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

Mon Mar 2 18:04:55 EST 2015

Is it possible to also track the number of new comments? I've had the meme re-appear yesterday when a friend commented on it. If it doesn't die off naturally, I'd prefer that it be deleted.

Tim Hagan
      From: Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu>
 To: "lnc-business at hq.lp.org" <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
 Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 10:38 AM
 Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Recent LP Facebook post - Our Continued Social Media Blunders

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)

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150302/7f4663bb/attachment-0002.html>