EQC and Facebook
The Press today has an article headed: EQC stops answering questions in response to EQC deciding not to continue with its Facebook or Trademe activities. The article gives quotes from a number of users who accuse EQC of not being able to cope with public comment on those sites, and retreating from public engagement. The article is here.
Probably the only good thing about both of those two sites was EQC being brave enough to give it a go in the latest types of electronic expression. Both were a waste of EQC energy because conversations on those sites are at best disorganised, and it is hard for users to keep track of what is being said. A greater problem, from the observer's point of view, was knowing whether the comments of some the non-EQC participants bore any connection with reality. Many of the comments and points made by users were dubious or misleading, and could easily have caused others to become confused or go away with the wrong idea.
Not really a news story. A news story would be if EQC stopped releasing information at all, and especially under the Official Information Act. That would be close to a hanging offence and certainly newsworthy.
.
Probably the only good thing about both of those two sites was EQC being brave enough to give it a go in the latest types of electronic expression. Both were a waste of EQC energy because conversations on those sites are at best disorganised, and it is hard for users to keep track of what is being said. A greater problem, from the observer's point of view, was knowing whether the comments of some the non-EQC participants bore any connection with reality. Many of the comments and points made by users were dubious or misleading, and could easily have caused others to become confused or go away with the wrong idea.
Not really a news story. A news story would be if EQC stopped releasing information at all, and especially under the Official Information Act. That would be close to a hanging offence and certainly newsworthy.
.
