Category: Government

20th March 2010

5 reasons why we trust the internet more than we do government.

We trust the internet more than we do government. That seems to be what this survey from The Guardian is telling us. (Yes it is only one survey – so I understand).

The image above represent part of the answer to the question “Which of the following institutions do you trust?” – blue means not all all, yellow a little, red a lot. It tells us far more people trust the internet a little than they do all of our major layers of government (and the press).

What might be going on here?:

Perhaps people are expressing trust for the relationships they make on the internet? 89% of people responded to another part of the survey by saying they trust their friends (only 73% said the same of spouse/partner!).
Are we more likely to trust things we find on the net a little because we have choice there? We can go to other bits of the net to find a better version of what we need. We can’t do that with government.
As a development of the above, we are in control on the net – we navigate the journey. How true is that of government?
When government lets us down it tends to do it in a more meaningful way than a web page which doesn’t load fast enough or spouts garbage. With government much more closely involved in important things in out life we’re more likely to feel strongly about it.
It’s no surprise few people trust the internet a lot – the internet is not an institution. In fact asking people to compare the internet with the EU is a bit daft.

Of course it could just be wrong?

12th March 2010

Lawrence Lessig on the humility in government and the reality of the net.

Remove the cause of mistrust – is what Lawrence Lessig thinks will drive the transparent economy. He also believes government need to learn humility and we need to take care to avoid laws which criminalise our children because of how they use the net. He’s right….Worth listening to:

15th January 2010

Is listening neutral?

Things sound different in the fog. Image form Beardy Git on Flickr. Click on the Picture to go to his flickr page — Things sound different in the fog. (Image Beardy Git on Flickr. Click on the Picture to go to his flickr page)

The core piece of advice for any public service on how to make good use of social media is “learn to listen”. It’s the one part of the conversation that sometimes gets lost in the rush to publish.

That’s why I was pleased to find West Midlands Police considering recruiting someone who’s job it is to help them do just that. I’ve already done a little work with WM Police and genuinely admire their determination to value social media for how it connects them to the public through conversation.

Big Brother Watch (a sister organisation to Tax Payers Alliance – very adept users of the social web) raised a number of concerns about this, including:

that this role is designed to prevent criticism of the police from taking place online. Those with understandable grievances should be free to air them in a democratic forum without fear of reprisal. We would appreciate the West Midlands police giving assurances that there will be no black-list created as a result of the web cop’s work.

Chief Inspector Mark Payne, head of comms for the force, responded to this on his own blog:

I can say with absolute certainty that this is not about jumping on people who are criticising us. We sometimes get things wrong, even when we are trying to do the right thing. Policing is a hugely complex business, and it is inevitable, that we will upset some people. If this is the case, we want to hear about it, warts and all. At least if we know, we will have opportunity to put it right, or do better next time.

As I said at the top, listening is the core skill in using social media well.

Having somebody who has an in depth understanding of how to to do that, is experienced in how to respond to what they find and can help others understand the social web is a good idea for an organisation the size of WM Police.

What was curious about the Big Brother Watch piece was the apparent assumption that police listening to the web is automatically a menacing thing. That in turn got me thinking about listening itself. Can it ever be a neutral process?

I think not.

Any professional organisation does have to listen with intent and how you do that depends on a number of factors:

Partly it’s a question of where you stand to listen. If I chose to stand on the balcony I’ll hear one version of a party. On the dance floor I’ll hear another. That can also be true of the net – how you filter what you’re listening to is a conscious decision. My feed reader has some feeds in folders I happily ignore – others get my early attention.
What are you listening for? There are officers who are very skilled at listening to the the net to detect crime. Comms teams listen for reputation. The social web type can also be listening for public feedback or practical neighbourhood problems. They may use similar techniques but with different intentions.
Familiarity matters. We tend to hear what we are used to. In a crowded room I’ll tune out your child but hear mine. I’ll not notice someone use your name but my head will turn at the slightest mention of mine.
We are sensitive to criticism. Sometimes we hear it when it isn’t there. The web is full of good advice for public services, often this is heard as criticism rather than constructive help.
We always filter everything we hear through our own prejudices. Some professions (I presume including detectives and Judges) should have experience/training in listening in a more open fashion, helping them see a truth rather than the patterns which reinforce their assumptions. For most of us though listening is a wholly subjective process.

So listening with a purpose is exactly what this person should be doing, otherwise they would be wasting public money. It doesn’t follow that this will be a malign purpose. Listening to the social web can help the police improve the way they spend public money rather than waste it.