fb and tw links on home page

[sbyrd@…]

Create button links on main header, below language buttons, for our facebook page and twitter--similar to the bikeit.org site.

facebook_dot_com/pages/US-Social-Forum-Another-World-is-Possible/213254731471?ref=ts

twitter_dot_com/USSF

Realizing this may be politically untenable--want to start this conversation... can also create buttons without corporate logo...

Thanks, Scott

[http://markdilley.myopenid.com/]

I think that where ever we link or use non open source web resources, such as twitter, facebook, paypal, youtube, etc. we should have a link to our technology principles. not sure what that would look like...

[https://id.mayfirst.org/jamie]

Hi all,

With facebook, I think we want to go in the opposite direction: we want to direct people from facebook to our sites, not the other way around.

How do you envision a strategy that sends people to Facebook? What would be the advantage of doing that rather than getting them to sign up for our email list? I would hate to have people choose to become our facebook friend and not sign up for the email list. That would be losing an important point of contact.

As for twitter - do we have a twitter strategy? Politically, I don't like the idea of encouraging activists to give their cell phone numbers to a corporation in the name of social forum organizing. I'm also open to figuring out an SMS strategy - but one that starts with the strategy and then works toward how best to implement the technology. Maybe after consideration we will decide that the objectives of the strategy need twitter - or maybe we'll figure out an alternative.

jamie

[sbyrd@…]

Hi Jamie et. al,

Mark, yes I agree with linking to our tech principles; COMM also plans to develop a set of principles explicitly addressing the use of non-open source resources. The rational is that people are already there... there are almost more fans of the USSF fb page now than went to the 2007 USSF. Of course, our intent is to get all those folks to register and attend the forum and use the ussf2010 site and sign up for email. But, the thinking with some in the wg is that we can use these sites to our advantage without compromising the principles--creating more "buzz" which in turn will create more USSF participants.

I know that it is a fine line... i think this will be a healthy discussion and I want to point our social media folks to this ticket to get some more feedback. Basically, posting this ticket was a way to do that...

Jamie, as for twitter I think your concerns are spot on... if we could develop an alternative that would be great. But, not all folks monitor tweets by sms--many just check them out online. But I think it would be difficult to develop our own platform that could do both. One alt is identi_dot_ca; this is open software and could be used politically to counter twitter. it would be great if we could get a few thousand folks signed up to that system instead of tw. Another advatage of tw is that you can do outreach to social justice groups that are already using the service that may not normally be aware of the USSF (who knows why not?).

Also, the social media folks envision the fb page to be updated 2-3 times a week and the tw or identica to updated 2-3 times a day... most all of these updates will be directing folks in some way to the ussf sites.

Cheers, Scott

[https://id.mayfirst.org/jamie]

Thanks Scott for the updates.

identi.ca is definitely an option. I'd like to hear other peoples input because I might be off, I think the problem with twitter is:

• Encouraging people to give their cell phones to a corporation
• Relying on infrastructure that's not free
• Relying on infrastructure that we don't control

In other words, I don't think there are political problems with sending messages over twitter provided we don't do it in a way that hits any of the above issues.

What if the Comm working group sent all tweets over both twitter and indenti.ca? It increases your work load, but would allow us to instruct people : if you don't have a twitter account, don't get one. Instead sign up a identi.ca. If you already have a twitter account, consider canceling it and moving to identi.ca. If you insist on twitter, here's how you can sign up for our tweets.

This isn't perfect - because although identi.ca runs on free software I don't actually know anything about them and have no reason to think their politics are better than twitter (although their software politics are demonstratebly better).

As for face book - updates 2 - 3 times a week - are these updates going to be made on the www.ussf2010.org site as well?

Thanks for all your work Scott!

jamie

[http://markdilley.myopenid.com/]

I use Identi.ca to post to twitter. So I put most of my tweets into Identi.ca and then they get forwarded to twitter. I have also been on twitter for 3 years and never inputed my phone number, don't think that is a case we need to worry about so much.

Also - I have access to  http://ussf.status.net - an idea I am trying to figure it out, as a USSF micro-blogging option.

[https://id.mayfirst.org/ross]

Hi All,

Have to chime in here.

--Begin Rant--
I agree completely with jamie about fb. The idea of us directing people away from our site to facebook is in direct contradiction to our set of tech principles. Also the fact that we (ICT) have spent and are spending so much time creating a social forum free networking site of our own should be reason enough *not* to direct people to fb and instead direct them to  http://organize.ussf2010.org.

The argument that people are already there (on fb) should have no bearing on us supporting that practice. People are already in a sexist and racist culture, built on capitalism, and driven by practices of discrimination, exploitation and (sexual) violence. Are we then to rape and lynch people so we can meet them where they already are? Of course not, so why would we do the same thing with fb? My apologies for being hyperbolic, but I simply don't see why we would actively encourage those things we're struggling to change.

As for twitter, I can only remind us of this story:
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/04/man-arrested-twitter-g20-us
It's not clear how the cops found Elliot, but it is clear that Twitter would roll over for any federal request. Advertising twitter is not only bad software policy, it's dangerous to activists.
--End Rant--

While I see the advantages of directing people from fb to the ussf site (and I think those advantages should be utilized), I believe going the other direction (from ussf to fb) compromises everything we're attempting to do techno-politically.

ross

[https://id.mayfirst.org/malloryk]

Weighing in:

I am totally against advertising corporate websites of any kind on our site. It would be politically embarrassing. The social forum is about alternatives, not trends or norms. We do not need to dilute our politics to reach a larger audience, that's both at once a myth and a pitfall.

[http://markdilley.myopenid.com/]

Mallory, to better understand your position - can you help me understand this corporate advertising?

 https://community.ussf2010.org/donate

Best, Mark

[https://id.mayfirst.org/malloryk]

PayPal, more than all of the others that we've discussed is most abominable in its corporate practices, no question. The decision to use PayPal was a hard one. It was not taken lightly whatsoever. I understood the decision to be made with the caveat that we would look for an alternative solution.

And we should follow your suggestion, Mark, by placing a link to our principles against corporate, proprietary online tools directly next to the blue, silver, and yellow button of shame.

Having to make one cringe-inducing, unsatisfying decision against our principles does not justify making more of them.

And putting this into proper context, being able to process money online is a bit more serious than attempting to do outreach to some kind of "general online audience" of social networking users, which is not an outreach strategy at all.

[sbyrd@…]

I want to use the "WHOA" and remind folks of the NPC principles of engagement:

Default to trust; Speak from your own experience; Use the "woah" when you need clarification or to calm the vibe; Respect difference; Promote healthy conflict and clear resolutions!

Mostly healthy conflict so far ;)... want to first point out that there is nothing in the tech principles about banning "corporate" apps (see 9 below), although I do agree that tw/fb may compromise #8 (ross--you bring up a very good point about the g20) and #10. I still want more folks from COMM (none so far!) to weigh in on this... and maybe we can focus more on the building of alternatives.

8. Technology decisions promote a safe participatory experience that allows broad contribution and respects diversity of opinion and experience, while doing no harm to others. (consistent with WSF Charter of Principles 8, 10)

9. Online outreach between participants and their organizations strategically proliferates, shares, and exchanges information about the USSF with blogs, document libraries, FAQs etc. While critically using popular culture and applications such as Facebook, Twitter & YouTube, the USSF commits their energy to developing free and open source alternatives.

10. Information is power. Participants must have control over their own data. Data policies guide how contacts collected for the USSF are made available for organizing purposes.

[http://markdilley.myopenid.com/]

Thanks Mallory - I better understand that decision.

