Let’s be honest: we’re living in a time when the lines between work and life are blurrier than ever. Between Slack notifications at dinner and emails marked “urgent” on Sunday mornings, the boundaries of what it means to “show up” for your job have shifted. And now, we’ve added a new twist to the story: Employee-Generated Content (EGC).
On the surface, EGC looks like a win-win. Companies get authentic, relatable content that makes them seem human, and employees get to express pride in their work. But let’s peel back the layers. Is it really as empowering as it seems, or are we watching a subtle form of exploitation take root in modern workplaces?
Coercion vs. Choice: The Subtle Art of the Nudge
Here’s the thing about EGC: it’s rarely pitched as a “mandatory” task. No one’s going to sit you down and say, “Post about your job, or else.” Instead, it’s presented as a fun way to show off your company pride. A LinkedIn post here, an Instagram reel there. But let’s not kid ourselves—when leadership starts rewarding employees who post, or when participation becomes the unspoken expectation, that’s not empowerment. That’s pressure, plain and simple.
Think about the employees who’d rather keep their work life and personal life separate. Are they less likely to get promotions because they’re not “visible” enough online? When the ability to market your employer becomes a factor in your career trajectory, we’ve got a problem.
Who Owns the Content?
Now let’s talk ownership. You’ve crafted a viral TikTok celebrating your team’s success. It’s authentic. It’s heartfelt. And it’s yours…right? Not so fast.
Most companies have policies stating that anything you create related to your job belongs to them. So, that content you spent hours perfecting? It’s now company property. If it goes viral, your employer reaps the benefits. You might get a pat on the back, but you’re not seeing a dime of the increased sales or engagement that post generated. It’s like planting a tree and being told you can’t eat the fruit.
And what about privacy? Employees are encouraged to share “behind-the-scenes” glimpses of their work, but at what cost? When workspaces become content sets, the line between personal and professional life dissolves. Are employees truly free to say no when the company’s image is at stake?
The Rise of the Employee-Influencer
Here’s another wrinkle: in the age of EGC, charisma is currency. Companies love employees who can double as influencers. If you’ve got a knack for storytelling or an aesthetically pleasing Instagram feed, you might find yourself unofficially labeled the “face” of the company.
But what happens when the spotlight fades? Are these employees compensated for the extra labor of being both staff and brand ambassadors? Rarely. And let’s be real: this dynamic often rewards extroverts and social media-savvy workers while sidelining those who’d rather focus on, you know, their actual job.
We’ve reached a point where hiring managers might skim your Instagram before your résumé. If your personal brand isn’t polished, does that make you less hireable? It’s a slippery slope, one that prioritizes optics over substance. The question becomes: are we hiring talent or TikTok stars?
The Emotional and Professional Toll
Constantly performing—whether for your boss or your followers—is exhausting. It leads to burnout, erodes trust, and turns genuine enthusiasm into a chore. Employees feel like they’re always “on,” not just doing their jobs but selling their workplace at the same time. And let’s not even get started on the gender and diversity implications. Women, minorities, and underrepresented groups often bear the brunt of “culture-building” labor—yet another invisible workload.
What’s the Solution?
We’re not saying companies should scrap EGC entirely. When done right, it can be a powerful tool for engagement and storytelling. But it needs to be ethical, equitable, and truly voluntary. Here’s how:
Pay for Play: If you expect employees to act as influencers, compensate them. Treat it like any other marketing expense.
Clear Boundaries: Create clear guidelines about what’s optional. Employees should never feel penalized for not participating.
Ownership Rights: Allow employees to retain partial ownership of the content they create. If it goes viral, they should share in the benefits.
Inclusivity Matters: Don’t reward only the most photogenic or outspoken employees. Celebrate contributions in all forms, whether public-facing or not.
Transparency: Be upfront about how EGC is used and who benefits from it. Build trust through honesty.
Employee-Generated Content is a mirror reflecting the best and worst of modern work culture.
At its best, it’s a celebration of teamwork and pride. At its worst, it’s a tool for exploitation, blurring the lines between personal and professional lives.
The choice is ours: Will we use EGC to uplift employees or to commodify them? Because here’s the truth—a company’s greatest asset isn’t its brand, its products, or even its profits. It’s its people. And if we’re not taking care of them, no amount of glossy Instagram posts will save us.
*pls note that the examples featured above are some of the best ESG content i was able to find online
Imagine a world where the boundaries of truth and civility dissolve, leaving behind a digital battlefield of unchecked misinformation, hate, and division. Now imagine your brand—a beacon of trust and connection—being forced to navigate that chaos. That’s the world Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta is actively shaping with its sweeping “free speech overhaul.”
This isn’t just a tweak in policy. It’s a recalibration of the platform’s priorities, with far-reaching implications for advertisers, users, and society itself.
Meta’s Shift in Strategy
Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to loosen speech restrictions, discontinue Meta’s professional fact-checking partnerships, and rely more heavily on user-driven content moderation represents a significant pivot. According to statements from Meta and reporting by The New York Times and Axios:
Fact-Checking Ends: Meta has moved away from using third-party fact-checkers on platforms like Facebook and Instagram. Instead, the company plans to adopt a “community notes” system similar to that used by X (formerly Twitter), which relies on users to flag and contextualize misinformation.
Hate Speech Policies Relaxed: Meta’s renamed “Hateful Conduct” policy now focuses on the most severe content, such as direct threats of violence, while allowing broader discourse around contentious issues like race, gender, and immigration.
Increased Political Content: After de-emphasizing political posts in recent years, Meta is now re-prioritizing them in user feeds.
While these changes are framed as efforts to restore free expression, they also open the door to a rise in divisive and harmful content.
The Fallout for Advertisers
Your Brand in the Crossfire
For advertisers, these changes bring new risks. When professional fact-checking is removed, and moderation standards are relaxed, the potential for ads to appear alongside harmful content increases. Consider:
A family-friendly toy ad running next to a post attacking LGBTQ+ rights.
A healthcare ad paired with anti-vaccine misinformation.
A progressive campaign overshadowed by a toxic swirl of inflammatory political rhetoric.
These are not far-fetched scenarios but plausible outcomes in an environment where content moderation is scaled back, as seen with other platforms that made similar moves.
The Risk of Staying Silent
Some brands may believe they can weather this storm, prioritizing reach and performance metrics over brand safety. But history offers a cautionary tale. When X reduced its moderation efforts after Elon Musk’s acquisition, many advertisers pulled their budgets, citing concerns about brand safety and user trust. The platform has since struggled to recover its advertising revenue.
Meta’s scale and influence may insulate it to some degree, but advertisers must weigh whether the short-term benefits of staying outweigh the long-term risks to their reputation.
The Cost to Society
This isn’t just a business issue. It’s a societal one.
The Erosion of Truth
Without professional fact-checkers, misinformation spreads faster and further. User-driven systems, while participatory, are often slower to respond to falsehoods and can be manipulated by bad actors. The result? A digital environment where truth becomes harder to discern, affecting public health, elections, and social cohesion.
Empowering Harmful Content
Relaxed hate speech policies may embolden those who wish to harass or marginalize vulnerable groups. While Meta insists it will still act against illegal and severe violations, advocacy groups have expressed concerns that more permissive policies could lead to increased harassment and threats both online and offline.
Undermining Accountability
By stepping back from moderation, Meta risks enabling environments where the loudest or most inflammatory voices dominate. This shifts the burden of accountability onto users and advertisers, raising questions about the platform’s role in shaping public discourse.
Why Meta Is Making This Move
Meta’s policy changes are not happening in a vacuum. They reflect broader political and regulatory dynamics. By aligning its policies with the priorities of the incoming Trump administration, Meta may be seeking to mitigate scrutiny and secure its position amid growing antitrust and regulatory pressures.
This strategic alignment isn’t without precedent; tech companies often adjust their stances based on the prevailing political climate. However, the implications of these decisions extend far beyond Meta’s business interests.
What Comes Next
The path forward is clear: stakeholders must act to hold Meta accountable for the societal consequences of its decisions.
Advertisers: Use Your Influence
Advertisers should demand transparency and accountability. If Meta cannot guarantee brand safety and a commitment to responsible content moderation, it may be time to reevaluate ad spend.
Consumers: Advocate for Change
Consumers have power. Support brands that stand for inclusivity and accountability. Boycott platforms and businesses that prioritize profit over societal well-being.
Policymakers: Push for Regulation
Governments especially in Europe and around the word must ensure that platforms like Meta remain accountable for their role in spreading misinformation and harmful content. Transparency in algorithms and moderation policies is essential for maintaining public trust.
Meta’s speech overhaul is more than a business decision—it’s a cultural shift with consequences that could reshape the digital landscape.
