(Please note an update at the end of this article.) There has been a lot of discussion lately by everyone from IT staff to policy-makers at every level from local to federal agencies – on the topic of whether or not to block social media access to employees on the job.
My opinion (although unpopular at the moment) is in favor of blocking these sites. Please feel free to comment and lay out your point if you have another view – this issue certainly isn’t black and white.
Why in the world would a forward-thinking (I can call me whatever I want on my own blog) government web manager support such a restrictive practice?
First, I believe that SM blocking should take place only in the presence of two conditions.
- Staff with the job of monitoring and posting to the SM sites should be given unrestricted access.
- The government agency’s own presence on SM sites should either be unblocked to all employees, or should be pulled in to the agency’s employee intranet site. (ex. Pull your agency’s Twitter feed into the intranet; have IT unblock only your agency’s YouTube Channel)
Addressing Counter-Arguments
Why should social media sites be blocked to staff in other cases? Let me start by addressing some of the counter-arguments I have heard.
“Social media sites are just another communication tool – like email, phone, text messages, etc. Those tools aren’t blocked to staff – why should Facebook & Twitter be blocked?”
One big difference is that communications made via FB & Twitter are forever in the public timeline. However, employee emails, phone conversations and texts are not readily viewable by the general public (under normal circumstances). Why is this important? Well, which would you rather deal with – It’s 10 a.m. and your on-the-clock staff member is texting their friend about how bored they are at work today – or It’s 10 a.m. and your on-the-clock staff member publicly posts on Facebook how bored they are at their city job. The reality is that the second scenario is much more in-your-face. Or, in your taxpayers face.
“Social media abuse should be handled as an employee/manager/reprimand issue with consequences, instead of blocking use for ALL staff members.”
True that staff abuse of any privilege should come with sanctions. But what does non-abuse of Facebook, YouTube & Twitter look like? On it for 5 minutes a day, 30 minutes a day? I can think of a lot of really important reasons to need to use that city fax machine or make that long distance call (need to close on a loan, fax escrow docs to your lender, get a last-minute ride home, etc.). But I can’t think of one possible reason for NEEDING to post on my Facebook page at work. So what would a legit purpose for social media use at work look like? You need to be able to define what legitimate use is before you can say that abuse practices will be handled in a certain way.
“Ok, maybe social media shouldn’t be used on official government time, but what about breaks and over lunch?”
I don’t see a problem with this, but why should the agency be on the hook for providing the hardware and internet connection for it? Plus, you wouldn’t want to get into monitoring who’s on break and who’s not. Many people who are active on social media sites also connect to them via their mobile devices – can’t we just let staff access Facebook on their break using their cell phones?
My biggest issue with social media use at work (specifically at a tax-payer funded job) is that the biggest contenders – Facebook, YouTube and Twitter – can be some of the biggest time-wasters. Sure, you can send around an email forward to 10 people and get some non-work conversation back and forth by a bunch of your friends. But this isn’t a typical and normal use for that medium at work. With Facebook though, almost EVERYTHING you post is designed to encourage non-work conversation back and forth by a bunch of your friends. See the difference?
And then there’s YouTube. A huge bandwidth-eater with tons of informational value – if people used it that way. Hey, I love a good squirrel video just as much as the next person, but at work I saw how YouTube was being used and I pushed for restricted access to solely our government channel. Now, if we can just shoot a good squirrels-teaching-about-city-budget video, we can all be happy.
————————————————————————————–
Update to article: June 30, 2010
Twenty-one comments later, and a gazillion tweets… I wouldn’t say I’m a convert, but some good points and arguments were shared. For someone with basically a ‘how-to’ blog, I was a little nervous making what I knew would be my first unpopular post. To my pleasant surprise, everyone politely disagreed. Strongly, but politely. Good folks here trying to do what’s right. Thanks for taking the time to comment, I read all of them.
I would say that I agree with most of the philosophical themes in the comments (i.e. you should trust employees, problem should only be if staff isn’t getting work done, social media can help staff do their jobs, we should be communicating same way the public is, and happier workers are more productive workers.)
So, philosophically I generally agree. The challenge for me is how these things look in practice. And remember, I’m talking specifically government agencies here.
