As marketers, we tend to get damn near messianic about the web. We eagerly consume books by Clay Shirky, Seth Godin and others about the great things connectedness is doing for humankind, we (if we're honest) spend a lot more time thinking about social than we do our other channels, and we generally have an optimistic view of the kinds of things this technology enables.
I'm generally in line with those views, to be honest, although I'm a lot more skeptical than most. And so it's interesting to be reminded every now and then that not all connectedness is good, and that sometimes people who do destructive things are aided and abetted by the internet. For instance, after grappling with a community of pro-anorexia, pro-"cutting" (self-mutilation) users on the site, Tumblr recently decided to change its terms of service to prohibit "self-harm"-oriented Tumblrs.
Doing this might seem obvious, but it's a real conundrum. The internet being the internet, there will always be a place for folks interested in self-harm to congregate. It's impossible to get rid of discussion of any topic entirely. But, having the discussion centrally hosted on a company of Tumblr's stature gives authorities an opportunity to intervene and try to prevent truly self-destructive behavior from taking place. Suicide intervention, in particular, is enormously successful; a well-timed ad on a pro-suicide Tumblr might be enough to steer someone away from going through with their plan. No such intervention is possible on the myriad, decentralized discussion forums that self-harm oriented Tumblr users surely gravitated to after the announcement of the new policy.
Tumblr ultimately decided that keeping self-harm accounts online was worse for its brand and for those who might be susceptible to self-harm; it's a decision I can respect, if not necessarily agree with. But as communities become a more important element of the mix, and better social listening gives insight into exactly what our consumers are doing with our products, it's a conundrum that's coming to haunt marketers, too.
So, what should we keep in mind when it comes to potentially-destructive behaviors on brand-owned sites? Here's what I think:
Does it harm others? If a destructive behavior is about, well, destructing other people - physically, emotionally, or even in their enjoyment of certain activities - get rid of it. Nike+ shouldn't tolerate threads on their discussion boards involving knocking down race competitors, for instance; General Mills shouldn't allow community posts disparaging Indian food; and PetsMart should report conversations involving training fighting dogs.
If it's about harming themselves - can you help? "Pro-ana" content is all over the internet, and since weight and body image issues intersect with so many other aspects of our lives, pro-ana perspectives are bound to pop up on brand-owned communities. Nike+, cooking-oriented communities, and other are all vulnerable to this.
The key thing to consider is if the brand can help. If you, as a community manager, have the bandwidth to intervene when folks talk about harming themselves - or if you believe your community will direct those folks to help - then keeping the discussion going is likely better than banning it; if you don't, then banning discussion of those topics is probably the next best alternative.
The web can be an immensely liberating place, but sometimes it isn't. What is your brand doing about the dark side of the web?