Web campaigning put into perspective

As a blogger that works at the intersection of presidential campaigning and the web, it is easy for me to take the Internet for granted. But taking a step back with this post, I have realized three things:

1. Not everybody has access to the Internet and uses social media.

For all the talk about tweeting, posting and instagraming, the fact is that there are still areas of France that lack high-speed Internet access and aren’t as connected as the rest of the population is. You can find out much more about the fracture numérique (digital fracture, or digital divide) here. One striking figure is that only 34% of lower income households have a personal computer whereas higher income households are almost fully equipped at 87.1%. Any digital campaigning is therefore completely lost on the former, even though there have been efforts to get isolated or poorer populations on the grid.

2. Digital themes are relatively absent from the campaign.

The 2012 campaign is economy focused, with obscure side-shows like the halal meat debate. But nothing remotely close to a digital debate has emerged between the candidates, and their ideas on the topic remain very vague. The only issue that every candidate has had to position him or herself on was Hadopi, but even then the platforms were limited to keeping it or ditching it. The only reason anybody is talking about the Conseil National du Numérique (National Digital Council) this week is because of a mini-scandal caused by its director that hardly has anything to do with le numérique. François Hollande revealed his digital platform this week: it has interesting concepts such as a digital habeas corpus or open government data on the one hand, but the absence of concrete economic measures to support the digital economy on the other hand. In any case, his announcement barely got any traction with the media or the other candidates.

3. Despite all the talk about web campaigning, the Internet still isn’t the defining election media.

Even the seemingly omnipresent web campaign is misleading. Every candidate now has a strategy for mobilizing online, but traditional media, especially television, are still the main target. I’ve written extensively about this topic on the blog, and so far we have seen that social media help mobilize activists, not ordinary voters; that an exclusive web debate never saw the light; or that the web-initiatives undertaken by candidates to circumvent CSA regulations had little effect. All in all, the web is a tool that candidates are increasingly aware of, but 2012 is no more 2.0 than 2007 was, and others have reached similar conclusions. The use of web-based tools is often minimal. The full potential of social media is never exploited; instead of taking advantage of the networks to foster bottom-up contributions, initiatives are still very much top-down. All Nicolas Sarkozy’s Twitter feed does, most of the time, is reproduce quotes from his speeches, which is probably the most underwhelming use of Twitter you could imagine.

Everything isn’t so bleak. The web has given citizens the chance to parody, mock and debate about their politicians, as with Nicolas Sarkozy’s “real” Facebook Timeline. Some web media like Mediapart have been able to use the web for long, interesting and hard-hitting debates with the candidates without the constraining CSA regulations on television.

But the fact remains: everybody doesn’t have or use the Internet for political information, candidates have barely talked about digital themes and their web campaigning doesn’t use the full potential of Internet-based tools and networks. The turning point might be when the generation that actually grew up with the web comes to power. 

(For more, listen to this interesting France Culture show on the digital campaign, in French)

Hadopi: where do the candidates stand?

Hadopi was one of French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s most criticized creations but its very existence is now threathed with the upcoming elections.

 The acronym stands for Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des Oeuvres et la Protection des droits sur Internet, i.e. the High Authority for the Diffusion of Works and the Protection of Rights on the Internet. Instated by law in 2009 and set up in 2010, Hadopi is an administrative body aimed at fighting online piracy and illegal downloading. Following a so-called “three strike” policy, it has the power to warn users and even suspend their Internet access for up to a year. Individuals can be charged for failing to secure their Internet connection and have to continue paying their subscription during the suspension (Vanity Fair, of all publications, has a more detailed explanation here). See below for the type of warning letter that is sent.

View this document on Scribd

Hadopi came under heavy criticism two years ago, and is still decried as a costly and inefficient body. For opponents of Nicolas Sarkozy it became yet another symbol of disregard for civil liberties and repressive policies, even though the initial plan to bypass judges for the suspension of Internet connections was dropped in the final draft. It also became a symbol of political spheres disconnected from the realities and practices of the world wide web today. Critics scoffed at the first ad campaign (see video below), which suggested Hadopi was protecting the small, emerging talents of tomorrow even though the legislation was pushed through by big film and music industry lobbies. Hadopi also looked foolish when it was revealed the initial logo violated copyright.