Our story
Let me share a few more details. Facebook, before we blocked it, was the #1 most visited site by our staff, at least 10 times above the next most popular. Our IT staff faced a huge bandwidth challenge. We were at 95% capacity and slow internet connection was noticeable – the same connection used by our cops on their mobile police car devices. IT was looking at paying huge bucks monthly to bump up our connection. Then they purchased a traffic restriction device and blocked the biggest offenders, including Facebook and YouTube (excluding our channel). Now we’re at 50 something percent capacity, and we avoided paying for more bandwidth. Bottom line costs become extremely important when you’re talking about a city government that has laid off 200 employees in the last year because of the economic crisis.
Teach them the right way
Several of the comments to my original post brought up the point that employee education and training is essential for the management of internal social media use. And… you’re probably right. I wonder if we introduced a program like this and slowly opened up SM access if it would work and we wouldn’t have such a problem with constant use. This would necessitate us clearly identifying what acceptable use looks like. Although, I’m still unclear on what it would look like. A minimal use policy as Steve mentioned seems appropriate.
All social media is not equal
I like the discussion about the nature of different social media channels being distinct, such as Bowen and others mentioned. I agree that Govloop and LinkedIn are totally different than Facebook. And that is different from Twitter use and purpose, and that is different from YouTube. I honestly want to say that we should treat them differently. Then Chris brought up a point warning to be careful of making a distinction between what social media goes in the ‘good’ and the ‘evil’ pile. I’m still on the fence on this one.
Why bother?
Regarding the issue of – why block, when employees can just use their smartphones – I do think there is a distinction. They’re using their own phones and internet service. Not using our bandwidth or risking our hardware getting viruses from bad SM apps. So they’ll get there anyway, but they won’t use city means. Get my drift, or am I way off here?
DOD does it
I think it’s difficult to compare other agencies to the DOD, especially local government. A huge part of their charge is recruiting young people to the military, so they absolutely want their staff to engage in those social networks. I think the public understands that. Lil old City of Reno is charged with providing public services and spending taxpayer money wisely in those efforts.
We’re a little different
Ok, be honest here. We’re a little different from many (but not all) of the staff members at our agencies. If you’re reading or commenting on this blog, it means that you are the type of person who actively engages in the up-and-coming topics in your profession. You care and you read blogs, you network with other professionals, you utilize these mediums for all you possibly can to do the best possible job you can. You…are a little different. I believe the norm for using Facebook at work is for posting random status updates to friends and reading & commenting on theirs, and to play those darn addictive apps. Every once in a while, the average staff person makes/utilizes a professional connection or gets a question answered on the job, but it’s not the typical use for this medium. The potential is there, but how many staff members are actually doing that? You are, but you’re a little different.
A final note I forgot to mention in my original post. We do temporarily unblock sites on an individual user basis when staff members indicate they need to do something job-related. Usually, it’s watching training videos available on YouTube.
Thanks again for the great discussion 
My little update here isn’t meant to gloss over some of the other great points made.
As an IT consultant I am fully aware that IT management is struggling with whether social media is productive or obstructive for companies and their employees. Software is being developed and policy and restrictions are being decided everyday by IT managers. The security of the networks of various organizations are at stake but the potential for innovation using social media is a large enough carrot for the discussion of how to properly utilize the medium continues. Palo Alto networks came up with a whitepaper, http://bit.ly/d2NZRp, which will explore the issues surrounding social media in the workplace. It is important to not only understand the immediate benefits of doing business how one lives, but the threat it presents to an organization’s greater ROI and productivity when it comes to the server’s safety and security.
If your IT Department wants to block social media apps on the company network… http://bit.ly/d2NZRp and http://bit.ly/cR80Al
SM use comes down to this simple fact: I get almost as much work-related information from SM sites like GovLoop as I do from office mates. If someone is out of the office, I turn to GovLoop. I usually get a series of good replies in a few hours to 24 hours.
Sterling brings up an interesting point. This opens up the question – are ‘professional’ networking sites – like Govloop and perhaps LinkedIn – different than traditional SM sites such as Facebook? Should they perhaps be treated differently in terms of network blocking? After all, you use these sites to post/respond to profession-related questions or connect with people that can help you with your job, right? This could be an interesting discussion.
I appreciate your points, Kristy. But here’s where it falls apart for me: the assumption that if employees can’t access SM sites from the computer on their desk they won’t access them on work time. The reality is employees can access all this stuff from their smart phones. And in workplaces that block SM, you see more and more employees bringing their own laptops to work so they can get around the block – often because they use SM for legitimate work.
So if I’m an employee and I can use my blackberry to tweet that I’m bored in my job at 10:00 a.m., then it doesn’t really matter what you block on the office network. The issues management problem is still there – as is the staff abuse problem.
