The risks of internal social media

Employers are now generally aware of the risks public social media platforms can pose to their businesses in the form of controversial posts, complaints, reputational damage and disputes between colleagues. Less discussed are the risks posed by internal social media ie, messaging systems like Slack, the Teams and Zoom chat functions, interactive intranet pages and internal message boards.

Many employers embraced these platforms in the expectation they would be straightforward tools for facilitating communication and engagement. This was particularly appealing in the context of remote working and global teams with colleagues in different offices and countries. For certain employers, internal social media also fit with their ‘employment as a lifestyle’ approach to workplace culture, going hand in hand with beanbags in the breakout room and senior execs in trainers.

However, internal social media can give rise to problems and recently, these have started spilling over from the to-do lists of HR advisors to the inboxes of employment lawyers and from there into Tribunal claims.

What are the risks of internal social media?

Something that is more of an irritant to employers than a legal concern is employees spending time chatting and posting on message boards when they could be focusing on their work. If this becomes excessive it could become a performance issue (if it is detected, it is something that could easily fly under the radar) but it is less likely to be a trigger for grievances or tribunal claims than the other matters considered below.

A step up from this risk-wise is employees sending inappropriate messages. These can range from a bit of embarrassing oversharing, to offensive jokes and rude remarks, to serious instances of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment, whether through the nature of the comments made or through excessive unwanted contact.

Sometimes harassment and bullying will be deliberate, with internal social media just providing a new forum for these behaviours. Often though, the ‘offender’ will not have intended any harm. The informality of internal social media and its similarity to the platforms people use to message friends and families can lull employees into making comments to colleagues they would never dream of making face-to-face.

Similarly, the lack of social cues (such as facial expression and body language) over internal social media means employees do not get the same warning signals they do in real life if their interlocutor is getting uncomfortable or not joining in with the joke. The absence of tone in written communications can also increase the risk of misinterpretation and misunderstanding.

Another common problem is posts about polarising political issues. These can quickly spiral into heated arguments with furious accusations of hatred and discrimination on all sides. While the specifics will vary, the overall contours of such dramas will be familiar to many employers in relation to subjects such as gender identity and the Middle East.

The recent judgment of Wilkins, in which the claimant successfully sued his former employer for discrimination and harassment on the grounds of gender critical beliefs, provides a perfect case study of this issue. Much of the relevant unlawful conduct in that case took place on, or arose out of, internal social media.

Blogs and comments which criticised prominent gender critical figures, including by comparing them to white supremacists, were posted on the respondent’s internal communication platform. Mr Wilkins complained that these posts created a hostile environment for those with gender critical beliefs. Moderators attempted to speak to the original posters who responded by accusing Mr Wilkins of discrimination and harassment and claiming the moderators were engaging in ‘a wider pattern of suppression of the LGBTQ+ community and trans non-binary elements’.

Managers tried to intervene but only ended up making things worse, including by (wrongly) telling Mr Wilkins that he was entitled to hold gender critical beliefs, but it was ‘not OK to express such views in the workplace’. Crucially, this was a markedly different approach from the one the respondent took towards views on the other side of the gender identity debate.

Mr Wilkins subsequently commented (anonymously) on an external website that the respondent was not a welcoming place for those with gender critical views. Other employees found this remark and posted numerous comments on internal social media in response, equating gender critical beliefs with bigotry and implying it would be unsafe to work alongside anyone who held such beliefs. Indicative examples of the comments included:

• ‘I don’t feel I can bring myself to work but actually to the point of panic attacks, because some person or people who work at [the respondent] thinks this is acceptable behaviour … I’m genuinely afraid that the alt-right and actual Nazis and death threats will target me and mine’;
• ‘Gender critical people are claiming victimhood, but they’re not entitled to it’; and
• ‘What sad, pathetic, little lives these people must lead to be so fuelled with hate that they make the time to write and submit this.’

The last of these comments was made by a close colleague of Mr Wilkins. This illustrates another risk with internal social media. Employees who are kind and respectful to their colleagues in real life can quickly descend into hyperbolic invective on internal social media in a manner reminiscent of perfectly polite people suddenly exhibiting apoplectic road rage whenever they get behind the wheel.

A final, ancillary problem to all the above is the time and resources employers are expending on policing posts, moderating message boards and arbitrating fights about political issues, rather than running their businesses or, in the case of the respondent in Wilkins, improving the technological capabilities of the Ministry of Defence ‘for the benefit of the nation’.

What can employers do?

So what can employers do about these risks? One option that may seem unthinkable (in the sense that it has not occurred to most employers to even consider it) is to shut it all down.

Raising this idea tends to be met with astonishment, followed by insistence that it is simply not viable. But pointing out to clients that it is within their power to shut things down can be useful, even if only to remind them that having these platforms is a choice they are making and consequently something over which they can exert control.

It is worthwhile asking employers to really consider:

• What is the benefit they hoped to get from internal social media?
• Are they seeing that benefit in practice?
• If so, does that benefit continue to outweigh the associated risks?

Depending on the answers to these questions, the advice on how to proceed will vary.

Removing all internal social media is unlikely to be an option most employers will want to pursue, but some may want to reduce the number of platforms and/or purposes for which employees are permitted to use those platforms, refocusing on uses that genuinely advance the organisation’s aims.

There may be other unexpected positives (beside reducing risk) that arise from this. It is clear from the proliferation of ‘return to the office’ policies post-pandemic that employers recognise the benefits of having employees working together in the same physical space, even if core work tasks can be effectively completed remotely. Similarly, there are benefits of employees engaging in more face-to-face interactions and calls, rather than relying on internal social media as the sole source of communication.

In addition to considering tailoring internal social media platforms to organisational needs, employers should ensure they have a very clear policy on the use of internal social media. This policy should be in writing and should be included as part of onboarding training for new starters and referenced in regular reminders to existing employees.

The policy should explain precisely what internal social media should and should not be used for. Delineating this can be tricky, but placing the focus on work, ie specifying that internal social media is only to be used for work related posts/messages, will give the employer a boundary they will find easier to define and police.

Greater care is needed if permitted use extends beyond core work to diversity and inclusion topics or more social purposes, as it currently often does. Employers may think that prohibiting posts on controversial or political topics is an easy way to reduce risk if such wider use is allowed, but such policies can quickly run into difficulties. For example, is expressing support for Ukraine controversial or political? Arguably not in the UK, but increasingly yes in the US. And if that is allowed, what about expressing support for Palestine? Would an employer feel confident explaining the distinction between posting ‘Slava Ukraini’ and ‘Free Palestine’ to an aggrieved employee?

Similarly, if the policy focuses on avoiding offensive or inappropriate posts, the employer will have to adjudicate on what falls within these categories. Again, that may sound straightforward, but it can be fiendishly complicated and hotly contested. Consider for example the phrase ‘Woman = Adult Human Female’. Some would view that as an uncontroversial dictionary definition; some as a respectfully expressed manifestation of gender critical beliefs; some as a provocative transphobic dog whistle. An employer making a call over whether it is offensive will consequently undoubtedly anger or upset someone.

Wherever the boundary is set, there will need to be some monitoring and enforcement. Careful thought needs to be given as to who will undertake that monitoring.

If the relevant policy does not draw the line at work-related content, those monitoring will ideally have a detailed knowledge of equality law, including as it interacts with freedom of belief and freedom of expression. They will also need to be able to remain neutral and even-handed when dealing with posts relating to contentious topical issues.

This may sound like a thinly veiled description of an employment lawyer in a bid to generate new work for ELA members, but it is drawn from the salutary lessons of the case law, which show moderators and managers getting into serious difficulties, up to and including being named and shamed in tribunal judgments, for getting these things wrong (see, for example, Fahmy where comments by a senior leader were held to have ‘opened the door’ to harassment and Wilkins where the management’s failure to remain objective was central to the claimant’s successful claim).

It may be that no one internal has the time or relevant skills to perform that role. As a result, some employers now employ staff specifically to focus on this task. But if things have got to that stage, again it may be worth reflecting on whether the benefit of the platforms that are requiring the most moderation still outweigh their costs.

Conclusion

While employers may not wish to call time on internal social media, now may be the time to revisit and reign them in, to recapture their original purpose of engagement and communication.

Employers are now generally aware of the risks public social media platforms can pose to their businesses in the form of controversial posts, complaints, reputational damage and disputes between colleagues. Less discussed are the risks posed by internal social media ie, messaging systems like Slack, the Teams and Zoom chat functions, interactive intranet pages and internal message boards.

Kerenza Davis, Blackstone Chambers

KEY:

Wilkins Wilkins Unreported, The Times 21 March 2025

Fahmy Fahmy v Arts Council England ET/6000042/2022