By Alan Rosenblatt, Ph.D., Executive Director, Internet Advocacy Center, Editor, MovingIdeas.org
Perhaps the biggest fear organizations face when considering creating a blog, discussion forum, or venturing into the world of online social networks is the “threat” of negative comments from the external community. This sense of fear is born of a long–held belief among traditional issue managers that you never repeat or provide a platform for your opponents’ message. But as I have been known to say, the Internet has rewritten this rule, in practice, even as research in the psychology of persuasion has never supported the belief.
In the old world, campaigns were all about tight message control. Advocacy groups and candidates spent enormous staff and budget resources to develop finely honed messages, clever turns of phrases, and catchy slogans. In the days when contrary information was difficult to obtain, this tight control of the message worked very well. And it still does for citizens who do not use the Internet.
But the number of people not online, or not influenced by someone else who is online, is fast dwindling. In our brave new world, the world of Google, Yahoo, and Technorati, it is easier than ever to research the facts behind any campaign’s message. Today, if you get an email or read on a website a one-sided message about a public policy message, it is incredibly easy, and thus likely to happen, to open up Google and go searching for the other side of the issue.
And what happens when someone finds the other side’s website? They jump from yours to theirs and start reading all the reasons why your perspective is wrong. And worse still, they are reading it in your opponent’s context. You have lost all opportunity to frame the debate, to match their criticisms with your own rejoinders.
In addition to being able to frame criticism of your position in a manner that highlights your arguments, scholarly research in the psychology of persuasion has repeatedly demonstrated that presenting your opponents arguments as part of your message increases both your credibility and your persuasiveness.
That’s right, scientific research has long demonstrated that the old world strategy of never repeating the arguments of your opponents is actually counterproductive.
With this in mind, let’s return to the question of providing a forum where your opponents can chime in and argue against your message. Whether it is a discussion forum, an interactive blog, or a profile page on MySpace, Facebook, Care2, or any other online social network, it is rarely, if ever, a good idea to censor the discussion. Rather than try to censor opposing views, invite them and engage them. You will find that your audience will love you for it.
If you are worried about profanity and personal attacks, just post rules of engagement in your “about” section and then you can feel comfortable deleting abusive comments. But deleting substantive comments when they simply oppose you is a recipe for disaster in an online forum. And, as I argue above, there really is no need.
Alan Rosenblatt, a long time veteran in the field of Internet Politics. He has published many articles and is a frequent lecturer on Internet politics. As the Executive Director of the Internet Advocacy Center, he brings more than fifteen years of experience in the field of digital politics.
Dr. Rosenblatt currently serves as Editor of the Moving Ideas Network, a contributing editor to Politics Online, a member of the Tools-Peer-Review Subcommittee at the New Organizing Institute, a member of the steering committee for the Progressive Communicators of DC (PCDC), a member of the editorial board for the Journal of Information Technology and Politics, a member of the Advisory Board for DemocraticGAIN, and Washington Bureau Chief for Media Bureau Networks.
Don't Live in Fear Online--Let Users Post Comments!
Perhaps the biggest fear organizations face when considering creating a blog, discussion forum, or venturing into the world of online social networks is the “threat” of negative comments from the external community. This sense of fear is born of a long–held belief among traditional issue managers that you never repeat or provide a platform for your opponents’ message. But as I have been known to say, the Internet has rewritten this rule, in practice, even as research in the psychology of persuasion has never supported the belief.
In the old world, campaigns were all about tight message control. Advocacy groups and candidates spent enormous staff and budget resources to develop finely honed messages, clever turns of phrases, and catchy slogans. In the days when contrary information was difficult to obtain, this tight control of the message worked very well. And it still does for citizens who do not use the Internet.
But the number of people not online, or not influenced by someone else who is online, is fast dwindling. In our brave new world, the world of Google, Yahoo, and Technorati, it is easier than ever to research the facts behind any campaign’s message. Today, if you get an email or read on a website a one-sided message about a public policy message, it is incredibly easy, and thus likely to happen, to open up Google and go searching for the other side of the issue.
And what happens when someone finds the other side’s website? They jump from yours to theirs and start reading all the reasons why your perspective is wrong. And worse still, they are reading it in your opponent’s context. You have lost all opportunity to frame the debate, to match their criticisms with your own rejoinders.
In addition to being able to frame criticism of your position in a manner that highlights your arguments, scholarly research in the psychology of persuasion has repeatedly demonstrated that presenting your opponents arguments as part of your message increases both your credibility and your persuasiveness.
That’s right, scientific research has long demonstrated that the old world strategy of never repeating the arguments of your opponents is actually counterproductive.
With this in mind, let’s return to the question of providing a forum where your opponents can chime in and argue against your message. Whether it is a discussion forum, an interactive blog, or a profile page on MySpace, Facebook, Care2, or any other online social network, it is rarely, if ever, a good idea to censor the discussion. Rather than try to censor opposing views, invite them and engage them. You will find that your audience will love you for it.
If you are worried about profanity and personal attacks, just post rules of engagement in your “about” section and then you can feel comfortable deleting abusive comments. But deleting substantive comments when they simply oppose you is a recipe for disaster in an online forum. And, as I argue above, there really is no need.
Alan Rosenblatt, a long time veteran in the field of Internet Politics. He has published many articles and is a frequent lecturer on Internet politics. As the Executive Director of the Internet Advocacy Center, he brings more than fifteen years of experience in the field of digital politics.
Dr. Rosenblatt currently serves as Editor of the Moving Ideas Network, a contributing editor to Politics Online, a member of the Tools-Peer-Review Subcommittee at the New Organizing Institute, a member of the steering committee for the Progressive Communicators of DC (PCDC), a member of the editorial board for the Journal of Information Technology and Politics, a member of the Advisory Board for DemocraticGAIN, and Washington Bureau Chief for Media Bureau Networks.
Jordan Wait
COMMENTS
RELATED ARTICLES
Moving Ideas: A Higher Order Social Network
Why Nonprofits Need to Grow their Online Lists
New Study Shows Millennials Want To Make A Global Difference