NOTE: I have no idea why this post is suddenly current. It was originally drafted in August, 2007. Why it’s here now, I dunno. But as it’s out there, no point in pulling it down. But do keep in mind all thoughts are in the context of 2007. Then again, how much has really changed in almost three years?

James Durbin at TechRepublican laments on the lack of any real organization like MoveOn or DailyKos on the conservative side of the web:

The sad thing is it wouldn’t take that much to build a solid organization. There are probably 5,000 blogs nationwide that could be organized into a conservative community and propped up with a Conservative Advertisers Network where politicians could buy geo-targeted ads and in-text ad links. For say, $500,000 total, we could work with one of the existing communities and grow it into a conservative powerhouse.

Any conservative George Soros out there want to pitch in some cheddar? Think of it this way – you’ll make more in a business-friendly environment then you will under a socialist one. I’m willing to give the set of plans to the right people, if anyone is interested.

And right there we see the problem with many people trying to play catch-up on the political side of Web 2.0.

It’s all about the money.

But it shouldn’t be. As I say in the comments:

Are we really just a bunch of mercenaries willing to go out of our way to advance the Conservative cause on the internet only if it pays well? Creating the “next big thing” or even utilizing what’s already there for the cause doesn’t take a lot of money, it simply takes time and a willingness to make it happen. Yet too many people are thinking in terms of dollars and seeing this as a money making opportunity. We’ve got to get past that if we can even hope to begin to compete on the web. Once you build something, once you have a model that works, then you can ask people to invest in it.

The reader generated value of my comment? -1 points. So is the comment of Brian Edwards who uses a comment to hype GOPHub which is an actual effort to create a Digg for right of center blog content.

So a comment that talks about what is being done (and without a half a million dollar investment) and another that points out that money should not be the issue aren’t worth noting. They’re worth less than that. Good to know.

The problem is that the right is trying to create the “next big thing” right away. And while that might not come cheap, it’s a flawed approach at the issue. MoveOn had some big backing, sure, but DailyKos, ActBlue, these sites started as activist driven, grassroots organizations that have grown through the years. If DailyKos and ActBlue have made their organizers money, I’m pretty sure that wasn’t their intention and has become a delightful perk. It’s also ignoring the existance of sites like RedState which act as hubs of conservative thought without large financial backing.

Let’s look locally. Virginia Political Blogs and Richmond Sunlight are two projects from Waldo Jaquith that show what one can do if they simply have the desire and the time. While money might have been nice, Waldo didn’t need a big chunk of cash to provide a great political service. Either of these projects could have been made to target one political side or another if Waldo were so inclined, and at the same low cost and great service.

So the question becomes, are folks on the right really seeking the next big thing that will drive conservative activism or the next big thing that will make money?

Ultimately it comes down to the line that still holds true: if you build it they will come. You can’t just ask for a chunk of change upfront and promise to deliver some amazing product that will be the answer to everyone’s prayers. You have to have a product that’s already doing something, a working model that shows potential that only needs a little boost to dominate. GOPHub is a good service in its infancy. If it just had a bit more backing, not just financially but among the blogs, it could go a long way to act as a clearing house for the national conservative blogosphere. That they have a working model shows that it can be capable of and that’s a better thing to look to than so far empty promises and hype that smacks more of panhandling than actual substance.

Andrew Keen’s fear has come to life – the monkeys have the keys to the kingdom:

A few days ago we reported that Encyclopedia Britannica was planning to allow user edits to its online (and eventually print) reference products. The policy change was put in place as part of an effort to compete with Wikipedia, but we wondered if would have any real effect.

“Will user contributed content help Britannica to compete with Wikipedia? The bottom line answer is: probably not,” we concluded. “Wikipedia will continue to be the web’s top general reference destination because its results are accurate enough for most people’s queries. Simply adding user content won’t make Britannica a more attractive reference destination.”

…

the reasons that Wikipedia is so popular, are also the reasons that it is so potentially dangerous. Information spreads fast on Wikipedia, but so to does disinformation. And that can be a real problem given how much power it holds. Hitwise reported last week that of the top 5 encyclopedia sites, Wikipedia gets 97% of the visits. That’s an almost complete monopoly of the space. Further, we noted in September that Wikipedia is one of the most powerful sites on Google. So disinformation on the site can have very damaging consequences.

Keen actually blogged with Britannica so it’s interesting to see the change happening like it is.  I’m assuming there will still be some authority determining what really makes the cut.