I take your point about the employer providing the bandwidth etc. But there’s also a consideration to be made on the employee engagement side. You don’t have to look far to find employees venting online about how frustrated they are that their employer blocks SM and how it keeps them from doing their work. What does that do to your organizational culture and your reputation as an employer? And if you start down the road of allowing “professional” sites you get quickly into needing a whole bureaucratic process around who gets to decide what qualifies as professional and how people apply for access to those sites etc.
So I fall squarely in the camp of it being futile to block SM and, more importantly, potentially negative from an engagement and productivity standpoint. Far better to provide some clear guidelines for employees on how to use it and then be prepared to enforce those.
It seems crazy that governments are going so far as to ban social media. As a young employee, I use facebook almost daily and it would be extremely frustrating to have that taken away from me. There are many benefits to using social media apps, and now they will not have that resource. I found a whitepaper created by Palo Alto Networks and they have a new software that has the ability to block certain parts of social media and leave beneficial parts accessible for users. You would think that maybe these social media banning governments would be interested in this, as well as businesses. Here’s the link: http://bit.ly/d2NZRp http://bit.ly/bsrh9CFacebook
Rueben makes excellent points when he states that it is “far better to provide some clear guidelines for employees on how to use it and then be prepared to enforce those.”
The importance of regular (not one-time) social media training for employees cannot be emphasized enough.
Government organizations are competing with the private sector for our best and brightest and increasingly so as the economy begins to improve. Is blocking social media sites in the government workplace worth of cost of turning off smart and motivated candidates who want to make a difference in government?
Thanks, I agree that staff training is a critical component.
Curious what everyone thinks about this fact: The number 1 most visited website by City of Reno staff (before we blocked it internally) was Facebook. It beat out other sites (including our official city website) by easily 10 times. How does that play into the conversation? What does Facebook mean for employee productivity?
Thanks, everyone, your comments have been great.
I would argue that Twitter and other applications are also useful for professional dialogue and that my current use of them at work are almost exclusively work-related. Case in point is that I saw this post on Twitter, related to the work I am doing, while at work, because it was tweeted by a colleague I have met only in a professional setting, who in turn is also working in a similar capacity. My twitter account is at least 1/2 dedicated to professional pursuits, which I often conduct outside of office hours as well as during. Think about the potential for employees, who are allowed to engage in social media, and who, because of this, are passionately learning, engaging, and sharing outside of their paid hours…it’s a culture thing.
The point being that a) I think this access is inevitable – as inevitable as allowing employees to have their own email accounts and their own telephones in their office (believe it or not, similar arguments were made about personal phone calls and emails); b) what needs to happen is not restricted access, but clearly communicated guidelines for conduct and use by employees. Set out the rules. Make sure they understand where their actions will take them. Discipline only when freedom is abused. And most importantly, trust your employees to act professionally.
That’s my take, anyways…
Kristy, nobody is “productive” (in the traditional sense) 100% of the time. Facebook is essentially an online water cooler where people talk, gab and exchange news. I doubt your company exiled the water cooler. Game actions, different medium; water cooler to Facebook.
Gabbing and goofing off on Facebook makes people happy. If you subscribe to the camp that happier workers are more productive workers, then there’s an argument for Facebook in the workplace.
There were days when phones weren’t allowed in an office b/c management didn’t want people talking to their friends. Now we can’t live without phones in the office. SM gets attacked b/c it’s a new medium and new mediums always get attacked b/c their uses are still being discovered.
I mean, if the Department of Defense — traditionally a very slow moving agency — allows all employees to access social media…then wow.
DoD memo allowing full social media use: http://socialmedia.defense.gov/index.php/2010/02/26/dod-official-policy-on-newsocial-media/
Kristy, first, I’d suggest you read this:
http://bit.ly/aIL5tR — in which a security analyst from tech Gartner pretty well knocks down each of your arguments.
Second, I’d suggest that the measure of productivity for knowledge workers is whether they’re getting their work done. For many these days, work is done in the office AND away from the office. How many of those employees spending 30 minutes on Facebook are also spending 60 minutes at home or Starbucks on work-related email or other work-related activities?
Third, there have been several studies that have proven that access to these sites actually IMPROVES productivity — a University of Melbourne study revealed productivity among those with access to these sites are 9% more productive than those without access.
