I’m going to take the controversial stance that no one is going to subscribe to regulations.gov in hopes of being able to filter signal and noise. People interested in regulations should be driven to the appropriate agency for content about the rule, not to a Facebook clearinghouse in hopes that they will be looking at the feed on the right time on the right day to find the right regulation that might matter to them.

So, that leaves us where? Many studies point us to the fact that citizens do need to be oriented to the rulemaking space to make effective comments. If all we’re doing is migrating the UX of regulations.gov to Facebook, we’ve missed the boat entirely. This is the same strategic mistake we made when we just threw all our stuff on the Web a decade ago. Plopping the Federal Register online, with no markup and layering of content misses the opportunity to take advantage of the capabilities that the Web offers to package and make content digestible.

I’ve said this in other forums, and I will say it here: many proposed rulemakings offer key questions that the agency is asking the public to provide input on. If there was a way to tag those questions, package them as facebook updates/tweets, and use regulations.gov as a marketing platform, agencies might indeed drive more traffic. So, let’s take the the example of @RegulationRoom:disqus  and how it’s tweeting on *just one regulation* right now. Asking questions, inviting people to the discussion, etc.

If all we’re doing is being on Facebook to say were there, then…no, we shouldn’t be there.

I
have many ideas about using social media in a big, big way to take
comments and create discussion.  I agree broadly with the points you and
others made, including Clay Johnson.

But “should” and “do” are
two different things, esp. in this age of very, very constrained budgets
and given where our attys say the APA is.  Being able to handle what is
sometimes thousands or tens of thousands of comments in a reliable way
is made MUCH more difficult when those comments come in through multiple
channels.

Again, I want to see gov’t going exactly that
direction (and you know me – I’m pushing as much as I can).  We’re just
not there yet, at least not at the federal level.

So my question
remains: do people argue that unless a gov’t effort hits the ground with
100% two-way dialogue, they should stay offline?

I still think no: being there is better than not.

I have many ideas about using social media in a big, big way to take comments and create discussion.  I agree broadly with the points you and others made, including Clay Johnson.

But “should” and “do” are two different things, esp. in this age of very, very constrained budgets and given where our attys say the APA is.  Being able to handle what is sometimes thousands or tens of thousands of comments in a reliable way is made MUCH more difficult when those comments come in through multiple channels.

Again, I want to see gov’t going exactly that direction (and you know me – I’m pushing as much as I can).  We’re just not there yet, at least not at the federal level.

So my question remains: do people argue that unless a gov’t effort hits the ground with 100% two-way dialogue, they should stay offline?

I still think no: being there is better than not.

While I can appreciate Jeffrey Levy’s point on experience and your point on needing time to develop, these new accounts should be able start much further along the learning curve because of the ground broken by others over the past 3-4 years. For me, just “being there,” is not acceptable at this point. Social media is no longer an experiment – these are real and viable business tools and should be driven by real strategies and real goals.

And if we follow your suggestion that informing and promoting participation opportunities is the goal, I’d argue that automated tweets posted to Facebook is an effective communications strategy to reach that goal. And the strategy should always be in place before the new tool gets launched.

I do look forward to seeing where the account goes and thank Alex Moll for reaching out to us!