For advertisers, the question is whether you will stand by and fund this shift or demand better. For society, the question is whether we will let this moment pass or use it as a rallying cry for greater accountability and inclusivity.
The choice is ours. Silence isn’t neutral—it’s complicity. If we want a future where truth matters and brands thrive in environments of trust, the time to act is now.
I just watched the documentary series titled “Jerry Springer: Fights, Camera, Action” premiered on Netflix on January 7, 2025. This docuseries delves into the history and cultural impact of “The Jerry Springer Show,” which aired from 1991 to 2018 and became notorious for its sensational and controversial content. I used to watch it fanatically, the show was often criticized for its sensationalism, exploitation of vulnerable individuals, and its impact on American television culture.
Despite its controversies, the Jerry Springer Show became a cultural phenomenon and a symbol of sensationalist talk television, influencing the genre, copied from many other shows across the globe and cementing Jerry Springer’s legacy in pop culture!
Let’s keep it real: Trash content whether on TV, TikTok, Facebook, Youtube Twitter and across most of the internet have us in a chokehold. You might not want to admit it, but who hasn’t spiralled into a TikTok feud thread or stayed up late watching a reality star flip a table? It’s our cultural junk food—a guilty pleasure that we consume and share at breakneck speed. The big question is: Why? Why do we love the chaos, why do we spread it like wildfire, and what’s the cost to us as a society?
Why We Love It: The Psychology of Trash
Humans are wired for drama. Conflict grabs our attention—it’s in our DNA. Trash TV and viral drama let us live vicariously through other people’s mess without the actual fallout. It’s like watching a car crash: you know you shouldn’t stare, but you can’t look away. Psychologists even have a word for this: schadenfreude (a.k.a. getting a weird thrill from someone else’s disaster). It’s not our proudest trait, but it’s real.
And let’s not forget escapism. Trash content—whether it’s a messy reality show, the actual news or a TikTok callout—offers a break from our everyday lives. It’s drama without consequences, entertainment that doesn’t ask for much except your attention.
Then there’s the algorithm. Platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Twitter are designed to make sensational content explode. The more outlandish or emotional the post, the faster it spreads. Social media thrives on engagement, and nothing drives clicks like chaos.
Why We Share It: Drama as a Social Currency
Here’s the thing: Sharing trash content isn’t just about the content itself—it’s about us. When we share a clip of a reality star’s meltdown or a viral TikTok feud, we’re saying, “Look at this insanity—and look how much better my life is in comparison.” Trash TV and drama give us something to bond over, to laugh at, or to judge. It’s a way of signaling, “I’m in the know. I get it.”
Sharing also connects us. Viral drama becomes the cultural water cooler—a way to spark conversations and feel part of a bigger moment. And let’s be honest: Posting or retweeting chaos makes us feel relevant. It’s like shouting, “Can you believe this?!” into the digital void and waiting for someone to shout back.
The Damage We’re Doing: When Chaos Becomes the Norm
But here’s where it gets messy. Our obsession with trash content isn’t without consequences.
Desensitization: When your feed is a non-stop parade of fights, callouts, and breakdowns, it’s easy to forget that there are real people behind the chaos and the media circus. Trash content turns human struggles into memes, making it harder to empathize.
Shallow Engagement: Sure, trash content is entertaining, but it doesn’t leave room for deeper conversations. Instead of discussing big ideas or meaningful change, we’re stuck in a loop of “LOL” and “SMH.”
Cultural Fallout: The more we normalize trash, the more we reward bad behaviour. We’re creating a culture where being loud and messy is the fastest way to pay attention. And let’s face it: That’s not a great look for society.
Trash content isn’t going anywhere
Look, I’m not here to tell you to delete TikTok or stop watching reality TV. Trash content isn’t going anywhere—it’s been around since the Roman Colosseum. But maybe we can be smarter about how we consume it. Ask yourself: Am I sharing this because it adds something meaningful, or just because it’s shocking?
We can also start pushing back against the algorithms. The next time a wild clip pops up on your feed, think twice before hitting share. Because every click, like, and retweet sends a message: More of this, please. And we have the power to demand better.
So what’s your take?
Are we just hardwired to love the chaos, or can we break the cycle?
Let’s talk about it. Drop your thoughts, your experiences, or your favorite trash TV moments in the comments. After all, a little drama can be fun—as long as it doesn’t define us.