As a result, any serious challenger to Nicolas Sarkozy has had to position his or herself on the matter, despite the absence of a general debate on digital topics. Where do they stand today?

Nicolas Sarkozy isn’t backing down and wants to keep Hadopi, even going as far as to propose giving it powers to strike down streaming. Even the agency itself doing self-promotion for the campaign. Last week it released an optimistic report on the decrease of illegal peer-to-peer file exchanges, which still failed to convince digital actors. François Hollande recently revealed his plan for replacing Hadopi by a new law, the details of which still aren’t clear.

For the positions of all the candidates, check out the graph below (CC/by-nd), that if found here.

 (Maintenue = maintained, repensée = rethought, abrogée = abolished)

Sarkozy proposes censorship of terrorist websites after Toulouse shooting

In the aftermath of the shootings in Montauban and Toulouse, French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced that the government wanted to make visiting websites that promote terrorism, hate or violence a crime. Skip to the 2 minute mark in the video below to see the announcement. The video is in French but I have translated his statement below.

From now now, any person who regularly consults web sites that glorify terrorism or that call for hate or violence will be penally punished.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpm4r5_mort-de-mohamed-merah-l-intervention-de-nicolas-sarkozy_news

French tech website PC Inpact noted that the proposal would extend the breadth of an existing law against pedophilia and pedo-pornography online. But Sarkozy’s remarks provoked an immediate backlash online, where many criticized the proposal as an inefficient short-term reaction to the tragic events in Toulouse. Web users called out the measure for what it really was, i.e. censorship.

https://twitter.com/Clyde_Barrow_/status/182932992468062208

(So Sarkozy’s platform is really 1984, in reference to George Orwell’s novel)

After Marine Le Pen last week, Sarkozy has therefore decided that censorship was the best tool to fight against an undesired phenomenon (pornography in her case, terrorism in his). But even without considering the dangers of his proposal – unprecedented State power to determine what constitutes terrorism or what is potentially violent – the measure has many practical faults.

First, although the legal framework would make it possible, it would be technically difficult to implement such a measure given the complexities of the world wide web today (proxies, for instance, is an easy counter measure). Even the identification of the Toulouse shooter through an IP address took longer than one would think. Only a so-called Deep Packet Inspection would enable to effectively monitor connections, but at an unacceptable price for civil liberties.

Another difficulty is that would-be terrorists are not the only ones that consult the targeted websites: sociologists, journalists, historians and other professionals or scholars do to.

https://twitter.com/martelf/status/182810442949853185

Giving these professional categories an ‘authorization’ to browse terrorist websites is not a solution either. If  a journalist can consult a website for his work, why shouldn’t a normal citizen be able to if he wants to inform himself? Sarkozy’s proposal mere hours after the shooter’s death also begs the question: does he really think keeping individuals like Mohamed Merah from visiting terrorist websites will prevent them from murdering people?

Vous croyez sérieusement qu'empêcher les terroristes de lire les empêchera de tuer ? http://t.co/80HxO2ge #Sarkozysme

— jean marc manach @manhack@social.tcit.fr (@manhack) March 22, 2012

Finally, even if such a law were to pass (Sarkozy backtracked on his calendar and has now postponed the decision to after the elections), it would be struck down by the European Human Rights Court or by the Conseil Constitutionnel, which have both proven their aptitude at defending civil liberties.

To sum up, Sarkozy’s proposal is as hasty as useless as was French swimmer Laure Manadou’s Twitter comment after the shooting in Toulouse.

(Remove those stupid video games and things will be better!)

Marine Le Pen backtracks on web pornography censorship

National Front candidate Marine Le Pen (above) isn’t the kind of politician who shies away from polemics. She is at the head of one of France’s more controversial political parties, which despite its “dediabolization” strategy has had a hard time portraying itself as a normal, right-wing movement. So it might come as a surprise for many that Marine Le Pen backtracked so quickly this week on the censorship of pornography on the web.