[clenchner01@…]

A few points.

"And putting this into proper context, being able to process money online is a bit more serious than attempting to do outreach to some kind of "general online audience" of social networking users, which is not an outreach strategy at all."

We have nearly 10k supporters connected to us on Facebook. It is the fastest growing entry point for folks interested in the Social Forum. Rather than calling it a 'general online audience' I'd call it the 10k supporters most inclined to support us in Facebook. And those folks have chosen to be on, and be active on Facebook. Ignoring that choice falls in the category of dismissing the actual behavior of the people we most need to engage.

It's fairly easy to prove that most of our email addresses come from folks that have one or more profiles on Facebook, MySpace or Twitter. On those grounds alone, we have good reason to think that the social networking conducted by our supporters on the networks they choose to belong to, will result in more people connected with the SF. This has nothing to do with a 'general online audience.'

I can understand that some would subordinate the task of outreach and engagement to an ideological mission. It's a fair choice, especially if you come from an organization devoted to responding ideologically to the challenges of using online tools. But it is ICT's choice to make? There is plenty in the principles in place that justifies going either way. After all, it's not an argument over the principles, it's a kind of nuanced position. Paypal is awful but we use them because it's worth it. Well, I'd argue that Facebook and Twitter aren't really that awful, but wonderful services that benefit the internet community, and many struggles for freedom and democracy, as in Iran, Egypt and elsewhere.

But even if they do bear some culpability for not having been built on open source software by a decentralized network of programmers, they offer a service that folks in the Comm WG want to use. My sense is that the Comm WG agrees with the principles surrounding use of technology, and interpret them to mean that this is a reasonable and worthwhile option.

Of course, if ICT can come up with an alternative method of engaging people on Facebook, MySpace and Twitter that will produce comparable results to the Comm WG's request, then let's hear it. This is the internet, and assumptions about what is possible can often be tested, or similar examples from the past brought up.

It's fairly easy to run an experiment on two versions of the hope page, one with corporate logos and one without. If the home page without corporate logos expands our reach better than the one with such logos, and reaches more people on whichever platform, then it would be fine to scrap it.

[Karlos@…]

Replying to clenchner01@…:

[whoa]

If you all look at the comms plan, there's a chart in there that "shows" how we want to use social media platforms for the forum.

The center of the chart is the USSF site with all other platforms directing folks to the home page.

We are not looking to recruit from some mythical "general online audience." We understand that if you drop the right information in the right networks (which *already exist* on Twitter, Facebook, etc.) it will go viral. Strategic communications is about saying the right thing to the right people at the right time.

This is about tapping existing networks to keep people in the loop who aren't as tech savvy as people who know how to use these wiki's and alternative open source sites. Even just going to identi.ca gave me a headache, thinking I'd have to sign up for another site.

There's a lot of privilege in saying we can't use these sites, when that's where all the people are and that's what folks know how to use.

FYI- I don't have a personal FaceBook account, but we do use it sparingly at CMJ.

Look at me, I can't even get this thing on this site right now...

A few points.

"And putting this into proper context, being able to process money online is a bit more serious than attempting to do outreach to some kind of "general online audience" of social networking users, which is not an outreach strategy at all."

We have nearly 10k supporters connected to us on Facebook. It is the fastest growing entry point for folks interested in the Social Forum. Rather than calling it a 'general online audience' I'd call it the 10k supporters most inclined to support us in Facebook. And those folks have chosen to be on, and be active on Facebook. Ignoring that choice falls in the category of dismissing the actual behavior of the people we most need to engage.

It's fairly easy to prove that most of our email addresses come from folks that have one or more profiles on Facebook, MySpace or Twitter. On those grounds alone, we have good reason to think that the social networking conducted by our supporters on the networks they choose to belong to, will result in more people connected with the SF. This has nothing to do with a 'general online audience.'

I can understand that some would subordinate the task of outreach and engagement to an ideological mission. It's a fair choice, especially if you come from an organization devoted to responding ideologically to the challenges of using online tools. But it is ICT's choice to make? There is plenty in the principles in place that justifies going either way. After all, it's not an argument over the principles, it's a kind of nuanced position. Paypal is awful but we use them because it's worth it. Well, I'd argue that Facebook and Twitter aren't really that awful, but wonderful services that benefit the internet community, and many struggles for freedom and democracy, as in Iran, Egypt and elsewhere.

But even if they do bear some culpability for not having been built on open source software by a decentralized network of programmers, they offer a service that folks in the Comm WG want to use. My sense is that the Comm WG agrees with the principles surrounding use of technology, and interpret them to mean that this is a reasonable and worthwhile option.

Of course, if ICT can come up with an alternative method of engaging people on Facebook, MySpace and Twitter that will produce comparable results to the Comm WG's request, then let's hear it. This is the internet, and assumptions about what is possible can often be tested, or similar examples from the past brought up.

It's fairly easy to run an experiment on two versions of the hope page, one with corporate logos and one without. If the home page without corporate logos expands our reach better than the one with such logos, and reaches more people on whichever platform, then it would be fine to scrap it.

[dnm@…]

Hey friends,

David from Comm-Media working group here. The Comm-Media WG asked me to head up social web coordination within organizing efforts and we had a great Social Web call last night which was a first hack at wrapping our head around these issues as a Communications Team and it lead, among many things, to this ticket request going in. Sorry I haven't had a chance to respond until now.

So that's where our head is at- intentionally thinking on what social web structures are in place, what's the timeline & feasibility of what's in development, and what tools are needed to meet our overall goals of the USSF.

I've been trying to observe and get a feel for the great amount of planning & heart that has gone in so far, and regarding the social media & proprietary software question my understanding at this point is that we are to encourage free & open source software and develop our own where feasible, but also to use propriety software "critically" to our advantage while not becoming dependent on it. While I absolutely hope for an autonomous movement & world free of dependence on corporate structures, I'm seeing in the 'About' section of the ICT Page that a stated major lesson from ICT 2007 is that:

"we should be encouraging use of open source software, not mandating it. I'm here to serve the overall success of USSF2010, and that might conflict (at times) with the goal of using USSF2010 as a way of supporting certain ideological principles. Even if I agree with them!" - no stated author.

I take this as a harbinger that we should continually start from a place of curiosity, check our first judgements & hardlined ideologies, and take stock of the moment we're in as a movement still in process that needs to incorporate many viewpoints. Let's gut-check on whether we're ready to shed ourselves of proprietary software yet or if it's still in our greater interest to utilize these tools while in resistance to a broader imperial structure- much larger than a mere corporate structure that upholds it- from what I understand at least.

COMM WG's proposal from last night is that within the social web sphere, we present both proprietary and open source methods of folks communicating with us because folks are already out there doing what they do. We use tools that will aid in our overall goals, and present open source alternatives an as example to a large and otherwise unpoliticized base. By 'communicating' we mean across communities, in many directions (not just toward website) and at all levels of connections that would increase participation in the USSF process, foster dialogue and raise mass consciousness.

It seems a touchy subject as well internally, and more a part of process than the actual thing, so I want to second the 'whoa' guideline of interacting and remind all that the principles in question outlined on the wiki and website seemed to have been laid out nearly a year ago and are absolutely up for interpretation and reflection. It's ok to rub each other on it a bit.

Looking at World Social Forum principles, I also don't see anything explicit about the use or non-use of proprietary software, but I do take:

"The World Social Forum will always be a forum open to pluralism and to the diversity of activities and ways of engaging of the organisations and movements that decide to participate in it," as a call for negotiation and a spirit of shared ownership in the process.

