¶ … emergence of social media and other sharing-based websites and portals on the World Wide Web has been to a degree that has been life-changing and society-changing in nature. For the most part, these effects have been quite good and fruitful. As with all things, however, there are adaptations and/or uses that are less than positive in terms of the intentional or unintentional effects that are rendered. A major one of those effects, and indeed the focus of this report, is the attention/sharing aspect of the behavior and how this can lead to drastic and/or unforeseen consequences. Indeed, there is the propensity of some people to "over-share" and reveal details, behaviors or events that are unseemly or extremely unwise, if not both. This does not mean, of course, that the entire technology should be scrapped or banned or that it should be over-regulated. However, people do need to understand the implications and effects that can be brought to bear if the wrong choices are made. While social media is a wondrous and worthwhile thing if used in the right way, the effects of using it foolishly can be long-lasting and pronounced. Analysis

One major reason that social media ends up being a problem for some people is not because of social media itself. Indeed, just about anything can be a manifestation of a behavioral problem or psychology-related failing. Indeed, anything can become an addiction on a psychological level. The hoarding of pests, playing video games and social media are just something of the more common modern things that can end up becoming such an issue for some people. When looking at social media in particular, it is not hard to see such fascinations and dysfunction when it is going on. The pervasive playing of online games (e.g. Candy Crush), the consistent "liking" of posts and the issuing of one's own posts are others. While this is perhaps a time-sink for the person involved, it can actually be much worse than that. The extreme of this phenomenon would be the use of social media to create or join hate groups and other such fare via social media. The terrorist group ISIS and white supremacy groups around the United States are just a few examples (Texas). But again, this is just an extension of hatred or dysfunction that is already there. Even with all of these extremes, there is one somewhere in the middle that deserves its own mention and that would be the "over-sharing" phenomenon mentioned earlier in this report. There are many instances where a person discusses something or says something that is really not wise to share or discuss. However, someone's judgement apparently eludes them (or they do not have it to begin with) and they fail to recognize what could or will happen if they keep up that behavior (Wang).

One example of this "over-sharing" would be the idea of bringing real-world disagreements and "scraps" into the online world. In other situations, complete strangers will start rattling off threats or other nastiness. Indeed, the term "keyboard warrior" exists for a reason. People seem to get braver when it comes to talking trash online. This is aggravated by the fact that even though sites like Facebook and others state that they require that one uses their own legal name, this is often not enforced until something has already happened and the site asks for proof of identification. Regardless, there are many users whose names make it quite clear that they are operating under a pseudonym, for whatever reason. In some cases, it's just a nickname and it is harmless. In other cases, it is absolutely a way to avoid detection and one's real name becoming known. In any event, threats and illicit behaviors are no less illegal online than they are in real life. It is true that it is often harder (and requires warrants, in many cases) to bring people to justice for this activity and it is obviously just worse, but the long arm of the law can snatch people who misbehave online. Printouts of Facebook activity, for example, can be used in court just like text messages and call logs/recordings before them (ABA).

Another iteration of this foolish behavior of over-sharing is not usually illegal but it is no less embarrassing. The best way to describe this example would be "dirty laundry." Indeed, there are many people operating online that are either fully aware of the implications of sending something out into cyberspace and/or they know how to properly control...

However, there are other people that are ignorant when it comes to one or both of those things. Either way, there are those people that are very careful about what they share online. Whether it be concealing their location for a jilted (or psychotic) ex-lover or whether it be because of a security clearance or some other job-related consideration, there are those that are very measured and careful about what they say online because they are fully aware of what could theoretically happen. Others, on the other hand, are oblivious about this. They will discuss and argue about things with no consideration of anything about things feelings, work/career implications and so forth. Others still know the implications and just do not care. They, for whatever reason, feel empowered to say whatever is on their mind and they care little (if at all) about the consequences of doing so. Once again, this is normally an extension of behavior or personal traits that are already there. Even so, a Facebook account can make it all the easier for this nastiness and "drama" to propagate and spread. Mismanagement of privacy settings, screen capture technology and so forth can all lead to problems. Even if an errant post is deleted, the people that saw it will not "un-see" it and they might even screen-capture or photograph the evidence (Roberts).
A tangent of all of the above is doing something online that runs afoul of a person's employer. This can come in multiple forms. For example, a Facebook user that is stationed in the Army would be extremely wise to not say anything about their mission, location or other such things unless it is known without question that such information is not secret. If the person in question is deployed, it usually would be a secret and, of course, the Army (or whatever branch is in question) would be closely monitoring (if not regulating) what is allowed to get out. While most employer/employee relationships are not nearly this strict, there are absolutely situations where someone does something to seemingly egregious on Facebook or other sites, the employer feels compelled to punish or even terminate an employee for doing what they did. Many people are quick to point out that they have "freedom of speech" under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. While that is technically true, it is a protection from the government censoring or regulating such speech. Further, most employers are not the government and even those that are have standards of behavior that employees are expected to follow and/or have agreed to follow (Roberts).

A sterling example of such speech and Facebook expression gone wrong was the incident where a woman had travelled to the greater Washington DC area with her employer. For whatever reason, she ended up at Arlington National Cemetery, presumably during some time off. There is at least one sign in the cemetery that indicates that people should behave with "silence and respect." This woman, named Lindsay Stone, reacted to this by posing by the sign and having a friend take a picture inferring she was yelling with one hand and flipping the middle finger with the other. When her employer found out about this via the news, she was immediately fired (Sieczkowski). Many people have a philosophical disagreement with employers that fire people for such reasons. However, for much the same reason that employers do the same when monitoring the internet and phone traffic of employees on their equipment, they do have the right under the at-will employment principle to fire people for basically any reason that they discover with firing for Title VII, firing based on knowingly incorrect information and similar reasons being about the only real exceptions. Over the years of social media, there are many other things that have led to firings or at least punishment in much the same way. Whether it be talking trash about an employer or someone at the same when someone in the loop of that employer can see it, the posting of "partying" behavior including getting drunk or otherwise engaging in socially questionable behavior or any sort of illegal behavior in general such as vandalism or assault. As just noted, there are many that say that such behavior is not the employer's business. The employers and many that agree with them counter that this is indicative of character and that this…