Slashdot Mirror
Obama's MySpace Drama
fistfullast33l writes "TechPresident, which is covering the use of technology by Presidential Campaigns for 2008, has a very interesting article on how Obama's MySpace page is currently the subject of an underground battle for control by the campaign itself and the volunteer who created it in 2004. Joseph Anthony worked with the campaign initially and grew the site to include over 160,000 unsolicited friends that the campaign could use to reach out to. It currently is the main Obama page in the Impact Channel on MySpace. However, as Obama's campaign became more centralized and formal, the decision was made to attempt to acquire control of the site from Anthony. They asked him for a price, which he offered up as $49,000 plus part of the $10,000 fee paid to MySpace for the Impact Channel. Obama balked at the price, and decided to start afresh rather than pay the money. The fight broke out into the open when Anthony posted a response on his blog to rumors that the campaign was spreading regarding him wanting to cash out. MyDD has more."
The guy wants to be president. He's a politician. And now some guy is surprised he is up to dirty tricks? Politicians are all scum, no matter which flag they wave. Remeber: Poly = many, tick = small bloodsucking parasite.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
And if, as he claims, they suggested a one-time fee, and then rejected his offer as an attempt to moneygrab, that is sneaky.
But why would you need money for this, anyway? Compenstation for work already done?
Anyway, considering the millions raised for campaigning, 50,000 is not so much.
Couldn't Obama or his people send in the lawyers and ask the guy to take down the site or remove references on the guys site to being the official page? It seems like more of an issue with MySpace (and their parent company) than with If it's not a private account, they could just look at the guys friend list and try to recruit from his list....
If the guy didn't like having the account taken from him, he shouldn't have posed it as the official site. And if his claims that it wasn't about money aren't true, then where are the specific amounts of money coming from? This happens all the time with celebrities when someone cyber-squats on a domain name and then tries to sell it back to the celeb for big money....
I've refrained from profanity, racial/ethnic epitaphs and am 5'11" - how can I be ranked as troll?
So, Obama has $19 million on hand from fund raising and donations and he can't drop a year's salary to this guy for the work he's done maintaining a MySpace site? And if the guy invested $10k of his own money on good faith that it would help the campaign ... I'm shocked that he's not asking for more. I mean, isn't that chump change to Obama? And doesn't Obama have to dispose of that money before the election otherwise it's gotta go to charity (I'm not a politician, I forget the rules of soft money).
... Obama's campaign managers didn't like it so decided to make their own. Interesting drama but not really news.
I'm getting the feeling that I'm not hearing the whole story here. Nobody's doing anything wrong though, this is clear cut capitalism. The man has the only supply for the product
My work here is dung.
Are you kidding me? He's not charging $49k to give the name back - he started the site as a supporter of Obama 2 freakin years ago, not knowing that Obama would run for president. Now, the campaign wants to take control of his profile page and they asked him to come up with a rough sum rather than hire him as a campaign contributer.
This is a lot like Valve and the mods that came out of Half Life. Valve in that case hired the Counterstrike and DoD teams and gave them jobs. Obama decided they didn't want to do that and instead asked the guy to come up with a sum of money. As MyDD points out, it's roughly 32 cents per friend. That's not too shabby considering how much money they throw away on consultants. And it's only a one time payment. For a campaign that just raised $26 million, to balk at $50,000 is pretty crazy in my opinion.
If you want the facts about the politician, then look at this voting record. His past voting record will indicate how he will future in the future.
By the way, the best candidate for president is Ron Owens, talk-show host on KGO 810 AM in San Francisco.
Let this be a lesson. These people are no better than the ones they want to replace. I know I'm talking to the hand, But it has to be said. You have a choice. Make it a good one. If you all want change, then you have to bring it about. The standard bearers of the status quo won't do it for you.
What?
From his prospective he was doing nothing but helping, and if others were just going to swoop in and take his work with a handshake and a wave, there is a little matter of compensation. I know I like to be paid and recognized for my serious efforts. But at the same time, it's not his name, it's not his reputation, and it's not his ass at the end of the day in a political process that's extremely unforgiving involving at times an unsophisticated audiance. The happy medium that avoids all this, is if he makes his politically oriented activist myspace page using his name, not trading on Obama's. Sure, he's invested time and money in that profile. A lot. But what made it work, the time and money invested in Obama's name? We'll never know the splits in the yield in two camps investments, because he didn't make the page about him, his thoughts, his efforts. So it ends up being unfair to everyone to some degree.
