Comments (13)

By Chris Tindal, April 21, 2009 9:20 am

Does it count if someone else is cupping my chest?

If and when I run for office again, and if and when I am taken seriously enough that someone more effective and influential than the editor of Now magazine’s website decides to try and dig up some embarrassing photos of me (sorry Josh, but seriously, that was the best you could do?), they will not have a difficult time.

I belong to a generation that has grown up on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. (Heck, I’m pretty sure I even have a neglected MySpace page floating around somewhere…oh yeah, there it is.) As a result, many of my most candid and ill-advised moments have been and will continue to be documented and made public. 99% of the time, I’m not even the one posting them. The tools of the social web allow anyone to not only upload photos and videos of me, but also to tag me in them for easy searching and indexing.

Exploring someone’s online presence has become a way of doing a quick-and-easy background check. Often, maybe even most of the time, that’s a perfectly legitimate thing. If a political candidate has, oh, I don’t know, made homophobic remarks, or dropped LSD while driving, or gotten naked with a bunch of minors (all entirely hypothetical examples off the top of my head, of course) those are probably things I want to know about, and they may or may not influence whether or not I vote for that person.

But we should also, I think, back away from the assumption that the second someone uncovers some photos of a candidate goofing around with friends or demonstrating a momentary lapse in judgment that automatically means the candidate must resign. Commenting on the recent resignation of BC NDP candidate Ray Lam, even NDP Leader Carole James seemed a bit uncomfortable with how things went down. “It’ll be interesting to watch politics over the next 10 to 15 years,” she said, “when you have an entire generation of young people who’ve grown up with their lives public on Facebook and on Twitter. It’ll be very interesting to see how that shifts.”

Hopefully it will shift like this. If someone has demonstrated a pattern of bad judgment, or done or said something highly objectionable, they should answer for it. But one or two “gotcha” photos? Should that really disqualify one from public service? Ultimately it’s up to voters to decide, but I tend to think not.

Comments (3)

By Chris Tindal, March 9, 2009 6:07 pm

TVO's Steve Paikin used Twitter to report from the floor of the Ontario NDP leadership convention.

The Ontario NDP leadership race website reports that their online and social media coverage was so successful that “even Green Party activist Chris Tindal was participating in the discussion.” Yep, even me! (As you no doubt already know, I’m the prime indicator of success for stuff like this.)

In all seriousness, the provincial NDP’s interactive strategy for their leadership convention was very well conceived and executed. The coverage featured live video streaming, live blogs, and a Twitter feed that become one of the most active on all of Twitter during the leadership vote on Saturday evening. All this turned out to be essential due to the abysmal news coverage the convention itself received. (Like that Joe Trippi guy talks about: don’t get media, become the media.) From what I can tell, democratic wunderkind Dave Meslin was the driving force behind the whole thing, and both he and the party are to be commended.

Another positive indicator along the same vein is that Andrea Horwath, the new leader of the provincial NDP, had a very good (and probably the best) leadership campaign website. We can reasonably expect, therefore, that the NDP will have a strong interactive presence in the next general election.

This praise comes with two caveats from me. One is that the importance of a strong interactive strategy for Canadian political parties is, IMHO, currently overstated by many. (I am reminded of my favourite political quote of the year so far. While discussing ways to reach young voters, then-Republican chairman Mike Duncan said “We have to do it in the Facebook with the Twittering.” Priceless.)  The second is that while I sincerely wish Horwath the best of luck, I’m not convinced she was the best choice (I’m a Peter Tabuns fan), or that she has the right combination of ideas and rhetoric to move her party forward. More on both of those points later.

Comments (4)

By Chris Tindal, February 11, 2009 8:51 pm

When I first heard about Twitter a few years ago, it was easy to ignore as part of the background noise of new Web 2.0 properties. In fact, I felt justified in my decision to delay adopting Twitter by a blog post titled “Top Ten Reasons Why Web 2.0 Sucks,” which included the challenge to “walk outside your door and try to find a Twitter user… You’ve got six hours. Go. Trust me, we’re talking to ourselves.” The author was right.

Nowadays, however, it wouldn’t take you more than 10 minutes to find a Twitter user. (Ok, maybe only if you’re in a very densely populated area, but still.) When I finally caved and setup my Twitter account two weeks ago (initiating it with the same skepticism and reluctance I used to launch this blog), a search of my Gmail address book discovered I already knew 140 people on Twitter including my dad, one of my favourite novelists and my mother in law.

In the world of internet trends there’s a technical term for this. It’s called being “fashionably late.”

So, if you’re still hoping that Twitter will vanish before you have to learn to understand it, you may be out of luck. It’s here to stay, at least for the next few years. If you’re hearing the word come up with increased frequency in business or social circles, it might be time to try it out.

What is Twitter?

Twitter is an internet application that allows you to keep other people (friends, co-workers, strangers) up to date on your status. You can also use it to share quick thoughts, links, pictures, or pretty much anything you want. The only catch: you have to do it all in 140 characters or less. For example, so far I’ve used it to announce an upcoming musical performance, let people know I was on my way to watch an improv show (and then post a map link once I arrived), complain that I was getting sick, and announce that my train was arriving 45 minutes late.

