National Academies Press: OpenBook

Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation (2012)

Chapter: Chapter Four - Barriers to Using Social Media

« Previous: Chapter Three - Survey: How Transit Agencies Use Social Media
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Barriers to Using Social Media." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14666.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Barriers to Using Social Media." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14666.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Barriers to Using Social Media." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14666.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Barriers to Using Social Media." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14666.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Barriers to Using Social Media." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14666.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Barriers to Using Social Media." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14666.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Barriers to Using Social Media." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14666.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Barriers to Using Social Media." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14666.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Barriers to Using Social Media." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14666.
×
Page 27

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

20 IntroductIon This chapter identifies some common barriers to using social media and presents strategies for addressing them. Informa- tion is drawn from the survey findings and supplemented, as necessary, with information from the literature review. Although use of social media offers many potential benefits, government agencies have encountered numerous difficulties and pitfalls. Concerns about user privacy and cybersecurity have implications for all users of the social web. However, other challenges, such as record-retention requirements and responding to online comments, are mostly relevant to public- sector agencies. common BarrIers to usIng socIal medIa NASCIO reports that for state chief information officers, concerns about social media include security, legal terms of service, privacy, records management, and acceptable use. Consistent with those findings, HCI identified security as the primary barrier for expanding social networking in government. For the transportation agencies participating in the UTM survey, pitfalls include staffing requirements, managing negative comments, and addressing user expec- tations (2–4). For this synthesis, survey respondents were asked about the importance of common barriers to implementing social media activities at their agency (see Table 8). To better compare these responses, a weighted average was calculated using a four-point scale where 1 = “not important at all” and 4 = “very important.” Consistent with the findings reported in UTM, the following factors appeared most influential to respondents for the synthesis survey; more than 20% of agen- cies flagged them as barriers, rating them “very important” when deciding whether or not to use social media: • No staff available to manage social media activities (29% of responding agencies/average = 2.8) • People will use social media to criticize my agency (22% of responding agencies/average = 2.7). At the other end of the spectrum, the following factors did not appear to present barriers to agencies and were most commonly rated “not important at all” in the decision to use social media: • Social media are not a good way to reach minorities (63% of responding agencies/average = 1.6). • Social media expose our agency to computer viruses (63% of responding agencies/average = 1.7). • Staff will waste time updating their personal pages (47% of responding agencies/average = 1.8). • Seniors do not use social media (46% of responding agencies/average = 1.7). The warnings of cybersecurity experts notwithstanding, survey respondents were far more concerned about exposing their agency to criticism than to computer viruses. socIal medIa PolIcIes Although the practice is not universal, many public agencies have adopted social media policies to provide guidance for addressing these barriers and concerns. Research conducted by the Center for Technology in Government (CTG) at the State University of New York at Albany, and summarized as part of the literature review, provides a roadmap for gov- ernment agencies that are considering developing a social media policy. The CTG research team, who reviewed about two dozen policies and interviewed more than 30 officials, identified 8 basic elements common to most policies (16): • Employee access—Agencies manage access in two ways, either by restricting the number or type of employees who can access social media sites or by limiting the types of sites that employees can access. • Account management—Many agencies required the chief information officer and/or the communications officer to oversee social media accounts. • Acceptable use—Agencies are challenged by the soft- ening line between personal, professional, and official agency use of social networking sites. • Employee conduct—Most agencies referred to existing policies for employee conduct, although a few addressed some behaviors specific to social media, such as the need for transparency. • Content—Most agencies tried to maintain at least minimal control over online content, either by assign- ing oversight responsibility to an individual manager or retaining the right to review content. • Security—Most policies referred to agency IT security guidelines, although a few focused specifically on the importance of password control. chapter four BarrIers to usIng socIal medIa

