Yesterday, Twitter announced that it has refined the technology enough to censor tweets in specific areas of the world.

This doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing. We all have this knee-jerk reaction to instantly hate anything that even questions our freedom of speech concepts, but before you get mad at Twitter, think about what this could mean for us as content creators and social media users.

Misplaced Anger

I think it’s important to start by understanding that Twitter isn’t going to just start wiping out your tweets willy-nilly. What they’re talking about is being able to block tweets on a country-by-country basis in order to comply with that country’s laws. Currently, Twitter already does censor some tweets that break United States laws – in most cases, that boils down to removing tweets that contain links to child pornography sites.

Some countries have very strict laws about what you can and cannot say publicly. Freedom of speech is not a world-wide civil liberty, unfortunately. Twitter isn’t creating these laws; governments are. I think public anger is a bit misplaced. We should be angry that governments are censoring their people, not angry that Twitter is abiding by these laws.

Some Access is Better than No Access

I won’t argue that censorship is a good thing, but I will argue that Twitter’s new ability to censor on a country-by-country basis is a good thing. Let’s use China as an example, since this is a country where Twitter is currently blocked. If Twitter wants to provide access in China, the company has two options:

• Censor everything any user from any country says to meet China’s policies.
• Censor some tweets in China to adhere to policies while leaving these tweets untouched in other parts of the world.

The second option is much better! Could you imagine if everything we said on Twitter was censored by the Chinese government? The third choice, of course, is to simple continue denying access to China so that no one’s tweets were censored to any follower, but I think some access is better than none at all. Even if my followers in China only were able to reader one out of every hundred tweets, that’s better than the situation now. I’d love to connect to new people, even if it was in a very small way.

Now, Twitter is unlikely to actually pursue Chinese operations at the moment, given the country’s fiasco with Google a few years ago, but this is just an extreme example of how it could work in countries with different laws. And a launch in China is certainly not out of the question.

A Commitment to Human Rights

One could argue that Twitter should not censor tweets at all, that they should simply refuse to provide services in any country with strict laws that don’t provide for freedom of speech. I argue that this approach is cutting off the nose to spite the face.

First of all, I don’t think any company that provides non-essential services is going to change the mind of a government power that restricts Internet use. Government in North Korea, for example, has shown the world that it can and will isolate its people. They don’t really given a you-know-what if their people have access to Twitter or not. So by refusing to enter these countries, Twitter isn’t really doing any good in my opinion.

Second, I believe it is important to support the people of a country. They don’t always agree with government policies. Heck, I don’t always agree with my government policies (who does?), but that doesn’t mean moving to another country is a better choice – and some people don’t have this option.

Third, this isn’t always a matter of black and white. For example, I think we can all agree here that spreading links to child pornography should not be protected under “freedom of speech,” and I’m glad Twitter removes those tweets. But from there, you can slope down to lesser and lesser “evils.” Where is the line drawn? Just because something is allowed by law in the United States doesn’t mean that other governments and cultures should have to conform to our standards. For example, pornography is illegal in many countries. Should Twitter boycott these countries the same as they boycott a country that censors tweets with negative opinions about the government?

Censorship for Positive Change?

Many major online companies, including Google, already censor their content in other countries to abide by laws, so this is nothing new. Twitter is just being extremely transparent about things, which I think is commendable. They plan to release information about who and where tweet censorship is being requested.

That could actually be a really positive thing for change in the world. It brings freedom issues to the forefront in people’s minds, both in the country being censored and in countries where people have more liberty to say whatever they want. So, censorship is bad…but Twitter’s move into countries where this is an issue could be good for raising awareness.

Not Without Problems

The concept of semi-censoring tweets is not without its problems.

Will Twitter simply listen to what a government official says, or will it allow tweets that aren’t breaking the law, even if a take-down is ordered? For example, what if the U.S. government decided to censor all the SOPA tweets earlier this month? Those tweets should be protected under the constitution, but if a take-down was ordered, would Twitter simply comply? Given the fast-paced nature of Twitter, the amount of time it would take for a tweeter to challenge something like that would make it a moot point. If tweets about SOPA were reinstated after the bill became a law, for example, it wouldn’t really matter.

