Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Social Sites Offer 'New' Way To Experience Presidential Debates

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the everything-is-novel-on-the-interwebs dept.

United States 106

News.com notes that the social sites have been burning up in the wake of the debates, as users create more content than it's possible to follow. Facebook specifically set up an area for debate viewers to post messages and take surveys during the events. Some participants found it a bit worthless, and the article refers to the experience as 'information overload'. "No doubt, the political twitterers must've felt empowered to know their Soundboard comments were being beamed out to an audience of potentially millions of Facebook users, and, if plucked by ABC's designated Facebook-monitoring reporter on TV, millions of offline viewers as well. Still, it's a little unclear whether the comments will prove all that useful for campaigns looking to boost their candidates' standing."

cancel ×

106 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fr0sty P1ss! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21935590)

Presidential debates rage over whether a steaming mug of frosty piss is better served chilled. Have your say now!
 

Re:Fr0sty P1ss! (0, Offtopic)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935684)

Robots do not want to have sex with you. Are you listening, Japan? I don't have a clever comparative simile for this, because frankly you bags of meat will fuck bicycles if they're laying down and not putting up a fight. Just stop it. There is no robot on Earth that wants to see a bag of meat with a small prong on the end approaching it with a can of WD-40 and a hopeful smile. And don't get me started on that terrifying hole that squeezes out more bags of meat.
http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=5426 [warrenellis.com]

Re:Fr0sty P1ss! (1, Funny)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936094)

Chilled is the traditionalist way!

Re:Fr0sty P1ss! (1)

x2A (858210) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936128)

In other news: Slashdot's very own 'Anonymous Coward' accused of raising the tone of the presidentual debate. More in 15 minutes after the second half of Fast Animals, Slow Children.

To paraphrase Homer (1)

Headcase88 (828620) | more than 6 years ago | (#21940014)

Don't blame me, I voted for non-chilled.

Information overload: better than the alternative (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21935624)

Nigger overload!

Proof that Vista voice recognition works! (0, Offtopic)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935784)

There is no way the poster is intelligent enough to type. Clearly though logging on was too challenging.

One thing I don't get about the 2008 Election (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21935654)

Why are they allowing a nigger and a woman to run?

What has this country come to?

Re:One thing I don't get about the 2008 Election (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21935734)

I have constructed a simulation of a city run by an afro-american. It has high income, 0 unemployment, 0 transportation problems, 0 environmental problems, and 0 crime. The secret is to eliminate female creatures. It's a city of peace and harmony. Come see where it will lead us: niggeropilis.myminicity.com php link [ripway.com] .

Re:One thing I don't get about the 2008 Election (0, Flamebait)

Reivec (607341) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935786)

I agree, the country is in a sad state of affairs when the citizens believe that race or sex has anything to do with a person's ability to reason or make sound decisions. Please go back to the Klan and let the people with intelligence make the choices.

Just as a side note, I am a white male.

Leaders of the Free World (-1, Offtopic)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935888)

It is telling that USA - self proclaimed land of the free and leader of the free world - has not had a woman or non-white as leader and where being exposed as gay would destroy a political career.

"Maggie Thatcher has balls" shows that having a female leader does not make you any weaker. Nor for that matter kykes, spics, chinks etc.

Being a redneck scaredy-pants is a sign of weakness, not strength.

Re:Leaders of the Free World (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21936068)

It is telling that USA - self proclaimed land of the free and leader of the free world - has not had a woman or non-white as leader and where being exposed as gay would destroy a political career.


Yes, it is telling. It shows what it takes to form and hold together not only a successful government, but the #1 country and the most powerful coalition of states in human history.

Handing the reins of the wondrous, incomparable and unique achievement white men created to niggers and women is asking for disaster, and deep down you know it even if you feel pressured by society to publicly express something different.

GOP 2008: it's the only real choice to preserve America.

Re:Leaders of the Free World (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936296)

Yes, it is telling. It shows what it takes to form and hold together not only a successful government, but the #1 country and the most powerful coalition of states in human history.

You obviously haven't read [wikipedia.org] your history [wikipedia.org] .

And you've got a very strange definition of "successful government".

Why the USA is the best nation in human history (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21936394)

You obviously haven't read your history.

You obviously didn't understand yours, and the fact that you lamely linked to a generic Wikipedia article rather than attempting to state a point proves it.

Rome didn't have enough nukes to destroy the globe, and the US government (an evolution of the triumvirate model) is far more advanced in terms of legal and philosophical underpinnings.

And really, the fact that it isn't Rome is what makes the USA so special. Rome burned itself out expending all its military power to overthrow the world. The USA is a benevolent superpower. Should the US actually strive to become what its noisy detractors claim it already is, and follow the Roman model, it could and would take over the entire world and rule it.

That's what doomsday power affords you, and it's the key that all previous megalomaniacs lacked. The US possesses it, but shows Stoic restraint.

And you've got a very strange definition of "successful government".

The US is powerful, rich, socially stable, innovative, fat and happy. It's recognized around the world as the place you go to follow your dreams. It truly is the land of opportunity. Only jaded U.S. liberals and Eurotrash disagree.

Re:Why the USA is the best nation in human history (1)

ChameleonDave (1041178) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936780)

And really, the fact that it isn't Rome is what makes the USA so special. Rome burned itself out expending all its military power to overthrow the world. The USA is a benevolent superpower.

You insensitive clod! We Romans are the benevolent superpower; it was the Greeks who were warmongers!

(Another step into the past, cue the Greeks: "You insensitive clod! We Greeks are the benevolent superpower; it was the Persians who were warmongers!" A few steps into the future, cue the Martians: "You insensitive clod! We Martians are the benevolent superpower; it was the Americans who were warmongers!")

Re:Why the USA is the best nation in human history (1)

Headcase88 (828620) | more than 6 years ago | (#21940508)

The USA is a benevolent superpower. Should the US actually strive to become what its noisy detractors claim it already is, and follow the Roman model, it could and would take over the entire world and rule it."
Rome didn't have to worry about MAD. Unless you think the US could surprise attack every other nuclear country on the planet so quickly that there would be no repercussions to them.

Gotta say if the shock and awe strategy in Iraq was benevolent, I don't want to see the US go malignant. (Waits for comments to be misconstrued for me saying the war itself was a bad idea, rather than the way it was executed)

The [...] powerful [and] rich, [...][are] fat and happy.
A little snipping here and editing there helped that sentence make sense. Now I know why the current (and past) administrations are so fond of black markers.

Re:Leaders of the Free World (0)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936456)

I don't know what your definition of "powerful" is, but I would venture to guess that if pitted against one another militarily, the USA would kick the Roman Empire's ass. Tanks, fighter jets and bombers, GPS targetting, guns, automatic rifles, napalm, nukes, satellite tracking, unmanned aerial surveillance, night-vision, radio communication, radar, guided and long-distance missiles .... the Romans wouldn't stand a chance. In terms of land area and population the USA is also MUCH larger than the Roman Empire was even at its peak. The USA has also seen more technical innovation and scientific progress over its much shorter lifespan than was seen under the Roman Empire. We cannot compare duration of existence because we don't know long the USA will continue to exist.

So by what measure are you comparing?

The Roman Empire also happens to be a poor champion of your underlying point, given its patriachal nature, discrimination of women etc. Under Roman Law, the man (and btw, they were white) was the head of a household and family, and was accordingly granted much power in this role that is unthinkable today - for example, for much of Roman history, it was even legal for a man to kill his wife or children. So another powerful patriarchal white male society actually would seem to reinforce the GP's point rather than rebuke it.

Re:Leaders of the Free World (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936830)

for much of Roman history, it was even legal for a man to kill his wife or children.

Sadly, in many places in the world today, a man killing his wife or children is likely to get a slap on the wrist at most, if the wife or child "dishonored" the family.

-jcr

Re:Leaders of the Free World (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#21937212)

and i might add to that "dishonoring" falls under shit like not wearing that fucked head gear.

here today but... (0, Flamebait)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935664)

What percentage of voters are affected by Social Networking sites? What percentage of the MySpace, Facebook and YouTube audience are old enough to actually vote? My guess is the answer to both these questions are relatively low numbers.

I'm thinking is that this is a one-time phenomenon. By the time of the next election MySpace and Facebook will probably be oh-so-yesterday. Though I understand the candidates need to appear new-fangled and not miss out on new channels -- especially free ones.

The average Fox News viewer isn't affected by this at all -- though (sadly) they sure can affect the vote.

I'm also thinking that the Paultards rabid activities are actually counteractive. They are much worse than spammers. There's even on average five or so Paultard spamvert articles in the /. firehose on any given day. Mercifully, they don't usually make the front page.

Re:here today but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21935780)

I found an article via reddit that pointed out that a facebook "Rock the Vote" app asks for your SSN on an open HTTP stream. How many people are going to get burned for trying to "get involved"?

Re:here today but... (2, Funny)

NathanBFH (558218) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938102)

I think that you need to not trust everything you read on or about the Internets.

Re:here today but... (1)

NathanBFH (558218) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938172)

Ah, nevermind. I see now that you're referring to a 3rd party facebook app, not the ABC one. My mistake :o)

Re:here today but... (2, Interesting)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935782)

What percentage of the MySpace, Facebook and YouTube audience are old enough to actually vote? My guess is the answer to both these questions are relatively low numbers.

I'm embarrassed to admit this, but most of my family (all adults) have Facebook accounts and keep bugging me to create one since it's how they keep in touch these days.

My mother also recently went on her first date in years. It was an ex-high-school-boyfriend that she hadn't seen in 30 years who had run across her Facebook profile.

Both are reasons that I *don't* have a Facebook account but pretty much everyone I know seems to have one these days it seems.

Re:here today but... (2, Interesting)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936106)

You don't have a facebook account because you don't like keeping in touch with your family?
And should you ever become a widower or divorced you never want to go on dates again? Especially not with someone you knew.
-

I WAS able to get my family on board. I've been trying for a while to setup a portal where we could all post pictures or keep in touch. 8 kids and 12 grandkids and 5 (so far) great-great grankids under my late grandmother. All a relatively close knit family but didn't quite make it into the digital age. We don't have places to share picture, something that used to be done via postal mail or just the next time we got together.

Well could never talk them into my OSS portal. They didn't want to create an account, blah blah. Well since my mom saw me log into facebook she was more or less hooked. I showed her how to sign up. She uploaded some pictures with the java applet, tagged me ("Oh wow, this is so nice you can pick out who is in each picture!").

Since then she's added a college roommate some people from work. She loves it.

My family (adults) also have my limited profile :)

Re:here today but... (2, Interesting)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936200)

You don't have a facebook account because you don't like keeping in touch with your family?

Correct.

And should you ever become a widower or divorced you never want to go on dates again? Especially not with someone you knew.

Not that. I'm just not interested in having people from my past stumble upon public information of mine and hit me up. It happens every once in a while even without Facebook and it's always an unpleasant experience for me. I always feel obligated to exchange kind words and try to get some kind of ball rolling as if it was a crime that we fell out of touch to begin with, and I'm very rarely interested in actually becoming acquainted with those people again. If I ignore them or be honest I feel like an asshole. So I try to avoid the situation in the first place.

I have a MySpace account that I used mostly for business / promotional reasons but I let a bit of personal stuff flow in. It's been ages since I've even logged in. There's thousands of pending friend requests and messages etc. that haven't been looked at. I just can't be bothered. I find social networking sites to be far too much of a drain. I prefer e-mail. Quick and to the point. In fact, e-mail is pretty much the only way I really like to communicate (besides face-to-face of course) at all. Every thing else (including phone) annoys the hell out of me (and no I do not own a cell phone).

Re:here today but... (1)

joss (1346) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936564)

> I find social networking sites to be far too much of a drain. I prefer e-mail. Quick and to the point. In fact, e-mail is pretty much the only way I really like to communicate (besides face-to-face of course) at all. Every thing else (including phone) annoys the hell out of me (and no I do not own a cell phone).

I agree with almost everything in that. I bet there are a lot of people like us. If only there was some place for us all to hang out and chat, a forum or something... I'm only half being sarcastic - where does one bitch about what
is wrong with cellphones and how much better the world would be if people
had more deterrent between being able to share every trivial little mental
fart that pops into their heads ?

Re:here today but... (1)

hostyle (773991) | more than 6 years ago | (#21941338)

How may I subscribe to your newsletter ? I am keenly interested ... i forget the rest of the meme.

