Don’t forget that we love to receive and publish guest posts! For inspiration, take a look at what Dan, Joel, Bruce, Jarry, and Christy have done. Hope to see some of your writing soon! – J
(0)Monthly Archive for April, 2008
Page 3 of 10
I recently wrote about my hopes that political candidates would carry their newfound appreciation for the social web from into office as elements of a “collaborative governance” strategy. Here’s another danger in candidates that use the social web as much as possible in the context of a campaign, only to drop those tools like a bad habit as soon as they’re elected…or drop out of the race: resentment from internet communities. Stowe Boyd writes an open complaint to John Edwards (emphasis mine):
So, you opt to try to exploit the edglings by signing up to Twitter, and writing a blog, and all that newfangled web stuff, trying to mine the potential there with ersatz involvement and cheesy, inauthentic participation: cramming old one:many messaging into a conversationally rich environment.
Then, you drop out. And proof that it is totally bogus, you just stop. Bam. No ‘thanks for the memories’, no ‘see you in the funny papers’, and certainly no ongoing involvement, since after all, there really was no involvement involved.
Proof of old politics wolf in new politics sheep’s clothing: they assume the ways of the new social web revolution as a means to come into contact with us, but when they lose (and maybe when they win, as well?) they drop the pretense of involvement, and go back to whatever they really believe in. Which is clearly not this new emerging whatever-the-hell-it-is on the web.
They will try to exploit web culture for their own purposes, but they aren’t really engaged here.
Harsh, but largely justified. I expect these types of complaints to multiply until politicians truly embrace the social web as something other than a tool to be used in the context of elections. These campaigns are developing impressive, dedicated, engaged communities online. But online activists are not going to flock to a campaign that refuses to appreciate them.
We’ve talked about the future of reading here in the past. But what about the future of writing? Or more specifically, the future of writing abilities?
The Pew Internet & American Life Project released a new report today that demonstrates what it calls an “interesting paradox” in teen writing habits:
Teens are utilitarian in their approach to technology and writing, using both computers and longhand depending on circumstances. Their use of computers for school and personal writing is often tied to the convenience of being able to edit easily. And while they do not think their use of computers or their text-based communications with friends influences their formal writing, many do admit that the informal styles that characterize their e-communications do occasionally bleed into their schoolwork.
The study goes on to cite several interesting statistics gleaned from a phone survey last November of 700 teens and their parents. Again, from the press release
:
87% of youth ages 12-17 engage at least occasionally in some form of electronic personal communication, which includes text messaging, sending email or instant messages, or posting comments on social networking sites. 60% of teens do not think of these electronic texts as “writing.” 57% of teens say they revise and edit more when they write using a computer. 63% of teens say using computers to write makes no difference in the quality of the writing they produce. 73% of teens say their personal electronic communications (email, IM, text messaging) have no impact on the writing they do for school, and 77% said they have no impact on the writing they do for themselves. 64% of teens admit that they incorporate, often accidentally, at least some informal writing styles used in personal electronic communication into their writing for school. (Some 25% have used emoticons in their school writing; 50% have used informal punctuation and grammar; 38% have used text shortcuts such as “LOL” meaning “laugh out loud.”)
Richard Sterling, chair of the advisory board for the National Commission on Writing that co-sponsored the report, asks an interesting question: “How can we connect the enthusiasm of young people for informal, technology-based writing with classroom experiences that illuminate the power of well-organized, well-reasoned writing?”
My answer? Blogging.
The Heat Is On
The cold war between Google and Facebook just warmed up a whole lot, and this time it’s Google with its fingers on the dial.
Garrett Rogers reports that Google is releasing tools for developers to begin building social applications for the iGoogle homepage, built on the OpenSocial API. For those who don’t speak geek, this basically means that individuals and companies are able to tap into the social graph you’ve created through Google — primarily through your Gmail contacts — to build useful gadgets for your homepage. Users will be able to see “updates” from their friends (see right column of image), paralleling Facebook’s News Feed and Mini Feed features
Who cares, right? Well, as Garrett points out, the potential for a coup is enormous:
I wonder if this will have a significant impact on Facebook since there are twice as many people who set Google as their default browser homepage than Facebook according to comScore? Who knows, Google might win by default if they get it just right.
With this move, Google is forging together two movements that it has been leading under much scrutiny and controversy: scaling and automation. Together, they become what I’m going to call scaled automation. Like Tom Friedman says, if you name an issue you own it… so if this term somehow becomes popular, well, remember you heard it here first.
Continue reading ‘iGoogle Goes Social: The Birth of Scaled Automation’
Micah from techPresident reports from the Politics Web 2.0 conference in London on “emerging trends” in online politics; his notes from one session, describing signs of “trickle up politics” (emphasis mine):
Blurring of boundaries between users and producers, leading to the amateurization of politics [...] Important question: does peer production continue once you get into office?
Enthusiastic volunteers and supporters strengthen campaign messages by adding a personal touch, using their own social capital to further campaign goals. Who among us would not pay more attention to a personal email from a trusted friend versus a generic campaign email?
The speeding up of politics [...]
We see instant reactions to all candidate statements and actions, broadcast throughout the blogosphere. Campaigns are immediately confronted with gaffes, criticisms, and news developments–often before the candidate (or senior staffer) has time to analyze the issue or learn the full facts.
Blurring of the boundaries between public and private, leading to the informalizing of politics [...]
Candidates are recorded constantly, including settings (like private events with supporters) that were formerly considered “safe” spaces for comments geared toward firing up the base. Candidates who once carefully controlled their message between interviews are now faced with seemingly endless “on camera” moments.
The long tail of politics? Because there’s so much more space online, will this lead to a pluralizing or disaggregating of choices? [...]
The web creates an endless sphere for political dialogue, creating a space for esoteric interests to coalesce. This has the potential to draw voters away from, for instance, supporting a major party platform that represents the majority of their views but does not
Trickle-up politics then, is diffused/decentralized, individualistic and rooted in micro-networks, continuous, citizen-based and non-institutional, and based on niche audiences.
For all of the excitement surrounding social web applications in electoral campaigns, we’re just now seeing the first glimpses of what could be–for lack of a better term–Governing 2.0. This should be a logical extension of decentralized campaigning (governing is, after all, the reason we care about campaigns), but what might decentralized, “trickle up” governance look like? Let’s use the U.S. Congress as an example…
Continue reading ‘Next Up: Collaborative Governance?’
Subscribe by feed
Subscribe by email
Follow on Facebook
