doesn't allow you to use images of someone other than yourself, so if your IT guys do create Twitter accounts for the employees, you have grounds to make sure they don't put your picture up.

This seems weird, though. Are they going to force you to use it, too?
posted by InsanePenguin at 8:31 AM on April 6, 2010


One of the program areas at my job does a lot of social media stuff, and so all the people who work in that program area have Twitter accounts and Facebook accounts and myspace and...You get the idea.

But for Twitter, at least, I know a couple of them had existing accounts, and they just created new Twitter accounts with names that were work-related (e.g. firstname.nameofcampaign). They are each responsible for their work-related Twitter accounts, they use them only for work-related tweets, and I don't think that their boss has their passwords.

Making employees hand over usernames and passwords of existing accounts may be a violation of Twitter's TOS; even if it's not, it's so unacceptable that I'm a little surprised that a web-related company would suggest it. Though maybe I shouldn't be.

These are the Twitter Rules and this is its full TOS.
posted by rtha at 8:33 AM on April 6, 2010 [2 favorites]


Personally, I would try to make a case that handing over my password was a violation of the Twitter TOS. These TOS do not expressly prohibit password sharing, but they do make you "responsible for safeguarding the password that you use to access the Services and for any activities or actions under your password."

On first blush reading your question, I made the internal analogy to company email addresses and listing of professional contact information on company websites. However, with respect to mandated password sharing for existing accounts, I am less convinced on consideration that this is an appropriate analogy. First of all, I think most people would feel that it was inappropriate to expect them to convert something personal (i.e. personal email, personal cell phone, personal automobile, personal Twitter) to a business use without compensation or protection. No such conversion exists with company online materials - these are, and always were, the company's. In addition, Twitter and some laws may impose responsibility on you for the things said on your Twitter account. Because the sharing of your password makes you unable to be sure that communications issued using Twitter were authored by you, I would have some discomfort. As a hypothetical, let's say a colleague is dismissed for cause and your Twitter account is used to broadcast to the world that John Doe was fired for stealing on the job. John Doe sues alleging libel, and you claim you were not the author - TOS make you responsible anyway (enforceability of the TOS is another question, but it is a concern). As another hypothetical, what if someone uses your Twitter to broadcast copyright-protected material? By sharing your password, you have opened the possibility for others to do this in your name, with no ability to protect yourself against liability. Someone could, in effect, steal your online persona and get you in trouble. Not, perhaps, very likely, but it is just realistic enough to be, I think, a legitimate argument against the mandated password sharing.

If you do not already have an account, perhaps requiring you to obtain a business account is more analogous to company email and company websites. I think this is truly only if the account is titled something business related, making it clear that this is "bingwah as employee of Corporation Company, Inc." and not "bingwah, personally". This may be double important to avoid allegations of astroturfing, etc..
posted by bunnycup at 8:33 AM on April 6, 2010 [4 favorites]


Sounds like a tech company with a serious self-image problem. Of course, they can create as many accounts as they want for their employees. I would definitely have an issue with requiring my picture on the account, unless I could provide one I approved of. Maybe a cartoon of yourself?

However, I would never in a bajillion years allow an employer to take-over a personal Twitter account I had already started. That sounds suspiciously like a marketing move to leech onto your followers (if any). I mean, would they actually expect someone to turn a personal Twitter account to a business-oriented one? Fuck that.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:38 AM on April 6, 2010


Best answer: I can see how at a Web company having a Twitter presence may have a valid business purpose, based on the analogy of company emails, but doing it under your personal account and requiring you to hand over the password crosses the line.

You could create a separate business twitter account representing yourself as an employee of the company. Perhaps use the company name in it and just your first name (e.g. http://twitter.com/comcastbonnie) to separate it from your own online identity.
posted by lsemel at 8:40 AM on April 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


I would check out the Twitter Terms of Service and Twitter Rules to see if what they're trying to do is in violation -- I believe at least some online services say it's a violation to share your password with others and/or to impersonate others (since it sounds like your company is planning to have its marketing folks run several accounts of other employees -- otherwise why would they need people's passwords?).

On preview -- what rtha and bunnycup said much better.
posted by stillwater at 8:40 AM on April 6, 2010


I have a Twitter account that's just for work, and the picture isn't of me. It's relevant to my job, but it isn't my face (it's of a mascot, of sorts). Could you do something like that, if you do get the account?
posted by The corpse in the library at 8:51 AM on April 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


I am required to have social media accounts for my job, and use them, but I draw a line between personal and professional. I would NEVER hand over my password for any of these accounts, and would protest if anyone created an account purporting to be me. It sounds like they haven't thought this through very well, so you would do well to sit down (in person) with the person who is coming up with this and raise your concerns.
posted by peanut_mcgillicuty at 9:01 AM on April 6, 2010 [2 favorites]


I was going to say just avoid trouble by creating a unique Twitter ID for work, but I would be very uncomfortable handing over login credentials and photos. Twitter is a 3rd party app, and is not a company website, so if you leave your company you need to be sure there won't be someone Tweeting using your photo in the future. Of course, it's a small possibility, but what happens when you move on from the company is a question that has to be answered, and who wants to have that conversation with their current employer?

