Posts Tagged: politics


10
Sep 07

New Essay: The Vibrancy of Online Social Space

I’ve written this essay for a forthcoming volume on activism in Web 2.0 technologies and I’d like to open it up for critique and suggestion. This is a rough draft and I’ve got some time before my deadline – thanks for your help!

There is something essentially placeful about online social networks; as I log in, I am engaged by a cross-section of my social relationships. In an instant, information is revealed, opportunities are discovered, and a website becomes a social nexus – from which I can derive a sense of gratification, meaning and identity. Over the last few years, millions of us have come to know sites like MySpace and Facebook as social spaces, where the virtual and the real collapse, where a sense of community and interaction is integral to the experience. danah boyd has described social network sites as digital publics; in her extensive research she has discovered these digital spaces to be the third place for youth.

As political campaigns and organizing endeavors attempt to establish their place in these digital publics, should we take a step back and look at the characteristics of these spaces to determine what makes them vital? Can we think of social networks as digital cities, inhabited by permanently in-flux digital bodies? And if we’re always in flux, what about an online social space makes us actually want to stick around? In her 1961 work The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs described the sidewalk ballet of a vital urban environment. Jacobs argued that a vibrant and diverse city should possess four characteristic design elements, the first being that a neighborhood should be multifunction, creating activity throughout the day. Next, a city should have short blocks and its buildings should be multiform, creating interest and promoting exploration by inhabitants. Finally, Jacobs argued for density, in which different populations intersperse, affording variety and shared resources.

Applying Jacobs’ criteria to an online space creates a challenge; as a neighborhood jumps from the physical to the virtual, the nature of its goods changes. For example, while the neighborhood cinema is a rivalrous good, a video viewed in the context of an online space is non-rivalrous. While the scarcity and required sharing of resources is central to Jacobs’ philosophy, we can clearly see the sidewalk ballet enacted in online social spaces. As an example, let’s consider Facebook’s Newsfeed. When one logs into Facebook, they are provided a list of recent activity in their social network; a message may inform you that friend has written on another friend’s wall, or that a friend has posted an event. Originally unpopular due to privacy concerns, the Newsfeed has become one of the most popular features in the service. The Newsfeed creates the impression of activity; any time an individual logs on she is presented with a plethora of opportunities to engage with their social spheres.

Arguing for shorter blocks, Jacobs felt that this type of design would foster exploration by city dwellers. The “short blocks” analogy is alive and well in online social networks, where the ability to browse and explore fellow network participants fuels use. In a social network, we enumerate our identity as we describe our interests, tag each other, and post on walls and message boards. These “digital traces” are often hyperlinked, permitting endless point-and-click exploration of the social space. As it happens, people are very interesting to each other, and social networks leverage our interests by providing endless opportunities to explore those we know and care about. In fact, the articulation of identity in social networks might be analogized to Jacob’s call for variety in architecture and style in a neighborhood. Love it or hate it, the unending ability to customize Myspace profiles provides significant, desired variety in the space. It drives learning and adoption of the service, as individuals collaborate to make their space better represent their identity.

Indeed, online social networks are concentrated; in this sense they are unlike any neighborhood. Social networks allow for the centralization of one’s network in a single place; geographic boundaries are rendered insignificant as we connect across place and time. The social network allows the work friends to intermingle with grade school friends in an odd, often awkward dance.

While Jacobs’ perspective is instructive, we can also leverage it as an effective critique of online social networks. While the vibrant neighborhood was constructed to afford a variety of individuals the interesting and serendipitous experience of urban dwelling, online social networks often reinforce existing bonds, rather than encouraging exploration. In a study conducted at Michigan State University (Lampe, 2006), researchers found that friendships in social networks often began offline and migrated online, rather than the other way around. The city requires individuals of a variety of backgrounds and interests to share space and resources; how would Jacobs feel about an online space designed to self-reinforce bonds rather than encourage the development of new ties?

There is something otherworldly in being able to reach across a community with a search box or hyperlink; in online social spaces, we can access and “be present” with our friends in the click of a button. The social cost of relationship maintenance decreases; the birthday card is replaced with a wall post. We can certainly lament the depersonalization of online interaction, but we can’t impugn the outcome – we are able to manage larger collections of friends with less effort than ever before. Do these extended friend networks increase sociality or simply introduce new digital tethers to our social life? That is a question we’ll work towards answering, as the effects of these digital publics on our real world is explored.

