Christine Rousselle at Townhall, posted August 14:
The Libertarian Party has apologized after a tweet praising North Korea as having more freedom than the United States. In a series of now-deleted tweets, the official Twitter account of the Libertarian Party tweeted praise at North Korea last week for its marijuana-friendly policies, saying that it was an example of “more freedom” than the United States. On Sunday, the account backtracked and apologized for the tweet, saying that in “no universe” could the totalitarian regime be viewed as a symbol of freedom.
…
Both tweets could not be found on the account by Monday…
…
According to comments at IPR’s open thread today,
All I know for sure is that the tweets were all deleted, the LP of NH disavowed them, and, had this gone out from one of the dinosaur parties, the tweets would have been deleted even quicker and heads would have rolled.
-Anthony Dlugos
Heads did in fact “roll.” All the volunteers who were signed up to post as “LP” on twitter had their passwords taken away from them, and that tweet played a major* role in the LNC’s decision to put all social media under the thumb of approval from paid staff before anything whatsoever goes out…
-Ad Hoc
*Update: disputed by LNC Region 1 Rep Caryn Ann Harlos:
What? No it didn’t. In fact, twitter was hardly discussed and it isn’t correct that all posts require approval BEFORE they go out. For twitter that require scheduling that doesn’t translate well to twitter. It was more about fast response to pull down and after the fact review as well.
The ONLY things that were a MAJOR role in the LNC’s decision was the prior Facebook posts (there was another one a year ago and there was an issue in comments). Certainly the twitter post was in the background but that was by no means a major role, the same things would have been passed. The twitter thing certainly added gravitas but it wasn’t some looming issue.
More specifically, as IPR previously reported
The LNC voted to implement suggestions 1-6 of the Social Media Process Review Committee after an amendment by Aaron Starr to put HQ staff in charge.
The original, pre-amendment language of those suggestions was:
1) The LNC is recommended to commission the creation of an on-boarding process for all new volunteers with clear titles, responsibilities and goals attached to that position. Current positions for Facebook, for instance, are the creative team as well as the publishing team.
2) The LNC is recommended to select a point person whose duty it is to create a
management hierarchy within the social media team(s) with a clear structure with specific
duties, authority and responsibilities.3) The LNC is recommended to appoint an ultimate arbiter for social media decisions which
would also include pulling content that could be rogue or potentially damaging. We
recommend the Press Secretary should fill this position.4) The LNC is recommended to create, or appoint a point person or group, to create clear
guidelines for replying to user comments and private messages.5) The LNC is recommended to create, or appoint a point person or group, to create clear
policy for handling HR related concerns.6) The LNC is recommended to create, or appoint a point person or group, to create team
leaders who will oversee setting the direction of the social media marketing strategies which
are in line with current Libertarian Party outreach and political goals.
After the amendment, the “person or group” referred to in each instance became paid LNC staff.
The Social media process review committee was created as a result of a vote at the previous LNC meeting in Pittsburgh this April:
After several proposals on Saturday, none of which passed, a Social Media Process Review committee was created on Sunday.
The debate on that as described in draft minutes and IPR liveblogging was much more contentious than it was at the subsequent meeting in Kansas City.
The original precipitating event for the proposal to put social media volunteers under the direction of staff was two facebook posts including one around Easter time that quoted Satanic Temple principles in a positive light as part of a series about quotes from various religions that embodied libertarian principles. Both the Satanic Temple “meme” at Eastertime and the North Korean tweet controversy also came shortly before two successive LNC meetings, paving the way for relatively easy passage of the new social media policy.
“The tweet in question cited a news story about North Korea’s alleged pot-friendliness, and the message was that when even North Korea is perceived as more free than the US on X, the US has a problem vis a vis X.”
Well, shiver me timbers! The arena of electoral politicals is one in which our opponents will mangle, crimp, and crimple whatever messages we put out, and the mangled message and how it is perceived by citizens can overwhelm our original message, however sincere or correct it was. Shocking revelation!
You’re right, this was a tempest in a teapot. Because the only difference, were the LP a party of more import…one more cognizant of how voter perception can affect a message…would have been that the tweet never would have gone out in the first place, or would have been deleted and apologized for even faster.
And once again, I will add that the message is a fair one, and one that I would relish to hear from organizations in the libertarian movement that do NOT have to be concerned with demonstrating fitness and can accept the heat that comes with being an instigator, an irritant.
