Maybe I’m just in a contrarian mood. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I haven’t blogged in awhile and I figure some link-bait like a top-10 list is what I need to regain some momentum and clout. (Yes, Twitter friends, apparently that’s how that word is supposed to be spelled. I’m surprised too.) Whatever the reason, if you’re a political candidate considering taking the fail whale for a ride, here are some reasons you might want to think twice.

1. You’ve never tweeted before now.

You’re heading into a very short election, and while Twitter isn’t hugely complicated or difficult to use, it does involve a bit of a learning curve. Better you focus on the tools you already know how to use well then start trying to learn a new one at this late hour. Also, a big part of using Twitter successfully involves building up a following overtime, and unless you’re already a very high-profile person it’s probably too late for you to start that now.

2. You’re not going to do it yourself.

So, given point number one, you might choose to hire a social media expert (or, more likely, take advantage of the most pimple-faced volunteer in your campaign office) to run Twitter for you. But this isn’t like outsourcing your flyer text (which presumably you direct and approve) or hiring a speech writer (to create a product you will ultimately deliver with your own voice). Twitter is real-time and interactive. Done well, it should be spontaneous and (with apologies to Andrew Potter) authentic, and unless you’ve staffed your tweets out to someone who knows you so well they can speak for you and finish your sentences, it’s not going to work. Even then, if someone else is doing your tweeting for you that probably means you’re not actually reading anyone else’s tweets, which brings us to…

3. You’re not interested in real conversations.

Twitter is not a broadcast medium. It’s not just another channel for you to get your message out there. One of the amazing things about Twitter is that previously inaccessible people from famous movie stars to local columnists will actually respond to strangers and even enter into conversations. If you’re not going to do that, and do it quickly (people often expect Twitter replies within a few hours, if not immediately) the only message you’ll be sending is that you’re not going to be a responsive representative.

4. Your tweets will be boring as sin.

This is the hardest point for me to admit because, as a recovering politician myself, I’ve been guilty of this multiple times. It’s almost impossible to avoid: when you’re in a campaign, your life suddenly becomes A) more hectic and full than it’s ever been, and B) extremely lame to any sensible outside observer. Since most people use Twitter to comment on their day or share what they come across, it’s hard to blame candidates from publishing an endless string of “great meeting with a residents’ group this morning,” or “getting a positive response at the door” or “watch this video of me saying all the boring stuff I’ve been tweeting,” but NOBODY CARES EXCEPT YOU AND YOUR IRRATIONALLY SUPPORTIVE PARTNER. (And they’re probably just pretending.)

5. You’re just going to spam people with your party’s talking points.

The major parties have already started sending out suggested talking points as tweets. They even come complete with hash tags like #elxn41, #lpc and #gpc so that you’re not just spamming your own followers, you’re also spamming all of the other people trying to follow those hash tags. You’re not adding any value, and everyone will just tune you out.

6. I don’t want to have to explain to you how hash tags work.

I just…don’t.

7. You might say something stupid.

This is my least favourite reason, and I don’t fully buy into it, but regardless of what I think it’s hard to imagine this list not containing this point. Frankly though, if you or your campaign team is worried you’ll say something on Twitter that could get you into trouble, you’re just as likely to say that same thing to a reporter or at a debate. The difference with saying it on Twitter is that it’s more likely to be reported as part of an eye-rolling “dangers of social media” narrative, or mischaracterized by political opponents or reporters who are Twitter-illiterate themselves. (I’m not saying all politicians or journalists are Twitter illiterate. I’m saying that with your luck, the journalist assigned to cover your tweet screw-up will be.)

8. You’ll mostly be tweeting to the choir.

Who do you think is really going to follow you? The average voter does their research by watching the news and visiting a few websites, they don’t want to be bombarded by your talking points and boring itinerary all day. The two groups of followers you’re most likely to pick up during an election campaign are the faithful and trolls. Even if you manage to pick up some real undecided voters as followers, how many do you think that will be? 50? 100? Is that going to decide the election?

9. It won’t help you get elected.

Go knock on doors. ID your voters. Make phone calls and send email before you compress your bumf into 140 characters. Get your name in the local paper and your voice on the radio. Unless you can clearly explain how your tweeting is going to lead to votes, why are you devoting so much of your limited time and energy towards it?

10. You’re going to stop after the election.

Twitter is a community (or, rather, a collection of communities). If you’re just crashing for your own selfish interests, it’s obvious to everyone else. Imagine if the election campaign was the first time you showed up at the local rate payers meeting or worship service or whatever, and then you never went again. (Wait, you’re not doing that too, are you?)

All that being said, if you can avoid all or most of these pitfalls then go for it! Done properly Twitter can be a great way to communicate with new people and keep up with breaking developments. I just don’t think it’s worth doing badly.

