The possibilities of social media have been strong, not only on our personal lives, but on the government and its policies. While this may seem like a technological determinist point of view, there are changes in how people are searching for and receiving information. It is not so much that the forms of social media immediately changed society, but rather enough people chose to use and engage in these forms of media that the government had to not only take notice, but develop policies for their employers, and for how they would incorporate it into their strategies.
In Ontario, the government’s first response to social media sites such as Facebook and Youtube were to not allow them, as they were seen as being used by employees for personal use and therefore deemed inappropriate. “Personal use” is an interesting term. While most companies have a policy regarding emails, email is integral to how organizations function and communicate, and it would be preposterous to consider a company not allowing email. If employees are allowed access (with certain restrictions) to email and phone, should a site like Facebook be completely banned? Are employees not allowed breaks and lunch hours? At government offices, the Facebook site has been blocked from being accessible.
As forms of social media evolved sites with different purposes emerged, providing useful platforms for the government to use to their benefit, and allowing for a more democratic space for citizens to connect back. There are limits to how connected people want to be to the government via forms of social media. According to Ken Cochrane, former Chief Information Officer of the Government of Canada,
“[Canadians] see Web 2.0 as interesting, but there was also cautionary feedback. They don’t want the government to use the technology just because it’s cool – they want such decisions to be based on solid business requirements,” he says. “Canadians expect the government to be serious.”
There are many forms of social media that provide great resources for professional use. LinkedIn for example, allow users to put up their work and educational information, like an online resume. Users can connect to former employers, provide information on what industry they are working in and display what experience they have. Twitter is another prominent social media site that can be utilized for professional uses. While often in the news because of celebrity use, Twitter can be used as an information sharing site, allowing for easy connecting of citizens to each other and prominent figures in different industries. Organizations and individuals on Twitter share information, reply to each other, and “retweet” what others have said to create a greater sense of interaction and interconnectivity. This has advantages for both citizens and the government. People can openly express their opinions, and when a large number of people are talking about something on Twitter, it gets attention. If used how it is intended, it can truly be a democratic form of participatory media, which any citizen able to send a message to a governmental figure or agency.
This is great in theory, but these sites can be criticised about how democratic and useful they really are. Are changes being made because of what citizens are writing about on Twitter or blogs? Who is managing the social media account? A lot of official accounts are run by others, and when it comes to a government agency on Twitter like the MNR, it is not revealed who is running the account. It cannot be known if what people are responding with is being read and considered. There is the chance that there is just an appearance of democratization and rather very little leverage actually given to others.
However, as social media has developed and more and more people are own sites like Twitter and Youtube, it is necessary for the government to be on these sites and find out which methods work for their purpose. While it is not a perfect system,increased forms of access and connectivity are an impovement.
