Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Social Sites Offer 'New' Way To Experience Presidential Debates

Posted by Zonk on Sun Jan 06, 2008 05:05 PM
from the everything-is-novel-on-the-interwebs dept.
United States Government Social Networks The Internet Politics
News.com notes that the social sites have been burning up in the wake of the debates, as users create more content than it's possible to follow. Facebook specifically set up an area for debate viewers to post messages and take surveys during the events. Some participants found it a bit worthless, and the article refers to the experience as 'information overload'. "No doubt, the political twitterers must've felt empowered to know their Soundboard comments were being beamed out to an audience of potentially millions of Facebook users, and, if plucked by ABC's designated Facebook-monitoring reporter on TV, millions of offline viewers as well. Still, it's a little unclear whether the comments will prove all that useful for campaigns looking to boost their candidates' standing."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Social Sites Offer 'New' Way To Experience Presidential Debates 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    At Christmas I was talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. He was mentioning how much American politiking has changed since then. In particular, he talked about how the candidates then didn't have the huge teams that they do today. The politicians themselves did much of the grunt work, and interacted directly with the voters.

    One thing he said is that it made the politicians seem more real. These days, a normal American citizen would have very little chance of meeting face-to-face with their representativ

    • Re:Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by neapolitan (1100101) on Sunday January 06 2008, @05:34PM (#21935832)
      Yes, I have heard stuff like this repeated a lot too. This may be true, but I do not think that it is all the politician's fault. I think it is partly the fact that the population of the USA was probably a fraction (~120 million) of what it is today. It is simply not reasonable to have any contact with any meaningful fraction of your electorate. I think the candidates DO, given their security and time limitations, make an effort to go out there and shake people's hands.

      Think about your state -- this is probably analogous to the USA quite a while ago. I have shaken my state governor's hand (I went to Boys' state) and got to talk to him a bit. I dated a girl from a small country in Europe, and she had met their president numerous times (and he knew her father by first name). It is partly just a function of the US becoming very large that this is not possible.

      P.S. Back when Slashdot was starting, me and 'Taco were really tight, PM'ing every night, but now he doesn't even answer the emails I send to him... :p

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jez9999 (618189)
        I think it is partly the fact that the population of the USA was probably a fraction (~120 million) of what it is today. It is simply not reasonable to have any contact with any meaningful fraction of your electorate.

        That's exactly why the US system is designed for the federal government to have very little power, and the states to have most of it, so people can interact at a more local level... and Ron Paul is the only one advocating the return to this.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jcr (53032)
          Ron Paul is the only one advocating the return to this

          Correction: the only one who's running for president that advocates this. There are several tens of thousands of supporters, too. ;-)

          -jcr

            • Printing money non-stop and claiming that it will all just work out somehow is what I would call being "divorced from reality".

              -jcr
          • Actually he's advocating the complete abolition of the legal and social framework and the US and the complete abolition of the Army

            I have to wonder, why would you bother to make up such an outrageous lie, when it's so trivially disproven? Ron Paul advocates reducing the power of the federal government to that which is delegated to it in the constitution, which in case you haven't heard, is the legal framework of the United States.

            his continued writing for white supermacist organisations

            Like this [ronpaul2008.com]? or this [blogspot.com]? or this [youtube.com]?

            Sorry, but your attempt to paint Ron Paul as a racist has failed. Feel free to play again, though.

            -jcr

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by jcr (53032)
                Asked and answered, and you already knew that. The content of that issue of his newsletter is not consistent with anything else he's ever said or written.

                Your attempt to whitewash Ron Paul's bigotry has failed.

                There's nothing to whitewash. The man's not a racist, no matter how much you may want him to be.

                -jcr

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by runderwo (609077) *

            Ron Paul is also the only one advocating returning to the gold standard (even though there's not enough gold on the planet to support the US economy and it's an outmoded system that can't be sustained)

            First of all, your comment demonstrates you know nothing about monetary policy. Second, while he favors the gold standard and advocates abolishing the Federal Reserve, he advocates two different policy steps in the direction of sound money. One is to legalize competing currencies, in order to force the Fede

      • This may be true, but I do not think that it is all the politician's fault. I think it is partly the fact that the population of the USA was probably a fraction (~120 million) of what it is today. It is simply not reasonable to have any contact with any meaningful fraction of your electorate.

        The very first proposed amendment to the Constitution [wikipedia.org] was designed to address this inevitable problem.

        The wisdom and foresight of those who came hundreds of years before us never ceases to amaze me.

    • Well, perhaps it's worth noting that in 1932 only about 33 million [infoplease.com] people voted in the Presidential election, while in 2004 the figure was closer to 110 million. Takes a bigger organization, with more layers, to reach four times as many people.

