I&D Blog

This is cross-posted from Patrick Meier’s blog, IRevolution:

The second panel kicked off with a presentation by Rachel Gibson and Stephen Ward entitled: “Reinventing the Party? The Role of ICTs in Party Politics.” For this research, Rachel and Stephen examined the influence of ICTs on parties campaigns and organizational change, drawing on cross-national research in five European countries. The new era of campaigning is characterized by increased personalization, targeting, and shift towards informalizing politics. Interactivity and decentralization/fragmentation are also defining features. The assumption is that the effect of ICTs on party systems is enhanced pruralism via lowered costs and fewer edited communication.

The general conclusion is normalization. Major parties still pre-dominate (content/connectivity) although it is a more equal communications medium for minor parties than TV, radio, and print. New media “widens” rather than levels the communication playing field. Some questions still remain, however. Are ICTs extending the reach of political parties? Are they deepening engagement? Are they flattening hierarchies?

Extending reach of parties? ICTs as a recruitment tools? Increases in efficiency, marketing; collapsing geo boundaries; reaching new audiences.

Deepening engagement: ICTs as actvist tools? Online recruitment is becoming the most important method but is replacement rather than an additional method. Overall, most survey evidence suggests those who engage online are already politically active. That being said, there is some potential to reach beyond usual suspects (especially students) but dependent on, the issues, methods and style of engagement (viral marketing/humor is important). ICTs also generate additional participatory spaces; networking and enabling activists.

Flattening hierarchies: ICTs as democratic tools? Is activism deepening? Only ICTs most used by already active (super activists?) to engage further; more educated/informed activist & supporters; but, online joiners relatively passive? Networked individualism - increasing connections but weak ties?

Are ICTs changing parties? They encouraging low intensity participation. ICTs are used to enhance profile of leaders; erode traditional geographical collective structures; creatie new communities of interest around personalities & issues; beginn to reshape parties & impact on party democracy but outcome depends on indiviudal party (goals and culture).

In conclusion, parties adopted cautious approaches to new ICTs; ICTs accelerated some trends that pre-date Interent (personalization, invidividualism); Renewal via ICTs unlikely since technology alone does not address fundamental disatisfaction with parties. However, ICTs may well be beginning to reshape and reconfigure party organizations; No one-size-fits-all model, American patterns will not necessarily be replicated globally.

Urs Gasser gave the second presentation. His interest is on political participation in advanced democracies, such as Switzerland where there are half-a-dozen elections per year. Urs gave the project SmartVote as an example, which provides information for citizens (users) with matches to candidates running for elections. SmartVote is basically a sophisticated profile matching tool. In 2007, over 85% of candidates running in elections participated in SmartVote by answering a questionnaire of some 70 questions.

The most surprising finding is on the impact of traditional media vis-a-vis the success of SmartVote. One question is how this will impact political parties since this service matches individal candidates, not parties, with citizen preferences. The cultural factor turns out to be particularly important to the success of SmartVote. The website could also be used as an accountability tool by going back to the information posted by candidates following the elections.

Cross-posted from Patrick Meier’s blog, IRevolution:

The third panel of the Berkman Conference on Internet and Democracy was started with a presentation by Marshall Ganz on lessons learned from traditional approaches to mobilization and how these compare with new methods. Some of the main points I took away from Michael’s presentation and the question & answer session follow.

