More on Social messaging
Thanks to all who responded to my post on the Age Concern messaging and it was interesting to see a wide range of views expressed. It seemed fairly evenly split between those who thought it was OK and those who didnt. There were many who thought the end justified the means. If we rescued a couple of lost souls it was worth riding roughshod over the rest of us!! It was the reverse of utilitarianism (working on principles of the greatest good for the greatest number of people) which is widely regarded as a public health principle. I think there is a danger in this approach that we become insensitive and callous in our desire to tick off the goals and objectives. We need to give personal issues the respect they deserve. This approach can also disempower communities and people opt out PDQ if they think people are over-riding them.
Others thought that because it wasn't relevant to them, it didnt matter. So what if we re-framed it? How about if you got an email asking you "Do you have a drinking problem Jane?" or similar. You probably dont, (though statistically speaking you may be surprised at how many people it would apply to) but you may well resent being asked this question, by a stranger, in a social media setting which is a public platform. To my mind, there's no difference between this question and the one posed by age concern, from a social/ethical standpoint. This is not an appropriate venue for this type of inquiry which is personal and sensitive.
If I had been asked to send this message around by an employer I would have refused, point blank. But I may have been more willing to send something around that posed some "what if" scenarios, e.g. "how many people have felt lonely this winter" ............ "If you have felt lonely recently.............. " " Would you consider being part of our visiting service?" and or "would you like to be involved in visiting others?" I dont think this would offend anyone and gives people the option of responding, putting them at the center of the process.
Poll: Should the government levy industries that contribute to financial hardship?
As reported in the Post, there’s a $30 million funding gap in financial mentoring. This has led to services closing and mentors stepping in unpaid just to keep helping people in need 🪙💰🪙
One proposed solution? Small levies on industries that profit from financial hardship — like banks, casinos, and similar companies.
So we want to hear what you think:
Should the government ask these industries to contribute?
-
59.3% Yes, supporting people is important!
-
25.3% No, individuals should take responsibility
-
15.4% ... It is complicated
A Neighbourly Riddle! Don’t Overthink It… Or Do?😜
Do you think you know the answer? Simply 'Like' this post if you know the answer and the big reveal will be posted in the comments at 2pm on the day!
If you multiply this number by any other number, the answer will always be the same. What number is this?
Poll: As a customer, what do you think about automation?
The Press investigates the growing reliance on your unpaid labour.
Automation (or the “unpaid shift”) is often described as efficient ... but it tends to benefit employers more than consumers.
We want to know: What do you think about automation?
Are you for, or against?
-
9.7% For. Self-service is less frustrating and convenient.
-
43.1% I want to be able to choose.
-
47.2% Against. I want to deal with people.
Loading…
