techPresident - Chris Hughes - Comments

Ownership

Wegerje — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:10:20 -0500

In Illinois we didn't participate in the fifty state program. In fact even Howard Dean joked that it was a 49 state program. And why is that. Because the Democratic party is screwed up in Illinois. Rahm Emanuel is the least of its problems here.

But the point I want to make is that ownership by the DNC is not going to be a long term workable solution for the MyBO social/political networking database and software. It needs, absolutely needs, self ownership with a democratic (small d) governing structure.

Jeff Wegerson

Just how BIG is that table? Well, it's up to US.

MadamaAmbi — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 13:39:57 -0500

We are all here because we want change and we all have our own, experience-based, biased ideas of what that means and how we get it. I do, too. I am a feminist with pretty radical ideas. I don't lead such a radical life, but my theories go straight to the roots. I want a seat at the table & I'm confident I will have one because I am a part of so many vital circuits that belong to other vital circuits that belong to other vital circuits, and so on. IMO, this is the heart, soul & strength of how we got here and how we will MOVE into Phase II.

I capitalize MOVE because this IS a movement, and movements move when people move, when people create, disagree, listen, and make room to process. Some people have a bad reaction to the word "process" and I know why, and that's ok. Give me some time and I'll come up with a better word! But here's my point: we need all kinds of leaders in this movement. It's important to identify who has what skills.

I do not consider myself a politico although I spent the last 9 months being ALL Obama ALL the time and getting on the nerves of friends & family! But victory is ours, and I am ready for what's next. What do I have to offer Phase II? I'm a thinker, a writer, a trained group facilitator, a trained listener, a creative, an activist, a feminist, a self-taught artist, a podcaster, a vlogger, a blogger, a trained singer--I communicate! Whatever it takes, I communicate. Whatever it takes, I listen and mirror back what I'm hearing. Whatever it takes, I work it, work it, work it, hoping that convergences can be uncovered where once we saw only painfully raw divergence. I have many projects in mind to make the invisible women & girls in our country not only visible but also speaking for themselves. IMO, this is vital for the future of democracy. I will be writing more about my ideas and I hope to be in dialogue with all thinkers, activists and agents for transparent democracy.

Oh, and I'm not looking for a job. I'm retired, thanks to my husband's government pension.

very truly yours
MadamaAmbi

Interview4Obama http://madamaambi.blogspot.com
subversonance http://subversonance.blogspot.com
Patriarchal Disorder http://patriarchaldisorder.com
madamaambi at gmail.com

I've added some of your points to my post...

Troutfishing — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:34:25 -0500

I think they get to, in a sense, the heart of the matter; to what extent will the coming Obama Administration and the future DNC seek to exert control over, rather than promote, political social networks that don't always behave in ways that administration or the DNC want ? In the past, the inclination towards control over, rather than the promotion of, grassroots political energy has prevailed in the DNC.

It would seem very counter intuitive, I agree, were Barack Obama, with his background in political organizing, to try and exert control to the point that it squelched grassroots energy.

Valid Points

jkillian — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:36:46 -0400

There's a valid point in the recognition that we're in uncharted waters here.

And, I can agree with the notion that if this were something which had a known economic value it would at least border on illegitimacy.

However, let's suppose that I was to use Java and PHP to create a new concept in mass communication and organization over the Internet. My application suite is completely open source, with a strong platform for development and extending the functions of that application. My best friend is James Carville (not really, but to illustrate the point). As a direct result of my friendship with James, Hillary's campaign gets a head-start on using this to organize and mobilize volunteers. Yes, I *could* sell this application to other for-profit (or non-profit) entities for lots and lots of money. But, in the spirit of open source software, I choose to not only keep it free, but even choose to allow other campaigns to use it w/ just as much access as Clinton's.

Am I obligated to contact Richardson's campaign w/in some set time frame and let them know about this fabulous new tool? If so, what is this time frame? Or, more to the point, would they even take me seriously before seeing Clinton using it to her advantage?