      More importantly, in the 1930s many people tended to get their voting patterns from local organizations that more or less owned their vote, e.g. unions and "machines." FDR worried quite a bit about keeping the "machine" and union boss vote. Harry Truman was selecte

  • Anything and its opposite (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 4D6963 (933028) on Sunday January 06 2008, @05:23PM (#21935722)

    Facebookers opined that Hillary Clinton is "onto Barack like a Rottweiler" one moment and "has about as much experience and common sense as an avacado [sic]" the next. Ron Paul is a "looney" to some, but "the only one who understands economics" and "the only logical and realistic choice," to others.

    So, put it that way, people say anything and its opposite about candidates, and we hardly have any way to quantify what they think as a whole. So we can (pretty much) qualify what people think but not quantify. Sounds like a problem.

    Here's what I wish would exist on the web, sort of polls in which no poll choices would be defined by the poll creator, but would emerge from what people say. I'm going to use TFA's Mitt Romney example to illustrate the idea : "Mitt Romney, who arguably endured the largest share of attacks during the Republican debate, drew mixed reviews: everything from "the only one who understands insurance," "looks younger than 60," to "is getting creamed," and "lost this debate.""

    Basically, from such a polling system's user input would emerge dominating trends, for example "Only Romney understands insurance", "Romney lost the debate", "Romney looks young", and people's input would be categorised under these self-grouping ideas and thus you could both qualify and quantify at the same time what people think and agree on.

    Unfortunately the "grouping user input into a few categories" thing might be the difficult part.

    • Basically, that sounds like Slashdot tags, but with a little more information about how many people actually tagged a candidate that. I figure that something like that would really confuse some people.

      I mean, what would the media think if someone like Hillary Clinton got tagged "mafiaa"? :]

      • I agree, after some more thought about it, it's indeed quite similar to Slashdot tags, with the detail that you would know in what proportions people "tagged" what, and that as you said it would be a little more verbosituous (is there an actual term that means the same as this awkward neologism?) than mere tags.

        I really wish someone would pick that idea up and experiment with it.

        • > little more verbosituous (is there an actual term that means the same as this awkward neologism?)

          You might try the word "verbose"--it's a lot easier to say, too.

          And I agree that someone should try it. But when I say "someone" I mean "someone else" because I'm too lazy :]
    • Unfortunately the "grouping user input into a few categories" thing might be the difficult part.

      Considering that it combines successful natural language parsing with solving the strong AI problem, I'd say you're quite right about that.

      • Considering that it combines successful natural language parsing with solving the strong AI problem, I'd say you're quite right about that.

        Or you could find a human solution to the problem, for example allow users to edit options in a Wiki-like fashion, or let people specify how similar their input is to other people's (specific) input. I think it's definitely worth some serious consideration, as most of the time I'm considering making a poll I think "if only there was a way people could define the poll o

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by porcupine8 (816071)
      Man, if you came up with software that could do that accurately and consistently, you'd have a HUGE market in the social sciences. What you're talking about is coding data (when the raw data consists of, for example, transcripts of talk in a classroom).

      • What you're talking about is coding data (when the raw data consists of, for example, transcripts of talk in a classroom).

        Is it? Are you talking about parsing transcripts of discussions into extracting the main opinions and quantifying them? If so then no, that's a great idea, but that's very ambitious. My idea was more along the lines of a cross-over between a traditional poll and Slashdot's tagging system.

    • Somewhat like the link in my sig.?

      -metric

      • Well, the link in your sig demonstrates a method for starting a debate, create a discussion and somehow poll people in a fairly innovative fashion, however it's not quite my idea.

        My idea is pretty much, start a poll with a question such as "What do you think about X?", and don't provide poll options, let the users do it, somehow. So if with such a system you asked "What do you think about death penalty?" you wouldn't get a say "23% for, 77% against" but more like 21% for "All killing is wrong, therefore the

    • Here's what I wish would exist on the web: Empirical data and the dissemination thereof. This whole "web as a social tool" is simply turning into another leash like television, where we get to be inundated with ads and the same bullshit we're spoon fed on TV, in the newspaper, magazines, billboards (well I don't have cable and conveniently have no local reception at my house).