Re:here today but... (4, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936600)

There seems to be a big misconception about how Facebook works that I keep seeing repeated by slashdotters that don't have it.

If you go to type in someones name that has *default settings*, if you're not in their network all it shows you is their face and name and what network they are on. (A network was originally a 'college', but has since been expanded to "Work" and "Regional"). From there the privacy settings are very very customizable.

I can make it so NO ONE can find me in search. More or less invisible and I have to add friends. I can make it so only 1 network (Say my college network) can see my drunken bar photos while only my Work network can see me helping old ladies across the street. I can put people on a limited profile so that crazy stalker girl I can add as a friend and not have her see my phone number. But just because someone can find you on search doesn't mean they get ANY of your personal information and even then you can limit it.

It's really very flexible.

I don't see why everyone is up in arms about facebook 'privacy' concerns . So Facebook knows my name and movies. I don't care. I'd rather have them try and push a new ad to a movie I'd like than a chick flick. And until I start putting in either financial information and SSN, I really don't care if they store the passwords in plain text.

I'm guessing you also don't pay much attention to maxi-pad or home pregnancy test ads. There's a reason the word "Demographics" exists. Everyone on slashdot (and I'm not saying you) seems to think that because THEY do or don't do something that EVERYONE must think the way they do. If you don't like social networks fine. There are plenty of us who do. Just like there are plenty of us who prefer Debian over Ubuntu and OS X over XP.

PoliticialSocial.com - (1)

whackco (599646) | more than 6 years ago | (#21937628)

Thats Interesting but I think sites like this one: Politicalsocial.com [politicalsocial.com] seem to be more focused on bringing news, and long term information. They might stay around for a while.

Re:PoliticialSocial.com - (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 6 years ago | (#21937956)

If I've never heard of it, the millions of people on facebook probably haven't heard about it. Exposure > Quality any day of the week. If someone logs in to see what their BFF JILL did this weekend and sees something about politics they might take notice. They're not going to nagivagte to some random site.

Re:here today but... (2, Insightful)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935800)

facebook is (used to be?) mostly college students, eg, those who are old enough to vote.

Re:here today but... (1)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935872)

What percentage of voters are affected by Social Networking sites? What percentage of the MySpace, Facebook and YouTube audience are old enough to actually vote?
In terms of percentage, you're probably correct that it isn't huge, but I would guess it's at least in the 30-50% range (probably higher as facebook at least started with a college-only crowd and has attracted insane amounts of users of ages 20-30). Regardless, some of the hot videos on youtube or hot topics on facebook can attract millions of viewers in a matter of months. The effect may be bigger than you predict.

I'm thinking is that this is a one-time phenomenon. By the time of the next election MySpace and Facebook will probably be oh-so-yesterday. Though I understand the candidates need to appear new-fangled and not miss out on new channels -- especially free ones.
That may be the case, but I'm sure something similar will take its place by then.

I'm also thinking that the Paultards rabid activities are actually counteractive. They are much worse than spammers. There's even on average five or so Paultard spamvert articles in the /. firehose on any given day. Mercifully, they don't usually make the front page.
This is actually a good example of the effect internet mediums can have. Ron Paul gained approximately 6% of the Iowa primary vote even though his primary source of advertisement was online, this is after starting at %0-%1 in polls. We can't really fairly assume the internet pull of other candidates because of the amount of other mediums for campaigning used, but keep in mind that Obama got a huge push in IA due to a never-before-seen turnout of younger voters which probably, in part, has to do with the internet as a campaigning medium.

Re:here today but... (1)

runderwo (609077) | more than 6 years ago | (#21941840)

Ron Paul gained approximately 6% of the Iowa primary vote even though his primary source of advertisement was online

Try ten percent [go.com]

Re:here today but... (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935880)

What percentage of voters are affected by Social Networking sites? What percentage of the MySpace, Facebook and YouTube audience are old enough to actually vote? My guess is the answer to both these questions are relatively low numbers.

Aside from my 13 year old son, every facebook user in my friends list is old enough to vote.

In my experience, very young kids are more interested in the 'rapid high' aspects of the net. That being flash games, MSN, and mmorgs. Things like facebook and such, social networking sites, usually take some work by the user in order to generate that all important network. On MSN the same is true, but since the only content is chat, its a simpler, faster process.

Re:here today but... (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936386)

I think Facebook doesn't appeal to younger teenagers or kids much because they don't use what it's best at -- arranging nights out partying/drinking etc. They see their friends at school every day. And if they're anything like me, then aged 13/14/15/16 they won't remember to take photos when they're drunk so they have nothing to tag either :-p

Re:here today but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21937510)

Or if they're SMART enough at 13-20.999 they won't take any pictures of them drinking.

Re:here today but... (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939700)

Maybe in your country, but in my country it's illegal to buy alcohol if you're less than 18 years old, but not illegal to drink it, so long as you are at least 5 years old. My mum has a picture of me drinking sparkling wine with orange juice in at a friends' 7th birthday party, that's fine!

Re:here today but... (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935932)

What percentage of voters are affected by Social Networking sites?
I think a better question would be how many voters are affected by social networking sites and I'm guessing that it isn't a number the canidates should be ignoring if they want to get elected. myspace alone has about 100 million users and even if 2% were affected, that's 2 million people there. if you were a politician, would you want to be ignoring that many people online?

Re:here today but... (1)

sledd_1 (464094) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936126)

I, for one, am interested in seeing candidates differentiate themselves more than I'm interested in how they reach their users. It feels to me like new-buzzword-marketing is making little difference in the REAL problems with the presidential race.

In fact, the information overload inherent in face-space/etcappears to be guiding candidates to focus on all appearing THE SAME, rather than helping voters make better decisions.

Re:here today but... (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936324)

Facebook isn't for kids - in fact they seem to be in the minority.. it's the older people, even grannies, who have taken to it like ducks to water. I've actually had phone calls from family members offering to ferry me halfway across the country to set it up on their PCs.

Facebook is the new email (inevitable since spam killed the old one).

