De como internet está cambiando la política. Desde techPresident's

Announcing techPresident's "Politics and the Internet" Timeline

BY MICAH L. SIFRY | Tuesday, August 14 2012

They are happy to announce techPresident's "Politics and the Internet" timeline, a living archive tracking how technology has started to change politics, government and civic life in the United States, worldwide and online, from 1968 to present. (U.S.-related events are color-coded blue, international events are in purple, and online developments are in green*).

The timeline starts with the first vision of the "networked society," as described by J.C.R. Licklider and Robert W. Taylor, in early 1968, and the release of "Request for Comment-1," the first of many open standards planning documents that created the protocols of the Internet, in early 1969. And then it slowly unfolds, from the invention of email and the rise of the first online communities, to the release of the first web browser, the creation of the first congressional website, and the first major legislation governing online speech. And then in the mid-1990s history starts to accelerate, as political activists start organizing online and bloggers start getting arrested for their online activities. And that's just the first 30 years.

It wasn't until 1998 that Mozilla, Google, MoveOn.org and ICANN were all founded; 1999 for the first recorded "cyberwar" between nation states; 2000 that a U.S. presidential candidate raised more than a million dollars after a primary victory; and 2001 that protesters in the Philippines used SMS text messaging to topple the government.

From that point forward, the pace of events thickens. Repressive governments from Afghanistan and China to Iran and Saudi Arabia start clamping down on online speech--and soon thereafter activists start popularizing circumvention tools like Tor. Meanwhile, in democratic countries we see a flowering of political hubs from left (DailyKos, MyDD) to right (Powerline) and the rise of new platforms for social engagement like Meetup.com. Between 2002 and 2004 we mark the first major political impacts of the net in the United States, with bloggers toppling national figures like Senator Trent Lott and Dan Rather (and smearing Rick Santorum), and presidential candidates beginning to experiment with blogging (Gary Hart was the first) and two-way conversation with voters (Howard Dean was the first).

For anyone who spends most of their time online immersed on platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and the HuffingtonPost, the timeline shows how young these platforms really are. And for anyone in the thick of current fights over internet freedom, user rights, and online privacy, it shows how long those issues have been with us.

The timeline is an eclectic list of people, ideas and events that our editors have compiled according to our own sense of what has mattered most. It is a work-in-progress. If you would like to suggest an important development that we may have missed, or make a correction to the record, please use this form.

They were assisted in this work by four talented and hardworking research assistants: Becky Kazansky, Andrew Seo, Kristina Redgrave and Diane Chang. Partial research support was provided by the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

*Note: Some events that are dated on the first of a month occurred during that month but the exact date is not recorded.

La gente perdona los errores, pero no la mala intención.

 “La gente perdona los errores, porque los errores suelen ser cosas de la mente, del juicio. Pero no se perdonan fácilmente los errores del corazón, la mala intención, los malos motivos, la justificación que por orgullo pretende encubrir el error”. Stephen Covey.

The tank, the original one, in Tenerife, 15 years of culture

Hoy que se abren The tanks en la Tate Modern de Londres, les invito a todos a la fiesta de 15 aniversario del primer tanque cultural, El Espacio Cultural El Tanque de Tenerife.

Será el día 27 de julio, pues ese mismo día pero en 1997 celebramos en "Los ingleses, los ingleses", como primera actividad cultural. Es curioso como la historia se repite, y ahora son los ingleses, de la mano de Herzog y de Meuron, que vieron la idea en Tenerife hace años, los que inauguran una iniciativa igual. Una iniciativa que ha sido muy bien recibida en Londres esta mañana por todos medios de comunicación y los agentes vinculados a la cultura.

Recuerdo aquella visita que hice con Herzog a El Tanque cuando él estaba diseñando el TEA, ya entonces me comentó que le había inspirado una idea para la TATE MODERN y sus tanques y que ahora ve por fin la luz. Felicidades a la Tate y sobre todo felicidades a todos los que participaron en el sueño de salvar de la demolición al espacio cultural El Tanque de Tenerife.

Por desgracia Tenerife no es Londres y la crisis nos tiene las manos atadas pero lo importante es que el tanque siga en pie esperando tiempos mejores y dejando que la cultura viva y la imaginación entren y se muevan con libertad entre sus paredes y columnas de hierro.

Una mala experiencia en dos aeropuertos italianos: Pisa y Florencia.

En un tiempo en que se da por descontado que países como Italia o España tienen su “reputación” en entredicho por la fuerza de la crisis, he tenido una experiencia el pasado fin de semana en dos aeropuertos italianos que me ha hecho pensar en lo injusto de la situación: si nos fijamos en dichos dos aeropuertos, y su nivel y eficiencia de servicios, llego a la conclusión de que Italia, por su dejadez, debería estar peor en cuanto a la crisis económica, por lo que tal vez existe algo más que se nos escapa relativo a lo que ha ocurrido en España recientemente.

