techPresident - social networks - Comments

I don't think we disagree

Micah L. Sifry — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:42:30 -0500

Valdis--

Great to hear from you. As you know, I am a big fan of your work.

I don't think we disagree. I am not saying that activists should pay such close attention to the mainstream media, but that it appears they do because they believe the media is the one institution that can have meta-effects on local conversations. Or rather, its output is the one most visible aspect of the millions of micro-conversations that people are actually having around the election--and activists are attracted to the high-intensity conversations generated by news reporting as opposed to the long tail of water-cooler conversation that most people actually pay attention to.

It may very well be that your mantra is right: "it's the close conversations" that matter most in affecting individual voting decisions, far more than whatever frames the MSM attempts to place over the course of the election.

national network vs. local network

orgnet — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:22:40 -0500

Micah, thanks for the post, the links, and the nice feedback. Yet, I think we disagree on this one point...

"Um, I think this is why so many activists play such close attention to the power of the mainstream media, as it is still the primary network that "binds" us together around elections."

I really don't care what is happening in the national network, but I do care what my local social network is thinking. If I were to ever vote for American Idol, I don't care what the rest of Ohio or the nation are doing. I do care what the people in my family room are thinking or those on-line at the moment who are discussing this vote with me. In other words, "friends & family" matter in my vote, but strangers don't. Same holds true for government elections.

I stick by my 2004 political mantra -- "it's the conversations, stupid"... but update it to be more precise: it's the [close]conversations, stupid. "close" can be physical or emotional or social distance... the biggest affect is when all 3 are combined.

Great post, Patrick

Micah L. Sifry — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:44:57 -0400

I think you sum up the current state of play pretty well. As Andrew and I wrote for the Politico a week ago:

The presidential campaigns just aren’t giving their supporters, or the wider public, very much to do or talk about. Yes, most of the campaigns are embracing the bells and whistles of the social Web.

Every presidential candidate has a blog and a presence on the major social networking sites, such as MySpace and Facebook. Many of them have created platforms where their supporters can create their own mini-campaign on the candidate’s behalf, with tools for raising money, organizing events and writing their own blog posts.

But if you look for bottom-up dynamism on these sites — the kind that gave the Howard Dean campaign its energy in 2003 — you won’t find it. The official campaign blogs are written by the equivalent of digital press secretaries.

While the blog posts written by grass-roots supporters may show some spontaneity and genuine passion, all the campaigns — even Obama’s, which has the largest base of grass-roots supporters — keep those tightly under wraps.

None of the campaign websites devote consistent space on their home pages to independent efforts on the candidate’s behalf; every inch of their online real estate is devoted to pushing their message, as opposed to trusting others to spread that for them.

It’s obviously still early to draw final conclusions about the Net and the 2008 presidential campaign. But the way things are going right now, it looks as though the whole field — not just the Republicans — has retreated from the high-water mark of bold online politicking set by Dean last cycle.

They’re all playing it safe, using the new tools of the Web at a fraction of their real capacity.

As for what Tex says about the Ron Paul movement, I think he's got a point too. Whether you agree with Paul or not, it's clear that he's putting forward a set of ideas that stand apart from the Republican pack, and that are galvanizing an activist base. From that energy flows action and innovation (though most of what the Paul-ites are doing is making good use of the existing tools of the social web, like Meetup and YouTube and the social network hubs, as opposed to innovating). Maybe the evident lack of energy on and around the sites of the major candidates has more to do with their failure to ignite passionate supporters around a unifying message, than the degree of control the campaigns are exercising through their web-based efforts.

I have mixed thoughts on this.

Freedomfighter — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:07:03 -0400

I have mixed thoughts on this. I hope the bloggers here will chime on this posting. The fact is Dean was boosted as an activist movement and his website reflects that. Activists are more geared to promoting ideas or representing a group of people as opposed to candidate campaigns which focus more on donors and voters in specific time frame. Activists do not require a time frame. Candidate campaigns, however, focus on specific time frames and must target specific groups. The approach is automatically going to be different.

