Sunday, January 16, 2011

Keeping Our Troops Connected

A recent headline on Wired.com made me pause: "Tweet Away, Troops: Pentagon Won’t Ban Social Media".

There has actual been the serious possibility that the Pentagon would ban soldiers from using social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook? It boggles my mind - many of the troops now are being more and more made up of digital natives. You might as well tell them they're banned from talking as tell them they can't use social media, especially to communicate with their friends and family. As Robert Mason et al. describe them, these youngest generation of adults have “grown up in a world surrounded by connectivity and digital tools. They are ‘net natives’ or ‘digital natives.’ These are people who have never known a world without the Internet, instant messaging, online games, and the possibility of persistent digital presence with networks of people.” You're not going to be able to tell we of this digital native generation that we can't have our Facebook or Twitter fix. Sorry, it just isn't going to happen. Social media is a force that is moving forward, not winding down.

** Edit Note: If you read the comments, Jordan makes some very good points that should be integrated into my little ramble here. I really agree with her when it comes down to the fact that sometimes take an entitlement approach to social media. Just because we behave a certain way doesn't mean we should. **

Apparently, the bright idea of banning came from military officials who feared that social media caused too much security hassle, and took up too much bandwidth. So to say again, in 2009 the military was "seriously considering" a complete ban. The reason that this is now back in the news is because come March of this year, the 2009 policy that "enshrined military access to social media" is expiring, which only came after a long battle.

Hopefully, there wont' be any more malarky about banning or limited access. Because frankly, if the military did do something like this, the country would probably have to implement a draft. And then there would be riots in the street... and on Twitter.

4 comments:

  1. I have a slightly different view of this, and it probably reveals my age a bit. Social media is not - in my view - a right for individuals at all times.

    When an individual works for an organization, he or she represents that organization. If a person doesn't like this fact, she should hang out her own shingle and give herself the unlimited right to social media. The 'digital natives' seem to rankle at putting organizational needs above their own; as social media users, digital natives have always had the freedom to act as individuals at any given moment. This doesn't work, at present, with the prevailing attitudes in business or, certainly, government work. Worryingly to organizations, social media is an expression by an individual that becomes part of public documents automatically, and can increasingly be traced back to an individual's organization.

    General attitudes will likely shift with time, though I am not sure how; Microsoft has already, famously, had to deal with Tweeting at their annual meeting. The issue comes down to whether an individual's Tweet is so important as to undermine the competitive advantage and strategic goals of one's organization, in extreme cases. And I do not believe a Tweet is ever this important.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the comment! I don't believe access to social media is a "right" - absolutely most of the time it is simply a privilege we enjoy. And your points are often not brought up enough in the discussion of appropriate social media behavior.

    But I just wrote the bit below on my Facebook wall in response to a good comment about there being legitimate security concerns. I guess my indignation doesn't come from the idea of denying access to something I consider sacred (we could all probably use a little less social media in our lives), but from the fact that the idea of simply banning the use outright was considering a viable "solution". If there is behavior they don't want from soldiers (such as giving away locations or strategies) when communicating with friends and family, then there needs to be training and reinforcement of the appropriate behavior. The military is good at training and setting rules. But perhaps not so good at dynamically adjusting those rules to fit the changing information environments and behavior of people.

    ---

    I understand that there are legitimate security concerns, from both a physical and information perspective, but seriously? You're going to tell a bunch of 18-20somethings they can't use Facebook, fullstop?

    I think there is certainly a place for a dedicated military policy and approach for appropriate and safe behavior. Training and setting clear expectations about do and don't is similar to how businesses should treat new employees, if they're worried about any negative impact social media (reputation/image, illegal/unethical information sharing, etc).

    But simply banning it won't solve the problems. You'd see workarounds and risky behavior trying to circumvent the ban that would likely be even more of a security threat. The problem with simply making something forbidden is that human nature seems to push us to get a way to have the forbidden thing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for the clarification, Em. I should make clear that my position covered the attitude of the organizations - including the US Military - with regard to cultural norms among digital natives.

    I have agreed with you in my past blog posts that use of social media, and potential security concerns, are a matter of organizational policy rather than digital access. If the US Military is to continue recruiting young soldiers, there should be some standard for handling social media use in the service.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ooh, thanks - missed that post in the crazy finals mess. Some really great points!

    Thanks for the discussion and comments, by the way. Love it! Will have to wait until your new post about digital identify goes public so I can return the favor ;-)

    ReplyDelete