There have been a few cases (that we know about) of social networks going wrong and high profile service providers have been found out for stepping over the line when it comes to privacy, Facebook’s Beacon being the most high profile example.

Now it’s my turn to experience a social networking glitch…

Plaxo (Pulse) is telling me I’ve done things that I haven’t done. It’s giving me credit for the content creation of my connections.

For example:

I see that I recently uploaded some pics from a trip to Paris. 

Weird!

I haven’t been to Paris since ‘97 but my colleague Ed got back two weeks ago.

I was also surprised to see that I had added a couple of notes to Facebook in the last few days. The first was a link to an NYT article and the second a post on the LaGrange Point blog (see below).

The funny thing is: It’s not my blog. It’s not my article.  

You can see what’s happening here:

Plaxo is BETA so maybe they are due the benefit of the doubt.

The network seems to be gaining traction with a professional audience. There is a gap here - Facebook falls short and is poorly positioned for business users.  These discrepancies only relate to Facebook notes and updates, so maybe it’s a Facebook problem. I have no idea.

The bad news is that glitches like this and the resulting coverage can un-do months of good work in  minutes and hours resulting in serious reputational damage to emergent brands.  

Anyone else experiencing this? 

For the two connections that I reference in this post - thanks. I hope you don’t object to the reference.

Just got in from a presentation at the Australian Centre for Public Communication, a faculty within the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). Professor Jim Macnamara presented the results of a research report entitled E-Electioneering: Use of New Media in the 2007 Australian Federal Election.

The objectives of the research were to:

• Capture data on the frequency and type of new media used by Australian Federal politicians, parties, interest groups and activists
• Provide an analysis of the new media used to identify the range of viewpoints and the level of interactivity and community engagement attempted or achieved

Overall, the level of engagement achieved had been minimal due to the failure of the politicians to use the power of social media to engage and interact. Only one of the 226 politicians studied allowed negative comments to appear on their site (this was Malcolm Turnbull). In all other cases, comments sections were either not available or carried purely fan mail i.e. positive/supportive messages. Very small numbers replied to questions submitted via Websites and social networks, completely missing the opportunity to engage in conversation and drive advocacy.

Some figures:

• Less than 6% of selected Federal politicians had a new media presence assessed as “fairly interactive” (i.e. involving links inviting people to comment, ask questions or leave messages)
• 185 elected Federal politicians had new media sites which were completly one-way information dissemination with no opportunity for comment or input by members of the public
• Web and other sites of 70 elected Federal politicians comprised a single page and were judged to be a ‘token effort’
• Only three (1.3 per cent) were classified as “very comprehensive”, assessed on the basis of multiple pages plus links to other information such as blogs, podcasts or YouTube. The Kevin07 site was one of the three.
• Two Websites were judged to be amateurish and the majority were based on templates
• There were just 15 blogs but on average Federal politicians used 2.24 types of digital media

One of the key conclusions drawn from all of this is that “new media have not created a new public sphere of political discussion and debate where citizens can participate as equals as envisioned by Habermas (1989)”.

I take issue with this conclusion. It’s clear from the data that new media hasn’t been given the chance to create ‘a new public sphere of political discussion’ because it has been poorly applied and executed. In other words, new media hasn’t failed but our politicians and their advisors have. John Howard provides a case in point. He made little or no attempt to adapt his message or presentation for YouTube and opened his maiden YouTube appearance with ‘Good Morning!’.

There was much talk after the presentation about the fact that the majority of people that visited these types of sites where politically active and that it’s not actually these people that influence the outcome of elections.

My colleague, Ed, made a good point after the event. He said that he agreed with this conclusion but that the experience of US pollies had shown that social media could be used effectively as tool for mobilising a community of politically active advocates and supporters i.e. it does have an important role to play/does add value.

I would argued that politicians, in general, need to change the tone of their message and the way it is presented (Infotainment). This would help to engage the politically apathetic and help voters feel that they were interacting with a real person with a personality.

The report touched on the contribution of prosumers or citizens in terms of video commentary and other types of media. Macnamara made the point that much of this content was spoof material and he said that the jury was out as to whether this represented genuine political discourse. I don’t think there should be any question that it does.

My other observation related to the number of times that the audience made a point based on an assumption that only young people use social media.

Overall, it was an informative session in an academic setting and food for thought.