Scott has presented for the COMM WG the request for website links to some strategic key platforms for our overall work- we deliberated on this and don't take it lightly. While I agree it's not entirely crucial I'm wondering why the push back from those keeping the tickets is especially pointed. All WGs I believe are meant to consider the advice of other working groups, but the disconnect I'm feeling as a newcomer is really disconcerting. I hope you'll help me figure it out. My sense from the overall shared responsibility of reaching our registration & workshop proposals benchmarks (we are far behind already) and other Working Groups at all levels around the endorsement and OK usage of things like facebook and twitter also lead me to harp on this disconnect with the "Technology Principles".

To answer the original concerns on the ticket, I would second that from a communications standpoint, having two way communication between our website and social platforms, media outlets and search engines is exactly what "connects the loop" and brings greater traffic to our website, as Charles implied. Do we not want to send out data from our site out to Google- a data-mining monster of a structure where most people will find us? Are linkages not key in general? Do we have any analytics breakdowns of our visitors?

While corporate owned, Twitter remains the 'pulse of the planet', if you will, and at least deserves some kind of consideration in planning national or international movement building communications, not just a mere scoff at its corporate-ness. COMM WG has decided on using Twitter to reach an audience of activists & progressive media outlets that use it for the purpose of connecting them & their communities things like the USSF and requests that it have some presence in our national communications structure. Facebook along those lines as well, is corporate-owned and disgustingly huge, but to negate even going deep on the great possibilities of it's usage I think would be foolish- I hope we can continue hashing out balance in our shared approach on this.

I want to share a story that I noticed from the "Other Forums" section that links to the international WSF bodies- a number of the websites there were made in proprietary systems, including Blogger, and link their facebook/twitter accounts. If we were to take down a link to another World Social Forum website because it's a link to Google Blogger, would this not be a great disservice to the World Social Forum community? In my work with the Honduran National Resistance as well, so many organizational bodies, including the National Peoples Resistance Front itself for example, rely on Google Blogger for websites. In Honduras my comrades and I work with groups to setup low power radio stations and yes, to teach Honduran movement leaders about open source software alternatives, but where they are at remains in a multitude of places, including Blogger. Los Necios, a leading Young People's movement organization, has recruited 90% of it's national membership through Facebook and says it's the primary means of finding members who otherwise would never be able to come out of the closet with their political beliefs and be empowered to join organization. The young people's Front, lead by Los Necios, is at the forefront of the national resistance, and the Honduran struggle is arguably at the front of the Central American struggle against US imperial domination now after the Coup. There's something of value there, no? They also use Facebook as a main way of connecting to comrades in the surrounding countries Latin American countries & countries in solidarity with the Honduran & anti-neoliberal struggle. They link Facebook on their Blogger website, they meet on Facebook, then they meet in person and plot the revolution. It seems that without any real resources or societal structure compared even close to what we have in the US, the Honduran National Front through it's sustained resistance and coordinated organizational body is more well-oiled of a communications machine than what we have here in the disconnect US Left, and it largely has to do with doing what they must to build community online and in person, have ability to share their own media far and wide, and much less about what their technology principles are.

Scott said to speak from experience- this story is to remind us that what Karlos mentioned about there being "privilege" in saying we can't use these sites is not an understatement, and I don't think we should shy from the opportunity to use what's available to us. Whether this ticket is realized or not, COMM WG will better lay out a plan and policy for communications protocols and processes and if it's believed we should revisit the Technology Principles as laid down on paper, I'd love to hear about the process for doing that.

[cindy@…]

hey all,
as the co-chair of the outreach working group.... we are in serious outreach and communications trouble. i was alerted yesterday that we only have 10 workshops submitted... if we anticipate 20,000 people at the forum and we have 3 weeks to go in the workshop submission process.... compañer@s we need any and all methods of communication and outreach to our communities. i agree with having a link to the technology principles as well. but we have to use Facebook, twitter, text messaging and social marketing tools available. our website is the main conduit of information and outreach.... but we need more tools. we are doing the 1 on 1 calls, informational calls, traveling around the country doing outreach... but this is clearly not enough. we need to use tools that most activists, community members and organizers are using at the same time utilize the opportunity to expose folks to other alternative technological and organizing tools.

but my friends, i want to urge a resolution by this week, we don't have time... we need to get at least 990 other workshops submitted in 3 weeks and that is a responsibility of us all to get the word out.
peace,
cindy wiesner
co-chair outreach working group

[https://id.mayfirst.org/jamie]

Hi all,

I'm not sure what use the WHOA means. Reading through this thread it seems like members of the ICT are providing some sharp and thoughtful political critiques of how and when corporate sites should be used in relationship to social forum organizing.

If people are surprised by the forcefullness of the opinions being expressed, consider that many members of the ICT don't just think that free software is a good idea, we've made significant changes and sacrifices in our own lives to support this movement, both in general and in order to build out a free-software based environment for the social forum. It's no more surprising to get a sharp opinion on this topic from one of us than it is to find a garment worker on the picket line react to someone suggesting they print their strike t-shirts on sweatshop made clothing.

I'm confused, however, by the reactions from outreach and communications. I think the defensiveness around the use of proprietary/corporate tools is not really helpful and misses what is being critiqued. We're objecting to the organizing approach of encouraging people to go from our site to a corporate site. Why would we want to do that? Why would we want to have any corporate advertising on our site, particularly without getting paid for it? And - why would we want to risk having someone leave our site before signing up for the email list or registering or creating a workshop proposal?

If outreach wants to organize on facebook and send people to www.ussf2010.org - that's great. I think we should go wherever it takes - it doesn't matter where they come from. I think we should do it thoughtfully (in other words, ensure that all content published on facebook is also published on our sites), but I don't think anyone will argue with sending people from facebook/myspace, etc. over to us.

jamie

[https://id.mayfirst.org/malloryk]

Facebook, twitter; they're amazing, unprecedented, phenomenal networks of people. It absolutely should be used for many of the smart reasons that Charles outlined. My points are pointed directly towards the proposal that facebook and twitter be linked on our site.

[karlos@…]

Jamie, Mallory et al,

Sorry I've been at work all day and haven't had a chance to respond.

Back to square one.

Links are simply that. Links. They are not an endorsement.

Are we organizers? Are we activists? Are we academics? Are we theoreticians? Are we revolutionaries? (Yes, I've been on the mayfist site...)

Folks, we can hold all these and then some. We can hold a political analysis AND understand that we are not perfect.

We can meet people where they are at and at the same time hold on to our principles and introduce folks to alternatives.

What we can't do is force people to meet us at our ideologies. You can't fight a technology problem with ideology. If there were alternatives to these <b>networks</b> (not the corporate sites themselves), we'd use them.

Please put up the links as requested.

Karlos Gauna Schmieder
Center for Media Justice

[adele@…]

Yes, I'm also requesting the the links be put up.

Audre Lorde says, “The master’s tool will not dismantle the master’s house.” I once believed tools were the physical modes of oppression-like facebook-but it is also the ideologies that put those tools into operation that we must be weary of and guard against, meaning our tactics as well as facebook can be used to marginalize/shame people, depending on how we use our power to enact them.

Thank you for having this discussion. I think it's worthy of further exploration.

Adele

[adele@…]

Did my comment come off harsh? That was totally not my intention. I think the screen creates a chill that wouldn't exist if we were in person.

