The Rock the Vote site within the Xbox Live network has downloadable Gamerpics, which can be added to an individual’s Xbox Live profile, in support of Barrack [sic] Obama or John McCain, the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees, respectively. There’s also voter registration information and Rock the Vote videos.
Banner ads on the Dashboard — the central hub of Xbox Live — will point people toward the Rock the Vote content. After downloading the “I registered” pic, members will get voter registration information via e-mail.
“Hurricane Katrina: Tempest in Crescent City” is a comprehensive social networking website featuring an educational “game” experience where participants are encouraged to act in support of New Orleans residents. The site provides links to a variety of relief groups as well as information about New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina including multiple timelines, analysis of media coverage, and supporting articles for all information presented.
In their first joint appearance since the party conventions, presidential nominees John McCain and Barack Obama will discuss service and civic engagement in the post-9/11, post-Katrina world during the primetime televised “ServiceNation Presidential Candidates Forum” on the evening of Thursday, Sept. 11, hosted by Columbia University in the City of New York, as part of the ServiceNation Summit.
CLO has just released a new short report outlining an evaluative framework for civic curricula based on the learning categories developed in our previous report, Young Citizens and Civic Learning. Here is the abstract:
This report introduces the work of the Civic Learning Online Project in developing digital media learning tools. The need for identifying specific online learning goals and opportunities is discussed first. This is followed by the introduction of an online curriculum unit, Blogging in Public, which is evaluated in terms of the civic learning opportunities it offers.
After perusing this report, we would appreciate your input on the following questions, as well as any general feedback:
Do you see any major categories of civic learning which our evaluative framework would exclude? If so, what?
Do you think civic practitioners are likely to find our framework useful? What can we do to make it more useful for them?
CLO is a bit late to this particular conversation, but I wanted to spotlight the ongoing dust-up in the civic/political blogosphere over a recent Christian Science Monitor op-ed by Sally Kohn, a youth civic practitioner. The piece, titled “Real Change Happens Offline,” makes a number of controversial claims, some more defensible than others:
. . . Internet activism is individualistic. It’s great for a sense of interconnectedness, but the Internet does not bind individuals in shared struggle the same as the face-to-face activism of the 1960s and ’70s did. It allows us to channel our individual power for good, but it stops there.
This is great for signing a petition to Congress or donating to a cause. But the real challenges in our society – the growing gap between rich and poor, the intransigence of racism and discrimination, the abuses from Iraq to Burma (Myanmar) – won’t politely go away with a few clicks of a mouse. Or even a million.
Daily Kos, the Nation, and CLO adviser Allison Fine have all articulated thoughtful objections to these and other arguments and assumptions embedded in the piece, and Kohn’s response to her critics highlights some of the deep-rooted philosophical differences between partisan Democrats and leftists steeped in critical theory. But I want to sidestep that debate for the time being to focus on an implicit question running through the entire discussion: what, in civic and political terms, is digital media good for? And what projects are better left to the non-digital world?
Kohn’s critics were as quick to dispute the notion that online politics is somehow inherently atomistic as they were to acknowledge the fact that it will never be sufficient to fulfill the goals of most civic and political projects of any significance. Kohn herself seems to view new media as little more than a narrowly helpful supplement to “real” political activity, the vast majority of which plays out offline. But in light of current theoretical understandings and empirical findings, what ought we to expect the internet to do well, and at what point should we begin to curb our enthusiasm? I think we can all agree that new media has made political contributions, petition-signing, and self-expression easier than ever before, but what about changing hearts and minds, civic participation in the legislative process, engaging the disengaged, and hedging against gross concentrations of power (political, economic, cultural, and other)? This question is so basic that we as scholars run the risk of incorrectly assuming that we all agree on the answers, which is why addressing it directly is crucial.
What determines whether attempts at online youth civic engagement succeed or fail? Eszter Hargittai tackles a question very similar to this one in her recent contribution to a discussion of Clay Shirky’s latest book, Here Comes Everybody. But you don’t need to have read the book to apply Hargittai’s core insight to the issues we’ve been discussing on this blog:
While it is certainly the case that new technologies, tools and services are leveling the playing field, existing societal position and resources still matter. The question is: when do they matter more or less? Under what circumstances do people with less resources still manage to benefit from the new tools in ways that would have been difficult earlier? What are the examples of mobilization that do not involve people with PhDs, ones with noteable techie know-how or one’s with considerable financial resources either themselves or among those in their networks? There are such examples, certainly, but it would be interesting to see systematically what it is that unites them. What commonality is there among such cases that suggests a true leveling of the playing field that goes beyond allocating more opportunities to those who are already considerably privileged? (On a sidenote, these issues are similar to the ones I raised while discussing Yochai Benkler’s book The Wealth of Networks.)
