The proof is in le pudding…

After last week’s blog about control of the internet, I’m really interested to see a fabulous, live example of what can happen when people try to limit and control the flow of information (albeit outside our sector…)

The example in question is yesterday’s presidential election in France. Under French law, there are strict bans (with severe fines of up to 75,000 euros for anyone breaching them) on any kind of public communication on the day of a presidential election up until the time voting booths close at 8pm:

• no polls can be published
  
• no electoral publications can be circulated
  
• no broadcasts can be made.
  

For this election, it was made clear by the authorities that this ban extended to social media. Now, there have always been ways of by-passing the ban: the media of other Francophone countries (for example, Belgium and Switzerland) have not been able to be prevented from continuing their coverage on election day. And French citizens have been able to access these.

But this time, making it clear that they found the French laws outdated and inappropriate for today, creative Tweeters found their own ways of circumventing the law, using fairly obvious coded references to the various candidates, including: 

• ‘Gouda’ for Francois Hollande 
• ‘Rolex’ for Sarkozy. 

They used these to let each other know how the election seemed to be going (‘The sea temperature is 16 degrees’ being a reference to far Right candidate, Marine le Pen’s 16% share of the vote at one point during the day). 

In homage to codes broadcast to Resistance fighters in Nazi-occupied France from the BBC during World War II, tweeters yesterday used the hashtag #RadioLondres and it became the top France trend on Twitter for the day.

What’s clear to me is that it’s human nature not to like being told you can’t do something – especially if the ban doesn’t make any sense to you. And social media like Twitter gives individuals new opportunities to do their own thing in the face of what they see as nonsensical and old-fashioned restrictions.

Late last night, the French authorities were making noises suggesting they would  prosecute, though it isn’t yet clear who they will target. It will be really interesting to see if any tweeters are targeted – and what happens next…

Whatever the legal outcome, the lesson to us is clear: if you want to engage with people, control at your peril! 

Read more 

• Frustrated Twitter users circumvent French election law: http://www.france24.com/en/20120422-frustrated-twitter-users-circumvent-french-election-law-world-war-two-codes?ns_campaign=editorial&ns_source=RSS_public&ns_mchannel=RSS&ns_fee=0&ns_linkname=20120422_frustrated_twitter_users_circumvent_french_election
  
• The Guardian’s update on reactions to the election (including intention to prosecute): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/french-election-blog-2012/2012/apr/23/french-elections-2012-france-reaction?newsfeed=true
  
• New York Times about the use of Twitter on Sunday: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/world/europe/french-use-twitter-to-share-early-election-results.html?_r=2&ref=world
  
• Some of the best of yesterday’s tweets (warning: in French): http://www.gizmodo.fr/2012/04/22/les-meilleurs-tweets-de-radiolondres.html
  
• Wikipedia on French elections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_France 
  

How badly do we need to be in control? Why it’s good to let go…

I read an interesting post by Karina Brisby of shiftLabs this week, suggesting that Google may have ‘cracked the conversational approach to digital campaigning’. 

Personally, I think it’s too early to tell. It looks as though lots of people are putting in their twopennyworth and saying what the power of the internet is to them. It’s great to read comments from people all over the world, reflecting the different ways they use and value the internet. But quite where Google will take this, we’ll have to wait and see.

The thing that most grabbed my attention in the post was this phrase: 

‘Do you think your organisation would be able be flexible enough with their message or lack [of] control of the conversation to use this approach?’

In my experience, any potential lack of control is frightening – no, terrifying - to most NGOs and particularly to their senior management. Most NGOs are enormously reliant on their profile and are understandably nervous of anything that might compromise it. 

However, we’ve known for years now that the internet is strongest and most powerful when it is allowed to just ‘get on with it’. For example, forums that self-moderate – where the members can flag abusive posts for removal – are considerably more successful than forums neatly and carefully pre-moderated by staff members. 

The continuing rise of the popularity of social media is another example of this. There is something deeply attractive about getting involved with something that is full of life, about getting to say your piece and being heard. Yes, there is a little more risk for an organisation, perhaps some visitors may get a little muddled… But you can always comment, point out any misunderstandings – perhaps this even offers you the chance to be even clearer about what you really stand for?

