Login to Change.org
Use Facebook to connect with friends and mobilize your social network.
Create an Account
Kjerstin Erickson
Petaluma, CA
Recent Activity
-
Kjerstin signed the petition | -
Kjerstin signed the petition | -
Kjerstin signed the petition | -
Kjerstin signed the petition | -
Kjerstin commented on the article |54 comments that say that exact same thing...oh man...this is really bringing out the best in people and making sure the best man wins, eh??
In case anyone is listening I'm going to refer back to my original post on the subject, which talks about what all this time and attention means for nonprofits and their constituents:
-
Kjerstin commented on the article |
Hi Noelle,
Thanks for sharing your perspective - it's good to hear. You're right that people do sometimes tag their friends in photos that they think they would find entertaining. I've never before seen someone put up the same photo a dozen times and tag their whole address book in any of these things, but when there is $1 million dollars on the line obviously organizations will go to extremes.
To be fair to Invisible Children, I did just find that another Chase competitor is doing this (and publicly asking their network to do it). It is the organization "TWOLA (To Write Love on Her Arms). I dont know if they were inspired by Invisible Children's strategy or not.
Here is what they posted today:
"2. Change your profile pic to match ours and then tag 50 friends. This way, the image will show up on their page. Include the voting link in the caption so that people know exactly what to do:
Here's a suggested caption: "Please vote for TWLOHA to win $1 million for suicide prevention:http://bit.ly/7si7Be"Glad this can be talked about and that basic ethics around how to go about these voting contests can hopefully be established.
-
Kjerstin commented on the article |
Hi Lee,
I'll start by saying that the common reaction to such stories to 'shoot the messenger' is the exact reason why these stories don't get talked about enough (as Kevin said). Ultimately, you can draw whatever conclusion you want about my motives in sharing something that concerned me. If you go back through my blogs, you'll see that the topic of online voting contests and the incentives and externalities that they create for the nonprofit world is something that I have been paying (and calling) close attention to. We're talking about real money and real opportunity cost on the line...these things need to be talked about (and there are a lot of people who care).
The analogy of gay rights is meant to be provocative. As someone who has spent the last six years trying to understand and deconstruct and achieve effective and responsible international development, you have to respect the fact that I take very seriously what approaches/organizations/strategies I support and those that I do not. Unfortunately, to the general public, international development is often seen as a monolith - it's all a good cause, its all helping poor people, everyone is well-intentioned, etc. The sad reality is that international development is one of (if not the most) complex type of social change. There are real lives and real futures on the line. For those that want to make a difference, selecting the right organization and strategy and approach is critical. We as a sector need to recognize that and stop treating every intervention and approach as either equal or deserving. That only does a disservice to those in need.
This has nothing to do with whether Invisible Children is a good cause or impactful organization. That can and should be left to each individual to decide. What was dubious about this approach is that it indicated to my network that I had decided - and that I had decided in favor - of an organization that didn't give me the choice myself.
-
Kjerstin commented on the article |
Suppose you are gay, or are a major supporter of gay rights. Suppose that someone in your network decided to tag you in a photo that stated “I voted for the Anti-Gay Marriage Coalition”. You got an email sometime in the middle of the night, but couldn’t get on or on Facebook to see what photo you were tagged in (and untag it if necessary) for, say, 12 hours. In the meantime, hundreds of your friends had seen the post and been mislead about your beliefs. Would you be so happy about this?
Please understand that the same thing is going on any time this tactic is used on someone that hasn’t explicitly expressed their beliefs in a cause. The argument that something is “a great cause” and “helping thousands of people” is, IMO, just BS. I can think of dozens of causes that some people would consider great but that I consider to be mediocre at best (definitely wouldn’t recommend people spend their resources on), and actually working against my vision for a better world at worst. Either way, I don’t want anyone else trying to game Facebook’s system in order to access MY social capital and suggest to MY network what I believe in.
As Nathaniel said, social change deserves the very best. I take/took the 5 votes I have in the second round of the Chase competition very seriously, because there is serious money on the line. Moreover, because I work in the nonprofit and international development sphere, I have a certain influence on the subjects of what is a good or not good cause. I don’t appreciate people trying to circumvent Facebook’s system in order to suggest to my network what I believe in. Period.
-
Kjerstin commented on the article |
The issue here is *specifically* with tagging photos. Facebook has an amazing and unprecedented social photo-sharing system that relies on the ‘tagging’ system to function. Because photos are the thing people are most interested in/spend most their time on Facebook (basically its stickiest and thus most monetizable feature), whenever someone is tagged in a photo it automatically shows up in the newsfeed of their entire network.
Tagging someone in a photo is the *only action* you can do to someone else that will show up in the live feeds of THEIR entire network. All the other actions I mentioned above will show up, at maximum, only in the live feeds of the individual who performed the action. It’s one thing for me to ask my 1000 friends to vote for a cause I care about – after all they are MY friends – it’s a whole nother thing entirely to try to get each 1000 friends of my 1000 friends (who couldn’t give less of crap about who I am) to vote for a cause I care about.
Obviously, this is a crafty and strategic move on Invisible Children’s part. And let’s be honest here – it WAS strategic. I didn’t get a single message, wall post, or chat asking me to vote for IC. If there was a status update, I didn’t see it (such is the downside of status messages). IC is smart when it comes to marketing - they know the Facebook system, and they exploited it in a way that makes at least me very uncomfortable.
I understand and respect the fact that Luke and Rebecca support Invisible Children and belive that they are “an amazing cause” (Luke) and “well-respected organization” (Rebecca). Assumedly you wouldn’t be bothered if someone tagged you in a photo that made your network believe that you had voted for them. But lets think for a moment here..
(Continued below)
-
Kjerstin commented on the article |
A few thoughts here...
1) I can confirm that the person who tagged me is formally employed by Invisible Children. She is their Book Drive Manger (raising money for them through Better World Books). I know her because she used to work for BWB directly.
2) The person who tagged my friend is another individual entirely (someone I don’t know). Going through the album, you can see that she has put up 13 of these exact photos and systematically tagged her friend list in alphabetical order (Facebook puts a limit on how many people you can tag in one photo). In the photo description she states that she works for Invisible Children.
3) Nathaniel was very careful to say that there wasn’t indication that IC was promoting this strategy centrally. However, there actually IS plenty of indication that they were (see above). They are using the same image, and it is clearly centrally organized.
4) Steve and Rebecca’s comments seemed to display a lack of understanding of Facebook mechanics. I think its important that people understand that tagging someone in a photo is very different from sending them a message, writing on their wall, messaging them, or just posting a status update. Here’s a basic rundown of basic communication actions you can do on Facebook:
a) Post a status update – (Public, will show up on your profile and appear in your friends’ newsfeed, but no one will be emailed about it.
b) Send a message (Private – only the sender and the receiver(s) can see it. The recipient often gets an email about the message)
c) Write on someone’s wall (Public – will show up in the live feeds of those who are friends with both individuals. The person whose wall it is often emailed.)
d) Use Facebook chat (private and peer-to-peer)
All of the above methods of communication are totally legitimate ways of asking one’s network to vote for something they care about. I’ve used all of them. If my friends are sick of me posting or don’t support the cause, they can always unfriended me (as I’m sure some have), but there will be no harm done.
(continued below_
Impact
4 Actions
0 Recruits
Top Causes
|
1 Action
|
1 Action
|
Organizations
-
People For the American Way1 Action 0 Recruits -
CREDO Action1 Action 0 Recruits