The facebook API, or it's extension, the Application Platform (isn't that the definition of an API??), is exactly that! It is a tool which ANYONE can use for FREE. What's the economic value? If you ask Microsoft, they'll tell you "billions and billions." If you ask Linus, he might tell you that the economic value is what you make of it. That someone has the opportunity to paint on a corner of my "wall," before someone else is just life. EVEN if I wanted to give everyone the exact same opportunity at the exact same time, it would be impossible.

This so-called "scandal," is obviously someone trying to cut hay in a desert.

Facebook API != Facebook Applications

Luigi Montanez — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:52:36 -0400

jkillian,

First, as stated above, the Facebook API released last summer is a different "thing" than the Facebook Applications platform just released the other week. The point is that through Chris Hughes, the Obama campaign had insider information and access to the tools to build their Application before any other campaign had a chance.

The question at hand is what an "in-kind contribution" is. Here's what the FEC says:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#contribution

Unfortunately "business services" is not very well defined, other than what is explicitly allowed (food and drink, legal services). So in your example of giving sign space to a candidate, that may constitute an in-kind contribution as a business service if that space was sold for advertising space in the past, or even has potential for advertising use.

I'm not a lawyer nor do I specialize in FEC regulations, but I do know that a corporation or any formalized business entity simply cannot give a contribution (in-kind or direct) to a campaign. I don't know the answer to the Obama/Facebook situation, but I definitely think Josh has a very valid point.

nevermind that anyone can use the FaceBook API to create

jkillian — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:19:58 -0400

whatever applications they want, so the assumption that because the Obama campaign took advantage of an application before other candidates, he must have somehow received special favor is simply ridiculous.

A Hillary supporter could've created an application and not even opened it to other candidates and it wouldn't be a problem.

An analogy which comes immediately to mind for me is:

I own a business on a heavily trafficked street. I decide that I'm going to use my sign space to provide a forum for candidates. If I want to limit access to it to Hillary or Newt, there's nothing illegal about that! If I spend money to paint the sign, then that might be something reportable to the FEC, but if the McCain campaign pays for the paint and I provide the volunteer labor, then nothing reportable there.

If I want to open it to all the candidates, but want to give Fred or Ron first crack at it, then again: so be it.

This isn't Coke and Pepsi

Joshua Levy — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 23:54:39 -0400

Jeff - Facebook Platform isn't in beta; it was launched fully-formed after a year of testing, as this post explains. Before they launched they invited select developers to make applications in anticipation of the launch. That was fine. The problem was -- as we explain in this post -- they gave only one presidential campaign access, which is possibly a violation of FEC rules. I spoke to several campaigns and none of them were invited to participate. It isn't because they were ignorant or didn't care; the Internet folks at these campaigns are web-savvy people who would have jumped at the opportunity to build an app. And it isn't the same as Coke and Pepsi; there are laws involved when political fundraising and communication are at stake.

The point is that as social networks become increasingly vital political platforms, we're figuring out what proper (and legal) behavior looks like. For us, Facebook's early overture to Obama raised a red flag.

Puhleez, nothing going on here!

jeffmcneill — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:51:05 -0400

It is a little painful to read the various contortions in the article and comments to try and create some evidence of wrongdoing. A careful reading of the article produces the following assumptions:

1) Facebook should contact all campaigns regarding their beta programs.
2) Beta programs constitute a gift to those campaigns involved.

This is ludicrous. It would be the same as saying that if Coca Cola is involved in a beta program, then the beta people should contact Pepsi. Just because it is political speech doesn't mean that 3rd party vendors are themselves political entities. All that happened is that some people on Obama's campaign know their internet/web 2.0 social networks better than other campaign tech people. While this is lamentable, the problem lies with the campaigns and not the internet/web companies.

The turgid, accusatory prose is simply laughable and disappointing. "Knowledge before launch" "access to api" "special access" "failed to notify" "why not offer" "other campaigns not contacted" "Obama campaign demurs". This is either an enormous lapse in judgment, understanding of beta software programs, or both.