Thank you again, Adele

[alfredo@…]

While a link *is* a link, it is also an endorsement in Internet culture in most people's minds. In doing this type of link, the USSF is effectively endorsing these proprietary formats and progressive techies *are* going to notice. We are also sending people away from our site to another website and I still don't see the purpose in that. What do we gain? You're not getting anybody "new" into the family. Because they're already on your website! The point, as Jamie says, is to bring them here -- to our sites -- not send them elsewhere.

Here is where we're organizing. Here is where the information is. Here is the leadership of USSF communicating with people. Here is the social networking group formats we want to support, the ones *we* have created or are creating on the organize site.

Think about it: there is no gain in sending them to another site! Not that I can see.

I think many people are garbling the ICT position and that of other progressive techies. The ICT position is kind of like the MF/PL position on this issue (social networking software) because the progressive techie community is pretty united on this. This position is made clearly in my lead essay in the Organic Internet and it's a position we've been putting forward for a long time; it's also the official USSF position (he reminded us just in case we forget). And it is that...

The networks around these software forms are great and really significant and important; the software itself is effectively a form of capturing and coopting the social energy these networks represent and demobilizing them. And that's exactly what they've done. One of capitalism's powers is its ability to capture and derail potential mass movements and affected populations. That's how it survives.

Obviously these things are used massively and we should be there. You go every place where people are and you work with people no matter where they are. The contention that we are saying something different is what has derailed this discussion, I believe.

But we need to do this strategically and politically -- with some united thinking about what you want out of this. How do we approach and work with these things? Does the USSF on *its* front page link to and promote services that are designed to control, derail and repress social action? Do we use our website as a promotional tool for these things? What is gained by that? What actually do you want people to do with this "link"? You want to send them to Facebook? Why? The whole point is to bring them here; not send them there.

At least I think those are the strategic questions we should give a bit more thought to.

Alfredo

[clenchner01@…]

I think people have thought about these questions. This is a great discussion in which different people represent different views.

Now the question is: how long must this conversation last before a decision is made? Who makes the decision?

and

It feels awkward to me that you call the progressive tech position 'united'. I'm a progressive technologist, an online organizer, and I don't feel like your position represents me. It's probably not useful to throw around assessments of where the majority lies, but in my circles using services like Twitter and Facebook is all about escalating engagement across all channels because it's an effective way to organize.

And progressive techies from across the country seem to agree. After all, they are sending visitors to their websites to those corporate social networking services.
Even the Murdoch owned Myspace!

Miami Workers Center has links to Twitter and Adobe PDF icons all over
Communist Party USA has links to Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube
Brecht Forum has links to Twitter, Facebook and Youtube
Aspiration Tech has links to all of them as well.
The Grassroots Global Justice Alliance has a twitter icon on their website.
Center for Third World Organizing has a whole paragraph asking folks to join their Facebook page
Jobs with Justice blog has five icons - all of the above, but also flickr
Project South - fiscal sponsor and anchor org of the 2007 SF - has facebook and myspace
The Ruckus Society, whose director Adrienne Maree Brown is one of our national coordinators, has FB, Twitter, Flickr and Youtube.
Anchor organization Michigan Welfare Rights Organization links to Facebook and Twitter.

I think that the web designers and communication staff at these fine organizations can and should be counted as members of the progressive tech community. And they are making a different choice. Most of the groups I'm listing are NPC members. And they have concluded that these corporate links, logos and social networks are useful to them.

At the end of the day, it's entirely possible that the value I (and all the fine orgs listed above) see in using Facebook as an organizing tool will not be shared by everyone. That's fine! I appreciate the work that MayFirst has done in working on progressive tech space. But it's more accurate to present it as a viewpoint, sharing space with other progressive views.

And I think that the original request should be honored. It does not come from people who are ignorant of the political choices inherent in technology.

Respectfully,

Charles

[alfredo@…]

Charles,

You aren't proposing here that particular movement groups link to these tools -- that's a strategic choice they make as I've said countless times in public and in print. And, as you know, MF/PL supports organizations making that choice. That's not the issue here at all.

Here you are arguing that the United States Social Forum, which seeks to unite the entire movement (hundreds and hundreds of these organizations) should effectively endorse these tools on its home page -- because that's how linkage is going to be seen. That is a dramatic commitment that will resonate deeply and widely and *could* be in contradiction to the USSF's principles on this issue.

The ICT's role is to raise these issues and bring them to the attention of the USSF community. That's what I'm doing -- my job -- and that's what this discussion is about.

Again...the main question I raise, that you entirely ignore, is what good this does. Is it drawing people to the Social Forum? No...because they are *already* on the USSF site! All it does is send them elsewhere and that elsewhere is driven by proprietary software.

Organizers must look at three things: who they're organizing, where those people are at the point of contact and where we want them to go. In this instance, we know who they are (people interested in the USSF), we know where they are (on the USSF site) and so the issue remains where do we want them to go. You want to send them to Facebook? Why?

And that's the question you're not answering: why?

Alfredo

[adrienne@…]

i had to come check this conversation out!

at ruckus we did a communications and technology assessment [with gunner at aspiration tech] and made a commitment to shifting to ubuntu and open source tools for liberation and security reasons. we created our own social media space for our network. we tested all of that for periods of time and what we found was: we weren't meeting people where they were at! the technology was not yet ready to support the needs we had. we have since gone all out in reaching people WHILE ALSO supporting and encouraging improved alternatives.

i have been one of the managers of the twitter account for the ussf for months now, posting on there when we have upcoming working group calls and exciting updates. i get to watch the message spread to folks who are just finding out about it. the facebook page, the twitter account - these are reaching people who are currently outside our circle, and who aren't going to come comb through a wiki to find the calendar and updates. the emails will also help. both/and, not either/or - this needs to be our approach.

i trust david to hold us down in this arena, and want to support what he needs to move the strategy.

i know the question here is not to use the sites for outreach and organizing, as that would be unstrategic at this point in our work. do we have the links on our site or not? to me, placement matters. having folks give their email address to us first, and letting folks know the main organizing will be happening on the organize site and the wiki is great. THEN having those links and asking folks who ALREADY use those sites to make sure and tell everyone about us on there - that's a way to empower folks where they're at...put a disclaimer that summarizes the tech principles there.

lets see how many people we can liberate during this process, while allowing them to be part of the process in the ways that acknowledge where they're at.

with love - adrienne

[https://id.mayfirst.org/malloryk]

Thank you, Adrienne, I really feel like you took the time to understand the arguments and positions going on in this conversation. And I appreciate your sharing Ruckus' experience, because that's where we're all coming from with this: our own organizing experiences.

Its important to honor the work that you and David are doing for outreach on twitter and fb respectively. If we didn't create these links we'd be ignoring your contributions to the planning process.

And I think the page that Scott set up here:  http://www.ussf2010.org/contact is a darn good place for putting those links. There's plenty of analysis on corporate branding that I would try to strongly discourage USSF use of their icons. Again, we want those networks to advertise us and our message, not the other way around. fb and twitter should be so lucky to have such smart and organized people using their platforms.

Finally, in the spirit of continuing to uplift the work of we/our movement, I'd like to highlight the work that's been put into the social networking site  http://organize.ussf2010.org, which should be opening up to group creation very soon. Microblogging (i.e. twitter) is painfully simple and I'd like to see how implementing SMS + microblogging could help us on the ground in June and also to create some scrolling news and "buzz" on our sites.

[https://id.mayfirst.org/jamie]

Thanks Adrienne for offering a strategy for how putting links on our site would work (the idea that we want to direct people to first fill in information on our site, directing them to the organizing site, getting them to submit a workshop etc. and then letting them know about Facebook).

As Mallory indicates, this particular strategy suggests that we should not put the links prominently on the home page, but find a different way to communicate the existence of the fb page.

