My Kids Think It’s Creepy That I Google People Before I Meet Them. Are They Right?My (grown) children and grandchildren find it inappropriate that, before a work or social event, even family gatherings, I do a quick internet search for info on who will be there. My position is the millions of people who post on social media — LinkedIn or Facebook, for example — assume their posts will be read, so I am not invading their privacy. My research provides fodder for conversations and building relationships, in some cases beginning with how to pronounce names. It’s not as if I am examining F.B.I. files or classified information! Is it unethical for me to do some digging before I meet people? — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: There are certainly reasons to be cautious about letting an internet search condition your encounters with people. Those who post personal news and pictures online aren’t necessarily thinking (though perhaps they should) that a stranger will study the material before joining them at a business lunch. Although a LinkedIn profile is meant to be read by people who haven’t met you yet, a Facebook page may be addressed to a circle of friends and family. And there can be advantages to meeting people as they come, without the expectations an internet search might create. Then again, modest preparation can be useful. Learning how to pronounce someone’s name, reading a professional bio or discovering a shared interest can make conversation easier. Sometimes the information you find will also suggest topics to avoid or sensitivities to bear in mind. In the pre-internet days, a good host might have warned you that someone you didn’t know at a party had recently lost a spouse or a parent. You’d do well to stick to information that is plainly public and relevant and to allow people to tell their own stories. You probably don’t want to begin a conversation by saying, “I see from Facebook that you really don’t like Chihuahuas.” Your children are right to think that advance research can become creepy. You’re right to think that it doesn’t have to be. A Bonus QuestionI have been trapped in an exhausting divorce for three years. My ex-husband and I keep our children, who are teenagers and younger, out of our disputes and do not disparage each other, but they inevitably sense the tension between us. Our latest conflict concerns a jointly owned home. Under a binding arbitration agreement, my ex-husband, who said he wanted to stay in the home, had until a specified deadline to buy out my share at an agreed valuation. He let that deadline pass. He now wants to sell the house, while insisting that I accept the expired valuation rather than half its current market value. (The house is worth much more now.) My name remains on the deed. I believe I am legally and ethically entitled to half the present value. The earlier figure applied only to a time-limited buyout, based on his stated wish to remain in the house. He has since changed his mind. Accepting that figure now would cost me a substantial sum. I have already made concessions to end the conflict. I left a home I loved and bought another because he wanted to stay and threatened to fight aggressively for it. I chose peace, for myself and for our children. Now I wonder whether conceding again might finally end this ordeal and improve our relationship as co-parents. Yet trust between us has badly eroded. If I surrender what I believe is fairly mine, I may carry the resentment long after the dispute ends. When family conflict affects children, is there an ethical obligation to compromise even on unfair terms? Or is it more ethical to stand firm for fairness? — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: Allowing your ex-husband to take more than he’s entitled to in order to keep the peace doesn’t strike me as a good idea, let alone a moral duty. For one thing, it seems unlikely to work. You already made a major concession by leaving the house, and that didn’t make him less combative. Why assume that another concession would? There’s also something objectionable about rewarding unreasonable demands and bad behavior. In the biblical cadence, you would be allowing the wicked to prosper. And because trust between you has already broken down, managing your relationships with your children will remain difficult no matter how the proceeds from the sale are allocated. So, on the real estate issue, stick to your guns. You might suggest family counseling, though, in an effort to tamp down tensions for your children’s sake. He may refuse, but it is worth asking him to focus, as you’re trying to do, on the interests of your children. You’ll probably face a period of strained relations whatever you decide. Once the divorce disputes recede, though, the hope is that you’ll settle into some kind of uneasy peace. A needless concession that breeds resentment could leave you feeling less peaceful, and more uneasy, than you deserve to be. Thoughts? If you would like to share a response to today’s dilemma with the Ethicist and other readers in the next newsletter, fill out this form.
Readers RespondThe previous question was from a reader whose family member’s posts were affecting her business. She wrote: When I married my second husband, I gained stepchildren. … His son (over 30) holds extreme moral and political views rooted in hatred — racism, misogyny and homophobia — that I cannot abide. For the most part, we operate in “don’t ask, don’t tell” mode to keep the peace. But recently, my stepson’s social media activity has escalated: He posts what I consider very hateful lies on local community pages. … He and my husband share a last name, and we operate a business in our town serving all kinds of people. … Besides finding his views repugnant and wanting no association with them, I have heard from friends in town that his posts have dissuaded people from using our business. … My husband has tried to explain to him how his social media activity is hurting our business, but his son insists he has the right to post whatever he wants. — Name Withheld In his response, the Ethicist noted: Your stepson’s response that he has the right to post whatever he wants on social media reflects a common error: the tendency to think that having a right to do something is a justification for doing it. But the freedom to express yourself doesn’t confer freedom from social consequences. … Your business can post a public statement that it welcomes everyone and that relatives who don’t work there do not speak for it. On social media, you can report posts that violate each platform’s rules. You can even try to correct false claims when there’s some point in doing so. Your stepson may never change his attitudes, not least his attitude of indifference toward the costs he’s inflicting on others. The question is what you and your husband are prepared to tolerate, and what limits you’ll set to protect your livelihood. (Reread the full question and answer here.) ⬥ I feel this is a case where the husband needs to place his and his wife’s best interests ahead of continuing to tolerate his son’s selfishness. He should make it clear to his son that he is not welcome in their home as long as he continues to post his hateful rhetoric and disregard the damage he’s doing. And because the son is so selfish, maybe if nothing else works, suggesting that he is damaging his own future inheritance by damaging their business might be one way to make an impression. It’s a shame that somehow this young man turned out the way he did, but if he understands there might be actual financial consequences to his actions, that may be the only path that makes a difference. — Kim ⬥ There is a simple solution here: Put up a well-done, noticeable sign or flag that says your business welcomes everyone (with some clear indication that “everyone” includes gay people). — Pam ⬥ What role is the husband playing in this situation? A stepmother vows to love her husband, but those vows don’t necessarily extend to the husband’s children. She should be able to confront the stepson directly, and hopefully get support from the husband. Sadly, it’s a stress point in a marriage, but one that needs to be addressed by both husband and wife, not just the wife. — Geoffrey ⬥ So much of social media ranting is from cowardice. I would encourage as many people as possible to, politely, post replies that disagree with your stepson, including how awful it is that these posts are adversely affecting his own parents’ business. — Sharon ⬥ While the stepson has a right to his speech, the letter writer has every right to protect her livelihood and community. The real obstacle isn’t the stepson but the husband enabling him. Rather than playing defense, she should be honest with her community, take a proactive stand and even use the issue to generate business. In a close-knit community, drawing a clear line in the sand often rallies much more loyal support than a lukewarm, standard-issue disclaimer ever could. Belief in a cause is a far better motivator than merely backing away from the splash zone. — Jack
Want more? Read past Ethicist columns. If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Have your own ethical quandary? Write to the Ethicist at ethicist@nytimes.com.
|