Patrick is right about the political use of the internet seems to have slipped but that is because things have not really geared up yet. See the following link to an animation from American Solutions which will have big event next week.

http://americansolutions.advomation.com/animation/

An example of a donor site is Club for Growth which has all the activity he desires in a website, but it really does not draw a lot of traffic.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org

Activists groups, such as the following, thrive on attention and issues and are not constrained by donors or candidates.

http://www.veteransformedicalmarijuana.org/

http://www.downsizedc.org/

http://www.mpp.org/

… then there is Rush Limbaugh who downplays the internet, but uses it quite well on his site below. He effectively uses the internet. You can find statistics on how many listeners he has but the big question is how many pay to listen to him over the internet?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/

Innovation

Tex MacRae — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:09:52 -0400

You're a smart guy, Patrick, but as long as you persist in misunderstanding the nature of internet innovation, we're just going to run right over you "web 2.0" strategists. You're looking up at some stodgy old suited fatcats and their corporate campaign staffs and wondering why they don't innovate? It's absurdly funny and a little pathetic.

People innovate when they see an unfulfilled need. Now, you, as a war supporting neocon, aren't going to like this - but the need that Dean fulfilled was for a candidate willing to speak out against the war. That's what drew people in swarms to Dean. He was the only one willing to even feebly represent that voiceless and ignored constituency which was vilified and marginalized in their own country. Of course, he was a fatally flawed vessel for their hopes and he imploded under the pressure.

Now, we have Ron Paul. Don't you wish someone would make a video like this about Rudy or Mitt?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFy--JHgYIw

You won't admit it, but you do. I've seen you guys try to coopt the Revolution language that RP supporters made their own. David All signs his emails "Revolution." You write lame posts about "The summer it started to happen" all the while looking up instead of out, where ideas galvanize real people to action. Innovation is the same whether it's done on the web to reclaim freedom or to invent a way to light a dark room. It's a response to an unfulfilled need. When enough people band together to advance their ideas, you have a "revolution." It has nothing to do with stupid Jumpcut websites millionaires graciously allow the peasants to use in their behalf, or pretty icons on a website. Look to Thomas Paine, pamphleteer for freedom or Paul Revere yelling from horseback.

Regardless of the communication medium - and that's what the web is, a means of communication - true revolutionaries have a real message. It's the message that matters, not the medium. When your candidates can deliver a real message enough people care about, people will innovate in their behalf.

In the meantime, go back to looking up. We have a revolution to fight.

Maybe 2008 isn't the cycle for innovating

Luigi Montanez — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:13:41 -0400

I agree with your premise that there just isn't much innovation this cycle, but maybe that's just fine. The rapid innovation and adoption of new technologies that occurred from 2003 to 2006 was staggering. Maybe 2008 is about clamping down best practices, refining strategies, and using the technology out there in the most effective way. Innovation always happens in waves after all.

I noticed that you just couldn't resist the petty cheap shot against Howard Dean in there. I'll try to be the better partisan, so here's to hoping that your side innovates this cycle by becoming a bunch of Republican Preditors.

Leftmost Bit

Now's the Time to Call for Change

everyoneserves — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:49:01 -0400

We're calling the next president and congress to enact a program of mandatory national service. Though President Bush missed his chance to ask for a common sacrifice from all Americans, we believe this election offers another opportunity for national leaders to call everyone to serve. Now we need to show them that there's support for universal service from across the political spectrum. On what other topics can you find Melvin Laird, John Edwards, David Brooks, and Joe Klein in agreement?

Join our fight and sign the Everyone Serves petition.

Rob Johnston
Campaign for National Service
http://everyoneserves.org

One of the highlights...

David All — Mon, 21 May 2007 18:48:23 -0400

First, props to the editors for tracking this down. I've been looking for it.

Second, snaps to Danah for giving one of the most impressive and important speeches of the Conference.

Great work.

________________________________________
David All
The David All Group
http://davidallgroup.com
________________________________________