The best thing to do is to be proactive. Outline your concerns, and offer a solution.

Approach the marketing people and mention that you're uncomfortable handing over your photo and login credentials. Suggest instead that the company create a generic company-affiliated Twitter ID for everyone.

After your conversation put your concerns in writing in an email.

After that, mention to the boss your concerns.

FWIW, their marketing approach is spammy and unimaginative.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:05 AM on April 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


And if you do create a Twitter account for this company, do not use one with your firstname.lastname.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:06 AM on April 6, 2010


Oh, I hadn't even thought of them wanting the names/passwords of existing (personal) accounts so they could just grab people's followers. Ick. Do they *want* their reputation to smell? (I do not think you should word it that way to the higher-ups, but I would find a way of pointing out that doing that could damage the company's rep.)
posted by rtha at 9:09 AM on April 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


The best-practices policy would be for company Twitter accounts to identify you as such (like FirstnameLastnameCompanyAcronym, to make it clear that this is you-as-employee not your personal account. It should be subject to the same sort of restrictions/behavior as your company e-mail account.

I wouldn't even tell them of a personal Twitter account, let alone hand over the password. Or if your personal Twitter account is under your real name, I'd say that it's personal and that's that. (And then I'd change the personal account to an alias/handle, since they sound a little line-crossing with the personal/professional.)
posted by desuetude at 9:09 AM on April 6, 2010


Are you going to be responsible for updating the account, or is someone else tweeting on your behalf? If you're expected to use it regularly and don't want the hassle, you could automate it. You could set it up to periodically generate random Markov chain statuses, unless your company has requirements about the content. Or you might be able to generate random work-y sounding tweets, if that's the case? I guess what I'm getting at is you should do as much as possible to distance the account from anything representing you, and all the better if it's sort of lighthearted and harmlessly fun. Not overtly "sticking it" to your boss, though. Don't be mean.

If you don't have control over what's posted to the account, could you call the account "fake" like "FakeSteveJobs" or in your case, "FakeBingwah"? Just to poke a bit of fun at the doppelganger?
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 9:17 AM on April 6, 2010


Response by poster: I've gotten a little more of an explanation from the marketing team. First of all nobody is REQUIRED to hand over username/passwords (but just the fact that they asked for it still doesn't sit right with me). They will create accounts for everyone who doesn't want to give their username/password. The purpose of this initiative is to show clients that we can create a "cohesive social media hub". God, I hate marketing.

I've expressed to them that I'm only ok with it if it is clearly identifiable as being work related like twitter.com/companynamemyname. We won't be required to update it. I guess there will basically be a company related stream that will populate my stream (if I choose not to update it myself). Unless of course I'm not understanding that right. I don't use Twitter and I'm not really sure what it's capabilities are.
posted by bingwah at 9:29 AM on April 6, 2010


Do these marketing folks use Twitter much? It sounds like they need to reconsider this plan, although at least they've got the sense to say they're not requiring people to hand over passwords -- but still, even the request to do so is odd and way out of line, IMO. And one can only hope that none of your colleagues will acquiesce to that part of it.

Having several company-created employee accounts that show "a company related stream" -- the same stream for all? -- doesn't seem like it will show a "cohesive social media hub." Maybe if some of the employees actually will use and update separate company-related accounts with original content and/or use them to help with client requests or something, that might start to create something....

It really seems like the marketing folks need a much better plan and need to recognize that creating such a hub builds over time; it's not just composed overnight from company-created employee accounts. As noted by some above, the latter won't do much for their reputation -- or at least not much in a positive vein.
posted by stillwater at 9:50 AM on April 6, 2010


The purpose of this initiative is to show clients that we can create a "cohesive social media hub". God, I hate marketing.

This isn't marketing. This is your company getting taken for a ride by social media consultants. Reminds me of an old Heinlein quote: "When a place gets crowded enough to require ID’s, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere."

When a job gets overrun by social media consultants, business collapse is not far away. Time to seek a paycheck elsewhere.
posted by mikewas at 9:55 AM on April 6, 2010


I'd register a twitter account in your own name just so the company isn't able to sneak around behind your back and create one with your name.
posted by jjb at 9:59 AM on April 6, 2010 [2 favorites]


You might want to suggest to the marketing team that 17 twitter accounts does not a cohesive social media hub make. No person is going to click through 17 accounts. I once worked for a web company of a similar size. Two years ago our Twitter presence was laughable (we didn't even own our own name), and several coworkers had personal accounts with very intermittent tweets. Finally we assigned someone the job of assertively engaging with every user who mentioned us on Twitter, and linking articles of interest to our customers.

