At what point does the online support for libertarian Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul do his candidacy more harm than good? That is, when does his obviously devoted online fan base start to turn off uncommitted voters, rather than provide an example to follow? I think we might just be getting to that point.
In few communities has the outsize influence of the Ronbots (borrowing more from “Romneybot” than “Rahmbot” here) been felt more than fast-rising social news website Digg. Digg is a prize target for manipulators — getting listed on the front page all but guarantees a tidal wave of traffic headed toward the submitted link. After repeated revisions to the algorithm, it apparently remains no less vulnerable.
Paul supporters have been moving stories onto the front page for a couple weeks now, and while I found it curious and somewhat amusing, Diggers are quirky and I didn’t find it illegitimate or overly distracting — that is, until this morning.
Check out the top five stories, as of about 7:30 Eastern time:
Those top three are not quite all the same story, but they are certainly variations on a theme. Note also the separation in digg totals with the next two, non-Paul submissions. And considering Paul’s negligible support in meatspace, one gets the distinct impression that the system has been gamed.
Others have suggested that his online support is manufactured. I don’t think that’s the case. Click through the headlines (here, here and here), take a look at the comments and the digging (voting) histories of the users submitting them (here, here and here). They may all be acting in concert, but there’s no reason to believe these are not legitimate members — two of the three submitters signed up last summer.
But even if they are acting sincerely, this is simply not what the vast majority of users go to to Digg for. The website is at its best when it provides variety. Forerunner Slashdot has codified this as “The Omelette,” but Digg manages to create this organically. Most of the time.
To cherry pick just one comment out of the third story, here is user 9Digits throwing up his hands:
I’m an anti-war Republican, and I still find your candidate’s campaign to be goddamn annoying. If these are the type of supporters he’s got, there’s not a chance in hell I’ll vote for him.
This follows the Ronbots’ success in compelling ABC News to add their candidate to an online poll. That doesn’t bother me so much, except as ABC knew well, the poll was about to be freeped. But it also follows Charles Johnson’s decision to delist Paul from his online poll at Little Green Footballs. To whatever degree ABC News has an obligation to create a level playing field, even one that they know will be gamed, Johnson has less of one.
And yet that still says more about the general uselessness of online polls than about Paul’s supporters. Is the backlash unfair? Perhaps it would be, if they didn’t seem so prone to the same kind of vitriol that sometimes still causes trouble for their counterparts on the left.
If Paul’s supporters are willing to take the effort to game online communities not already predisposed to isolationist libertarianism they should be willing to accept the consequences. That certainly means their own ostracism — but it also risks creating the impression that Paul’s support is manufactured. And especially in politics, people don’t like being played.
So let me get this straight: People participating on Digg should refrain from posting things they find interesting, and should refrain from digging them, because you personally don’t find them interesting.
Is that what you’re saying? I just want to make sure I understand you.
You also appear to be saying that people who find online polls about politics shouldn’t vote in them if it’s possible that their vote will make the poll produce results that don’t match Gallup.
Is that what you’re saying? I just want to make sure I understand you.
Does your new poll rule apply only to polls where people can vote multiple times, or does it also apply to polls where you can only vote once – like Drudge’s polls or the MSNBC post debate poll? Because despite the fact that you can only vote once, Paul overpolled in those venues, too. So that would imply that your rule would make it necessary for Paul voters to refrain from voting EVEN ONCE.
The reason online communities are getting freeped is because the average voter is not paying attention to the process yet and won’t be for some time. It’s just too early. And Paul has the support of three groups: Republicans that hate the war, traditional libertarians and Randroids, and his own brand of obsessed goldbugs. Those people actually are paying attention to the process at this point. So don’t worry, with the passage of time your moderates will show up and balance things out – but nothing can give you what you want [Paul radio silence] at this point.
I am not saying those things, Fluffy. What I am saying is that Paul supporters should be aware that the unexpected burst of support for Ron Paul will confuse and probably annoy the non-adherents on general interest and non-libertarian websites. This is especially true because a fair number of Paul supporters seem to have a chip on their shoulders, and as we know in politics, happy warriors fare better than angry ones.
Online support is a great thing to have, but grassroots supporters can have their drawbacks, cf. Howard Dean’s orange-hatted Iowa Perfect Stormers circa January 2004.
First, I am glad the blogger believes the Ron Paul phenomenon is organic and authentic. I have been following Ron Paul and his supporters for a couple of years and recently converted myself. I am glad the blogger gives all of us the credit that we genuinely believe Dr. Paul is simply the best candidate from either party.
Secondly, there is NO mystery as why we are jumping all over the Internet trying to make our voices heard. THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA has been using the tactic of DENY, DECEIVE, DISCREDIT, DISRUPT, DISTRACT… leaving we Ron Paul supporters (who really just want a return to our Constitution) with NO alternative but the Internet, the LAST bastion of the marketplace of ideas. I hope the blogger realizes exactly what we are up against, what he is up against when his own candidate of choice happens to be one that is shunned by corporate, globalist media.
I hope the blogger considers these things, because as a Ron Paul supporter I can tell you there is no ill intent in my heart and mind nor of those supporters I know…we are simply desperate to get the word out.
humbly yours,
Trup
See also:
Rudy Giuliani vs. Ron Paul II
“Rush Limbaugh says Ron Paul is “spamming polls” (Link)
Meanwhile, online, there is a strong buzz (Link) that Ron Paul has been ignored by the mainstream media in regard to his impressive Internet demonstrated accomplishments”
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Rudy_Giuliani_vs_Ron_Paul_II/blog
I’m not a warrior, angry or otherwise. I’m a 43 year old “soccer Mom” who thinks that hearing Ron Paul talk is the most refreshing thing I’ve experienced in my political lifetime.
I’ve been getting phone calls from the RNC during my dinner since I was 18. If that technique didn’t annoy me to the point of not voting, having to hit page-down in a list of on-line articles won’t either.
For every ‘net savvy blogger stewing over the fact that Paul is apparently winning all the online polls (I haven’t verified that, so I’ll take your word for it) I suspect that there are 100 people like me, who are really surprised to see Ron Paul winning so many online polls.
If Ron Paul can generate enough individual votes to win online polls, then he should win online polls. Finding that objective is like redefining “is.”
If it comes down to either remaining invisible or annoying some people, I should hope that an honest assessment of the dangers America faces will compel people to become as annoying as possible in support of Ron Paul rather than to quietly go into that dark night. If you have a third way to offer, contact Ron Paul about a job as a campaign consultant.
Mr. Beutler -
I’m a Ron Paul supporter and I sure hope my comment here is not “creating the impression that Paul’s support is manufactured”.
Because it’s not.
Digg is not in my Universe, nor am I “predisposed to isolationist libertarianism” -
I’m a farm wife living in rural Pennsylvania – maybe that is isolationist to some folks.
I don’t have a TV, a radio or get a newspaper – but I do have a really fast DSL connection.
I found out about Ron Paul awhile back from reading Lew Rockwell.
I left the GOP last year after 34 years and resigned as local Republican committee woman because the Republican Party is no longer recognizable to most conservatives.
I find Ron Paul to be a true conservative and he has my full support.
He also has my vote for President and I’ll write him in if I have to.
Not only that, I’m sending him a check.
It’s the first time I will have ever contributed money to a Presidential Candidate. It’s part of this week’s grocery money.
I took the time to call his Washington, D.C. office yesterday to let him know that he has my support.
How many support phone calls are the other Republicans Presidential Candidates getting from farm wives without a Newspaper, TV or Radio?
Much less their grocery money.
Small wonder Digg looks like it “has been gamed”.
I look forward to your next post about why Hannity spams radio & tv 4 hours a day with Ronald McDonald, sorry, I mean Rudy McRomney interviews, along with nauseating almost daily interviews with Dick Morris & Newt Gingrich. True, he does spice it up once every week or two with Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin, but it’s hard to pay attention since he lets most of these folks drone on for 4 or 5 minutes without interruption about the same things they said the day before on his show, or verbatim elsewhere that day in the mainstream media. Meanwhile, when Hannity does occasionally have on someone he disagrees with that’s intolerable to listen as well, because then we get a 1200 word question that he demands a “yes or no” answer to. These “endearing” qualities were well on display in the post debate spam-interview sessions.
Would you like me to talk about the spamming of the rest of the mainstream media on a daily basis over the nation’s airwaves, or is one explicated example sufficient?
William Beutler:
You would be labeled as a fool if you deny the power of the internet and the strength behind Dr. Paul’s supporters. His campaign is primarily funded by individuals…NOT CORPORATIONS! Those very same people are those who casted their votes on the Text & Online Polls.
We are truly unstoppable. Our passion, our drive and determination is unfaltering…much like our Candidate Dr. Ron Paul.
We will never give up despite the mockery that mainstream reporters like to throw at us. So save your breath and reputation by calling us ‘bots’ and ’spammers’. It only works against you.
We get ridiculed for exercising our right to free speech by TV & News stations insinuating that the overwhelming amount of votes ‘have to be rigged’. You want to discuss rigged elections? Look into our past PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS!
There was sworn video testimony that Diebolt machines were rigged for our Presidential elections:
http://hulksmaash.imeem.com/video/M528muGH/shocking_fraudbush_hacked_2004election_theft_congressional_court_testimony_ignored_by_media/
The truth is we are this election’s strongest community of voters. Our votes are not fake, our profiles are genuine and our dedication to Dr. Paul is undivided.
There WILL be change! The awakening has started already………..brace yourself.
“First they ignore you…
then they ridicule you…
then you win…”
-Mahatma Ghandi
[This was written by an actual human being]
-Jen, 23, USA
RON PAUL 2008: OUR ONLY HOPE FOR AMERICA! OUR ONLY CHANCE AT TRUE FREEDOM!
Jen, I do in fact believe your comment was written by a real person.
Just not by a person who actually read my post.
William I read your article. Maybe I didn’t make my point clear, there were just some parts of your post that I felt were inconclusive. Maybe you can clear them up in case there are others who may feel the same.
The premise of my response was basically to just state the fact that Ron Paul’s supporters are not playing any “games” as the title of your article suggests. Our opinions are not fixed, rigged, “gamed”, “manufactured” or whatever skeptics want to refer to it as.
The title of your article alone is supporting the viewpoint that we are playing “Games” and therefore it appears that you lean more towards falsifying the legitimacy of Paul’s [otherwise undeniably] TRUE popularity, especially among his web-supporters.
“And considering Paul’s negligible support in meatspace, one gets the distinct impression that the system has been gamed.”
“Others have suggested that his online support is manufactured. I don’t think that’s the case. ”
“But even IF they are acting sincerely, this is simply not what the vast majority of users go to Digg for.”
This is how I perceived your article:
*First you say the results in the polls & the amount of online Ron Paul support gives a “gamed” impression. (Due his lack of attention in “meatspace” opposed to the amount of attention he attracts in “cyberspace”).
*Then you say you don’t think that is that case..
*And then you say “IF” they [Paul supporters on DIGG] are acting sincerely…
So my question is which is it, what is your true opinion?
I also wanted to say, in general for anyone who may be reading this, PLEASE do not discredit the online polls, text polls, or the integrity of the mass volume of Paul support. It seems that in this cyber-era that if our voices aren’t heard online or in the streets-then people like Paul, his supporters and their shared ideals will just get swept under the rug-like they have been for many MANY years. We mustn’t lose sight of what is important. The internet and various forms of today’s technology are excellent tools for publicizing otherwise very sheltered topics.
I respect your article William for the fact that just as Paul’s supporters desire to be heard-you desire to be heard as well. We are exercising our God given right to speak out and post comments such this, and you have your right to post an article such as yours. We must respect that on all sides of the spectrum no matter who we support. Our rights are sacred and our voices should never be silenced, discredited or ridiculed in any way.
-Jen
Thanks for the article William, when I first started reading Ron Paul stories on Digg I was intrigued, so I spent time at his site and read various articles presented. This was a few weeks ago. Yet everyday I log into Digg, there are more stories. There are diggers who only digg Ron Paul stories, and obviously that is there right, but the pushing of stories has turned me off Ron Paul all together, and politics off Digg altogether (I changed my settings so I could still visit Digg). They are doing more harm than good at this point, at least in my opinion, especially to Digg itself.
Tide, how do you figure promoting Ron Paul on DIGG is doing “more harm than good”?
Do you mind explaining yourself?
-Jen
A single, level-headed post about Paul supporters gaming the internets to overstate his support generates a flurry of indignant comments from Paul supporters. Weird!
No problem Jen, it’s called “blowback”, the general definition being “Any negative effect one suffers from one’s own weapons.” Using Digg to get the good word out is one thing, spamming the site and alienating members on not just your candidate, but on politics overall, can end up costing you in public opinion.
Tide,
The definition of “Spamming” is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages, which are generally undesired.
The Ron Paul support on Digg isn’t “spamming” at all.
Nor is it alienating anyone.
So I fail to see how Paul supporters on Digg are doing “more harm than good”.
-Jen
Jen,
We’re not talking about the technical definition of spam, we’re talking about Digg’s definition. As a Digg user, you should know that one of the ways to bury a story is as “spam”, even though a posted story could never meet the technical definition.
To give a more specific example, currently there is a story of Digg about the absense of Ron Paul on an AOL political page. I’ve since marked the story as “spam” since it clearly fits the definition as Digg sees it. The story posted has no other purpose on Digg other than to adverstise, in this case to advertise Ron Paul. It is these types of stories, or the fact that many Ron Paul supporters dugg this story (without reading), that worries myself and others.
“Nor is it alienating anyone.” – This isn’t corrent, it alienated myself, a handful of bloggers, and multiple digg stories submitted. These are all available if you search Google or Digg. It clearly is bothering some people, and it has turned me off getting any political news from Digg.
I’d rather read occasional quality stories about any candidate, then be diluged by just one. Please help us.
Tide,
Well that’s freedom of speech and you can chose to read the material or not…and personally I think it’s a wonderful thing. And though some people repeat stories even though they already exist on the server, there is a lot of ron Paul coverage on a VARIETY of topics from various news sources point of views.
I’m sure you understand that this Ron Paul wave is HUGE in the political world. People see the how necessary it is to publicize this man as much as possible because for DECADES his voice was silenced by the mass media…he’s been fighting for hman rights since the 70’s. Now it’s his time to shine and the majority of the public wants to share it with the world.
-Jen
oh man, I apologize for the typos in my above reply. lol ouch*
Many submissions on DIGG are advertisements…A DIGG article about WOW is advertising WOW (a service you have to actually pay for), an article about a movie is advertising for a movie, same with a video game, a car etc…
The AOL article submission, if it’s the one I am thinkng of, was just bringing to light that a candidate is missing from the list of candidates, and how convenient that the candidate is RP (if it was any other candidate I’m sure it would have had the same effect) and the link suggested contacting AOL to include him. There has been success from the RP supporters to help give him a fair chance with the other candidates. He wasn’t even going to be “allowed” in the 2nd debate (even though he paid $25,000 to be there) if it wasn’t for his supporters and the accessibility of information from the internet. This information was made available and we were able to find the means to fight for what we believe in.
I did read the terms of use on DIGG and the only mention of the word SPAM refers to unwanted email {Spam}
?
Maybe I looked in the wrong place..?
-Jen
Tide,
I apologize for the typos in my above reply..lol *ouch*
I posted a follow up reply..but it isn’t here anymore…weird…??
Anyway I read DIGG’s Terms & Conditions and the word “spam” is only listed one time and it refers to unwanted email spam…
Maybe I looked in the wrong place?
I feel that a large amount of DIGG articles can be classified as advertisement in one form or another, whether it is promoting a political figure, a video game, a car, a TV show, a movie etc…DIGG is a collection of all things that are going on in our culture today.
And I think I know what AOL topic you were referring to (where AOL didn’t include Paul in the list of candidates and there was contact info to write to AOL & tell them to treat all candidates equally etc..) I’m sure if was any other candidate it would have had the same effect.
I am excited to see so much RP/political coverage.
Personally I’m sick of seeing “famous for being famous” pop-stars whoring it up at parties and making the first page of newspapers for shaving their heads on TV. And I’m tired of hearing about couples who blend their names together (ala Brangelina, TomKat etc). None of that is affecting us in the slightest and we can’t turn it off (its on every cover of every magazine in every newstand and spewed all over mainstream media). It’s nothing more than a distraction. Pretty people doing things seemed to be much more important that the dismissal of Habeous Corpus, or the dismanteling of our Constitution (Bush:”It’s just a goddamned piece of paper”) etc….but now people are starting to pay attention, and a lot of that has to do with online communities like DIGG. And Paul is the guy who woke America up last week….and I support the awakening. And for those who don’t want to see it HAVE an option to filter their DIGG articles like you did, and I support you doing that if that’s what you want to do. But there is an overwhelming majority of DIGGers who DO want to see these articles and share it with others, and that should be respected as well.
I’m proud of the American people for taking time out of their reality TV hour to read more about what’s really going on in the “Real World”…
-Jen
Ironically, Jen, your last comment was caught by my spam filter, which I recovered before noticing you’d submitted another version. Unfortunately, it looks like you’re double-posting. You’re forgiven for that. However, Tide is pretty much on point here. Ron Paul’s supporters are abusing Digg and making it less useful for the rest of us. Good luck converting more supporters — I still maintain that you and your cohort are having the opposite effect.
It must have posted twice by accident…
And as for having a negative effect on Paul’s campaign and the “abuse of DIGG”..I guess we can just agree to disagree.
-Jen
I don’t get what the big deal is. I digg Ron Paul stories because I like digging up interesting stories and I like Ron Paul.
If you don’t like those stories, you can bury them… or submit better articles that will get more diggs.
If you see a story that you don’t like, you don’t have to read it. If you accidentally click on it, you can hit the back button. I’m only one Digger so I’m not controlling any stories.
I also see a lot of anti-Bush stories on Digg. OMG, does that mean there’s a conspiracy of anti-Bush people?
No, it seems obvious that Ron Paul does well with young, libertarian-leaning people who happen to be rampant on the Internet and also on Digg. If you don’t like the people at Digg or their views, you’re free to start your own site. I believe Digg was started because the owner thought that Slashdot sucked, which it does a lot of the time, with duplicate stories and lame commenters. If you think Digg sucks, make a better one. :)
In response to the quote “I’m an anti-war Republican, and I still find your candidate’s campaign to be goddamn annoying. If these are the type of supporters he’s got, there’s not a chance in hell I’ll vote for him,” if your opinion of a candidate is based not around the issues and policies, but the online activities of independent activists, you cannot claim to be a thoughtful intelligent individual. Therefore, it follows that what you say really doesn’t matter. Letting minor nuisances get in the way of a vote for the best candidate is childish. Take a stand and vote for your beliefs and stop being such a baby.
Okay there are some Paul supporters who overly voice thier opinion on the candidates and it may be due to the fact that thier candidate is the one attacked or dismissed on public media but this only equals out the balance between the two.
You state that it can cause a negative impression on those who are thinking of supporting Paul until they see the over eagerness of what appears to be the public opinion and you are right but if they have any sense they would not let the eager supports who are high in numbers across the internet make the decision for them.