We do know that online social networks represent meaningful digital spaces to millions of people. The daily life of the city, from the mundane to the significant, is being conducted in these spaces. We flirt, we interact, we do business, we seek out information and gratification, finding a complex social world at our fingertips. While the digital spaces we inhabit will have a good deal in common with our cities of concrete and granite, they are unique places with unique challenges. While the technological emphasis of relevance and searchability will create new types of interactions online, it would be wise for developers to pay attention to Jacbos; they will find both the meaning and the letter of her laws instructive.

References:
Lampe, C., Ellison, N. and Steinfeld, C. (2006) A Face(book) in the Crowd: Social Searching vs. Social Browsing. In Proceedings of CSCW 2006. ACM, New York: 167-170

This article is being developed for the book Generation 2.0: A Practical Guide to Using Web2.0 Technologies to Recruit, Engage & Activate Youth to be published by Jossey-Bass an imprint of John Wiley & Sons in early Spring 2008. A Rock the Vote project.


29
Aug 07

Facebook Platform Engagement and Political SNS

As we know, Facebook Platform is dealing with some serious spam/abuse problems. This is compromising the Facebook experience – even Facebook’s generally rock-solid technical infrastructure is paying the price (yesterday FB logged me in and out about 30 times, in addition to being offline). To address a part of this issue, FB is changing its ranking algorithm for its application directory to reward engagement. This is a good step, and I hope they also follow this logic down to the newsfeed; I don’t care about every application my friends try out, but rather what applications they enjoy and actually use.

This somewhat tangentially relates to an interesting post from Greg Bloom over at TechPresident. Greg challenges some of the metrics of SNS and widgetized engagement in the political sphere, and he brings up some great points – here’s a snippet.

There is an opportunity here. For months now I’ve been getting on the losing side of arguments about the utility of the Change.org and Facebook Causes app – I’d pan them because they have adopted a narrow fundraising paradigm that doesn’t seem to me to fit right, but I’d lose these arguments because I never was able to verbalize what exactly these political activism applications should encourage. I don’t think I’m going to lose that argument any more! It sucks to be reminded that you’ve raised zero dollars to stop global warming—and may I say that it must somehow suck even more to be reminded that you’ve raised a cool ten dollars to stop global warming—but if I could show my friends how many politicians I’ve told to do something about global warming… well, I just might shoot my mouth off at politicians all day.

So much of what’s exciting about this aspect of social networking is still in the realm of the hypothetical. The robustness of these interactions will depend upon some pretty fine technical points (like, when I post on a Senator’s wall, how widely will that message be distributed through my friends’ feeds? What if the message gets deleted from the politician’s page – is there a way so that my network still sees that I posted it in the first place?) Presumably, staffers will keep their bosses’ profile pages sparkly clean; presumably, once they realize how disruptive these walls could be, many politicians would take them down entirely (although many others would learn to embrace it). On the other hand, future “political action” apps will surely augment the process and make the Facebook interactions between constituents and their elected representatives even more dynamic.

I hope to respond to Greg’s post on TechPresident – you can read the full post here.


21
Aug 07

Freshman Political Orientation, 2007 edition

It’s hard to believe, but today marks the first day of classes here at UNC. That means summer’s over, and it’s time to pull out a few of my familiar Facebook tricks. One of my old favorites involves looking at the political orientation of our incoming Freshman class.

Click image to see full-size version

This year, I was able to observe the political orientation of 1855 of our Freshmen out of the ~3800 (based on 2006 numbers) who enrolled. Granted, this is a Facebook convenience sample, but I don’t have much reason to believe any group systematically over- or under-represents.

So what do the stats tell us? While the largest portion of students are Liberal, there’s strong representation in both the moderate and conservative blocs. This data gets particularly interesting when we compare it against the past two years; while the conservative bloc remains substantial, in 2007 we see a (statistically) significant shift away from incoming freshmen identifying as conservatives. Here’s the data by year:

Political Orientation 2005 2006 2007
Very Liberal 4.85% 4.75% 5.23%
Liberal 33.05% 33.58% 32.29%
Moderate 27.77% 27.77% 27.01%
Conservative 26.44% 26.46% 22.37%
Very Conservative .86% 1.14% 1.56%
Libertarian 1.56% 1.39% 3.02%
Apathetic/Other 5.67% 4.89% 8.52%
Margin of Error 1.36 1.28 1.63

In case you’re interested in seeing the original posts, here are my studies from 2005 and 2006. I’ve included the margin of errors for comparison across studies; each year I’ve had to tweak my methodology to adapt to FB, but I’ve always counted the same essential element.

