5 ms·
> Experts say it spells the end of social media as a reliable platform during an emergency. I draw the opposite conclusion here. I think governments should be
by skizm 3y ago
> Experts say it spells the end of social media as a reliable platform during an emergency.
I draw the opposite conclusion here. I think governments should be using more platforms to blast their messages. Redundancy for mission critical messages is a good thing. They should be using both their own app / infra plus all other social medias that are available. Update your website, RSS feed, send whatsapp messages, send an instagram message, send a tweet, post to your facebook, etc. If someone doesn't want socials, there should be ways to opt-in to texts or phone calls. Ideally they can have one place to enter the message on their end, and a bunch of checkboxes to which socials / channels to post a message too. Behind the scenes it will apply appropriate transformations for specific platforms if necessary (turn words into an image for instagram, split posts if longer than the twitter limit, etc.).
- softwaredoug 3y agoI agree. Post to all the places. I am annoyed that my local police dept posts regularly to a facebook page, behind a login. But not to twitter.
- bell-cot 3y ago> I think governments should be using more platforms to blast their messages. Redundancy for mission critical messages is a good... I'd assume that gov't resources are limited. Especially during major emergencies, when little local municipal governments are usually the ones on the front lines during the most dangerous phases. Maintaining "all of the above" social media accounts during emergencies does not sound compatible with that realty.