The Obama campaign solicited a figure from him.
It's not a cut-and-dried case of squatting -- Anthony had actually worked with the campaign on the profile. The campaign had password access, so that they could maintain some kind of control over the content just-in-case.
It isn't about money, IMO. This guy built a significant amount of grassroots support for Obama, then found out that presidential politics is big business, and there's no room for the little guy. How would you feel if a 2.5 year labor of love was pulled out from underneath you? The campaign told him to make an offer... he did, based upon an approximated value of the time he spent on the profile this year. They scoffed, and went around him.
I don't blame the creator of the profile. I don't blame the Obama campaign, either -- centralized control is necessary for presidential campaigns today.
It's politics, sometimes people don't get what they want and feelings get hurt. Same as it ever was, same as it ever will be.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I'm a staunch Democrat and feminist and I still think she's completely unelectable. She has no convictions and an obsession with power. She gives the impression that she would sway in the tiniest breeze, doing whatever she felt was popular at the moment.
God, remember when she was cool, and had convictions? National health care, remember that? Washington ruined that woman.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
...and Hispanic
Hardly relevant. I don't vote for anyone based on race, or color, or heritage. Only his record counts. Ask him what he'll do about the war, the patriot act, and prohibition, and maybe IP law.
What?
So lets break this down, a guy makes a myspace profile for some american political party. He spends a fair bit of his own money on the project. The campaign team make it known their interested in it but are such complete jerks about the transfer (last minute cancelling phone conferences,etc...) that when someone mentions the idea of a fee he jumps at it. When the refused any idea of financial re-embusement for his work they stole the account. One wonders if there is a data protection act in America since expearence in the UK would lead me to think this would be a violation (you can't access an account unless you are the account holder.)
He's not a money grabber, I can understand his point of view if I worked hard on something finally got some recognition and then got treated in a similar way as he did I'd want a 'symbol' for my efforts.
This shows Obama's character pretty clearly. He apparently has a sense of entitlement and lacks gratitude for those who supported him early on. Keep it in mind if you find yourself looking at a ballot with his name on it.
cheers,
Andrew
On the other hand, the volunteer's decision to try and cash out rather than cooperate with the campaign is a little short-sighted. If he really thought Obama had a shot at winning, he might have been better served to work with the campaign, maintain their official page, and use that leverage to angle for a cushy government job when Obama got elected.
Except that they made it clear to him that he would NOT be part of the future of the page. The one time payment was just a trap, and the guy fell for it. No matter how crooked they were in going about it, they can destroy his credibility by saying he was just in it for the cash. Even if he had said no to the payment offer, they would have muscled him out one way or another.
The polite thing to do would have been to split the different and give the guy some chump change for his costs and an invite to a few events as a special contributor. Would a few dinners really dent that $28 million dollar campaign?
Anyways, who cares. Obama is nothing more than a republicrat. He's riding the Bush bashing coat tails like all of the democrats but he hasn't shown anything of substance for how he is going to do things better on his watch. Preaching to the choir that Bush sucks is great and all, but what does he actually bring to the table? 4 more years of political foot play at the tax payers' expense.
Nah, if you want real change... Gore/Edwards in '08, now THAT would be an exciting 4 years.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
This is some guys personal web site, that favored Obama. He set it up YEARS before Obama was announced he was in the presidential race.
Did he ask for money? NO.
This was his baby, his project to help Obama.
Then some low level staffer says "HEY, I like your idea, only I want to run it."
He responds: "No thank you, this mine. Go make your own".
Low level greedy staffer responds "I am one laze SOB. I don't want to do the work, I just want the credit. How much to buy your work?"
Honest, hard working guy responds "Well, if the Obama campaing really wants my personal Pro Obama web site, I could sell it to you. It cost me $10 grand in outright cash, and more than 3 years worth of work. If you really don't want me to run my web site anymore, and want to run it yourself, I'll give it to you for a measily 50 grand."