These tweets, as they’re called, are very similar to a Facebook profile’s status line. (In fact, you can configure Twitter to automatically update your Facebook status.) They can also be described as “micro-blog” posts, good for quick hits that don’t warrant a long-form post, or that perhaps have not yet been flushed out into one.

Why would I use Twitter?

So if Twitter is just a glorified Facebook status, or a blog without any substance (yes, I am contending that some blogs contain substance), why does it matter, and why would anyone want to use it? Here are a few reasons I’ve discovered in my first few weeks:

1. Twitter is a public conversation. All public tweets are searchable, which means you’re not just talking with yourself or with your friends: you’re interacting with other people who are talking about the same things you are, in real time. The applications for this vary from entertainment (people watching TV, or sharing random thoughts) to practical (people updating each other on the TTC’s status) to news (people reporting on and reacting to real time news events).
2. Twitter is fluid and versatile. Users can tag their posts with any keyword they want on the fly (#carcrash, #iPhone, #dinner) to instantly create a limitless number of categories and conversations. No need for an administrator to create the conversation; the conversation begins as soon as the first phrase is muttered. You can search the public feed or see what people are taking about right now using trending.
3. Twitter plays well with others. Instead of taking time away from your Facebook account, your blog and your other online activities, Twitter integrates with them and enhances them. Your blog can update your Twitter account, your Twitter account can update your blog, your Twitter account can update your Facebook status, etc.
4. Twitter is highly mobile. So far I’ve updated Twitter using the web, an iPhone app, a BlackBerry app and a simple SMS text message, and I haven’t even exhausted all the options. That means that unlike most other things you do online, there are very low barriers to regular, spontaneous use.
5. Twitter is low commitment. On most social networks (like Facebook) all connections must be mutual (if you want to be friends with me, I have to friend you back). Not so with Twitter, where the people who follow you and the people you follow don’t have to be identical. For example, I can chose to follow the updates of Toronto Mayor David Miller and city councillor Adam Giambrone whether they want to follow me back or not. (In case you’re wondering, the latter does, the former does not.)

Happy tweeting.

Comments (3)

By Chris Tindal, August 22, 2007 4:03 pm

At the start of the month I took a roadtrip down to Chicago (four of us crammed into a Pontiac Sunfire, which remarkably only used about one tank of gas each way) for Lollapalooza, a 3-day music festival. The bands are only part of the reason we went; it’s also a great excuse to see a city that Torontonians sometimes idolize. One of Chicago’s greatest achievements is a giant waterfront park (Grant Park) right downtown which is where the concert takes place, using the impressive windy city skyline as a backdrop.

The headliner of this year’s festival was Pearl Jam, one of the only rock bands to have survived the Seattle grunge movement. They put on an amazing show, and were a great way to end the weekend. During the song Daughter, frontman Eddie Vedder started singing Pink Floyd’s Another Brick in the Wall Part II, “teacher leave those kids alone,” then changed the lyrics to “George Bush leave this world alone / George Bush leave this world alone / George Bush find yourself another home.” For those of us there in the moment it was just the right amount of politics and inspired cheers from the mostly-American crowd, fed-up with the crimes being committed in their name.

Those who weren’t there, however–who were instead watching the concert via web-stream–didn’t hear those lyrics. I found this entry on the Pearl Jam website yesterday:

After concluding our Sunday night show at Lollapalooza, fans informed us that portions of that performance were missing and may have been censored by AT&T during the “Blue Room” Live Lollapalooza Webcast…

…This, of course, troubles us as artists but also as citizens concerned with the issue of censorship and the increasingly consolidated control of the media.

AT&T’s actions strike at the heart of the public’s concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media.

Aspects of censorship, consolidation, and preferential treatment of the internet are now being debated under the umbrella of “NetNeutrality…” Most telecommunications companies oppose “net neutrality” and argue that the public can trust them not to censor.

Even the ex-head of AT&T, CEO Edward Whitacre, whose company sponsored our troubled webcast, stated just last March that fears his company and other big network providers would block traffic on their networks are overblown..

“Any provider that blocks access to content is inviting customers to find another provider.” (Marguerite Reardon, Staff Writer, CNET News.com Published: March 21, 2006, 2:23 PM PST).

But what if there is only one provider from which to choose?

If a company that is controlling a webcast is cutting out bits of our performance -not based on laws, but on their own preferences and interpretations – fans have little choice but to watch the censored version.

What happened to us this weekend was a wake up call, and it’s about something much bigger than the censorship of a rock band.

The full, uncensored performance of Daughter can be watched here. A comparison of the censored and uncensored versions is here.

Comments (2)

By Chris Tindal, August 17, 2007 11:26 am

“The threat of lawsuits…might turn the Canadian political blogger into an endangered species.” The National, CBC, Thursday August 16th, 2007

The below news story aired on CBC The National last night, and takes a look at how the legal climate in Canada is already contributing to the “chilling” of free speech, and eventually may even force companies like Google and Wikipedia to block their sites in Canada. I’d elaborate on what I think of all this, but the last time I did that I got sued (a suit which I am currently defending). Michael Geist, one of the interviewees in the piece, is named on the same lawsuit as myself.