Explain Social Media Conduct In a world that is progressively developing innovatively wise, web and informal organizations have meddled with human security. The web has lessened the world into a worldwide town, as web-based social networking empowers social collaborations and sharing of data, occasions and exercises with individuals we know or don’t know from various parts of the world.

Ashford University Assignment Submision Week 1 AssignmentThis paper assignment expands upon your Week One Assignment and prepares you for the Final Paper. The expansion is to learn to improve one’s argument after investigating and fairly representing the opposite point of view. The main new tasks are to revise your previous argument created in Week One, to present a counterargument (an argument for a contrary conclusion), and to develop an objection to your original argument.Here are the steps to prepare to write the counterargument paper:In your paper,For further instruction on how to create arguments, see the and documents as well as the video .For an example of how to complete this paper, take a look at the following Week Three . Let your instructor know if you have questions about how to complete this paper.The Counterargument Paper Carefully review the for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.   week one assignment Employees’ Social Media Conduct In a world that is progressively developing innovatively wise, web and informal organizations have meddled with human security. The web has lessened the world into a worldwide town, as web-based social networking empowers social collaborations and sharing of data, occasions and exercises with individuals we know or don’t know from various parts of the world. Thus, businesses are progressively utilizing online networking to screen their specialists conduct outside their working premises. Seemingly, representatives convey their boss’ picture and mark and will probably impact recognitions and states of mind towards their boss both at work and far from work (Pearson, 2010). It is in this manner appropriate for businesses to deal with their picture by observing and making disciplinary move against workers whose online networking behavior may demolish the organization’s picture. There are counter contentions to this view however, subsequently the question; should it be lawful for bosses to train or terminate representatives on the premise of substance disclosed on interpersonal organizations regardless of the possibility that the action was not done at work. Employees’ conducts outside work premises have the potential of ruining the company’s or brand’s image regardless of whether they were acting independently or mandated to act that way (Qualman, 2010). As such, employers, who are mostly in business, are expected to protect their companies by frequently monitoring their employees’ social media behavior that may directly or indirectly ruin their reputation or interfere with their profession. A teacher for example, who uses vulgar language in social media, may have his or her students seeing their profile, hence a negative influence. The popular Nickelodeon sponsored program ‘Sam and Cat’ came to an end when nude images of a main character Sam; Jeannette McCurdy went viral on social media. Her contract was terminated in consideration of the company’s image as a children brand.  It is virtually impossible to separate social media conduct from professional ethics as employees conduct may show their ethical behavior at work (Kaplan & Heinlein, 2010). It is therefore right to punish employees who may portray the employers negatively through their social media content. However, others may argue that action taken against such employees is unreasonable since it acts on assumptions that their behavior reflects on their ethics or ruins the employer’s image. Qualman (2010) argues that there is a mother-child relationship between the employer and the employee, where a spoilt child shows a weak mother. Hence, negative social media conduct could cause negative public perceptions towards the employee’s employer. Unfortunately, some employees tend to use social media to communicate negative messages about their employer. While some of these messages may be innocently written or lightly written to evoke humor, some of them are malicious and intended to highlight the employer’s weaknesses (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Failure to monitor employees’ social media conduct may allow the spread of such messages that may cause negative public attitudes towards the employer, hence ruining their business. It is therefore important that the employer take disciplinary action against such employers to save on their reputation and encourage them to use proper channels to air out their dissatisfaction. Conclusively, employers have the solemn right to defend their brand’s image. How they do is solely up to them, as the owners of the business and the major sufferers whenever the company is ruined. To protect their investment, it is important that they monitor their employees’ social media conduct outside work that may directly or indirectly ruin the company’s performance. It is therefore right for employers to take action against employees who may post messages or images in social media that may be damaging to their employers’ reputation.                 Reference List Kaplan