On Social Media as a Public Servant

On LinkedIn today the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat published a short slide deck entitled 'Navigating Social Media as a Public Servant'. It appears to be available only on LinkedIn so I've provided a version you can download here so all can access the document.

---

Disclaimer: This blog post is the result of my personal research and opinion. Please consult the original sources cited and seek for assistance within your organizations on this and other matters related to the Government of Canada.

---

I spend a lot of time on social media - indeed, it is not only a personal interest of mine, it is a core component of my research on online learning and new instructional media. As a result, as readers can see for themselves, I have a substantial online presence - not just social media (though I do participate on some platforms) but also through my blog, website, and newsletter. So this slide show is directly relevant to me both personally and professionally.

I've thought a lot about all this over the years. I have spent my entire life in the public service, either as an instructor and designer for Canadian public universities and colleges, and for the last 24 years working with the National Research Council. For other people, this is just a matter of policy, but for me, it's a matter of my life, my work and my profession.

So what does the slide show say?

It begins: "As a public servant, it's important to manage your personal social media presence carefully to maintain professionalism and public trust."

There are two parts to this: 

- first, the requirement to manage my personal social media presence. It should be clear from this requirement that as a public servant, I don't get to have an online personal life completely separate from my work. I view this as an affirmation of the idea that it's impossible to completely separate one's personal and professional life. 

- second, the reason for this, which is to maintain professionalism and public trust. There is a lot packed into these two terms. Sometimes it might apply to me, and other times it might apply to the organization. In all cases, what we mean exactly is open to interpretation, with which the rest of the document will help.

The second slide is a directive to "uphold the values and ethics of the public sector." It lists these (and they can also be found more formally stated on the Guidance for Public Servants on their Personal Use of Social Media modified June 4, 2025):

• respect for democracy
• respect for people
• integrity
• stewardship
• excellence

I would like to think these values have characterized my work over the decades. Sure, we could have good conversations about what they mean, exactly, and how exactly they are instantiated. I see these less as rules of conduct (I mean, how could they be?) and more as the sort of thing they would like to see people recognize in my work over time.

The Guidance document, if not the slideshow, follows this immediately with a reference to the 'Duty of Loyalty'. It states, "As public servants, we agree to:

• uphold the Constitution and laws
• serve the public interest
• maintain confidentiality
• practice non-partisanship and impartiality
• demonstrate respect for democracy, integrity, honesty and accountability

The duty of loyalty is a key principle and obligation for public servants." We should keep this in mind as well as we move forward.

The next slide advises public servants to "Never share confidential, sensitive, or personal information." There's a ton of information defining what this means, exactly, as can be seen by looking at the references in the Policy on Privacy Protection document from September 30, 2024. In general, as I read it, the standards are what you would expect: people have an expectation of discretion and confidentiality when they deal with the government, either as employees, contractors, or members of the public, and this must be maintained.

I am careful about this. Over the years I've worked with companies, other government departments, and individuals, and I've kept their business out of the pages of OLDaily and my website. It's actually not a real challenge to do this; there's plenty of public information available out there (this article is based on public information) and for the most part I'm not even writing about the government or the public service.

I should point out that I have applied this policy to other people as well. I make it very clear to companies that I don't do embargoes and that (therefore) they should not share their secrets with me. I've had lots of conversations with people over the years and these too stay out of my pages. Each post in OLDaily references a source that is (to the best of my ability) not hidden behind any form of access control, whether it be a paywall or some website looking to collect your personal information (which I call a 'spamwall').

The next slide advises me to "separate personal and professional content". More specifically, it says "don't use GC logos or signatures on personal accounts."

So that seems pretty easy to do, and on a superficial level, it is. I maintain a personal email address based on my personal website address, the ubiquitous downes.ca you see on my pages. I also have a professional government email address that you don't see anywhere on my website. There's a page about me on the government website. I do state on my personal website that I work for the NRC, but you won't find any official logos or wordmarks (I do have a Canadian flag on my page, but I will not be removing that).

That said, beyond the obvious, there's a lot of blending of my personal and professional life. As noted above, "it's impossible to completely separate one's personal and professional life." It's worth exploring what this means.

The extension of my professional life into my personal life is pretty clear. We've already noted that my profession imposes limits on my social media. But even more to the point, in my case at least, my brain does not turn off when I leave the workplace. I'm pretty immersed in what I do. I think about it, I dream about it, it occupies me. And it has been made clear to me that even if I come up with an invention or idea related to my work on my own time, it's still owned by the Crown. 