* Individual liberty, equality and collective capacity are three fundamentals of democracy.
* Transformation and exchange are more important than aggregation of individual interests and values.
* So what kind of institutional arrangements promote individual liberty, equality and collective capacity and how can/does the Internet facilitate this process?
* Social movements arise from purposeful actors to form new partnerships, common values and collective action. There is often confusion between social movements and fads.
* The role of leadership is a process whereby individuals are inspired to respond creatively and with a common purpose in the face of uncertainty.
* Social movements mobilize individuals through tiers of leaders. Martin Luther King was not the only leader in the civil rights movements. The traditional perception of social movements led by one characteristic leader is misplaced. Social movements are not completely decentralized either.
* Leadership is not about command and control but rather about mobilization.
* Social action must be understood both in strategic and motivational terms.
* YouTube has allowed for the sharing of people-interest stories, which tend to be more credible than deliberate, structured political commercials and
* While the Internet provides for anonymity, this undermines the sharing of experiences and common values.
* While the dramatic reduction in networked communication has been discussed at some length, the motivational factor has not. The narrative, the common purpose and inspiration to act must be present in order to encourage individuals to turn to the Internet to seek further information and form social groups. Networked communication facilitates the dissemination of the narrative.
* Q & A: Mobilization patterns on the Internet are different from those in good old traditional social movements. So how much from traditional social movement theory and practice apply?

Helen Margetts gave a presentation on the Internet and the logic of collective action. vis-a-vis petitions Helen carrried out an experiment by drawing on the behavior of some 50 individuals (students and non-students). She used a treatment group and control group in order to measure differential impact. The first group received information about a petition and who else had signed the petition. Group 2 received no information.

The results show that treatment had some effect on signing, with 64% of the treatment group signing the petition versus 54% for the control group. However, the analysis yielded results that were not statistically significant. However, when the petition is signed by large number of individuals (> 1 million) significantly more people signed when in receipt of information. For a ‘middle’ number of signers, significantly fewer individuals followed up and signed the petition themselves. For low number (

Cross-posted from Patrick Meier’s blog, IRevolution:

I moderated the final panel of the day, which focused on the impact of the Internet on democratization and authoritarian regimes. Gwendolyn Floyd and Joshua Kauffman led the first presentation. Gwendolyn and Joshua recently returned from a field study in Cuba and emphasized the importance of working in developing countries in order to seek insight into the possible future scenarios of the information society in repressive contexts.

The exchange of non-state information in Cuba occurs at the extremities of informality. Indeed, distributed public spheres are facilitated by the distributed transportation network, i.e., taxis and buses. Clandestine libraries also exist. Because of limited ICTs and access, people have built their own antennas and satellite dishes (hidden under a potato bag as one picture revealed). Crackdowns and confiscations of satellite dishes and any connected technologies recently have recently occurred. This was because the state noticed that the youths began combing their hair differently, which they concluded could only be happening if they were exposed to (illegal) satellite television channel(s).

There is Internet in Cuba, all through satellite. There is also a large parallel market that operates vis-a-vis ICTs. When Joshua and Gwendolyn were in Cuba they decided to put a sign up “Free Internet Access Available Here” in a marginalized neighborhood. People knew what the Internet was and suggested they take the sign down with haste lest they get in trouble. Flash drives are also widely used to share non state-controlled information.

So Gwendolyn and Joshua have developed a device that allows for the rapid copying of flash drives without the need for a computer. This means that data on flash drives can be copied during a taxi ride, for example. The device also includes a small LCD screen and a built-in speaker. It can be operated using batteries and/or solar power. In addition, the device can be plugged into a television to watch video clips since there are virtually no computers in Cuba while one in five Cubans own a TV.

Gwendolyn and Joshua also spoke about Cuba’s University of Information Science (UCI), the largest university in Cuba with some 10,000 students. The university is a direct extension of the state, which uses surveillance as market research on public opinion which they can then respond to without acknowledging the existance of the surveillance infrastructure. Students work on developing technologies and software for surveillance purposes, such as pattern recognition of visual images. For example, one project extracts headline information from CNN broadcasts by recognizing any text that might be displayed on the screen. This technology proved key in disseminating a YouTube video of (non-UCI) students challenging government officials directly at a university talk.

