After months of trying to help Andrew Feinberg of CapitolValley.net organize this event, I am most proud to announce the CapitolValley/Scobleizer/Wine Library TV/Somewhat Frank/Social Times event

Robert Scoble & Gary Vanerchuk DC Bash!

Wednesday, June 25 from 6:00 PM to 9:30 PM (ET)

MCCXXII

1223 Connecticut Ave NW

Washington, DC 20036

Vaynerchuk is supplying free win.

There is, however, one catch: REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. Sign up at http://dcsocialmedia.eventbrite.com/.

Back from that cauldron of caustic backbiting known as the Democratic primary, I’m about ready to crack  knuckles and get busy on the IPDI blog.  What’s good?  Lot to talk about, needless to say. 

In examining the intersection of technology, public policy and politics, I’ve thought, or perhaps, worried a bit about how that links into our national imagination and sense of purpose.  Does the proliferation of information technology actually contribute in fulfilling and long term ways to the common good?  It might appear like a non-sensical question at first glance, but there’s some keep it real below the surface.  Whereas there is quite a bit to celebrate or proudly observe with respect to the record number of voters who participated in the Democratic primary this year (defying past apathy and breaking records at ballot lines), there was something also quite problematic about it all.  It’s one thing to get energized over a candidate and to vote for or openly support that candidate, but how informed of a voter are you? 

The explosive growth of blogs and the insance rotation of the 24/7 news cycle blurs the line between accurate information and irresponsible speculation and innuendo.  We the people eat it up. 

But, there’s something else to it all.  The technology, as great as it is, always poses a risk in terms of our collective motivations.  It can, potentially, make us lazy and intellectually lethargic.  True research and information accessibility is lost to the instant gratification of “Googling,” and citizens are no more motivated to confirm rumors over a Presidential candidate’s religion or whether he pledges allegiance than they are in picking a nail stuck in their foot.  There is a worry here that IT overload lulls the collective society into a mass sleep, since there is this feeling that everything, the world even, is literally at our fingertips.  In pushing the concept of a 21st century modern democracy, I’m more worried about intellectual laziness than I am about apathy.  At least with apathy, much of it is connected to a negative reaction and sense of hopelessness rising from disenchantment with the process and its gatekeepers.

I don’t suffer from claustrophobia, but as someone who has had an enduring love affair with science fiction, I have global claustrophobia.  Of being stuck on this planet and not having the luxury - at least in my lifetime - of traveling to other worlds or, at the very least, orbiting earth in a space hotel.  It is a sense that we still haven’t got our collective human act together, and as I’m watching episodes of Battlestar Galactica, I’m thinking that we’re way behind.  We can’t think outside the box of our cyberspace.  The Internet being so vast and infinite, there is a danger that too many users believe they have charted unknown territories already. 

“Why explore space when I have it on my desktop?”

Perhaps, I’m a bit old-fashioned, too.  This is, simply, how societies continue to evolve and technology is here to stay, so live with it.  It’s like music: just because I prefer Tribe Called Quest to Soldier Boy doesn’t mean the former is actually better than the latter; it just means that I’m older and that hip hop has changed or evolved - for better or for worse.

But, I can’t shake this feeling that our heavy reliance on information technology has moved us away from the purely academic but intellectually fulfilling exercise of DIY: doing it yourself.  We are duped into a sense of progress through bits, code and social networking sites. 

Gregg Easterbrook’s nightmarish article in this month’s Atlantic Monthly offers a higher sense of urgency to the argument above:

Given the scientific findings, shouldn’t space rocks be one of NASA’s priorities? You’d think so, but Dallas Abbott says NASA has shown no interest in her group’s work: “The NASA people don’t want to believe me. They won’t even listen.”

NASA supports some astronomy to search for near-Earth objects, but the agency’s efforts have been piecemeal and underfunded, backed by less than a tenth of a percent of the NASA budget. And though altering the course of space objects approaching Earth appears technically feasible, NASA possesses no hardware specifically for this purpose, has nearly nothing in development, and has resisted calls to begin work on protection against space strikes. Instead, NASA is enthusiastically preparing to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars on a manned moon base that has little apparent justification. “What is in the best interest of the country is never even mentioned in current NASA planning,” says Russell Schweick­art, one of the Apollo astronauts who went into space in 1969, who is leading a campaign to raise awareness of the threat posed by space rocks. “Are we going to let a space strike kill millions of people before we get serious about this?” he asks.

