Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
fred johnson

Using Facebook ... "page" Or "group"

Recommended Posts

Should a unit's Facebook presence be a "page" or a "group"?
 

Page

---- PRO - More visible than a group

---- PRO - Easy and automatic

---- CON - Can only wait for others to "Like"

 

Group

---- PRO - Provides a mailing list

---- PRO - Better notification as members are notified unlike "Likes" that will "probably" be notified.

---- PRO - Can invite people to be members

---- ???  - People have to be "accepted" as members

---- PRO - Better secured as only members see posts and other info

 

 

Any guidance would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts are that a Facebook group is better in terms of privacy. I think BSA has put out some guidelines concerning social media. I'm thinking that they would go with the closed (admin. approved membership) model.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts are that a Facebook group is better in terms of privacy. I think BSA has put out some guidelines concerning social media. I'm thinking that they would go with the closed (admin. approved membership) model.

The opposite is true: BSA policy requires that unit social media be public.

 

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Marketing/Resources/SocialMedia.aspx

"To help ensure that all communication on social media channels remains positive and safe, these channels must be public, and all communication on or through them must be public. This enables administrators to monitor all communication and help ensure there is no inappropriate communication between adult leaders and Scouts or between Scouts themselves. Therefore, no private channels (e.g., private Facebook groups or invite-only YouTube channels) are acceptable in helping to administer the Scouting program. Private channels and private communication put both the youth and you at risk. If you feel the information you seek to share via social media channels should not be shared in public, you should not share that information via social media."

 

We had a public page for about 2 hours.  As soon as I started tagging Scouts in the photos, friends of theirs started making crass comments about Scouts being fags in addition to your basic 4-letter words. 

Now we're in violation of policy because I scrapped the public page and made a private group.

 

One big issue with BSA's social media policy is that whoever wrote it doesn't understand BSA's Youth Protection Policy, specifically, they do not understand that 2-deep refers only to overnight camping trips, and that no-one-on-one applies to all situations.  So, the social media policy constantly refers to "two-deep" leadership when talking about PMs, email, IMs, etc.  Specifically, the policy requires a second person is copied in on any electronic communication because "two deep" is required. 

 

This position—whether its grounded in two-deep or no 1-on-1—also shows a basic ignorance about the nature of online communication.  A Facebook PM, an Instagram PM, Twitter DM, email, etc never go away.  Ever.  Never, ever.  If Joe Molester is going to mess with a Scout, his online messages and text messages are there forever, and he knows that.  Yes, there are dumb criminals and they do use social media, but sending a direct message to a Scout does not endanger the Scout and the evidence is there forever.

Making those messages forbidden does not protect Dudley Doright from false accusation, either.  Because those messages never, ever go away, they are false accusation proof.  Mama Moneygrubber cannot falsely accuse Dudley because the innocent messages are there exonerating him forever.

 

Superfluous CCs annoy parents.  There is no reason to copy mom on a text message that reads "don't forget your compass."

 

That snarky line at the end of the quote is stupid, too.  The decision to go private had nothing to do with the content we were posting, it had to do with the response of teenagers and 20-somethings.  I "feel" that the information should not be shared in public because the public are jerkwads, not because the content I was sharing (photos of camping trips) was some shady grey area content that I wanted to hide.

Edited by Scouter99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As owner of a couple pages, I can also add that the utility is limited by your friends; that is, say you get a notification of a new like, but it's not someone you're personally friends with. There’s no good way to find out who it is. Your page says you have 100 followers, you pull up the list and you can only see 73. Next week you try to pull up the list, but Facebook has changed how to get to the list, so now you spend 30 minutes trying to figure out the new way.

 

Also, adults need to keep in mind that Facebook is dead for the 13-25 set, they don't use it precisely because it's not a place where they can get away from us, anymore.

 

Facebook and other social media are also bad choices for troop coordination in the first place, because their terms of use limit users to a minimum age of 13. That leaves out a large chunk of your troop unless you're promoting them breaking the ToS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should a unit's Facebook presence be a "page" or a "group"?

 

Page

---- PRO - More visible than a group

---- PRO - Easy and automatic

---- CON - Can only wait for others to "Like"

 

Group

---- PRO - Provides a mailing list

---- PRO - Better notification as members are notified unlike "Likes" that will "probably" be notified.

---- PRO - Can invite people to be members

---- ???  - People have to be "accepted" as members

---- PRO - Better secured as only members see posts and other info

 

 

Any guidance would be appreciated.