What is important to understand from a youth civic engagement perspective is that not all youth are equally proficient at using digital media. Terms such as “digital natives” and “DotNets,” used by scholars and civic practitioners alike, imply the opposite when applied broadly to the current generation of adolescents and young adults. A better conceptualization of online youth engagement might begin by observing that only some youth fit the tech-savvy “digital native” archetype, and continue by asking how the digitally disadvantaged can best be brought to the virtual table. As a local example illustrating this divide, members of the CLO team have anecdotally observed alarmingly low levels of email proficiency among some of the low-income youth with whom they have come into contact. Instead of maintaining consistent email addresses, they seem to be caught in a ongoing cycle of email address registration, abandonment, and re-registration fueled by chronic password forgetfulness. Reaching these young people via participatory civic sites will remain a Sisyphean endeavor until they learn to master this most fundamental of online skills.
Much of the breathless internet triumphalism effusing forth from the popular press tends to downplay the strong possibility that preexisting inequalities will, in the absence of action to redress them, persist in online contexts (this is not to imply that Shirky’s book falls into this category; I haven’t read it). This holds true for youth civic sites no less than for any other type of participatory media. In addition to Eszter’s general questions, then, I would like to pose a few of my own:
What can be done to make online civic spaces more appealing to diverse groups of youth? What are some effective ways to avoid falling into the trap of simply placing a piece of technology into the world and expecting an energized, diverse user base to emerge autonomously?
What offline structures need to be constructed to ensure that youth civic sites attract more than just the “usual suspects,” i.e. young people who have already bought into the value of civic engagement?
What other online exemplars devoted to youth engagement can we look to that have managed to navigate these issues with a relative measure of success? What can we learn from them?
even the least privileged kids have profiles on MySpace and Facebook. And they’re on the internet all the time. That finding goes against past studies that have found a ‘digital divide’ between rich and poor kids.
This looks like a pretty egregious non-sequitir to me, as the fact that poor kids have social network profiles is not evidence of the absence of a digital divide. Eszter, I’d be particularly interested to see what you have to say about this. (Can’t find the actual study write-up, but here’s an interview with the PI.)
In my last post, I discussed key YouTube videos about Barack Obama. In this post, I will be discussing some of Hillary Clinton’s videos.
Hillary Clinton has been much less active on YouTube than Barack Obama. However, there have been some very notable videos posted both by her and by others outside of her campaign. This video is one her campaign released as a commercial before the Texas primary. It received a large amount of media attention and was considered very controversial. The video is called “Children,” and has received 960,000 views as of the posting of this blog, making it the most viewed video Hillary Clinton has posted.
The next video was released in March 2007, making it one of the first viral videos of the 2008 election cycle. This famous mashup combines Apple Computer’s 1984 Super Bowl commercial with one of Hillary Clinton’s speeches in an attempt to paint her as “Big Brother.” The video, titled “Think Different,” has witnessed over 5 million views to date.
This last video is an example of how YouTube can amplify the media echo chamber. In late March, Hillary Clinton was caught exaggerating about sniper fire she encountered during a trip to Bosnia while she was the First Lady. Users of YouTube were quick to post news clips about the gaffe, which quickly spread throughout the internet. This video currently has over 1 million views.
YouTube has rapidly become one of the most popular sites on the internet. The ease in which individuals can upload and share video has allowed citizens to share views and ideas with unprecedented ease. Additionally, individuals have greater access to information being spread by sources they may not have seen before. Both individuals and candidates have been using YouTube extensively for the 2008 presidential election. This medium is particularly effective in getting information out to younger citizens, who may not pay attention to traditional news sources, but spend a good amount of time on YouTube. In a series of blog posts, I will be exploring some of the more popular videos being uploaded and discuss the impact they might have on young Americans.
The candidate most involved with YouTube is Senator Barack Obama. Obama has been posting far more videos than other candidates and has had some very popular videos posted about him. While there are certainly many factors involved with Obama’s ability to energize young voters, his campaign’s competence with social media has certainly boosted his numbers in this traditionally apathetic constituency.