Think about that. Depending on how one defines my job, everything I do could be considered the property of the Crown. Everything is pretty clearly limited by the confidentiality policy, and also the IP policy. It's one of the major reasons I haven't published any books in my time at NRC - there's no real way to do it without involving the IP office, and they have opinions about how that would work.

What people don't often think about is how this works in the other direction - how my personal life flows into my work. 

Now there is what we might call 'the unofficial unstated interpretation' of this which is essentially that I should not let my personal life enter into my professional life at all. Some would call this unfair - how can this flow be one way only? But from my personal perspective, the concern is more pragmatic: the expertise I bring to my job every day is more often than not the result of my personal life. 

On my Mastodon profile, I label myself as follows: "Philosopher. Educator. Journalist. Programmer. Photographer. Cyclist. Socialist." Now, none of these enters into my job description or professional profile anywhere at all. My NRC web page (cited above) defines my expertise as "Information Technology, Human-computer interaction, Internet, Social Sciences." I could ask, what really do I do for my employer? What really do I bring to the table?

Now, yes, I have skills in my NRC-defined expertise, and a lot of the work I do employs these skills. But if I limited my contributions to the workplace to just these things, I would be functioning as a very poor public servant, and my contributions to the wider community as a whole would be limited and insubstantial.

I couldn't work as a professional like that, much less live a life like that. All the passion and dedication I bring to my job comes from my personal life.

The real question here, though, is this: what happens when my personal life and my professional life are not in accord? This could happen to anyone in any profession, and often does, but in the case of being a public servant, the dangers are greater. This is where the aforementioned Duty of Loyalty comes into play.

Now to be clear, I've never had any illusions about working in the public service. I've served under five Prime Ministers and ten Parliaments. I've seen a lot of shifts in the wind. Throughout, I've often shared with others in the public service the slogan, "Our duty is to serve the government of the day." What that means is that, whatever the government of the days wants to do, whatever its intentions, our job is to help them be successful in that.

But the Duty of Loyalty neither begins nor ends with that. Helping the government of the day achieve its objectives falls under the heading, 'respect for democracy'. And if there's anything that characterizes my lifelong commitment to public service instead of pursuing wealth and influence in the private sector, it's respect for democracy. But as in any democracy, a Duty of Loyalty isn't simply loyalty to the government (nor even to our executive and managers who arguably speak for the government).

The first duty, indeed, is to "uphold the Constitution and laws". This amounts to more than merely obeying the law (though of course we should obey the law). It means that each public servant has a role in ensuring that the Constitution and laws are respected. Now that doesn't make us the RCMP or even CSI. But it does mean, say, that if the government has laws and policies on open government, public servants have a duty to respond when they are being violated. That - to be clear - doesn't mean doing this in their personal media space (unless, of course, as Fraser states, all other avenues have been exhausted).

The next duty is to "serve the public interest". This is a bit of a tricky one. We could define the public interest minimally as 'whatever our Ministers and managers say' but that is far too narrow a reading. First of all, government is composed of Parliament, not just the Ministers. And second, the 'public interest' extends far beyond what is defined in laws and policies. There's no law, for example, requiring that I offer a daily newsletter informing people of news and events related to learning technology and new media. But it serves the public interest, and that's why I do it.

The third duty, to 'maintain confidentiality', we have discussed above. 

The fourth duty is almost definitive of being a public servant, to "practice non-partisanship and impartiality". But what does that mean? This is one of these expansive duties that grows to fill any space you provide for it. 

Let's return to the slide presentation, as the next page provides us some more context to consider this point. It says we should "engage responsibly online" and specifically that "before posting, consider if your posts might harm the reputation of your organization or the GC." This, again, is something that could grow to fill any space it is given.

For example: I don't believe that time is real (I'm not making this up; it is a position I genuinely hold). You can read J.E. McTaggart for a pretty compelling argument. Maybe it's impossible for a human to comprehend the world without a conception of time, I don't know, but that's a long way from saying time is real. Now on the other hand, my organization maintains a national official time signal. It's what it's known for most. Could my philosophical position on time harm the reputation of NRC? It seems very unlikely, but there's always someone who can come along and say, "well it might be..."

The Guidance document (p. 9, cited above) offers some help. Let's consider the factors that I would need to address:

- "How visible you are to the public in your public service role and identifiable as an employee of the public service. The more visible your position is, the more weight is likely to be given to what you may post."

