blog

With the Iowa Caucuses today, I thought it might be good to do a quick roundup of interesting tools that the Presidential Candidates have put together to get out the vote. As happened in 2004, many of these tools will probably trickle into the non-profit sector over the coming year, as we see what works and what doesn’t.

First, I’ve got to say that I love Mitt Romney’s Varitalk. I remember when Snakes on a Plane used this same technology to put together calls from Samuel L. Jackson - my office spent several good hours sending calls to each other. Now you can have robo-Mitt call your friends, address them by name and holiday of choice, and tell them why he’s right for their most important issue, along with a reminder to vote in their own state. It also shows on caller ID as being from a phone number of your choice, and Mitt mentions that it comes from you.

Of course, there’s potential for abuse in applications like this, but that’s going to be true in any voter-generated content application - it’s really no more risky than a simple "Tell a Friend" form. I did find it odd, though, that there was such a limited selection of names Mitt could say. While I’m not surprised that "John Brian" wasn’t in his repertoire, I was saddened that he couldn’t call "Marissa" or "Taylor" by name, and I guess referring to the other guys in the field as "my opponent" has left him unable to say "Rudy" or "Duncan." Seems pretty closed-minded for a guy named "Mitt" who named his son "Tagg" (neither of which he can say, incidentally). But I did appreciate the option to make a contribution and get a real call, or at least a better robo-call (I didn’t make a donation to find out - I’m pretty sure I need my $25 more than Mitt).

Two more big things that impressed me, and a bunch more that I don’t have room to review in depth, below the fold…

(more…)

A lot has changed in the 20 years since the last potent protests in Myanmar (formerly Burma). For one, Internet access and digital cameras have placed media production in the hands of common citizens. So when blogs, images and streaming video capturing the recent protest in Myanmar began making their way around the world, authorities moved quickly to pull the plug on Internet access.

Myanmar bloggers already plagued with intermittent Internet access became more muffled as the government reportedly jammed satellite, SMS and mobile phones, and the country�??s leading ISPs became �??down for maintenance�?�. Internet cafes which serve a majority of this poor nation�??s Web surfers were sabotaged by curfews which kept their patrons away. Alas, the saffron revolution was quieted and its coverage limited to AP reports.

So what could have helped Myanmar bloggers during this shutdown? (more…)

Remember the Verizon ads that have phone users wandering around town, with the whole network of Verizon users following them around? I always thought those were a little creepy - do I really want The Network listening in on my phone calls?

Turns out those people aren’t just following you around, they’re also checking your text messages to determine what they think is appropriate and what’s not. And today, as the New York Times noted, they decided that a perfectly innocuous advocacy message wasn’t appropriate. From the piece,

Saying it had the right to block "controversial or unsavory" text messages, Verizon Wireless has rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon’s mobile network available for a text-message program.

Was this Verizon dipping their toe into the water of a politically censored network to see what kind of message it would send? Was it an overzealous spam filter that got its signals crossed? Was it an antiquated policy that should be dropped? Or was it just a dumb call? Follow me below the break for more, and what it could mean for your NPO.

(more…)

OMB Watch has released a report called How Nonprofits Helped America Vote: 2006 which “describes nonprofits’ electoral engagement during the 2006 election and their preparation for upcoming elections.”

The report, which is only 16 pages long, briefly describes some of the actions non-profits took on behalf of voters and voter rights across the county, and then summarizes the types of actions non-profits can take to help ensure fair elections in 2008:

In summary, nonprofits can ensure the integrity of our elections by:

1. Registering voters
   Voter registration is a common non-partisan activity for nonprofits than can make a big difference on Election Day.
2. Prepare voters for election day
   Getting voters prepared for Election Day will minimize confusion and disenfranchisement at the polls.
3. Get-out-the-vote (GOTV)
   Nonprofits can legally engage in get-out-the-vote activities that can have a real impact on voter turnout on Election Day because of the special relationship nonprofits have with many disengaged voters
4. Educate voters on candidates and ballot measures
   While nonprofits cannot work on behalf of or against candidates, there are a number of voter education activities they can legally engage in to ensure voters are fully informed when they cast their ballots.
5. Recruit poll workers and election day observers
   Skilled poll workers are in demand and nonprofits can help the democratic process by being a part of poll worker recruitment.
6. Debunk the myth of voter fraud
   Voter fraud �?? purposeful corruption of the election process by voters �?? is rare. Claims of voter fraud are used to promote laws that restrict voting. Nonprofits can raise awareness that voter fraud is a myth.
7. Fight voter suppression
   Nonprofits are leading the charge to protect voters�?? rights and the integrity of the electoral process. State and local groups have partnered with national organizations to challenge new laws and regulations that inhibit peoples�?? ability to register and vote.
8. Protect the integrity of elections
   Ensure the vote of every citizen is counted by advocating for reliable voting technologies that produce paper records and can easily be audited, as well as lobbying state and local governments to comply with all of the regulations in the Help America Vote Act.

Direct link to the Report (318K PDF)

Freedom. Truth. Design.