21 • Legal issues—Although some policies simply advised employees to follow all applicable laws, several focused on records retention and others required sites to post specific disclaimers. • User conduct—About a dozen policies included rules of conduct for readers and posters, including restrictions on offensive language. As the list suggests, some agencies use a social media policy to provide agency-level guidance on using the social space (e.g., responsibility for content), some use the policy to manage employee behavior, and some develop policies to cover both. Among the agencies responding to the survey for the synthesis, only 27% had a social media policy, although more than half (58%) had one in development. resource requIrements Staffing availability was the most commonly cited barrier to using social media among transit properties surveyed for this study. As Table 8 shows, two of three responding agencies (68%) said this factor was “important” or “very important” when deciding whether to implement a social media campaign. staffing levels Most agencies reported that marketing and communications staff generated content for social media applications (86% of responding agencies), either alone or in collaboration with other departments. Other departments commonly cited were customer service (29% of agencies), administration (23%), TAble 8 IMpORTANCe OF bARRIeRS IN AGeNCY DeCISION TO USe SOCIAl MeDIA Barrier No. Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important Average No staff available to manage social media activities 31 16% 16% 39% 29% 2.8 People will use social media to criticize my agency 32 13% 28% 38% 22% 2.7 Posting updates takes too much time 31 19% 45% 23% 13% 2.3 Our riders do not have access to technology 29 34% 24% 31% 10% 2.2 People with disabilities cannot access social media 23 30% 30% 35% 4% 2.1 Traditional communications methods are the best way to reach our riders 31 32% 29% 32% 6% 2.1 Agency managers did not see the benefits of social media 28 43% 25% 18% 14% 2.0 Social media apps require support from IT staff 29 41% 21% 31% 7% 2.0 Using social media creates concerns about user privacy 30 37% 43% 10% 10% 1.9 Staff will waste time updating their personal pages 30 47% 33% 10% 10% 1.8 There’s no good way to archive social media posts 31 35% 48% 16% 0% 1.8 Seniors do not use social media 28 46% 36% 18% 0% 1.7 Social media exposes our agency to computer viruses 32 63% 16% 13% 9% 1.7 Social media is not a good way to reach minorities 24 63% 17% 21% 0% 1.6 Percentage is based on number of agencies responding to question, shown in column marked “No.” Weighted average was calculated from responses using a four-point scale where 1 = “not important at all” and 4 = “very important.” N/A responses were excluded.

22 planning (23%), operations and maintenance (23%), senior management (23%), and information technology (20%). Agencies were also asked to indicate how many hours per month staff devoted to social media activities. Figure 8 shows the overall distribution of staff hours at the agency level based on operating setting. The categories are defined as: (1) large urbanized area—population more than 200,000; (2) Small urbanized area—population between 50,000 and 200,000; and (3) Rural area—population less than 50,000. However, small urbanized and rural areas were combined for this analysis because only seven responding agencies fell into these categories. As might be expected, large urban agencies devoted more staff resources to social media than those operating in smaller environments. More than half of the large urban agencies responding to this question allocated at least 40 hours, or the equivalent of one week per month, to social media activities, including 23% that reported an investment of more than 80 hours per month. Small agencies generally devoted less staff time to social media and the vast majority (86%) reported a commitment of 40 hours per month or less. Table 9 shows the distribution of staff hours based on department or job classification and distinguished by operating setting. Again, small urban and rural agencies are combined. Overall, the results document the wide variation in approaches to social media among transit properties, showing distinct differences in which departments participate and how much time they spend. Marketing and communications staff was most likely to participate in social media programs across the board. At large urban properties, the reports ranged from a low of 2 to 3 hours per month to a high of 200 hours per month; at smaller agencies the range was narrower, from an estimated 3 hours per month to 20 hours. Among large agencies, social media responsibilities were also allocated to community relations staff (as many as 170 hours per month) and customer service (up to 200 hours per month). Other departments, such as legal and procurement, had a small role, and human resources had none. direct expenses In addition to asking about staffing requirements, the survey asked respondents to report direct expenses for social media activities. These questions yielded very few meaningful responses and are not summarized here. perhaps consistent with the lack of response to this question, respondents dis- agreed about the effectiveness of social media as a cost-cutting measure (see Table 5). Potential revenues Survey respondents were asked whether they had investigated potential revenue streams from social media. Half of the responding agencies (50%) had not done so. Others had con- sidered advertising (27%), partnerships with outside organiza- tions (27%), and location-based advertising (20%). Research conducted on behalf of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) found some prec- edent for accepting advertising on government websites, although most of the identified sites were government- sponsored tourism sites. WSDOT identified several potential scenarios for generating revenue, including direct advertising FIGURE 8 Agency investment in social media (total hours per month by size of agency). Percentage is based on number of agencies reporting in the size category. For small urban/rural N = 7 and for large urban N = 22.