I wish I could give you some examples of great political tweeters to model yourself off of, but for my own sanity I follow very few. I think my local MP and MPP Bob Rae and Glen Murray do a pretty good job (Rae clearly writes his own tweets — his voice is unmistakable, and Murray engages with his constituents, especially those who disagree with him, perhaps more than any other elected official I’ve ever seen). I’m told that federal ministers Tony Clement and Jason Kenney were both pretty good before the election, but that now they’ve succumb to the above traps. Who am I missing?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Then, the more substantive criticisms emerged. First, from Canadian internet law expert Michael Geist, who points out that Vista’s fine print gives it the right to delete certain programs without the user’s knowledge, and provides that “this agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights.”

Also, Vista intentionally degrades the picture quality of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs when played on most computer monitors. In other words, you’ll pay more for less. And don’t bother trying to fix that, because the terms and conditions state that “you may not work around any technical limitations in the software.”

Then, the UK Green Party pointed out that Vista is also bad for the environment because, even though it doesn’t have many new features, it “requires more expensive and energy-hungry hardware, passing the cost on to consumers and the environment…Future archaeologists will be able to identify a ‘Vista Upgrade Layer’ when they go through our landfill sites.”

I didn’t think that was worth mentioning until I saw Microsoft’s ultra-lame response, which basically just said, “environmental issues are important to us.” Um, good to hear. What are you doing about it?

Taken together with Geist’s concerns about user rights, and the fact that Vista isn’t that great of an upgrade anyway, the case against using Microsoft’s new OS is strong. In addition, the critical importance that computers have to our lives and economy makes this a political issue.

Fortunately, there’s a ready alternative. Open source software is the democratic way of designing computer programs. This website, for example, runs on a free, open source programming language called PHP, instead of Microsoft’s almost identical (and much more expensive than free) ASP. There are also open source alternatives to Windows, Microsoft Office, and almost any other application you’d use on a day-to-day basis.

The Green Party of Canada has called for “federal departments and agencies to transition to open source or free software for general applications and provide free technical support to Canadian companies who use this software.” It’s one of our wackier ideas, but I like it. And, the more bloated and intrusive closed source products like Microsoft’s get, the less wacky it will seem.

No? That’s never happened to you? Well then, do read on. But first, some basic understanding of both libel law and wiki technology is required. This post is way longer than anyone should be subjected to, but please bear with me. This is important stuff, and I’ll try to insert jokes whenever I think you might be getting bored.

What The Heck Is Libel?

Libel is the written or published version of defamation of character (as opposed to slander, which is verbal and unpublished). Canadian libel law is very old, having evolved from British common law (meaning law that evolves based on the rulings of judges over time, forming legal precedent). One of the most interesting things about libel in Canada is that it reverses the burden of proof, such that the defendant is actually guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent. In other words, the plaintiff does not have to prove that what was said about them was false; instead, the defendant must prove what they said was true.

One of the other interesting things about libel law in Canada is that, according to lawyer Michael Geist, it’s actually treated more seriously in some ways than hate speech, or the undeniably horrendous crime of child pornography. While child pornography and hate speech both require a court order to be removed, websites can be forced to remove allegedly libelous content based on the allegations alone, before anything has been proven.

This has lead to what’s known as “libel chill” or a “chilling effect.” If you happen to be someone who can afford to throw around lawsuits, you can get content about yourself removed simply by threatening legal action. You don’t even need to worry about being right or having evidence. The “chill” is the resulting chill on free speech. If I know someone might sue me for libel, even if I’m telling the truth, I’m less likely to say anything at all. (Especially if I’m not wealthy, and the person threatening to sue is.)

What The Heck’s A Wiki?

I suspect many of you already know this, so let’s just do a quick primer. A wiki is a type of website that lets visitors edit the content of that site, making it particularly useful for collaborative authoring. The most famous wiki is Wikipeida, a free encyclopedia written entirely by volunteers that in just five years has generated over a million articles with an accuracy rating that rivals that of Encyclopedia Britannica. I mention this to demonstrate what a powerful tool wiki is, and how valuable it is for our society.

One feature critical to the success of wiki technology is that each article on a wiki has a “history,” which records every edit ever made, and allows visitors to view every version of the page that has ever existed, as well as the current version. (For example, here’s what my Wikipedia entry looked like on December 13, 2005, here’s what it looked like on December 27th 2005, and here’s what it looks like now, having been merged with another article.) This feature is essential in order for a consensus viewpoint to evolve, as well as to ensure that vandalism can be easily reverted.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that a wiki is unlike any other communications tool we’ve ever known. And that, as we will see, is part of the problem.

Ok, so What About the Dude in the Underwear?

Fair question. Let me back up a few steps.

A friend of mine, Michael Pilling, runs a wiki website called OpenPolitics.ca. It grew out of the Green Party of Canada’s Living Platform, and is a non-partisan forum for Canadians to discuss political issues. Michael was actually the Head of Platform and Research for the Green Party of Canada in 2004, and canvassed for me in 2006. He has a one-year-old daughter.