It was particularly insightful to learn the selection criteria for students accepted to the program: (1) highly developed computer and analytical skills; (2) lack of world knowledge and interest in world affairs. Students are also kept on campus six days a week. The presenters are working on a follow up project to introduce the technology in Burma. The challenge, like in Cuba, is twofold: (1) how to extract sensitive information, and (2) how to create and maintain a secure network of sensitive information.

One of the important findings from their research in Cuba was that people are not prepared to take on the responsibility that comes with democratic action and activism simply because the idea is particularly foreign to Cubans given the long history of state control. Understanding the local culture and history is absolutely critical before introducing any type of “liberating technology.” In Cuba’s case, the question is how to promote small “d” democracy? How does one ready a people for small “d” participation? Another question is whether technology that facilitates information dissemination increases incentives to engage in activist events because of the assurance that these will be widely distributed?

John Kelly’s work blends social network analysis, content analysis and statistics to render complex online networks more visible and understandable. John began his presentation by showing the different structures/typologies/clusters of blogospheres in different languages. Which of the network structures might reveal more democratic societies? Individual blogs can also be color coded to represent different ideologies and attitudes to public issues. See my previous blog entry on the Iranian blogosphere here. John asks whether it is possible to have an online democratic society operate within an offline repressive regime?

John compared the network structure of the Iranian and Russian blogospheres that showed evident differences in structure. The former was more mixed while the latter clearly more clustered. His network visualization software also depicts how the networks appear differently depending on where blogs are blocked or not within the countries in question. More detailed characteristics of individual blogs can also be depicted as a social network, such as age, areas of interest and so on. Of particular interest are blogs that critize the current goverment. Key word social network rendering can also be visualized, such as blogs that use terms such as democracy, Palestine etc.

During the Q & A session, it was argued that the Blogosphere is not representative of any nation state in terms of age, gender, economic status, education, etc. On the other hand, even if Blogospheres are characterized by the participation of elites, the number of different elites and arguments/ideologies can serve as a good sign of democracy in (virtual) action.

Cross-posted from Patrick Meier’s blog, IRevolution:

The final panel of the Berkman Center’s conference addressed the issue of methodology and empirical evidence in the study of the Internet and Democracy. Victoria Stodden and Corinna di Gennaro introduced the panel by outlining three core questions:

* How do we formulate testable hypotheses?
* What existing theories can we build on?
* What are appropriate methodologies?

Michael Best gave the first presentation on various methodological approaches. He began by making a distinction between democracy and Democracy. The former is people-centric while the latter is state-centric. Michael defines the relationship between the two as follows: democracy in the absence of Democracy. The distinction provoked a serious of questions and discussions. Do we mean bottom-up versus top-down? Informal versus the formal? Are the terms mutually distinct? Are we better off thinking of a spectrum? As far as we know, there is no theory of everthing vis-a-vis the study of Internet and Democracy that relates small d and big D democracy.

Quantitative studies (with K. Wade) suggest that a 1% increase in networks associates with a point increase on the democracy scale. Over the 1990s the Internet came to explain ten times more variations in levels of democratization. There is no statistically significant correlation between Internet usage and democracy in the Middle East and Asia regions. In his work, Michael combines natural language parsing with time series analysis and stylostatistical analysis.

Another research question Michael is pursuing is how new interactive media can help to reconcile and heal a nation such as Liberia. A pressing challenge is how to reach out to rural Liberians. The project developed a rural interactive mobile multi-media kiosk that can be added to the back of a 4×4. See TRCofliberia.org for further information.

Victoria Stodden is doing research to understand the relationship between Internet diffusion and democracy. The first stage of her research focuses on the Middle East and country-level analyses. The most reliable and consistent source of ICT data is from the International Telelcommunication Union (ITU), an organization that surveys local federal governments. On democracy data, the Freedom House data has a lot of inertia in that there is minimal variation in that dataset. The best source seems to be the World Bank Governance indicators. In particular, these include “Voice and Accountability” and “Rule of Law”.

