6 Responses for "Increasing the volume - and the rhetoric - in social media"

1. Joseph Thornley August 1st, 2006 at 1:22 pm

   Hi Colin,
   You ask an interesting question.

   For my part, I would not classify this as astroturfing. To be true astroturfing, there must be an element of creating an impression of broad support where none exists.

   In this case, it seems to me that there is a 5,000 person strong organization whose members are - on their own - downloading software that enables them to add their voice to the discussion wherever it is occuring.

   But what do you think? How would you answer your own question?

2. Colin McKay August 1st, 2006 at 2:02 pm

   But the key word may be discussion - is everyone who is posting actually participating in a discussion, or simply reacting to individual situations that are highlighted for them?

   There’s more detail in the Times’ article.

   This situation appears to be one component of a wide-ranging public diplomacy campaign, but viewed through the conceit of the “blogosphere,” couldn’t it also be characterized as an artificial manipulation of a comment-based discussion?

3. Joseph Thornley August 1st, 2006 at 7:40 pm

   Good point Colin. One of the key questions for me with the whole anti-astroturfing campaign is, “Where is the line between artificial manipulation and legitimate grassroots mobilization?”

4. Coln McKay August 1st, 2006 at 9:36 pm

   I think one touchstone is the level of personal engagement.

   And that means more than a transient stop to fill in three lines on an automated form.

   The current anti-astroturf campaign, it seems to me, is aimed at underwritten and remote-controlled PR efforts. An exercise where a corporation, group, community tries to magnify its voice by creating the appearance of support through gimmickry and manipulation.

5. Joseph Thornley August 3rd, 2006 at 8:26 am

   Hi again Colin,

   Of course, on one wants to support “gimmickry and manipulation.” However, I think that attaching these labels undercuts thoughtful conversation.

   The question stands, what is the standard that defines the line between legitimate grassroots mobilization and “gimmickry and manipulation.”

   In our democratic society, we respect the will of the public as expressed through a signature on a petition. So, I believe that in some circumstances that can be three lines on an automated form.

   You also tie your concerns to “underwritten and remote-controlled” PR efforts. Well, as someone who has spent a lot of my life volunteering for political parties and NGOs, I think this describes any successful attempt by a small group of committed people to reach out to the broader public.

6. Colin McKay August 3rd, 2006 at 4:49 pm

   Okay, but let me throw an idea out. Just an idea, don’t think of me as anti-democratic.

   Let’s say citizens have the ability to address the public and their elected representatives through any number of direct channels and to amplify their voice through online and social media.

   How much value should you attribute to a campaign that demands nothing more than a moment’s reflection?

   That may be all the time needed to pick a side on a fundamental philosophical issue, but what if an organization designs its recruitment/advocacy materials to push specific emotional and intellectual buttons, with the intent of claiming any resulting support as indicative of a much larger moral, political or activist agenda?

   How is the long tail represented in this sort of world? Can we really claim support for an aggregate position unless we filter all our members and volunteers to ensure they buy into it?

   (and I do realize that can result in the basest and dumbest form of populism)

   The current example stuck in my head is what’s going on with MoveOn and the Lieberman campaign.