On 21 March 2010 Shawn Klein wrote:

I certainly hope government websites won't be completely replaced by Facebook pages, as Facebook doesn't care much about making their services accessible to screen readers and the blind. At least US government sites must meet accessibility guidelines.

On 22 March 2010 Walter Schwabe wrote:

Facebook is a great way to integrate into discussions with citizens. However, ownership, security, and functionality are all items that I believe require the digital infrastructure to remain outside of Facebook.

On 25 March 2010 Kerry Webb wrote:

“Government operates too many web sites”? That's an overly sweeping statement. I hope Craig expanded on this at the Forum.

As for Facebook replacing Government websites - that quite a fanciful notion, and it doesn't take too much reflection to work out that the two channels address very different needs and functions.

On 27 March 2010 Russ Stiggants wrote:

Don't be seduced by social media. It has its part to play, just like the telephone has in the past 50 years — quick messages, no substance. Social networks are ephemeral. For quick messages they may be fine, but REALLY communicate? Nup. Websites with audio and video provide depth and will not go out of style - if anything, they will grow in sophistication and usefulness, particularly as they take over from 'traditional' media. Social networks are good for 'headlines' - but not good at 'depth'.

On 29 March 2010 Craig Thomler wrote:

Just as government opens offices in high-trafficked districts in the real-world, we need to do so online.

To expand slightly on my comments about government websites, there's been a tradition in government of launching a new website for every new initiative, program or campaign.

These new sites take time to build an audience (often with a large communications investment) or to become easily findable online.

They may disappear after a few months or years when the program or funding ends, making the valuable information they contain more difficult to find online.

In other words these site are as, if not more, ephemeral than some social networks and forums.

In my opinion government can both save money and magnify its impact online by leveraging the strength of their main properties. Rather than building new sites, add program-specific spaces to existing sites and ensure navigation is appropriate.

Where government needs to engage the community on ongoing issues (such as road safety, health topics, social service, etc) it should establish beachheads in online communities, engaging people 'where they choose to live' or creating its own community hubs (e.g. Facebook pages) with extensions into third-party groups.

These community hubs allow government to maintain a light touch relationship with their audiences on an ongoing basis. When an issue is topical or a program or campaign launched, government can leverage its hub to quickly build support at lower cost and in shorter timeframes than marketing a new site.

This approach allows government to be more proactive in information sharing and responsive to today's fast moving environment.

I think it is also important to remember that even if government chooses not to engage via social media channels, the community will continue to do so.

If government doesn’t engage, myths, misunderstandings and misconceptions about key topics may spread unchecked through online communities. Some will turn into media issues; others will harden underlying attitudes in the absence of accurate information.

Where government has a role in accurately informing the community, or ensuring that the right procedures are followed, or policies understand correctly, I believe that by not engaging through social media government is abrogating its responsibility and makes its job much harder in the future.

Governments need to be engaged through social media to ensure the community received the right information at the right time, even if all Departments do is to link to facts in an agency website.

As to Russ's statement about social networks being good only for headlines but not depth, I think it's important to use the appropriate social media channels for the task. While some social networks are best for headlines, there are many social media sites with enormous content depth - ranging from Wikipedia to many of the web forums on operation.

On 1 April 2010 Wan wrote:

As being a broadcaster fully owned by a Government, i felt that it's an option to be made by every each one of government agencies. It could boost the relationship between the government and the publics as well as the business communities such as G to B (Government to Business) and G to C (Government to Consumer).

E-government plays an important factor for any government agencies. with the emergent of facebook, there are many ways one could explore the benefits towards socialising towards the online communities. In Broadcasting aspects, this might be an added value for the local celebrities getting to know their fans better and could lead their future to a massively connected world of the web.

On 21 April 2010 Diane Salt wrote:

What i would like to know is why can a normal working house wife and mother think of ways to cut costs of spending in Britain when the so called educated people who are running this country cant see the wood for the trees,
all they have to do is contact me and i will gladly show then how to save over 8 million per week, which will aslo cut crime costs, police costs and court costs, giving further savings, when will this government get a spine and do the right things to get this country back on its feet and not worry about upsetting the wrong people along the way.

