I share political views all the time. I consider it part of my personal 'brand' (if that's the phrase you want to use here) that I take a stand for a point of view that I care about.
Those who would want to avoid dealing with me because of my politics are probably people I don't want to deal with anyway since they probably don't appreciate the value of apposing points of view to their own.
Also I can't vote in the US election, so the least I can do is provide what little influence I can.
Leah
· 1 year ago
I grew up in a family where politics were considered incredibly personal. You did not ask what candidate someone was voting for and didn't discuss issues too much. I find that I do bristle when politics and business mix.
I thought that Common Craft's discussion about whether or not to talk politics on the blog was great--and I also agreed with the decision to keep it off the blog.
anonymous
· 1 year ago
I avoid politics as much as possible for this reason. Also stopped myself from purchasing software because the developer was twittering about how they wanted republicans to get hit by a train. Just seems unprofessional, not to mention violent and unkind.
wolfsbayne
· 1 year ago
it's necessary to share my opinions. otherwise, there would be an echo chamber of democrats with no opposition in the social space, especially on twitter. ;)
reformed libertarian and now independent, btw.
David Soul
· 1 year ago
If you refuse to contribute to important debates, then its one more time that the forces of darkness win.
As a matter of course, filters in a data stream should be on the receiving channel side and only very rarely is censorship or attenuation of an information before output the right approach.... if someone flips the filter switch on you, it is a matter of their value equation not yours...and you probably wouldn't have reached them anyway.
"To what are you paying attention?" is the question; the answer cannot be "I'll refuse to say what matters to me."
Debbie Weil
· 1 year ago
I struggle with this every election cycle. But this time I decided the stakes were too high and I felt too strongly. So I stuck my neck out on my site/blog and declared my political affiliation and what I'm doing about it (canvassing for Obama in a swing state). I have some reservations about doing this. I may indeed offend potential clients. But I'm taking that risk. I'm interested in what others are saying about this.
Alexandra Wharton
· 1 year ago
Rob, yes, politics can get in the way - i have to admit that I can remember what everyone's political affiliation on their Facebook profile is (and i have 300 "friends"). Maybe most people won't care but for professional reasons, why risk it?
Leah, I grew up in a family where sharing your political feelings is like asking people how much money you make a year - you just don't do it.
Eric Rice
· 1 year ago
With both major political parties having distinct ideological differences, why wouldn't that translate to an individual's broader world view? Many issues in our social-tech world tie to a world view open vs. closed, shared vs. locked down, microsoft vs. google, indy media vs. mainstream media.
There is deep passion in many tech topics and those tie to dollars and cents-- politics is no different. And since there's so much 'social capital' in what we do, a belief IS important. Is someone more interested in a greater good or a financial gain? Where they stand politically is very important, if it is to believed that one party is for a greater social good and the other for maximum profitability.
Beyond just the political season, it's a much bigger issue not yet realized for all who engage in social broadcasting. Our lives, histories, changes, and evolution are posted-- sometimes inadvertantly-- wait until more geotagging of photos shows up and that sexy computer you posted a picture of to Flickr is tied to a ______ political HQ office.
We're still writing this history each day.
Eric Rice
· 1 year ago
Personally, no. However, I do believe that software is born with (is affected by) the ethics of its creators (we'll definitely see this with AI in the future)... software can be inadvertently elitist. That's more of a social condition, yet I think it's part of the same sphere. What kind of politics might the creators have of a site that focuses on Creative Commons licensing as its core ethos? Would it be far-right or far-left?
I think the judgement is valid. If you share your opinion and support of a political candidate or ideology that I disagree with (esp economic), I have to consider if the things you create are in my best interest. Many web software tools out there are not inherently wired to enable me to make the most possible money with their use-- why is that? Is it because the creators aren't of a ideology of making gargantuan amounts of cash and are in it for the greater good?
To use Dave Winer as an example--he's fairly open about his politics so I'll use him as a basic example (not picking on him)--- could I trust Dave to make some software so amazingly awesome with all the tools built in to make craploads of cash by its use? Heh, probably not, because I believe Dave views things much differently than someone hellbent on making a ton of cash and securing that cash-making.
That's where I'm coming from when I disagree. Not saying it's particularly a pleasant thing, but I think it's very real and very much part of our modern social business landscape.
Streaker
· 1 year ago
If you're trying to appeal to the widest customer base as possible there are at least three things you should not talk about... religion, politics and sexual preference.
Jason Goldberg
· 1 year ago
Rob: Thanks for the thoughtful post. Well done.
Kyle Lacy
· 1 year ago
There is a huge difference, in terms of branding, if you are a sole proprietor or an actual multi-level company. There is even a larger difference if you are a company with a web service with community development as a goal. When you are the sole owner of the company it is going to hard to NOT mix your personal brand with your company brand. In my opinion they should be one of the same.
When you are creating an online portal for all types of people to share news and information.....using a brand identity for personal viewpoints is not the best idea.
Thanks for the link in the post. We talked about this over at the Social Median site. I love the team and everything they are doing over there.
Jason Goldberg
· 1 year ago
I'd like to come back to my comment:
"People crave thoughtful discussions and dialogues not just links on a page. socialmedian’s external voice intentionally pushes and prods and has an authentic human voice and set of opinions behind it."