23 sales, sponsorships, and business listings. projections for annual net revenues varied considerably, from a high of $1.9 million to a potential loss of $70,000 (17 ). Other public agencies have explored these scenarios, including the state of New York, which developed an advertising policy outlining the limited circumstances under which state agencies may accept adver- tising. It also identified policy concerns including perceptions of official endorsement or favoritism, potential privacy vio- lations when users click on an advertisement, and potential consequences if users are redirected to another website (18). Neither document addresses the benefits or impacts of advertis- ing on social media platforms, but many of the findings apply. managIng emPloyee access to socIal medIa Managing employee access to social media at the workplace can be a challenge for many organizations. Some employers believe that social media tools can encourage staff commu- nication and collaboration, but others are concerned about lost productivity, cybersecurity threats, and risks to reputation. In its survey of government social media policies, CTG summarizes the dilemma: “Questions commonly arise with social media use, such as how much time an employee may spend on a personal Facebook page while at work or how much time an employee should devote to participating in peer-to-peer networking on sites such as Govloop” (16). As the line between personal and professional lives contin- ues to blur, these questions are becoming increasingly relevant. Trend Micro found that 24% of U.S. workers accessed social media sites while on the job in 2011, up from 20% in 2010 (19). Federal workers are also using social media applications at work, and not necessarily for business reasons. A recent sur- vey found that 46% of senior federal managers were allowed to access social media on the job in 2011, up from 20% in the previous year. Among those using social media sites, 54% used Facebook, including 20% who used it daily. For federal Facebook users, only 6% used the application exclusively for work purposes; 49% used it for personal use only and 45% for both work and personal use (20). Although some organizations ban personal use of social media at the workplace, others allow some level of access. For example, Seattle-based King County Metro Transit’s employees are subject to the county’s social media policy, which addresses personal use as follows: employees are allowed to have personal social networking sites. employees should never use their county email account or password in conjunction with a personal social networking site. During normal business hours, employees may use personal social networking for limited family or personal communications so long as those communications do not interfere with their work and as long as they adhere to existing computer use policies. Should employees discuss their county work on personal social networking accounts or web sites, they should be aware their Large Urban Small Urban/Rural Job Category/Department No. Low High No. Low High Marketing and Communications 21 2.5 200 4 3 20 Senior Management 8 1.5 30 3 5 10 Information Technology 7 1 24 2 1 10 Customer Service 5 1 200 2 3 10 Administration 2 4 5 3 5 10 Planning 2 5 8 1 — 20 Operations/Maintenance 2 5 20 2 1 8 Consultant 1 — 5 1 — 1 Community Relations 1 — 170 0 — — Legal/Procurement 1 — 5 0 — — Intern 1 — 32 2 5 20 Human resources/Training 0 — — 0 — — Hours per month by size of operating setting and job category or department. High and low values reported; column marked “No.” shows number of agencies responding. TAble 9 STAFF COMMITMeNT TO SOCIAl MeDIA ACTIvITIeS bY SIze OF URbANIzeD AReA

