micah.sifry.com

Not sure if we can get a reporter to ask Bush the question you want for your birthday, but it’s fun to imagine.

And thanks for being who you are, whatever that is made of!

I just got a phone call from someone claiming to be a pollster for “Public Insight–an independent research company.” He started by asking if I voted in Westchester County, and then proceeded to ask three questions:

“It’s a fact that during her tenure on the Westchester County Legislature, Andrea Stewart Cousins always voted to raise taxes. Does that make you more or less likely to vote for her, or no difference?”

“It’s a fact that during her tenure on the Westchester County Legislature, while voting to raise your taxes, Andrea Stewart Cousins always voted to raise her salary. Does that make you more or less likely to vote for her, or no difference?”

“It’s a fact that during Andrea Stewart-Cousins’ tenure on the Westchester County Legislature, Westchester’s taxes became the highest in the state. Does that make you more or less likely to vote for her, or no difference?”

By the third time I heard him say “It’s a fact…” I knew this was no ordinary poll. I asked him to give me a source for his claim that Westchester had the highest taxes of any county, and when he demurred, I asked to speak to his supervisor.

A Chris Davidson got on the line and and said that Public Insight was a “political phone call and survey company” and denied that it was a push poll. He claimed that they weren’t working for either candidate in the race or a party, and also claimed he didn’t know who had written the script for the call. He also couldn’t give me the basis for any of the “facts” mentioned by his “pollster” other than to say they were mentioned in the news media. So much for his company’s integrity.

I told him that I objected to someone claiming to be a pollster pushing misinformation on unsuspecting voters, and that given that Stewart-Cousins’ opponent Nick Spano had already mailed a flyer out accusing her of doing nothing to prevent convicted sex offenders from being located in the county–which has earned him a rebuke from the county’s Fair Campaign Practices Committee–I assumed this push poll was connected to Spano, and that it would have the opposite effect from what he wanted.

Our local state senate race was a nail-biter two years ago, and this rematch is looking uglier by the day.

UPDATE: Talking with my wife later the same evening, I just discovered that she got the exact same call this evening! Only in her case, after the first question, my wife said, “Excuse me, are you working for Nick Spano?” The pollster, a woman, said no, we’re an independent polling company. My wife said, “Well, that’s certainly a loaded question.” The woman said thank you and hung up on her.

push poll

Technorati Tags: push poll

My head is still spinning pleasantly as I come down off the last few days spent up in Camden, Maine at the 10th annual PopTech conference. This was my first time at this seminal gathering of technologists, creatives, visionaries and analysts, but it won’t be the last. I’ve been to a lot of conferences over the last few years, and while I am still searching for my personal sweet spot amid the scenes at ETech, Web 2.0, PC Forum, Politics Online, Wikimania, and of course Personal Democracy Forum. there were many moments where PopTech definitely hit the spot for me.

The theme of the conference was “Dangerous Ideas.” Sometimes I think that came out more as “Dangerous Questions,” but since so many powerful ideas start out, by definition, as challenges to the status quo, this made sense.

One big idea that came up again and again in different forms was “the power of many,” or how simple actions by large numbers of actors can create beautifully complex and influential structures. Some ways this came up:

-Brian Eno‘s discussion of “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” that complexity and intelligence arise from simplicity, from below and not from above.

-Will Wright, the designer of the Sims games, who talked about how his next game Spore is designed to give its players tremendous design capabilities that will, as they play the game and design new creatures, feed back into the main game server and thus collectively improve the experience of everyone else playing the game.

-Chris Anderson, the editor of Wired and author of the book The Long Tail, who talked about what happens when things that were formerly scarce become free.

[If you want more details on what each of these guys, as well as the many other wonderful speakers, had to say, I highly recommend Ethan Zuckerman, who blogged the hell out of them.]

Anderson’s comments in particular resonated with the work I’ve been doing, looking at how technology can open up politics. The critical change that is happening in media today, Anderson argued, is the death of a model based on scarcity. Because paper and ink are scarce, and the cost of distributing newspapers or magazines is high, editors have always been incredibly picky about what they publish. That model gets turned upside down by online media, he said. You can publish everything and let readers do the filtering for you (a la Digg), instead of pre-filtering information for them. And this has all kinds of positive effects: the old paternalist system of editorial control can move to a new egalitarian system of editorial collaboration; top-down moves to bottom-up where participation is valued; and command-and-control systems can become out-of-control systems where creativity is rewarded.

I think there are lots of places in our political process where the same can happen.

Instead of thinking of political resources (money, information, people) as scarce and vital to control from the top down, what happens if we think about using the internet to open politics to much larger networks of involved citizens, either when we participate in our interactions with government representatives or when we participate in campaigns for issues or candidates? How can we use the abundance of people who want to contribute something to making government work better, or getting a person elected or an issue moved, in better ways?

