Cross posted to techPresident.com.
Since the 2008 races began, we’ve collectively watched the social technology space for emergent technologies that connect or motivate potential voters. I’ve looked for silver-bullet tools – a great Facebook app that brings the candidate to the voter, or a new type of social network tool that gets out the vote, raises funds efficiently, etc. Largely, I’ve been disappointed; the candidates haven’t developed too many cool or innovative tools, and the neat third-party ideas haven’t gained all that much traction (with a few notable exceptions). Even last week I was telling friends and reporters that this was the YouTube election, which unfairly writes off the whole social network space.
After watching the Iowa returns and reading blog and press accounts, I’m starting to see a potential third way for social network technology. Caveat, I don’t have ethnography to back this up, this is just my opinion, but I think there’s something here. So the old model of social network sites and campaigns proposes that some uber-tool, say a great Facebook app, leverages all sorts of information and eventually gets out the vote or raises funds. That is, the end goals of the electoral process can be attacked programatically, that all problems are solvable with enough data. A nice idea, but not true. Facebook’s Beacon and Social Ads are insightful here; even with unlimited data and great programming, machines attempting to “socially” influence fall short; the algorithms and points of interaction just aren’t human enough. I don’t want to join Blockbuster just because I’m served ads with the face of some guy I’ve met a few times, and I probably won’t switch my vote just because a candidate is spamming my newsfeed.
Lets step back for a second and think about where social networks excel: Birthday reminders. When I log into Facebook, I can see whose birthday it is today, and within a few seconds go post a “happy birthday” reminder on my friend’s wall. I’m happy, my friend is happy, and the whole transaction has cost me no more than thirty seconds. What can politicians learn from social network birthday messages?
Social networks encourage interaction, and the birthday wall posting is an example. There are two important factors in this transaction: the ease with which you can see your social network (the friend list) and ease and multiple methods which you can contact that friend through the network. By multiple methods, I mean wall posts, private messages, poking, superwall, etc. Unlike email, which is single mode and carries all sorts of social context, multiple methods of contact enable one to choose an appropriate space for messaging, one that fits the context. As political messages are sometimes controversial, having multiple message spaces enables the individual to consider the best space in which to pass the message, and act accordingly. That is, humans can effectively tailor their message to the space.
So what does all this mean? Social networks provide excuses for interaction. An articulable friend list makes it easy for one to envision and contact their network. And multi-modal messaging makes it more appropriate to pass political messages; if you’re not comfortable directly soliciting new friends to come to a fundraiser via direct, personal message, you could post a casual invite on their wall. Because there are multiple contexts and expectations, the humans can suss out the best venue for their messages and act accordingly. This effectively means more messages, passed by humans, in more appropriate, less spammy contexts. This means humans influencing humans, virtual shoes hitting the pavement.
One large question remains: how does this cycle of connection get started. In the technocentric vision, there’s some great algorithm in the sky that motivates us. In the scenario I’m posing, activation comes from far more traditional means: advertising, media coverage, empathy to candidate, etc. A potential connector is reached via the media and decides its time to start working for his or her candidate. The connector turns to online information sources, subscribes to mailing lists, Googles the candidate, and starts passing messages to like-minded friends in the social network context.
The obvious downside of this approach is that it reifies existing models, it blasts the technocentric approach, and it treats social networks as a message channel, not some revolutionary new social space. That is, its somewhat reality based. Simply because a generation uses social technology it does not mean that the entire playbook has to be thrown away. Young people see ads on TV, they page through the newspaper left open in the kitchen, and they pick candidates for reasons similar to anyone else. What is different about the social network users is that once activated and motivated, they can very effectively leverage these high-availability, low-spam, popular message networks to influence friends and contacts. In fact, the throwaway, simple nature of messaging in social networks is its virtue; a 2500-word email with graphics doesn’t work, but a young person may decide to click through a wall post or private message from a friends. And of course, once a cohort of supporters are identified, it becomes trivial to be always connected and activated in an SNS.
Web 2.0 technologies have long forced candidates to step back and take their hands off, there’s only so much they can control. Social networks are just another example; supporters will use the networks for purposes they devise. The record youth turnout in Iowa wasn’t caused by social networks, but one can imagine that wall postings, reminders, events, and personal messages kept young people activated, motivated and interested. It wasn’t a huge group, a Facebook app, or some algorithm that provided motivation, but rather interpersonal contact in appropriate venues. To this extent, social networks are part of a communication ecology, albeit a very important one for a very important demographic. Candidates should consider how best to leverage this reality, as it provides both a challenge and tremendous opportunity.
Fred Stutzman is a doctoral student, researcher and teaching fellow at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's School of Information and Library Science. He studies how people use social media.