Her analysis suggests that beyond a particular threshold of “Rule of Law”, the amount of mobile phone use (per 100 inhabitants) takes off. The threshold figure appears to be 40 users per 100. Internet use appears to accelerate faster with an increase in “Rule of Law” figures. She also measured the World Bank’s “Voice and Accountability” indicator against mobile phone use and Internet use.

The presentation prompted numerous backs-and-forths on the reliability of the data and the challenges of concluding certain trends. These are the same challenges that the conflict analysis field has faced over the past 5 years. Using macro-level aggregate data means making a host of assumptions regarding what these measurements mean vis-a-vis the questions we are asking. As long as we are transparent about these assumptions, there is no harm in proceeding with country-year econometric analysis. Ultimately, however, these studies need to be completemented with process-tracing methods and field-based qualitative research. This nested analysis approach is the one I am taking for my dissertation research.

An O’Reilly Media blogger recently posted interesting demographic data concerning Facebook. The blogger highlighted the growth of Facebook’s international user base and raised questions about the market share of social networking sites. But, apart from this, the data encouraged me to consider the global digital divide and whether or not it is slowly closing.

According to the report, the top three user countries (US, UK, and Canada) now only account for 61 percent of all users worldwide. Moreover, two of the Top 10 countries represent the Global South, namely Colombia and Chile. In fact, 21 of the 46 countries that appear on the list are middle-income countries of the Global South, including Mexico, India, Venezuela, South Africa, Malaysia, and Pakistan. It is clear that these developing nations are attractive emerging markets for proprietors of social networking sites and other forms of digital communication.

Facebook may, in fact, be a useful barometer for the current status of the digital divide. Undoubtedly, site membership is an imprecise measure of Internet access across the globe, but it may be an indicator of a trend. And given the social, reciprocal nature of Facebook activity, it signifies the regularity of Internet use among a portion of patrons within a country.

I realize I must be cautious here. After all, the digital divide is two-pronged, existing both between regions or nations and within countries. In reality, access to sites like Facebook, even in these rising middle-income countries, is far from unitary. Last month, Global Voices reported that seventy-five percent of Colombians are still without access. It appears that the paradigm of the North-South digital divide often overshadows the deeper routes of the access gap.

In the end, discussions of Facebook and the digital divide may be just as circular as evaluations of Facebook and democracy. Stories of democratic activism within the Facebook groups of one country are often accompanied by reports of repression or censorship in another. I guess the jury is still out on both issues.

At a recently held conference by AAAS (American Association for Advancement of Science), scientists discussed and evaluated current challenges for low cost wireless communication. The conference asserts that, “the right to receive and impart information is a universal human right that can be enhanced and protected by providing access to wireless communication for all”.

Nowadays, cell phones are ubiquitous and have far exceeded our expectations and their initial role. For instance, cell phones are now used as decentralized tools for eradicating (or at least ameliorating) poverty(1,2,3), have challenged traditional microeconomics notions by being used as ATM machines, and perhaps at times (because of their not-so-considerate users) have annoyed us on a bus ride.

Cell phone text messaging (SMS) has become such a powerful norm that it was recently used for organizing (underground) protests. The innovative use of cell phones does not stop here. Recently, Jan Chipchase, a lead researcher at Nokia Design, made his team’s research on innovative cell phone practices available online. Projects such as phone remades and shared phone practices clearly demonstrate a glimpse of innovative usage in the face of adversity. What really caught my eye, however, was use of cell phones for activists.

As Jan Chipchase states, “spread of tools that can capture experiences means that more people are in a position to document and publish (human rights) abuses - including many ad-hoc activists who wont be aware that of the relative ease of tracing communication - and this in a world before the widespread adoption of geo-tagged photos.” Although this use of decentralized, powerful technology is both innovative and noble, security issues loom at large and make existence of NGOs such as Benetech and tools such as Martus ever more prominent.