Finally, I would suggest that blocking access is a shortsighted way to obstruct an organization (and government is a particularly good example) from leveraging the value of each employee’s social network. Enterprise Rent-A-Car is recruiting new staff through employees’ networks, Sprint is improving customer relations, GM is selling cars. A study from the Society for New Communication Research (SNCR) reveals that decision-makers make better and faster decisions when they have access to their social media peer groups. It’s also a way to gather marketplace intelligence, to crowdsource, and to engage in other activities to the benefit of the organization. I’ve written an article about all this for an upcoming issue of IABC’s Communication World magazine.
I’d also ask how blocking employees from engaging with their networks is consistent with President Obama’s Open Government initiative? Certainly the Department of Defense disagrees with you. In fact, I just interviewed Jack Holt, senior strategist for new and emerging media at the Department of Defense, for my podcast, “For Immediate Release.” The DOD is looking for more employee (including soldier) engagement in social networks, not less.
Oh, and let’s not forget the futility of blocking, since most employees can get onto Facebook on their smartphones. Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, is on the record as pointing out this dimension of the absurdity of blocking.
I maintain a site, http://www.stopblocking.org, dedicated to this issue. I’m not an employee rights advocate — I’m a business effectiveness advocate. Blocking is counterproductive to the interests of the organization — and I can’t see any reason why government would be different.
The main issue of Kristy’s argument is not whether work is being done or not being done, but rather the impression SM posts by government employees gives to taxpayers. If I see our local government workers in our city vehicles sitting around chatting and eating, I make a mental note about the use of my tax dollars. Is this fair? Probably not, but it happens with me and others just the same. Government workers should have access to SM sites, but should also understand that accessing those sites during working hours is subject to reprimand, not because work is not getting done, but b/c the public now knows that someone had the time to post to Facebook on your and my dollar. PR folks chime in here please.
I second Sterling’s point. You assume that any employee anywhere should be productive 100% of the time. We just aren’t built that way.
Use of SM to play FarmWars or respond to a friend’s cute baby picture or… allows the right side of the brain to assert itself safely. The result of not allowing it is that the creative brain asserts itself anyways- in the form of daydreaming and distraction. The “fun” outlet allows “work” time to be considerably more productive. I imagine there are studies out there that show that employees given sufficient creative outlet produce better quality product than those that don’t. (Probably a Japanese study- those companies are at the forefront of employee relations.)
Susan:
Image is everything. But if the image is inaccurate, we have a duty to correct it. So if a citizen makes an inquiry, we look into it- if it’s not an inappropriate level of non-work-related activity, we consider the matter concluded (we don’t discuss personnel issues with citizens, so we would simply let them know we will investigate and resolve as appropriate.)
We *do* have a clause in our Code of Conduct policy that says “Duty to public service requires that Washoe County employees be accountable to each other, the County organization, and the public for their conduct at work and for their off duty conduct which negatively affects Washoe County.”
Basically, you can be reprimanded for causing a PR crisis for the County- even on your off hours. So employees are notified and asked to use their best judgement as the professionals we hired them as.
Oh, and Kristy- I would stay away from the concept of selectively allowing SM sites based on “perceived” use.
It’s a nightmare for your attorney’s office as you suddenly find yourself having to sort *every* SM instance into the “good” or “evil” pile.
Okay, just to play devil’s advocate… (apologies in advance if this comes across as snarky – not meant to!)
If I need to use a small about of time to goof off at work in order for me to be more productive, and if playing silly apps on Facebook allows me to do that… Then why can’t I install World of Warcraft on my city computer and schedule my raid with my buddies for 10 a.m. every day. Same deal, right? Sure, I’m using the city’s computer and the city’s internet connection, but I’m getting that ‘me time’ that I need. Why on earth should the taxpayers (or city management) have a beef about me playing WOW on my machine?
Can you just imagine if someone took a snapshot of me playing WOW at work and posted it online? It would be very difficult to expect my government agency to come to my defense and say – well, she was getting her work done. Actually, I always work better after a nap. Maybe I should catch some Z’s here at my desk.