About a month ago, Jeff Jarvis wrote a great blog post explaining how networked news differs from top-down broadcast news. It got me thinking that we can do the same thing for networked government or activism. First, here’s what Jeff wrote:

I was asked to define networked news. Good question. Here’;s my answer. What’s yours?

Journalism must become collaborative at many levels. News organizations should come to rely on citizens to help report stories on a large-scale level (e.g., some of the projects we’;re considering at NewAssignment.net), at an individual level (citizens contributing reports to news organizations’ efforts), and as a network (news organizations supporting citizens’ own efforts with content, promotion, education, and revenue).

Journalism will become collaborative not only on this pro-am level but also pro-to-pro (we need not and cannot afford to send our own reporters to some stories just for the sake of byline ego but we can link to and bring our readers–and help support–the best reporting from other outlets).

The net results include:

* A change of the role of journalists–and their relationship with the public–from owners of the story to moderators, editors, enablers, and educators.

* A vast broadening of the scope of journalism and news: together, we can gather and share more news than ever. The definition of news will also expand.

* Improved quality of journalism, as, with the help of the public, we have more means to get stories and get them right.

* A new architecture for news: one outlet does not own it all but becomes a gateway to much more (not just current news but also background and perspective).

* A new efficiency in the news industry, which it must find as revenue declines.

* New opportunities to act entrepreneurially, to develop new products and means to serve the public on a smaller scale with new partners.

Now, borrowing heavily from good Professor Jarvis, imagine applying that same way of thinking to representative government and political activism. First to government:

Representative government must become collaborative at many levels. Our elected representatives and government agencies should come to rely on citizens to help report problems that need solving and ideas for solving them on a large-scale level (e.g., a wiki for government action), at an individual level (citizens contributing reports to inform their own representatives efforts and as feedback on the job they are doing), and as a network (government offices supporting citizens’ own efforts with by giving them a way to connect to each other, offering informed content, promoting the ideas that bubble up, etc.).

Representative government will become collaborative not only on this representative-citizen pro-am level but also representative to representative (i.e. pro-to-pro). That is, politicians and government bureaucrats need not and cannot afford to send their own staffers to amass expertise on some subject just for the sake of political ego but they can link to and bring their constituents–and help support –the best ideas bubbling up from other citizen-representative collaborations.

The net results include:

* A change of the role of representatives and government officials–and their relationship with the public–from holders of all power and information to community convenors, moderators, enablers, and educators.

* A vast broadening of how government representatives interact with their constituents: together, we can gather and share more ideas about what problems need to be addressed and how to address them than ever. The definition of public space will also expand.

* Improved quality of representative government, as, with the help of the public, our elected officials will have more means to get feedback on what they”re doing and whether they are responsive enough.

* A new architecture for government: where instead of expecting one person to solve our problems, government acts to enable large numbers of people to connect to each other as problem-identifiers and problem-solvers.

* A new level of public engagement, which it must find as trust in government declines.

* New opportunities to act civicly, to develop new ways of connecting citizens to citizens and government and new means to serve the public on a smaller scale with new partners.

Now, apply that same approach to how we organize around issues and political campaigns. Here’s my first stab at an answer:

Activism must become collaborative at many levels. Advocacy organizations and campaigns should come to rely on citizens to help organize on a large-scale level, at an individual level (citizens contributing money/ideas/time/information to their efforts), and as a network (advocacy organizations and campaigns supporting citizens; own efforts with content, promotion, education, and revenue).

Activism will become collaborative not only on this pro-am level but also pro-to-pro (we need not and cannot afford to deploy our own organizers to some issues just for the sake of being seen by foundations and the public as doing something, but we can link to and bring our members–and help support–the best activism from other organizations).

The net results include:

* A change of the role of organizers–and their relationship with the public–from owners of the campaign to moderators, prioritizers, enablers, and educators.

* A vast broadening of the scope of activism and campaigns: together, we can initiate and sustain more campaigns than ever. The definition of political campaigns will also expand.

* Improved quality of campaigns, as, with the help of the public, we have more means to plan and execute campaigns and get them right.

* A new architecture for political activity: one campaign/candidate/organization does not own it all but becomes a gateway to much more (not just current efforts but also background and perspective).

* A new level of participation in politics, which it must find as civic engagement stagnates.

* New opportunities to act politically, to develop new demands on the political system and means to serve the public on a smaller scale with new partners.

Like any good blog post, this is half-baked but if I waited til it was done cooking, it would never get posted. (Cross-posted from my blog at PDF.)

Technorati Tags: Brian Eno, Chris Anderson, Digg, Ethan Zuckerman, Jeff Jarvis, net2, nptech, Open Source, Open Source Politics, transparency, web 2.0, Will Wright

That’s the provocative premise of Robert Cox, president of the nonpartisan Media Bloggers Association and a blogger who was made famous by the New York Times’ idiotic decision to sue him for posting a parody of its Corrections page. Writing in the Washington Examiner (which itself is rapidly earning attention as a smart new site for conservative online news and opinion), Cox takes as his jumping off point YouTube’s recent decision to delete some videos posted by rightwing blogger Michele Malkin after they were flagged by users as “offensive,” and to terminate her account.

