I got this question last week: “As the We Movement launches this week — a state and potentially nationwide social networking site connecting those in need with providers of everything from housing, legal aid, education, health care, youth programs and clothing to soup and nuts (literally) — the question arises, is the power of social connections, supported by sophisticated search and match software going to fill the increasing gaps left as local, state and federal government services cut back?”

The article was posted a few days ago. A snippet:

Now, social networks are drawing on the high-tech tools of the 21st century. As more individuals and businesses push into the digital sphere, says Sherrie Madia at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, “people are feeling empowered by broader connections.” There is a growing trend, she adds, toward “people and corporations looking for a higher purpose.”

Such is the case with the just-launched WE Movement, an offshoot of the Ramsell corporation in Oakland, Calif. The company had developed a sophisticated search-and-match software for healthcare services and providers, but it wanted to broaden its work. “We wanted to go back to the way things were decades ago when people helped people, neighbors looked out for each other,” says chief operating officer Tom Loker, WE Movement’s founder. Government, he says, is not the solution.

It’s kind of too bad that there was nothing in the article that hinted at some skepticism of this claim that social networks could supplant or fill-in for government services. My offering is a direct response to Loker’s sentiment that, as we used to say in Alabama (and still do) ‘the guvment isn’t the answer’:

It is tempting, especially in times where budgets are crunched and groups ideologically opposed to government services have gained the national spotlight, to think that information technology driven social networks can offer ‘governance without government.’ However, such claims should be met with deep skepticism. Social networking sites, and other forms of digital media like Craigslist and blogs, might well be good at small-scale “search and match” activity. If you have a bike collecting dust in your basement and I am looking for a dusty bike, then a digitally-mediated social network could very well be just the ticket for both of us. However, as you scale up–to health care, housing, etc.–then the resource-intensiveness of the activity will likely strain most social networks. While the We Movement and similar endeavors are laudable and may well work in some capacity, to think that they might be able to pick up all the slack from an under-resourced public sector is reminiscent of anti-government arguments that presume charity could supplant Medicare/Medicaid or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Only government has the resources, and occasionally the willpower, to adequately provide public goods.

I wish the best of luck to the We Movement, but am frankly tired of reading articles that suggest that social media will solve all our problems. It’s almost been ten years–hasn’t the novelty worn off yet?

Almost ten years ago, bloggers spurred public argument about Trent Lott’s controversial toast to a retiring Strom Thurmond. Since then, digital intermediaries using a variety of forms–blogs, podcasts, wikis, photo and video, social networking sites, and microblogs–have influenced innumerable episodes of public deliberation. This special issue of Argumentation and Advocacy calls for submissions that investigate public argument occurring through digital media. We especially seek essays that probe how digital media produce novel argument forms and modes of advocacy, historical analysis of digitally-driven deliberative episodes, and critical approaches to transformations in the nature of public argument. Submissions should be completed by June 1, 2010, and will be competitively reviewed. The special issue will be guest edited by Damien Smith Pfister, and published under Argumentation and Advocacy’s new co-editorship of Catherine H. Palczewski and John Fritch.

Editorial Policy for the special issue:

Argumentation and Advocacy seeks to publish the best in studies of argumentation in all its forms and from diverse theoretical and methodological perspectives. It seeks to address a broad intellectual audience interested in argumentation studies but not necessarily conversant with a specialized vocabulary.

The journal follows a policy of blind peer review. Manuscripts for regular issues ordinarily will be read by two or three reviewers selected from among the Editorial Board and invited referees; manuscripts for special issues will be read by a guest Editor and invited referees.

To ensure blind review, a separate file representing the title page should contain the author’s name, current academic title and affiliation, mailing address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address, and post-secondary institutions attended and degrees earned; any material that would identify the author should be stripped from the text. Include a history of the manuscript: whether it is derived from a graduate thesis (if so, identify the advisor), any previous public presentation or publication of any portion, or other relevant information.

Manuscripts should be double-spaced throughout, including long quotations, notes and references. On a separate page, include an abstract of no more than 100 words with a list of five suggested key words. Notes, lists of works cited, tables and figures should appear on separate pages following the text. The title of the essay (without the author’s name) should repeat on the first page of the manuscript. Text should be left-justified only.