True, if you bothered to follow its links. If you scanned it quickly you could get a different message, as apparently some people did – ie they got negative feedback, then apologized, then pulled both the original and the apology, etc.
—–
In a series of now-deleted tweets, the official Twitter account of the Libertarian Party tweeted praise at North Korea last week for its marijuana-friendly policies, saying that it was an example of “more freedom” than the United States.
—-
Um, no. The tweet in question cited a news story about North Korea’s alleged pot-friendliness, and the message was that when even North Korea is perceived as more free than the US on X, the US has a problem vis a vis X.
Among recent attacks on the LP from e.g. Liberty Hangout and other anti-LP fake news sites, this wasn’t even a tempest in a teapot. Most such attacks at least have some basic kernel of fact that someone might find some honest way to get upset about. This “scandal” is horseshit from beginning to end.
Oh… I ignored that comment and had already forgot it, as it was non-specific, substance-free cynicism. I thought you mean that Chuck or I somehow called you a turd, and I don’t think either of us said anything remotely like that.
I don’t either, but sometimes very bad or even catastrophic decisions are well-intentioned.
There are battles to fight. This one was a no-win. I abstained. Nothing was going to change. But I do not believe the committee had any malicious intentions. It is an asset and I agreed that the CoS post was a complete faceplant (timing-wise).
==Tempest in a LNC turdpot…===
Oh yeah, yeah someone did.
No one said turd and I don’t think anyone implied it either.
I wouldn’t say you are unstrategic, but one of us is missing something here. And I think the full impact hasn’t hit the FB team yet, even conceptually. But we’ll see how implementation goes.
I don’t think it will harm Facebook, and I have been volunteering now for several years.
but hey what do I know….
I’m just an unstrategic turd.
Agreed fully again with Chuck.
I did not miss that. I think when the hammer this decision inspired actually comes down a lot of volunteers will lose interest completely. I hope I’m wrong but I do not think I am.
Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
Oh, you think this LNC is going to care or take responsibility when Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat tank? That’s adorable!
You are confusing the people on the subcommittee with the puppeteers who made a fuss about this and advocated for the motion. For example, Starr was the one who amended it to strip volunteers of leadership.
I’d suggest taking a poll of the LNC to see how many of them are on Twitter, Instagram, or Snapchat — and how many of them are active… for example, at least 1 post per week. The fact is these decisions are being made by people who have no clue whatsoever about social media. Most of them think that Facebook is the only social media out there. I can’t fathom how a committee the majority of whom are not even active on Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat are going to know or care that the LNC just neutered each of them.
It’s even worse than that… we’re all griping about how this terrible policy destroys the LP’s Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat presence (I think Trent Somes even said we would lose our Instagram entirely, as taking away management violates the contract with the person who owns and runs it now), but you all seem to be missing that this will hurt Facebook significantly too.
The motion puts all social media under the direct control of the press secretary. The press secretary hired does not even work in the national office and it was repeatedly mentioned that he would be outward facing to press rather than inward facing to LP members — that he is not a communications director. Now apparently he is managing internal messaging too.
Paulie wrote:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/08/lnc-meeting-kansas-city-august-19-20-2017/#comment-1650691
What experience does the press secretary have managing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or Snapchat? Does he have a presence on those media? The chair conducted extensive interviews to pick someone to do a given job, then Aaron Starr and the LNC completely changed the job description. Does he have experience that suggests he is prepared to now be a communications director, overseeing social media? If people knew he would be overseeing social media and the messaging of the party, would there have been more concern about vetting his ideology and messaging? Will he swing the party more moderate? More conservative? More liberal?
No one on the LNC is asking these questions or thinking about these things. Why? Because they are short term, un-strategic thinkers who can be out-maneuvered by puppeteers. 6 months from now maybe a few of you will realize what you did, but it will be far too late by that point.
As usual, there is little debate on the LNC about big decisions and a lot of debate on the LNC about irrelevant decisions. Watching this train wreck is frustrating for those of us following along at home.
Tempest in a LNC turdpot…
I don’t read it that way but Facebook was the main concern and our main asset. That problematic tweet was up for a week before anyone made a thing about it. If we can’t grow twitter etc under the new policy, I expect it will be revised. But something did need to be done, and I don’t think it was the view of this committee to destroy social media and it isn’t going to destroy Facebook. Very little is going to change with Facebook.
