Will Facebook Replace Traditional Government Web Sites?

So if you're not on Facebook . . . you don't get government services or just second class services? Remember the phase "of the people, for the people, and by the people", it does not say "of Facebook, for Facebook and by Facebook".

Who gets the Ad revenues - government or Facebook? I am being overly critical but we continue to dissolve the lines between government and corporations which used to be called Fascism - which generally does not turn out well for the individual citizens.

We are creating a new "have and have not's" just now maybe called Facebookers and non-Facebookers, yet all are Americans with the same rights to these services. The same government has limited the access to the broadband by only having service driven by corporate interests, not national interests.

So if you're not on Facebook . . . you don't get government services or just second class services? Remember the phase "of the people, for the people, and by the people", it does not say "of Facebook, for Facebook and by Facebook".

Who gets the Ad revenues - government or Facebook? I am being overly critical but we continue to dissolve the lines between government and corporations which used to be called Fascism - which generally does not turn out well for the individual citizens.

We are creating a new "have and have not's" just now maybe called Facebookers and non-Facebookers, yet all are Americans with the same rights to these services. The same government has limited the access to the broadband by only having service driven by corporate interests, not national interests.

So if you're not on Facebook . . . you don't get government services or just second class services? Remember the phase "of the people, for the people, and by the people", it does not say "of Facebook, for Facebook and by Facebook".

Who gets the Ad revenues - government or Facebook? I am being overly critical but we continue to dissolve the lines between government and corporations which used to be called Fascism - which generally does not turn out well for the individual citizens.

We are creating a new "have and have not's" just now maybe called Facebookers and non-Facebookers, yet all are Americans with the same rights to these services. The same government has limited the access to the broadband by only having service driven by corporate interests, not national interests.

Sorry, but while its a good idea to take your services to where you are, you can't stick all your eggs in one basket.

Let's not forget that SF isn't exactly delivering their services on Facebook, they're simply using it as a conduit between their customers and their service offerings.

And what about all the other issues that go with online service delivery, such as WAI/WCAG, Section 508, and the perceived trustworthiness of Govt. domains?

Sorry, but if I needed service from a Govt, and urgently, I wouldn't be doing it via Facebook as I don't know what insights or information they're getting from this, and what of that I don't particularly want them to have.

In short - any strategy that leaves you open to these issues and leaves you beholden to a specific platform/service provider is one that's doomed to fail and will blow up in your face sometime down the road.

Sorry, but while its a good idea to take your services to where you are, you can't stick all your eggs in one basket.

Let's not forget that SF isn't exactly delivering their services on Facebook, they're simply using it as a conduit between their customers and their service offerings.

And what about all the other issues that go with online service delivery, such as WAI/WCAG, Section 508, and the perceived trustworthiness of Govt. domains?

Sorry, but if I needed service from a Govt, and urgently, I wouldn't be doing it via Facebook as I don't know what insights or information they're getting from this, and what of that I don't particularly want them to have.

In short - any strategy that leaves you open to these issues and leaves you beholden to a specific platform/service provider is one that's doomed to fail and will blow up in your face sometime down the road.

Sorry, but while its a good idea to take your services to where you are, you can't stick all your eggs in one basket.

Let's not forget that SF isn't exactly delivering their services on Facebook, they're simply using it as a conduit between their customers and their service offerings.

And what about all the other issues that go with online service delivery, such as WAI/WCAG, Section 508, and the perceived trustworthiness of Govt. domains?

Sorry, but if I needed service from a Govt, and urgently, I wouldn't be doing it via Facebook as I don't know what insights or information they're getting from this, and what of that I don't particularly want them to have.

In short - any strategy that leaves you open to these issues and leaves you beholden to a specific platform/service provider is one that's doomed to fail and will blow up in your face sometime down the road.

Interesting idea, however not everyone is on facebook - people like options and government is meeting the need. We will probably see more ways to provide services on the horizon, for example eGov Strategies comprehensive mobile app - which pull the information dynamically from sites.

Interesting idea, however not everyone is on facebook - people like options and government is meeting the need. We will probably see more ways to provide services on the horizon, for example eGov Strategies comprehensive mobile app - which pull the information dynamically from sites.

Interesting idea, however not everyone is on facebook - people like options and government is meeting the need. We will probably see more ways to provide services on the horizon, for example eGov Strategies comprehensive mobile app - which pull the information dynamically from sites.

While Facebook is popular today, it may not be 5 years from now. And what about all the privacy concerns. Are all of SF city employees on Facebook monitoring communications with constituents? As another poster alluded to, I'm not willing to use Facebook as a communications medium to the City. While I understand the enthusiasm to embrace Facebook, it's naive to think Facebook or any other social media site will replace a government domain.