Re:here today but... (1)

random0xff (1062770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936348)

I'm thinking is that this is a one-time phenomenon. By the time of the next election MySpace and Facebook will probably be oh-so-yesterday.
I think you're kind of missing the whole internet thing here. In 4-8-12 years these people will be old enough to vote. By then you get a free blog with your cereal box, including personal page at the then market leader in socical networking sites. The amount of twitter is huge now compared to 10 years ago, so it will be massive in 10 years.

Either everyone will ignore it (victory for traditional media since they have the 'official' message) or everyone will find the news/opinion feed that they are most comfortable with and ignore objective reporting (can't find it anyway in all those zillion youtube reactions to the debate).

Seriously, it's great that everyone can now publish and broadcast, but it's kind of a mess this way.

Re:here today but... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21936584)

http://www.aspiesforronpaul.com/ [aspiesforronpaul.com]

Re:here today but... (1)

brendank310 (915634) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936616)

Why is it sad that a Fox News viewers vote is effective?

Re:here today but... (1)

It'sYerMam (762418) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936874)

Facebook, at least in the UK, is practically a must-have for a university student, since so much is organised through it. If the situation is similar in the US, I guess there'll be lots of university-age voters on facebook, maybe other networks as well. That said they're probably also thoroughly disillusioned.

More content than it's "possible" to follow? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21935666)

Computers were invented to parse large amounts of information and render it into a form useful to humans, you stupid niggers.

Political Twitterers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21935672)

Better than political twits!

P.S. I hate niggers!

If only... (1)

Eevee1 (1147279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935680)

If only anybody cared about presidential debates...

Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21935720)

At Christmas I was talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. He was mentioning how much American politiking has changed since then. In particular, he talked about how the candidates then didn't have the huge teams that they do today. The politicians themselves did much of the grunt work, and interacted directly with the voters.

One thing he said is that it made the politicians seem more real. These days, a normal American citizen would have very little chance of meeting face-to-face with their representatives, especially at the higher levels of government. But in those days, such meetings were quite easy to arrange, especially before an election. He recalled meeting with one candidate for office. During their meeting, the candidate got a bad case of diarrhea. He told me grandfather straight out, "I'm about to shit my pants full of liquid. Excuse me." So my grandfather did, and was so impressed by this candidate's honesty that he voted for him.

I just don't think we'll ever see something like that from a politician today. And with YouTube being an outlet for embarassing videos, politicians today seem less likely than ever to appear at non-scripted events.

Re:Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (3, Insightful)

neapolitan (1100101) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935832)

Yes, I have heard stuff like this repeated a lot too. This may be true, but I do not think that it is all the politician's fault. I think it is partly the fact that the population of the USA was probably a fraction (~120 million) of what it is today. It is simply not reasonable to have any contact with any meaningful fraction of your electorate. I think the candidates DO, given their security and time limitations, make an effort to go out there and shake people's hands.

Think about your state -- this is probably analogous to the USA quite a while ago. I have shaken my state governor's hand (I went to Boys' state) and got to talk to him a bit. I dated a girl from a small country in Europe, and she had met their president numerous times (and he knew her father by first name). It is partly just a function of the US becoming very large that this is not possible.

P.S. Back when Slashdot was starting, me and 'Taco were really tight, PM'ing every night, but now he doesn't even answer the emails I send to him... :p

Re:Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (2, Insightful)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936362)

I think it is partly the fact that the population of the USA was probably a fraction (~120 million) of what it is today. It is simply not reasonable to have any contact with any meaningful fraction of your electorate.

That's exactly why the US system is designed for the federal government to have very little power, and the states to have most of it, so people can interact at a more local level... and Ron Paul is the only one advocating the return to this.

Re:Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (1, Troll)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936844)

Actually he's advocating the complete abolition of the legal and social framework and the US and the complete abolition of the Army. Apparrently he was born in 1492.

When I first heard about him he sounded OK, but please, for the love of bob, find out everything he stands for. Also investigate his continued writing for white supermacist organisations... if you still agree with him by all means vote for him.

Hitler got in because he was clever at saying just the right things to the right audience. I'd hate to have that happen to the US.

Re:Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (4, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936912)

Actually he's advocating the complete abolition of the legal and social framework and the US and the complete abolition of the Army

I have to wonder, why would you bother to make up such an outrageous lie, when it's so trivially disproven? Ron Paul advocates reducing the power of the federal government to that which is delegated to it in the constitution, which in case you haven't heard, is the legal framework of the United States.

his continued writing for white supermacist organisations

Like this [ronpaul2008.com] ? or this [blogspot.com] ? or this [youtube.com] ?

Sorry, but your attempt to paint Ron Paul as a racist has failed. Feel free to play again, though.

-jcr

Re:Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21937610)

What's Ron Paul's stance on 95% of black men? [google.com] Oh, yes, that's right - they're "semi-criminal or criminal".

Your attempt to whitewash Ron Paul's bigotry has failed. Feel free to try the "it was a ghostwriter" defense, as if that'll work.

Re:Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (2, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21937656)

Asked and answered, and you already knew that. The content of that issue of his newsletter is not consistent with anything else he's ever said or written.

Your attempt to whitewash Ron Paul's bigotry has failed.

There's nothing to whitewash. The man's not a racist, no matter how much you may want him to be.

-jcr

Re:Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21937806)

The man wants to wilfully ignore the genocide in Darfur, end birthright citizenship, forcibly export immigrants, stop student visas for people from "terrorist nations", essentially bring back segregation, has written about how black people are inherently criminal and the supposed "plight" of the middle-class white Christian male, has white nationalist organisations throwing money at him... and you're telling me that I'm just imagining things when I say he's racist?

If I wanted to go someplace where the facts are ignored and the world is a mere nine months from becoming a libertarian wonderland ruled by Dr. Ron Paul, I'd go to Digg. This is Slashdot, my friend, I believe that we are all a little too smart and too cynical to support a crazy old man like Paul, especially because he's suggesting things that would take America to the Dark Ages. You can talk all you want about him - I'll trust his voting record and cold evidence, thank you very much, and that tells me that the man is as intolerant as anyone can get.

Re:Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (0, Troll)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21937990)

If I wanted to go someplace where the facts are ignored

You're already there. Look in the mirror.

Ron Paul won't interfere in Sudan militarily, unless the congress declares war on the Sudan. There's a reason why the war power is reserved to the congress by the constitution; it's not supposed to be easy to go to war. When the USA delclares war, we get the full commitment of the country, and we win. See every war up to WW2 for examples. When we go to war without a declaration, well, do Korea and Vietnam mean anything to you?