The relevant portion here is on pages 9-10:
Cross posted from comment on two other articles but relevant to those reading this discussion only:
First draft of minutes
http://192.168.1.1:8181/http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/attachments/20170825/4f32bcf4/attachment-0001.pdf
Agreed with Chuck both on interpretation and analysis.
The language seems to apply to all social media, including Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Yes, it would kill all social media except Facebook. Based on who was pushing this I think that was the point of the motion.
It was a terrible motion. The LNC is shortsighted and very deferential to committees stacked with people of a singular view though, so that’s not surprising at all. Hopefully a future LNC can pick up the pieces of social media now that this committee has decimated it, but I suspect it will take 3-4 years to build back up to where we were before the neutering.
It may be worth clarifying on LNC list. I could be wrong as well, which was why I checked with Ken earlier if I misunderstood.
I could be wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time. Shocking I know.
The way I understood it was as a point person/team that would be more responsible for social media beyond what the APRC does and could pull the trigger on a post if need be and offer some review and critique. I never took it to mean that literally everything had to be reviewed first – that would kill other mediums other than Facebook.
Then it should have been worded better to make that clear, because as it is worded now it lends itself to the interpretation that it applies to all social media. Hopefully that is not the way it will be implemented but that is the literal interpretation of the language.
I agree about twitter. I’ve never used snapchat or instagram but I have been told they are even more fast-moving than twitter so if you don’t reply instantaneously you become irrelevant.
I hope that you are correct and that I am misreading them.
==My understanding of the verbal arguments I listened to is that this arbiter, now clarified to be LNC staff, would have to approve anything and everything before it goes out.==
No that is not what was passed. Perhaps that is how it will work out, but that is not the case presently with twitter or Instagram and cannot be with snapchat.
==And if it’s only about after the fact review why does #3 say “also include pulling content that could be rogue or potentially damaging.”? If it was only about that, APRC already could do that and the word also would have been superfluous, no?==
The APRC already can do a pre-review and does for Facebook – that obviously has holes in it which led to the situations we are talking about. And no, it was not clear that APRC itself could pull a post. We waited until Nick said to pull the trigger. I was the one who pulled the CoS post but only after Nick approved it though that was my recommendation from the beginning. It says all social media because I expect these guidelines will propogate to all forms, but not each thing is applicable to each one. Such as snapchat. And the “also” was specifically about twitter – we were anticipating social media that is done extemporaneously. Yes twitter can be scheduled. It somewhat ruins the dynamic and certainly cannot be done with Snapchat (and I don’t think there is a good client to do it with Instagram).
==I was told differently but that’s why it’s good to get more than one perspective. If the twitter firestorm was not a major factor, why was the policy passed with so much less debate this time?==
Because the recommendations were measured and did not suffer from the flaws of last time, people had time to think about it and not make a rash decision, and I think everyone was willing to harken to the recommendations of the committee we appointed. I think it could have been a bit different (I believe I abstained) but overall, it would have been disingenuous to insist on a committee and then utterly disregard their findings.
better slow than antagonistic & stupid.
commenting to subscribe
When I was volunteering with twitter I did scheduling, so that’s not impossible. It does slow things down though.
But Guidelines 1-6 of the Social Media Policy refer to “social media,” not just facebook. As far as I can tell they apply to all social media, and that was Ken’s understanding also when I asked him. Specifically #3
My understanding of the verbal arguments I listened to is that this arbiter, now clarified to be LNC staff, would have to approve anything and everything before it goes out. That was Ken’s understanding as well when I talked to him.
And if it’s only about after the fact review why does #3 say “also include pulling content that could be rogue or potentially damaging.”? If it was only about that, APRC already could do that and the word also would have been superfluous, no?
I was told differently but that’s why it’s good to get more than one perspective. If the twitter firestorm was not a major factor, why was the policy passed with so much less debate this time?
==… that tweet played a major role in the LNC’s decision to put all social media under the thumb of approval from paid staff before anything whatsoever goes out…==
What? No it didn’t. In fact, twitter was hardly discussed and it isn’t correct that all posts require approval BEFORE they go out. For twitter that require scheduling that doesn’t translate well to twitter. It was more about fast response to pull down and after the fact review as well.
The ONLY things that were a MAJOR role in the LNC’s decision was the prior Facebook posts (there was another one a year ago and there was an issue in comments). Certainly the twitter post was in the background but that was by no means a major role, the same things would have been passed. The twitter thing certainly added gravitas but it wasn’t some looming issue.