[Lnc-business] Social Media Proposal

Tue May 30 02:20:03 EDT 2017

Hi Matthew,

	Thank you for writing to members of the Libertarian National Committee. I substantially agree with your remarks here, and made some similar observations myself about the problems inherent in trying to pre-screen what goes out on social media. The proposal you mention hasn't gotten enough sponsors for a vote, but if it does come up for a vote I will oppose it. While getting staff involved in pre-approving posts isn't the way to go however, the Libertarian Party does need a better organized and more transparent approach to social media, and I'm glad to say from chatting with you tonight that you seem to be on the same page with that. 

	I'd like to see us bring volunteers like yourself into the LNC's committee structure, so that our social media volunteers are listed along with their contact info on the Committee page (or a new Social Media page) on LP.org, and have that page linked from their social media profiles on the sites where they post stuff in the party's name, so anyone can follow one of these profiles back to LP.org. Once there, visitors should be able to readily learn, for Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or any other site where the party has a presence, (1) what the procedures are under which stuff gets posted in the name of the LP, (2) who has what authority or permissions to post, moderate, or admin on our behalf, (3) how to flag any objectionable content for review, and (4) how the review process works and who makes the ultimate decisions (the party's elected leaders or those to whom we've delegated such authority). Something along these lines would go a good way toward having the transparency and level of accountability we need, as well as giving our volunteers the official recognition they deserve.

	A big part of the goal should be to structure our social media operations so as to facilitate the Libertarian Party tapping into the energy and efforts of all the people out there who want to help us. If someone wants to volunteer with outreach on a particular site or sites, it should be easy for them to see how to get involved and whom to get in touch with to make it happen, so that they aren't frustrated or driven away by an opaque or complicated process or the lack of any established path to volunteering. The description of how the LP's social media presence is handled should make clear to volunteers that they are being given positions of trust and responsibility, and that they will be accountable to the party's elected leadership and may have stuff they post deleted or lose posting privileges if it's felt a poor decision was made or those privileges are being abused. But how this accountability works should be clearly spelled out, so that nobody has to guess what the procedures are or who has what authority. Most importantly, we shouldn't try to pre-screen everything that goes out, because the inefficiency of such an approach would be wholly incompatible with having an effective social media presence. Those are my thoughts, anyway. I'd love to hear specific wording on how a broad outline like this might be implemented in a manner that interfaces smoothly with our presence on specific sites, from folks like yourself who are more familiar with our operations on those sites than I am.

	Anyway, thanks again for writing and for your efforts in starting and maintaining an Instagram presence for the Libertarian Party, as well as your other social media and offline volunteer work including starting a local affiliate chapter in Maryland and helping organize the LP Youth Caucus. It is awesome to see young libertarians like yourself plunging in and getting involved!

Love & Liberty,

                                      ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                           RealReform at earthlink.net
                                   (415) 625-FREE
                                     @StarchildSF

On May 29, 2017, at 7:35 PM, Matthew Geiger wrote:
> Dear LNC members,
> 
> I write this E-mail to you as one of two administrators of the LP Instagram Account, and also as a volunteer on the LP's Facebook, Snapchat, and Twitter pages. 
> 
> I'd like to call upon all of you to vote nay to a proposed motion which will prevent volunteers from posting and even moderating across all LP social media. This motion will only do harm to the party's progress over the past few years, and will inhibit us further from reaching as many voters as possible. 
> 
> We libertarians constantly gripe about media blackouts, but this sort of motion would give us no reason to continue complaining about such, as this motion would significantly impair the main method in which voters receive their news, which is social media. If this motion were to pass, the party would be entrusting a small group of people to manage the entirety of the party's social media, some of whom aren't in any sort of capacity to run any kind of social media whatsoever. 
> 
> Social media is a complex tool, which is why many business and institutions (including the GOP & DNC) utilize massive teams to take on the full force of messages, comments, posts, videos, photos, likes, dislikes, and much more. Under this motion, we wouldn't have a team equipped with enough personnel to handle any type of social media, nonetheless any sort of campaign or drive that the LP wishes to run through social media, such as #ReRegister.
> 
> Also, I find it highly hypocritical that the party of "individualism" would be interested in a particular regulation of a collective due to the mistakes of a small minority. The explanation given for the proposal of said motion invokes some of our recent PR hiccups, which are usually derived from one or two people, not the entirety of our volunteer team. This motion would be punishing the hardworking volunteers who have not committed any wrongdoing whatsoever, which is not something any sort of "libertarian" institution would do. 
> 
> We as a party must continue to grow and develop, something that this motion wishes to prevent. I ask all of those who are on the LNC, and support the growth of our party, to vote nay on this motion.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Matthew Geiger
> 
> 240-507-9595
> 
> mattgeiger at lpmaryland.org
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170529/2c3df879/attachment-0001.html>