One of the most entertaining videos that came out last summer was this one, named “Crush on Obama.” While the video is clearly a joke, it brings out Obama’s youth and good looks, which are both assets in a presidential election. This video currently has over 8 million views.
This next video is titled “Yes We Can.” Created by will.i.am of The Black Eyed Peas, this video features a star cast in an inspirational song mirroring one of Barack Obama’s speeches. As of the time of this post, it has been viewed over 14 million times.
This final video is an example of how Obama has used YouTube to respond to widespread criticism. In this case, Obama was attacked because of a clip of his Pastor, Reverend Wright. This now famous speech given on March 18th in Philadelphia has over 5 million views.
Next week I’ll be exploring some of Hillary Clinton’s more famous videos.
The media are calling 2008 “The Year of the Young Voter.” Whatever you want to call it, something is definitely happening. There’s a level of excitement this country hasn’t seen in a long time. We have an opportunity to show the world that students can self-organize, and actually start working toward a common goal. We don’t claim to have the answer, but if you’re interested in giving it a shot, read on.
Your Revolution is here. Imagine the power of a social utility like Facebook, combined with the ability to register to vote instantly online, and a set of dynamic tools designed for activists and organizers. Your Revolution has created a Facebook application which takes advantage of Washington and Arizona’s new online voter registration legislation. The Facebook application allows the user to register to vote in a matter of minutes directly from their profile.
The application includes a peer pressure aspect as well, as it scans your friends list and cross references the respective secretary of state website to see who is and who has not registered to vote, and puts this in a visual percentage. The application then gives you the opportunity to invite your friends to register to vote. Even if they are not from WA or AZ they can use the Rock the Vote interface which automatically generates the correct form to complete and mail in for every other U.S. state. Check it at: www.yourrevolution.org Needless to say the viral potency of this application the amount of people who will be given the opportunity to register to vote from such an easy platform will be tremendous. We’re taking advantage of the viral potential and huge user base of Facebook to really make a difference in this election, and in politics in the future. The project has already become quite popular, and it’s going to be a serious political force in the months to come, especially among student voters. We’re working successfully with lawmakers in other states to open online voter registration systems (right now, we’re co-authoring legislation in Oregon as part of a wider package of voter access proposals).
We realized, however, that we could accomplish our ultimate goals much better if we built Your Revolution into a more robust application. So, that’s what we did. It now has a full set of features designed specifically for student groups and non-profits. Many activist groups are already using Facebook to manage their projects; we looked at their needs, and developed custom features that allow them to better coordinate with volunteers, organize groups, projects and events, and—most exciting of all—the ability to assign tasks, retain communication with interested individuals, and coordinate with other groups and organizations with similar interests.
A website does not mean that you have a web presence. To be an effective marketer you need to bring the product to the crowd, not let them come you. Facebook has become the most efficient and effective space for increasing and creating visibility.
*68 million users with 250,000 new registrants all day.
*50% of Facebook users are now over the age of 25
* Average Facebook user spends 20 minutes on the site every day, more than Google, MSN, and YAHOO combined.
* Facebook has 85% market penetration in college students
Washington Caucus Example:
Washington State democratic caucuses 2008: On Facebook, one person in our group who spent 90 minutes collecting information and invited 30 people join an event to participate and motivate friends to as well.
*In 4 days over 14,000 people were invited with approximately 2,000 people listed as accepted to attend. Washington State went on to have record numbers at the caucuses all across the state.
* No external evangelism, phone calls, emails or faxes were deployed.
* Over 200 comments, pictures, videos, and testimonials posted.
It may have not happened here in the U.S. as much, but yesterday there was a massive protest in many countries around the world against the FARC. Over two million people marched in countries like Venezuela, Peru, Japan, and its epicenter: Colombia.
What’s impressive is that the protest were primarily organized in Facebook, with support of other Internet tools. Interesting as well, is that Facebook has put no effort in being a global platform, yet the connections of its users have made it relevant for many parts of the world. Also, other countries are not as aware of the privacy issues that the platform has had, so while I know of people in the U.S. dropping out of Facebook, it seems that it continues to grow in other parts of the world.
This is a wonderful example of how digital media can mobilize people for social causes. Perhaps an instance to look into and understand how it happened, I’m sure that the model will be replicated. This may be the best example to date of the power of social networking.