We can talk all day about the political reasons for the disastrous lack of common sense described above, but we must also ask ourselves an uncomfortable question: Are we lazy? The fact that we are so comfortable as to lounge back into a somewhat half-baked pre-Copernican worldview that Earth is “aight,” means that we give little thought to the vast universe in which we are a speck of dust.    

Charles D. Ellison, 6.5.08

This post was guest blogged by Jesse Greenberg.  

Kudos to all the organizers of the Politics Online Conference for putting together an excellent program.  And special thanks to Julie Germany who invited me as a guest on IPDI’s blog.

I was fortunate to win Golden Dot Awards in the categories of Best Website for State/Local Candidate and Best e-Blog for my role as a communications advisor to Daniel Biss, Candidate for State Representative in Illinois’ 17^th district.  I was fortunate because working for the Biss campaign afforded me the opportunity to implement new political strategies needed to build relationships with voters, raise funds and construct the campaign brand.  Winning the Golden Dots affirmed that we’re on the right track. 

The candidate, however, did not see the value of attending the conference or receiving the awards in person and would not assist in supporting my trip to DC.  My argument for going was that this earned public relations was testament to the campaign running on a new model that utilizes technology to involve district voters in having a greater say in their politics than ever before.  We could build on this momentum, I argued, to achieve definitive, measurable results for the minor investment in going to DC.  Alas, my argument did not win this time.

I’m not sharing this because I have an axe to grind.  On the contrary, I wish the candidate only success.  Rather, I’m sharing this to demonstrate how difficult putting faith in politics 2.0 can be, especially on the state or local level where resources are often tight.  In that environment it is comfortable to fall back on the traditional ways of campaigning—canvassing, direct mail, etc.—that are often not as a good an investment (confirmed by Sara Parker, Edelman VP in the workshop, “Developing Mobile Social Software Applications”) but at least are more of a known quantity.  And despite having embraced new campaign strategies, this campaign found it difficult to let go of old campaign models.  This demonstrates it is going to take another election or two to really transform American politics down to the local level. 

My sense from the beginning was that politics 2.0 is applicable at the local level.  In fact, I argue new campaign marketing strategies can be more effective at the local level simply because the scale is so much smaller.  It is therefore easier to manage relationships and maintain relevancy to voters that is impossible to do in the same way in presidential or congressional campaigns. 

I’ll use this as an opportunity to challenge candidates running at the local level to use new campaign methods and bring down the barriers between candidate and voter.  We are in a climate today that demands a greater level of political transparency.  We must allow greater involvement from voters, many of whom a candidate does not know personally—and that’s ok. 

Lastly, local candidates need to trust new faces (Millennials especially) who bring new ideas to politics.  We’re the vanguard of change and despite our age, our perspective is fresh and helping bring about a new age of campaigning occurring most notably at higher levels of politics.  Thanks to the Golden Dots though, we’ve got a place that recognizes and rewards new thinking in political campaigns. 

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.

Yesterday we hosted Steven Clift for a discussion about eGov. Yes, we held a discussion about eGov amid all the sex and rock-n-roll that is the presidential primary season, when (oddly enough) the actual process of leading may at times get lost in a fog of stump speeches, debate bickering, and negative ads.

In the United States, we’ve become incredibly effective at raising money online – for political candidates, for big, fancy non profits, for issues groups. We’re also good at generating a tremendous amount of noise online.

Perhaps part of the problem results from a lack of executive-level vision about using technology in public leadership. When I talk to leaders about using the Internet, for example, to increase government transparency and build public spaces online, I am more often than not told “you should talk to my webmaster. S/he handles this for me.” Or, “You should talk to my online consultants.” As if every major technology decision trickles hap-hazardly from a few rungs lower on the hierarchy up to the top. As if technology and technology-powered public involvement are too trivial (or overlooked or tedious or technical) to receive a place in the organization’s vision.

Clift thinks that a disconnect occurs between what people want and what politicians want. In a digital age, says Clift, voters expect two-way communications. We want to talk, and we want politicians to hear us before talking back. Politicians want one-way communication.