      They aren't viewing the web a new useful tool just another way to slap their mantra all over everything to swing the tools out there

  • The new facebook debate feature is mostly useless (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Paktu (1103861) on Sunday January 06 2008, @06:00PM (#21936048)
    I noticed the new "Debate" feature on Facebook the other day and decided to take a look. In my opinion, this feature would be a lot more useful if it had been released two or three years ago when Facebook was just college students and the level of discourse was much more civilized. Now that Facebook is open to anyone, the debate goes to the lowest common denominator, so it's about as much fun as reading Youtube comments.
    • Now that Facebook is open to anyone, the debate goes to the lowest common denominator

      I'm sure it doesn't help that the demographic is wide open, but there's unfortunately very few forums anywhere I've seen that don't tend that way. You have to start with a critical mass of well-informed, thoughtful people who have a minimum of axes to grind... and even then, you'll see outbreaks of simplistic thinking, petty attacks, and trolling. College students are a half-decent bet, but since a good number of them are s
    • Ironically, I often wish other sites had Slashdot type moderation.
    • What percentage of the MySpace, Facebook and YouTube audience are old enough to actually vote? My guess is the answer to both these questions are relatively low numbers.

      I'm embarrassed to admit this, but most of my family (all adults) have Facebook accounts and keep bugging me to create one since it's how they keep in touch these days.

      My mother also recently went on her first date in years. It was an ex-high-school-boyfriend that she hadn't seen in 30 years who had run across her Facebook profile.

      Both are r
      • You don't have a facebook account because you don't like keeping in touch with your family?
        And should you ever become a widower or divorced you never want to go on dates again? Especially not with someone you knew.
        -

        I WAS able to get my family on board. I've been trying for a while to setup a portal where we could all post pictures or keep in touch. 8 kids and 12 grandkids and 5 (so far) great-great grankids under my late grandmother. All a relatively close knit family but didn't quite make it into the digit
        • You don't have a facebook account because you don't like keeping in touch with your family?

          Correct.

          And should you ever become a widower or divorced you never want to go on dates again? Especially not with someone you knew.

          Not that. I'm just not interested in having people from my past stumble upon public information of mine and hit me up. It happens every once in a while even without Facebook and it's always an unpleasant experience for me. I always feel obligated to exchange kind words and try to get some
          • > I find social networking sites to be far too much of a drain. I prefer e-mail. Quick and to the point. In fact, e-mail is pretty much the only way I really like to communicate (besides face-to-face of course) at all. Every thing else (including phone) annoys the hell out of me (and no I do not own a cell phone).

            I agree with almost everything in that. I bet there are a lot of people like us. If only there was some place for us all to hang out and chat, a forum or something... I'm only half being sarcast

          • Re:here today but... (Score:5, Informative)

            by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Sunday January 06 2008, @07:07PM (#21936600)
            There seems to be a big misconception about how Facebook works that I keep seeing repeated by slashdotters that don't have it.

            If you go to type in someones name that has *default settings*, if you're not in their network all it shows you is their face and name and what network they are on. (A network was originally a 'college', but has since been expanded to "Work" and "Regional"). From there the privacy settings are very very customizable.

            I can make it so NO ONE can find me in search. More or less invisible and I have to add friends. I can make it so only 1 network (Say my college network) can see my drunken bar photos while only my Work network can see me helping old ladies across the street. I can put people on a limited profile so that crazy stalker girl I can add as a friend and not have her see my phone number. But just because someone can find you on search doesn't mean they get ANY of your personal information and even then you can limit it.

            It's really very flexible.

            I don't see why everyone is up in arms about facebook 'privacy' concerns . So Facebook knows my name and movies. I don't care. I'd rather have them try and push a new ad to a movie I'd like than a chick flick. And until I start putting in either financial information and SSN, I really don't care if they store the passwords in plain text.

            I'm guessing you also don't pay much attention to maxi-pad or home pregnancy test ads. There's a reason the word "Demographics" exists. Everyone on slashdot (and I'm not saying you) seems to think that because THEY do or don't do something that EVERYONE must think the way they do. If you don't like social networks fine. There are plenty of us who do. Just like there are plenty of us who prefer Debian over Ubuntu and OS X over XP.
              • If I've never heard of it, the millions of people on facebook probably haven't heard about it. Exposure > Quality any day of the week. If someone logs in to see what their BFF JILL did this weekend and sees something about politics they might take notice. They're not going to nagivagte to some random site.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by The_Wilschon (782534)
      facebook is (used to be?) mostly college students, eg, those who are old enough to vote.

    • What percentage of voters are affected by Social Networking sites? What percentage of the MySpace, Facebook and YouTube audience are old enough to actually vote?

      In terms of percentage, you're probably correct that it isn't huge, but I would guess it's at least in the 30-50% range (probably higher as facebook at least started with a college-only crowd and has attracted insane amounts of users of ages 20-30). Regardless, some of the hot videos on youtube or hot topics on facebook can attract millions of viewers in a matter of months. The effect may be bigger than you predict.