Considering the political climate, it certainly isn’t surprising to see lower affiliation with conservative causes; what is interesting to me is that the “Liberal” or “Moderate” block hasn’t picked up new supporters. To this extent, I believe we’re seeing an exodus from conservatives unhappy with their party, and largely without a party to support.


17
Aug 07

Where are the PoliCommons?

A special note of congrats to fellow TechPresident contributors – four of whom where featured on the New York Times op-ed page today. Quoting Josh Levy:

Today the New York Times published an op-ed on “Changing the Terms of Debate,” giving “seven people with experience in both new media and old” the chance to weigh in on what “a real new media debate” would like. Included were techPresident’s Micah Sifry, Andrew Rasiej, David All, and Zephyr Teachout. Four out of seven ain’t bad!

While I enjoyed all of the pieces, Zephyr Teachout’s resounded especially. She asks:

I propose a full day of live one-on-one debates on unannounced issues, with no aides to help or reply. Each candidate would be paired with another candidate for seven 60-minute sessions. The candidates would switch off against one another until each candidate had debated everyone else: Mr. Edwards against Mr. Dodd, then Mr. Edwards against Mr. Obama, then Mr. Edwards against Mr. Kucinich, and on down the line. In an eight-candidate field, four debates would be taking place at once.

Each debate would have a live audience and Webcast. All 28 debates would be stored, open to the public, and licensed with simple software tools so that citizens could easily rewatch, remix and share. An ambitious blogger could create “Democrats on immigration,” splicing into one online video the smartest, funniest, most provocative statements from the debates.

The Internet doesn’t just enable cool avatars and the shorter form. It also allows the deeper form: cross-linked blog posts, extensive research, simultaneous screens and raw debate footage that anyone can scan online, at any time. New media are not constrained by the scarcity of TV network time.

This sounds a lot like a Political Commons to me: a funded, independent space that would create and distribute political content for anyone and everyone to remix, rebroadcast and mash up. The commons would act as more than a data store (though a data store of open-licensed political materials would be a good start), it would produce content with light context that would enable remixers to create innovative derivative products. The Poli Commons could provide a Digg-like system for voting and discovering submissions, and awards could be presented to those who make the most innovative content.

Like the source code for voting machines, our national political conversation should exist in a space where we are free to use and remix the content. With the exception of the CNN debates, most everything broadcast on television is copyright controlled. A foundation or effort dedicated to bringing conversation into a more “open” space seems to be idea long overdue.

Update: It looks like Yahoo is going to be holding a mash-up debate; Wired bemoans the mashups as inauthentic, however.


25
Jun 07

Working with Facebook Platform

I’ve been busy on many fronts lately, but last week I found a little time to play around with Facebook Platform. John Edwards, whose presidential campaign is based in my own backyard, lacked a Facebook App, so I set to building one for him (unofficially, of course). Techpresident covered the app last week, and it is slowly-but-surely drawing adopters.

The app is very simple – a first start – and I plan to take community feedback as I develop it. If you’ve got suggestions I’m all ears. It might be a fun experiment to see what we can put together.

The bigger news, however, is that I’m going to clean up the code, and release a GPL version that any campaign/organization can use to set up a very simple application in Facebook. As Josh Levy correctly points out, there’s an enormous, important audience in Facebook – so it’s worth the time and effort to attempt to reach out.

I hope to have this code ready sometime next week. In addition, I will be writing two articles on Facebook platform for AOL Developer Network/O’Reilly, which will explain and document how to use the platform (and why). So keep your eyes peeled, and if you support Edwards or would like to try out the app, check it out here.


4
Apr 07

Recent TechPresident Posts

Over the past few months, I’ve been writing for the excellent blog TechPresident. A project of the Personal Democracy Forum, the blog takes a non-partisan look at how the 2008 presidential candidates are using technology. The content there is really very interesting, and I urge you to check it out or add it to your feeds.