24 account may be subject to public disclosure laws, even if pro- duced on personal time and equipment (21). Some agencies responding to the synthesis survey cited advantages to allowing employee access to social media on the job and offered the following comments: • provided morale boost for staff to interact outside office. • blog and Twitter work is shared as part of regular internal communications with about 30% of our organization. • This wasn’t our target audience but we have found that we are engaging many employees through Facebook page; they are adding to our conversation as well as seeking answers to questions. Others took steps to discourage or restrict access to personal and official social media sites, describing their approaches as follows: • employee access to social media is pretty restricted, with only a handful of employees having access to Facebook. • All employees have access to [the agency’s] social media space; however only a couple of [agency] web and communications staff has modifying powers. • employees are encouraged to limit their personal use of social media and restrict activities to [agency]-oriented content. These limits on staff social media activity were consistent with the CTG’s findings. According to CTG, public agen- cies manage employee access to social media in two ways: (1) controlling the number or types of employees who may use social networking sites or (2) restricting employee access to certain types of websites. HCI’s survey of 607 government agencies had similar findings. HCI identified three common approaches for handling employee access to social media: (1) block all social networking tools, (2) limit access to a few selected social networking tools or for a few functions, and (3) limit access to selected individuals (2, 16). The synthesis survey asked whether respondents were concerned that employees would waste time updating their personal social media accounts while on the job. On average, respondents to the synthesis survey did not flag workplace access to social media as a major barrier to implementation. As Table 8 shows, only 10% considered this issue “very important,” and transit agencies reported different approaches to managing staff use of social media. However, although some agencies see advantages in allowing their employees to access the type of information available through social networking, others are more concerned about the perceived security risks. NASCIO reports that employee misuse of social media was one of the top five concerns regarding social media in government. ISACA (formerly known as the Information Systems Audit and Control Association) shared this concern, saying that employee use of social media on the job or at home could expose an organization to malware and viruses, data loss, privacy violations, and damage to repu- tation (4,16,22). These concerns are discussed later in this chapter. HandlIng onlIne crItIcIsm Social media platforms allow transit agencies to present their message to stakeholders, independent of the news cycle and unaltered by editorial opinions. However, although agencies can control the message they share with their audience, they cannot expect to manage what people say about them. Fear of online criticism was one of the major barriers to using social media, according to the survey respondents. As Table 8 shows, 60% of responding agencies considered this issue “important” or “very important.” To address this concern, one industry expert offered the following advice. Although aimed at private-sector marketers, it applies to public agencies as well: If you choose to go down the path toward social media engage- ment, you have to be prepared for loss of control. If you can accept that the conversations people will have about your brand will mix the negative in with the positive, you’re in a good position to benefit from the data you’ll get about your brand and product offerings. Think of it as unaided, unfiltered consumer research (23). Agencies also face the potential for negative feedback from disgruntled current or former employees. In portland, Oregon, TriMet allows employees to maintain personal blogs so long as they make it clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the agency. Nevertheless, agency officials were forced to take disciplinary action against one bus driver after his blog post appeared to threaten a bicycle rider. “This is a free speech right that we support,” a TriMet spokeswoman told a local reporter in reference to blogging bus drivers. “but you can’t cross the line” (24). Sources agreed that there was a clear distinction between online behavior that was illegal or offensive and behavior that was negative or critical. The CTG found that 11 of 26 government social media policies reviewed addressed the issue of citizen conduct, including offensive language, illegal activities, or other inappropriate actions. Generally, public agencies reserved the right to delete or edit offensive content, including obscenities and profanity (16). For example, St. louis Metro Transit posts this disclaimer as part of its blog comment policy: “editors reserve the right to modify or delete any comments that don’t conform to our guidelines below or that we deem otherwise inappropriate, and we will ban commenters who cannot follow the rules (with or without warning)” (25). When the comments are negative, but not in violation of policy, several government organizations and nonprofits provide advice to their employees on how to respond in an appropriate manner. Depending on the situation, suggested

25 actions include everything from accepting the criticism to not responding at all. The city of edmonton, Alberta, offers the following guidance to its employees, who include staff of the edmonton Transit System: “be respectful. encourage constructive criticism and deliberation. be friendly, honest and professional at all times.” The Center for Association leader- ship encourages nonprofits to consider negative feedback as “a golden opportunity to fix misperceptions” (26–29). To help respond to online comments, both positive and negative, industry experts suggest keeping social media com- munications informal and genuine while tailoring information to the intended audience. Key characteristics include (30): • Casual—Your social media communications will be mingled with personal messages from users’ friends and family. Try to fit in. • Human—Social media are designed primarily to allow people to socialize with people. • Concise—Your content on social media outlets is forced to compete with countless personal messages, jokes, and games. Get to the point. The epA, one of the first federal organizations to develop guidance for using social media, echoes these suggestions in its advice on finding a tone for social media posts: “Write in an informal, personal tone. Think party conversation, not news release or fact sheet” (31). One survey respondent offered a similar comment: “Tone is important: lose the auto-posts and public agency speak. Connect with people like a human.” accessIBIlIty for PeoPle wItH dIsaBIlItIes Internet accessibility for people with disabilities has improved substantially over the past few years, thanks to Section 508 accessibility requirements and standards developed by the World Wide Web Consortium. For example, the guidelines are designed to ensure that website content can be accessed by users with visual impairments, especially those who use assistive devices such as screen readers, and to enable users with hearing impairments to access video and audio compo- nents. Other good practices for website accessibility include visual contrast, adjustable text sizes, keyboard navigation for people with impaired mobility, and color schemes that color- blind readers can recognize. Social media applications have not yet completely caught up, however, and their heavy reli- ance on graphics, videos, and user-generated content has cre- ated specific accessibility challenges. Web Accessibility in Mind (WebAIM), an organization within the Center for persons with Disabilities at Utah State University, surveyed individuals who use assistive screen readers to rate the accessibility of social media sites. As Table 10 shows, the majority of these individuals (62%) consider social media “somewhat accessible” overall. Twitter and blogs were the most accessible applications; 62% said Twitter was “very accessible” and 45% said the same for blogs. linkedIn scored lowest for accessibility; 31% said the site was very inaccessible for screen readers (32). Many of the recommended steps for improving the accessibility of social media sites are consistent with good web usability practices. These include providing descriptive titles for photographs and graphic images in the source code (also known as AlT tags) and including captions for videos. Some third-party applications are available that provide an alternate accessible interface to existing social media appli- cations, including Twitter and YouTube. Facebook provides guidance for readers using assistive technology and offers an option for disabling JavaScript features on the site. In addition, some experts recommend posting a fully accessible version of social media content on a companion website (33). Maintaining an alternate accessible site can also help agencies comply with records-retention requirements by facilitating archiving. One vexing concern is the widespread use of an appli- cation called CApTCHA, which stands for Completely Automated public Turing Test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart. CApTCHA is a program designed to make sure that Platform No. Very Accessible Somewhat Accessible Somewhat Inaccessible Very Inaccessible Social Media Overall 462 10% 62% 23% 5% Blogs 467 45% 48% 6% 1% YouTube 425 26% 52% 14% 7% Facebook 359 10% 49% 28% 13% Twitter 278 62% 29% 5% 4% LinkedIn 164 10% 29% 30% 31% MySpace 107 39% 46% 10% 5% Source: “Screen Reader User Survey #2 Results” (32). TAble 10 USeRS OF SCReeN ReADeRS RATe SOCIAl MeDIA SITeS ON ACCeSSIbIlITY

