Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
fred johnson

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

Recommended Posts

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

 

 

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.   

 

That's why a closed group picture sharing service is better. It is the same as a private email list or website (i.e., SOAR) so it does not violate the BSA photo or social media policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I give Bobby's mom supremacy in what's best for Bobby.  If she wants to tag her son on FB, she's the parent.  Just like if Bobby's mom calls and asks me to give Bobby a ride, I explain that it's a gray area, but she's Bobby's mom.

 

As far as tagging in general, if a Scout is on FB, his full name and photo are already on FB, tagging him doesn't change that or broaden it. BSA's brand guide (p 28) does state don't "give out" scouts' identifying information, but in tagging a photo one is not giving out anything that the Scout/family has not already given out.  If he's not on FB, then I don't tag him at all (because what's the point?). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give Bobby's mom supremacy in what's best for Bobby.  If she wants to tag her son on FB, she's the parent.  Just like if Bobby's mom calls and asks me to give Bobby a ride, I explain that it's a gray area, but she's Bobby's mom.

 

As far as tagging in general, if a Scout is on FB, his full name and photo are already on FB, tagging him doesn't change that or broaden it. BSA's brand guide (p 28) does state don't "give out" scouts' identifying information, but in tagging a photo one is not giving out anything that the Scout/family has not already given out.  If he's not on FB, then I don't tag him at all (because what's the point?). 

 

On sharing the pic I disagree to a point. If Bobby's mom uses the "share" feature for a picture on FB she's taking a pic on the unit FB page and putting it on her timeline or wherever. That ties the scout to the parent and the unit, which gives anyone looking enough identifiable info to find the scout if they want. Our unit has concluded doing so would violate the BSA guidelines around personal scout info had taken steps to prohibit that from happening. I agree if mom wants to download the pic and post on her page NOT using the "share" feature she's entirely welcome to do so.

 

On tagging I totally disagree. The unit should not tag at all to avoid linking the scout with identifiable information. Out unit does not care if the scout is on FB or not. We will not be the ones to spread his information so we won't tag. If a parent wants to tag their kid (following our guidelines above) then they are welcome to it.

 

Our unit has taken the stance that we will ALWAYS guard against giving out ANY personal information related to a youth member (or adult member for that matter). If the scout or parent want to give out that info then they are welcome to....it is still a free country. ;) Limiting unit liability is the rule under which we operate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My troop, no matter what national says, has decided to keep the FB group closed. The leadership, both youth and adult, do not want to deal with any problems that  open groups have, i.e. spammers, people making crude comments, ad nauseum.  Parents are on the page, unit leaders are on the group, those scouts old enough to have FB are on it, as well as the SE and DD. As soon as we get a DE, he will be on it.

 

This is especially relevent after what happened on both the council's FB page as well as a pack's page. On the council's page, one adult leader went crazy, after multiple attempts to go PM, and eventually got slammed by the leader he was critisizing. Same leader a year and a half later went on my pack's website and accused another troop of stealing Cub Scouts.

 

Again adult AND youth leaders discussed this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My troop, no matter what national says, has decided to keep the FB group closed. The leadership, both youth and adult, do not want to deal with any problems that  open groups have, i.e. spammers, people making crude comments, ad nauseum.  Parents are on the page, unit leaders are on the group, those scouts old enough to have FB are on it, as well as the SE and DD. As soon as we get a DE, he will be on it.

 

I meant to ask about benefits of page or group ... public, closed or secret.

 

As for BSA rules ... IMHO ... BSA does not use precise language that matches Facebook terms.  When I see comments about no "private groups", private is different than Facebook's closed or secret groups.  Also by saying "no private groups", I am assuming some other type of "group" is okay.  

 

IMHO, "private groups" means we don't want an adult leader creating a communication channel for just him and one or more selected scouts.   I interpret "public" as public to the entire troop or at least a larger set that matches youth-protection rules.  Essentially, social media needs to continue the the youth-protection rules.

Edited by fred johnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Well, we haven't had the problem with anybody tagging kids in photos. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we haven't had the problem with anybody tagging kids in photos. 

 

 

Hopefully you won't. But if the unit does it someone could construe that you broke BSA policy about identifying youths in photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully you won't. But if the unit does it someone could construe that you broke BSA policy about identifying youths in photos.

We have the pictures locked down, so that only the Page managers can tag photos.  It's in the Tagging Ability settings on the page. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the pictures locked down, so that only the Page managers can tag photos.  It's in the Tagging Ability settings on the page. 

 

Interesting. So only page managers (assumed to be unit leaders) can tag. Tagging is done by linking the picture to a scout's FB account, right? Isn't that identifying that scout by name and other FB info? Is that available for anyone on FB to see that picture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. So only page managers (assumed to be unit leaders) can tag. Tagging is done by linking the picture to a scout's FB account, right? Isn't that identifying that scout by name and other FB info? Is that available for anyone on FB to see that picture?

If a FB group is private ("closed"), and a person is tagged in photos in that group, they cannot be seen by people who are not also in the group.  In the way back of FB, you could notice this discrepancy when someone's profile said they had 100 photos, but when you clicked, you could only see 58—the remainder were photos that the person's friends had in private albums, or from closed groups, or that the person had specifically blocked you from seeing by putting you in a friends category then restricting that category from seeing certain albums (I, for example, have categories like BSA adults, BSA youth, aunties, co-workers.)

But, the tagged photos can be seen by people who are also in the group when they pull up the person's photos from that person's profile.

 

If the group is public ("open"), and the scout is tagged in a photo, anyone could see his tag on the photo by going to the group photos, and anyone could see the photos from his profile.

But, if the group is public and his profile is private, then a person could only see the photos from the group.

 

Because profiles and groups have varying options around privacy, there are a lot of combinations that depend on the interplay between the group settings and each person's profile settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a FB group is private ("closed"), and a person is tagged in photos in that group, they cannot be seen by people who are not also in the group.

 

 

Yep, I get that. ;)

 

He mentioned "page managers" which usually is an open, public page rather than a close group. If you tag them on a page then it is open. 

 

Can you have closed pages? Never tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you have closed pages? Never tried.

 

No.

 

"Groups" have members and becoming a member can be controlled.  Conceptually it makes sense to have a "closed" group ... aka only accessible to members.

 

"Pages" have likes and do not have membership.  Conceptually it does not make sense to have a "closed" page as there is nothing to define who it can access it. 

Edited by fred johnson
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

 

"Groups" have members and becoming a member can be controlled.  Conceptually it makes sense to have a "closed" group ... aka only accessible to members.

 

"Pages" have likes and do not have membership.  Conceptually it does not make sense to have a "closed" page as there is nothing to define who it can access it.

 

Figured. So tagged photos of youth on manage pages is akin to giving youth personal info. Not a good idea and against policy. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. So only page managers (assumed to be unit leaders) can tag. Tagging is done by linking the picture to a scout's FB account, right? Isn't that identifying that scout by name and other FB info? Is that available for anyone on FB to see that picture?

 

We don't tag pictures, and don't allow others to tag.  We have control over it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't tag pictures, and don't allow others to tag.  We have control over it. 

 

Ok. You mentioned previously that only page editors can tag photos, but did not mention that you don't tag. It seemed to suggest that your page managers could tag photos if they want to; not that you didn't tag at all. My mistake.

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  

×