Jeffrey L. Seglin's Blog, page 32

No need to bring up neighbor's inconsistencies

A reader we're calling Daniel has lived in the same neighborhood bordering a large city in New England for almost 40 years. He and his wife purchased their house, raised their kids and watched as urban sprawl increased the value of their neighborhood.
What were once multifamily houses that could be purchased at a reasonable price for a working or middle-class family were now being gobbled up and converted to million-dollar condos. Nevertheless, Daniel saw the value of his home grow as well, but aside from steeper property taxes it didn't change how Daniel and his wife maintained their property.
Shortly after a new neighbor purchased one of the pricey condos about a year ago, he mentioned to Daniel that out of concern for the environment he and the other condo owners in his building, he planned to use a push reel lawn mower rather than a gas lawn mower.
Daniel still uses an old gas lawn mower to mow his lawn. At the time his neighbor mentioned his machine preferences, Daniel doubted his neighbor knew about his own preferences. But his neighbor has since seen or heard Daniel mow his lawn.
A few weeks ago as Daniel was unloading bundles from the trunk of his car, his neighbor strolled by and asked him if he could borrow his gas mower sometime the following day because he had let his grass grow too long to use the push mower.
"My initial response was to say 'sure,'" writes Daniel. But he wonders if he should have said something to remind his neighbor about how important he said it was for him to avoid using a gas mower to avoid adding to his carbon footprint. "Or should I have just said 'no'"? asks Daniel.
Daniel's neighbor's decision to avoid using products that add to air pollution is a good one for him. It's not clear he was judging Daniel because he continued to use a gas mower. If his neighbor decides to use a gas mower to enable him to more easily catch up on his missed lawn mowing, that's a choice he has to make.
It would have been OK for Daniel to say "no" when asked to borrow his mower. Given that he regularly helps out neighbors by lending a hand or a tool, that would not be in keeping with Daniel's style. Besides, he already agreed to the loan.
Whether or not he reminds his neighbor about his original declaration depends on the type of relationship they have. If they've kidded around before and he wants to rib the neighbor about his inconsistency in a joking manner, that's up to him.
But unless it is in the spirit of joking around, belittling his neighbor over his inconsistency hardly seems a neighborly thing to do. If Daniel has maintained some sort of grudge since the neighbor's initial mower comments and sees this as an opportunity to put him in his place, that reeks of pettiness.
The right thing is simply to lend his neighbor his gas mower if he wants to and to avoid lending anything he doesn't care to lend now or in the future because he doesn't want to. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglinDo you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Please send me your questions & stories for "The Right Thing" column

For the weekly newspaper ethics column I write for the Tribune Media Services Syndicate called "The Right Thing," I am always looking for stories of ethical challenges, dilemmas, and perplexing situations. If you have such a story or question based on an incident and would like it to be considered for the column, please email it to me at rightthing@comcast.net. 

Please make sure to include enough details about the story, the issue that you're wrestling with, and your name and the city and state or province where you are located. Include a way for me to contact you. 

If you know of others who might have interesting stories, please forward this on to them by clicking on the envelope icon below. 


Thanks in advance for your stories.


Jeffrey Seglin
www.jeffreyseglin.com

Handling possible data hack

Last week, a reader we're calling Jack received two emails from a law firm whose emails he occasionally received via the firm's listserv, but with whom he'd never actually done any business.
Imagine his surprise when he opened the email and it informed him that the firm planned to debit his bank account for just shy of $3,000 that afternoon. The email instructed the reader to click on a link to read the specifics of the invoice.
Believing the email might be a scam, Jack looked at the return email address and saw that it appeared to have come from someone at the law firm. Nevertheless, Jack knew he had never hired the law firm to do any work for him.
Once he determined that the email was suspicious, Jack knew enough not to click on the link. He thought it might be some sort of phishing expedition where a third party had somehow hacked the law firm's or listserv provider's account and sent out fake emails in an effort to collect information or perhaps money from unsuspecting recipients.
Typically, Jack would just delete such an email and leave it at that. But even though he had never done business with the firm, Jack knew people who worked there. He also suspected that others had received the same email. Was it enough to simply delete the mail, Jack wonders? Who should he alert at the law firm to tell that he had received it?
Jack did not send out the mail and he has no direct responsibility for the law firm's clients. Had he simply deleted the email he would have done nothing wrong.
But the best right thing for Jack to do in response is to alert the alleged sender of the email that he had received a suspicious email from the firm. He can forward the email he received and indicate that he knows he has no invoice due, but that he was concerned that the law firm's email listserv had been compromised.
Too often, however, when people like Jack alert a person or a firm that he or she has received such phishing emails, the person or company contact doesn't respond, even if they indeed explore what happened internally. Once Jack sends an email to the company to inform it of the issue, the right thing is for someone at the firm to respond to Jack, thank him for the alert, and assure him that he should ignore and delete the email.
But such a response doesn't go far enough. If that same errant email went out to the entire listserv, the right thing for the firm to do is to send another email out to the listserv, acknowledging the problem and informing the recipients what they should do.
This list might include urging recipients not to click on any links, changing passwords if they did click on the links, deleting the emails from their inbox and trash, and either having their IT department or their own selves run a virus scan. Offering a phone contact for someone at the firm for follow-up questions wouldn't be a bad idea either.
When something suspicious happens, the right thing for all involved is to reassure those who might have been caught up in the hack. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School .  
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglinDo you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Be upfront about who's writing tweets