26 users participating in online discussion boards or signing up for e-mail subscriptions are real people, and not automated bots. For example, Moving LANTA Forward, the blog for the lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority, uses CApTCHA to screen comments on its blog posts. A typical CApTCHA application asks users to retype one or two words that are displayed as distorted text. Although humans can interpret the distortions, machines cannot. Assistive devices such as screen readers are also stymied by the application, which block some visually impaired users from accessing certain features on social media sites. In a 2009 survey, screen reader users said that CApTCHA was the most problematic item encountered online (32). Some websites provide an audio version of CApTCHA for visually impaired users; however, researchers have found that it is difficult for individuals to use (34). Federal agencies are required to conform to Section 508 accessibility guidelines for their own sites, but federal use of nonfederal websites is subject to interpretation. The General Services Administration included this guidance regarding fed- eral use of outside websites in its social media handbook (35): Agencies employing non-federal Web 2.0 services are required to ensure that persons with disabilities have equal access to those services as defined in the Accessibility Standards. The agency must evaluate the accessibility of the non-federal site and consider the accessibility of all available alternatives. If dissemination of information in an accessible manner constitutes an undue burden on the agency, a non-accessible non-federal site may still be used, but the agency must make the information available in alternative formats for individuals with disabilities. Some argue that federal Section 508 accessibility rules do not apply to government use of social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, because the sites are privately owned and operated. Advocates say this violates the spirit of the law (36). State and local organizations do not typically address accessibility in their social media policies, and CTG did not include the issue in its list of eight basic elements of gov- ernment social media policies (17). Among public agencies that do address the issue, Orange County, California, does not require its social media sites to comply with Section 508 requirements; instead, the county requires noncompliant sites to contain links to identical material on a compliant website or social media network (37 ). Only 21% of agencies responding to the survey reported that their social media websites were completely accessible for users with disabilities. Another 12% said their sites were partly accessible, and 36% did not know. Note that the survey did not define accessibility, and the standards agencies used to determine accessibility are not known. Agencies reporting fully or partially accessible social media platforms used several accessibility features. These included captions for photos (78% of respondents) and videos (44%), along with audio CApTCHA (19%) and accessible Twitter (15%). Captioning alone does not make a website accessible, and some organizations referred customers with disabilities to the agency’s main website, which fully conformed to accessibility requirements. One respondent from a large urban agency wrote, “As we provide all the pertinent information on our fully accessible website we do not feel that we are excluding a person with disabilities.” securIty IT professionals and Internet security experts are increasingly concerned that social media can increase an organization’s exposure to a range of threats to cybersecurity, from spam to malware. About 57% of respondents in one survey of 502 companies said they received spam messages through social networking, and 36% believe they received software worms, viruses, or other forms of malware (38). In a white paper, ISACA outlined some of the major risks associated with corporate use of social media, including these security concerns (22): • Introduction of viruses and malware • Use of personal accounts to communicate work-related information • employee posting of pictures or information that link them to the enterprise • excessive employee use of social media in the workplace • employee access to social media through employer- supplied mobile devices. Social networking sites are perceived as particularly vul- nerable to threats for two reasons. First, they are designed to encourage users to share details of their personal and/or professional lives, and individuals sometimes offer too much information. Second, users have a tendency to trust social media sites and are quick to click on links, pictures, videos, and executables when they come from “friends” (39). echoing this concern, one IT security expert told the San Francisco Chronicle, “Social media provides criminals with an oppor- tunity. When I get a message on Facebook from my wife and I see a link, I’m going to click it” (40). ISACA further points out that the risks of social media use extend to employees who access social media sites from mobile devices or home computers (22). experts do not offer easy solutions, especially given the ubiquity of social networking in the business world and increasingly the public sector. NASCIO reports that best practices include extending existing security, privacy, and records management firewalls to the social media environment and “knowing that education and end-user awareness are big pieces of the puzzle” (4). Despite the widespread concerns expressed in the litera- ture about cybersecurity, only one agency responding to the