My other defendant friend is Hayley Easto, who has only a loose affiliation to OpenPolitics.ca (in that, when it was first created a year ago, she was named as one of the chief editors of the site).

They’re both being sued not for anything they wrote, but rather for something that an anonymous person wrote on OpenPolitics.ca.

The man suing them is Wayne Crookes, who was my roommate at the 2004 Bragg Creak Green Party of Canada convention (thus the underwear thing). We didn’t talk much, but he seemed like a nice enough guy, and we had breakfast together on the last morning of the convention. It’s very strange to know that on both sides of this suit are real, regular people. Until now, lawsuits have always been more abstract than that.

What the Suit’s About, and Why it’s so Strange

As mentioned above, Wayne is suing over comments that were made about him on a page on OpenPolitics.ca. I won’t repeat what was said, because then he could sue me too. Suffice it to say that Wayne felt that the comments could lead a reader to form a negative opinion of him.

By now you should be asking yourself, if these comments were made on a wiki, and a wiki is so easy for anyone to edit, why weren’t they just edited out? Well, they were. Michael moderated the page and also offered to explain to Wayne how to do so himself, and/or to post his side of the story for him. Wayne was uninterested, but Michael changed the page to reflect a more neutral point of view anyway.

So, that should be the end of the story, right? The offending content was removed, and everyone can go home happy. Except for one little problem: the version of the page that Wayne objects to is preserved in that page’s history, just like all edits on a wiki. So there is, and will always be, a version of it that exists. As I understand it, Wayne is actually suing over the content of the history page, not the main article. That’s part of what’s led Michael to observe that “there is currently no legal way to operate Open Politics in Canada.”

So What Do We Do?

You’ll remember that thanks to British common law we have two kinds of defamation, libel and slander (written and spoken). Slander is generally treated more leniently, and evolved back before so many of our conversations took place over wires. As people increasingly communicate with each other over instant message, email, message boards, blogs, and wikis, those conversations (which used to take place in person or over the phone) become the domain of libel law instead of slander. One possible solution suggested by Michael is to make these new forms of electronic discussion subject to slander law instead of libel.

Whether that happens nor not, it seems obvious to me that we need to update our laws to acknowledge the fact that an anonymous (or even attributed) defamation on a wiki today is very different from an attributed defamation in a newspaper a few decades or centuries ago when our laws were formed.

For example, let’s say I jumped in a De Lorean and traveled back in time to 1885. While I’m there, a newspaper publisher prints a bunch of lies about me, namely, say, that I’m “yellow” and “a chicken.” I’d be relatively powerless to respond, given the power and reach of the newspaper. Also, the fact that those lies were being made by someone with perceived authority and reliability would make them even more difficult to refute.

Today, however, if an anonymous person lies about me on a wiki or a blog, I’m able to easily respond with the same reach as that person. Further, I can likely respond with even more authority, since the fact that that person is anonymous (and not backed-up by a professional journalist, as is the case with “anonymous sources”) should lead any reasonable person to question their reliability. Therefore, libel on a wiki or (to a lesser extent) a blog shouldn’t be treated with the same degree of severity as libel in an older type of publication. Not only does the target of the alleged libel have a “right of reply,” they have an impressive and unprecedented ability to do so.

Finally! A Conclusion!

Wayne, of course, still has a right to have his reputation protected from unfounded accusations (if that is in fact what’s happened). But if he were to win this lawsuit, that could mean, at a minimum, that it would be very difficult to legally and safely operate a wiki in Canada. Even if the lawsuit fails, the chill will remain, inhibiting free speech. Another lawsuit threatens the free speech rights of bloggers. (In that suit, p2pnet.net is being sued in part because of something that was posted as a comment to a blog post. So watch what you say when commenting on this post, I don’t have any interest in a lawsuit right now.)

I’ve called this situation “silly” (because it is), but it’s also very serious. I could devote another even longer post (oh yeah, speaking of that, thanks for making it this far) to the priceless value that wikis and blogs contribute to the level of discourse in this country, and therefore to the strength of our democracy. A balance needs to be struck to preserve these tools, and to preserve free speech, while still protecting people like my ex-roomie Wayne from libel. Otherwise, we will have moved backwards on what is a very exciting path towards the democratization of decision making, and of the web itself.

ps. I attended an event on this very topic this past Saturday, at which a lawyer lamented the fact that people now feel the need to preface their online comments with “I’m not a lawyer, but…,” since everyone should feel entitled to express their opinion regardless of their profession or education, and without fear of legal action that could apparently result from their failure to disclose their non-lawyer status. That being said, just in case you were wondering, I’m totally not a lawyer. In fact, it’s only recently that I’ve even learned to spell the word, so there.

Tags: wiki, wikipedia, libel, law, sue, lawsuit, open, politics, openpolitics, free, speech