The blogosphere has been erupting with frustration over actions taken by volunteers at an Obama rally in Detroit on Monday. The Associated Press reported that two Muslim women were denied seats directly behind Presidential candidate Barack Obama and in front of TV cameras because of their headscarves. Politico.com revealed that Hebba Aref and Shimaa Abdelfadeel were told by volunteers that “women wearing hijabs, the traditional Muslim head scarves, couldn’t sit behind the podium” due to “a sensitive political climate.” Internet rumors have greatly contributed to this “sensitive political climate” by claiming that Obama is a Muslim (rumors which his campaign has attempted to stamp out through the online initiative “Fight the Smears”).

So far, nearly 8,000 blogs across the US, and abroad, have commented on the Obama campaign’s “discriminatory” and surprising behavior. Some have been supportive, commenting that Obama is “damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.” While other bloggers like Gardens of Sand were more critical, calling Obama “Just as prejudiced as the next guy.” The incident has created a PR nightmare for the Obama campaign, not only making his supporters question his rally cry for “change we can believe in,” but more importantly, it has given his opponents ammo with which to continue censuring him. Conservative bloggers have labeled the incident as “Obama profiling” and “political hypocrisy.” For his part, Obama recently personally apologized to the two women.

Yes, that was an “uh-oh” thing to do. Yet, can we honestly say it was completely unexpected? With all the attacks Obama has received regarding his affiliation to Islam and Muslims in an Islamophobic, post-9/11 world – everything from his middle name, Hussein, to his “tribal” Kenyan Muslim heritage has been under scrutiny – is the “overreaction” of his campaign volunteers really that surprising?

After all, American electoral politics is about more than a candidate’s message, it’s about his image. We have known this since the first televised presidential debates between JFK and Nixon took place in 1960. However, campaigning has “progressed” since then, emphasizing not only candidates’ looks, but the demographic landscape with which they are photographed – a landscape which bloggers have been highly influential in shaping. And as November 2008 draws closer, the candidates – taking a cue from cyberspace critics – continue to be more cautious about including American Muslims in that landscape, a reaction which the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) implored all presidential campaigns to refrain from.

Of the incident, blogger Ebony Mom Politics notes:
“This is the sad political reality of 2008. All things Muslims are viewed with fear. Ever since 9/11 all Muslims have been under a microscope. The crime these women committed was wearing their traditional headgear… A few weeks ago we saw Dunkin Donuts pull a Rachel Ray ad because some conservative bloggers said the scarf she was wearing looked like the garb of radical Muslims. Is this right? No, we are nation of immigrants, but sadly in this season the unspoken sign is no Muslims allowed.”

Do China’s Internet censorship policies ignore the regulations of the World Trade Organization? Yes, is the claim of the non-profit public interest organization, California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC). Members of CFAC testified yesterday in front of Congress’ U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, regarding web censorship and other means of information control policies in China. Trade law experts question China’s compliance with obligations set forth in the WTO, of which China has been a member since 2001. Specifically, CFAC believes that China’s policies of blocking websites such as YouTube, BBCnews, Wikipedia, and WordPress and other firewall practices violate the principles of free trade set forth in WTO and GATT treaties. CFAC news explains,

Even when popular US-based websites are not being completely blocked inside China, the websites’ performance is seriously degraded by the Great Firewall, which adds several seconds (or more) to websites’ loading times, as experienced by people in China, says CFAC. This performance deficit puts US-based websites at a severe disadvantage compared to their Chinese competitors, whose websites’ function normally inside China.

Information control is one of many public concerns over China’s repressive practices and human rights violations, including the country’s Tibetan policy and their state-run control over the Olympic games. But what interests me here is that Beijing’s web censorship agenda is no longer just an issue of “democracy.” It is now an issue of international trade, of which the Internet is an increasingly important mechanism. A decade ago, the Internet and other digital technologies changed the face of global trade by lowering the costs of moving goods and information around the world. Now, as we are growing accustomed to the Internet as a basis for international trade and marketing, we are facing the problems that come along with it.