A few weeks ago, I decided to forego cross-posting my TechPresident posts to Unit Structures, just because they were sort of a huge context-leap and I like to keep this blog as focused as possible. As a compromise, every few weeks I’ll post a little update about recent posts I’ve contributed to Techpres. Here are a few recent posts:

Looking at Voter-Generated Presence on Candidate Websites
Fred Stutzman 04/03/2007
As candidates cede authority over their web presence to supporters, allowing the posting of voter-generated content to campaign sites, there are bound to be some interesting and unexpected consequences. I decided to explore the presence of voter-generated content on candidate sites and its effect on the site’s rank. The results I found are presented below.
- Covered by USA Today here and here

The New Influencers
Fred Stutzman 03/22/2007
Over the past two weeks, ParkRidge47 has effectively and persuasively illustrated the role voter-generated content will play in race to 2008. With over 2.3M views at time of writing, his 1984 culture-jack has become the canonical example of a voter-generated content coup. And while ParkRidge47 deserves a tremendous amount of credit for his work, it is important to remember that his is just one piece in an evolving story – why, the laughable Anti-Obama version of the ad has over 380k views despite its one-star rating.
- Covered by The Blue State

Myspace Impact Launches
Fred Stutzman 03/19/2007
As reported by David All last week, Myspace has launched its politics portal – Myspace Impact. And you know what? There isn’t much to write about. The Impact channel feels like little more than a hastily-thrown-together [1] landing page for “official” candidate profiles.
- Covered by MyDD

Searching for Social Media’s Holy Grail
Fred Stutzman 03/18/2007
In the Times coverage of Myspace Impact Pages for political candidates, I was struck by the following paragraph…In essence, we’re searching for the holy grail of social media.
- Covered by The National Journal

Feel free to send me any feedback, etc. If you’re going to be in the NYC area May 17-19, I will be there to hang out with JJB and attend the PDF Conference.


5
Mar 07

A Closer Look at Candidate Wikipeida Entries

Following up on my previous post on Wikipedia’s influence in candidate search results, I thought I’d take a look at each candidate Wikipedia entry. What follows is a graph that explores how frequently the candidate’s entry has been edited since 1/1/2007(1), how many times it has been reverted, claimed to be vandalized, and who is the entry’s most frequent editor. Some interesting findings follow.

Candidate Edits Since 1/1 (1) Reverts (2) Vandal (3) Top Editor (4)
Barack Obama 1397 191 20 HailFire (167)
Hillary Clinton 534 63 10 Wasted_Time_R (91)
Joe Biden 282 13 5 Andyvphil (28)
John Edwards 248 38 5 Jersyko (18)
Bill Richardson 204 15 4 Diluvial (12)
Dennis Kucinich 188 12 2 Amonk (20)
Christopher Dodd 167 5 1 Haus42 (45)
Mike Gravel 119 1 0 DavidYork71 (35)
Dem. Averages 392.4 42.3 5.9
Rudy Giuliani 583 46 4 Wasted_Time_R (125)
John McCain 482 62 15 204.193.6.90 (17)
Mitt Romney 413 39 14 Yellowdesk (37)
Sam Brownback 363 27 4 Getaway (106)
Ron Paul 215 17 1 SlamDiego (15)
Mike Huckabee 182 18 3 A.J.A. (26)
Tom Tancredo 152 12 4 SirAndrew1 (36)
Duncan Hunter 84 4 0 Victoria2007 (10)
Tommy Thompson 38 2 1 Ultimatecoolguy (7)
Rep. Averages 279.1 25.2 5.1

Note: Candidates with “locked” entries are bolded.

What can we learn from this graph? By far and away, Barack Obama has the most frequently updated Wikipedia entry. Of course, the entries of Edwards and Clinton are both locked, so that will contribute to their decreased update status.

Here’s what I found interesting. First, the percentage of reverts – about 10 percent of changes seem to be being reverted. A significantly less percentage of changes are outright vandalism.

What is also interesting is the average number of changes per day. In the 64 days since 1/1, Democratic Wikipedia pages have been changed an average of 6.125 times a day (or less than once every 4 hours), and Republican Wikipedia pages are changed an average of 4.36 times a day (or less than once every 6 hours).

Also interesting are the top “editors” of the pages. For one candidate, this top editor is responsible for 29% of all changes to the page since 1/1. You can browse the top editors of the candidate pages and learn a little bit more about them by clicking the links above.

Footnotes and Methdology:
(1) 1/1/2007 was an arbitrary choice of a date, designed to give all candidates an equal baseline for analysis.
(2) These are the total claimed reverts on the history page.
(3) These are the total times vandalism is claimed on the history page.
(4) Top editor of the page since 1/1, (Total edits)

This survey represents a one-time analysis of the change history of candidate Wikipedia pages. It was run on 3/5/2007, and the data was analyzed with simple custom-written software. The “reverts” and “vandalism” numbers are based on self-reports, there was no content analysis.