I have been wondering why it is that we are all working ourselves into early graves trying to transform government, the achievement of which will largely be driven by Internet based technologies, and yet we continue to disclaim the content we post to our websites?
It strikes me as being analogous to saying to someone who approaches you for advice about a specific topic you advertise your expertise in, yeah, I can provide you with advice; but you can’t rely on what I tell you.
Obviously, this sort of stance is even more problematic when you consider that people who approach government agencies for advice don’t –as a rule (of law)– have any other options. If, for example, they need definitive advice about licensing a motor vehicle they have to go to LTNZ.
It is for this reason I argued that the fourth principle for public sector social media should be trust:
do not disclaim the content on the blog/wiki/podcast etc. If you are engaging your publics through these media they should be able to expect a straightforward exchange of ideas and information. If your Legal team intend on vetting every post, the venture is doomed.
Of course, the default position for government websites is to disclaim everything on their sites, often to a point that strains both credulity and, in this one case that I feel compelled to share, logic:
Nothing contained on this website is, nor should be relied on as, a promise or representation about past or future events.
This, to my mind, is so nonsensical it borders on being a zen koan. Let’s pause to think about this for a minute. Nothing on this website is, or can be relied upon as, a formal statement of the facts about past events (paraphrasing from the OED). This presumably includes the advice and the policy that is, mysteriously, published on the site in spite of it’s apparent lack of relation to reality…
The point that I am belabouring here is that, if you are launching a social media project, you would be well advised to avoid this sort of pseudo-prophylaxis. In any event, and I haven’t taken legal advice on this but the comments are open, I doubt whether the standard disclaimers you see on blogs would protect you from the law. What they will protect you from is the sort of trust with your publics that leads to engaged communication.
What you should be disclaiming is the comments or edits contributed by those publics, as they are not the intellectual property of your agency. But for all the other content, if you publish it then own it.
There are two reasons for this. One, it means that visitors to your site will be reassured that the content in the government namespace is authoritative and that your agency stands behind it. That builds trust in government.
The second reason is that the staff who are contributing content to your agency blog/wiki/podcast etc., will be a little more cautious about what they post if it is considered to be definitive. And, in terms of your online reputation management strategy, that is no bad thing.
Photo: prozaciswack.
14 Comments
that is a strange one, isn’t it?
departments don’t provide disclaimers on their printed material, but are jumpy about anything net-based. and the net should be presenting exactly that same material.
maybe they need a disclaimer stating “this material does not constitute legal advice, it is information for your purposes only. if you require legal advice please seek a solicitor blah blah blah”?
Except in cases where the department has a statutory function to, for example, collect tax — then it is legal advice…
And when you think about government, most of it does involve some sort of regulatory or statutory role.
I think these sorts of disclaimers on websites are a throwback to the days when it was new (hence risky) channel, hence the misguided temptation to do the same with social media.
Some interesting thoughts, and still I cannot fully agree. I have a disclaimer for my blog as well (http://loudhail.com/disclaimer.htm), but it doesn’t mean that I don’t mean or stand behind what I write, but that it should not be taken out of context as advice - because it isn’t advice. The content on my site is describing my thoughts and my services, but it is not my service. Also, the topics on my blog are just that: topical - which means that they apply at the time of writing, but due to the nature of the Social Media beast they can be out of date really fast. So for me, this disclaimer makes perfect sense - it underlines the topicality of my thoughts and services, and that archived blog posts should be seen as just that - an ARCHIVE of thoughts.
For the public sector it all depends on how and what you use your blog for: if it is to express OPINIONS on current events, I guess a disclaimer that it is not a binding ressource is a good idea. If it is however used as a means to communicate general updates, a disclaimer is pointless, because it is used to inform the public and get in touch with them at the same time… I think you need to look at the different uses of blogs and come up with disclaimers (or leave them out) accordingly.
@jason. sure, but the ird produce a massive guide to the ir3 (for example), that is closely vetted at multiple levels before it’s released. but other material produced is generally information, guidance etc., and not vetted as closely.
surely if the public can tell the difference between a pamplet on tax (which you’d have to be insane to hold up in court as a defence), and a printed tax guide, they should be able to tell the difference online? (without the need for the disclaimer?)
Thanks for commenting, Iris.
I don’t have firm views about private sector blogs – that is the prerogative of the individual or their organization. For the public sector, however, I can’t see any benefit of disclaiming content on social media sites.
Che: the problem (well, one of them) is that everything on the site(s) is disclaimed – including the IR3, so the public aren’t given a choice…
This phenomenon is not restricted to the online world, I hear many accounts of phone-calls to government departments to different individuals that supply directly contradictory advice to the public.
Examples I have heard of include IRD and immigration.
This is more indicative of a lack of accountability for the advice the departments give rather than overactive legal eagles, although the historic view of the web as an adjunct to ‘real’ communication could play a part.
In todays world we should surely be able to rely on advice given by our government departments, sure there are limits, but the publishing of advice on the web should support consistency of advice to citizens.
The lack of accountability of advice that seems to exist in places, seems more akin to a corupt society than the NZ that we aspire to be.
I would have thoughts blogs, by their nature have an inbuilt disclaimer, because they are so time based and much less formal.
Unless someone specifically points to a factual reference, I would base all information on a blog as the thoughts of the person writing it. This doesn’t exempt you from everything - you are still accountable if at that time you didn’t actually think the things you said you thought - and you will be punished by your public if you didn’t!!! But it does mean that no one can say 10 years down the track ‘But you said it on your blog, so that’s legally binding’.
I think you’re right, we need to stop trying to turn new media into old media!
Thanks Natalie. Yes, social media are time-bound and readers of old posts/edits will need to take that into account, but I don’t think that lets public servants off the accountability hook — perhaps I am just applying a particularly harsh standard…
As Che says part of this question one of process: If content destined for a blog is put through the same levels of peer review and editing as content for a Public Sector Statement of Intent or similar publication then it should be able to be relied upon in the same way.
But If the blog content is reviewed to the same level as say: communication from your organisations call centre, then some kind of disclaimer is probably in order (using Che’s example imagine live broadcasts of IRD call centre conversations).
There is a releated question surrounding liability for “publishing” on a blog, and keenly debated in NZ media in relation to liability for defamation. I would favour the French approach.
Thanks Sam: there are two distinct (but related) points here:
Re. publishing to a blog, for the public sector it is the government namespace, so you had better get it right (see above).
Wouldn’t you need to break “social media” down further? Its a pretty broad catch-all when considering the need for disclaimers. For example, hosting a govt blog, where you’d be more inclined to stand by everything there and use only a minimal disclaimer, is a different situation to hosting a wiki, were you’d need something more robust …
Anthony: yes, I agree to a point. For a blog, you would really only need to disclaim the comments of visitors – but even then it could be a much weaker disclaimer than most agencies currently post to their corporate sites. For wikis, you could disclaim edits up until such time as they are corrected…
Is the wider question related to how to maintain/increase trust in government, as public servants use an increasingly diverse set of communication channels (technology).
Perhaps we need to distinguish between “1-to-many” communications and “1-to-1″.
Is it right that the level of trust I have in a reply from govt, is dictated by the channel I use to communicate with government? Agencies don’t typically disclaim letters, or call centre communications, but they are standardly included on emails. Will the same occur for VOIP, IM, Blackberry?
Absolutely not, Mike. These current distinctions border on the bizarre. And yes, it does all relate back to trusted state services.
As the technology matures and becomes a seamless part of the business (like email and, I would argue, websites) our increased understanding of the media, and the proportionate decrease in fear and suspicion, should see disclaimers evaporate.