In an interview with the youth branch of extreme-right catholic group Intitut Civitas, Le Pen made the following statement through her culture advisor, Françoise Buy Rebaud (emphasis mine):

Q: How do you plan to unambiguously fight against pornography on television and on the Internet?

A: Censorship, even if the word displeases; this concerns youth protection; indeed how can you be surprised by the multiplication of sexual offenses and crimes, when the media put it on display in what one could call an inciting way.

The interview contained many other traditionally conservative statements, such as the opposition to same-sex marriage. But this particular answer was immediately picked up by the press because Le Pen has strived to portray herself as a staunch defender of Internet freedom. Here is an extract of her platform on culture (emphasis mine):

Internet – Communication is not only for press groups, it concerns all French people, notably through audiovisual media on the Internet (blogs, forums, etc.). Their freedom of expression must be guaranteed and reinforced in this field. A global license will be instated for privates exchanges on the Internet, which much remain free. The freedom of Internet will be firmly defended against all attempts (HADOPI, LOPPSI 2, ACTA Treaty) aiming for various reasons to restrain it.

Le Pen’s position on Internet freedom is a long standing one, to the point where digital-focused news site Numerama had to concede that her platform (as presented in the video below) was more coherent and favorable to Internet freedom than most candidates.

But this libertarian approach to the Internet invariably clashed with the goals of conservative groups like the Institut Civitas, which is infamous for protesting against any cultural event it deems blasphemous. So when the news broke that Le Pen was apparently flip-flopping on her pledge to keep the web free, the question was which group – conservative Catholics or web activists – she would side with. She answered on Twitter that same day:

Marine Le Pen veut censurer Internet:
Dans une interview à une association ultra-catholique, Marine Le Pen fai... http://t.co/Km9OV3Kl

— Numerama (@Numerama) March 13, 2012

@numerama je suis contre la #censure sur Internet ; mon propos concernait les logiciels de contrôle parental trop peu efficaces. MLP

— Marine Le Pen (@MLP_officiel) March 13, 2012

(I am against censorship on the Internet, I was talking about inefficient parental control software).

Albeit weak – the original interview makes no mention whatsoever of parental control software – this line of defense showed Le Pen was sticking to her original platform. My analysis is that she is sufficiently conservative on many other issues for the extreme-right electorate to stick with her, but that the only position the web-savvy crowd might cling to in order to vote for her is the Internet freedom stance. Overall, this about-face shows the difficulties of normalizing a party that was founded on  staunch extreme-right positions: the old conservative crowd always clashes with the new one.

Political blogs adapt to social media intensive 2012

Social media is in, blogs are out, according to a recent Rue89 article entitled “RIP: the political blog is a state of clinical death.” The 2012 presidential campaign is supposedly social media oriented whereas the 2007 one relied more on blogs. But even though other news sites have reached similar conclusions, reality is more complicated than the piece suggests.

According to the Wiktionary, a blog is:

A website that allows users to reflect, share opinions, and discuss various topics in the form of an online journal while readers may comment on posts.

In other words, contrary to a social network, a blog is a static website, not a sharing platform. There is, of course, the ability to comment and link to other pages, but a blog does not enable you to share and interact as quickly, easily and seamlessly as social media do. This post considers only political blogs, i.e. blogs by politicians, activists, sympathizers or netizens that deal with politics.

Today, political blogs are at a disadvantage:

– Social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter are much more widespread today than they were five years ago. There were barely 4 million French Facebook users in 2007; today there are nearly 25 million. This means that candidates eager to reach out towards voters online are going to target these social networks first, and that political junkies who used to or still blog have taken to social media to spread their message. Social media are also much more suited to the rapid-fire, back and forth communication wars that campaigns wage against each other. Here are a few examples:

Avec #Hollande le manque de crédibilité c'est permanent !

— Nadine Morano (@nadine__morano) March 14, 2012

(With Hollande, the lack of credibility is permanent!)