Is this the strategy communications and outreach also have in mind? Are there other strategies people can propose so we can figure out how to move forward? I'm hoping that Adrienne's post can help us get through this logjam so we can have a productive conversation.

Also - the focus seems to have moved to facebook exclusively (not twitter).

On the twitter side of things, I made a proposal in comment 4 above. I'd be interested in hearing feedack on it.

jamie

[clenchner01@…]

I'm pasting below a recent email from our friends at Idealware.org, who review nonprofit use of technology software. It's illuminating, and I think supports the view that powerful tools should be used powerfully, not hidden away.

If the component of our outreach strategy that makes sense is encouraging people to share content on social media, then it follows that we place links and logos prominently. Placing them on inside pages as well as the home page makes sense - surely there's a share widget or module in Drupal that can be implemented on every or nearly every page of the site. But the starting point is to make it as easy as possible to share, for every visitor to the site - casual or seriously engaged.

There's only so much real estate on the home page. For guidance on what makes sense, one could review the homepages of the organizations listed in my comment above. In many cases, the logos/links are above the fold. More rarely, they are at the bottom of the page or a bit further down a column, below the fold. But hiding them from the front page is like a supermarket moving the candy and magazines rack away from the checkout counter. If we want sharing to take place, we'll make sharing prominent.

(Of course, our signup box should definitely be even more prominent.)

Anyhoo, here's the report....

We're excited to officially release our new report today: Using Social Media to Meet Nonprofit Goals: The Results of a Survey

The report summarizes of a survey of 459 nonprofit staff members who were already using social media at their organizations. We asked the staff members what tools they were using and how effectively they thought those tools were meeting particular goals. Specifically, we asked about seven tools or types of tools: Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter, video-sharing sites, photo-sharing sites and blogs. View the results online at www.idealware.org/sm_survey/

A few quick highlights to whet your interest:

Generally, respondents felt social media channels were effective for enhancing relations with an existing audience and reaching out to new supporters, but considerably less so for raising money
Twitter was in the top three channels for every goal, and was considered the most-effective channel for reaching potential new supporters.
Although Facebook was the most widely used tool by a considerable margin, and the one that those not yet using were most likely to start, it was seen as the most-effective only in terms of raising money-and then, only by a small margin.
MySpace was not widely used, and ranked lowest for each of the three goals. LinkedIn was considered comparatively effective for fundraising, but lagged behind everything but MySpace for the other goals.
This project was made possible with the generous support of Firefly Partners, Balance Interactive, and Beaconfire.

View all the results and analysis online at www.idealware.org/sm_survey/

Enjoy!

Laura

PS from Charles: Jamie, in response to the Twitter/Identi.ca proposal, I'm not as interested in choosing technologies. I want to choose audiences. As long as the audience I want to reach is on Twitter and not Identi.ca, then I'd ignore Identi.ca. That would change as soon as stats on the # of identi.ca users changed dramatically. Using Identi.ca has merit, but not so much merit if the goal is encouraging as many users as possible to share with as many other folks as possible. That's the goal I'm holding near and dear.

[bikeit2010@…]

Hi All--- Ran across this thread through a search engine. It caught my attention because it mentioned www. bikeit .org. Very interesting conversation about corporate technologies vs. free ones for the USSF web-site....
Anyway I wanted to check in because I'm trying to figure out if there's away you can post a link to www.bikeit.org and a small description on the ussf2010 page...? That would be really incredible. Anywhere really, but it would particularly make sense to post it on the Caravan page: http: //abcd.ussf2010. org/caravans

It would be awesome to cross-pollinate on this! Thanks for your consideration!
Best,

Claire Stoscheck
BikeIt National Coordinator
BikeIt . org

[karlos@…]

Yes, please link to bike it on http: //abcd.ussf2010.org/caravans

karlos

[adele@…]

Hi Everyone:

I'd like to propose we come up with a resolution by early next week. If we can't, let's collectively decide how to bring this into the broader conversation.

I agree that we should place links and logos prominently and as Charles said, "of course, our signup box should definitely be even more prominent."

I feel like I'm being shamed for feeling that way and get the sense that MayFirst feels like they are being shamed for disagreeing. There's a way to find a middle ground, if we all don't get so stuck we can't see our way out. I'm looking forward to finding that opening.

Gracias,
Adele

[alfredo@…]

Nobody's trying to "shame" you into anything! We are honestly and in a principled way debating an issue we consider critical to the progressive movement.

The use and support of FOSS is a USSF principle -- as stated in the published USSF principles -- and this decision may contradict that principle. I would say that's worth analyzing wouldn't you?

I am acting in my capacity as Chairperson of ICT; my *job* here is to point stuff like that out. This has nothing to do with MF/PL. It's USSF policy and I just don't understand why you would write what you did about us.

At any rate, all of that is unrelated to the discussion we're having!

Here is the real issue: people *do* use proprietary software (including some of us sometimes) but you need to talk about it. And I asked the central question any technologist or web content developer asks: Why? What do we gain by putting those links up there? That is the question. It's the only question and it's the one we should be discussing. This is a critical discussion, Adele. Otherwise why would I be in the middle of it?

Don't do something without a good reason and don't use proprietary unless the gain outweighs the loss. And analyse how the gain outweighs the loss.

What is so extreme about that position? And what does "shame" have to do with it, for heaven's sake?

And why aren't people addressing the question which is the *only* way to finish this discussion because it is *the* point in this discussion? That is the opening you're seeking.

Alfredo

[karlos@…]

Ok.

My *job* is to communicate to identified audiences about the forum.

I don't make a habit of answering loaded questions. I don't agree with the much of the assumptions in ICT's "questions," so it's hard, but...

The answer to the question (why would we want to send people away from the site?) is: (and this isn't easy to tell our friends)

Because the site simply doesn't work as good as the proprietary sites. It's clunky, doesn't look good and hard to navigate.

This wiki is an example. It is not intuitive, it's ugly and it's partly the cause of my frustration and a feeling of talking past one another. I have similar concerns about the "organize" parts of the site.

I simply don't see people using the ussf sites as their homepages or as their primary source of info for the forum. People go to facebook and twitter and other sites like them every day. I don't see people going to the ussf site every day. They'd have to completely change habits and their internet culture over night. So having the link to facebook will make people comfortable with receiving the info they want and need (in the way they want to receive it) to attend, participate and engage with the forum. If you have data that says otherwise (analytics of any sort - unique visitors, returning visitors, etc. - about ussf2010.org) that you could share to change my mind on this, I'd welcome it. My twitter feed alone has the potential to reach upwards of 10 million people.

Social media is about a conversation, not a one-way discourse. Websites with info (like news sites, which are dying) are learning this slowly. You can't simply be a broadcaster, you have to use these networks to create a conversation - not control or consolidate the conversation or information on one site, whether corporate or not.

I will say it again. I feel that ICT is trying to answer our *technological* concerns with ideology, not workable, technological remedies.

karlos

[http://markdilley.myopenid.com/]

I support Adele's comment fully and also am looking for a way forward.

[karlos@…]

I didn't mean to just point to facebook, i mean all social networking sites and networks.

PS. Today's PEW study confirms where people get their info.

pewinternet.org/ Reports/ 2010/ Online-News/ Part-1/3-The-news-platforms-people-use.aspx?r=1

(won't let me post with link w/o logging in...)

[karlos@…]

I want to clarify that our sites at CMJ - mag-net.org and centerformediajustice.org are also clunky and hard to navigate. That's why we use and link to the other sites...to increase traffic to our content.

