Should you unfollow those with whom you disagree?

A reader we're calling Ken who is a teacher in the Midwest writes that while he is not overly active on social media, he does like to follow some news organizations, professional associations, academic resources and individuals whose work touches on his own interests on Twitter. He figures it's a quick way to keep up with what others are thinking about issues even if 280 characters rarely provides any in-depth insight.

Ken tries to keep the number of those he follows below 500, believing that that gives him a good sampling. As he finds himself creeping above that number of people, he regularly cuts some who either don't post much or don't post much of interest to him.

But Ken writes that he has a strong belief that he should not follow anyone whose views he finds abhorrent, irresponsible or lazy. He believes that adding to followers on these accounts only encourages the poster to believe that what he or she is posting is of value.

He also writes that he believes he has an ethical responsibility to stop following people who regularly repost tweets from such objectionable sources. While the person retweeting might be retweeting without comment, Ken views this as a tacit endorsement of their views or, at the very least, an encouragement that they should keep posting such stuff.

"Am I wrong to believe this is an ethical issue?" Ken asks.

I do not tell people who they should and shouldn't follow on social media. If Ken's approach works for him to keep him as informed as he wants to be from consulting his Twitter feed, then it's perfectly acceptable for him to follow or unfollow anyone he wants to follow. It's curious that Ken chooses not to block the accounts of those he finds truly objectionable with their posts, but that is his call as well.

In general, however, I do not agree that it is inherently unethical to follow those tweeters with whom you disagree or whose views run counter to your own. Sure, if someone is truly offensive on a regular basis, that's good reason to unfollow. It's also Twitter's responsibility to enforce its stated policy of not permitting tweets that incite violence, endanger children or others, abuse or harass, promote hate, encourage self-harm, or incite illegal activity. Twitter lays this all out in its "Twitter Rules" on its site. Tweeters would do well to report tweets that fall into any of these categories.

Personally, I follow many whose political, personal, religious or other views are different from my own. I find it a useful way to broaden my perspective and stay informed - well, as informed as short bursts can provide.

The right thing when choosing who or who not to follow on Twitter or other social media platforms is for each individual to decide what they want to use the site for. No social media site of which I'm aware is a substitute for keeping up with current events. Deciding whom to follow is more a personal than an ethical choice.

Ken should follow or unfollow whomever he wants, but he shouldn't delude himself into believing that those who manage their social media differently from him are any less ethical in doing so. 

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. 

Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 

Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 

(c) 2019 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Fudging the truth to adopt animal is wrong

A married couple we're calling John and Grace recently moved with their 8- and 10-year-old children to a new town in a new state. While eventually the kids were somewhat excited about the move, it was still challenging to leave good friends and their old neighborhood behind.

Joining the family in being uprooted were the family's three adult cats. But that number might soon grow because John and Grace had promised their children that once they had settled in their new town they could pay the local animal shelter a visit to find a new cat to adopt.

The two children did not forget the promise of a new cat once they were all settled in. John and Grace did some online research, saw that there were many cats available for adoption and called the shelter to schedule a visit with the cats.

While at the shelter, John and Grace met with a representative who asked them to fill out an adoption form, which laid out all the expenses for neutering and assorted shots and such. When John got to the question about how many pets the family already owned, before answering he asked the representative if the shelter placed limits on how many cats a family could adopt.

The representative explained that the county had a law that a residence or household could have no more than three adult pets of any type. John looked at Grace, wrote a number next to the answer, showed it to Grace, and after she nodded, he turned the form in. To avoid appearing to exceed the limit and to keep his commitment to his kids, John wrote that the family had two adult cats at home rather than three.

"We're good with cats," John wrote. "And I didn't want to disappoint my children." John is willing to risk being found out by the county and deal with whatever fine ensues.

But now John is having second thoughts. Was it wrong to fudge a bit on the truth to be able to provide a good home for an abandoned cat? Or, "Should I let the shelter know the truth?"

While John and Grace's children will be disappointed if they can't adopt a new cat, the right thing is for John to tell the truth. Beyond breaking the law in an effort to get something he wants for his family, lying to get what he wants could send the message to his children that doing so is acceptable behavior. In this case, it's not.

It might be simple to justify that the end of providing an abandoned animal a good home justifies the means, but John's actions essentially come down to doing what he had to do to get what he wants for himself and his family. Breaking county ordinances hardly seems a good way to break into a new hometown. 

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. 

Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 

Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 

(c) 2019 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.