Media Guerrilla: Social Media Marketing Ain’t Always ‘Cheap’:

I think there’s a tendency in ROI conversations to over indulge in hard numbers sans consideration for all the underlying soft costs of social media projects. And by “soft costs” what I’m really getting at are the *absurdly high* time and attention investments that typically come with these projects and what are the unique shared scars among many a social media practitioner. If you’ve ever administered a blog or a community of sorts, you’ll know what I mean, nuff said.

A lot of folks are having a field day with a video from this year’s PDF where it comes out that “John McCain is aware of the Internet” despite not owning a computer.  To hear the former John Edwards advisor say it, McCain’s lack of hands on use of the Internets puts this country in grave danger.

Does the same apply for her or Barack Obama’s lack of hands on military experience?

The Internet is a fantastic tool and has opened up politics and governing in ways one would have had trouble imagining just ten or more years ago.  Yet to expect everyone to have full intimate knowledge of how every facet of it works (Facebook, Twitter, Google – to use her examples) is to fail to understand how not just politics but the world works.  I seriously doubt that John Edwards or Barack Obama personal Twitter or update their Facebook pages or, heck, even have the means to do so.  That’s what they pay staffers to do.

But to assume or demand that people know every bit of every tool at their disposal, whether virtual or physical (does Barack Obama read every mailing that’s sent out on his campaign’s behalf?) shows more naivete on the part of the speaker than it does on John McCain.

One night everyone and their grandmother heard about this thing called Twitter and started joining it. Twitter was pretty nifty, a nice little tool where you could shoot a short message from your computer or phone and let folks know what you were up to.

But Twitter’s open API invites third party applications that have made it not only easier to tweet but allow you to tweet just about anything: blog posts, currently listening to, whether or not you washed your hands after you flushed the toilet, and on and on.

And this is where Twitter lost me.

Twitter is a nice tool to supplement an online presence. These days, most everyone has a blog or Facebook profile, and Twitter provides a simple extension to the content you might put on those pages. It was a way to add filler to your virtual content, thoughts between the conversations and rants.

But now it’s more than that. It’s a social network summary itself, an aggregate of every piece of Web 2.0 that someone might be a part of and that’s where it gets overwhelming, not just for me but maybe for Twitter’s servers as well since it’s been down more often than not this last week.

Twitter doesn’t strike me as serving well as a funnel of information about people. There are other applications more suited for that, something like Friendfeed, but even then, there are times when too much information just turns me off to a service or even a friend.

There have been a couple instances of my no longer following someone on Twitter because of some plug in that tweet what they were listening to. Every three to four minutes a new tweet would pop up with the new song they were listening to. And, like a stereo turned way too loud at a party, it drowned out everyone else.

I’m almost at that point with some people who use TwitterFeed, a service I myself use that updates your Twitter feed every time you add a blog post. This is OK, except sometimes people blog a lot. And the same people I follow on Twitter I more than likely am following through my own RSS reader or on an aggregator somewhere. So instead of informing me of things, again I’m overwhelmed.

Twitter struck me as an odd application at first and then I started to get it as a way to fill in the gaps. This video really went a long way for that:

But now it’s so much more. Too much more.  And at a certain point it’s going to turn people off.

People want more out of Twitter and they have third party applications which can provide it, but maybe Twitter really can’t handle such things.  So sites like Plurk, which looks like a souped up Twitter that does everything a blog might do, are going to become appealing alternatives.But maybe this is people trying to turn Twitter into something it was created to be the alternative of: a blog.

Earlier this week Microsoft announced an aggressive buyout bid of Yahoo! valued at $44 billion.  CNet News has put the two companies Web 2.0 properties side by side to see which products might win out in a merger.

Embark’s new Facebook application College Planner lets you research colleges and apply to them without ever having to leave Facebook.  From CNet News:

Online applications, I suppose, have been thoroughly destigmatized (back in my day, there was still the concern that an electronic application wouldn’t be taken as seriously as a paper one), but it’s still a bit ironic to be applying to college through a site that’s best known as an addictive procrastination hub.

What really stands out about “social college applications” is that many people I knew (not all, obviously) were fiercely private about where they were applying, especially if the school was a “reach.” Then again, this was before high schoolers were eagerly exposing their souls on MySpace.com profiles, so perhaps privacy is no longer sacred.

