Print 41 comment(s) - last by ppardee.. on Jul 9 at 4:02 PM

  (Source: Getty Images)
Meanwhile federal agency shuts down "" as keeping it up was "too expensive"

Kazoos, Nerf footballsinternet pornography, wine, and romance novels: we were a bit disappointed when the government blew our tax dollars on buying those things for itself.  But the revelation that the U.S. Department of State (DoS) spent $630,000 USD in taxpayer dollars advertising to get "likes" on, Inc.'s (FB) titular social network has some decrying that government waste has gone a bridge too far.

I. Your Taxpayer Dollars at Work

The program was run by the Department's Bureau of International Information Programs from 2011 to March 2013, during the leadership of Secretaries of State Hilary Clinton, and her successor John Kerry.  It was a "success", so to speak.  The State Department's page started with only 100,000 likes at the start of the campaign, and its foreign page only had tens of thousands of likes.  By the end the U.S. page had 2 million likes and the foreign page had swelled to 450,000 likes.

But that didn't stop some State Department employees from blowing the whistle on their supervisors.

The agency's inspector general in an audit reports, "Many in the bureau criticize the advertising campaigns as 'buying fans' who may have once clicked on an ad or 'liked' a photo but have no real interest in the topic and have never engaged further."

Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton's State Dept. reign is yet again under fire, this time for gov't waste.
[Image Source: Reuters]

The IG also complains that the program failed to decide whom to target its message too, writing, "The absence of a Department wide PD [public diplomacy] strategy tying resources to priorities directly affects IIP's work. Fundamental questions remain unresolved. What is the proper balance between engaging young people and marginalized groups versus elites and opinion leaders?"

II. Program Was Basically Worthless

For a time the likes might have been worth something, as posts from pages you "liked" would show up in your news feed.  But thanks to a September 2012 change, Facebook banished such posts from the news feed by default, instead requiring companies to pay reoccurring fees to have their messages show up.

The IG complains that the State Department's social media presence is a mess, with over 150 pages for different bureaus, many of which overlap.

Here's the full report:

State Department Facebook Likes IG Report

The IG also gripes that only 2 percent of "fans" of the page actually were engaged with it in various ways, such as liking posts, sharing content, or commenting.  The IG also took issue with the age of the fans.  The State Department had hoped to target "older influence leaders", but the fans who liked its page were largely younger folks.

III. State Department Shuts Down

So how did the State Department get all that money to buy Facebook likes and engage in other manner of wasteful spending?  Apparently it saved some resources by shutting down the website

When you visit the site, you now get the message:

It looks like the public has a clearer vision of where the State Department's spending priorities lie.

Sources: State Department IG via Scribd, ZDNET

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Argon18 on 7/8/2013 12:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
Either that's a bad joke, or you're really clueless. Or forgetful? The 600,000+ bodies in mass graves that Saddam executed are one of the largest genocide events in history. Taking him out of power was a very good thing. Not to mention that the entire region saw Saddam as a nut-job, that negatively impacted stability of the entire region. Invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

Now had you said occupation of Afghanistan, I'd have agreed with you. We should have gone in, killed a bunch of Al Queda, and then left. That country has never had a working central government, and most of the people there don't want one anyways. Thinking we could create one was a mistake.

By ppardee on 7/9/2013 4:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
Saddam was a bad dude, but so are the Muslims killing people in Darfur, but we didn't go in there and we're not stopping them. We didn't stop Stalin from killing millions of people during the Holodomor. We didn't stop Mao from killing tens of millions during the Great Leap Forward.

We're not the world's police force. The only time we have a right to attack another nation is when they pose an immediate threat to our security. If that's the case, we do as you said. Bomb the ports, airports, roads, military bases, training camps, and anything else that would hinder their ability to attack us, then get out.

Also, the region is far less stable than it was while Saddam was in power. Egypt has had 2 coups in 18 months, there is civil war in Syria that has turned into a regional sectarian war. Afghan soldiers are killing their trainers and Iraq still hasn't recovered. When you take someone like Saddam out of the picture, the whole region becomes unstable. Pair that with the Arab Spring and you'll get more stability out of a Jello mold on a hundred degree day. All we can do is sit back and watch the chaos we started and wonder why terrorists are blowing up spectators at a marathon.

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki