On Facebook Groups

Posted by Devin Johnston on November 29th, 2008

A few days ago, I created the "I Support Public Campaign Financing" group on Facebook. In just three days, it has grown to 2,205 members (as of writing). There are also a number of other Facebook groups that have sprung up in support of a Liberal-NDP coalition government. Facebook is still a relatively new tool for politicians and activists. Several large groups have gained national media attention, particularly during the last election campaign. It is not yet clear what, if any, impact these large Facebook groups have. This is an issue to which I have given a lot of thought over the past few years. In a past life I was interviewed by Jessica Dean about the role of Facebook in politics. Now that I have a bit more experience using Facebook as a campaign tool (both for the NDP and as a plain old activist), I wish to add to the thoughts I expressed at that time.

There is no doubt in my mind that Facebook is changing politics in a positive way. While it is true that the mere existence of a Facebook group won't radically change public policy, the Facebook platform is well suited to meeting two important challenges to any campaign.

First, Facebook groups, events, and applications create instant visibility for a campaign or a candidate. For example, the sheer number of people who joined the "Anti-Harper Vote Swap Canada" group lent that cause instant credibility. The same goes for "Fair Copyright for Canada". But social media offers a form of visibility that is much more valuable than raw numbers, a visibility that is more important than campaign signs and impersonal advertising. Within a social media network, visibility is personal. When I look at the vote swap group, I don't just see that several thousand people have joined it; I can see that my friends, classmates, and coworkers have joined it. This lends additional credibility to a group, because it causes me to draw connections between the people that I respect and care about with a particular cause. Assuming that I trust most of my friends' judgment, the cause itself will appear more credible to me. And unlike unidirectional advertising, I can interact with the people that I know who associate with the cause, find out why they support it, and connect with the cause in a way that is more personally relevant and meaningful.

The second reason that Facebook is an invaluable asset to campaigners, activists, and politicians is that it allows timid supporters to take small, symbolic action in support of the cause. Activists are very good at brining the hardcore on board; in fact, the hardcore will bring themselves on board. But most people are not hardcore. Most people are only mildly interested in your political cause or are otherwise ambivalent about becoming a foot soldier. Yet these people represent the vast majority of votes, brainpower, money, and energy pools available to you. Hardcore activists are notoriously bad at tapping in to the potential of people who, while they support the cause, do so only in passing. Giving these people small, symbolic opportunities to be a part of a movement can incrementally lead to more active participation later on. The simple act of joining a Facebook group can be the first in a series of steps that eventually leads to a person becoming a hardcore activist.

Facebook cannot, of course, replace other forms of campaigning. However, activists must treat the platform for what it is: a new tool in the activist's toolbelt that is particularly well-suited for two small parts of a larger campaign. It should also not be treated for what it isn't: a traditional top-down, unidirectional communications medium. It is very tempting to use Facebook groups as a substitute for email lists, building up supporters only to blast those supporters with constant one-way messages. I am the admin of the "New Democratic Party - Nouveau Parti Democratique" group (currently home to some 3,636 Facebookers). It was very tempting during the election to send those members constant updates on the campaign, including the latest talking points from the campaign office. However, this would have been off-putting and would have defeated the purpose of creating an opportunity for lukewarm supporters to take small, symbolic action in support of the party.

Instead, I sent only two messages throughout the entire campaign. These messages were not unidirectional advertising; rather, they were concise messages containing a list of different ways to take action online to support the NDP. The goal was to prompt people into taking the next incremental step toward becoming hardcore New Democrats. The list contained small actions that members could take from the comfort of their computer terminal, generally in just a couple minutes. The response was fairly positive, and hopefully it helped nudge a few members a little closer to knocking on doors for their local NDP candidates.

I'm curious to know about the experience of other Facebook warriors. What role does Facebook (or social media generally) play in the modern campaign, in any? What is it used for, and how effective is it?

Spread the word and fan the winds of change: