Qik and Twitter goes to Congress and causes major controversy

Aaron Brazell had a great roundup of coverage and statements here: http://technosailor.com/2008/07/08/democrats-trying-to-ban-twitter-and-other-social-media-use-by-congressmen/

Here is the follow-up interview I did with Rep. Culberson on Wednesday: http://qik.com/video/125962

I will watch the video to find out for myself (and I’m slapping my own wrists for commenting beforehand), but I certainly hope Culberson is getting a little less partisan in his commentary. It seems that part of the reason for the brouhaha in the first place was his inflammatory Twittering about the “Dems” and rumours spread from there.

I am excited that he struck a chord and has gotten a rally behind the cause (with help from the Sunlight Foundation, of course), but just hope that he can go forward in a way that discusses the issue without the thick coating of blame he was originally laying down.

According to statistics in ‘Groundswell’, in Europe, active participation in Social Media is lagging compared to the USA (apart from the UK). So I expect this controversy to emerge over here also, but in some 6 – 12 months.

Let our congress tweet!!

If a congressman tweets in the forest and no on is there to listen, does it matter?

Robert, I wish you would dig deeper into this stuff before assuming that the posturing about free speech has any sound basis. I like the way that Aaron Brazell has continued to update and tease out the perspective on this, even though he tends to hold to his first impression too. I think it should have been clear from a careful reading of the original letter and Culberson’s claimed reading of it that there was a serious disconnect. It is also clear from the alleged (unofficial?) material from Feinstein that the Senate is also not attempting any such thing. I do notice that Brazell has changed the title of his post (although the URL has not changed.

He still doesn’t give up on the limitation idea when the proposal is to start relaxing existing rules. I think we should be encouraging that, and being respectful that the constitution directs that the Congress set their own rules. I guess if we tweeters and woofers are played so easily, we should maybe have more compassion for MSM being led around by the nose on terrorism and Iraq?

(“me and Andrew….” Please, for the love of God, go back and review your grade school grammar textbooks.)

Well, no one can ever accuse you of being humble. You were not the catalyst for this non-existent “controversy”. Amazingly, this was not a topic on ANY talking head shows this morning; and never will be. Outside of his district you can probably count on one hand the number of people that have even heard of this guy. Seems he’s simply trying to make himself relevant for 15 minutes.

As much as you would like to believe it, there is no story here. The fact that the NYT is running a back page article shows how far they have fallen.

You guys go on believing these toys are poised to change the world. The naïveté of it is really quite adorable to observe. Almost on par with the global warming delusionals.

This is a non-story. The only way it becomes a story is if Stretch Pelosi uses it to communcate with leftist rebels in Venezuela. Or Baghdad Jim McDermott uses it to comminicate with Iraqi terrorist, and Twitter can’t produce the evidence when subpeoned.

But hey! Nice try!

@Steve, yeah I’m with you. There’s not much of a story here. But that’s par for the Scoble course though. I do find the photos interesting though. I think it’s great that you’re spending time with Patrick, he’s having some great experiences and hopefully those take him someplace in his day. I would advise, for his good (and yours) that you introduce him to the gym. Get him out from behind his computer and into some regular exercise. I don’t say that to be mean, but at his age, he’s exhibiting the trend that we’re seeing in youth these days around obesity which will not serve him well healthwise in the years to come. Best to nip it in the bud now. Oh…and a haircut.

http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080708/1602521624

“(…) today he’s been using Twitter to ignite a totally misguided partisan war, pretending (falsely) that Democrats are trying to prevent him from using Twitter. First, he announced on Twitter that “the Dems are trying to censor Congressmen’s ability to use Twitter” claiming that “They want to require prior approval of all posts to any public social media/internet/www site by any member of Congress!!!” Fascinating, and troubling, if true, but it’s not actually true.”

storm in a tea cup.

Number 10 Downing Street is using Twitter
http://twitter.com/downingstreet

I think it’s great that you started this thinking, Robert.

The question is whether it’s appropriate to have instant media of any type, cell phones, Qik TV, twitter in negotiations. If the meetings are open to the press, it seems like it should be ok for the members of Congress also to be covering it, but I also think it’s more than fine to have debates about rules for this.

For example, at the UN, if you walk into a mission, you will have to put your cell phone in “cell phone jail” — many missions require you to place your phone in little locked boxes. So you can’t use your Blackberry during negotiations. Oddly, some people get laptops in. And it’s still the case that even in closed UN sessions people are texting out of them to experts in the hallways or in offices supplying them with instant information. They can’t really shut that down, there is wireless now.

So…there are likely to be new sets of rules about this developed. People who are too early with their snap judgements and emotional readings out of negotiations and events often look like twits later in retrospect, and then they’re stuck on the record for ever.

I can’t believe how badly “regular media” can make things seem.

OMG! That’s a Congressman?

When the Republic was founded, as a Representative form of government, it was predicated on the realization that it was impossible for every person represented to directly communicate their concerns, opinions, beliefs, intentions and desires.

Thus, a Representative government rolls up the voices of the many into a few voices, that can be heard in an orderly, civilized fashion in a stately chamber. People vote for Representation of their major concerns, periodically. And so, tyranny and stagnation and corruption due to use of power are limited and the country as a whole benefits enormously.

Technology today, well, actually three decades ago, made it possible for every person’s voice to be heard, directly. People holding Power, as elected Representatives are not embracing this technology as they feel more threatened than empowered by these new capabilities. Silly, short-sighted and idiotic as it may be, that is the reality I perceive.

The root question, or “hypothetical” or “model” or “in-theory” premise to be tested in my opinion, as a resident of the Metro-DC area for more than two decades and a student of American History for four decades, is this:
- Do the new communication capabilities, made possible by recent technological advances, do more to limit tyranny, stagnation, and the corruption of ideals commonly observed in those who exercise Power than the historical communication methods previously used in our Representative Republic?
- Or will new technology only enhance the negatives, thus damaging the country enormously?

Another way of saying this is, well, looking at China and Russia, the use of technology to advance government control over opposition voices has been very effective.

My own personal view is that all Government committee meetings, judicial events, legislative events, and executive office events (presidential findings, agency rule-making, etc) should not only be recorded on video for posterity, but should also be broadcast live on the internet and subject to direct and immediate feedback and interaction, from all Amercian Citizens, or all Registered Voters, or at least all Land Owners. That is, my opinion is that more openess is the only certain way to ensure the greatest benefit for the Republic as a whole, as a Nation under the Rule of Law.

So, if technology is used to primarily to eliminate, punish, track or harass those who would have previously spoken freely to their Representatives, then this technology should be forbidden from use in Congress, and, indeed at all levels of government. On the other hand, if technology is used primarily to better inform Representatives of the will of the people, so that they can both better represent the will of the people and be held accountable as a Representative, then the technology should be required to be used in Congress, and at all levels of government from local school boards on up to Presidential Cabinet meetings, Supreme Court discussion meetings, and House and Senate caucus and committee and party meetings.

I prefer all meetings to be open, all negotiations to be recorded, as facts, rather than the current situation where facts are exceedingly few and opinions or “spin” is the rule. Facts are tangible, spin is vapor. People lose confidence, and rightly so, in systems that deliver nothing tangible. and cost alot. Sure, all politicians want to be accountable only for great successes and want to forget, avoid, duck, or hide from their responsibilities regarding massive cluster eff ups.

It seems to me that unless this root question, this basic premise, this first-principle question is resolved, that the actual use of technology and any restrictions on such use, will be haphazard, confused and unproductive. The end result of such confusion should probably be expected to be significant harm to the Republic, its people, and its future. Absence of clarity in government practices and policies, historically, seems to always advance Tyranny and undermine Liberty, reducing profits and dampening the entrepreneurial spirit.

Thanks

Larry

@Alan 10 Downing St.is using Twitter? Brilliant! I’m sure many of the Islamofacist terrorist that live and about London appreciate knowing the complete schedule and whereabouts of the PM. How many terrorist followers does 10 Downing St have? Don’t know? I rest my case. And what’s to keep the Downing St twit from giving out coded messages to terrorists? Openness in Govt is a great goal, but it should be tempered against potential risks. Not sure Twitter was designed as a secure communication medium.

This is a perfect example of why Qik and Twitter are the engines of hell. They show us nothing! They show us a mini-clip, even smaller than TV news has gotten to be, that gets us more deeply mired in nonsense and trivia. Of course the congressman wants to have the meetings that way: his party is used to demagoguing their way to elections with ad slogans. Who could be against this? Well, there’s a transcript, all right? Ever heard of reading? They’re all on C-Span. Can you pay attentintion long enough to even hear one of those, uh, hearings? Twitter’s just an amusement. It cripples consciousness, and adds nothing but a laugh or two from friends.

I think this is great. Congrats to Erica Ogrady for working with Congressman Culberson. I think it’s fantastic Culberson is seeking to provide a more porous and open framework with which to view the policy makers of this country. He needn’t take it to the extreme: qik’ing live meetings but certainly commentary etc in real time on the road is super valuable.

People also need to learn how to use Qik – there should be a 140 character twitter qik i.e. 2 minutes – get to the point – think about what your going to say – refine it and than fire. It makes it far more viable to watch vs. a 38 minutes segment shot of him in his office. There is a time and place for that, but not in the contexts currently posted.

@ Andrew re:Downing St.

Those twits..er…tweets?, seem like nothing more than a regurgitation of the PM’s press releases. I read nothing there that I could not get from any London newspaper. Which is probably good. I rather doubt Mi5 would tolerate any tweets that went beyond innocuous.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,383444,00.html

egad :/

…intended to prevent members from using public money to communicate on outside Web sites featuring commercial and political advertisements.

ya we can’t have real people influencing the political process… we need only washington insiders to barter in political capital.

If members of congress or 10 downing street for that matter wanna use it, then by all means use it and be prepared to face whatever consequences that may arise through their actions by using those tools. What the hell is there to even debate about NYT? Instead of wasting time debating on common-sense even-someone-with-half-a-brain-cell-knows topics, why don’t they feature a film about the less fortunate from charitable homes for a donation drive instead??? .. fer crying out loud…

OTOH, Twitter’s a brilliant alert app… in fact i’d rate it the de facto web standard for alerts & notifications. let’s hope they stick to what their core is, that is to provide tweet notifications. The minute they go into the aggregation game like FriendFeed, that’s when they may face tough times ahead because FriendFeed got in early and they have that first mover adv. And speaking of FriendFeed, here’s something hilarious (r-rated people) that i found today on technorati.. http://www.techxiety.com/techxiety/2008/07/friendfeed—the-r-rated-web-20-application.html

I do also hope FriendFeed & Twitter will come out with their OWN Adobe AIR widgets soon. You don’t see ICQ opening up their API and allowing developers to come up with their own ICQ widget now do u?… Geez.. well i know what Web 3.0′s gonna be about if this continues.. cleaning up Web 2.0′s collaborative mess!! If you’re not a programmer you’ll never be able to understand the mess Web 2.0 spawned.

Ooooh.. i love Qik!!!!!!!!! tried it a week ago.

Where i can find free trial of Everton aap for my iPhone?