And I also worry about misinformation. When someone is only seeing part of the story, ideas and facts can get dangerously warped very quickly. If someone is only see some of my tweets, they might form a very wrong opinion of me. Worse, it allows a government to have a lot of control on the message. If 99% of tweets about your leader are positive, is it because 99% of people actually like this person or because almost all negative tweets were caught and removed by censorship filters.

Thinking About Our Content Differently

I think, as content creators, we should be excited about Twitter’s plans to expand into new countries, even if tweets will be censored. It means new followers, new connections, and new readers/viewers. However, it does mean that we have to think about our content a little differently.

With Twitter’s new ability to censor tweets in specific countries, our messages aren’t going to be seen in the same way by every follower. If you want to reach this new audience, it’s important to make sure that you’re tweeting in a way that allows your messages to be seen, and that might require a little research to learn about laws in other countries.

Let’s Keep Our Eyes on Things

This new power for Twitter does not come without responsibility. Whether we realize it or not, censorship on Twitter has already been happening, but now that it is easier to wipe out tweets in specific countries, I think all of us users need to band together and just…well…keep an eye on things. It’s now much easier for a government – even the United States government – for for Twitter itself to abuse these powers. It’s up to us to ask questions and keep those in charge accountable for the decisions they make.

Here are a few more posts with information and opinions on this topic, which I’ve quickly collected with the help of one of my favorite plugins of all time, Zemanta. Weigh in with your opinion or a link to your post about the topic by leaving comment below.

• Twitter Will Censor Your Tweets If a Country Tells It To (gizmodo.com)
• Thoughts on Twitter’s Latest Move (jilliancyork.com)
• Twitter Changes The “Contours” Of Censorship With Country-By-Country Blocking (techcrunch.com)
• Twitter caves on censorship overseas (piedtype.com)
• Twitter to Censor Content in Certain Countries (mashable.com)
• Twitter Censored and DOMA (theintrepids.wordpress.com)
• This Tweet Is Available In The Following Countries: (pandodaily.com)
• Twitter will censor tweets, but will try really hard not to (gigaom.com)

Yesterday, sites like Wikipedia, Reddit, and Craigslist blacked out in protest of SOPA and PIPA, two anti-piracy bills that would cause tons of Internet censorship. Countless blogs also joined the protest, and major sites like Google and Pinterest put up notices about the bills, even though they didn’t shut down completely.

Today, the Internet is, for the most part, back to normal. I’m still seeing a few tweets here and there about SOPA and PIPA,and a few sites are still alerting users/readers, but it’s back to business as usual for most people.

I have to be honest. That scares me.

SOPA and PIPA protests are more important today than they were yesterday. I saw many reports (mostly in mainstream media, like on the news) saying that the SOPA/PIPA protest yesterday was a giant failure. While I don’t believe that’s true, I do think that getting angry on Twitter and Facebook for a day doesn’t really matter. What matters is the follow through.

BlogWorld Expo is a conference for content creators. Last night, we held a Twitter chat to talk about SOPA and PIPA and one of the points brought up by Curtis Silver is that it is our responsibility, as content creators, to make sure this issue continues to stay on people’s minds. Others made similar points and they’re absolutely right – yesterday, several members of Senate pulled their support, but PIPA could still pass next week and SOPA could as well next month. We need to continue to voice our opinions against these bills.

Have you called your state’s elected officials? Tell them that you will not vote for anyone supporting SOPA or PIPA. Even an email or hand-written letter helps get your voice heard. Believe it or not, these politicians do listen to the people they represent because – surprise surprise – they want to get reelected. By saying you won’t vote for them, you’re threatening their jobs.

If you’re a content creator online, don’t let your readers/listeners/viewers forget how important SOPA and PIPA are. And no matter who you are, continue sharing this information on social media. Yesterday was only a battle. Let’s make it our goal to win the war.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Pass the video on to all of your friends so we can fight SOPA/PIPA together! Even if you aren’t from the United States, these potential laws affect you; they affect every Internet user.

Please head to http://www.blogworld.com/SOPA to find out more about how you can join the fight against SOPA/PIPA and join us on Twitter this Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012 at 9 PM EST for #bwechat, where we’ll be talking about these bills and what they mean to you.

No company knows that better than GoDaddy. When the list of SOPA supporters came out, Internet users everywhere cried to users to boycott GoDaddy, moving hosting and domain name registration to other companies. A lot of people did. Last Friday, when this story was getting top billing on tech sites everywhere, over 21,000 domain names were moved to other companies. That hasn’t stopped people from registering thousands of new domain names.

Bob Parsons, CEO of GoDaddy - worthy of our forgiveness?

The net loss for the day was only 1,020, which is pretty insignificant considering that they manage over 50 million domain names.

Yesterday, the specific day when people were encouraged to move their domain names, the boycott fizzled completely. The company actually had a net gain of over 20,000 names, though they have admitted a spike in transfer rates.

The boycott has made a difference. A few days ago, GoDaddy released a statement saying that they no longer support SOPA. Then, more recently, the company released a statement saying that not only were they no longer supporting the bill, but they now directly oppose it. The lack of support for transferring names yesterday can be attributed to both GoDaddy’s changing stance on the issue and Reddit’s new focus on actual politicians. (Reddit is where the call for a GoDaddy boycott originally started.)

So with all of that said, is it time for the blogging community to forgive GoDaddy?

This blogger says yes.

I personally have domain names registered and hosted with two different companies – GoDaddy and HostGator. I was poised to switch everything to HostGator, but when GoDaddy changed their position and decided to oppose SOPA, I decided to keep my account. For now.

Finish Your Vegetables, GoDaddy!

In my opinion, it sends the wrong message to boycott the company after they’ve given in to consumer demands. I’ve even seen people making fun of GoDaddy for changing their position so quickly to appease customers. Um…isn’t that what we wanted? What, did you want a more difficult fight?

The whole point of a boycott is to change what a company is doing. So if the company makes the changes you want and you still boycott, it sends the message that it doesn’t matter whether a company listens to its consumers or not. Next time, they won’t bother changing because it won’t make a difference anyway.

A good analogy is a kid who won’t finish his dinner. You tell the child, “Because you haven’t eaten the rest of your peas, you aren’t getting any cake for dessert.” If the child clears his plate, you have to give him the cake. That was the implied deal. You can’t really say, “Well, originally, you decided not to finish your dinner, so you still aren’t getting cake, even though you changed your mind.” Well, I mean, you can, but good luck getting the kid to eat his dinner tomorrow. You’ve conditioned him to think that it doesn’t matter what he does; you’re going to withhold cake if you feel like it.

Why Are You Anti-GoDaddy?

There’s no shortage of reasons to dislike GoDaddy. If you decide to leave because of the dead animal debacle, do it. If you object to their racy ads, transfer your names. If you believe the company can’t be trusted to make good decisions in the future, close your account. These are all good reasons to leave – for some people.

But if your reason for leaving was to boycott the company’s support of SOPA, I think you should stay – or even consider moving back if you already transferred. The boycott worked, and we want to send the right message – that if we boycott you and you change, we’ll stop boycotting. It’s time to forgive and move on to find other ways to make a different in the fight against SOPA. A lot of other companies and politicians still support the bill, and we need to at least try to change their minds.

A final warning to GoDaddy, though: the Internet might forgive, but we never forget. You’re on probation.

Picture via Parsonsrep at Wikimedia Commons.

Likester, a global popularity engine that analyzes Facebook “Likes”, kept a close eye on the event – where the seven candidates debated Medicare, the national debt, abortion, gay marriage, immigration, and more.

The site says their goal is to predict something “meaningful” – the 2012 Republican nominee – and they’re starting with an analysis of the debate results:

Winner: Mitt Romney. Prior to the debate, Romney had 936,090 likes. During and immediately after the debate he had 19,658 new likes, for a total of 955,748.

2nd Place: Michele Bachmann. Prior to the debate, Bachmann had 326,225 likes. During and immediately after the debate she had 9,232 new likes, for a total of 335,457.

3rd Place: Ron Paul. Prior to the debate, Paul had 382,228 likes. During and immediately after the debate he had 8,717 new likes, for a total of 390,945.

So, even though Paul is ahead in Likes, Likester gave Bachmann the second place slot because of her overall percentage gain.

The remaining candidates (in order) were Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum.

While Likester successfully predicted the winner of American Idol a full six weeks before the finale, I have to wonder if the same can be said for the presidential race. I think the AI audience is more vocal, and more involved with social media, than many of the political voters. What do you think? Will social media predict the winner?

In the interview Congressman Frank says he likes to read The Economist, The New York Times, The Hill, Roll Call and Politico as well as books on British history. Then he says this:

I don’t get news on my phone. I don’t use Facebook or Twitter. I want substance. I’m not betting on stocks. I don’t deal in emergencies and I don’t know CPR. There’s enough possibility of misunderstanding as it is without 140 character tweets. Of course, when you’re talking about somebody getting shot, tweets have been good. But generally, I want more than you can get on a phone.

Apparently Congressman Frank is unaware that he can read all of his favorite newspapers, magazines and books on his phone or that he is missing quite a bit of “substance” by limiting himself to outdated forms of media distribution.

Then he says this:

The trouble with new media is the fact that there’s no screen. Anyone can publish anything. We still have the notion that if it’s printed it has some validity.  Previously, you had to convince at least one other person that it was worth printing. Now, anyone can print anything in this medium. In general, there’s a lot more gossip and fragmentation.

Apparently Congressman Frank has never heard of The National Enquirer, The Sun and scores of other gossip oriented newspapers, magazines, TV shows etc. I assume he has forgotten about Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Jack Anderson; whose political gossip segment was a feature on Good Morning America for nine years.

There is no arguing with Congressman Frank’s point that there is more gossip and fragmentation. What Congressman Frank fails to realize is that there is more of every kind of media available. In the same way cable and satelite opened up new distribution channels for radio and TV, New Media has democratized all media.

New Media has given us the most free, open and democratic media in all of human history. That is in direct keeping with American ideals. Our political leaders should be doing everything they can to educate themselves about it, embracing it and advocating for it.

***Update 6.6.11*** Weinergate is getting bigger. And with BlogWorld NYC keynote speaker Andrew Breitbart’ latest post you have to ask is the Blogosphere about to notch another politician resignation in its belt?

Senator Manchin took a lot of well deserved heat when he failed to show up for two major controversial votes this past weekend. His initial reply about having a prior commitment (a Christmas party) sounded like the typical weasel politician trying to avoid accountability and allowing himself to agree with whatever the popular position of the time was when the next election rolled around.

Then he did something different. He sent out two press releases declaring his position on each bill. And he gave an interview explaining exactly why he missed these votes (Audio Here)  and here is the story in the local paper including quotes from the interview.

So what can this incident and Senator Manchin’s reaction to it teach us about social media?

Let’s start by looking at what said:

“Let me apologize to anybody and everybody within our listening and reading areas. I’m very sorry for missing the two votes,” Manchin said during a conference call with reporters Tuesday.

He apologized for his mistake. We all make them. It is how we react when we make mistakes that makes the difference. Apologizing is step one.

Then he gives the context for the mistake:

Manchin says his oldest daughter is divorced and has one child from that first marriage. She and her ex-husband take turns when it comes to custody on the Christmas holiday.

“Last Christmas we were all together because we had all the kids on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day,” Manchin said. “This Christmas was the one where they get out of school this week and we won’t be with them this weekend.”

“Saturday was our Christmas and Saturday evening was our Christmas dinner. I got up Sunday and came back to Washington to make the votes I had to make,” he said.

Manchin stresses before he left Washington he spoke with the sponsors of both bills and let them know he would not be present for the vote and how he would have voted if he were present.

“I was up front when I knew I would not be here on Saturday. I put that in the Congressional record because I didn’t want anybody to think that I wouldn’t make a vote or had intentionally missed a vote because it was a controversial issue,”

When you confront the issue and own up to it, add context that the offended party may not be aware of; it can completely change the tone of the conversation. After reading his explanation I felt sorry for the guy. I still thought he was wrong for missing the votes, but at least I can relate to his reasoning. It was a mistake that any rookie Senator could make and he was trying to honor a commitment to his family. Bottom line his position is reasonable and understandable where before everyone just thought he was a weasel. That is a huge difference in perception.

He went on the record in his press releases and in his interview:

For the record, Manchin says he would have voted against both bills.

He has completely eliminated any claim by future opponents that he missed the vote simply to avoid being on the record. No matter what your position may be about these two particular pieces of legislation, most people will respect him for that.

Finally he commits to not make the same mistake again:

Manchin says if the same situation were to arise on another holiday, he will be in Washington.

“In the future, I will make any adjustments and all adjustments that need to be made so that it doesn’t happen again,” he said.

He has held himself accountable, apologized for the mistake, offered context and background on why he made the decision he did. He acknowledged that even though his actions were well meaning, he was wrong and vowed not to make the same mistake again. He did this all very publicly.

Senator Machin just turned his customer’s perception of him (West Virgina voters in this case) completely around.
Of course Mr. Manchin is one of 100 United States Senator’s. He can get the press to publish his press releases and get interviewed for just about anything he wants to say.

The beauty is social media now allows every one of us and every business in the world to do the same thing. Do you have any similar stories to share that we can all learn from?

Please do in the comments.

Mark Penn, CEO Worldwide of Burson-Marsteller and CEO of Penn Schoen Berland, and Karen Hughes, Worldwide Vice Chairman of Burson-Marsteller, will feature a joint keynote presentation on the state of digital communications in politics. Their presentation will take place on Friday, October 15, 2010 at 9:00AM ET at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas.

Mr. Penn and Ms. Hughes, the former chief message architects for President Clinton and President Bush respectively, will address results from a research study surrounding the use of social media in the 2010 U.S. House and Senate mid-term races, and present an analysis on emerging digital strategies within the political arena. Mr. Penn and Ms. Hughes will assess how top 2010 Republican and Democratic candidates utilize Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and texting in their campaigns, and how candidates integrate their messaging on their websites and social media platforms.

Having key presidential advisers to the last two sitting Presidents of the United States come and talk to a bunch of bloggers and social media geeks is a pretty big deal if you ask me. Love them or hate them, blogs like Powerline, Daily Kos, Pajamas Media, Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post, Hot Air and Michelle Malkin have changed the rules of American politics.

It was never more evident to me that the old guard of political power players had realized this than at the 2007 Yearly Kos Convention in Chicago. Every Presidential Candidate (including our current President Barack Obama) running for the Democratic nomination was on the stage together addressing a crowd of about 1,500 left leaning political bloggers and activists. The energy for the entire event was high. The bloggers knew they had real power. But I couldn’t help but notice the scattering of suits in the crowd. These were the political operators and you could see them trying to figure out what the hell these bloggers were up to, and how could they possibly direct them into supporting their particular candidate and use them for their advantage.

It was a striking juxtaposition.

This will be very interesting talk for news junkies like me as well as anyone interested the influence of the blogosphere and social media on politics and society as a whole. How are the 2010 mid term candidates using tools like blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube?

How are they planning to utilize bloggers and other social influencers to win their respective elections?

What trends do they see for the 2012 Presidential election?

Do either the Democrats or Republicans have an advantage when it comes to new media?