27 survey reported encountering a problem, a virus allegedly contracted through Facebook. The vast majority of agencies (88% of respondents) did not encounter any cybersecurity issues related to their use of social media or did not know whether their agency had been exposed to threats (9%). As observed earlier in this chapter, respondents showed more concern about exposure to criticism (average = 2.7) than exposure to computer viruses (average = 1.7). records retentIon This issue has not yet been resolved legally, but many gov- ernment IT professionals believe it is only a matter of time before social media posts become subject to the same record- keeping and disclosure rules that apply to e-mail and paper records. For now, the guidance varies from state to state and from agency to agency. Among agencies surveyed for this synthesis, one in four (25% of agencies responding) was required to archive social media posts. Just over half (56%) were not required to do so, and 19% were not certain. When agencies kept records, their archiving strategies included printing files, saving screenshots as pDF files, copying and pasting text into word processing documents, or backing up images on the agency server. A few agencies use third-party applications that allow users to save Twitter posts in spreadsheet or text format, whereas others leave the files in original format (e.g., blog administrative files or Foursquare archives). In a white paper, the American Council for Technology– Industry Advisory Council (41) identified five challenges to social media records retention: • Declaration: What is a social media record? • Social media capture: Much of the social media content is in the public domain and, therefore, not under control of the agency causing difficulty in capturing content. • Social media metadata: Applying metadata to tag social media content for retrieval is difficult. • Social media scheduling/disposition: The lack of control of the content makes scheduling and disposition of records difficult. • Staffing and education: education is needed to imple- ment a successful social media records policy. Gregory C. Wilshusen, director of information security issues for the U.S. Government Accountability Office, testified on this matter before the House Subcommittee on Information policy, Census, and National Archives in July 2010 (42). He reported that federal agencies had two general concerns about social media: • privacy and security, and • Records management and Freedom of Information challenges. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has issued guidance to help federal agencies make decisions on electronic record-keeping and responding to requests under the Freedom of Information Act. However, according to Wilshusen’s testimony, the challenges come in translating NARA guidance into practical actions (42). poten- tial barriers include determining what records to keep, how often to harvest them, and how to treat information from non- government sources (such as public comments on an agency blog). Another roadblock for agencies is the lack of options for creating archives from social media postings. Given these challenges and uncertainties, some agencies have taken a wait-and-see attitude until more detailed guide- lines become available (43). Others have developed their own records-retention requirements. For example, the city of Seattle incorporates guidance on records retention into its broader social media policy (44): Washington state law and relevant City of Seattle records retention schedules apply to social media formats and social media content. Unless otherwise addressed in a specific social media standards document, the Department maintaining a site shall preserve records required to be maintained pursuant to a relevant records retention schedule for the required retention period on a City server in a format that preserves the integrity of the original record and is easily accessible. Seattle’s specific standards require staff to archive Twitter posts on servers maintained by the city and to print and maintain Facebook content that cannot be retrieved through Facebook. The state of North Carolina takes a similar position. That state’s social media policy defines all communication through agency-related social media as a part of the public record subject to the state’s archiving requirements (45). PrIvacy Government use of social media has raised concerns about protecting user privacy. Although public agencies generally have privacy policies that address collection and use of per- sonal information on their own websites, social media sites on third-party platforms are typically governed by the privacy policy of the application. In 2009, DHS held a workshop to explore the legal issues associated with government use of social media (46). In their discussion of privacy issues, workshop panelists said that citizens expect their online transactions with government to represent a one-way mirror: people value the transparency into government activities that social media can provide and want to be able to see what the government is doing. At the same time, however, people do not want or expect that government will peer into their personal lives. In other words, citizens expect transparency in government- to-citizen transactions and privacy in citizen-to-government interactions.