Where do we go from here, as the excitement of this week becomes that awkward lull between the primaries and the conventions? Clift has a top-five list of things we can do to make digital leadership an important part of the democratic process:

1. Build public life online.
2. Get candidates to make public promises about how they will use the Internet in office.
3. Contribute time and money to public spaces online.
4. Request a new government vision for technology and require more information services online.
5. Demand truly public spaces online, built from the local level up.

Ari Schwartz from the Center for Democracy & Technology has a good metaphor for this. Public parks, he said yesterday, are a precedent. Americans already value the preservation of public spaces in the form of parks. Preserving public spaces online, however, will require building public demand and pressure over time.

Building public spaces is one of the many things Clift does daily. Check out http://e-democracy.org.

We’ll cover the topic at a plenary panel Schwartz is chairing at the Politics Online Conference and a breakout panel Clift will speak on.

Amid all the excitement around Iowa and the upcoming New Hampshire Primaries, we want to step back, take a breath, and look at what happens when all the excitement is over and Election Day is yesterday’s headline.

In 2007, we saw (to some degree) that politicians are, in fact, interested in obscure-sounding things like “interactivity” and “online communications channels” and “technology-infused conversation” – especially when reaching people online increases fundraising dollars and votes (and who can blame them, really?).

Then what? Do we expect our elected officials to chuck their techno-powered promises of creating conversations and communicating at the podium after their acceptance speeches? What responsibilities do elected officials have to continue using technology in a democratic way? What about the issue of access?

I am inclined to think that the role of digital leadership should receive increased emphasis over the course of the next few years. How does one lead, govern, and create policy in an Internet era?

Steve Clift has a few things to say about what technology-powered politics should look like after the confetti drops:

Information access, considered the safe starting point for government accountability online now mostly presents the public a daunting needle in a huge haystack. This system is so complicated that the valuable and substantive information that government produces is often ignored in the increasingly interactive public lives of active citizens. . The lack of real and effective online access to governance will substantially increase cynicism about and distrust in government among a public that demands a more participatory representative democracy.

This quote is taken from Clift’s essay, Join the Evolution – Ten Practical Online Steps for Government Support of Democracy. Clift is coming to DC to lead a discussion we are hosting on January 9^th called Great Expectations: After the vote – citizens online, e-democracy in governance, and White House 2.0. Register by Wiki at http://pages.e-democracy.org/Great_Expectations.

We’ll continue the conversation during a plenary discussion at our 2008 Politics Online Conference, chaired by Ari Schwartz (Center for Democracy and Technology) and featuring Ellen Miller (Sunlight Foundation), Tom Steinberg (mySociety.org) and former congressman Rick White (Wood Bay Group). Details at http://polc.ipdi.org.

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

Yesterday, Yahoo! launched Kickstart, an interesting application designed to give students and alumni a place to seek career advice, find jobs and internships and to network with people in fields related to their interests. Kickstart’s interface has places for new users to list their employment and education histories, their interests/activities, skills and a few other categories. It also allows people to make “connections” with other people and to “follow” companies. In a nutshell, think Facebook meets Monster.com meets LinkedIn.

Like any other social network, Kickstart will only succeed if it can provide a sizable user base. As a soon-to-be graduating college student, myself, there is a definite place in the web2.0 world for a utility like Kickstart. However, this will go nowhere unless it gains some credence in the social networking sphere. Recently, I have been fooling around with other social utilities (most notably Twitter and LinkedIn) and I don’t anticipate staying on either, as I do not have enough friends or even acquaintences on either to devote some of my valuable web2.0 time to each respective website. Kickstart certainly could become a popular and useful utility, but it just as easily fail.

Recently, I have been thinking about the analogy of the modern-day internet as a cupboard filled with snack foods. Each snack is equivalent to a small portion of time spent online; activities such as checking new photos on Flickr, updating your status on Twitter, writing on someone’s wall in Facebook or viewing a video on YouTube are separate snacks. While every user doesn’t have the same size “appetite”, every user has a limit to how many snacks they can consume. Therefore each website is essentially fighting to be consumed. With the seeming constant addition of new snack foods recently, new applications have to truly stand out and even more importantly satisfy users’ hunger to succeed. To satisfy my proverbial hunger, Kickstart needs to recruit enough people that my time spent using the application brings some meaning to my life.

If you are on Kickstart, or join, check out my profile and follow me.