Nicolas Sarkozy président du syndicat des riches ce matin sur @f_inter

— Benoît Hamon (@benoithamon) March 1, 2012

(Nicolas Sarkozy president of the rich people’s union this morning on France Inter)

Sarkozy découvre donc que "la moitié des entreprises des CAC 40 ne payaient pas d'impôts sur bénéfices" !! Il était où pendant 5 ans ? #pdc

— Jean-Luc Mélenchon (@JLMelenchon) March 12, 2012

(Sarkozy discovers that “half of CAC 40 companies don’t pay taxes on their profit” !! Where was he the past five years?)

– Pure player (web only) news sites are now firmly established and have copied the blog format. Rue 89 was created right after the second round in 2007, back when neither Mediapart nor the Huffington Post.fr existed. The traditional media wasn’t as interested in blogs, whereas most news sites today have dedicated sections for blogs or host blogging platforms (for instance, the following article on French magazine website L’Express – which also details the decline of blogs in 2012 – was wrote on a dedicated blogging section called Express Yourself ). Journalists, editorialists

But despite these changes, the political blog is not a dying breed. Social web think tank Linkfluence and LeMonde.fr collaborated to create the following cartography of political blogs, which shows how prevalent they still are (click on the image to access the application).

There have been many blogger reactions to the Rue89 article, underlining the democratic virtues of having independent voices online and the importance politicians still grant to blogs, as exemplified by campaigning platforms such as toushollande.fr for Hollande or the “Toile Bleu Marine” for Le Pen, or even individual blogs like Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s. This blogger says that only the crème de la crème remain, and that only the political blogs with uninteresting content were weeded out. Another one explains how political blogs may not be as suited for campaigning in the era of social media, but that this does not mean there are obsolete in the long-run.

The over-arching argument is that social media now have better visibility than blogs and are more suited for campaigning, but that political blogs still exist, are complementary to social networks (you promote your blog on Twitter, for instance) and enable longer, more constructed debates. Blogs are also an anchor in the fast-paced world of social media. Tweets and statuses have to be strategically posted to reach an audience less they drown under the onslaught of never ending updates. A blog post follows a less chaotic temporality and is easier to find. It is on her blog, for instance, that a Belgian journalist posted a very critical article on her French colleagues that was then picked up by the French media.

Candidates Get Google Bombed – But To No Avail

Google bombing is one of many online guerilla tactics for political campaigning but it is much more fearsome in name than it is in action, as French presidential candidates Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande recently discovered.

The Wiktionary gives a simple definition of a Google bomb:

An attempt to influence the ranking of a webpage within the Google search engine by linking to it from many other sources.

Until recently, here were the search results for the terms “incapable de gouverner” (incompetent to govern) and “on va tuer la France” (France is going to be killed).

Search result for "incapable de gouverner" (incompetent to govern)

Search result for “on va tuer la France” (France is going to be killed)

The bombings themselves had very little impact, except for search term spikes and some media coverage. They were not official campaign tactics, and were probably initiated by isolated sympathizers on either side. The goal, by linking a negative search term to the candidate’s campaign or party website, was to smear them. But there are several reasons why these two main candidates, Nicolas Sarkozy to the right and François Hollande to the left, were Google bombed to no avail.

First, the term ‘bomb’ is somewhat misleading. Google bombing is an internet practice that artificially pulls up a desired search result by linking to it from many other web pages, not some massive virus or hacking that implies major damage for a person’s website. It is therefore a much smaller and more futile attempt than, say, a denial-of-service attack, which entirely prevents users from accessing your website.

Manipulating Google’s search algorithm in order to smear a political persona can be effective – anybody who’s ever googled “Santorum” knows as much (even though this wasn’t a Google bombing per se, it had an important aftermath).

But matters never reached those proportions in this French case. Although it is a cheap and easy way of attempting to criticize a candidate, it is quite limited. Very few people are actually going to Google such artificial and convoluted search terms as “incompetent to govern” or “France is going to be killed,” which means the bombing achieves a comic effect at best, and goes completely unnoticed at worst.

Google bombing does not deny access to a candidate’s website or information. More importantly, it is a mere hint of a criticism, not a constructed argument. This means that although opponents of either candidate will find it amusing, undecided voters who happen to stumble upon the Google bombing won’t be swayed by it.

Google bomb? More like Google pschiiit.