As for immigration, unless you can show that he wants to enforce the law separately by race, (eg, only deport illegals from some countries and not others), then you're full of shit trying to use that as a claim of racism. Thirdly, the newsletter that you are flogging is completely inconsistent with everything else Ron Paul has ever said on the subject of race. Show me any racist who says, and I quote, "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism".

use he's suggesting things that would take America to the Dark Ages.

Nope, the Dark Ages were a period where government power was absolute. He wants to take us back to the Enlightenment.

you're telling me that I'm just imagining things

Not so much "imagining" as "lying through your teeth under cover of anonymity."

-jcr

Re:Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936958)

Ron Paul is the only one advocating the return to this

Correction: the only one who's running for president that advocates this. There are several tens of thousands of supporters, too. ;-)

-jcr

Re:Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21937684)

And they're all as estranged from reality as Ron Paul is.

Re:Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938004)

Printing money non-stop and claiming that it will all just work out somehow is what I would call being "divorced from reality".

-jcr

Re:Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21937538)

Ron Paul is also the only one advocating returning to the gold standard (even though there's not enough gold on the planet to support the US economy and it's an outmoded system that can't be sustained), abolishing income tax (and introducing nothing to replace the source of well over half the country's budget), abolishing the FDA (radium water and colloidal silver for everyone!), abolishing birthright citizenship (he's all for the Constitution except when he's not), breaking off all trade with other nations (can't be too careful when you're avoiding the Zionist conspiracy to form the North American Union, I suppose) and his "state's rights" stance is basically just asking for a reintroduction to segregation and institutionalised discrimination at best - and Crimson Skies at worst.

But sure, you can vote for him just because you think he'll legalise weed. Priorities, man!

Re:Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (1)

fast penguin (910736) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939454)

I'm not an American, so I am not sure I know what you are talking about. But with regard to commodity-backed money, it shouldn't matter the absolute amount of commodity you have to back it -- if you have more gold, you could assign 1 dollar to 1 gram of gold; if you have less, then assign 1 dollar to 1 milligram of gold. I don't know why you say it can't be sustained -- fixed exchange rates and other monetary policies have generally been abandoned because politicians prefer a loose monetary policy to avoid taxing people (inflation is actually worse when uncontrolled like that, but it gets them re-elected) -- I think every nation has resorted to credit money in times of war (in the old ages, one of the priorities was to capture the enemy's gold storages in order to finance the war).

Re:Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (2, Insightful)

runderwo (609077) | more than 6 years ago | (#21941748)

Ron Paul is also the only one advocating returning to the gold standard (even though there's not enough gold on the planet to support the US economy and it's an outmoded system that can't be sustained)

First of all, your comment demonstrates you know nothing about monetary policy. Second, while he favors the gold standard and advocates abolishing the Federal Reserve, he advocates two different policy steps in the direction of sound money. One is to legalize competing currencies, in order to force the Federal Reserve to be responsible with monetary policy, since poor monetary policies would result in people storing their wealth in non-dollars. Another is to force the Federal Reserve to back the dollar with a commodity by tying the dollar's value to a price range of that commodity -- not necessarily gold -- to restrain politicians from endlessly printing money to finance their overseas adventures and welfarism at home.

Just what is it about either of these two schemes that isn't plain old common sense?

abolishing income tax (and introducing nothing to replace the source of well over half the country's budget)

First of all, the obvious policy step is to abolish the IRS and return to a flat tax, the fairest tax of all. (Switzerland has one of the biggest welfare systems in the world, and somehow manages to balance the books with a flat 11% income tax.)

Second, we spend more on the illegal wars and illegal foreign aid every year than the income tax brings in. Doesn't it make sense to end all of it at once?

abolishing the FDA (radium water and colloidal silver for everyone!)

If you want radium water and collodial silver, what business is it of the government's to prevent you from having it? Is it the same business that prevents you from importing prescription drugs and using herbal remedies that are legal everywhere besides the US, driving up health care costs by handing the pharmaceutical companies a monopoly? The same business that prevents alternative low-calorie sweeteners used around the world from being used in food products in the US?

Actually, reducing the FDA to a labeling and testing organization sounds like a damn good idea. And without the monopoly power handed to the FDA, private labeling and testing organizations could coexist and eventually render it unnecessary.

abolishing birthright citizenship (he's all for the Constitution except when he's not)

Advocating a Constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship is not in conflict with the Constitution in any way.

breaking off all trade with other nations (can't be too careful when you're avoiding the Zionist conspiracy to form the North American Union, I suppose)

You've gone off the rails, considering he is the only one advocating that we have a free trade policy with all nations with a uniform tariff, as opposed to selectively embargoing nations like Cuba and NK, or employing "managed trade" policies like CAFTA and NAFTA that favor certain industries and countries. It doesn't need to be said that any form of trade is better than sanctions or bombing.

and his "state's rights" stance is basically just asking for a reintroduction to segregation and institutionalised discrimination at best - and Crimson Skies at worst.

States cannot violate the Constitution. As for your concerns, read Article IV and the 14th Amendment.

"The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

...

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Why is it such a crazy idea that people should have as much local control over their government as possible? Why should the average person have to compete with lobbyists and well-heeled individuals who can afford to fly to Washington D.C. and spend their time with congresscritters? It is no wonder that the federal politicians favor special interests. Hardly anyone is as principled and resistant to influence as Dr. Paul.

But sure, you can vote for him just because you think he'll legalise weed.

Seems to me that getting the federal government out of the unconstitutional drug prohibition is the first logical step towards a results-based drug policy that respects individual liberty. But that could be more of that silly common sense that you so clearly despise.

Re:Talking to my grandfather about the 1930s. (1)

runderwo (609077) | more than 6 years ago | (#21941818)

This may be true, but I do not think that it is all the politician's fault. I think it is partly the fact that the population of the USA was probably a fraction (~120 million) of what it is today. It is simply not reasonable to have any contact with any meaningful fraction of your electorate.

The very first proposed amendment to the Constitution [wikipedia.org] was designed to address this inevitable problem.

