For those of you attending (or thinking of attending) the upcoming Politics Online Conference, consider attending two panels I have assembled: Social Networking/Media Strategy of the Presidential Campaigns and Open Source Advocacy. While it may be too soon to say that this aspect of online campaigns is the “be all, end all” of online strategy, there have been some great innovations in this space this campaign cycle.

Social Networking/Media Strategy of the Presidential Campaigns

The panel includes Justine Lam, eCampaign Director for Ron Paul; Amy Rubin, former Deputy Director of New Media for John Edwards; Katie Harbath, Deputy eCampaign Director for Rudy Giuliani; and Michael Turk, former eCampaign Director for Bush-Cheney ‘04 and my fellow blogger at techPresident.com.

The panel will explore two contrasting views of using the social web for campaigns: it has not been useful (for some) and it has been essential (for others). I suppose where you sit is where you stand.

In any event, come join us at 3:30p on March 4 and join the debate.

Open Source Advocacy

On March 5 at 3:00p, I am chairing a second panel on Open Source Advocacy. This panel will explore how open source software, software that is free to use, though not necessarily free to implement, can help advocacy organizations. The panel includes Michelle Murain, who blogs on Non-profit technology at the ZenofNPTech.org; Ryan Ozimek, President of PICnet and a core Joomla developer; Michael Haggerty, President of Trellon and a core Drupal developer; and Jo Lee founder of CitizenSpeak, an open source advocacy campaign tool that integrates with CiviCRM.

Both panels should be very interesting and I encourage all to attend.

IPDI’s very own financial director, Chris Brooks, who moonlights on campus as the chairman for the George Washington University College Republicans, made CNN last week. In a short three-minute video you can see here, Chris and a few other GW students managed to get their two cents in about college-age voters’ use of the Internet.

Chris, like most of us here at IPDI, is a compulsive Web surfer and admits as much in the video. While this expression of love for 24/7 access to the candidates might scare off a few Luddites (mostly because that’s all that is really left of that movement…just a few), Chris is a good example of how plugged-in young voters can enjoy greater breadth of knowledge about the candidates than our parents’ generation could through newspapers and once a night newscasts just by heading over to the dot-coms for the news networks or junkie sites like RealClearPolitics.

And I am not just saying this because Chris is the guy who fills out my paycheck…although a small blogging bonus could never hurt!

Last night, the much-hyped news segment on Facebook, was aired on 60 minutes. If you didn’t happen to catch it, you can find it here.

The interview didn’t elicit any new information to those of us who have been following Facebook and its spheres of influence from the beginning. However, it does signify a small landmark-of-sorts, in the sense that the traditional media rarely acknowledges web2.0. And 60 minutes is as traditional media as it gets.

In the interview Lesley Stahl mentioned, albeit briefly, Facebook’s influence on politicians and campaigning

Stahl: You know, it used to be, first, you went on “Face the Nation” if you were a candidate; then well, no, you went on “Letterman.” Now it seems the candidates have to be on Facebook. Are you changing the way candidates are running for president?

Zuckerberg: Well, I think because politicians can communicate with tens of thousands of people at the same time, it’s pretty effective for them in campaigning.

While clearly these observations aren’t earth-shattering, it is nice to see a slight departure from mundane horse race coverage, and attention being paid to innovation in the campaign process instead. 2007 was a landmark year for Facebook, but it certainly wasn’t the only online application or website that deserves recognition for its achievements in the political and technology spheres. To fill that void, I want to mention IPDI’s Golden Dot Awards which will be presented at the 2008 Politics Online Conference this March 4-5. The Golden Dots recognize the best and most exciting online achievements and ideas in the 2007 calendar year in the following categories:

• Technology Impact Moment-of-the-Year
• Online Politician-of-the-Year
• Online Dream Team
• Best Website: Federal Candidate
• Best Website: State and Local Candidate
• Best Website: Issue Advocacy Campaign
• Best eGovernment
• Best Blog- eCampaign
• Best Blog- Political Coverage
• Best Blog- Issues and Advocacy
• Best Mobile/Text Messaging Campaign
• Best Podcast Series
• Best Networked Campaign
• Best Vlog
• Best Political Web Video
• Best Political Animation/Mash-up
• Best Online Collective Action Effort
• Best Online Get-Out-The-Vote Campaign
• Best Online Political Application
• Poli-Tech Innovator-of-the-Year
• Best Online Political Advertising Campaign

If you feel that you, your organization or company or anyone else that you know should be honored for their online political achievements in 2007, please go to the Politics Online website and nominate them. Nominations close on January 30, 2008. In February, the winners of each award will be voted upon by the public on the POLC website.

