Rolling onto Twitch and playing social deduction games with constituents and having a good time in the middle of a traumatic pandemic that keeps people apart. And using the visibility *to explain how other countries’ health care system works*
Her public persona — not just in traditional media but on the fuzzier social channels — is quick, natural, and focused. She takes every opportunity possible to clarify complexity to constituents, and uses different social channels *in channel-appropriate ways*.
That last one is ridiculously rare even for well-oiled brands, let alone politicians. As the average age of the American political class creeps upward, that native comfort with (relatively) new social media is going to be a more and more significant force multiplier.
As someone who obsesses about digital comms, brand voice in a multichannel world, politics, and gaming, this moment is definitely my *ZONE*
A final though. Most campaigns and politicians — like most brands — use social media for 1) Pushing links to traditional messaging, 2) Customer support, and 3) Stunting and dunking. The latter can get you lots of engagement but is a world away from effective native communication.
I’m reminded of the kind of difference that the Cluetrain Manifesto articulated when the ~pre-social-media~ web was taking off, and traditional brands took ages to internalize that it was something different; not just a new place for existing messaging.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
After some tinkering with templates and reading up on iTunes' feed formatting requirements… The old archives for insertcontenthere.com are back up! Built on @eleven_ty, with @otter_ai powered transcripts coming shortly.
Using @Netlify rather than @GithubPages let me use some of the fancy metadata tools in 11ty, and install a few markdown-it plugins to handle definition lists and transcript markup.
Dropped the episodes into an S3 bucket — long term it might be possible to automatically get filesize and audio duration automatically, but for the moment they just go into the frontmatter of each episode's markdown file.
Something interesting, troubling, and important is happening. This weekend there's an NBC special about online disinformation campaigns and recruitment pipelines for right-wing radicalism. On one level it's good; the media has historically ignored the complexity of the problem.
There's a pretty serious problem, though: This isn't a new, emergent issue. The roots go back to the earliest days of the social web, and the specific networks they're covering in Sunday's special predate Trump.
A handful of Black women — writers, scholars, artists, thinkers — were at ground zero for the rise of those disinformation and radicalization networks before anyone else took the issue seriously. 2013, 2014, 2015… long before mainstream reporters knew a chan from a flan.
Good to remember that authoritarian leaders generally do not *eliminate rules*; rather they *make themselves and their allies exempt from them* either officially or by compromising the systems of enforcement and exercising "discretion".
That allows the authoritarian leader to insist that rules are being followed, and to use those rules to punish members of opposition or scapegoat groups, without endangering themselves.
The implicit message to their supporters is: "You and I, we are the good people. The system's rules are meant to stop bad people like the ones who hate us, not constrain good people like us."
Today is full of buzz about @zeynep — a few years back she delivered a wildly thought-provoking and challenging warning at @drupalcon Baltimore that is… *extremely relevant in retrospect* opentranscripts.org/transcript/sur…
Feels like a perfect example of the kind of thing @Blackamazon has deconstructed lately: any time you hear prominent cultural voices say, "No one thought X could happen!" there have been people clearly explaining that X would happen.
There's often real shock as they process what they did not think (or did not want to think) would happen; but there's also a big helping of CYA revisionism.
"I thought it wouldn't happen, and used my platform to tell people it wouldn't, and now it is" is a guilty place to be.
Hello my fellow Ultra Normative Dudes*, this moment in history can feel like an overwhelming time because everything — race, gender, sexuality, class — feels like it's blowing up and we have to do a bunch of Processing Of Big Issues every 30 minutes. That is correct!
It is correct because those different axis have been pretty consistently trash-firey for a lot of people for a long time, but the cultural value of Keepin' The Normalcy Flowin' has always been high, and they were encouraged to Keep It To Themselves Or Be Branded Troublemakers.
Sometimes somebody (or a cluster of somebodys!) would stand up and say, "You know what, this thing is bullshit" and there would be a cultural moment and we (Ultra Normative Dudes) would get big eyes and say, "Holy shit, that's awful. Wow."
Insisting that "we need structured content" and "we need content reuse," makes it easy to build content with *inappropriate* structures that waste effort and work against core needs.
So, what kinds of *specific* structure-needs are common? A thread, illustrated by fast food.
Consistency! Content of a given type shares common structures and patterns, regardless of who created it. If Alice makes a case study, and Bob makes a case study, they'll both obviously be *case studies*.
Versatility! Content, once it's created, can be used in multiple contexts. An author biography, for example, is needed in many places across a news site.