Now we have something like 9,000 followers (good for our company) and a flourishing Facebook presence as well. 5-10 tweets a day, and often some mention of fun things going on at the company. On the company twitter page there's a link to a company list, which aggregates the accounts of six active employees. The employees sometimes mention personal matters but mostly it's a mix of industry networking and evangelizing. One guy writes funny haikus about his job. I think most people want to see employees that are actively engaged with customers and other members of the industry. Nobody expects to watch employees engage with each other on twitter.

So your marketing people should just pick a few people (hint: THEMSELVES) and treat twitter as a daily work responsibility. It works, but there's no reason you should be involved. Remind them that tweeting is an art and they are far, far better suited to the job than you.
posted by acidic at 10:09 AM on April 6, 2010 [3 favorites]


Your marketing team might be interested in CoTweet, a tool that lets a team of people manage one to five "group" twitter accounts, complete with showing who's active, assigning tweets to particular people to respond to, and indicating who wrote what in that one account with ^attributions.
posted by mendel at 10:13 AM on April 6, 2010


I guess there will basically be a company related stream that will populate my stream (if I choose not to update it myself)

I sure as hell wouldn't want my actual name associated with something someone else is writing. It's fine if marketing wants to be tweting about this and that. But, to attach actual employees names to whatever they are pushing out, without that employees involvement/approval/okay is wrong, wrong, and wrong. Hell, it's misrepresentation. They do not own your name nor does employment imbue them with the right to put words in your mouth.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:36 AM on April 6, 2010 [3 favorites]


I'd insist on a company branded name, like BingwahATbigCompany, and use only your first name. You don't need Google searches turning this up. If it's just a fake identity, which it really is if they're not using your first and last name, I don't see any harm. Lots of companies force you to Twitter or Facebook, at least in my lovely neck of the woods.

If they push for you connecting your identity to their identity, the word you want is No.

I'm sorry, I that's not something I can do.
I'm sorry, I'm just not comfortable with this.
I'm sorry, I try to protect my online policy.
I'm sorry, I don't divulge my first and last name online.
I'm sorry, No.

Etc.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 11:56 AM on April 6, 2010


I'm sorry, I try to protect my online privacy.

(Sorry, typo-ridden today. )
posted by A Terrible Llama at 11:57 AM on April 6, 2010


Good grief. I am sorry you're having to deal with this. Your company's marketing head sound like a tool.
posted by FlamingBore at 12:00 PM on April 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


Definitely do NOT let someone else tweet for you under your full real name. This is your personal reputation at stake and the internet is forever.
posted by Jacqueline at 12:14 PM on April 6, 2010


there will basically be a company related stream that will populate my stream

This is such a terrible idea! Who would read this information or find it useful? Ugh, the marketing people don't know what they're doing.
posted by citron at 12:33 PM on April 6, 2010


This sucks. I feel like we've gotten to the point that people think it's weird to not want your picture, all your info, etc, posted for everyone on earth to see. When I was in school I took a language class where we were required to post our picture on Voicethread and constantly post videos of ourselves, which was available for everyone using the system to see. I was really pissed -- how can they require you to put stuff like that online? No one else seemed to have a problem with it, though, so I didn't want to be the class complainer by instigating anything. But it's definitely bothersome that this is expected now.

So I say stand firm! I understand that companies want to have this open relationship with their customers, but from my experience there are plenty of people who aren't bothered by this stuff, so I don't see why their efforts aren't enough to cover for you.
posted by imalaowai at 12:37 PM on April 6, 2010


Response by poster: I've come to a resolution with the marketing dept. There won't be a Twitter page with my name at all. They'll be creating a profile page for me (and all employees) on our company's website which will pull in the company's Twitter stream or an employee's personal Twitter stream if they choose. I don't understand the usefulness of this but I'm just glad to come to some kind of resolution. So while this still isn't ideal (ideally I don't want any web presence associated with my company) it is a compromise I can live with.
posted by bingwah at 12:48 PM on April 6, 2010


If you *did* have a Twitter account, there's nothing stopping you from lying and telling them you don't have one.
posted by IndigoRain at 12:53 PM on April 6, 2010


Yes they can. They can require that you use it too. But don't use your personal one or put personal stuff on your work account. If it will not jeopardize your job, you could just ignore the account. But they can require that you have one.

If you are in a union, check with your union rep. If not, that is why I love my union.
posted by fifilaru at 1:53 PM on April 6, 2010


« Older The Horns of the Dilemma: Take a lower-paying job...   |   Save my sanity Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.