Do people know I am a member of the public service? I mean, I've never hidden it, and if you're reading this post, you definitely know I am a member of the public service. I think it's important, though, to keep in mind the distinction between saying something and saying something as a member if the public service. I don't think people see me that way - I work for the government, but I certainly don't represent it in any significant way.

I mean, from the perspective of NRC, I've toiled for 24 years in general anonymity. NRC doesn't promote me to any particular degree at all - even the web page that I referenced above is a recent development. For the longest time, they didn't post employee pages at all. There are no press releases about my work. I mean, "public in your public service role and identifiable as an employee of the public service" is a two-way street.

- "Your visibility on social media. You may have more influence on public opinion if you have a large number of followers."

So, it could be argued that I'm pretty visible. I have a newsletter, I have a social media following, and as stated in a recent interview, I was "possibly the original social media influencer—long before this was a term people knew and a profession one could aspire to." I don't know about that, and I don't often feel like an influencer. But OK, let's allow that my posts have a certain amount of influence. I mean, I suppose I'd be disappointed if they didn't. I'm a serious person and would like to be taken seriously. 

- "The content you may post online and its relationship to your work, as well as the work of your current organization, the work of other organizations and the work of the Government of Canada as a whole. If your post is specifically about your current work, it is more likely to be seen as representing the views of the government, so make sure the post is authorized."

To address the last item first, if my post has to be authorized before it is posted, it will have no credibility at all. Indeed, the statement that a social media post needs to be authorized undermines the idea that there is any separation between personal content and professional content.

Moving backward through the item, I am often told things of the form "X is more likely to be seen as Y." What this can do is grant authority over my work to any self-appointed pundit out there. What happens if someone decides my posts are too DEI-positive? It could easily happen. Should I then limit what I say on the subject because someone might decide that it influences my judgement? Because it might harm the reputation of my organization?

Anything that is not a logical contradiction might happen. It makes no sense to be governed by the logic of possibility. We have to apply a criterion of reasonableness to this consideration. Would a reasonable person conclude that I represent the NRC on this matter? Would a reasonable person conclude that my position harms the NRC? Adding the condition of reasonableness greatly narrows the scope.

Finally, the relation between my post and my work. Everything I post is related to my work. This is a practical statement and an economic statement. It's practical because my life, my philosophy and my work are all intertwined. You don't get 'connectivist Stephen' without 'photographer Stephen'. You don't get 'learning technology Stephen' without 'cyclist Stephen'. But it's also economic, because I suggested above, Crown ownership over my ideas isn't limited to the workplace. 

- "The nature of the content you are creating, including how it is linked to other online content, such as content that could be seen as discriminatory or harassing."

In most cases, linking is not endorsement, but I'll leave that aside. The real question here is what the implications are if public servants are jerks online, even in their private life. I think it goes without saying that they shouldn't be. Discrimination and harassment are a bad look for anyone, and by implication, the organization that employs them. There are more nuanced questions that should be asked - for example, do posts count as 'discrimination' if no due process has established this? Does there need to be a legal decision? But yeah, I'm not here to defend discrimination or harassment, so I'll leave it there.

- "The classification, level and type of position you are in. Posts from senior leaders and authority figures should be held to a very high standard because they could have greater influence. Think not only about the role you currently occupy, but also the positions you might wish to hold."

As I have commented to many people over the years, my employer keeps me as far away from management positions as it's possible to be. It's said in jest, but it's also true. I don't fit into a management mold for many reasons, not the least of which I'm not comfortable with disciplining myself into the type of speech a manager is allowed (I could say this very cynically, but I'll just leave it there).

So now let's return to the duty to "practice non-partisanship and impartiality". What does it mean in my context?

- in the field I write about most often, learning technology and new media, my posts could be deemed to have some weight. So I need to be somewhat careful about what I say (this also reflects to me the principles of good journalism, and indeed, my journalist background has helped me a lot when it comes to non-partisanship and impartiality).

- in particular, it means that I don't advertise or accept commercial endorsements on my website or in my newsletter (this would also be covered by the government's Conflict of Interest policy). You can't pay me money to get my commercial or political support.

- but also, it means that I have to be judicious about the opinions I express about businesses, governments and individuals. I can't just slam them because I don't like them. That said, to be clear: non-partisanship and impartiality does not mean not having or expressing any opinions. First of all, not expressing opinions would destroy most of the value I offer. But also (and more importantly) not expressing an opinion is an endorsement of the status quo.

- for me, non-partisanship and impartiality means being indifferent about the particular entities I discuss, and that my opinions are based on clearly stated and expressed bases (for example, people might use principles or values as bases, while in my case I offer a broader and (I believe) more nuanced model or framework).

- finally, this basis can't change just because somebody tells me it needs to change, or because the government of the day has a different basis for its own valuations and opinions. I can't be non-partisan and impartial if I am taken to represent the government (especially 'the government' as expressed by Ministers, executives or managers) on all things.

For the most part, this condition is entirely theoretical. Over the years, I think I have established that what I write and say is based on an underlying philosophy, represented in part by what is popularly called 'connectivism', and this this in turn is (in my opinion) well-supported by empirical fact, academic literature, and the response from critics (who even when they disagree with me recognize the importance of the considerations I raise).

The funny thing is, if you look through all my work and all its implications, you can see how deeply entrenched some core values can be seen to be:

• respect for democracy
• respect for people
• integrity
• stewardship
• excellence

And that leads us to the fifth duty in the Duty of Loyalty section of the Guidelines: "demonstrate respect for democracy, integrity, honesty and accountability."

It's not enough, I recognize, for me to just believe I embrace these principles. I need to be seen to embrace them. But here's the thing: they all matter. I can't just be honest, I have to be known to be honest. This is a set of duties that applies to me as an individual as much as it does the organization as a whole.

The final slide in the slide deck from TBS says "regularly review your online history especially when you first join the public service or when your role changes." Well the 'especially' part doesn't really apply to me, but the main part does. And that's what I'm doing here, reviewing my online presence, openly and honestly.

Whenever I post something, or offer a presentation, or write an article, I always ask myself two questions:

- am I just saying this to get attention?

- am I a quack?

It's really easy to fall into either trap, especially in my position, closer to the end of my career than the beginning, where people actually do trust me, but where my online fame is diminishing as new and very good people take the spotlight. I have to be very honest with myself, let alone any of you, as to what motivates me. So what motivates me?

Some days I just want to go away and ride my bicycle in the open air.

Some days I want to make the world a better place, to see infants and children grow into happy and fulfilled adults without fear and terror.

Some days I want to dispel the myths that hold us back, the way we think there are laws and principles that bind all things, the way our understanding of the world is anything other that we, each of us individually, make it to be.

Some days I just want to be understood.

And some days I just want somebody to tell me "you did good." 

One final thing. No matter where I am, no matter what I do, I want to be free. This matters not only to me, but I think also to what it means to be a public servant.

First, there are some clear exceptions to the Duty of Loyalty: "Three situations in which the balancing of these interests is likely to result in an exception to the duty of loyalty are where:

• the Government is engaged in illegal acts
• Government policies jeopardize life, health or safety
• the public servant’s criticism has no impact on their ability to perform effectively the duties of a public servant or on the public perception of that ability

In situations where you are unsure whether there is an exception that applies, contact your
organization’s values and ethics office or your manager."

In my own life as a public servant, the first two have never come up. There have been many policies I haven't liked (like 'return to office') but none of them have ever crossed that line.

On the other have, as I suggest, I do have criticisms. Mostly, readers never see them, but people inside my office have heard them. But even where I criticize a government's policy openly (or for that matter, any government, or any organization) the question of whether my remarks 'impact my ability to perform effectively the duties of a public servant' is a very high bar.

My assertion that 'time is not real' does not impact my ability to do 'Information Technology, Human-computer interaction, Internet, Social Sciences' one whit. And the same is true on pretty much everything I do online, whether it involves philosophy, education, journalism, programming, photography, cycling, or even socialism.

This statement, right at the top of the Guidance document, makes my right to be free clear:

"Public servants, like all Canadians, have the right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion, association and expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As an inclusive public service that strives to be representative of the public we serve, our diversity and varied lived experiences enrich our overall ability to deliver excellence for Canada and Canadians."

Nothing in everything that is written on the use of social media or any of the other documents I've referenced in this article creates a requirement to conform. We as a public service are stronger and more representative of the people and governments we serve when we are diverse, and that includes thought, belief and opinion.

People in authority don't always realize this. Sometimes people think that any dissent is a sign of disrespect and reflects badly on the individual or organization. I think that the more enlightened we become as a society, and as a public service, the more wrong we realize such an opinion is. 

What makes this all worthwhile, this whole idea of spending a lifetime in the public service, is that in my own way I am supporting and helping people become as free as they can be, capable of expressing themselves to the greatest of their abilities, in a society free from want and war. And to do that, I have to be free.