Most of us would probably agree with Amnesty International’s pledge, Irrepressible Info, which states

"I believe the Internet should be a force for political freedom, not repression. People have the right to seek and receive information and to express their peaceful beliefs online without fear or interference. I call on governments to stop the unwarranted restriction of freedom of expression on the Internet - and on companies to stop helping them do it."

But quite how far down are we willing to filter this freedom within our own organisations and our relationships with our supporters? I’d like to suggest it should be a lot further than most of us are currently comfortable with.

Read more

• Has Google actually cracked the conversational approach to digital campaigning? http://www.shiftlabs.org/has-google-actually-cracked-conversational-ap
  
• Discussion against internet content control: http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.21/igf 
  
• Google’s Take Action: https://www.google.com/takeaction/start-something/#
  

4 figures that will improve your web writing

I’ve been doing a lot of work recently helping people learn how to write effectively for the web. It isn’t hard to do – but you do have to remember that it isn’t the same as writing for print. It has its own rules: once you get them under your belt, you’re on your way.

What I’ve found is that specifics are really helpful – because you can quickly see whether you’re doing it right. So I give people numbers that will (hopefully) stick in their minds. Here are four which you can easily check for in your web writing (listed in ascending numerical order):

1. Have just 1 main idea in each paragraph.
   
2. Keep paragraphs to 3-5 sentences.
   
3. Keep sentences to 15-20 words.
   
4. Keep your main heading to a maximum of 65 characters (for the sake of Search Engine Optimisation – SEO)
   

Apply these to your web writing and it will immediately improve!

Read more

10 tips for writing effective web copy: http://www.suefidler.com/resources

The cookie debate continues & the clock keeps ticking: what should we actually be doing?

Following our very recent update on the EU’s cookie directive (due to come into force this May), I see that the debate is far from over as to what we should be doing, which is more than a little confusing.

A rather interesting econsultancy blog, asks whether the UK government might be crumbling about the issue. As the post says, the Government’ own Digital Service (GDS) sees web analytics as being ‘essential to the effective operation of government websites’, something which is most effectively achieved ‘at present [by] the setting of cookies’. The GDS points out that web analytics cookies are ‘minimally intrusive’ and ‘tends to be controlled by the first-party’. And it concludes with a statement in the Information Commissioner’s Guidance, which states:

Provided clear information is given about their activities we are unlikely to prioritise first-party cookies used only for analytical purposes in any consideration of regulatory action.

That is, it makes it sound as though anybody using first-party cookies for analytics is unlikely to be prosecuted, an opinion which has led the GDS to decide not to change to opt-in, despite the directive requiring this.

The post has led to significant comment and discussion, which makes very interesting reading. Opinions vary as to how (un)wise the GDS is to admit to this, whether business could follow suit, whether the GDS has insider knowledge, whether we should now be delaying before responding to the directive etc etc.

I found myself fascinated by the debate – but in the end, what I most want to know is what we should actually do. And reading through, I found the following short list in a comment by Alisdair Wightman, Digital Analyst at So What Analytic. I think this makes really good sense: 

1. Carry out a thorough audit of your site so you know exactly what tracking functionality you use there, not just cookies.
   
2. Review your privacy policy – and rewrite it if necessary so that it is easy to understand. Make sure that it’s placed where all site visitors can easily see it. 
   
3. Make opting out – and the implications of doing so - as easy as possible for site visitors. 
   
4. Be prepared that implementation may get stricter at some stage, forcing you to get site visitors to opt in (which is what the directive actually says). Make sure you are ready for this by having a credible technical solution ready, along with a detailed plan showing how you are going to handle the change to opt-in.
   

Finally, as always, please be aware that we aren’t lawyers – so this is only our thinking and shouldn’t be sees as a substitute for legal advice.

Read more

• EU cookie law: UK government crumbles?  http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/9416-eu-cookie-law-uk-government-crumbles?utm_medium=email&utm_source=daily_pulse
  
• Information Commissioner’s Guidance on the rules on the use of cookies and similar technologies: http://www.ico.gov.uk/news/latest_news/2011/~/media/documents/library/Privacy_and_electronic/Practical_application/guidance_on_the_new_cookies_regulations.ashx