 

I guess it depends on what you are trying to achieve.

 

If you are looking for a public presence to promote your troop then a public page is the way forward. If you are looking for some kind of forum to exchange ideas between members then a group is what you need.

 

Don't just think about being on Facebook because you need to be on it, consider what you are trying to achieve.

 

My group has two. We have a public page for publicity. We also have a closed group which is actually for parents, principally for them to arrange lifts and transport to camps etc.

 

You do of course have to abide by BSA regulations on this which I can't really comment on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use FB as a brochure for your unit. The changes made to the service (many times without notice) are hard to adjust to. Also, depending on user settings they may not see things on your page/group in the manner in which you intend. For a free service it is okay, but we use it as a vitural brochure to raise awareness of who we are, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a Group.  Set it to Closed.  Only allow parents/scouts in of the Troop.  Have a webpage for publicity and other features.  Abide by the BSA Social Media guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scouter99,

 

For your Private Group do you have to monitor or, heaven forfend, "moderate" the posts your parents make?

 

The last thing I want is either political messages or cat videos showing up in the troop feed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a Group.  Set it to Closed.  Only allow parents/scouts in of the Troop.  Have a webpage for publicity and other features.  Abide by the BSA Social Media guidelines.

It's not possible to abide by BSA social media guidelines and have a closed group.

 

Scouter99,

 

For your Private Group do you have to monitor or, heaven forfend, "moderate" the posts your parents make?

 

The last thing I want is either political messages or cat videos showing up in the troop feed.

I have never had that issue, it's mostly me posting photos and links to news articles and getting 9-25 views from a group of 100.

If I do run into it, I'll simply remove it and remind the person tat I appreciate they wanted to share something funny or that they feel is important, but that the group is for Scouting things and that Scouting is apolitical.

 

Facebook just isn't a good platform, anyway, it's a bit of a ghost town, and young people don't use it.

If you do use FB, remind people to check "get notifications" so that they are alerted whenever something is posted, rather than relying on them to maybe see it in their newsfeed based on the algorithms.

Edited by Scouter99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not possible to abide by BSA social media guidelines and have a closed group.

 

Yeah, that's an interesting policy they (BSA) has. On one hand they want you to protect kids against the Internet weirdos by not allowing (moderating) comments and posts to the FB page/group. On the other hand they want the group open so that there's no one-on-one contact electronically between adults and scouts (email, anyone?). I think it is totally possible to have a closed group AND abide by BSA's intention, were it not for this little snip-it from the social media page on the BSA website...

 

 

 

To help ensure that all communication on social media channels remains positive and safe, these channels must be public, and all communication on or through them must be public. This enables administrators to monitor all communication and help ensure there is no inappropriate communication between adult leaders and Scouts or between Scouts themselves. Therefore, no private channels (e.g., private Facebook groups or invite-only YouTube channels) are acceptable in helping to administer the Scouting program. Private channels and private communication put both the youth and you at risk. If you feel the information you seek to share via social media channels should not be shared in public, you should not share that information via social media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts are that a Facebook group is better in terms of privacy. I think BSA has put out some guidelines concerning social media. I'm thinking that they would go with the closed (admin. approved membership) model.

BSA has guidelines. Open groups are required. No secrecy. 

 

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Marketing/Resources/SocialMedia.aspx

 

 

SOCIAL MEDIA AND YOUTH PROTECTION

First, everyone should review and strictly adhere to the terms of service and existing guidelines outlined by each individual social media channel (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.). As is true for participation in Scouting activities, all Scouts and adult leaders should abide by the guidelines outlined in the Scout Oath and Law when participating in social networking. As with a Scouting activity, safety and Youth Protection should be a key focus. Staying true to the commitment of the BSA to be an advocate for youth and to keep children and their privacy safe, both online and off, should always be at the forefront of any considerations where social media usage is concerned.

To help ensure that all communication on social media channels remains positive and safe, these channels must be public, and all communication on or through them must be public. This enables administrators to monitor all communication and help ensure there is no inappropriate communication between adult leaders and Scouts or between Scouts themselves. Therefore, no private channels (e.g., private Facebook groups or invite-only YouTube channels) are acceptable in helping to administer the Scouting program. Private channels and private communication put both the youth and you at risk. If you feel the information you seek to share via social media channels should not be shared in public, you should not share that information via social media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The opposite is true: BSA policy requires that unit social media be public.