Facebook can help you win friends and feel better, according to a study on Facebook use among college students (via NY Times). The study, “The Benefits of Facebook ‘Friends:’ Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites” was conducted at Michigan State University by Nicole B. Ellison, Charles Steinfield and Cliff Lampe.

According to their research, some types of Facebook use can maintain and increase bridging social capital between the types of relationships that social researchers call “weak ties.” Lest the Grinches who believe that the Internet is a dreadful thing indeed proclaim victory over all of us naïve believers, “weak ties” doesn’t imply “bad ties” or even “latent ties.” Rather, weak ties can be beneficial because they provide new information and perspectives. What they lack, however, is emotional support.

The researchers designed questions to look at how emotionally connected the respondents were to Facebook, as well as how integrated the site was in their lives. Of particular interest to me are the questions on social capital:

Bridging Social Capital Scale
I feel I am part of the MSU community

I am interested in what goes on at MSU

MSU is a good place to be

I would be willing to contribute money to MSU after graduation

Interacting with people at MSU makes me want to try new things

Interacting with people at MSU makes me feel like a part of a larger community

I am willing to spend time to support general MSU activities

At MSU, I come into contact with new people all the time

Interacting with people at MSU reminds me that everyone in the world is connected

Bonding Social Capital Scale
There are several people at MSU I trust to solve my problems

If I needed an emergency loan of $100, I know someone at MSU I can turn to

There is someone at MSU I can turn to for advice about making very important decisions The people I interact with at MSU would be good job references for me

I do not know people at MSU well enough to get them to do anything important

Maintained Social Capital Scale
I’d be able to find out about events in another town from a high school acquaintance living there

If I needed to, I could ask a high school acquaintance to do a small favor for me

I’d be able to stay with a high school acquaintance if traveling to a different

I’d be able to find information about a job or internship from a high school acquaintance

It would be easy to find people to invite to my high school reunion

The study was conducted in April 2006 (an eon in web years – look at how much Facebook has changed in the past year and a half).

Will the academic study of the Internet ever set standards for the practices of political operatives, campaigns and politicians, or will it forever be trying to play catch up to the constantly changing technology?

This was one of the most interesting questions that I received after presenting my undergraduate thesis yesterday afternoon. My initial thought is that for the foreseeable future scholarship of the Internet would not be able to catch up to constantly changing technology. If anything, the constant push towards advancement and the presence of hundreds of millions of dollars that are being spent on acquiring Internet companies is allowing technology to increase its metaphorical lead over academics. I come to this conclusion after reading two dozen scholarly books and articles about politics and the Internet, only a few of which had any salience towards current practice. The lack of conclusions that can be turned into actual practice is not because of bad research (in all but a few cases), but rather because the technology discussed is outdated, even though all of the studies have been conducted in the last 8 years.

My thesis- a literature review of the study of the Internet’s effect on political communications and democracy- identified six main areas or questions that scholars have been considering when approaching the topic of online politics:

1. How does the Internet Age of political communications fit into the history of media and politics? What forces drove the Internet Age to come about?
2. How has the Internet changed the process through which politicians, professional political communicators, campaigns and organizations operate? What may the future hold?
3. What is a blog? What effects do blogs have on political discourse? What societal and political norms do they advance? What is the personal, social and political influence of blogs?
4. What are the implications on democratic societies of Internet-users who can choose what news content they consume?
5. What is the relationship between Internet use and individual-level production of social capital as it relates to politics? Are there generational differences
6. What are the consequences of the growing digital divide on democratic societies as the Internet continues to gain prominence and utilities?

