[Lnc-business] Recent LP Facebook post - Our Continued Social Media Blunders

Mon Mar 2 13:38:15 EST 2015

Here's an updated graph of the rate of sharing of the Bush/Rand/Clinton
meme on Facebook.  The rate has dropped to about one share per hour, or
basically noise level.  I'll continue to keep an eye on it, but it looks
like it has pretty much died out.

Dan Wiener

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Following up on Nick's comment, I have been tracking the number of
> "shares" of this meme since yesterday (see attached graph).  The question
> in my mind was whether it was better from a public relations perspective to
> just let the matter die out, or to entirely remove the image resulting in a
> "content unavailable" Facebook error for those who had already shared it.
> If I saw that the controversy was continuing at a high level or even
> accelerating ("going viral") then I would absolutely recommend removing the
> image as the least bad course of action.  However, as the graph shows, the
> average number of "shares" (which are no longer coming from the LP's
> Facebook timeline) has rapidly dwindled over the past day from an average
> of 45 an hour to an average of just 3 an hour.  So unless something
> suddenly changes, I'm inclined to let it die off naturally rather than risk
> re-igniting the controversy by pulling the image.
>
> Dan Wiener
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> For the information of those who are not as familiar with the
>> specifics of how Facebook works:
>>
>> Removing the post from the Timeline means that Facebook will no longer
>> push this to people who like our page as part of its algorithm.  The
>> only way to get to it is to go look through the photo album or
>> directly link from someone who has already shared it.  It fades away
>> naturally.
>>
>> Removing the content from the entire Facebook account will delete all
>> of the comments and likes currently on the image, and anyone who tries
>> to access the image from someone who has already shared it will
>> receive a "content unavailable" Facebook error.  It will be very clear
>> that we removed the image under pressure.
>>
>> As far as the negative feedback, page unlikes, and organized Rand Paul
>> campaign attacks on the meme, all of that has already occurred.  The
>> meme was not effective, but there's not anything in it that violates
>> the platform, bylaws, etc. Rand Paul has, to my knowledge, never been
>> active in the Libertarian Party and never campaigned for Libertarian
>> Party candidates.  To the contrary, I am aware of him campaigning for
>> Mitt Romney (R) against Gary Johnson (L), campaigning for Mitch
>> McConnell (R) against David Patterson (L), and campaigning for Robert
>> Cuccinelli (R) against Robert Sarvis (L).  His last name does not make
>> him a Libertarian, despite the good feelings many people have toward
>> his father.
>>
>> After consulting with people within the LP who I trust about social
>> media, the quiet fading away of a meme that didn't accomplish its goal
>> appeared to be the better path.  The complete deletion would have more
>> negative than positive effects in my judgment, based on my review of
>> the Facebook inbox, activity on the post, and consultation with more
>> experienced social media users.  I still think that's the case.
>>
>> -Nick
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I agree with Scott that it should be removed not just from the
>> timeline, but
>> > from the entire Facebook account.
>> >
>> > I am willing to join with others under policy 2.06.5 to say this image
>> > remaining in our account in any publicly accessible way is detrimental
>> to
>> > the image of the Party.
>> >
>> > The Streisand effect can happen if we try to make other people remove
>> things
>> > from accounts that they control, but we control our own Facebook
>> account.
>> > Nobody is saying we should sue IPR to make them remove it.  We're saying
>> > that the LP should stop contributing to its propagation.  And why would
>> it
>> > not allegedly cause the Streisand effect to remove it from the
>> timeline, but
>> > it might to remove it from our other listing of graphics?  That makes no
>> > sense to me.
>> >
>> > -Alicia
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dr. Lieberman,
>> >>
>> >> That step was considered during the confidential discussions among the
>> >> social media team and the APRC and after consideration, I decided to
>> >> pull the post from the timeline, but not delete the image itself.  See
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
>> >>
>> >> I understand that this won't be enough for some, just like pulling the
>> >> post from the timeline was too much for others.
>> >>
>> >> -Nick
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Scott L. <scott73 at earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Mr. Chair:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Please have our Facebook team remove the Rand Paul meme from the LP's
>> >> > Photo
>> >> > Album on Facebook:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> https://www.facebook.com/libertarians/photos_stream?ref=page_internal
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > TIA.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >   Scott Lieberman
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On
>> Behalf Of
>> >> > Nicholas Sarwark
>> >> > Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 3:18 PM
>> >> > To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> >> > Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Recent LP Facebook post - Our Continued
>> >> > Social
>> >> > Media Blunders
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The post in question has been removed from the Facebook timeline on
>> >> >
>> >> > the official page.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I've spoken to the social media team about the concerns that people
>> >> >
>> >> > have voiced about the meme and think we will avoid this type of
>> >> >
>> >> > misstep in the future.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >    Nick
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Lnc-business mailing list
>> >> > Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> >> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Lnc-business mailing list
>> >> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Lnc-business mailing list
>> > Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
> guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
> compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
> this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
> the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
> experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
> disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
> to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
> doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
> If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
> -- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)
>

-- 
*"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
-- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150302/55b21fc7/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Shares of Rand meme 3-2-2015.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 57932 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150302/55b21fc7/attachment-0002.jpe>