I am not a physicist, but I am loosely familiar with some natural law of physics which holds that it is impossible for us to be in two places at the same time. Unless, of course, you're a subatomic particle, which I'm not. Or Schrodinger's cat, which I'm also not.
For the longest time now, I've assumed that other human beings who are also not subatomic particles nor physicist's imaginary cats also are unable to be in two places (or exist in two states of being) at one time. But the recent spate of televised debates among the Democratic Party's presidential hopefuls suggests otherwise.
On the evening of the most recent three-hour debate, several of the candidates tweeted out comments during the course of the evening, a feat seemingly impossible because they were standing on a stage at the exact moment one of their tweets got posted. Often, the tweets seemed pre-packaged to coincide with a good line or salient point the candidate managed to work into the debate.
While it may seem obvious to many that someone or a group of people on the candidate's campaign staff is tweeting on the candidate's behalf, it seems odd that candidates would want their followers to know when they are actually tweeting and when someone else is tweeting on their behalf. The same goes for candidates from other political parties.
It's just that because there were so many people on stage who were vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, the practice was in sharp display during the three-hour debate.
Is it wrong for a busy person to have someone else manage their social media? Of course not. But it seems a lost opportunity for any candidates or political officeholders to engage in honesty and transparency by making clear to followers whether they are actually writing and posting their own words. It would be the right thing to do.
There a few methods of practicing honest tweeting. One would be to include a sentence in a Twitter profile that essentially says, "I do not always write my own tweets."
But a better way for Democrats, Republications, Libertarians and those of any party to practice Twitter transparency is to borrow a practice similar to that used by Michelle and Barack Obama when the latter was in office.
On the morning of Jan. 12, 2012, in one of her first tweets, Michelle Obama wrote: "This account will be managed by campaign staff, with any tweets from the First Lady herself signed '-mo.'" The president used 'bo' to indicate which tweets were directly from him. It would have been simple for any of the Democratic candidates to have engaged in a similar practice so followers could distinguish why they and not a staffer wrote under their name.
After all, we all know that you can't be tweeting while you are engaged in a live debate, unless moderators have started allowing the practice. It's disingenuous to pretend that you are capable of doing so, unless you are a subatomic particle or a thought-experiment cat.
Few of the latter ever run for office. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglinDo you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Correcting a case of mistaken identity