(is there any way we can lock this comment stream up? i hate that my comments are being broadcast to the world.)

These are conversations that I want to have with my peers and my peers only.

[dnm@…]

Hi all,

I Appreciate the discussion and hope it continues- in person and over a drink would be my preference!

I love that folks from other working groups have come on board to offer input and that generally we are being respectful of difference and listening softly- also that we're offering challenges & being real. My sense is that the USSF process generally is about collective decision-making & decentralized gate-keeping- that these are ways in which we practice self-determination and accountability to each other & our communities as we fight for long-haul changes to our situation. Many have referenced communities who are looking on as we take up the banner, whether the progressive techs who set the bar, organizations mentioned who use what's most comfortable and practical, or fronts in other countries doing survival tech and using whatever they can get their hands on. All of these encapsulates movement to me, and USSF epitomizes the broad movement- a rejection of domination in any sense, whether from our enemies or of domination by certain of our struggles over others. That said, it's certainly possible that we oppress from within the movement as organizers and I think we can talk about it, whether it's because one uses facebook which could be antithetical to one's overall community goals or because one holds on to a particular ideology, which could be antithetical to *our movement.

I want to name that this isn't just about the point of links vs. no links, which seem to have many political inuendos that no one should agree on and we could squirm and fight about it all day. I feel we're actually making headway on an underlying question of accountability. Who gets to be the guardian of USSF principles? Who gets to hold the banner for each struggle? Those paid to organize? Those affected? Those involved? Who gets to physically type in the link code to the front page of the website? All of us do really. Heck I could go and throw in a Twitter logo if I wanted- wasn't that the empowering point of transparent process and all of us having access to technology use?

Not to be incendiary, but I'm trying to convey that we're essentially engaging in a conversation about accountability, a respectful and important one that has brought many busy people to the table. And we're trying to get down all the perspectives & options before moving together because our collective ass is at stake and all kinds of people are surely watching & waiting on us. The process isn't meant to be easy.

In this spirit, I say we keep the technology & liberation discussion going until the forum, and as someone holding down social web stuff and helping with online information feng shui questions, I'll summarize the many options on this ticket in a proposal for moving forward:

I humbly suggest:

1. No direct links to anything corporate owned on our front page. Period.

2. No corporate logos throughout the site whatsoever, with exception of paypal. We include language about our dependency on Paypal on the payment page. Perhaps we can remove the logo itself? -> tickets 1 and 2

3. Our footer include a link to "World Social Forum Principles", which should also be listed clearly on our "About" page. It is currently absent from any clear viewing of the website from what I can see. Amidst any arguing of principles- the point of stating all WSF principles is ironically missing. --> ticket 3

4. Along those lines, we remove "The US Social Forum supports the use of free and open source software", which links ambiguously to the 'About' page. We instead have a link to "USSF Organizing Principles", which links to a list of the principles of each committee and "We, the organizers of the US Social Forum Believe..." section. So maybe that footer "USSF Organizing Principles" link goes directly to an improved and flushed out "About" page. Note: We frame ALL our organizing principles poignantly but broadly- tech in particular: "we support and encourage the use of free & open source software". This part of the proposal is a clear call to not allow technology principles to take precedence over many other struggles & organizing connected to the USSF, despite this being a website. -->tickets 4 and 5

5. The "Contact Us" Menu button on the front page becomes "Connect". "Connect" framing implies a many-way conversation rather than us as the bigwigs and other people as coming to us for info. "Contact Us" in the footer also be changed to "Connect with the USSF Community", which would imply USSF organizers and/or more generally anyone connected to the USSF through their social networks, projects, or news stories. --> ticket 6

4. The "Connect" page that both of these links refers to includes first and foremost a "Join our Email List" sign up form (a communications priority). It then includes what's there now:

1. general USSF phone #
2. detroit local info email
3. national info email
4. registration related issues email
5. tech-related registration issues email
6. accessibility contact link
7. press inquiries contact & phone
   1. working group leads contact #s

*I move that we actually turn these into a general contact section that first states the info phone number, and then an email contact link to a contact form that directs someone's message to the appropriate responder depending on their selection/need. --> tickets 7, 8

5. We add clear link to Organize.ussf2010.org site & social network. It's still unclear how to get to this. Maybe from the 'Connect', 'Register' and 'Get Involved' pages in some way also- many avenues for entry being the point of all this social media stuff. "Forum Network" button on 'Get involved' page isn't saying much- we flush that section out. --> ticket 9

6. Next on "Connect" page we flush out the "USSF Social Media Newsroom" to instead be "Other Social Media platforms with USSF presence" and include in text only:

1. twitter page link
2. facebook page link
3. identi.ca link
4. myspace link
5. soundcloud link
6. vimeo or youtube link
7. znet link and other self-organized pieces, platforms, online forums
   1. others strategic platforms we move on --> ticket 10

7. We add clear link to and flush out USSF Press Room (currently pretty empty). --> ticket 11

8. We add clear link to ussf2010.org multimedia site (where official video, audio, etc will be stored... assuming that's in the mix) -->later stage ticket, from what I understand

9. Last recommendation is that we ask Mark to do a monthly mass-wiki online training to combat userability issues. I believe he's already planning.

10. We move forward with plans to report monthly to NPC/OC on how social media platforms, including organize.ussf2010.org site, are aiding all of our committees and continue to reflect on what's working and not working by measuring how folks are connecting to us. At some point in the next 2 months we do a survey to gauge what's working for people and how they're getting info from the different working groups.

That's it- sorry so long. I hope those who endorse will endorse the proposal and the rest of us can hack out nerdy details. It may cause friction but it's meant to be a negotiation of the many perspectives, and still I offer the proposal humbly. Many folks are working hard around this. I hope ICT and COMMs folks with power to update the website can take it from here in pushing forward these changes.
Best,
david

Thinking of corporations..

---

"When fighting, the push is always forward, but movement comes at an arduous pace and with great expense of effort.

Step with the opponent, and it becomes a dance.  In an instant, struggle becomes movement, and effortlessness replaces motionlessness, paralysis becomes elegance"

[adele@…]

I have the RIGHT to voice what I felt and to minimize it is unacceptable!!! I will no longer continue this "honest and principled debate" on this ticket.

[https://id.mayfirst.org/malloryk]

I don't disagree with a single proposal that David made. And thank you, David, for clearly and thoroughly laying it all out for us both immediately and in anticipation for ongoing corporate and internal social media strategies.

It was so well-written, in fact, that barring any disagreements we first should do all we can to enact the proposals and secondly report to the NPC on the now-infamous "ticket 461" with David's proposal.

I'm inspired by everyone that's been brave enough to post their thoughts here and hope that this conversation does prove to be legendary. Having this discussion openly as we organize for one of the biggest convergences of progressive movements about how and how not corporate networking tools are stunting grassroots organizing will undoubtedly have a future impact on activist's online organizing practices.

[clenchner01@…]

I'm not sure if continuing the conversation here is helpful or not! That said....
David's proposal is a compromise, but at what end of the spectrum?
Taking share logos and links off the front page will reduce sharing by a large percentage - which we can easily measure.
If that reduction is 90%, would we still agree it's a compromise?
If that reduction is 10% would we still have a disagreement?

Either we prioritize the functionality for communications, which means sharing at peak capacity, or we prioritize the ideological purity of the site. I'm in favor of the former. I think David's proposal has many good points, but conceding the front page link issue is 100% the wrong way to maximize sharing. It's like when the moderator tells you it's fine to ask that question at the end. After nearly everyone has left the room....