Is the blogosphere a dangerous wild card for a Senator, Congressmen, or President to play?

Update: Interesting, I received a phone call from Kate Zernike, the author of the NY Times article, who felt that I did not sufficiently credit her article with disclosing Park’s background and motives. Specificially, Zernike pointed out that the Times’ article said the Coffee Party “was formed in reaction to the Tea Party” and offered “an alternative” to the Tea Party. Zernike also felt that the pro-Obama nature of the Coffee Party was adequately disclosed because the article pointed out that one of the organizers in California (not Park) had campaigned for Obama.

I explained that I did not feel that the NY Times article adequately disclosed (i) the depth of the connection to the Obama campaign reflected in Park’s background, or (ii) that the specific purpose of the Coffee Party, as expressed in Park’s Tweets, was to undermine the Tea Party.

I told Ms. Zernike that I would do an update to this post, and I hoped that she would do an update to her article to explain Park’s Obama connection and apparent motivations. Ms. Zernike declined, explaining that she had to limit her article to 700 words.

There are several points here.  First kudos to NYT writer Kate Zernike for even engaging with Mr. Jacobson (Legal Insurrection’s author). That’s the new media way. In times past her article would have received at best heated letters to the editor that would have most likely been ignored.  Unfortunately she chose not to (or is not allowed to by her editors) comment directly at Legal Insurrection. That’s the old media way.

If you choose to read the 60 comments on the post you will see there is a vibrant and quite heated debate about the merits or lack thereof in the original NYT piece (warning lots of comments with adult language). Thats the new media way.

Mr. Jacobson updated his post as soon as he had new information and shared Ms. Zernike’s perspective. That’s the new media way.

Ms. Zernike stated she was unable to update her article due to an arbitrary 700 word limit. Thats the old media way.

Mr. Jacob has no such limitation and I am sure will continue to update his post as more information becomes available including any further replies from Ms. Zernike. That’s the new media way.

Ms. Zernike gathered the facts pertaining to her story and then she and her editors decided what was relevant and she presented a summary of that information. Thats the old media way.

Mr. Jacobson researched her story, and provided his sources right in his post including past Tweets from Annabel Park (the subject of the original article) and YouTube Video that Ms. Park helped to promote online. Mr. Jacobson then offered his conclusions and his transparent views about the Coffee Party and Ms. Zernike’s story. That’s the new media way.

Ms. Zernike of course provided no background on her own inherent views an political leanings coming into the story. Thats the old media way.

The old media way believes professional reporters are able to completely ignore their personal views and “just present the facts”. We all know that’s baloney.

Mememorandum (Techmeme’s sister site focused on politics) then picked up Legal Insurrection’s story as a hot topic in the blogosphere including links to the original NYT article and more than a dozen blogs who were also commenting on the original story and Legal Insurrection’s post. That’s the new media way.

What is the lesson here?

The new media way is the better way and the reason the old media is dying a horrible and painful death.

Any other differences between the new media way and old media way that I left out?

Please leave them below in the comments section.

ps.

That’s the new media way by the way 8).

The good news is that now that the U.S. Army has re-evaluated their stance on it, they’ve decided to lift the social media ban at certain U.S. bases that have most likely passed through the checklists and red tape to make it happen.  According to reports:

“The order was made to “leverage social media sites as a medium to allow soldiers to ‘tell the Army story’ and to facilitate the dissemination of strategic, unclassified information,” the order states. Even before this order, a number of official U.S. Army social media pages were set up on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Flickr, intended to promote soldiers’ stories to civilians…”

Great news for all the men and women that have been wanting to actually continue their online lives while serving our country.  Apparently this order is not going to work on all Army bases, as some have classified information that they can’t risk getting out, but eventually they have plans to allow this type of thing on all bases.  We’ll see when and if that happens, but the bigger news is just that social media has had this kind of impact, on this broad of a scale.  10 years ago, would anyone have believed the U.S. Army would have a Facebook page?  Nope.