The wisdom and foresight of those who came hundreds of years before us never ceases to amaze me.

nostalgia aside, a few points (1)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935954)

Well, perhaps it's worth noting that in 1932 only about 33 million [infoplease.com] people voted in the Presidential election, while in 2004 the figure was closer to 110 million. Takes a bigger organization, with more layers, to reach four times as many people.

More importantly, in the 1930s many people tended to get their voting patterns from local organizations that more or less owned their vote, e.g. unions and "machines." FDR worried quite a bit about keeping the "machine" and union boss vote. Harry Truman was selected as his veep in part to get that vote (Truman was widely understood to be the protege of the Pendergast Kansas City machine). He more or less dumped his much more intellectual (and socialist) former veep Henry Wallace, who was more in tune with him (and arguably the country) on the "issues."

So the amount of actual true personal interaction required -- which might usefully be deployed to change someone's mind, whose vote wasn't already "owned" -- was pretty modest in the 30s. To put it another way, there were a lot fewer voters who had the option to vote as they pleased, and it took a lot less personal effort to reach them. You'd really only need to reach the bosses, the key players, those who could tell fleets of other people how to vote.

Today's elections are far more direct candidate-to-citizen appeals. Machines and union endorsements hardly matter at all; people tend to make up their own minds independently, and directly from what they see and hear on the tube. To reach 110 million voters directly requires, indeed, a massive, tightly controlled communications heirarchy. And, not surprisingly, the average amount of personal time the candidate can give to each of 110 million totally independent voters is measured in microseconds.

Anything and its opposite (4, Interesting)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935722)

Facebookers opined that Hillary Clinton is "onto Barack like a Rottweiler" one moment and "has about as much experience and common sense as an avacado [sic]" the next. Ron Paul is a "looney" to some, but "the only one who understands economics" and "the only logical and realistic choice," to others.

So, put it that way, people say anything and its opposite about candidates, and we hardly have any way to quantify what they think as a whole. So we can (pretty much) qualify what people think but not quantify. Sounds like a problem.

Here's what I wish would exist on the web, sort of polls in which no poll choices would be defined by the poll creator, but would emerge from what people say. I'm going to use TFA's Mitt Romney example to illustrate the idea : "Mitt Romney, who arguably endured the largest share of attacks during the Republican debate, drew mixed reviews: everything from "the only one who understands insurance," "looks younger than 60," to "is getting creamed," and "lost this debate.""

Basically, from such a polling system's user input would emerge dominating trends, for example "Only Romney understands insurance", "Romney lost the debate", "Romney looks young", and people's input would be categorised under these self-grouping ideas and thus you could both qualify and quantify at the same time what people think and agree on.

Unfortunately the "grouping user input into a few categories" thing might be the difficult part.

Re:Anything and its opposite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21935760)

Howto defeat EU's data retention act

or

Directive 2006/24/EC, on "the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC
-- Wikipedia

Please note that this howto is made to the best of our knowledge, and we will in no way guarantee that it is fail-safe.

First off, you will have to agree about the protocol you will use for communicating. This means that you should pick a method from this howto, or other places, and stick to that. This should be agreed to in a offline, non-traceable communication method, like public phone booths by code (i.e you can refer to method one, two, three etc.) or by meeting face to face in secure locations. You'll also have to agree on a few keywords/key sentences.

Now that's done, adhere to that channel. You might use the channel to agree upon new channels, but it really won't enanche security much, if you assume that the attacker already knows your current channel.

Next, I suggest to use strong crypto, like Gnu Privacy Guard[1] or PGP[2]. Both supports cymetric encryption. Simply encrypt the message with your agreed-upon passphrase. For gpg's part this means using -ac flags, where a means ascii armored (i.e presented in a binary safe format that can be pasted to forums, emails etc.) whilst the c means symetric encryption. Key in your passphrase. Ideally this should be a long random sentence, of 40++ characters in mixed case if you prefer so. It's more important that you remember the passphrase in your head than that it is overly difficult.

You should now have a message looking something like this:
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG

jA0EAgMCX6Cwgr463/FgySzU7iytmimLYABLjuE3NP/IfMh0YhFautpEQjuRQn0+
1d1pPDVgU0lbdC2Daw==
=ci6W
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

The length of your encrypted message will vary with the length of your cleartext message. Now, this cryptotext above used the password foo, a really bad one. Go ahead, decrypt it if you want. Simply paste it into a pure text document, rename the document to foo.asc, and double click it in any decent OS. The result should read "This manual is nice".

Ok, so you have a message. How do you forward that message to a person, without anyone else getting to know? I have a few suggestions:

Put it on a very very popular place, where you have hundreds of thousands possible receipents. Since it's normal text, it can be displayed inline in a webpage, and anyone who views that webpage will download a copy. Done correctly, this message has quite many potential readers.

Such plases is not to hard to come by at all. One suggestion is a popular forum, like Slashdot[3]. Sure, you'll probably be moderated off-topic, but that's not so important. Just agree to what kind of thread you'll post it in (i.e the thread closest to 12:00GMT every day can contain a message somewhere). The nice thing about slashdot is that they don't delete anything. It will simply be moderated down, but left there for anyone who wishes to view.

Another alternative is usenet. Google groups provide easy access to usenet, and if you find a group with huge daily volume, you more or less ensure that atleast quite a few thousand has downloaded a copy of your message, and retained it more or less infinetely in their cache... Same as for above: agree to a protocol, and stick to it.

Other ideas might be newspapers forums or other websites with a substantial traffic. If your posts contain useful information, it's a fair chance that a little off-topic section is left alone at the bottom...

When you post the message, you should be a tad carefull if you don't want it to be tracked back to you, or at least make it more difficult. For that purpose I suggest TOR[4]. For windows, TOR has something called Videlia pack, complete with tor daemon, torbutton[5] for firefox, and privoxy. In other words, a complete setup for masquerading traffic.

Please remember that tor only obfuscates the source of your traffic, it does not make you completely anonymous unless you're carefull. Ideally, you should run tor in a virtual machine in i.e vmware[6], to avoid that things like Operating System version, browser version, set cookies etc. reveal your identity. At least I urge you to clear all cookies prior to using tor. Also remember that the tor exit node might sniff your traffic, and is often rumored to do exactly that. That means that anything sent as plain text - passwords and usernames for websites etc. must be assumed to be known to the attacker. Whatever you do, do not use your regular account on sites like slashdot or google to post this message! That will compromise you brutually!

