I’m referring specifically to Chrome OS, Google’s new operating system, and the announcement that Google would dump Google Gears, a service that makes it possible to use services like GoogleDocs offline. In both cases, Google emphasized the importance of cloud computing as opposed to working offline. The idea is that all data, i.e. your spread sheets, your documents, your photos, get stored on remote servers (a.k.a. “the cloud”) and none of it on your machine.

Has Google lost touch with reality?

For most people in the world "cloud computing" is simply not realistic. Photo: Rita Banerji

Cloud computing is a good idea if you live in an urban area in a first world country where wifi connections are ubiquitous and where many people are using computers as little more than terminals. But that’s simply not the case in most parts of the world. Earlier this year, I visited a youth camp in rural Italy. Short of getting on a Sat phone, there was no way to get online. And this was northern Italy, not northern Ethiopia!

Access to technology is key

I think that access to information technology is crucial and can make a real difference in many developing countries. But in most developing countries, internet access is really expensive. I am concerned that by requiring people to be online in order to do things that could be done offline, we are making it harder for the world’s poor to get access to this technology.

Some advantages

Of course cloud computing would have some potential advantages for people living in developing countries as well. If you write all your documents in internet cafes, you’ll use many different computers and being able to store everything at a central location is certainly helpful. Additionally, if you ever worked in a country where  electricity is fickle, you’ll certainly appreciate anything that saves your work automatically. But there is a difference between being able to access and save information online and being required to do so.

The risk: a widening technology gap

Obviously, cloud computing is still a long way off from replacing offline computing. I’m sure that OpenOffice will continue to be available, as will pirated copies of MS Office. But the fact that Google completely dismisses offline use twice within a year, worries me. I’m worried that Google will focus its energy exclusively on users who can afford to be online 24/7 and that this is where innovation will take place. If that happens, then it will become even harder for young people in developing countries to catch up.

Related posts:

1. From collaborative “crisis mapping” to “crisis feeding”

The film is public domain and if you want, you can watch the complete documentary below. You can also buy it on DVD, watch it on YouTube or download it as a torrent! In fact, the film project’s website is almost as interesting as the film itself, which is why I will spend two blog posts writing about it. This post is mainly about the content, the next will look at what can be learned from the project itself.

Us Now from Banyak Films on Vimeo.

Interesting examples, many of them new

“Us Now” looks at a number of cases were people collaborate online to create something positive. This includes websites like Couchsurfing.com, a website for young moms, a web community of football fans that actually bought a real world club in England and now votes on game strategies online, it includes people-to-people lending and a few other examples.

They are all great examples and I loved watching them, particularly since many of them were new to me (by the way: contrary to what the title suggests, the film focuses on the UK). But I don’t think “Us Now” did a very good job at exploring the question whether these tools can be used to govern.

Where are the critical thinkers?

The website states: ”For the first time, [Us Now] brings together the fore-most thinkers in the field of collaborative governance to describe the future of government.” Well – what I am missing are the critics! Personally, I think we can do great things using the power that is inherent in online networks. But I don’t think we should embrace them uncritically and without thinking about the dangers.

Because, when you say that a mass of people normally knows the right course of action better than a selected group of individuals, then you might discover you are advocating giving power to the mob! I’m sure we don’t want verdicts to be handed down based on online votes. But why not, if the crowd knows best? That would be the logical next step.

Full steam ahead?

I am of course exaggerating slightly. But “Us Now” is so one-sided and focused on advocating for going full steam ahead, that I feel myself backing away and saying: “Wait? Have you thought this through?” I think it’s a pity the producers didn’t spend any time looking at the risk that these tools could be used to cause harm.

Here are three questions which could have been discussed:

• What are the risks that the weight of the cloud will suppress the interests of minorities?
• If we were to crowdsource part of the decision-making process in government, is there a risk of everything becoming even more populist?
• Could someone orchestrate a genocide with the help of social media tools? And if so, how could this be prevented?

I’m not saying that we should stop exploring social media as a means to inform government. I think it has great potential to do that! But before we start putting decision-making power into Facebook-apps, I think we should also discuss these questions. And even though I liked the film, I think it is a shame that no time was spent on that.

No related posts.

Harfoush (@rahafharfoush) was a volunteer with Obama’s new media team. She describes the different tools that the campaign used along a rough chronological narrative, which works surprisingly well. In addition to her own observations, most chapters also contain at least one short interview with a team member who had been working on that particular aspect of the campaign. Each chapter also has a short summary with “social media lessons”.

Yes We Did - An Inside Look at How Social Media Built the Obama Brand

Good balance

The thing I really like about this short (185 pages) book is that Harfoush managed to keep exactly the right balance between strategy and operational details. Too many books about social media still explain step by step how to set up a YouTube account or explain what a Facebook page is. Harfoush doesn’t do this. She assumes that her readers know the tools. She focuses on how they were used in this particular context and what the thoughts were behind this.

