Engineering a better virtual town hall

Gene Koo's picture

President Obama and his new media team are rightfully receiving kudos for their inaugural online town hall. Roundup at Personal Democracy Forum. It's a brave step forward in a system that's naturally (and understandably) conservative. Because it was a pilot, there's room to improve, as the first commenter on the linked PDF post points out. Moving forward, the new media team should focus on re-tuning the technology to hit the core values and purposes of town halls and citizen participation:

1. Patch vulnerabilities. Whether or not you believe legalizing marijuana is a top-echelon issue facing the country, most of the top-rated MJ questions had little or passing relevance to the categories they dominated. The last category of question listed, "Budget," became a veritable honeypot for swarms of legalization advocates (the first seven of the top ten questions were on that topic), with only the addition of the word "tax" differentiating it from similar questions voted up in the "health care" and "green jobs" categories. I'm inclined to believe this was an authentic grassroots movement, but astroturf campaigns could easily engineer bot or mechanical turk attacks. What's particularly pernicious about crowd-sourced moderation is that the campaign wins either way: at a minimum, thousands of Americans will be forced to read their submissions, even if only to vote them down.

2. Nuance the moderation: I voted on some 40+ questions and quickly began to realize that a straight up/down/abuse vote wasn't capturing my opinion. For one thing, it became clear that if I wanted my interests to rise, I should vote against everything else (much like the way voters game multi-choice elections with bullet voting). It's important for the system designers to realize that they are developing a game -- a set of rules that determines winners and losers. For another, I found I had more specific things to say about each one: that a question was off-topic, or didn't really ask a question, or was too generic, etc. In fact, I guess what I really wanted was:

3. Allow interaction: If the White House wants real civic engagement, it shouldn't be conceived as spokes on a single hub (citizen -> President). The beauty of the Internet, like democracy, is that it's many-to-many. I recognize that allowing citizens to talk to each other opens huge and difficult problems that make the deluge of posts demanding to see the President's birth certificate seem trivial by comparison. Perhaps it's up to civil society to pick up where Open for Questions leaves off -- given enough lead time, citizen associations can build their own online events off the town hall to host more robust discussions that can't happen in the Presidential site. Still, this experiment is one of the closest things to a true public commons on the Web we've seen so far, and it'd be a shame if the only way to run it were a state monopoly that shunts citizen discussion off to private spaces.

4. More personality: One of the strengths of the town hall format is connecting abstract public policy to the lives of real, visible people. The format of Open for Questions (very limited space, no nuanced voting), however, favored generic questions that failed to give a strong sense of the person asking and her specific circumstances are. I felt a very strong difference in affect between Obama's interaction with online questions (which was practically a press conference) and his live, in-person questions (which felt much warmer and more personal). This is, in part, because there was no person Obama had to make eye contact with and get verbal or nonverbal feedback from.

5. ...Or focus on the Internet's strengths. Scratch that last suggestion. Maybe nothing will ever beat the face-to-face conversation for warmth and authenticity. Why not focus the online town hall on the very kinds of questions that town halls are terrible at: those best answered nonverbally (whether numbers, charts, or time-lapse illustrations) or which require the President to draw on his advisors and not just the talking points he's memorized. (We want the President to manage a team, not to be a one-man savant, after all). Stretch the new media team's capabilities and see if they can create interactive charts, videos, or even games to frame or illustrate the President and his team's responses.

Finally, let us acknowledge what has just happened: President Obama and his team have engaged over 93,000 people in an online town hall conversation. I hope this is just the first step towards an even more robust system of citizen engagement.

(Reposted from video vidi visum: virtual)

Comments

New hope

There is new hope when the new president takes over ruling the country. Let's wait and see the bright future with all the efforts from Obama.
how to loose weight fast

runescape gold

Do you know the runescape power leveling, in the game you need the runescape gold. it can help you increase your level. My friends always asked me how to buy runescape accounts, i do not know he spend how much money to buy the runescape money, when i see him in order to play the game and search which the place can buy the cheap runescape power leveling. i also happy with him.

Not a Game

You sound to me as if you are working on gaming this, too. I don't see it as a game.

The point is to bring the discussion to a point

Gene correctly recognizes the need for a structure that moves participants to a conclusion. In technical terms, that's called a game.

However, having thought about this a lot, and having worked on prototypes to solve the problem (see the WeVote application on Facebook), I think a better way to explain what the structure calls for is this: A formally rule-based venue for channeling specific demands made by citizens of their government (and by implication, of each other) into focus-generating narratives that can ultimately aggregate into collaborative expressions of converging and diverging opinion. The technical challenge, therefore, is implementing fair, self-vetting, bubble-up processes and investing them with sufficient standing and legitimacy to guarantee that winners will be identified and will have their questions and demands taken seriously by the government officials on the receiving end.

That's a big mouthful, of course, and I'd welcome a chance to show what I mean.

In simpler terms, it’s all about offering a venue that allows like-minded peers to refine and ratify statements of common interest, and thereby build effective coalitions.

Better to fix the problem than fix the blame.

Beware the Pseudo-Engagement

I agree that this was an experiment, and that the White House needed to get it over, so everyone could pan it, and then the real innovators of online civic engagement in the WH could elbow aside the defenders of the tired old paradigm of "Ask the President" (i.e., "he is smarter than we").

But that is why we need to break free of the false "town hall meeting" that was stolen in the 1990's by political types to make a political rally or speech sound more democratic.

Mainstream media dutifully repeated the press releases language until, now, the term "town hall meeting" (or just "town hall" or "town meeting") can mean any size gathering where at least one politician and one non-politician say something.

If anyone has a better definition, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, it is a term that has been abused into being almost meaninglessness.

I say "almost" because, whenever I hear the media report on a "town hall meeting", then I know that whatever they are reporting (or repeating) is "pseudo-civic engagement". (It may looks like it, but it's not real.)

So now, I suggest you keep your ears open for "civic engagement". I'm afraid that it may replace "town hall meeting" as the latest feel-good (but empty) buzzword on this topic.

For instance, Gene Koo said (above):

"Finally, let us acknowledge what has just happened: President Obama and his team have engaged over 93,000 people in an online town hall conversation. I hope this is just the first step towards an even more robust system of citizen engagement."

So I'm to believe that 93,000 people were "engaged in conversation" with the President AND that, next time, it will be "more robust? (You mean it's kinda "robust" now?) Puh-leze.

I was watching TV in 1979, and President Carter answered questions that people had mailed to him (Dan Aykroyd did a classic parody on SNL).

Was President Carter "engaging in conversation" with all the people watching? No.

I was watching my PC in 2009, and President Obama answered questions that people had sent from a webpage (and you know there will be an SNL skit this Saturday).

So -- now that it was on the Internet -- was President Obama "engaging in conversation" with all the people watching? Still "No".

I bet someone in the White House "New Media Office" was warning that it was going to be lame and, now, after the predicted SNL skit, it would be so sweet to hear him/her at the next staff meeting say "I toooold you so!"

And then this: "Now, can we do it my way?"

-- Stephen Buckley
http://www.UStransparency.com

Stephen Buckley
http://www.UStransparency.com
twitter: @transpartisan