Having a presence in the online world leaves a legacy and it means taking personal responsibility for your ‘brand’. I agree that the FB scare story was low to no impact, but I am pleased that FB, back in May this year, made setting personal privacy easier. Back then I blogged about this topic and encouraged people to look in a rational way at how they set their privacy. On the FB front this is not simply a dichotomous ON or OFF decision, it is a sliding scale across a range of different parameters.

While the ultimate aim of being social should be transparency and openness, I don’t believe that the default setting for social media platforms should be fully open for all to see. The default should be informed consent that encourages transparency and openness, having been given clear information to help an individual consider the implications. I am not advocating the dreadful 30 pages of terms and conditions mumbo jumbo that legal departments (of iTunes et al) are so fond of, rather a few pointers to explains privacy (and implications), that encourages people to actively select the level of privacy, on a scale, that they want for themselves.

There are massive benefits to engaging in social media, my life is genuinely enriched by it. We just need to do it with open eyes and not play into the polarised debate on privacy, but spread the word that privacy is about a range of choice – a choice that should be encouraged.

Secondly, discussions in Facebook tend to be kept in specific areas, such as a wall on one particular page. This means that if some kind of problem did occur, you’d be able to track the conversation more easily. In our eyes, conversations on Twitter can be harder to monitor, and misinformation less easily addressed. The point here is that information must be accurate, especially when it comes to healthcare. Twitter is by no means a ‘no-go’ area, but for anyone running a campaign who is just finding their feet, Facebook seems preferable.

We hope this is a useful answer to your question?