AllFaceBook, CNet’s source, has a follow up post about making sure your profile is ready to be snooped at by colleges.  Folks in the workforce have known (or should have known) to do this for years, as more and more employers are turning to Google to help with background checks of prospective applicants.  It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to expect colleges to start doing the same, finding prospective students’ MySpace and Facebook pages for whatever info they may want to judge a potential student by.

Patrick Ruffini has a new project: ECorps:

ECorps is a collaborative, blog-based effort to network conservative web geeks across America. From graphic designers to hardcore developers, ECorps will serve as a community for people just like you, providing a venue for discussion and connecting you to exciting projects.

You don’t have to be especially political to join. We’re looking for the best new talent, not inside the Beltway political junkies. And you don’t need to have architected a Fortune 500 website either: a snazzy personal blog will do just fine.

Tired of the liberal tilt on Slashdot? Does it seem like every other Flash designer like you is a Michael Moore-addled lefty? Then join ECorps!

Creating a network like this is a great idea, especially leading into 2008.  Not just so like-minded folks can collaborate on projects, but also to provide a ready and waiting pool of capable people that campaigns and activists can tap into if need be.

 Update: Be sure to check out the ECorps Facebook group ”Code Red”.

Shelley Powers on The Ugly Face Of Facebook:

In our rush to a new social network we have idolized youth; made them the pampered pets of social networking. More importantly, we have both taught and celebrated the right of free expression without promoting an awareness that the best expression is accompanied by both empathy and respect.

The younger the person the more self-absorbed and that’s natural; after all, it takes experience to become empathetic. Over time, society and our interactions within it help most (not all) of us to see beyond just our own needs, our own wants. We become friends with people outside our age group, race, class, or country. We learn that being aware of others, their needs and feelings, isn’t the same as ‘selling out’; nor is it destructive of ‘self’.

However, what I’m seeing with some of the social networking sites (just some, not all), is that rather than expose people to different viewpoints, they can reinforce barriers against the the natural processes that abrade self-absorbed behavior. When challenged in one’s day to day life to give o’er our preconceptions or biases, rather than learn to adapt and grow socially, we can rush home and twitter, blog, and Facebook with others who have exactly our same point of view. We can safely ensconce ourselves behind a buffer of like-minded folks, postponing, perhaps indefinitely, the need to challenge our “world is me me me” view.

Web 2.0 promoting the “Daily Me”. Is this a good thing?

Many of you out there may not be fully aware of the existance of TechRepublican, a group blog created by David All and others professing to bring the tech revolution to the convervative cause:

Collectively, the contributors of techRepublican will focus, like a laser, to report best practices on the application of technology to the political spectrum, identifying Republicans and conservatives throughout the world who are using the Internet to bridge that great partisan digital divide and reach modern voters. We’ll provide tips, tricks, and tools for campaigns to use — for FREE.

And we hope you’ll get involved in our Revolution. After all, it’s your Party too. Together, we’ll be successful. But we can’t do it alone.

For the most part it’s an okay site with some interesting information. I don’t completely agree with their desire to utilize every single bit of Web 2.0 technology for political gain (I have yet to see a real use for Twitter as a campaign tool) but it’s not bad.

Except when it messes up it’s code.

Last week a post was made with some really bad code that ruined the rest of the site. It kinda looked like this (click to make all big like):

I contacted David All about it and sent a screen capture of the error. His response: I’ll talk to my developer.

Now, that’s all well and good for some sites, but it just struck me as odd that a site of people trying to sell themselves as conservative revolutionaries for the Web 2.0 cause need to turn to a developer for a coding issue. Just one more log on the fire, really.

You see, my big problem with TechRepublican and even folks on the Left side of netroots is that they’re trying to create a market for themselves and their abilities. Campaigns are being told you have to blog, you have to have a netroots coordinator to be in touch with the blogosphere, this is the future, don’t get left behind!

But, really, these people are trying to create jobs that only they can fill.

Communication directors or other already created positions need to get to know the blogs and how to handle them. They’re not so drastically different from other mediums that a whole new position needs to exist to deal with them. Current pros just need to adapt. And politicans need to realize that the blogs may not truly impact their race depending on what they’re running for. Why someone running for dog catcher needs to have the blogs on his side or create a MySpace page to appeal to half nekkid teenagers is beyond me.

Something like TechRepublican shouldn’t be acting so much as a cheerleader for the blogs and creating a market. No, if they really want to help bring about this revolution they need to show how easy this is for anyone already in the know to do it and easing their way in with handy tutorials and how-tos. Otherwise it’s a revolution for the few who want to be employed.