I tell this story because there is a moral. Always be wary (or be aware) of the jaded or disgruntled employee. This is the employee most likely to cause you the headaches as a business owner, especially online. He is the employee that will post that inappropriate Facebook post because he just doesn't care or isn't aware enough of how it could affect business. He is the one who will tweet about a client/customer, not thinking about the fact that the client/customer is a Twitter follower. We've all heard the disastrous stories from careless employees on social media. The best way to avoid this, of course, is to communicate with your employees. Be transparent about your business and how what they do affects it, in both the positive and the negative ways. Get to know them, talk to them, be interested in them. Pay attention to what employees say about your company both online and in person. Be sure to incentivize and you may not even have to worry about disgruntled employees because they will actually want to work for you. This doesn't necessarily mean throw money at them, but let them know that they are appreciated with words, publicly commend them via a company board or blog, or provide them with some small token of appreciation. Otherwise, you just never know when they may just try to stick it to the man (or woman).
Twitter announced earlier this year that it would start deleting tweets according to government requests, which threw some people into an uproar and even spawned a mild, albeit ineffective, blackout on Twitter. The Brazilian government is one of the first to take them up on this offer, which takes me back to a SOPA issue that many had. Can a website that acts as a constant public forum be held responsible for what people are posting on it? Many people's fear with SOPA was that websites could be taken down because someone posted material that may have been copyrighted, even if the website owner was unaware that the material was copyrighted and the poster was not affiliated with the website. Do people have the right to post things like warnings of police roadblocks or checkpoints? I can't say that the Brazilian government doesn't have good measure for wanting to enact on this. These checkpoints are set up for good reason, and warning others of their presence renders them basically useless. On top of that, the money spent on setting up and manning the roadblock become wasted and fruitless. Does allowing the Brazilian government to have these deleted open the floodgates for future censorship in a time when it may not be as warranted as this situation is? Where do you draw the line? I can't decide. I see merit on both sides of the argument. I think that the censored tweets situation is going to be a case-by-case argument in which there will very possibly be times when it goes too far and should not be enacted by Twitter. 