Read the article first, instead of getting all huffy about who did what.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Race may not be relevant to you and I, but it appears to be for most Americans. The Republicans have been trying to appeal to the Hispanic voter for a while now, and doing a much better job at it than they are at swaying African-American voters. So an Hispanic candidate is a natural for the Dems, is all I'm saying.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Way back in the day, I built a web site around the Ultima series of computer games. Much of it was scanned copies of Origin Systems' artwork though it also contained walkthroughs, hints and similar fan-supplied stuff from various authors. I'm a big fan of the games, so I built the web site in that vein. It became the central source of information about the Ultima games on the web.
After a while, Origin came along and asked how much I'd be willing to sell it to them for. My answer? Tell me what you think is fair. After all, its their game not mine. They picked a number, I agreed and that was that.
I could have picked a number that was representative of the manpower I put in to making the site. I could have gotten in to a big fight where they accuse me of copyright infringement and I accuse them of bullying, etc. etc.
I could have, but I didn't. I didn't build the site to make money and at the end of the day it was their game, not mine. So I smiled and said, "thank you," sent them a zip file of the content and put a redirect on my web site that pointed to the site's new home.
Joseph Anthony is nobody. Its Obama's myspace profile; Anthony is just a fan. He should have turned it over along with a list of expenses and said, "pay me what you think is fair."
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I agree with your reply for the most part. The one thing that keeps getting overlooked by the majority of comments I've seen, is that Obama's campaign people asked Anthony to come up with a figure. If that figure was too much, the campaign people could have negotiated, instead of accusing him of blackmail. With all the unknowns here, I'd have to say, that a negotiation would've been better than the way this turned out.
Unless you are a realist. (?!)
Welcome to the real world, step right in!
It is very possible that Obama is not at fault here: I would guess that this is all the unilateral action of an evil campaign aid. However, I must agree with the grandparent: politicians (or at least the dirty little henchman that skulk around them) are complete scum.
I do. You don't take what isn't yours. It's a pretty old principle last time I checked. If it was really important, they would have built up their own MySpace page instead of hijacking someone elses.
How you treat the people underneath you in your daily interactions says a lot about you. How you run your campaign is the same thing. I'll be looking at what Mike Gravel has to say now, thanks.
You miss-understand who's the foolish one. The losses are MUCH greater for the Obama campaign than they are for this guy. He loses a little money, they lose a lot of people connected to Obama, some good will, and gain a little negative publicity. 50 grand is chump change to them. They also could have gained a little positive publicity by paying him the little bit of money he asked for.
Basically, a really dumb move on the part of the Obama campaign.
The situation just isn't analogous to yours. Politicians are a LOT more reliant on public opinion and personal connections than a game company is.
AccountKiller
Say after a few years, an animal shelter no longer needs the services of a volunteer dog walker because a group of professional dog handlers agree to walk the dogs. Wouldn't you think it would be a little unfair if the dog walker asked for compensation as if he worked there? The guy probably does deserve a dinner or some nice gifts for his services, but he agreed to work as a volunteer, not as an employee.
That's not a good analogy. Here's how your dogwalking idea would fit this situation better. Let's say the dogwalkers invented a machine that walked all the dogs. They spent 2.5 years working out the bugs; getting it just right. Then, the animal shelter says, "Hey, we don't need your services any more, but your machine is pretty neat. How much do you want for it?" Then, the shelter proceeds to have the cops confiscate the machine and deliver it to the shelter.
The only difference between this new scenario and the Obama MySpace flap is that there's no "real" property involved. Still a crappy way to treat someone who volunteered for you for 2.5 years.
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.
race and religion and gender are in fact very relevant - as well as the aesthetics that are commonly associated with what a president should look like. I imagine that to the average voter, those things, along with party affiliation, matter more than policy.
un burrito me trampeó.
Him deciding to value his volunteer time as if he were a contracted professional was probably out of line
If you volunteer at a nonprofit organization doing what you normally do for pay then you can usually deduct from your federal income the value of that time at your regular rates as a contribution. So when this guy got a buyout offer it's perfectly reasonable to expect him to quote back professional rates.
Besides, $49k to a serious presidential candidate is, what, less than 10 plates at an upscale donor dinner?