Many of us have found ourselves in awkward settings in which we're approached by someone who seems to know who we are, but we can't for the life of us remember his or her name or, in some cases, whether we actually know that person.
The latter regularly occurs when approached on the street by an eager pedestrian who, it sometimes turns out, is using familiarity to try to sell something or seek donations for a cause.
In the cases of forgetting a name, it's fair game to choose whether to ask the person to remind you or to simply carry on the conversation. In the case of the soliciting pedestrian, it's up to you whether to stop and chat or politely walk by.
But a reader we're calling Robbie wants to know what the right thing to do was when he found himself in conversation with a person who had approached him at work only to discover well into the discussion that the person he was talking to mistook him for a mutual colleague who shared a glancing resemblance to Robbie.
"By the time I figured out she thought I was someone else, it felt awkward to correct her," writes Robbie. Instead, he writes that he tried as hard as her could to end the conversation as quickly as possible. "Should I have done more?"
A few possible issues arise from not correcting his colleague's case of mistaken identity.
First, it puts the other colleague in an awkward spot if she takes up the conversation with him and he hasn't a clue what she's talking about. That's not really Robbie's problem, I suppose, but it's not the most thoughtful thing to do to a colleague. Correcting her would likely take a lot less time than visiting the mutual colleague to fill him in so he would be up to speed.
Second, Robbie runs the risk of having the person discover her mistake from someone else at the company and having her wonder what kind of guy pretends to be someone he's not, even if that wasn't Robbie's intention.
Awkward stuff happens. We call our closest friends and family members by the wrong name sometimes. But feeling embarrassed by awkward situations is no reason not to set things straight as soon as we discover an error.
When he discovered that it was clear that she thought she was talking to someone else, the right thing would have been for Robbie to tell his colleague. Robbie could have taken on as much responsibility for the miscue as his colleague by letting her know it took a while for him to figure out that she clearly had someone else in mind.
It might be an awkward transition to the conversation, but it's an honest one and one that is likely to save each of them a great deal of time in the future. They can take some joy in also now knowing someone else at work who seems interesting to talk to, even if they originally had no idea who one another was. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglinDo you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Customer should feel fine about looking for better deals

A reader we're calling "Connie" is in the process of finding a contractor to re-design her master bathroom. She and her partner have met with several contractors and have chosen one whose plan and bid seem attractive and whose references from other customers seem stellar.
As part of the bid, the contractor included allowances for fixtures and finishes for the bathroom, everything from the floor tiles and towel racks to the sink faucets and countertops. The contractor made clear to Connie that the allowance was only an estimate based on average costs from previous jobs. If she chose more expensive fixtures and finishes, the cost would be more. If they were less expensive, then the overall cost of the bathroom would reflect those savings.
"I'm a bit concerned because our contractor told us he uses a particular showroom in town," Connie writes. He recommended that she and her partner visit the showroom and work with the contractors contact there to order materials. He assured Connie that even if an item doesn't appear in the showroom, his contact would be able to help find and order any items she needed for the bathroom.
"I'm pretty sure I can find many of the items I need for the bathroom online for less money," writes Connie. "But the contractor seemed pretty clear he works with this particular showroom contact."
Connie wants to know if it would be wrong to insist that the contractor use materials purchased someplace other than the showroom he recommended. "I don't want to do anything to jeopardize the project," she writes.
As someone who has experience working with contractors over the years, I know how difficult it can be to find a reliable contractor. Heck, I still rue the day three years ago that my plumber of more than 30 years finally decided to retire and I'm still looking for a plumber I can regularly rely on to return phone calls and show up to the house when an issue is beyond my capacity to repair while referencing a YouTube video and advice from Zack at the local hardware store.
It's understandable that Connie wants to maintain a good relationship to her new contractor. But she shouldn't forget that she is the customer and he is working for her. He will still make most of his money from the labor he puts into the job, regardless of where Connie gets her fixtures and finishes.
If Connie believes she can get better materials at a better price on her own rather than purchasing through the contractor's preferred showroom and she's willing to put the work in to finding the stuff, she should do so.
The right thing would be for her to let the contractor know of her plans and to ask him if he has any issue with her doing this or if there is anything he believes she should try to avoid in choosing materials and placing orders.
It would have been good for the contractor to make this possibility clear to Connie from the outset. While a showroom can be a good way for a customer to cut down on the time it takes to find all the materials needed for a bathroom renovation, it's certainly not the only way. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglinDo you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Recommenders should know what it is they are recommending