Ok, so you got the basics for posting? But you might wonder - how does your parner know that _you_ sent that message? He does not - anyone knowing the passphrase can produce a message encrypted with the passphrase, containing any message he might desire. Symmetric signing is a more difficult problem, and I know of no program that does this natively. However, there's a few tricks you can use:

Make two versions of your messages. One plain containing only the message, and one containing a rather long sentence at the bottom of some kind. Place the sentence at bottom i.e one line below the rest of the text, with no trailing line. Now, hash that file in some way, i.e sha1-sum. Include that hash in the original message, and encrypt and send. Upon receipt, the receipent can chop away the hash, insert the same text that you did, and hash once again. If hashes match, there's a very very fair chance that it you're really the author. If it don't match, well... then who knows. You'll have to enter the text at bottom in exactly the same way!

That's all for now. And remember, the more readers you have, the more secure you are against this kind of analysis ;) Good luck in keeping below the RADAR!

[1]: http://www.gnupg.org/ [gnupg.org]
[2]: http://www.pgp.com/ [pgp.com]
[3]: http://www.slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]
[4]: http://tor.eff.org/ [eff.org]
[5]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2275 [mozilla.org]
[6]: http://vmware.com/ [vmware.com]

Re:Anything and its opposite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21935934)

Off-topic we go.

Here's an implementation of a double-blind time-limited drop-box via DNS:
http://landonf.bikemonkey.org/code/security/DNS_Dead_Drop.20060128201048.26517.luxo.html [bikemonkey.org]

It's not undetectable -- the RD bit is not widely used -- but it's likely under the radar, especially if you use a DNS server located in another, non-cooperative country. Does tor support routing DNS queries out the network? That would be somewhat resilient to detection.

One nice thing about the methodology is that when posting the message, only '1' bits are observable. '0' bits are never sent, so try doing analysis on: 11111111111...

Retrieving the message, the 1s and 0s are (obviously) available, but your message is encrypted, right?

That's almost like Slashdot's tags... (1)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935966)

Basically, that sounds like Slashdot tags, but with a little more information about how many people actually tagged a candidate that. I figure that something like that would really confuse some people.

I mean, what would the media think if someone like Hillary Clinton got tagged "mafiaa"? :]

Re:That's almost like Slashdot's tags... (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936390)

I agree, after some more thought about it, it's indeed quite similar to Slashdot tags, with the detail that you would know in what proportions people "tagged" what, and that as you said it would be a little more verbosituous (is there an actual term that means the same as this awkward neologism?) than mere tags.

I really wish someone would pick that idea up and experiment with it.

Re:That's almost like Slashdot's tags... (1)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936772)

> little more verbosituous (is there an actual term that means the same as this awkward neologism?)

You might try the word "verbose"--it's a lot easier to say, too.

And I agree that someone should try it. But when I say "someone" I mean "someone else" because I'm too lazy :]

Re:Anything and its opposite (1)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935994)

Unfortunately the "grouping user input into a few categories" thing might be the difficult part.

Considering that it combines successful natural language parsing with solving the strong AI problem, I'd say you're quite right about that.

Re:Anything and its opposite (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936372)

Considering that it combines successful natural language parsing with solving the strong AI problem, I'd say you're quite right about that.

Or you could find a human solution to the problem, for example allow users to edit options in a Wiki-like fashion, or let people specify how similar their input is to other people's (specific) input. I think it's definitely worth some serious consideration, as most of the time I'm considering making a poll I think "if only there was a way people could define the poll options instead of me trying to guess their opinions in advance".

If such a thing were to be successfully implemented I'm fairly confident it would change quite something in the way we listen to people's opinion online.

Re:Anything and its opposite (2, Interesting)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936436)

Man, if you came up with software that could do that accurately and consistently, you'd have a HUGE market in the social sciences. What you're talking about is coding data (when the raw data consists of, for example, transcripts of talk in a classroom).

Re:Anything and its opposite (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936880)

What you're talking about is coding data (when the raw data consists of, for example, transcripts of talk in a classroom).

Is it? Are you talking about parsing transcripts of discussions into extracting the main opinions and quantifying them? If so then no, that's a great idea, but that's very ambitious. My idea was more along the lines of a cross-over between a traditional poll and Slashdot's tagging system.

debatepoint.org (1)

hitchhacker (122525) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936668)

Somewhat like the link in my sig.?

-metric

Re:debatepoint.org (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936858)

Well, the link in your sig demonstrates a method for starting a debate, create a discussion and somehow poll people in a fairly innovative fashion, however it's not quite my idea.

My idea is pretty much, start a poll with a question such as "What do you think about X?", and don't provide poll options, let the users do it, somehow. So if with such a system you asked "What do you think about death penalty?" you wouldn't get a say "23% for, 77% against" but more like 21% for "All killing is wrong, therefore the death penalty is wrong.", 10% for "Bad people need to die", 7% for "It doesn't deter murder so it's useless", and we can imagine that you could go in-depth and explore close ideas that have been grouped together, like for example you could find out that 40% of opinions grouped in the latter example actually said "What we need is to enforce existing laws, not to make tougher ones", which is a fairly similar idea but still quite a nuance, and so on..

Remember when the web was cool? (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 6 years ago | (#21937198)

Here's what I wish would exist on the web: Empirical data and the dissemination thereof. This whole "web as a social tool" is simply turning into another leash like television, where we get to be inundated with ads and the same bullshit we're spoon fed on TV, in the newspaper, magazines, billboards (well I don't have cable and conveniently have no local reception at my house).

They aren't viewing the web a new useful tool just another way to slap their mantra all over everything to swing the tools out there who don't realize the Republicrats are the same party.

I really don't want any more opinion polls, exit polls, or overly broad trite bullshit being put all over the web. Too bad we're already fucked. What's worse is the "nerd" crowd seems to be reveling in it because now they're little clique-y thing is just as hip and cool as football games were.

I want to qualify people's opinions through the election of candidates that will actually do something. Not by "Do you think Fred Thompson looked tired and puffy eyed?" Why do you want to even try to "qualify" that crap ("Romney looks young") as a useful opinion?