Se supone que debemos adelantarnos a los cambios, ir por delante de los acontecimientos y pensar a largo plazo en el futuro que queremos para el sector turístico y qué papel queremos jugar. Se supone que esto es así igual en Italia (que se supone que está a años luz de España) y en nuestro País, pero a la hora de la verdad me he tropezado con dos aeropuertos, Pisa y Florencia que –por ejemplo- tienen sus parking de los Rent a Car en el quinto pino (literal) y por lo tanto dificultan mucho la vida del viajero (además de tener un sistema de vans supuestamente instantáneo que no lo es tanto, pues en el aeropuerto de Pisa nos hicieron esperar más de 15 minutos, cosa que si uno viaja por trabajo no es poco), tanto a la llegada como a la salida (sobre todo, pues se corre el riesgo, al no saberlo, y nadie advertirlo, que puedes perder el vuelo como no sean lo suficientemente precavido de ir al menos con más de media hora de margen con respecto al tiempo establecido como necesario para llegar al aeropuerto antes de la salida del vuelo).

Sin embargo, el aeropuerto de Pisa me pareció curioso y muy cuidado y confortable por fuera y con interesantes tiendas (mucho más interesantes que en Canarias, por citar un ejemplo que conozco bien), y el aeropuerto de Florencia tenía una interesante zona de compras (mucho mejor que la de la T4 de Madrid, por citar otro ejemplo) pero ¿de qué te sirve si has tardado tanto en facturar que no te da tiempo de parar en ninguna tienda? Es más ¿de qué les sirve a ellos?

Pero no solo eso, sino que pensando en lo que se repite en todas las cumbres europeas sobre el valor de la productividad de los trabajadores en la competitividad ( en general, y turística en los países del sur en particular ) y en la importancia de la productividad desarrollo del nivel de vida de un país tengo que contarles otra experiencia de este fin de semana: y es el relativo al caos, desorden y falta de la mínima organización en las colas para facturar ALITALIA, increíble, al lado de mi experiencia con los aeropuertos españoles, si les tuviera que poner una nota general la nota para España sería un 8 frente a un 3 –por ser generosa- a los de Italia.

Supongamos que estoy en lo cierto en todo esto y que no fue una casualidad de un fin de semana raro, de comienzo de ciertas vacaciones, de final de liga Europa entre Italia y España y que esto es lo habitual (no estoy segura porque en el aeropuerto de Venecia no suelo tener esta sensación, y es el que más conozco de ese país que adoro), pero supongamos que es lo habitual. Si es así ¿cómo es posible que ese país funcione? Si extrapolamos lo que ocurre en los aeropuertos al resto ¿cómo es posible que en España estemos más hundidos en la crisis que en Italia? Se que puede parecer una reflexión poco profunda pero llegué a la conclusión de que es muy injusta la fama que tiene España en la actualidad. Menos mal que el futbol nos ayuda un poco… (digo yo que algo influirá).

Solo una reflexión personal… que conste que adoro Italia, creo que su cultura es superior a la nuestra, y está realmente impregnada en todo lo que hacen, en cuidar su paisaje e historia mejor que muchos, a pesar de sus defectos, pero no entiendo porque la crisis y la fama de España es peor. No lo entiendo.

In Defense of Big Data and Political Ad Targeting

*From http://personaldemocracy.com and TechPresident.

Jordan Lieberman is CampaignGrid's managing director. Megan Cellucci is CampaignGrid's senior digital strategist.

In his recent op-ed in techPresident, David Parry, an assistant professor for emerging media at the University of Texas at Austin, expressed his view that relevant political advertising is “not very good for the public” and issued an indictment, laced with inaccuracies and misinformation, against those providing tools that help candidates reach voters on issues they care about. Some of this criticism was directed at CampaignGrid, and we would like to set the record straight.

CampaignGrid provides a meaningful service that helps candidates – from frontrunners with heavy campaign war chests to unknowns who cannot afford a meaningful television buy – connect with voters, and we provide this service while remaining committed to being a good data steward.

CampaignGrid’s primary mission is to help candidates reach voters to provide them with information about the candidate’s positions on relevant issues. Yes, the purpose of this is to help candidates win elections. That is how a democratic system works: I tell you what I stand for, and I hope that you will support me and give me your vote.

A voter who receives a relevant campaign ad, on an issue he or she cares about, may become more involved in the political process, may be inspired to learn more about the different candidates and their positions on a range of issues (and can often click-through from the ad to the candidate’s full website for more information), and may feel more motivated to get out and vote.

Relevant advertising campaigns can help engage and inform the electorate – indeed, they can further public discourse – but their primary purpose is to get candidates elected. And, Parry’s conclusions aside, there is nothing nefarious about that.

Voters have received relevant campaign information for at least a generation. Women often receive mailers about women’s issues, and voters with hunting licenses often receive mailers about a candidate’s position on the Second Amendment and gun control. CampaignGrid has used technology to move to the web activities that have taken place over the phone, through the mail, and – most intrusively – door-to-door, for decades. Assistant Professor Parry fails to connect how online advertising is any better or worse than other forms of sophisticated targeting that have been used for years.

CampaignGrid is committed to being a good data steward and to protecting the privacy of individuals, while providing these services. The platform CampaignGrid uses to serve relevant ads to voters does not contain voters’ names, home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, or other such identifying information.