Lately, it seems that a supervisor (let's call her Betsy), who runs a small division of a large company, has been fielding requests from contract workers for recommendations. Since these contract workers only work part time, Betsy can only really confirm the work they've done for her company. While the part-time employees often send her a resume or a list of their outside accomplishments when they send a request for a recommendation, Betsy doesn't believe it's her job to check on the factual accuracy of the details they share with her.
The requests, however, often ask for Betsy to comment more widely on the workers' capabilities than what they specifically do for her company. The recommendations are often for other opportunities that require more skills and background than Betsy's company requires of its independent contractors.
"They're good workers," Betsy writes. "Otherwise, we wouldn't continue to use them."
But Betsy is uncomfortable commenting on things she really can't confirm and on informing those requesting recommendations that she doesn't feel comfortable recommending them. She does not want to send them the message that neither she nor her company doesn't appreciate the good work they do. "What's the best way to respond to them?" she asks.
Betsy is correct that it is not her job nor should it be her responsibility to do the legwork required to confirm what her independent contractors tell her they've done in jobs unrelated to her company. Even if they provide her with a copy of a certification or a license, if it's for work they haven't done for her company, she shouldn't be expected to comment on its quality.
There is, however, a flaw in Betsy's worrying. Believing that her only options are simply to say yes or no when approached about writing a recommendation misses the fact that she has another, more appropriate response to make.
If an independent contractor asks for a recommendation specifically about the work he or she does for Betsy's company, obviously, she can simply agree to write the recommendation. If the request goes beyond the scope of work he or she has done for the company, the right thing for Betsy to do is to respond by letting the requester know that she'd be glad to comment upon the work about which she's knowledgeable in her recommendation, but that she is not comfortable commenting upon any areas about which she has no firsthand knowledge. Such a response is both reasonable and thoughtful.
It is always reasonable and appropriate for anyone asked for a recommendation to ask the requester questions or to be clear on what type of recommendation he or she feels competent to give. It's also always an option to simply say no to a request, if time or knowledge makes it impossible to write.
Nevertheless, some recommenders might agree to write such a recommendation, which is unfortunate since it likely sends a message to prospective employers, which is not entirely honest. The right thing for any of Betsy's independent contractors to do is to refrain from asking Betsy for recommendations that put her in such a conundrum. This holds true for anyone asking anyone for a recommendation for anything. Expecting someone to comment without direct knowledge is unfair to the recommender. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglinDo you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

How many delicious deals are too many?

There are now dozens of home meal kit services. The concept seems simple enough. Subscribers receive a box of all the fresh ingredients they will need to be able to prepare a set number of meals during the week.
While each meal kit service seems to try to position itself a bit differently from the next, it's hard to imagine all of them will attract enough subscribers to become profitable and survive.
Nevertheless, they persist. And with that persistence comes a barrage of reduced price or free trial offers. The offers vary. Sometimes, a week's worth of ingredients is offered for free if a prospective subscriber will consider signing on for a longer term.
It's possible, I suppose, to move from one meal-kit service to another for several months without having the pay anything. Whether it's OK to take advantage of competing free trial offers like this is what a reader we're calling Ben wants to know.
Ben has used at least three meal kit services now, all on a trial basis. He and his partner have enjoyed preparing the meals together. Some they've liked better than others, but Ben has always enjoyed the fact that the food has been free.
Up until now, Ben just accepted a trial every few months when he happened upon one. But now he wants to know if it would be wrong to try to string together as many free trials as he can to see if he can get free food for a good meal several times a week.
Ben's question reminds me of a reader who once asked me if it was OK to switch from one cable television and internet service provider to another when the attractive introductory pricing elapsed. The reader was fortunate that there was more than one cable and internet service provider in his area to choose from. Every two years or so, he indicated, he looked into switching services to see if he could get a better price.
My response to Ben is the same as it was to the cable switcher. As long as he is not lying to any of the companies or misrepresenting himself on any application for free trials, there is nothing wrong with attempting to get as good a deal as possible.
I would imagine that if the meal-kit companies keep good records that, eventually, they might refuse more than one free trial per customer, but given the number of meal-kit companies out there now, it might be a while before Ben finds himself circling back around to a company he'd already tried.
Another thing for Ben to consider is whether he wants to put all the time in that it might take to track down offers and to keep track of what he's getting when. There's nothing, I suppose, to keep Ben from signing up for two or more trials in the same week, but then he might find himself with far more food than he and his partner can consume.

It may feel to Ben as though he's getting away with getting something for nothing (because he is), but the right thing is for him to be honest in his dealings with the meal-kit companies. Bon appétit. 