Admittedly, these categories are from perfect. In my opinion this is driven by an overall lack of homogeneity in the study of the Internet. In my research I found that very few scholars are trying to refine or challenge other scholars already published studies. Instead, most scholars are tackling a new aspect of the Internet and trying to put their mark on an emerging field. In the very simplest terms, this makes synthesizing the research more difficult for my thesis; however, it brings up the major question I ask at the end of my thesis: What questions do academics need to focus on in the future of the study of politics in the Internet sphere? And how do they need to approach their studies differently?

Here are some of my initial thoughts:

1. Has the Internet’s significance in political actions changed over time?
2. Do social networking activities have an effect on political campaign? Can politicians target likely voters with the personal information provided by users on their social networking webpages?
3. What are the driving factors in political activities online? Political needs or technology improvements?
4. What are the implications of online micro-donations in political campaigns?

I’d like to start a conversation in the comment potion of this blog post on other questions that scholars should be asking.

Here is the entire Powerpoint I used during my presentation.

Truth in Advertising: I just recently ended a six-month internship with Verizon’s PolicyBlog last week, so now I can write about them without having a major conflict of interest.

Today, my former boss, John Czwartacki, sent me a facebook message informing me that an idea I had for Verizon to create a Facebook application which allows people to send SMSs to their friends straight from their profile came to fruition (Note: I do not believe I was the one who spurred the application into reality, but did come up with the idea independently).

While being absolutely no expert on SMS and mobile politicking, I think that iterations of this allowing friends to send political text messages to friends via Facebook, could have positive implications for campaigns- specifically in the field of mobilization. However, I say this with one MAJOR caveat; that is, that any application such as this must only work with users who opt in.  For virtually all cellphone users, unsolicited text messages are just as much of an annoyance as sales calls and in many cases even more annoying due to the high cost of texts without a specific text message plan. However, for those who do allow it and have unlimited texting, this can be a good easy and non-invasive way to make brief announcements. Even with those who opt-in I imagine that text messages from any organization should be kept to a relative minimum.

For those interested in Verizon’s Text-a-Friend app: http://apps.facebook.com/vzwtextafriend/application_added.aspx

“The Internet is the new direct mail and talk radio of the 1980s, but instead of the Republicans leading the way, now the Democrats have control of this new medium.”

-Jim VandeHei

VandeHei, co-founder of The Politico, gave what was perhaps the most salient quote from a discussion on Wednesday at the National Press Club’s Ballroom entitled the same as this post. A discussion with top online people from the Guiliani, Romney, Biden and Fred Thompson campaigns along with a representative from Blue State Digital provided some very interesting insight into how presidential campaigns are approaching political Internet strategy.

Looking at the statistics, it is clear that Democrats have more supporters on social networking portals such as MySpace and Facebook and more traffic to other online initiatives than Republican candidates do, especially if you omit Ron Paul’s presence. However, the Republicans noted that this isn’t the greatest cause for concern because still many of their supporters, especially those in the 45-year-old and up demographics are not participating in the online discussion and still able to be reached by more traditional campaign methods. While here at IPDI we would like everyone to move to the online era, we can’t ignore the fact that not everyone has completely bought in.

Another interesting topic of discussion focussed on how each candidate prioritized what to try and what not to try online, which elicited the following response from Mindy Finn of the Romney campaign, “There is no road map. No play-book. Nothing. Everything’s new. We’re just throwing things out there and seeing what sticks.”

This seems fitting to me as, basically, the entire Internet follows the same model. Thousands of Internet start-ups and concepts are put forth every year, but only a few YouTubes and Facebooks emerge out of the fray. However, Eric Carbone of Biden’s campaign noted that this “throwing things out there” is more the case for the bigger campaigns than for the smaller lower-budget ones. Noting that less-funded campaigns don’t necessarily have the money to be the early adapters, “But, once something works everyone else tries it immediately. There is a lot of idea borrowing,” he said.

I just did a search on the front page of our blog and found no mentions of Google. Considering the prevelence of Google in general discussion of the Internet and frankly our obsession with many of its applications here at IPDI, I have decided to remedy the absence.