Manuscripts should be prepared using Microsoft Word, and conform to either the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 7^th ed., 2009, or the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6^th ed. (as corrected), 2010. Content notes may be used with either style, but should be kept to a minimum. Upon acceptance of the manuscript for publication, authors should be prepared to furnish photocopies of all quotations for verification purposes, and to provide a final version of the essay in both hard and digital form, including camera-ready copy for artwork and figures.

Manuscripts submitted to Argumentation and Advocacy obligate the author to grant exclusive right of review to this journal until such time as s/he receives the results of our review. Essays that have been published previously in their entirety in other sources should not be submitted; essays that have been published previously in part should be substantially revised before submission. Upon acceptance, copyright should be assigned to the American Forensic Association.

Email a digital copy of the manuscript as an attachment to: dpfister2@unl.edu. The title of the essay should appear in the subject line.

Send all inquiries via email to the Special Issue Editor:

Damien Smith Pfister

Guest Editor, Special Issue on Public Argument and/in Digital Media

dpfister2@unl.edu

With few exceptions, Web sites adhere to the 1 percent rule. This is the principle that 1 percent of Web users create the content, 9 percent comment on it and everybody else just hangs out and observes.

“A somewhat predictable side effect of this ratio is that the 9 percent who comment must be impelled by some stronger motivation than the rest of the lurkers,” said Damien Smith Pfister, University of Nebraska-Lincoln assistant professor of communication studies. “When strong opinions collide in an anonymous forum, it’s not unusual for trolling and flaming and all the other nasty stuff we associate with the rough and tumble of the Web to happen. It should be noted, though, that sometimes these argumentative collisions can be productive.”

The anonymity, then, becomes a double-edged sword: It allows for immediate, honest, unhindered discussion, but it also opens the door for the kind of unchecked aggression that deters kinder conversation.

I think I’m going to regularly post press like this and follow it up with the full text of my emails to give more context. So here is what I originally wrote Mertes in response to his query about causes of trolling behavior:

First, the “1% rule” might explain some trolling behavior. This is the principle that 1% of internet users will make content, 9% will comment on it, and everyone else just lurks. Different communities have different levels of participation, of course, but this percentage roughly captures the participation distribution in online communities. Now, a somewhat predictable side-effect of this ratio is that the 9% who comment must be impelled by some stronger motivation than the rest of the lurkers–they might, for example, have a particularly strong feeling about what a political blogger just posted and feel obliged to add their two cents. When strong opinions collide in an anonymous forum, it’s not unusual for trolling and flaming and all the other nasty stuff we associate with the rough and tumble of the web to happen. It should be noted, though, that sometimes these argumentative collisions can be productive–not all anonymous argumentation devolves into rudeness.

Second, digital media have produced enclaves where people of like-minds can get together and discuss issues. What tends to happen with like-minded groups is they tend to become more extreme over time (much of this research is presented in Cass Sunstein’s Republic.com). Imagine someone who wakes up to conservative talk radio, follows conservative bloggers and Twitterers throughout the day, and watches Fox News at night. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that this person would be in a kind of conservative information cocoon, exposed to very particular interpetations of the news without the benefit of hearing the other side’s rebuttal (obviously the same kind of information cocoon could be created for liberals and other political persuasions). Contrast this digital environment with the broadcast news, which purports to be neutral and objective and thus tries to interview, for example, competing sources when developing a story. Showing both sides is not above criticism, though; especially for scientific controversies ‘both sides’ might not merit equal time.

CHEESY POTATOES

8 hash brown patties
1 cup sour cream
1 cup+ of cheese–american or cheddar
1 can cream of onion soup
butter

Preheat oven to 350
Spray glass baking pan with grease/oil
Set hash brown patties in pan
Mix cheese, soup, and sour cream and spread across potatoes
Top with 6-8 pats of butter and salt and pepper.
Cover with foil; bake for 45 minutes.
Remove foil and bake for 20 minutes.
Eat, enter food coma.

]]> http://pfisternia.net/?feed=rss2&p=8 0