(Source: Google Images)
In my previous post, I wrote about the dangers of social media censorship and
how it takes away the freedom of speech and free access to information.
Marketing-wise, this removal of information leads to consumers being incapable of
making informed choices.
I believe that only when consumers have full access to information and knowledge of both the
positive and negative aspects of a product or service, can they make the right buying decision.
Crystal wrote about the issues pertaining to false information generation and how it can
mislead buying decision.
It got me thinking about the need for those targeted organisations to address the false information.
In which case, they might require information control and censorship in order to mitigate
any dangers that might arise as a result of it.
Tian Yi wrote about aggressive advertising and how it might lead to issues such as brand insecurity, revenge campaign, backlash from customers etc.
It would seem that if negative comments were left unchecked on their social media pages,
it would take root and result in a cascading effect where more negativity is generated.
In such cases, censorship might also serve to curb any potential problems from arising.
Both of them raised the topic of negative and false information which might be harmful
to the organisation.
In retrospect, I was wrong to insist that all information censorship is harmful.
If censorship is done properly and with the right intentions, it can help maintain the health
of the organisation.
Of course, I have to reiterate that censorship done with an intention to control information flow,
with the sole purpose of enforcing obedience and conformity is still a practice that cannot be condone.
Is censorship unethical when brought into the context of businesses?
It would seem that this is a line not so easily navigated.
When does censorship become wrong?
And when does it become an absolute necessity?
I believe that it all comes down to the intentions of censorship.