IMO this is where a lot of media has been outside of the U.S. -- and the U.S. is most recently catching up to this as well. Meaning, in many countries it is quite normal for the media to have a known political view. In the U.S. Fox News is now known for being on the right, and MSNBC for being on the left. And CNN for trying hard to be in the middle. Perhaps the days of the entirely unbiased media are numbered? Perhaps people like to know what they should expect in terms of bias/slant of the editors/journalists on the front end? And that they like/enjoy connecting with opinions more than straight facts?
At socialmedian the users set the tone. I am just one user. But when we/I tweet using the company name, socialmedian, we do let some opinions show as we believe that it gives our followers/observers something real to connect with whether they agree with it or not, and that such is preferable to just dry boring links on a page.
Discuss....
Greg Hollingsworth
· 1 year ago
As someone hwo uses social|median everyday, I have to admit that I haven't paid all that much attention to Jason's use of twitter for political expression (maybe I don't pay as much attention to my twitter stream as some). However, what I have noticed is that the political discussion that occurs on social|median is far more measured and friendly than the discussion on most other sites. As a professional, I tend to avoid politics in the workplace, however, as a political wonk I enjoy it's discussion, as long as the discussion is productive (or at least civil). Thus far (and I was an alpha tester for S|M) I have thoroughly enjoyed S|M's community, especially when it comes to politics.
wolfsbayne
· 1 year ago
I have to correct Jason Goldberg: "And CNN for trying hard to be in the middle"
As the token independent here, I can tell you CNN is left, just not hard left like MSNBC.
Greg Hollingsworth
· 1 year ago
I think what Jason was trying to say is that CNN is trying to be in the middle, whether or not they are pulling it off is a different matter. Personally, I appreciate Jason's honesty and I appreciate his participation in the community. Jason, unlike many other social media founders, has become a part of the community and uses his commentary to foment discussion, which is sort of the point of a social news community. I appreciate that he isn't afraid to get his hands dirty, nor to bring his personality and viewpoint to work with him, as opposed to checking it at the door. Jason does not claim to be bias free, and I think the social|median community is better off knowing up front where the person running the company stands, as well as that he is willing to consider alternate viewpoints.
All Comments
Those who would want to avoid dealing with me because of my politics are probably people I don't want to deal with anyway since they probably don't appreciate the value of apposing points of view to their own.
Also I can't vote in the US election, so the least I can do is provide what little influence I can.
I thought that Common Craft's discussion about whether or not to talk politics on the blog was great--and I also agreed with the decision to keep it off the blog.
reformed libertarian and now independent, btw.
As a matter of course, filters in a data stream should be on the receiving channel side and only very rarely is censorship or attenuation of an information before output the right approach.... if someone flips the filter switch on you, it is a matter of their value equation not yours...and you probably wouldn't have reached them anyway.
"To what are you paying attention?" is the question; the answer cannot be "I'll refuse to say what matters to me."
Leah, I grew up in a family where sharing your political feelings is like asking people how much money you make a year - you just don't do it.
There is deep passion in many tech topics and those tie to dollars and cents-- politics is no different. And since there's so much 'social capital' in what we do, a belief IS important. Is someone more interested in a greater good or a financial gain? Where they stand politically is very important, if it is to believed that one party is for a greater social good and the other for maximum profitability.
Beyond just the political season, it's a much bigger issue not yet realized for all who engage in social broadcasting. Our lives, histories, changes, and evolution are posted-- sometimes inadvertantly-- wait until more geotagging of photos shows up and that sexy computer you posted a picture of to Flickr is tied to a ______ political HQ office.
We're still writing this history each day.
I think the judgement is valid. If you share your opinion and support of a political candidate or ideology that I disagree with (esp economic), I have to consider if the things you create are in my best interest. Many web software tools out there are not inherently wired to enable me to make the most possible money with their use-- why is that? Is it because the creators aren't of a ideology of making gargantuan amounts of cash and are in it for the greater good?
To use Dave Winer as an example--he's fairly open about his politics so I'll use him as a basic example (not picking on him)--- could I trust Dave to make some software so amazingly awesome with all the tools built in to make craploads of cash by its use? Heh, probably not, because I believe Dave views things much differently than someone hellbent on making a ton of cash and securing that cash-making.
That's where I'm coming from when I disagree. Not saying it's particularly a pleasant thing, but I think it's very real and very much part of our modern social business landscape.
When you are creating an online portal for all types of people to share news and information.....using a brand identity for personal viewpoints is not the best idea.
Thanks for the link in the post. We talked about this over at the Social Median site. I love the team and everything they are doing over there.
"People crave thoughtful discussions and dialogues not just links on a page. socialmedian’s external voice intentionally pushes and prods and has an authentic human voice and set of opinions behind it."
IMO this is where a lot of media has been outside of the U.S. -- and the U.S. is most recently catching up to this as well. Meaning, in many countries it is quite normal for the media to have a known political view. In the U.S. Fox News is now known for being on the right, and MSNBC for being on the left. And CNN for trying hard to be in the middle. Perhaps the days of the entirely unbiased media are numbered? Perhaps people like to know what they should expect in terms of bias/slant of the editors/journalists on the front end? And that they like/enjoy connecting with opinions more than straight facts?
At socialmedian the users set the tone. I am just one user. But when we/I tweet using the company name, socialmedian, we do let some opinions show as we believe that it gives our followers/observers something real to connect with whether they agree with it or not, and that such is preferable to just dry boring links on a page.
Discuss....
As the token independent here, I can tell you CNN is left, just not hard left like MSNBC.