I bought a beat up motorcycle, and worked on getting it working again. I knew you liked riding motorcycles so lent it to you. You decided to race competitively, so wanted to own the motorcycle and asked for a price. You didn't like the price I gave, so just kept the motorcycle anyway and complained about how I was trying to rip you off.
If you volunteer at a nonprofit organization doing what you normally do for pay then you can usually deduct from your federal income the value of that time at your regular rates as a contribution. So when this guy got a buyout offer it's perfectly reasonable to expect him to quote back professional rates.
I think it depends. Maybe he did a lot more than was expected of him. It may have been a reasonable value for what he actually did, but if he'd been contracted to do it at professional rates they might never have gone forward with what he 'volunteered' doing.
I've done volunteer work, and I frequently do far more than is necessary, get the job the done perfect instead of just getting it done, or use it as a skunkworks to develop/practice new skills. Its my time, its a labor of love, so why not?
For example a professional mechanic/bodyshop working on a customers car will see a bit of rust, polish it off, and apply touch up... that same guy working on his own project car, his 'labor of love' might strip the vehicle to the frame and give it an acid wash, weld in new metal anywhere that's showing the first signs of deterioration and then repaint it.
Besides, $49k to a serious presidential candidate is, what, less than 10 plates at an upscale donor dinner?
That's really beside the point.
If they're pricks as campaign staffers, they'll be prick when it actually matters
Obama needs to spend some time with his campaign, it appears, as if he's bringing these guys to the dance it's time to spend my campaign contributions on a different candidate.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Obama, or Clinton would be disasters.
Well, that goes without saying...but now that you mention it, it is a given. But mass media is really pushing to keep them out in front, and you can be sure they expect big dividends on their "investment".
What?
Getting into the dictator's face and cursing him out is never a good strategy. Both manage to make the dictator feel less "ganged up on" and thus more likely to cooperate. Carter is considered the best negotiator we've had. I wouldn't call Richardson a pushover either. He successfully got hostages back from Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea. He's known by other nation's leaders as the guy who will be able to make a fair deal, instead of being like the French after WWI, the ones who forced heavy & unfair reparationz.
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
When I first read about Obama's MySpace fight, it looked like Joseph Anthony had been wronged. After all he did create and maintain the MySpace account. Then I noticed the name of the profile. The profile name is not "PasadenaForObama" or "ObamaFans". The profile name is "BarackObama". Anthony knew (or should have known) that his claim to ownership of the profile would always be weak to nonexistent. The amount of time and effort he spent working on the account is irrelevant.
The Obama campaign is not without fault, though. They should have never even solicited a financial offer from Anthony. Instead, the campaign should have offered signed books, buttons, shirts, and a handwritten thank you letter from Obama himself.
As a contributor to the Obama campaign myself, I would have been annoyed to see my cash pay for Obama to purchase his own name. I am disappointed that the Obama campaign made the mistake of solicited an offer, but the bottom line is that Anthony was not wronged.
dna.js
W might be many things, but conservative is absolutely NOT one of them. he was referred to by someone as being a christian socialist. probably the most accurate description I've heard.
Hmmmm... except for the Christian part. He's really not one of those. And Socialist....well, sort of in some areas.
All in all, he's really pretty much a fascist more than either or both of those.
the Goldwater/Reagan party is dead.
Not true. The Goldwater party is dead. The Reagan party is alive and well and proceeding on course.
The similarities between Bush and Reagan are far more numerous and striking than the differences. Apart from the fact that Reagan was an actor, so better at bare faced lying without sounding like a fool than Bush, I really see almost no differences between their administrations that can't be accounted for by the fact that they are looking to make "progress" in a direction and Reagan already did a lot of that, so no need to repeat it just expand on the same programs.
I often hear people who dislike Bush talking about how great Reagan was and it really blows my mind given how damn near identical their administrations are even to the people in them.
Massive overspending on a largely made up threat based on Donald Rumsfeld's falsified and doctored evidence? Check for both of them.
Massive attacks on personal liberty? Check for both of them (and most other presidents...but I digress)
Active support and promotion of terrorism? Check for both.
Actively working for religious extremists against the fundamental basis of this country? Check for both.
I mean really apart from the fact that Reagan was good at giving "inspirational" speeches while fucking the country instead of sneering and snickering while doing so what real, solid, meaningful differences do you even see between Reagan and Bush's administrations?