We work with what is known in the industry as “match partners” to serve ads to computers, not to named individuals. We rely on publicly available data and commercially available data. We do not troll Facebook or other social networking sites. We turn away potential customers who demand names and contact information for voters who are served ads through our platform or who click through to ads we place.

Relevant ad campaigns are playing an increasingly important role in elections. Just as op-ed pieces are written from a particular viewpoint, and placed in publications meant to attract certain readers, relevant advertising campaigns are serving up information where they think it will be best received. This practice does not in any way harm voters who wish to be more informed or who want to engage in political discourse. Rather, this practice serves the critical purpose of helping connect candidates and their ideas with interested voters, supporting our political process and – we hope – helping candidates win elections. And by the way, doing it digitally, versus with mail, saves millions of trees and candidates’ campaign dollars.

Dulce Xerach: La Orotava, la superación de las crisis y la Nueva Universidad Europea de Canarias

Dulce Xerach: La Orotava, la superación de las crisis y la Nueva Universidad Europea de Canarias

Can Celebrities On Twitter Use Their Fame for Good?

De TECH PRESIDENT:

BY MIRANDA NEUBAUER | Friday, June 22 2012

Actor Josh Charles has often tweeted about his support for high-speed rail and gay marriage rights. Actress Eva Longoria recently tweeted her support for President Obama's new illegal immigration policy. In the future, could such celebrity endorsements all become much more coordinated, mirroring the Kony 2012 effect?

That's what singer and songwriter Smokey Robinson is betting on. Yesterday he announced a new initiative to harness Twitter as a tool for celebrities to raise awareness and help promote good causes. One close observer of online activism says this kind of online buzz is nothing but a "silly idea."

Called Smoke Alarm, the idea is that when a call for help goes out, it will be echoed online by celebrities like Robinson and his friends, then retweeted by their millions of followers, CNN reports. Robinson is partnering with a new effort called Cause Swarm, co-created by David Clark, who has previously spearheaded HIV/AIDS and human rights initiatives for President Nelson Mandela.

Clark told CNN that the "alarm" would be sent out not more than three times a year for "shovel ready" projects. Robinson has already enlisted James Franco, Eva Longoria, Hilary Duff, Elton John, Daryl Hall and Brandy Norwood to participate, according to the report. Robinson says this new project could be much more effective than telethons or charity concerts.

"In this digital age we have the tools to level the playing field for those in need, so I'm calling on my friends and fans to lend their voices to mine, so we can collectively give voice to those who have none," Robinson said, according to CNN. Because hundreds of millions of people around the world will quickly see the call for donations, "all you've got to do is use Twitter and get people in who are their fans," he said. Celebrities will also post alerts on their Facebook page. Robinson told CNN the first alert would likely be aimed at raising money for for clean water to needy communities.

It's just unclear how much value to place on celebrity attention.

Ethan Zuckerman, director of the Center for Civic Media at MIT, worried that the focus on social networks could "devalue the currency" of attention in a situation where the focus shifts from one issue to another from one day to the next.

"They're not doing much more than tweeting," he said. "Attention by itself is not a particularly helpful commodity."

There's an obvious counter-argument in the Kony 2012 campaign, which prominently featured celebrity tweets as part of an attention-getting strategy that focused international attention on the whereabouts of an accused mass murderer and serial child abductor already on the lam. Zuckerman suggests that a key factor in the campaign's success wasn't just Justin Bieber tweeting out messages about it, but that there was a group of people very invested in the organization running the campaign, Invisible Children, and promoting Invisible Children's agenda. Kony 2012 was meant to be the capstone of years of advocacy work — work that had always been received with mixed reviews. At Personal Democracy Forum 2012, Gilad Lotan explained that even the storm of Twitter posts around Kony 2012 were focused in a few geographically concentrated places — evidence of grassroots organizing — rather than around celebrity intervention.

All of this, says Zuckerman, who was also a co-founder of the international citizen journalism network Global Voices, makes Smoke Alarm less than impressive.

"I think it's a pretty silly idea," Zuckerman said of Smoke Alarm. "I don't expect to see it gain a lot of traction. It's an odd way of thinking about it — this notion that if we just had more attention, we would solve [world problems.]"

"It offers people something so that they can feel good about their action, and then you're absolved of your guilt [as a person]," he said later on in our conversation. Those messages are often of the "Hey, look at this funny video" or "doesn't that make you angry" variety, he said, which promote the low-cost engagement of liking and uploading.

While the Kony 2012 campaign sucked up media oxygen, there was major famine and massive displacement in the Horn of Africa, not far from Uganda.

"That's been an undercovered, massively underfunded situation, but there was no sudden interest in Somalia or Ethiopia," Zuckerman said. "It's not clear that we can scale [attention] if everyone is fighting for attention in the same way."

While it is positive for celebrities to use their prominence to raise awareness, Zuckerman asked, do we want them setting the agenda?

"I'm not sure the causes that Smokey Robinson wants to pay attention to are [always] the ones we should be paying attention to," he said.

Following a celebrity-backed cause is probably not the most optimal way to solve problems, he said. But there's an upshot.

"It's probably better than paying attention to Kim Kardashian," he said.