28 When government uses social media simply to disseminate information, the impacts on individual privacy are minimal. However, when public agencies invite online citizen inter- action through comments or posts, then those citizens are potentially sharing information about themselves and all their friends with the government agency. Of course, any social media user can take steps to modify the privacy settings on a particular application, but the steps to do so vary among applications and many users simply accept the default settings. To protect individual privacy, panelists made the following recommendations: “Agencies should limit the personal infor- mation they collect through social media to that which is absolutely necessary, and should provide strong opportunities for individuals to exercise choice about how agencies use the personal information they submit.” St. louis Metro Transit posts a privacy policy on its NextStop agency blog that describes how the agency collects and treats personally identifiable information when individuals post comments on the blog or sign up as members. The policy reads, in part: When you register as a NextStop Site Member, we ask for information such as your name, e-mail address, birth date, gender, zIp code, occupation, industry, and personal interests. We may use this information for blog-related purposes and other purposes, including sending email updates to you with transit advocacy action items, or potentially providing the information to a third party for transit advocacy purposes only. . . . You can be confident that we do not sell or exchange names or any other information about our Site Members with third parties for commercial purposes or anything other than transit advocacy purposes (47). Federal websites are required to conduct a privacy impact assessment if they collect personally identifiable information and to post a privacy policy on their website. Third-party social media websites are exempt from these rules, but the General Services Administration’s social media policy requires the agency to protect personally identifiable information on exter- nal social media websites (35). Although nonfederal organizations are not bound by these requirements, government agencies are urged to post a dis- claimer on their social media pages. The disclaimer would remind users that they are not visiting an official government website and that the application’s privacy policy applies; a link to the third-party privacy policy could be provided as well (48). For example, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts takes this approach and includes the following information about Twitter in its social media policy: Unless you protect your updates, messages you post on Twitter and received by the Agency may be public records and may also be publicly available. . . . Also note that this micro-blog is hosted by Twitter and is governed by Twitter’s separate website policies, including its privacy policy and Terms of Service. These policies apply to your use of Twitter (49). The Commonwealth’s online disclaimer includes links to Twitter’s privacy policy and terms of service. cHangIng socIal medIa landscaPe The clear consensus is that social media are here to stay. The challenge for transit properties is to keep track of changes in this dynamic environment and to adapt accordingly. Survey respondents were asked what social media developments they anticipated over the next several years. Although many reported short-term goals for their own agencies, such as increased use of YouTube or additional staff training, others addressed their response to industry trends. examples include: • We hope to be involved in location-based games such as Foursquare. • More developments in location-based marketing and revenue generation ideas. • More seamless ways to integrate social media into the existing system. A bigger base as more and more riders realize transit agencies’ presence in social media. I also see social media accounts replacing the website as the “go-to” hub for organizational information. • “Customers will be using mobile devices more than ever: their social networking activity will adapt accordingly. Other than that it’s not for us to say: our job is to deliver good transportation service and communicate with our customers well, not to develop social media products!” Not surprisingly, industry experts anticipate continued growth of social media and predict widespread mainstream acceptance. Already, observers are seeing the impact of growth in tablet computers, smart phones and other mobile devices, third-party applications, location-based technology, and social-buying services such as Groupon and livingSocial. Membership in Capital bikeshare, the bicycle-sharing pro- gram in Washington, D.C., almost doubled overnight when the program partnered with livingSocial to offer coupons for discounted membership. privacy will continue to be a concern, especially as applications facilitate information sharing among users. As the industry matures, several analysts see a greater emphasis on performance measures and return on investment, including industry-wide metrics and standards (50–53).

Next: Chapter Five - Case Examples »
Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 99: Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation explores the use of social media among transit agencies and documents successful practices in the United States and Canada.

For the purposes of the report, social media are defined as a group of web-based applications that encourage users to interact with one another, such as blogs, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, Foursquare, and MySpace.

An eReader friendly PDF version of TCRP Synthesis 99 is also available.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!