Government officials are being encouraged to access social networking websites in order to ensure any discussions on public services among citizens are balanced by an authoritative view from inside Whitehall.
In other words policing social networks to ensure the spread of government propaganda. Do these officials really believe that thousands of people use networking sites to talk about public services? And who asked them to come along to 'ensure' anything about our discussions? Why should they assume we need their 'authoritative' views on anything? Presumably we are too stupid to work things out for ourselves?
Press officers at various departments have already attended training programmes run by the Central Office of Information (COI). The success of the scheme means other civil servants will now be educated on how best to reconnect with the public through online forums.
Director of transformational strategy at the COI Alex Butler told Public Servant Daily that entering into blog conversations and engaging with third-party websites like NetMums, which has 250,000 subscribers, should be "part and parcel of professional life for staff".
"There should be continuing dialogue with the people being served – we are now embarking on a year of awareness raising across the public sector as we want to spread the message," said Butler.
Amazing how press officers need to be sent on training programmes to learn about social networking sites, while the rest of us manage to do it by ourselves without any training whatsoever. Press officers - isn't their job all to do with communications? Don't they use the internet in their private lives? Shouldn't they already know about this stuff?
'Continuing dialogue with the people being served' - nice of them to acknowledge they are our servants and not our bosses. Doesn't stop them from telling us what to do and what to say, however. As for 'reconnecting' with the public, I don't think civil servants have ever been connected in the first place. Most of us would be quite happy to live our lives without having to 'connect' with them at all. And there is no 'dialogue'. Anything to do with this government is one way: they speak, we listen.
And, for what it's worth, I don't accept that infiltrating forums and blogs to promote the government's agenda is an acceptable practice for civil servants to be engaging in. If the government wants to inform the public and engage in 'dialogue' then it should set up its own clearly identified sites.
Not to mention 'Director of transformational strategy' - doesn't that title make you want to laugh and throw up at the same time?
Statistics from the COI revealed that 73 per cent of people with online access had visited a blog website. HM Revenue & Customs is now considering devoting the time of some economic government advisers to answering questions on independent financial websites. Meanwhile, the seemingly private social networking website of a serviceman has proved to be one of the biggest boosts to the RAF's recruitment drive.
"We just supplied him with the raw hardware – a camera and a web platform; it is popular and low cost," explained Butler.
'Blog website', like 'blog conversations' - that's touching. They're trying so hard to sound as if they know what's going on. No wonder they need training. And what's this talk about a 'seemingly' private website of a serviceman? What serviceman? So they gave him the hardware and use the site to attract recruits? Is that it? So they're actually deceiving the public by pretending it's just him when in fact it's a government website? Isn't that simply dishonest?
"We have to enable self-help among the public, it's economically beneficial. The way we talk to citizens has been a one-way thing up to now. Social networking helps people make the most of public services. Just because it happens online does not mean government can ignore it. It can be a powerful tool."
On the popular university-focused website The Student Room, Butler said government workers had the opportunity "to influence students in their own environment, where they trust the advice of their own peers".
But she did make it clear that during any online interaction, Whitehall staff would need to make their identities known.
'We have to enable self-help among the public' - what the hell does this mean? Helping us to do precisely what for ourselves? And what's this got to do with being 'economically beneficial'?
Although, of course, I do know what this means. I'm being disingenuous. Technology for the government is magic fairy dust. It solves all problems. Services will be accessed and provided by the internet - it's the future! It's a powerful tool! It's transformational government!
'Social networking helps people make the most of public services,' Butler proclaims, without providing any evidence whatsoever. We've already entered a Looking-Glass world here. We've gone well past an honest attempt to provide help and information to citizens via the internet. We're seeing the state dismantling actual human contact between citizens and officials and replacing it with technology. And social manipulation is required to make it happen.
It's repellent that a civil servant can talk about influencing students 'where they trust the advice of their own peers'. What is this 'influencing' if it is not simply the presentation of information? Are civil servants pretending to be students in order to 'influence' young people? Was the person who penned this execrable nonsense aware of the disgraceful and sinister import of her words? But I suppose it'll be OK, because she says, almost as an afterthought, that officials will have to make themselves known. Yeah, right, in the words of my ten-year-old grandson. I can just see that happening.
Welcome to the post-bureaucratic age. Welcome to the emerging dehumanised society. Welcome to the brave new world of massive databases, lost or stolen information, endless waiting on the phone, one-way 'dialogues', persistent fobbing off by an ever-changing variety of officials, more form-filling, late payments, incorrectly rejected applications, state snoopers monitoring and infiltrating blogs, forums and websites, along with incompatible software, blocked websites and crashed systems.
I have seen the future promised by our government. It's shit.
************************
Info on Alexandra Butler
Director of Transformational Strategy, Central Office of Information UK
Alexandra Butler: Director, Transformational Strategy, Central Office of Information UKAlex Butler joined the e-Government Unit as Strategy and Marketing Director for Directgov in January 2005.
Her background is mainly from the communications and technology sector as a brand marketeer, where she has worked for Cable & Wireless, General Motors and BT. Alex started her career as a graduate trainee at Saatchi and Saatchi Advertising and has been involved with a number of high profile marketing campaigns, notably the brand launch of Cable & Wireless Communications and, most recently, BT's broadband marketing scheme for Local Broadband Campaigners.
Alex has since moved to a wider transformational role on the board of COI. Alex is responsible for the UK Online Strategy.
************************
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment