Some critics underestimate the federal government’s progress toward using social networking Web sites effectively.

The initial instinct of management was to stop employees from wasting office time watching ridiculous (or obscene) videos on YouTube or preening on their Facebook pages.  However, because citizens and stakeholders are spending so much time on social media, some government employees need to be there too — tending agency sites, checking on job applicants or posting official information to online communities.  And there are lots of Web 2.0 applications inside agency networks – it’s the new way to do business within government.

Whether to engage with social media is not a question.  However, there are other real questions about government use of the major social-net players that the Feds are working through.

They start with the terms of service that govern anyone’s use of each site, which don’t satisfy requirements to preserve government data and to ensure citizens’ privacy.  The General Services Agency, in cooperation with several federal agencies, recently made agreements with Flickr, YouTube and other companies for revised terms of service that would allow agencies to comply with those responsibilities.

The State Department was one of the agencies negotiating with the GSA.  In fact, the foreign affairs agencies are mostly in the vanguard of government new media.

State has converted some of its own pages to Web 2.0 and at the same time established pages on YouTube, Flickr, Facebook and other places where most Americans already go.  (See my post on January 6.)  A recent account in National Journal shows that the State Department’s wholly-owned public diplomacy sites are attracting visits at a rapid rate, although their use is a blip compared to Facebook – never mind YouTube.

A participant in State’s social media effort told me that the Chief Information Officer sent a formal cable to embassies to officially authorize the use of commercial social media.  Internally, business rules are being developed with the aid of a wiki page.  Current questions about use of commercial Web sites include branding and various technical measures to preserve privacy, free speech and accessibility to the sight-impaired.

This is the real agenda for Government 2.0.

The public diplomacy people will continue to move forward with this approach, since the new Web pages give instant feedback on visitor numbers and (in the case of Facebook) the “friends” of visitors.  These strategic tools fill a longstanding gap in public diplomacy of targeting and measuring communications.

However, the reach of the medium outside the United States may not be well understood in Washington.  Huge populations like China, India and some in the Middle East use different sites to different degrees, including some that are unfamiliar in the United States.  By all accounts most Africans still lack access to the social Web, although cell phones are becoming a shortcut to participation.

The people who know these audiences in detail don’t live in the Beltway.  They reside mostly in the 200-plus embassies, consulates and missions around the world.  Many are deeply into Web 2.0, but many are not.  Some don’t need to be … yet.

Getting a true global picture of social networking is another interesting challenge to add to the “real questions” for government and Web 2.0.