Know what you want to say

It is exactly the explanation of these thought processes which I find one of the most valuable things about the book. Because it shows clearly how crucial two elements are that are missing from most social media initiatives – certainly in the non-profit sector: an actual social media strategy and a clear message.

Harfoush shows beautifully how the different tools were used in concert to:

• Tailor messages for each micro-constituency while keeping  the overall message intact.
• Escalate involvement strategies on an individual basis.
• Give people a feeling that this was their campaign.
• Ask for small actions offline (thus creating an instant satisfaction feedback loop) to help the long-term goal.

Resources, resource, resources

The second thing I find really valuable about the book is that it gives you an idea of the resources that the campaign had at their disposal. Harfoush doesn’t give an exact number in her book, but by my count the new media team consisted of  at least 35 people.

Where most NGOs have (maybe) one web-person who is expected to be a jack of all trades, the campaign had their own email team, design team, online organizing team and even analytics team - you name it, they had a team. And from the sounds of it these guys and girls were busy seven days a week and working long hours. No non-profit or international organization has those resources. This makes this book an excellent instrument to counter questions along the lines of “Why can’t you do what the Obama campaign did?”.

To summarize: “Yes We Did – An Inside Look at How Social Media Built the Obama Brand” is an easy to read, interesting and really useful book. It is not a set of step-by-step instructions how to duplicate the Obama campaign. But if you are working with social media on a strategic level, I highly recommend you getting it.

Related posts:

1. How the BBC is trying to avoid the gullibility trap
2. Liberia: Ushahidi to monitor elections

Germany’s most respected political magazine, “Der Spiegel”, is trying to make abstract political platforms tangible through a “web soap-opera” called ”Zeit der Entscheidung” (Decision Time). Each webisodes lasts for 15 minutes before the viewer is asked for his party preference. Then, the video continues according to what the parties are promising in their political platforms. Unfortunately the videos are only in German.

Gay marriage, weed and workers rights

"Decision Time" election soap opera

In the first episode a student catches his teacher smoking weed. If you vote for the conservatives then she will lose her job and receive a commuted sentence. If you vote for the Greens, the you will see her sharing a joint with a policeman. In a similar fashion the video shows the different attitudes of the political parties to gay marriage and lay-off protection. You can “vote again” to see how the story would play out if another party was in power.

The webisodes are set in a small restaurant and very well produced. The fact that Der Spiegel is behind it helps because it means the videos have probably been produced fairly and not with a particular angle in mind.

What I find interesting is, that they take the opposite approach of the “Elect-O-Meter” which I wrote about last week: The videos are not letting people chose issues and then tell them which party supports those decisions, but assumes that people know which party they support (even though you can “vote again”).

The good and the bad

I like the idea because it makes political platforms tangible; it gives the differences between the political parties a voice and a face. It helps you to understand what the complicated party programs can concretely mean for people.

What I don’t like about it is that the format has to simply things a lot in order to work. I also don’t like that there is no way to account for the political realties of coalitions. No party in Germany will have the absolute majority which means that particularly the more extreme positions of the small parties will never become law.

Overall, I like it. I think it is an excellent idea and I suppose it is particularly attractive for people who don’t like too much detail. However, I think it would work better in countries which have two party systems like the US or the UK .

See also:

• The Elect-O-Meter: Whom would you vote for if you were German (in English)

Related posts:

1. Web based election monitoring in Liberia: a failure

If you ever wondered whom you vote for if you were German – try the “Elect-O-Meter“.

Does asking for a minimum wage make you a Leftie in Germany?

Missed chance for social media

What I find a really disappointing about this years version is that it (still) misses any kind of social media integration. There isn’t even a “share on Facebook”-option which to me means that the bpb is failing at least part of it’s mandate. I mean there’d be so many great things you could do with this tool, the easiest being:

• Tell your friends about the “Elect-O-Meter”
• Status-Update/Tweet: “I just tested my political preferences. Take the test and don’t forget to vote”
• Status-Update/Tweet: “According to the Elect-O-Meter I’m closest to <name of party>. Take the test”
• Embed-version

Especially considering that less and less young people go and vote, I think this would really have been a good chance to make people think about whom they should vote for.

Different countries, different political labels

Btw: The bpb is a highly respected, non-partisan organization and this applet is being embedded by media partners all over Germany. Personally, I have to say I always find it highly accurate. So, give it a shot and see whether, if you lived in Germany, you’d support the Greens, or the Christian Socialists (which are conservative in Germany), the Pirate Party (sic!) or The Left. I always find it interesting to see how different the political spectra’s are in different countries. What might be left in one country can be conservative in another and vice versa.

Related posts:

1. Web based election monitoring in Liberia: a failure