 

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Marketing/Resources/SocialMedia.aspx

"To help ensure that all communication on social media channels remains positive and safe, these channels must be public, and all communication on or through them must be public. This enables administrators to monitor all communication and help ensure there is no inappropriate communication between adult leaders and Scouts or between Scouts themselves. Therefore, no private channels (e.g., private Facebook groups or invite-only YouTube channels) are acceptable in helping to administer the Scouting program. Private channels and private communication put both the youth and you at risk. If you feel the information you seek to share via social media channels should not be shared in public, you should not share that information via social media."

 

We had a public page for about 2 hours.  As soon as I started tagging Scouts in the photos, friends of theirs started making crass comments about Scouts being fags in addition to your basic 4-letter words. 

Now we're in violation of policy because I scrapped the public page and made a private group.

 

One big issue with BSA's social media policy is that whoever wrote it doesn't understand BSA's Youth Protection Policy, specifically, they do not understand that 2-deep refers only to overnight camping trips, and that no-one-on-one applies to all situations.  So, the social media policy constantly refers to "two-deep" leadership when talking about PMs, email, IMs, etc.  Specifically, the policy requires a second person is copied in on any electronic communication because "two deep" is required. 

 

This position—whether its grounded in two-deep or no 1-on-1—also shows a basic ignorance about the nature of online communication.  A Facebook PM, an Instagram PM, Twitter DM, email, etc never go away.  Ever.  Never, ever.  If Joe Molester is going to mess with a Scout, his online messages and text messages are there forever, and he knows that.  Yes, there are dumb criminals and they do use social media, but sending a direct message to a Scout does not endanger the Scout and the evidence is there forever.

Making those messages forbidden does not protect Dudley Doright from false accusation, either.  Because those messages never, ever go away, they are false accusation proof.  Mama Moneygrubber cannot falsely accuse Dudley because the innocent messages are there exonerating him forever.

 

Superfluous CCs annoy parents.  There is no reason to copy mom on a text message that reads "don't forget your compass."

 

That snarky line at the end of the quote is stupid, too.  The decision to go private had nothing to do with the content we were posting, it had to do with the response of teenagers and 20-somethings.  I "feel" that the information should not be shared in public because the public are jerkwads, not because the content I was sharing (photos of camping trips) was some shady grey area content that I wanted to hide.

You can set up public pages so that approval for comments is required before they are made public. 

 

That said, we never tag photos on Facebook on our Troop facebook page. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As owner of a couple pages, I can also add that the utility is limited by your friends; that is, say you get a notification of a new like, but it's not someone you're personally friends with. There’s no good way to find out who it is. Your page says you have 100 followers, you pull up the list and you can only see 73. Next week you try to pull up the list, but Facebook has changed how to get to the list, so now you spend 30 minutes trying to figure out the new way.

 

Also, adults need to keep in mind that Facebook is dead for the 13-25 set, they don't use it precisely because it's not a place where they can get away from us, anymore.

 

Facebook and other social media are also bad choices for troop coordination in the first place, because their terms of use limit users to a minimum age of 13. That leaves out a large chunk of your troop unless you're promoting them breaking the ToS.

Our facebook page is primarily for parents, so they can see pics of their kids. 

Edited by perdidochas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's an interesting policy they (BSA) has. On one hand they want you to protect kids against the Internet weirdos by not allowing (moderating) comments and posts to the FB page/group. On the other hand they want the group open so that there's no one-on-one contact electronically between adults and scouts (email, anyone?). I think it is totally possible to have a closed group AND abide by BSA's intention, were it not for this little snip-it from the social media page on the BSA website...

 

I follow the rules, in term of an open page. That said, I think a better rule would be that parents have to be able to get access to the closed group.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can set up public pages so that approval for comments is required before they are made public. 

 

That said, we never tag photos on Facebook on our Troop facebook page. 

 

But how can you prevent Bobby's mom from tagging kids in photos? It gets very hard to manage that.

 

Our unit's policy goes a bit further than BSA. When we post photos we do group shots or action photos. We have told our parents never to tag or discuss their kids on FB. If THEY want to share on their page that's okay, BUT we as that they not use the "share" feature, but rather to download the photo and paste on their own page.

 

It is tough enough to manage the page itself, making sure parents (who may not know better) don't violate BSA policy is a huge job on FB. We avoid individual or small group pictures and take down any if we find they were shared in the wrong manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×