Thanks for your communication giving the general frame of a trend in the sphere of eResponsability. No doubt we have to learn and think deeper around that important topic of "transparency & responsability".

 

sincerely yours,

MPH

Thank you for your comment Marc Pierre.

Agree that it sounds simple and logical but as individuals we have to get used to the blurring of the professional and private spheres – a de facto blurring which is further emphasised by Web2.0 solutions like Facebook and Twitter where information often is indiscriminately published and communicated to an mixed audience of friends, family, colleagues, private and professional acquaintances etc.

On the other hand we are face with a situation where civil servants through the informal style of communication and devolution of information and opinions may be mistakenly - or on purpose - be misinterpreted by other individual. It is therefore essential to use common sense (ie be responsible for our actions) and think critically of ones intended “audience” and potential readers. That said we have to be careful that we do not impose unwarranted self-censorship, thus undermining our democratic rights to freedom of speech, expression and participation – even if working in the public sector.

An interesting topic. While you note a blurring of boundaries between the public and the private sphere, I think that to the extent that public actors make use of social media (to stimulate discussion, raise awareness etc) there would be a case to look at the accessibility for people with disabilities of the platforms used.

I realise there is a trade-off between the visibility and, in turn, effectiveness of discussions (on popular platforms that may have accessibility deficiencies) and the accessibility of discussions (e.g. on self-designed platforms that meet accessibility criteria).

Being aware of the issue is the first step. It could lead people to realise that to the extent that social media are officially accepted as a public function in the policy making process, there is ideed a choice to be made. That in turn could strengthen the case for a guideline covering such choices of communication channel / platform.

Regards, Detlev

Hi Detlev,

You relate two interesting issues ie whether social media serve a public function in relation to debate and if so if such social platforms should be more accessible to eg the hearing and visually impaired in order to really perform this public function.

When we talk multichannel approaches – which we to a large extent does when it comes to eDemocracy, eParticipation and eGovernment in general – it is my personal opinion that we should also try to avoid creating a storm in a glass of water. Naturally social media should be as accessible as possible and follow state-of-the-art accessibility standards (and better if possible). Still not all channels and fora will be of equal interest to all people. My point is that not all social media or all fora necessarily need to all things, to all people, all the time and for all issues. BUT – and this is essential – what is required is that platforms which serve a public function must be accessible to all unless there is an alternative channel available to ensure that all can enjoy the democratic rights and privileges!  

Hope I have not been too provocative J

Morten  

Hi Morten,

Just to be clear - you write

(...)platforms which serve a public function must be accessible to all unless there is an alternative channel available to ensure that all can enjoy the democratic rights and privileges!

This, of course, is the 'back door' issue. A public discussion is a discussion *for all* only when everyone can see what everyone else contributed. It is not one split into a not-so accessible channel for most, and an accessible channel for people with disabilities. *Unless*, of course, the split is merely one of alternative presentation (a different view) of exactly the same interaction.

Regards, Detlev

Hi Detlev,

We are on the same page here.

What I mean is that alternative channels should be availble for people to chose from depending on their preferences. The alternative channels would for a given debate, or issue, all feed into the same overall discussion. In other words: Giving people the choice of channel best suiting their personal preferences, location and situation at a given point in time. Preferences, locations and situations which may also change and vary depending on the type of issue discussed.

Truth of the matter is that electronic channels are just that: Channels like any other. For instance, traditional debate could take place at city hall, in the market place, assembly hall - and in modern society via call in radio shows, panels in television debates etc.

Some would say there is a need for guidelines, the problem is its all about security. Everyone these days want to feel safe and thats the big problem, there are just suggestions no guarenteed safety.

When it comes to guidelines for civil servants to participate in online debates, social networks etc the issue of security and safety are somewhat different.

Yes, there must be safeguards and sensitive or confidential information should not be leaked. Transparency is nontheless an aim in democratic European societies incl. when it comes to the public sectors decision making and daily functioning. Thus "safety" and "security" should not be used as excuses when not relevant.

More importantly safety and security should never be used as a tool to limit individual, or group, rights in a democratic context. This is the point of the danish decision not to impose guidelines on civil servants who in a private capacity wish to participate in online debates, social networks etc - and we should not forget that a civil servant is also a voter and a tax payer.

Hi Mark,

I, and a large number of other individuals and organisations, agree with you comment about a need to rethink security and privacy issues related to social media like Facebook, Twitter, Flicker etc.

This is also reflected in the current debate about security settings on Facebook and Google Earth's collection of private network settings and data.

Two aspects of interest in this regards:

1. The actual security and privacy governing social media and networks. In particular whether individuals can overwrite the "owenship" claimed by social media on the "proverbial page 75, bullet point bla-bla, footnote 117, in font size too-small-too-read"? In a European context of consumer protection it may indeed be posible to overwrite this claim to "ownership". Although to my knowledge I do not know of any actual rulings on the issue.
2. The actual behaviour of individuals in social network and their use of social media. Here the trend, at least in a north-western European context, seem to indicate an increasing degree of self-censureship in what is shared and with who.