Re:Anything and its opposite (1)

peektwice (726616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21937564)

I see the same thing on network TV...
There are reporters that are incapable of forming an opinion about any of the candidates. It ends up sounding like a used car salesman trying to only talk about the good points of a crappy car.

future changes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21935814)

This won't make much of a difference this election. However, when the votes are in, the stats are made and the candidates see what demographics voted for who and why... there will be significant changes in future campaigns. See Ron Paul with a stranglehold on digg and Barack Obama with a significant group of young voters coming out to vote. This is new and different.

The more u.s. politics can extend into the younger audiences, the more likely college students will get out to vote, changing the face of politics... This is a good thing... I think if the younger groups were active 8 years ago, we wouldn't have seen kerry as a candidate and wouldn't have seen bush as a president.

Re:future changes (1)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935920)

What makes you think having more college student voters would lead to better elected officials? Are they somehow smarter than people who finished college ten years ago, for example?

Re:future changes (1)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936180)

Ten years, probably not. 40 years, definitely so. The percentage of voters that are part of senior citizen groups that vote as a group and force candidates to either cave to their special interests or risk losing that large chunk of support is certainly enough to influence elections. More young voters would counteract that.

Re:future changes (1)

nbert (785663) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936376)

Maybe it won't lead to better politics, but at least in a democracy wider anticipation is always a good thing, because the more people back up political decisions the better. I personally don't see democracy as "the best" form of governance, but in the long run it grants the highest satisfaction of citizens one can archive. However, decisions become rather arbitrary if most people don't vote anymore. Hence it's a good thing if college kids vote even if most of them vote differently than you or me...

On a more general note the percentage of people using such services and being able to vote might be quite low, but some of them are what can be called "disseminators". If you convince them then they might influence many people in their surrounding...

Re:future changes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21939530)

Nah, the college students would have thrown their votes away to Nader. If you really want to prevent another Bush then start a God Party to drain the Evangelical vote. Ain't democracy a hoot?

is as useless as being bitten by a vampire (1)

sbate (916441) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935836)

I saw that last time I checked to see if I got an message from Ms. Mount Holyoke but I thought I would rather be bitten by a vampire

facebook - of all communities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21935882)

I thought the median-age facebook member was still in middle school..

Re:facebook - of all communities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21935972)

You must be over thirteen in order to use Facebook. This places the majority of Facebook users in the high school and college-age demographics. However, the maturity level in their forums matches just about any other internet forum.

This is nothing new (1)

Wookietim (1092481) | more than 6 years ago | (#21935956)

It's called "Watch the debate with other people, turn your head and talk to them" - social site just offer the ability to talk to people who can't spell.

The new facebook debate feature is mostly useless (4, Interesting)

Paktu (1103861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936048)

I noticed the new "Debate" feature on Facebook the other day and decided to take a look. In my opinion, this feature would be a lot more useful if it had been released two or three years ago when Facebook was just college students and the level of discourse was much more civilized. Now that Facebook is open to anyone, the debate goes to the lowest common denominator, so it's about as much fun as reading Youtube comments.

Re:The new facebook debate feature is mostly usele (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21936300)

YoutUbe comments Are Very Fun to Read you fucker!!1!

Re:The new facebook debate feature is mostly usele (1)

Mazin07 (999269) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936388)

Good thing we'll always have high quality thoughtful deep comments to read on Slashdot.

Pretty much standard, unfortunately. (1)

weston (16146) | more than 6 years ago | (#21936758)

Now that Facebook is open to anyone, the debate goes to the lowest common denominator

I'm sure it doesn't help that the demographic is wide open, but there's unfortunately very few forums anywhere I've seen that don't tend that way. You have to start with a critical mass of well-informed, thoughtful people who have a minimum of axes to grind... and even then, you'll see outbreaks of simplistic thinking, petty attacks, and trolling. College students are a half-decent bet, but since a good number of them are still basically adolescents, it's no guarantee.

In particular, though, I think Facebook has a specific problem that's bigger than the open demographic: the UI and culture both seem to encourage lots of little soundbite/bumper sticker expressions. Substantial and nuanced stuff just doesn't emerge in that circumstance, for some of the same reasons it doesn't emerge in political advertising or nightly news coverage.

Re:The new facebook debate feature is mostly usele (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 6 years ago | (#21940198)

Ironically, I often wish other sites had Slashdot type moderation.

vote for underdogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21936302)

screw the front runners. they don't represent you.

POLITICS? FACEBOOK? INFORMATION? PLEASE! (1)

CleanGuy (1180155) | more than 6 years ago | (#21937836)

Presidential campaigns are not the time for people to be "sounding off." Presidential campaigns are the time for LISTENING! Opining on any site about a political campaign is pointless, if not counterproductive. I watch the debates to determine for whom I should vote. Unless people can ask a direct question to a candidate, they should keep their hands off the keyboard and their mouths closed. I am not interested in a person's opinion on the race unless that person is part of a scientific poll or focus group. Besides, I doubt that the social networking sites are populated by the great political minds of our time.

facebook is lame (1)

jmickle (941634) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938832)

so facebook is owned by microsoft...... facebook spies on what you do and what purchases you make and displays them for everyone to see..... facebook is doing government advertising....... and its favored by slashdot?! Im confused......

gnV4a (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21938960)

kill mys3lf 7ike [goat.cx]

Oh yeah ABC (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939688)

The guys that cut Kucinich [associatedcontent.com] out of the debate. Surely to prevent any "information overload" that might divert public attention away from the front runners of their choosing. All before the very first primary. I would hope that there will be noise about that on the social sites.

VoteMatch USA (1)

b34343 (1214326) | more than 6 years ago | (#21940860)

The VoteMatch site (http://eenvandaag.nl/index.php?module=PX_Story&type=user&func=view&cid=465) determines your political preference through statements from the largest democratic and republican candidates taking part in the preliminary US presidency elections. You can answer the statements by clicking on agree, disagree or don't know. You can add extra weight to any statements you find especially important. In a separate screen you can choose which candidates you would like to include in your result calculation. In the result screen you can see the candidate you agree with most. In descending order you can how the other candidates match your preference. Next to it, you can also see the other candidates' opinions on the statements and can click on for an explanation. Helps you to vote on content in stead of a pretty face.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>