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 

Follow him on Twitter: @jseglinDo you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 

(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Weighing the greater good

Occasionally, I give over the space of my column to draw your attention to a book or story that seems relevant and particularly timely to any thoughts about doing the right thing.
In the past, readers have asked me what some of the influences have been on how I think about answering ethical questions posed or thorny challenges featured in the news or our daily lives. For some time, Ursula K. Le Guin's short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" has struck me as particularly astute at pointing to the limitations of how to structure an idyllic society built on the notion of the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
The notion of the greatest good is the underpinning of utilitarian theory. Proponents see it as a method of making decisions and taking actions which maximize the prospects of a good life for most of a group of people. On the surface, it's a noble endeavor.
But Le Guin, who spent a lifetime exploring alternative societies in her rich body of work, poignantly addresses the tradeoffs involved in utilitarian theory. If we are part of the majority that benefits from actions taken, that could be result in a good, rich life. But if we are among those who are not part of the greater number of people receiving the greatest good, the outcome might be far more dismal.
If you haven't read "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," I must warn you that what follows will give away a key plot twist which appears close to the end of the story. Consider this a spoiler alert.
The premise for Le Guin's story is that there is an idyllic society called Omelas. Bells ring, birds chirp, food is plentiful, and people live full lives of happiness and joy. We are treated to Le Guin's masterful scene setting and description of Omelas. Her description paints such a beautiful picture, full of detail, followed by: "Do you believe? Do you accept the festival, the city, the joy? No? Then let me describe one more thing."
Le Guin goes on to let us know that in the village of Omelas, there sits a young child in a room on the dirt-floor basement of one of the "beautiful public buildings." The door is always locked. No one visits the child, except to fill his or her food bowl and water jug. The child will occasionally say, "Please let me out. I will be good!"
But the people of Omelas know that for the society to continue as it has been depends "wholly on this child's abominable misery."
There's no indication in Le Guin's story that anyone tries to free the young child. The vast majority of Omelians go along with their lives. But every so often someone grows silent for a few days, decides he or she cannot bear to accept a society premised on such cruelty, leaves the beautiful gates of the village, and walks away from Omelas.
I offer Le Guin's story as recommended reading not to make any poignant observation about any specific topical issue. But it's a thoughtful meditation examining whether we would choose to do the right thing when faced with the knowledge that the goodness of our own life is premised on harsh realities for someone else. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Should you unfollow those with whom you disagree?

A reader we're calling Ken who is a teacher in the Midwest writes that while he is not overly active on social media, he does like to follow some news organizations, professional associations, academic resources and individuals whose work touches on his own interests on Twitter. He figures it's a quick way to keep up with what others are thinking about issues even if 280 characters rarely provides any in-depth insight.
Ken tries to keep the number of those he follows below 500, believing that that gives him a good sampling. As he finds himself creeping above that number of people, he regularly cuts some who either don't post much or don't post much of interest to him.
But Ken writes that he has a strong belief that he should not follow anyone whose views he finds abhorrent, irresponsible or lazy. He believes that adding to followers on these accounts only encourages the poster to believe that what he or she is posting is of value.
He also writes that he believes he has an ethical responsibility to stop following people who regularly repost tweets from such objectionable sources. While the person retweeting might be retweeting without comment, Ken views this as a tacit endorsement of their views or, at the very least, an encouragement that they should keep posting such stuff.
"Am I wrong to believe this is an ethical issue?" Ken asks.
I do not tell people who they should and shouldn't follow on social media. If Ken's approach works for him to keep him as informed as he wants to be from consulting his Twitter feed, then it's perfectly acceptable for him to follow or unfollow anyone he wants to follow. It's curious that Ken chooses not to block the accounts of those he finds truly objectionable with their posts, but that is his call as well.
In general, however, I do not agree that it is inherently unethical to follow those tweeters with whom you disagree or whose views run counter to your own. Sure, if someone is truly offensive on a regular basis, that's good reason to unfollow. It's also Twitter's responsibility to enforce its stated policy of not permitting tweets that incite violence, endanger children or others, abuse or harass, promote hate, encourage self-harm, or incite illegal activity. Twitter lays this all out in its "Twitter Rules" on its site. Tweeters would do well to report tweets that fall into any of these categories.
Personally, I follow many whose political, personal, religious or other views are different from my own. I find it a useful way to broaden my perspective and stay informed - well, as informed as short bursts can provide.
The right thing when choosing who or who not to follow on Twitter or other social media platforms is for each individual to decide what they want to use the site for. No social media site of which I'm aware is a substitute for keeping up with current events. Deciding whom to follow is more a personal than an ethical choice.
Ken should follow or unfollow whomever he wants, but he shouldn't delude himself into believing that those who manage their social media differently from him are any less ethical in doing so. 
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.