He says he has talked to top Internet specialists on the right, including folks from the Bush-Cheney campaign, top officials at the RNC and the White House and dozens of top conservative bloggers, and none of them seemed concerned. “When I suggested that ceding control of the major ‘nodes’ in the online world to the left was a huge mistake, they were dismissive. It became clear they could not imagine one day finding themselves boxed out of what is fast becoming the biggest force in electoral politics.”

He goes on:

Some might note that Malkin can still host her videos elsewhere. Of course she can, but that would fail to understand the powerful forces of “network externalities” at play online. There is no Avis to eBay’s Hertz for good reason: Once an online network is fully catalyzed, there is no reason to join an alternative network. If you want to get the most money for your Beanie Baby collection, you are going to want access to the most potential bidders — and that means eBay.

YouTube is poised to become the eBay of video file sharing. If you want the biggest audience for your video, you want access to the most potential viewers — and that means YouTube.

Google understands this dynamic, which is why the company announced Monday that it will purchase YouTube — a company that has never made a dime — for $1.65 billion….

Don’t think it matters? Consider that, according to USA Today, 98 percent of the money donated to political parties by Google employees — “Google Millionaires” — went to Democrats.

But it’s not just Google’s media and financial muscle that benefits the left. Liberals run the leading blog search engine — Technorati. They run the leading blog software manufacturer — Six Apart. They invented two of the most important blogging technologies — Podcasting and RSS. The list goes on and on.

It may not matter who manufacturers your radio since all points on the dial are equally accessible and the choice is tiny compared to the number of Web sites, but on the Internet, where popularity is often directly proportional to technological acumen and popularity, once achieved, breeds more popularity, who builds what means everything.

I think Robert–a smart guy and friendly acquaintance of mine–is really off the mark here. For starters, there’s nothing keeping someone else from doing a little remixing of Malkin’s videos and reposting them on YouTube, and if enough people find them entertaining or valuable, the site will drive them to a larger audience.

Furthermore, the fact that Google’s employees are mostly Democrats has everything to do with the fact that most of them live in one of the most liberal areas of the country. There’s no evidence that as a result Google search results are biased to help liberals. In fact, Google is currently doing its best to buy access and influence the old-fashioned way in Washington, by hiring well-connected lobbyists (many of whom are Republicans). Google is a business, Robert, not an ideological organization. Same with the guys at Technorati and Six Apart.

That said, Cox is putting his finger on something. Right now, it does look like the liberal-progressive-left is dominating online politics. If you add up the readership of most leading political blogs, you’ll find that on an average day–the left’s audience is bigger than the right’s by more than 2-1. The RNC may have a bigger email list than the DNC, but there’s far more community activity apparent on the latter’s site than the former. ActBlue has aggregated more than $10 million in small donations online this cycle; the Republican side has nothing like that. Not only do progressives have MoveOn, with its 3 million email members, they have Care2, with its 6 million email members. Again, there’s nothing like that on the Republican side.

But disproportionate success for liberals online may have more to do with the fact that these sites and e-groups have been filling a vacuum that simply doesn’t exist for the right side of the spectrum with its dominance of talk radio and deep network of local church groups, gun rights groups and anti-abortion groups.

Still, there is one way in which Web 2.0–or, to use the less buzzword compliant phrase, “the read/write web”–does appear to work to the benefit of the left. Actually, to be very precise, not to the “left”, but to the ordinary person (if we had a real left in this country, instead of the cavalcade of narrow interest groups–we might think these words were synonymous, but obviously not). And that is because it shifts power away from the center of organizations out to the edges. Millions of us now can speak on a much more level playing field than anything that has ever existed before. By definition that is bad for elites and insiders. Which can’t be good news for the incumbent party in Washington.

I think pluralism is also hard-wired into the net, and especially into Web 2.0, where everyone is one click away from everyone else and (contrary to the fears of some), you are far more likely to encounter opposing viewpoints online than elsewhere. This again, it seems to me, means the web is inherently friendlier to people who value civic debate and engagement.

This is not to say that the web is full of liberals. It still trends to the wealthier, especially if you are looking at broadband users. And given the huge technosphere, which is as big or bigger than the political blogosphere, a lot of its politics is more libertarian than traditionally left or right. But even if it’s not by design, it does seem Cox is right, and the right is losing the online future.

That’s because the culture of Web 2.0 favors dissenters and creatives over conformists. If you are uncomfortable with free expression, you’re not going to like YouTube. It’s not “who builds what,” as Cox puts it, that “means everything,” it’s what is the web good for and what do people like to use it for, that means everything.

Technorati Tags: Google, Michele Malkin, puppy, Robert Cox, Technorati, web 2.0