      I'm thinking is that this is a one-time phenomenon. By the time of the next election MySpace and Facebook will probably be oh-so-yesterday. Though I understand the candidates need to appear new-fangled and not miss out on new channels -- especially free ones.

      That may be the case, but I'm sure something similar will take its place by then.

      I'm also thinking that the Paultards rabid activities are actually counteractive. They are much worse than spammers. There's even on average five or so Paultard spamvert articles in the /. firehose on any given day. Mercifully, they don't usually make the front page.

      This is a

    • What percentage of voters are affected by Social Networking sites? What percentage of the MySpace, Facebook and YouTube audience are old enough to actually vote? My guess is the answer to both these questions are relatively low numbers.

      Aside from my 13 year old son, every facebook user in my friends list is old enough to vote.

      In my experience, very young kids are more interested in the 'rapid high' aspects of the net. That being flash games, MSN, and mmorgs. Things like facebook and such, social networking
      • I think Facebook doesn't appeal to younger teenagers or kids much because they don't use what it's best at -- arranging nights out partying/drinking etc. They see their friends at school every day. And if they're anything like me, then aged 13/14/15/16 they won't remember to take photos when they're drunk so they have nothing to tag either :-p
          • Maybe in your country, but in my country it's illegal to buy alcohol if you're less than 18 years old, but not illegal to drink it, so long as you are at least 5 years old. My mum has a picture of me drinking sparkling wine with orange juice in at a friends' 7th birthday party, that's fine!

    • What percentage of voters are affected by Social Networking sites?
      I think a better question would be how many voters are affected by social networking sites and I'm guessing that it isn't a number the canidates should be ignoring if they want to get elected. myspace alone has about 100 million users and even if 2% were affected, that's 2 million people there. if you were a politician, would you want to be ignoring that many people online?
    • Facebook isn't for kids - in fact they seem to be in the minority.. it's the older people, even grannies, who have taken to it like ducks to water. I've actually had phone calls from family members offering to ferry me halfway across the country to set it up on their PCs.

      Facebook is the new email (inevitable since spam killed the old one).

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      http://www.aspiesforronpaul.com/ [aspiesforronpaul.com]
    • Facebook, at least in the UK, is practically a must-have for a university student, since so much is organised through it. If the situation is similar in the US, I guess there'll be lots of university-age voters on facebook, maybe other networks as well. That said they're probably also thoroughly disillusioned.
    • What makes you think having more college student voters would lead to better elected officials? Are they somehow smarter than people who finished college ten years ago, for example?
      • Ten years, probably not. 40 years, definitely so. The percentage of voters that are part of senior citizen groups that vote as a group and force candidates to either cave to their special interests or risk losing that large chunk of support is certainly enough to influence elections. More young voters would counteract that.

      • Maybe it won't lead to better politics, but at least in a democracy wider anticipation is always a good thing, because the more people back up political decisions the better. I personally don't see democracy as "the best" form of governance, but in the long run it grants the highest satisfaction of citizens one can archive. However, decisions become rather arbitrary if most people don't vote anymore. Hence it's a good thing if college kids vote even if most of them vote differently than you or me...

        On a mo
    • Chilled is the traditionalist way!
    • In other news: Slashdot's very own 'Anonymous Coward' accused of raising the tone of the presidentual debate. More in 15 minutes after the second half of Fast Animals, Slow Children.

        • Yes, it is telling. It shows what it takes to form and hold together not only a successful government, but the #1 country and the most powerful coalition of states in human history.

          You obviously haven't read [wikipedia.org] your history [wikipedia.org].

          And you've got a very strange definition of "successful government".

            • And really, the fact that it isn't Rome is what makes the USA so special. Rome burned itself out expending all its military power to overthrow the world. The USA is a benevolent superpower.

              You insensitive clod! We Romans are the benevolent superpower; it was the Greeks who were warmongers!

              (Another step into the past, cue the Greeks: "You insensitive clod! We Greeks are the benevolent superpower; it was the Persians who were warmongers!" A few steps into the future, cue the Martians: "You insensitive clod! We Martians are the benevolent superpower; it was the Americans who were warmongers!")

            • The USA is a benevolent superpower. Should the US actually strive to become what its noisy detractors claim it already is, and follow the Roman model, it could and would take over the entire world and rule it."

              Rome didn't have to worry about MAD. Unless you think the US could surprise attack every other nuclear country on the planet so quickly that there would be no repercussions to them.

              Gotta say if the shock and awe strategy in Iraq was benevolent, I don't want to see the US go malignant. (Waits for co

            • for much of Roman history, it was even legal for a man to kill his wife or children.

              Sadly, in many places in the world today, a man killing his wife or children is likely to get a slap on the wrist at most, if the wife or child "dishonored" the family.

              -jcr

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.