In my daily perusal of my RSS feeds (surprise… using Google Reader) I saw this post by Steve Rubel about how to turn one’s Gmail (or any other email) into a social networking hub. For those of us who are having trouble keeping up with multiple social networking sites- or even just a “healthy” addiction to one site- there are some very useful tips in this post. With so many people joining networks like Facebook and MySpace, friends lists are exploding and its becoming harder and harder to manage what is supposed to be a tool for simplifying social exchanges. Having employed some of the techniques Rubel mentioned, to manage an event I am hosting tonight, I have significantly reduced the time it would have normally taken to log into Facebook’s website and do the same there.

Now if only it will go the other way too. Recently I’ve been having trouble keeping track of all the Google Applications I use. My proposal is that Google takes a page out of Facebook’s proverbial book and adds a personal mini-feed to Gmail accounts. This way I can know when someone has editted one of my shared Google Documents, when an event in my Google Calendar has been changed, or when I’ve been ignoring my Google Reader too long and have 693 new posts to read.

Oh yeah and so that my uncle- over at Yahoo!- doesn’t completely disown me, I still use Yahoo! for Fantasy Sports… you know, so that I am not completely brainwashed by the Google-ites.

The junta regime in Burma is facing massive protests again, this time led by the country’s monks. Unlike the last major protests, people around the world are paying attention this time. The Burmese government tries to be secretive and control communications, but with the spread of blogs and other new media, it is proving too difficult.

This Guardian Unlimited piece details some of the blogging going on in Burma. A search on Facebook for “Burma monks” shows 40 groups wanting to support these protesters. Over on the BBC website, some news pieces are using video footage that has been sent to them from inside Burma. Some people inside Burma were saying the government has decreased internet bandwidth and cut phone lines to slow down and prevent communications with the outside world. A lot of the footage and reporting coming from Burma is done through networks of underground individuals who risk being arrested on the spot. They believe the story must be told, and the rest of the world is watching.

Images and blogging are here.

Minute-by-minute accounts here.

What good is Facebook?

It depends upon who you talk to.

The government of the Province of Ontario, Canada recently announced that it was banning use of Facebook for government employees and elected officials. Why? The government simply does not believe that the site adds value.

Sure, that means no updating your profile during work hours. But it also appears to mean that no elected officials can conduct voter outreach on Facebook – one of the fastest growing online communities.

In an article published this morning, the BBC puzzles over the ban, suggesting that the decision may, in fact, isolate government from the very people it serves:

Is there really no benefit to have government policy makers access and participate in the hundreds of groups discussing Ontario health care issues? Would it be so bad for elected officials to actually engage with their constituents in a social network environment?

The attempts to block Facebook or punish users for stating their opinions fails to appreciate that social network sites are simply the internet generation’s equivalent of the town hall, the school cafeteria, or the workplace water cooler - the place where people come together to exchange both ideas and idle gossip.

Online Advertising: Too Risky?

While the government in Ontario has closed the doors to Facebook outreach for the near future, Times Online reports that the UK Government has decided not to purchase advertising on sites that contain user-generated content – including Facebook.

Facebook’s value isn’t being questioned. Rather, the decision was made because the Central Office of Information, which controls the Government’s advertising budget, is worried about “Government messages appearing alongside offensive or otherwise unsuitable material,” like negative comments, criminal activity, and office gossip.

Instead of closing the door permanently on all sites, Jamie Galloway, the COI director of digital media, suggests the approach will be measured and sites will be reviewed:

COI is not considering removing all social media activity indefinitely. COI are regularly reviewing the use of social media in government communications campaigns, to ensure they are effectively reaching target audiences.

These two events lead us to a set of questions about the intersection between government outreach and user-generated content:

• How can governments conduct social networking outreach in a way that reaches voters and conforms to its own values?
• Are our values about “good” and “bad” online content are outdated when it comes to determining which sites provide an appropriate environment for government outreach and which do not?
• Does it really detract from an elected official’s message if a girl in a bikini leaves a comment on that official’s Facebook profile?
• Will an ad for a government organization be less effective because it happens to appear on a social networking page on which users post heated and sometimes profane opinions about political matters?