A hugely popular social network angered a sizable chunk of its users last week with a unilateral change in terms of service that, in essence, said "your content and your life becomes our IP and our revenue."
It regrouped and is back with a surprisingly Web 2.0 second chance -- one in which it remembers that conversation and community is based on communication that goes both ways. In so doing, it has come face-to-face with issues that have long bedeviled governments -- transparency and openness.
With a wink and a nod to a popular Portland, OR radio station that once had a contest during which callers were given a proper name and had to decide whether the person was Dead or Canadian, it is now time to play the inaugural round of Government or Facebook:
Statement One
If government can school Facebook on the complexity of these issues (and it can), the social network is not constrained by deliberately slow bureaucratic processes in dusting themselves off after a big, public mistake and taking a second shot. Being fast is good. Being right is better. Listening and developing policy iteratively may prove to be -- in the long push -- the best.
Concluded that noted policy wonk Mark Zuckerberg after a particularly bad week for a company that quickly found its footing again in a way promises a better future, "History tells us that systems are most fairly governed when there is an open and transparent dialogue between the people who make decisions and those who are affected by them."
[More analysis of the Facebook approach to policy making is coming in the May 2009 issue of Government Technology.]
It regrouped and is back with a surprisingly Web 2.0 second chance -- one in which it remembers that conversation and community is based on communication that goes both ways. In so doing, it has come face-to-face with issues that have long bedeviled governments -- transparency and openness.
With a wink and a nod to a popular Portland, OR radio station that once had a contest during which callers were given a proper name and had to decide whether the person was Dead or Canadian, it is now time to play the inaugural round of Government or Facebook:
Statement One
1. "Forever won't work: Use of our content has to have clear limits."Statement Two
We make it clear that we can only use your content in a manner consistent with your privacy and application settings.
[ ] Government [ X ] Facebook
2. "Opt-in only: You can't just change the terms whenever you want."Statement Three
We sought to address this comment by adopting a virtual Town Hall process for providing users with notice of proposed changes and an opportunity to comment, as well as an opportunity to vote where certain thresholds are met.
[ ] Government [ X ] Facebook
3. "Write it in English: No legalese (or Latin!) please."Of course, there are not-so-subtle clues that give away the answers. But notice how the issues are similar: Whose information is it? How long should it be retained? How and where should we talk about these issues? (In Town Halls says Facebook, how old school governmental is that?) And what language do we use to talk about this stuff? (Plain and simple, an area where exemplar governments including Washington state are getting much better.)
We sought to address this comment by making the proposed Statement simpler and shorter, and avoiding legal terms where possible. That said, some legal concepts demand the use of very specific legal wording, so it is not possible to avoid all legal language.
[ ] Government [ X ] Facebook
If government can school Facebook on the complexity of these issues (and it can), the social network is not constrained by deliberately slow bureaucratic processes in dusting themselves off after a big, public mistake and taking a second shot. Being fast is good. Being right is better. Listening and developing policy iteratively may prove to be -- in the long push -- the best.
Concluded that noted policy wonk Mark Zuckerberg after a particularly bad week for a company that quickly found its footing again in a way promises a better future, "History tells us that systems are most fairly governed when there is an open and transparent dialogue between the people who make decisions and those who are affected by them."
[More analysis of the Facebook approach to policy making is coming in the May 2009 issue of Government Technology.]
Leave a comment