THINK BRITAIN FIRST.

On 1 May 2010 Henrik Hjortdal wrote:

Hello Diane

Please send me a private emal on henrik.hjort… on your thinking. I'm sure you're serious, but to get it straight, please give me an incdication on how you'll reach your goal. Even if my country is smaller and better run than UK, it may be of interest here i Denmark. I will put you in contact with relevant people in danish central government if we both think it's worth it.

On 12 May 2010 Marie-Claire wrote:

I don't see how any platform that requires you to create an account - especially a platform with the kind of privacy concerns and infringements Facebook engenders - could ever replace a government website. Sad day for democracy if it does.

On 12 June 2010 zee php freelance wrote:

Never… I think Facebook profiles are something that totally different.
And the gov profiles are different. So they have no matching.

On 5 July 2010 Semaj wrote:

Facebook's success is down to it being an extremely good platform for collaboration, principally between friends and co-workers. However no government could realistically place itself in the hands of a foreign corporation, no matter how benign it appears to be. We have already seen the missteps that Facebook has taken - in the areas of privacy, and advertising. Government needs to be accountable for any G-2-C-2-G platform; a private sector solution won't wash. However, let us just learn from the likes of Facebook. The citizens have voted with their feet - government should be aware of this, and learn lessons from how Facebook has been such a galloping success (300 million users? Amazing!)

On 3 September 2010 menersa wrote:

This is great to read I really appreciated from all the information.Thanks

On 1 October 2010 yitayewamlak Arega wrote:

well the thing i like about government websites on face-book is trying to reach the public when every body want to have fun and not serious staff, like making work a fun especially when trying to advertise a new service or hot(current) issue.
but giving a service on-line and providing documents i.e. downloading files should be a thing of government websites and should remain so.

On 29 November 2010 Riyas wrote:

In Broadcasting aspects, this might be an added value for the local celebrities getting to know their fans better and could lead their future to a massively connected world of the web.

On 3 December 2010 Lipo wrote:

Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this article is very nice and very informative article.I will make sure to be reading your blog more,thanks………….

On 10 December 2010 Thomas wrote:

Governments should still maintain their own sites, while using Facebook to interact with citizens and redirect users to relevant government sites.

On 20 January 2011 cosplay wrote:

Dresses For Prom Wedding Gowns Bridal Gowns Girls Dress Dresses 2011 Party dresses Cosplay Costumes Ball Gowns womens Dresses black evening dresses red evening dresses blue evening dresses <a href=”http://www.dressescentral.com”>Party dresses</a>

On 8 March 2011 Plastische Chirurgie wrote:

I like it very much because it has very helpful articles of various topics like different culture and the latest news. I am a googler and search on many topics.

On 12 April 2011 Grudknows wrote:

Hrm. I like the idea of government going to spaces were people are but not a specific network as that could exclude access to some citizens (possibly on ethical/moral grounds). I do like the idea of Government pushing info out to where people are.

On 19 April 2011 erin wrote:

I think that as the ability for retailers to design their Facebook Pages with all of the functionality of their webpages the shift will increase.
Shopping is a very social activity. Showcasing store offerings right within Facebook will allow customers to browse while they chat, share, and connect with their social network. This is great for retailers as it creates great referral advertising by having people talking about and sharing products on theirs and their friends Facebook wall. <a href=”http://erinlarsen.com/”>erin</a>

On 1 June 2011 Mat Poelmans wrote:

@Thomas @Grudknows You're both very right that it's not either or, but the combination of both channels which increases reaching out to more people. It's their choice to use either social media or ordinary websites.

On 18 June 2011 Spiritual Movies wrote:

Hope that government website will not be replace by that Facebook profiles.

On 21 June 2011 yiting wrote:

Facebook is a great interactive tool..currently, i don‘t think it can completely replace the use of websites as online resources. but it definitely, can be a great online forum for people to communicate n take note. it can definitely, replace talking n typing n sending through e-mails. Despite online, there will be no privacy.

On 14 July 2011 sakib wrote:

As for Face book replacing Government websites - that quite a fanciful notion, and it doesn't take too much reflection to work out that the two channels address very different needs and functions.Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this article is very nice and very informative article