Can anyone offer evidence that sharing links behind an extra link even works? Have we seen that elsewhere, among organizations that include share links?

I'm all in favor of compromise, and gladly give up 10%-20% of the communications functionality, as measured by results.

I note also, that on this thread we've heard from quite a few folks, on a variety of committees, including staff, express themselves as being in favor of those links. It seems a bit hurried to adopt any proposal before we've clarified who actually gets to decide. A vote of Working Groups? An NPC decision? Whoever continues to argue the issue on this thread?

Thanks everyone,

Charles

[https://id.mayfirst.org/josue]

hey karlos (and others who have been participating on this thread),

thanks for choosing to do something that is not easy for you. if you can't share we can't engage and this can't move forward.

not sure that i understand your "loaded questions" comment. you are asking for links to facebook, et al on the ussf home page. the pushback that different ICT members are giving is to ask questions about the strategy that comms is employing.

you state earlier in reference to the comms plan:

|The center of the chart is the USSF site with all other platforms directing folks to the home page.

and more recently that:

|I simply don't see people using the ussf sites as their homepages or as their primary source of info for the forum

that seems like a change in strategy. certainly something worth talking about as we all try to better understand how to work together.

you then say:

|having the link to facebook will make people comfortable with receiving the info they want and need (in the way they want to receive it) to attend, participate and engage with the forum

ok. um, what does this mean? how does the link to facebook on the ussf homepage accomplish this? explaining this could go a long way towards understanding what comms is trying to do with these links.

charles tells us:

|We have nearly 10k supporters connected to us on Facebook. It is the fastest growing entry point for folks interested in the Social Forum.

that is great! what is the facebook strategy? are we looking to recruit people who are not on facebook and get them to join facebook so they can join the USSF page on facebook? or are we focused on recruiting facebook users to join the facebook page? and how are we turning those facebook members into registered USSF members? what is the strategy for driving those members to create workshops?

and where does the link to facebook on the homepage fit into this?

one of charles responses is:

|I can understand that some would subordinate the task of outreach and engagement to an ideological mission.

huh? and then he says:

|if ICT can come up with an alternative method of engaging people on Facebook, MySpace and Twitter that will produce comparable results to the Comm WG's request, then let's hear it.

is the request that will produce comparable results the link on the homepage? aside from the fact that the ICT is NOT saying "don't use facebook" what are the results that charles is referring to?

this conversation is useful only if folks want to talk about the strategies being employed and how all these pieces fit together.

[karlos@…]

(To be real, I could parse all ICT's arguments too and tell you why the questions are loaded, but I don't think its worth it nor do I have time. I'd rather do it in person.)

But here's my response to your post.

It's not a change in strategy. Conceptually, the website is the at the center of the online comms strategy in that it holds much of the logistical information needed to actually make the forum happen - registration, workshops, working groups, etc. And, yes, one purpose of using social media sites is to drive people to access this information.

AND...

Another important consideration is that, as Charles puts it, "100% connectivity" (to the world) is what will help us to collectively shape a narrative, create buzz, impact the *public* discourse, and generate stories and engagement with people who are participating in the process at multiple levels, not just the planning level. The site and the info inside it will be fine for committed participants who are part of planning the process and who will be submitting workshops and proposals for culture, free space and more, but not for every one else and not for a parallel goal of impacting meta narratives and changing the conversation about democracy, human and workers rights and racial, economic and global justice (insert laundry list of issues and constituencies) in the public debate.

From my experience, this can only if the loop is connected by complimentary links back and forth between all the channels we can possibly use. Just because the ussf site is at the center of the diagram in the strategy doesn't mean the lines between all the possible ways to connect to the site don't go both ways. No one's website that I've seen anywhere does it alone, much less one as hard to navigate as the ussf site is as of right now. The only ones that even come close are the ones that directly feed social media posts and content directly into the front page of their sites.

If I had it my way and we had all the resources in the world it would go like this: direct mail > paid ads > email > text > social, new and multi-media > website AND back, like a two-way street.

It's like the difference between having a dialog with our audiences or talking at them.

I have to say, I don't like talking strategy on open threads for the world to see.

[clenchner01@…]

Karlos,

I hope this presents the case a little better...
A one way strategy presumes that activity on Facebook brings people to our site (a good thing) and once they are there, the sticky aspects of our site will create moments of engagement. This traffic will be converted at some rate into email signups, repeat traffic, visits deeper in the site, and perhaps even a registration or volunteer role.

A two way strategy presumed that for any given amount of traffic not from facebook, some quite large fraction have Facebook accounts (we can determine this factually). For that slice of traffic, and assuming a prominent Facebook share icon, some fraction will click the icon and join our fan page. On inside pages, they might instead be sharing the link to one of our website pages. This creates a virtuous cycle, where visitors with Facebook accounts are using their social network to spread information about us inside that network. This leads to more people encountering us from peers inside that network, and then either visiting our site, or engaging within Facebook.

It functions similarly for Twitter or MySpace.

Simply put, a two way strategy appoints all visitors who have a social media account as our emissary, and puts them on the road to sharing our story, and their involvement with us. A one way strategy treats the Facebook universe as a rival we want to take from, but not reward with our own attentions.

Which one would result in more instances of sharing? With more engagement?
For folks who are primarily social inside a network, a one way strategy definitely diminishes the opportunity for engagement.

For folks who prefer not to engage on email, the two way strategy offers a capture mechanism, where as a one way strategy leaves them outside the loop.

For a given 10k unique visitors, if 500 of them see the Facebook icon and decide to join our fan page, that will be relayed to (estimate) an additional 50000, assuming 100 friends each. Without the icon, we are leaving those 50k mini engagements on the table. With the icon hidden in the contact page, we are reducing it by 95% or so. (My estimate, which can be evaluated.)

And those mini engagements might be quite valuable. Peer outreach, where one person can see that folks they know are engaging with the SF one after another, can be more significant than formal outreach efforts. That's the beauty of social networking on sites with large numbers of users. Since people's networks overlap, bursts of sharing can reinforce each other to create a wave.

This is less likely if we short circuit the cycle by acting 'selfishly' when it comes to sharing on social networks.

In the ecology of the internet, sharing is a kind of currency where the more you do it the more you benefit. We want people to sign up for our email list. We want them to donate, register, submit workshops and so on. But we also want them to own our message and run around with it, to all the places they call home on the internet. And we have some good ideas about those places they call home.... They include some really big social networks that dominate in this country. (In Brazil I'd be insisting on using Orkut. And no one is demanding Friendster...)

The strategy isn't - go to FB and bring folks back. It's - figure out what leads to the highest sharing and engagement levels, across any and all platforms.

(PS: Thanks Josue for joining this!)

Charles

[sylvia@…]

Hi all. I've been reading the many conversations and appreciate the perspectives and recommendations raised by everyone. It's certainly been challenging but feels like something on which we can come to some resolution.

Yes, the social media debate is part of a larger dilemma on how we balance or choose between proprietary tools and free open source software (FOSS) for all online aspects of USSF outreach and communication. The decisions are simultaneously political, ideological and practical.

To get a better grasp on this, I think we need more clarity on the different perspectives being espoused so far, that is: ICT working group (vs vocal reps), MayFirst/People Link, Comm-Media working group (vs vocal reps), and NPC/USSF.

I've been active on both ICT and Comm-Media working groups since we started planning for USSF II. Many of the issues running through these threads have been brewing but have not come forward to the working groups as a whole for discussion or recommendations. There are sometimes disagreements among members within each working group so I ask that we not overstep or make assumptions about group positions.