Sincerely,
Jeff McNeill

What he said.

samwithans — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:59:19 -0400

well said, at least someone gets it.

MIssing one important point

Fred Stutzman — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:24:48 -0400

Encoderer seems to be missing one important point. While the Facebook API has been available for some time, and there was gossip of the "platform launch" among insider circles, F8 was the launch of a qualitatively different product.

As I'm sure Encoderer is aware, before the launch of F8 there was no access to FML or even a notion of applications running in the profile. That was entirely new, and was in fact the purpose of the launch.

Essentially, what Josh and Micah are exploring is the privileged granting of access to FML, dev environments, testing, etc - all the things that went along with the F8 launch to provide Obama a interstitial profile application. "Regular" developers did not have this access until the launch of F8, at which point Obama had already launched his application.

I think these are pretty indisputable facts, so I don't see what all the controversy is in your comments. We're discussing the privilege of being a F8 partner, not API access, which is clearly a moot point.

Sam, What makes you think

Encoderer — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:53:53 -0400

Sam,

What makes you think I'm pissed off. What I am, is informed. You apparently are not, and moreover, you don't care to be.

This is just a hokey conspiracy theory whereby you assume that something illegal MUST be going on just because Chris Hughes has a connection to Facebook. Do you realize how many people in campaigns know people? They know publishers and editors and CEOs and powerful people of all walks. It's a non-starter to anyone that takes the time to realize that this has already been available TO EVERYONE, PUBLICLY, for months. Many applications have been out, for months.

Aldon,

Read thru the subsequent press releases -- about a dozen of them -- between August and May 2007. You'll see a continuously evolving PUBLIC BETA of all the existing features.

What has been available for how long?

Aldon Hynes — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:26:42 -0400

There are people here who seem to think that because some beta was released many months ago, this has been a fair playing field. However, reading through the various links, I sure don't see it that way.

The August press release said, "The API allows 100,000 REST queries a day to data like friends, the type of friends, photos, comments, pokes, and the wall". Yet what was announced last week is appears to be profoundly different.

On May 27th, Facebook spoke about 'The next evolution of Facebook Platform' with which 'You can now build applications that have the same access to integration into the social graph as Facebook applications'.

Did all the campaigns have the same level of access to the beta program and to information future development plans? Did members of campaigns other than those in the Obama campaign have any information that the Facebook Platform was evolving to the same level of integration as internal Facebook applications? I don't know, but I do believe these are very legitimate and important questions to be asking.

Chill out brah

samwithans — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:26:13 -0400

Don't get your panties in a wad, dude.

I still have little reason to believe that the Hughes/Obama relationship is on the up and up. The fact is, the campaign he worked on knew more about the project from the company he helped found than did any of the other campaigns (despite how horribly out of touch you think they are).

But have fun being pissed off.

Sam, Applications have been

Encoderer — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:36:10 -0400

Sam,

Applications have been available since August. Full blown applications. Ready and in use. Since August. There's no reason anybody would have to know the release date. Edwards or Clinton or Tom F'in Tancredo could have created these apps 8 months ago.

In fact, just another quick Google search and I found this:

http://gigaom.com/2007/05/24/facebook-aims-to-be-social-os-waiting-for-f...

This blogger knew of the launch at least 3 days in advance.

This wasn't exactly the manhattan project...

Alex, If you read my

Encoderer — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:25:42 -0400

Alex,

If you read my previous comments in this thread you'll see that there were publicly-available press releases going back to August, 2006. You'll see that there were commercially-developed apps using Platform all the way back in August, 2006.

That's 8 months ago. There is no way anybody can suggest impropriety. Shame on the authors of this article for not doing a little bit more research before suggesting such a thing.

Yes, Obama surely benefited from Chris Hughes being able to say "Facebook has a Beta version of its upcomming platform. It'll probably get a lot of press when it comes out of beta. We should utilize it" But there was no effort to conceal this from any other candidate. I mean, FOR CHRISSAKE, THERE ARE PRESS RELEASES.

You don't issue press releases when you want to keep something secret.

Nothing to see here. Move along.