Resources

The highest ranking concern among the workshop participants with respect to using social media tools is the availability of resources. In general, the concerns centered around three major types of resources: technical, staff, and training. In terms of technical resources, participants were concerned about having the necessary bandwidth to support streaming videos, additional security precautions to protect the agency networks from the virus and malware-rich world of social media, and simply having enough disk space to support some of the applications. In addition to technical resources, participants also emphasized the labor-intensive nature of social media, from having to continuously update information and maintain the sites to responding to an increased number of inquiries and comments from citizens. All these resources would also have to be produced in multiple languages, further exacerbating the strain on current employees. In addition, participants discussed the additional burden placed on managers and IT personnel for monitoring use by employees to ensure legality and appropriateness. Participants expressed concern whether the agency staff would be able to take on these additional responsibilities without the ability to hire additional staff. Similarly, participants also mentioned the need for additional training of their employees, whether on the use social media for official purposes or training employees on new policies with respect to personal use of social media during work hours.

Legal and regulatory ramifications

The second highest ranked category of concerns spanned a number of large issues that could be summarized under the category of legal and regulatory ramifications. There were roughly four areas of concern under this category: monitoring appropriate use by agency employees, regulation of accuracy of content, adherence to existing federal and state laws, and ramifications of entering into legal agreements with social media providers. Monitoring appropriate use by agency employees encompassed things such as ensuring that employees were not engaging in inappropriate activity on agency computers and that productivity levels are not suffering due to employees "socializing" while at work. Participants were also concerned about the legal ramifications of ensuring accuracy of content on an agency social media site. More specifically, concerns related to posting of inaccurate information in the agency's name, whether intentionally or accidentally, and the resulting liability for consequences resulting from such misinformation. Adherence to state and federal regulations was also of concern to workshop participants. Some worried that censoring content posted by citizenry could potentially violate an individual’s First Amendment rights. Others were more concerned about to adhering to e-discovery and FOIA laws and regulations. Lastly, the workshop participants expressed concern regarding legal agreements that an agency would have to accept in order to use some of the current social media tools. State regulations explicitly prohibit an agency to agree to some of the terms of use and the provisions in some agreements that give the site rights to content. This was particularly troubling for agencies considering posting images of artwork or other copyrighted material.

Governance

Participants ranked governance questions as the third highest concern. Three themes dominated the overall discussion about governance: who can post information on agency’s behalf, leakage of sensitive information, and perceived endorsement of advertisements posted on the same page as the agency site. The question of who within the organization will be responsible for posting information and ensuring accuracy of that information was very sensitive for many of the participants. Many worried that if this question is not clearly specified, the agency might face a situation where a number of employees are posting inaccurate or inconsistent information. Leakage of sensitive information involved not only information about citizens, but also sensitive agency information that could potentially jeopardize agency operations or at least cause embarrassment. Lastly, participants were concerned that since control over content would not be fully in their hands, the agency would be viewed as endorsing views or advertisements posted on or around their social media sites.

Making a business case

In an era of sparse resources, organizations routinely use cost benefit calculations when proposing new initiatives, such as use of social media tools. In general, concerns in this category fell into three areas: fast pace of change in this environment, potential political risks, and loss of opportunities stemming from use of one tool over another. The participants mentioned on several occasions that the speed of change in the social media landscape is stunning, making it very difficult for slow-changing government agencies to keep up. Participants expressed fears that an investment of precious resources will be wasted if tools selected soon disappear. A different area of concern involved potential harm that could come to an agency if an oversight or legislative body used negative public comments posted on the agency’s social media site to justify cutting funding for a specific program. Lastly, participants were concerned about possible missed opportunities resulting from making a decision about using a specific tool without the benefit of detailed knowledge of the entire social media landscape. They worried that if they invest in one tool, they will be precluded from investing in a different tool in the future that might be better suited for fulfilling the agency’s mission.

Security

Participants ranked security concerns quite high. In general, there were three areas of security concern: security of agency infrastructure, security of citizens, and security of sensitive or confidential data. Given the relatively unsecured environment of social media, participants repeatedly mentioned the need to protect agency networks from accidental exposure to malware and limit exposure to hacking. Workshop participants also felt responsible for ensuring that use of an agency social media site does not expose citizens to computer viruses and malware or endangers their physical safety by encouraging them to check their messages while driving or other similar activities. Lastly, securing confidential data against hacking or simple information leakage was an issue of particular concern to the participants.

Accessibility

Interestingly, while many participants hoped that social media would enhance access to government information and services for the disabled, they also worried about making sure that the social media tools they select will be fully accessible, both for the disabled and economically disadvantaged populations. Namely, they worried about making all venues conform to the requirements put forth by NYS technology policies and standards and making sure they do not further perpetuate disadvantages of people who do not have access to high speed internet.

Perception

The importance of executive support has long been recognized as crucial to any new organizational endeavor and social media use is no exception. Workshop participants expressed concern that getting buy-in from the agency managers could be potentially difficult depending on the views of the particular executive regarding social media tools. Some participants worried that their agency executives might see social media as “time-wasters” and have difficulty seeing the potential value of social media tools. They reported that their executives are worried about the potential damage to their agency stemming from data leaks or being seen as wasting tax payers money on frivolous and “too cool for government” pursuits. In addition to these concerns, workshop participants also expressed worries about the public’s perception of government agencies using social media tools. On one hand they feared creating false expectations for young people, and on the other hand worried about citizens viewing social media as “fun” and “social” and thus not appropriate for government agencies funded by taxpayers money.

Information overload

Finally, workshop participants were also concerned about the volume of information that is currently “out there” and further adding to this volume by posting more information. Overloading citizens with information from a variety of sources, they feared, would ultimately result in confusion as citizens would not be able to digest all this information, sort through it all, and verify sources. They were concerned that important agency messages would get lost in the sea of information that already exists.