Additionally, the frequently referenced USSF technology principles were created a year ago by a small of group of people in Detroit. At the time, I had been speaking with Josue about the need for a meeting to discuss local tech needs. Many folks were coming to town for the first USSF II NPC meeting. At the MWRO office, we were introduced to MayFirst's Creative Democracy software and we brainstormed some thoughts on how we thought we could envision technology for the USSF. The whole experience was new--the tools, the local participants, the gathering of NPC reps in Detroit--and we certainly didn't have a broad or representative group of people participate in this. For me, the purpose of the meeting was different than I understood it to be. The draft of principles was taken to the NPC for initial approval where we also understood that the principles would have to be revisited.

In Atlanta, we had another opportunity to use the Creative Democracy tool for drafting a list of ICT priorities from the NPC. I sat with a group of seniors and persons with disabilities and it took us longer to follow along, read new posts, and understand the tool. None of our recommendations made the list as other groups who typed faster and quickly got the hang of the CD software made the cut off.

I say all this to say that even with the best of intentions, the tools--regardless if they are proprietary or FOSS--can get in the way of meaningful conversations and needs. This debate will certainly not help us address how to get thousands of low-income, low/no tech Detroiters to the USSF. We need an earnest conversation about that.

For this social media decision, I recommend that we move to finalize it in person. The nearest opportunity we have is the next OC mtg at the end of March (3/26-28 in Detroit). This means going throughout March without the ability to implement some of the ideas/proposals outlined by some folks here. Outreach and communications working group members say there may be consequences. Based on registration numbers alone, our cash flow and budget needs require that we get more people registered. Politically, we've got few workshops so far and many questions to gauge about what it is that people want to get out of the USSF. We need multiple layers of getting out the word and hearing what people have to say.

It feels like this thread should move forward to a broader discussion of USSF representatives who can help us come to some agreements as we move into these final few months.

Ahead of the OC meeting, can we get a concise proposal and overview from both ICT and Comm-Media folks about the issues? We can share this with the other 10 working groups so that they can discuss it and make recommendations to their OC reps. We'll also need to get the NPC to weigh in, possibly through the additional conference calls they're starting and/or the survey that will soon be sent out to all NPC orgs.

Thanks! Sylvia

[karlos@…]

I want folks to know that I would never intend to demoralize or minimize the difficult and important work ICT (and MF/PL) has done to create and develop the ussf site. I understand from experience that it's hard to deal with requests coming from all corners of the movement, and to do so with integrity and accountability.

I don't want folks to get it twisted. And I want to be perfectly clear. I don't think the site could be any better than it is given our current capacity and just how big this forum is as an undertaking. I do trust and hope, though, that we can continue to make the site more user-friendly and navigable for people at multiple levels of digital literacy and based on good data and honest feedback. I tried to get on the NPC call to make it clear that I respect and honor all the hard work that goes into making a site for such an important event, but freeconference.com (yet another corporate site - and one that has horrible practices in rural communities across the country that takes money from the universal fund away from the people who need the connection most to make these call centers) kept telling me that "all circuits are busy, please call back later."

I really do agree with ICT's principles and politics. I'm just trying to make sure we do what we need to do and default to trust that we are all committed to democratic participatory social justice, human rights and dignity for all our communities.

And, as a general rule, I try to avoid conflict with people I respect and love as I go about my work in this movement - often at a disservice to myself and the work I'm often charged with pulling together.

I trust we all believe that another world is possible and we can move forward together and struggle to put our politics and principles into practice, and at the same time get things done given our current cultural and political terrain. (And, of course, with an eye towards transforming that cultural and political reality.)

In shared stories, analysis, solidarity and justice,

Karlos

[https://id.mayfirst.org/ross]

Hi All,

I've been off-line for a week and am just catching up. What an amazing discussion. Looking at the backlog, I see a few things that I think should be addressed that have not.

1. Adele's emotional response, her feeling of being 'shamed', got delegitimated. I find this unfortunate and in need of addressing. We are all here as both political and emotional beings. None of us became activists or organizers out of a purely logical framework but because we have strong feelings as well. Thus, I think it appropriate to respect Adele's sense of shaming and for the ICT to recognize that our perspective on FOSS does carry with it a moral sentiment that if you don't use FOSS you're acting badly. Like every other activist position, FOSS commitments result in other people feeling guilty. Otherwise, I might be wearing that pimped out mink fur coat I secretly desire. I think it incumbent upon the ICT to recognize our elitism, even when our politics are correct.

1. Debasing FOSS perspective by calling it ideological results in some strange sense of purity that works in the exact opposite direction as number 0 above. No one escapes ideology. The American fantasy that pragmatism and ideology are somehow separate denies everything we know about culture and politics. To use such a rhetorical tool in a discussion such as this simply belies the discussion altogether. From my perspective, this discussion illuminates a classic ideological dialectic between an ideology of means v. an ideology of ends. While I think each has its merits, I also know that capitalism is fundamentally built upon the latter, and as an anti-capitalist, I choose the former. This does not mean that an ideology of ends is without merit. Much can be said for filling seats, building numbers, spreading the logo, branding the name, and generating the spectacle which seductively transforms consciousness, and without question such a strategy has been successful over the last 160 years of industrial and post-industrial production. Finally, the notion of ideology itself is such a loaded term and one with so many definitions it's hard to pin down. For my part, I use Gramsci's definition which understands ideology as a social force (a set of ideas) which bind people together. The work of the revolutionary, the activist, the organizer according to Gramsci will always be to create an ideology counter to the state and the capitalist mode of production (i.e. that which oppresses). At the same time, the *only* way these counter-ideologies can work is through negotiation and consent. The work we're doing now models such an ideological negotiation. Assuming that we all agree that FOSS represents a legitimate and positive alternative to proprietary software, then our question should not be fb links on the home page or not, but instead, our question should be "How can we best spread the ideology of FOSS, without alienating people?" The ICT has already alienated people, including people on the ICT, with our hard line commitments, so perhaps we need to soften a little bit. Yet, reproducing the 'common sense' use of technology (putting up links because everyone is doing it) serves our goals no better. I thus encourage us to focus more on how to best spread our collective ideology of a more open, freer society, particularly, in this case, the question concerning technology, than focusing on whether or not to put up links. The links, it seems will go up somewhere, so how will we make those links most effectively spread free software?

2. The site sucks and couldn't be better right now. I don't think anyone directly addressed this charge by Karlos, but I tend to agree. Other than the obvious problem of a lack of staff to work on this issue, the one thing that could help us work on this issue is having the people working on the forum start using the tools and make recommendations. We haven't the time nor money to do usability studies, but we could use each other to improve usability. So anyone who doesn't or hasn't spent time on  http://organize.ussf2010.org please start spending time there, try out the available features, recommend features that aren't there, recommend changes you would like to see, while we may not be able to add them all, it would certainly help us moving forward to know what people are thinking. Post a ticket type: feature-request and help us out.

Again, thanks everyone for such thoughtful and provocative discussion over what continues to be a difficult issue (maybe more difficult than 3 years ago).

peace,

ross

[alfredo@…]

Thank you, Karlos. That's hugely helpful. :-)

And you, Karlos, and all of you have committed serious time and serious thinking in your contributions. Trust me that this has been very much noticed and appreciated by our Working Group. It's not easy to talk about these pioneering issues and nobody is born with the thinking we now have -- it's a process for us all and it never ends during our lives. Discussion, very often difficult discusion, is the nurturing substance of successful political struggle. This discussion will unquestionably move ICT's work forward and will help us in our own discussions. And that, in the end, will contribute to the Social Forum itself.

Alfredo