Our agency has a minimal personal use policy for all things related to technology (phone, copier, computer, Internet, etc.). So it’s OK to check FaceBook for a minute or two during break or lunch. We are clear with employees that some uses such as streaming audio and video use more resources and should only be used for business purposes (sorry no squirrel videos or streaming Pandora). We have software that monitors all staff use of the Internet and provide reports to our Human Resources department periodically to review the top users. If there’s a concern from a productivity standpoint it is passed on to the employee’s supervisor. If there’s a concern about IT resource use (usually bandwidth) then the Information Technology Department usually steps up employee training and we see a dip in usage. The only thing we actively block is based on a black list of inappropriate sites (the list is managed by a 3rd party vendor). This includes gambling, pornography, etc. Sometimes a legitimate site is flagged and employees know they can contact IT to have it unblocked. Also, certain employees have a much broader scope of usuage (e.g. FireFighters can use the Internet much more because of their shifts and law enforcement has unrestricted access to all sites). So far this has worked out well for us. Regarding public perception, I really think it comes down to employee conduct and how that is perceived by both internal staff and the public. For the same reason you don’t mix politics and business in gov, you need to mind your Ps and Qs in any aspect that spans personal and business. We’ve learned from recent news that even high ranking government officials can be sacked because of remarks made in public – how expendable do you think the average government work is if citizens complain loud enough.
Kristy,
Your article is certainly an interesting article and thought-provoking.I like how you’ve made your points, but I think you’re off the mark here. I’d like to offer counters.
Importantly, you throw all social media into one pot, which is in and of itself very dangerous. Aren’t Flikr, Webchat, FourSquare, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, GovLoop, Scribed, Slideshare and Wikipedia all social media? If you’re talking about the Big 3 only, then I think you need to make that distinction.
1.”One big difference is that communications made via FB & Twitter are forever in the public timeline. However, employee emails, phone conversations and texts are not readily viewable by the general public (under normal circumstances).” Except in the case of Freedom of information requests. However, the ‘what the public doesn’t know doesn’t hurt’ argument doesn’t work for me. Yes, dealing with an employee who publicly posts to Facebook that he/she is bored in his/her job would suck. However, so does having an employee who is forever bored in his/her job. That post creates work sure – but also creates an opportunity to build trust with the public, by redirecting that employee to better things. Frankly, information being out there in “the public” is part of re-humanizing the public service, which desperately needs to happen.
2. “I can think of a lot of really important reasons to need to use that city fax machine or make that long distance call… but I can’t think of one possible reason for NEEDING to post on my Facebook page at work.” I’ve had managers who will argue that your reasons for using the fax machine and phone are also abuse of a government asset. Again, if you can’t see a reason to post on your Facebook page at work to do the same things that you list, that’s simply a difference in how you use the tool. Others use the tool differently.
That’s the problem with banning tools outright – how people use them determines their value. Once a tap is turned off, it’s often rather hard to turn it back on. Declaring “these tools have no value” is rather reactive – and the same argument that was made about disallowing email at work back in the day. Now email is the engine upon which government runs.
3. “My biggest issue with social media use at work (specifically at a tax-payer funded job) is that the biggest contenders – Facebook, YouTube and Twitter – can be some of the biggest time-wasters. ” Again, this is an issue of use. I watched how to code in VBA in Excel videos on YouTube this morning. It would take 6 weeks and thousands of dollars to learn the same thing in a classroom. What’s a larger waste of time? I use Twitter to talk with colleagues around the world, avoiding the need for expensive, time-wasting face-to-face meetings or telephone time. Using these tools effectively allows me to move faster, smarter and better. Blocking them would do the exact opposite, which would reduce the investment that the citizens make in me when they pay taxes which fund my salary.
Which leads me to the most important reason not to block social media at work – it’s where the people we serve are. Citizens are on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. The more time our staff spend in these channels the more sophisticated their uses of these channels as engagement and service delivery tools will become. Blocking these tools creates an artificial wall between us and those who pay our salaries. That wall results in mistrust, ineffeciency and poor work product, which I think are larger costs than an employee spending 10 minutes during a work day on Facebook.
Susan, if I get help with my government agency issue because I was able to connect with a real live employee over Facebook or LinkedIn or Twitter — and it saves me 30 minutes on hold with a call center or a trip to an office where I have to take a number and sit and wait for my number to be called — I’m going to think much better of government, not worse. This isn’t a zero-sum game. Ultimately, the benefits of employees online will far outweigh the risks. This is a transition period, and our choice is to keep doing things the old way or start to move to the new way.
There was a DOL study that showed employees spend 1.5 hours doing work away from the office for every hour at the office they spend doing non-work-related activities. If somebody has an issue, we can make that point. We can also ask our employees to be smart about their at-work use of social channels, just as consultants at professional services agencies know not to play solitaire when the client is on-site.
But think about this: What does it do for employee engagement when the message we’re sending is, “We don’t trust any of you”? This is NOT a technology issue. It’s a management issue. Who died and put IT in charge of worker productivity? When did supervisors abdicate responsibility for ensuring their employees are not abusing the policies that provide open access?
