[Lnc-business] Social Media Links on LNC page on lp.org

[Elizabeth Van Horn]

I'm no Luddite, not by a mile.  

But, I do read on social media and very recently, I've seen some
disturbing things on a LNC member's page.  I think it'd now deleted, but
not before it raised enough alarm bells that a long-time LP member was
upset and brought it to the attention of a group on social media.  Not
only was the there material from one of the LNC members, but another LNC
member was on there laughing it up, as if the material was funny.  I'll
be happy to talk with you in private about it.  

The thing is, even with a disclaimer, some content will make the LP look
bad.  Would a disclaimer help if a link had been to our former VC's
page?  No, as it's still a liability. Not maybe legal liability, but it
sure is a political one.  Since we have no control over what people put
on their LNC pages, the problem is the same as with their personal
profiles. 

---
Elizabeth Van Horn

On 2018-08-29 21:18, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

> I think we are looking at this very much in a Luddite fashion.  Social media has surpassed email or phone for many segments of the population.  Not listing doesn't make it not exist.  Listing it doesn't endorse it any more than listing our phone number endorses everything we might say on that telephone or having a picture endorses everything we might do if we are seen in public.  It is a piece of personally identifying contact information in the current year. 
> 
> If listing the contact medium of someone's choice (Trent literally did not use email) is using Party resources then we had all better scrub our signature lines of anything not on the website including social media and caucus affiliations.  Obviously I don't think we should, but that is where the logic goes. 
> 
> People will find us on social media no matter what - having social media contacts on the contact page keeps us looking current and not like stodgy politicians. 
> 
> As far as Arvin, listing it or not  listing it is not going to make a difference on conduct unbecoming, and it could always have been yanked, and THAT would have been a positive statement that we do not approve rather than the nothing we did other than a censure after a long bit of time. 
> 
> We talk about micromanagement.  This is micromanagement. 
> 
> And I will gather the info and give to the ED but I don't think it is within on LNC member's control to tell the ED he cannot post until we discuss unless that LNC member asks the Chair to make such a directive or get a duly sponsored motion.  I will leave all that to the discretion of the ED and the Chair. 
> 
> Already any page that has our title in the page we cannot promote internal candidates, caucuses, or solicit non-FEC funds and hopefully have a more formal tone.  It would be completely reasonable of the ED to say that any listed social media has to be to an "official" page/account which is what I was asking for rather than a "personal" page/account. 
> 
> I think requiring that the link for to an official/public figure profile and a disclaimer more than satisfies this and I would suggest that the ED/Chair consider that as a potential limiter.
-------------- next part --------------
   I'm no Luddite, not by a mile.
   But, I do read on social media and very recently, I've seen some
   disturbing things on a LNC member's page.  I think it'd now deleted,
   but not before it raised enough alarm bells that a long-time LP member
   was upset and brought it to the attention of a group on social media.
   Not only was the there material from one of the LNC members, but
   another LNC member was on there laughing it up, as if the material was
   funny.  I'll be happy to talk with you in private about it.
   The thing is, even with a disclaimer, some content will make the LP
   look bad.  Would a disclaimer help if a link had been to our former
   VC's page?  No, as it's still a liability. Not maybe legal liability,
   but it sure is a political one.  Since we have no control over what
   people put on their LNC pages, the problem is the same as with their
   personal profiles.

   ---
   Elizabeth Van Horn

   On 2018-08-29 21:18, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

   I think we are looking at this very much in a Luddite fashion.  Social
   media has surpassed email or phone for many segments of the
   population.  Not listing doesn't make it not exist.  Listing it doesn't
   endorse it any more than listing our phone number endorses everything
   we might say on that telephone or having a picture endorses everything
   we might do if we are seen in public.  It is a piece of personally
   identifying contact information in the current year.

   If listing the contact medium of someone's choice (Trent literally did
   not use email) is using Party resources then we had all better scrub
   our signature lines of anything not on the website including social
   media and caucus affiliations.  Obviously I don't think we should, but
   that is where the logic goes.

   People will find us on social media no matter what - having social
   media contacts on the contact page keeps us looking current and not
   like stodgy politicians.

   As far as Arvin, listing it or not  listing it is not going to make a
   difference on conduct unbecoming, and it could always have been yanked,
   and THAT would have been a positive statement that we do not approve
   rather than the nothing we did other than a censure after a long bit of
   time.

   We talk about micromanagement.  This is micromanagement.

   And I will gather the info and give to the ED but I don't think it is
   within on LNC member's control to tell the ED he cannot post until we
   discuss unless that LNC member asks the Chair to make such a directive
   or get a duly sponsored motion.  I will leave all that to the
   discretion of the ED and the Chair.

   Already any page that has our title in the page we cannot promote
   internal candidates, caucuses, or solicit non-FEC funds and hopefully
   have a more formal tone.  It would be completely reasonable of the ED
   to say that any listed social media has to be to an "official"
   page/account which is what I was asking for rather than a "personal"
   page/account.

   I think requiring that the link for to an official/public figure
   profile and a disclaimer more than satisfies this and I would suggest
   that the ED/Chair consider that as a potential limiter.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: blocked.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 118 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180830/a2371a73/attachment-0002.gif>