Creating social change through design has been at the core of our society since before the first quill dared to put the notion of freedom on paper. Designers have always been a little ahead of the curve in leaving the world a better place then when we found it. We have conceived of entire cities from dust, made history from a single perfect image, changed the face & fabric of society through our work, and brought people together in one voice - all though the power of the visual.

So, in honor of our nation’s birthday, I pose this question: In a world where there is no shortage of social challenges to tackle, how can designers continue to use our power for good in order to form a more perfect union?

Here’s a few to get you started — can you add to the list?

http://www.thehurricaneposterproject.com
http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/
http://www.childsplaycharity.org/
http://www.one.org/

This New York Times editorial is a must-read for all online activists. Thomas Friedman writes about Environmental Defense and NRDC’s success in using online tools & techniques to fight TXU (big Texas power company) from building 11 “coal-fired, CO2-belching power plants”. Through the use of a campaign Web site with email newsletters, the partners were able to turn a local energy issue into a global environmental issue and gain a seat at the table to help TXU restructure its plans. Not only is it a facinating case study, but we all owe Environmental Defense and NRDC our gratitude. TXU “agreed to cut the number of new TXU coal plants from 11 to 3, to support a U.S. cap on greenhouse gas emissions and to commit TXU to plowing $400 million into energy-efficiency programs and doubling its purchase of wind power.” That’s a win for all of us. To read the editorial, you must have a “Times Select” subscription. Or here’s a link to a reprint on the free Pasadena Star News.

It seems like we’re just digesting the differences between how broadband and dialup users behave, but now those dogged scholars over at the Pew Internet and American Life project have found another way to identify the true online elite �?? those who log on with wireless connections. Here are two highlights from their latest study:

Check email on any given day:

• Wireless laptop: 72%
• Broadband desktop: 63%
• Dialup: 54%

Get news online on any given day:

• Wireless laptop: 46%
• Broadband desktop: 38%
• Dialup: 31%

hese findings do raise questions about the chicken and the egg. Do hard-core Internet junkies get wireless connections to feed their addiction? or does the convenience of a wireless connection prompt users to log on more often?

Read the report to learn in painstaking detail about the differences among wireless laptops, wireless phones, and wireless PDAs.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both helped legitimize online social networking for serious purposes by baking collaborative opportunities into the core of their campaign — inviting supporters to friend-raise, fundraise, and even express themselves in their own words under the candidate’s banner.

There’s a sharp partisan divide over the wisdom of all this, it seems. Pete Cashmore is reporting over on Mashable that Illinois State Senator Matt Murphy (R-27, Palatine) is seeking to flat out ban social networking sites in libraries, schools, etc… This move comes on the heels of Ted “Tubes” Stevens related efforts in DC. I doubt either of these gentlemen will be mimicking Obama and Clinton’s campaign strategies for the 08 elections.

So Republicans, I’m not sure what you have against online social networking, but here’s a proposition for you. You keep Fox News and Druge Report, and leave YouTube and all those other undisciplined social networking sites to the Democrats. Each party competes for the hearts and minds of the voters in their respective channels — and the winner get Congress and the White House.

Sound good? Now check out the traffic trends (Hat tip: Alexa) below. Still sound good?

You may have heard about the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) recent approval of the AT&T-BellSouth merger. One of the conditions that the FCC placed on the meger was guaranteed net neutrality on its broadband service for the next two years. Net Neutrality refers to the battle against charging Web site owners extra for high-speed delivery and preserving the ability (the right) for equal access to even the smallest Web site. It’s the big telecom companies (AT&T, TimeWarner, Comcast, etc.) who are pushing for a tiered pricing system that will enable those who can pay to make their sites as fast as possible. You can learn more about Net Neutrality at www.savetheinternet.com and about the AT&T-BellSouth story at
www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1028_3-6146678.html.

On Tuesday, the National Federation of the Blind filed suit against Target, claiming that its site is not accessible to blind users.  This certainly would be a case to watch since, to date, we’ve thought accessibility requirements as having legal weight only with government sites.  Whether or not the NFB wins the suit, it will likely bring increased focus to the subject.  And the fact that they also mention that the Target site is "powered by Amazon.com" would seem to suggest that this isn’t the last we’ll hear about this.

"Target�??s website �?? which according to its home page is ‘powered by
Amazon.com’ �?? contains significant access barriers that prevent blind
customers from browsing and purchasing products online, as well as from
finding important corporate information such as employment
opportunities, investor news, and company policies.

The plaintiffs charge that Target.com fails to meet the minimum
standard of web accessibility. It lacks compliant alt-text, an
invisible code embedded beneath graphic images that allows screen
readers to detect and vocalize a description of the image to a blind
computer user. It also contains inaccessible image maps, preventing
blind users from jumping to different destinations within the website.
And because the website requires the use of a mouse to complete a
transaction, blind Target customers are unable to make purchases on
Target.com independently.

‘We tried to convince Target that it should make its website accessible
through negotiations,’ says Dr. Maurer [NFB Pres.]. ‘It�??s unfortunate that Target
was unwilling to commit to equal access for all its online customers.
That gave us no choice but to seek the protection of the court. The
website is no more accessible today than it was in May of last year,
when we first complained to Target."

More information available from the Disability Rights Advocates Web site including a Fact Sheet and the complete complaint.