[Lnc-business] Social Media Proposal

Tue May 30 04:19:05 EDT 2017

Thank you, Matthew and Starchild, for your perceptive input and response
respectively that I am in substantial agreement with. Both freedom of
expression and personal accountability are essential components of the
spirit of Libertarianism, and should apply equally to elected and appointed
party officials, representatives, paid staff and volunteers. In reality, we
are all volunteers whose participation will enrich our individual ability
to live free.

Note the liberal use of various forms of the word 'individual' in the
previous paragraph. Matthew, your phrase "regulation of a 'collective'"
might be better worded "regulation of 'individuals'". Collectives are not
living entities that can act and be held accountable for actions. Further,
freedom is a concept that applies only to individuals. Freedom of
collectives is philosophical nonsense.

As individual Libertarians we all bear the responsibility of accountability
for our individual free expression coupled with oversight of the free
expression of other individual Libertarians voiced through our free
expression of our individual agreement or disagreement. Personal freedom
and accountability go hand in hand.

LP media channels amplify the impact of of our individual freedom of
expression and responsibilities for both individual accountability and
oversight. The challenge in this case is how to encourage the participation
and accountability of individual volunteers while providing oversight that
does not strangle their freedom of expression. All Libertarians need to
step up to the plate and provide our individual oversight in the form of
thoughtful responses to the free expression of fellow Libertarian
volunteers.

Thoughts?

On May 30, 2017 2:21 AM, "Starchild" <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> 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 <(240)%20507-9595>
>
> mattgeiger at lpmaryland.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170530/ea0ff9a4/attachment-0002.html>