The global marketplace is governed by democracies and non-democracies alike, some with transparent and relatively un-monitored network systems and others who maintain policies of pervasive filtering and censorship. It can be difficult for governments and corporations to navigate through this kind of trade environment. In the past, nations have argued over tariff and non-tariff barriers, government subsidies, and other trade protections that put their own industries at a disadvantage. But in this digital age, Internet regulation is bound to become a central part of these trade wars.

Sine May 2nd, South Korea has seen nearly daily protests against its new president, Lee Myung-bak, over his decision to resume imports of U.S. beef, which were suspended in 2003 after an outbreak of mad cow disease. In the history of South Korean collective action, these protests show the merger of Korea’s penchant for both the Internet and street demonstrations. Some media have dubbed this protest movement as “Web 2.0 protest,” which build off of the themes we identified in our case study on the impact of the citizen journalism site OhmyNews during the 2002 Presidential election.

Yesterday, the International Herald Tribune discussed in detail the role of the Internet on these demonstrations. When South Korea’s President Lee signed a deal in April with the U.S. to lift a ban on American imported beef, it quickly became a hot topic on the Internet among young people and lead to widespread fears of mad cow disease. In just one week, about 1.3 million students signed a petition on an Internet forum calling for the President’s impeachment. On May 2, thousands of teenagers who had networked in cyberspace and coordinated via mobile phone poured into central Seoul chanting “No to mad cow!,” igniting South Korea’s biggest anti-government protest in two decades.

After examining the increasing number of global political protests that have started in cyberspace (e.g. boycott against Carrefour in China and “A Million Voices against FARC” in Columbia), I found some interesting similarities in the process of Web protests that lead to street demonstrations.

• Online discussion forums and personal blogs are the ideal seedbed for Web protests. Internet users, especially young users, often respond quickly to current events or government policy and begin virtual petitions with alluring slogans, such as “No more FARC” and “Completely Boycott Carrefour”, on online forums or their personal blogs. These virtual petitions and slogans are quickly circulated in hundreds and thousands of online forums and blogs. After cyber protests go viral, often simultaneously stirring up people’s anger or nationalistic sentiments, it is time to stop talking online and take to the street. Cyber activists post plans and schedules about upcoming street protests on online discussion forums, and circulate such information immediately in cyberspace. For example, one media outlet has reported that many South Korean demonstrators rely on internet forums to get information on rallying points, weather forecasts and riot police presence.

• Social networking sites, Instant Messenger (IM), and Short Message Service (SMS) are tools to recruit more demonstrators among peer groups and help organize group actions and coordinate each protester in street demonstrations. For example, in the boycott against Carrefour in China, protestors, especially college students, sent short messages via mobile phone and IM to their friends asking them to participate in the boycott and distribute information about local protests. Besides, the use of IM, SMS, and social networking sites can allow for more efficiently organization of large street protests (often divided into small group actions) and also allow protestors to avoid government crackdowns. (See more cases about how social networking tools and SMS are used to organize protests)

• Camera phones, webcast, and networked citizen journalists extend the influence of street demonstrations to larger audiences, often tapping into large transnational networks. With camera phones, digital camcorders, and wireless Internet technology, demonstrators can instantly shoot and upload photos and videos to Internet sites during the demonstration. In South Korea’s protest, dozens of sites, like OhmyNews a popular participatory media web site, have been offering live broadcasts of demonstrations using videos or photos collected from volunteers with some even hiring commentators to liven up the action. The videos, photos, and stories from citizen journalists not only provide independent and (arguably) trustworthy information about protests that may encourage more citizens to participate, but also can serve to protect protesters from crackdowns by the authorities. In South Korea’s protest, a blogger suggests, “Take pictures and videos whenever police use violence or arrest people. Send the footage to OhmyNews by dialing 5055.”