Again, I’d urge you to read the U.S. Department of Defense policy, which focuses on OPEN access.
/shel
Proper uses are easy to describe: I use LinkedIn for employee development and I post employee related status updates there. When appropriate I’ll cross post those status updates to twitter, and again if appropriate I’ll add a #yam tag to my twitter cross post to send it to this forum. I don’t personally use facebook, but I do have government related items showing up on my wall like the #a4ca Facebook page that I chose to like. This help to promote a government public engagement initiate through social network marketing.
There are a lot of great comments here offering a different perspective, and I’d be interested in hearing whether this has swayed your opinion at all, Kristy.
As for me, the biggest beef I have with this is the timewasting argument. I completely agree with Bowen that we need to think differently about different social media tools. Twitter and Facebook are not the same at all, and anyone who lumps them together, in my humble opinion, doesn’t know enough about these tools and how they’re being used.
I’d argue that Twitter is far more work-related than personal for many people. Simply blocking a site like Facebook, however, reinforces the view of it as just a place to goof off rather than acknowledging that it can be a valuable tool for engaging clients or colleagues, for learning or for simply keeping up with industry news.
I firmly believe that we’re all going to work differently in the future. Maybe it won’t be on Facebook, but it will be something, and if we don’t start to get involved now, especially as government organizations with clients and a public who expect us to be there and be responsive, we’re going to be way behind.
RT: @shelholtz Should government agencies block employee access to social sites? I've added my $.02. http://bit.ly/aQYMNs
RT @shelholtz: Should government agencies block employee access to social sites? I've added my $.02. http://bit.ly/aQYMNs
RT @shelholtz: Should government agencies block employee access to social sites? I've added my $.02. http://bit.ly/aQYMNs
I've respectfully disagreed – http://www.kristyfifelski.com/2010/06/blocking-social-media-at-work/ #yam
Please see my update to my article posted at the very end of the original one. Thanks again for all your thoughtful comments, and please continue to post if you have others.
Commented on "In defense of blocking social media sites in the government workplace" by @kristyfifelski. Don't agree. http://bit.ly/bXI8kl
Thanks for the thoughtful comments @rjfarr @pointsofrue @bxmx @shelholtz @sanchezjb @nickcharney @pointsofrue http://bit.ly/bZ49lJ
Posted update to highly commented blog post: In defense of blocking #socialmedia sites in govt workplace http://bit.ly/bZ49lJ #gov20
Great update, Kristy, thanks. Appreciate your evolving thoughts and also the added perspective.
Question: before blocking the offending sites, did you tell staff this was creating an issue and go through an education process about implications of the bandwidth issue? If not – if you chose to block instead and solve the problem more simply and swiftly – do you think it would have helped if you did?
Hey there Robin. IT sent several ‘warning’ emails and posts on our intranet to notify staff of the issue. My biggest surprise was that everyone could feel the slow network, but that wasn’t enough for change. Perhaps the message could have been presented in a more effective way. If anyone has ideas, it would be appreciated.
Every business would benefit from having a social media policy in place, but it should not be an all or nothing approach. Instead of having a policy in place that blocks social media completely or doesn’t block social media at all and expects employees to follow policy rules, why not block some pieces of social media and keep some parts of social media accessible? Social media is growing in the business world and companies would be missing out on its benefits if it is blocked entirely. Palo Alto Networks might have found a solution to this problem, they have a new software that has the ability to do thing such as a read-only facebook. I think companies could really benefit from something like this, what do you think? Here’s a link to new whitepapers they have created: http://bit.ly/bsrh9CFacebook http://bit.ly/9twcQMTwitter http://bit.ly/94MFMBSharePoint
Gr8 post by @kristyfifelski (although disagreed w/her pos'n) that **generated good comments** on #socialmedia in wrkplace http://ht.ly/25jjP
Appreciate update on this blog post from @kristyfifelski. Convo evolving, have commented again. http://bit.ly/bXI8kl
Discussion & an update by @kristyfifelski about blocking social media in the gov workplace. What do u think? http://tinyurl.com/29bscpl
This is by far the most sensible summary of thoughts on the use of social media in councils that I have read. I might find your clarity on this subject very useful. Thank you!
Might I ask how your IT folk have managed to narrow youtube access down to only your channel? When I enquired about this, the problem was that YouTube store videos almost at random across many servers and so it was not possible to block all but e.g. “youtube.com/yourcouncil/…” etc.
Petsonally I think there is a good argument for allowing ‘read-only’ access to twitter for council staff, which I understand can be achieved.