While Facebook is popular today, it may not be 5 years from now. And what about all the privacy concerns. Are all of SF city employees on Facebook monitoring communications with constituents? As another poster alluded to, I'm not willing to use Facebook as a communications medium to the City. While I understand the enthusiasm to embrace Facebook, it's naive to think Facebook or any other social media site will replace a government domain.

While Facebook is popular today, it may not be 5 years from now. And what about all the privacy concerns. Are all of SF city employees on Facebook monitoring communications with constituents? As another poster alluded to, I'm not willing to use Facebook as a communications medium to the City. While I understand the enthusiasm to embrace Facebook, it's naive to think Facebook or any other social media site will replace a government domain.

I think this is a great point - as pointed out, the key for effective e-government is interactive services that streamline the operations of local government. Quick access to those services will keep the city.gov portals relevant.

I think this is a great point - as pointed out, the key for effective e-government is interactive services that streamline the operations of local government. Quick access to those services will keep the city.gov portals relevant.

I think this is a great point - as pointed out, the key for effective e-government is interactive services that streamline the operations of local government. Quick access to those services will keep the city.gov portals relevant.

Have you even considered security on this? And what about unwelcomed, spurious and defamatory comments from followers? As a government entity have they researched if they can delete comments? Who owns Facebook information--the City of San Francisco or Facebook? SF might be on a slippery slope.

Have you even considered security on this? And what about unwelcomed, spurious and defamatory comments from followers? As a government entity have they researched if they can delete comments? Who owns Facebook information--the City of San Francisco or Facebook? SF might be on a slippery slope.

Have you even considered security on this? And what about unwelcomed, spurious and defamatory comments from followers? As a government entity have they researched if they can delete comments? Who owns Facebook information--the City of San Francisco or Facebook? SF might be on a slippery slope.

Hope not! Facebook is nonserious, leisure-time, fantasy website entertainment, whereas public service websites help SERVE the public to resolve SERIOUS, realistic, non-entertaining, non-leisurely, even life-threatening time periods.

Hope not! Facebook is nonserious, leisure-time, fantasy website entertainment, whereas public service websites help SERVE the public to resolve SERIOUS, realistic, non-entertaining, non-leisurely, even life-threatening time periods.

Hope not! Facebook is nonserious, leisure-time, fantasy website entertainment, whereas public service websites help SERVE the public to resolve SERIOUS, realistic, non-entertaining, non-leisurely, even life-threatening time periods.

It won't be facebook that's replacing traditional websites. But the techniques used in social media can be an advantage to upgrade our communication channels

It won't be facebook that's replacing traditional websites. But the techniques used in social media can be an advantage to upgrade our communication channels

It won't be facebook that's replacing traditional websites. But the techniques used in social media can be an advantage to upgrade our communication channels

As a possible replacement to traditional government service websites, the question that sticks out to me is 'what are the cost benefits?' All municipalities are in cost reduction mode, hence with such a new interest, there most be some serious savings attached (I am assuming).

As a possible replacement to traditional government service websites, the question that sticks out to me is 'what are the cost benefits?' All municipalities are in cost reduction mode, hence with such a new interest, there most be some serious savings attached (I am assuming).

As a possible replacement to traditional government service websites, the question that sticks out to me is 'what are the cost benefits?' All municipalities are in cost reduction mode, hence with such a new interest, there most be some serious savings attached (I am assuming).

There are a number of tools we use to promote communication; some are better at different uses.

While it is good to promote certain events (like City celebrations and attractions), FB is a social media and a great tool to use for such attractions but it does not replace the need for other tools to communicate.

I don't think any serious web admin would really take a look at the complexities of information which need to be presented for the larger cities and towns and consider it. Then again, a town of 15 to 450 people may find it a viable option as in no to low-cost.

Its a tool, and a good one. You just have to make sure it fits with the use you need. I think people forget to do that sometimes. Take a look at the tool and see if it is a good use.

There are a number of tools we use to promote communication; some are better at different uses.

While it is good to promote certain events (like City celebrations and attractions), FB is a social media and a great tool to use for such attractions but it does not replace the need for other tools to communicate.

I don't think any serious web admin would really take a look at the complexities of information which need to be presented for the larger cities and towns and consider it. Then again, a town of 15 to 450 people may find it a viable option as in no to low-cost.

Its a tool, and a good one. You just have to make sure it fits with the use you need. I think people forget to do that sometimes. Take a look at the tool and see if it is a good use.

There are a number of tools we use to promote communication; some are better at different uses.

While it is good to promote certain events (like City celebrations and attractions), FB is a social media and a great tool to use for such attractions but it does not replace the need for other tools to communicate.

I don't think any serious web admin would really take a look at the complexities of information which need to be presented for the larger cities and towns and consider it. Then again, a town of 15 to 450 people may find it a viable option as in no to low-cost.

Its a tool, and a good one. You just have to make sure it fits with the use you need. I think people forget to do that sometimes. Take a look at the tool and see if it is a good use.