Slashdot Mirror
Social Sites Offer 'New' Way To Experience Presidential Debates
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."
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.
/. firehose on any given day. Mercifully, they don't usually make the front page.
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
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.