Despite the positive side of young people’s passion on the Internet, we still should be cautious about irrationalism in cyberspace that may threaten online democracy (as I mentioned in my last post). Yesterday, South Korean President Lee warned that “the spread of false and incorrect information through the Internet and spam email is threatening the people’s rational thinking and mutual trust.” One political scientist in South Korea said that “In the online discussions on beef, you are welcome only if you voice a certain opinion, and you’re attacked if you represent an opposing view.” Regarding Chinese boycott against Carrefour, some media said that the young protesters are very irrational, “since there’s no proof that the French company has been part of the anti-China conspiracy”.

Lee Raine of the Pew Internet & American Life Project shared with us the results of a fascinating poll on the Internet and the 2008 Presidential election that he and Aaron Smith just completed. According to the Pew report:

In total, 46% of all adults are using the internet, email, or phone text messaging for political purposes in this election. That is the percentage of those who are doing at least one of the three major activities we probed—getting news and information about the campaign, using email to discuss campaign-related matters, or using phone texting for the same purpose.

I’m especially glad that this poll asked questions about mobilization and creation of online political content instead of just use of the Internet to read campaign news. According to the report:

Online activism using social media has also grown substantially since the first time we probed this issue during the 2006 midterm elections. Among the findings in our survey:

–11% of Americans have contributed to the political conversation by forwarding or posting someone else’s commentary about the race.
–5% have posted their own original commentary or analysis.
–6% have gone online to donate money to a candidate or campaign.
–Young voters are helping to define the online political debate; 12% of online 18-29 year olds have posted their own political commentary or writing to an online newsgroup, website or blog.

The survey also tracks the use of new tools like social networking, video-sharing sites and text messaging for political purposes. As we’ve seen around the world, social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace are increasingly being used to mobilize networks around causes. The poll found that 66% of Internet users under 30 have a social networking site profile, and that nearly half of them use that platform to get or share information about the candidates or campaigns.

Not surprisingly, 35% of respondents (nearly triple the amount in 2004) have watched campaign videos on sites like YouTube, no doubt including the will.i.am Obama video that went viral earlier this year, which we’ve discussed at Berkman on a couple of occasions. Ethan Zuckerman has a great post about online campaign videos, particularly less polished, user-generated videos. To me, these videos stand out as some of the best examples to date of semiotic democracy, or how individuals take cultural and political images from mass media, mash them up, and create their own culture and political meaning out of them. This phenomenon may be the most interesting but least talked about aspects of the narrative surrounding the Internet and this year’s campaign, and is emblematic of politics in the Web 2.0 era.

Further, nearly one in ten text message users regularly send or receive text messages about the campaign or politics. Like social networking, video sharing and other new tools, I expect that text messaging will increasingly be used in politics as those tools become more ubiquitous and as younger users mature into voting age. The poll argues that these younger voters are giving Democrats the edge over Republicans online. According to the report:

Young voters in our survey tend to gravitate toward the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign at greater rates than their elders, and their comfort engaging with the political world online is clearly in evidence in our survey. Online Democrats outpace Republicans in their consumption of online video (51% vs. 42%). Furthermore, Democrats are significantly ahead among social networking site profile creators: 36% of online Democrats have such profiles, compared with 21% of Republicans and 28% of independents.

Finally, I was a bit surprised (although I guess I shouldn’t be) that 60% of Internet users believe that “The internet is full of misinformation and propaganda that too many voters believe is accurate.” The majority must have read Cass Sunstein. However, 28% still say that the Internet allows them to be more personally connected to candidates and almost a quarter (22%) say they would not be as involved in the campaign if not for the Internet. It was also surprising that only 6% of Americans have contributed online, since online fundraising seems to be a much larger part of the news story in this campaign.

Check out the full survey report. We will wait anxiously for results of the next round of surveys from the Internet and American Life Project, and hope they can dig more deeply into questions about the Internet’s role in offline political mobilization.