Thats like me saying oh I may by a camaro.. but wait there is so many people saying they like it and don’t see many problems with it so there must be something wrong with this and now I won’t get one. That way of thinking – relying on anyone other than your own opinion – is weak and flawed. Also this artical or blog post etc has absolutely no positive effect and actually will set doubt in the minds of those who can’t take it for face value. In other words your post is causing negative effect and will not do any good. message me if you have issues since I’m not likely to return – myspace.com/humanadvance
I watched the debates and barely noticed Ron Paul. He didn’t embarrass himself but he didn’t stand out either. When I then saw the various news polls that had him winning I found it absurd and totally dissonant with every reputable poll. Once I saw the DIGG saturation I realize his supporters were ruthless spammers making a co-ordinated effort misrepresent his import by abusing susceptible internet systems/polls.
I am Canadian…I have zero stake in the election beyond curiosity. I’ve never heard of Paul before all of this and certainly had no grudge to bear. I now see him as tainted by his irritating supporter’s shady tactics and dearly hope he returns to the anonymity from whence he came. They can choose to believe me or not…but this internet barrage is create significant negative backlash and acrimony from very casual observers. I can only speculate to the degree of animosity it would generate in people actually invested in the electoral process.
This comment section is the exact kind of responses people put on digg.
People getting their back up over everything.
I hope that the strong internet exposure allows Ron Paul to be be known by U.S. voters. Most, like myself, have only heard about him recently. I was surprised that I had never heard of him on the national media and realized the media doesn’t want you to know about him. Because if have a choice between a typical corrupt politician (that the media can pay off and control) and Ron Paul, you would vote for Ron Paul.
I for one can say that I am turned off by the disproportionate amount of Ron Paul stories continuing to plague Digg. I’m not here to argue the ethics of the tactic, all I’m saying is that it is having a negative impact on me, and the Ron Paul campaign should probably do some internal polling of their own.
I haven’t read a single Ron Paul story on Digg because when I see the amount of headlines coming across my Digg RSS feed with his name, I assume he is being backed by a small group of extremists, and therefore must hold extremist views on policy and issues. I don’t know if this is the case though, because I refuse to click the stories. I refuse to click the stories because I don’t want to feel like a sucker for such blatant propaganda.
Go ahead and refute my points, but it won’t matter in the slightest. I couldn’t even bring myself to read the Ron Paul supporters comments to this blog entry.
You guys are way overdoing it right now.
I just hope that all of the Ron Paul supporters (and all voters for that matter) read beyond the campaign talking points and look at his record. I did a lot of digging into his voting record over the last week and he does not appear to be the “most conservative candidate” as some of his supporters have claimed. A non-partisan website OnThe Issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm) has him listed – based on his over all voting record to be a Moderate Libertarian. If that is what you want to vote for GREAT. However, don’t try to convince me that Ron Paul is a conservative, because he really isn’t.
LL
Ron Paul is trying to push his view of what a conservative should be **cough** libertarian **cough** and calling true conservatives “neo-cons”. Anyone that doesn’t agree with his opinion is automatically called a neo-con…only problem is he attacking traditional conservative values. I think all the internet hype is from Libertarians that think by spamming they are going to convince people to vote for Ron Paul, but in reality they are just going to turn people off on him altogether…
What we are seeing on Digg is that some folks in this country are finally waking up, realizing that Britney Spears has nothing to do with what is really important to our society. This realization prompts many to understandably want to wake others up who may still have the wool pulled over there eyes. Ron Paul’s stances on the issues show a strong understanding of what our country was founded on. While I have been woken long ago and do not find as much of this a revelation, I am happy when I see others trying to wake this almost dead nation from its sleep.
Go Ron Go
My husband and I voted early…It was a cool day but still..I wore my Ron Paul t-shirt..no jacket covering it..walked in and stated..I’m here to vote Ron Paul for President. They looked puzzled at me..one lady told another..’she is registered a Republican..let her vote I guess’..They guess? WTF..one ask another if Ron Paul was still running..I said..’is the Constitution STILL law?’
I looked back at my husband and then back to the ladies and said..’hes with me and hes voting for Ron Paul too, so we know hes got 2 votes today and hope we’re not cheated out of our votes’
It felt so good..so right..and I felt free and proud of myself when I cast my vote…I know Dr.Paul is the ONLY true believer and defender of the Constitution running for office…Oh I know the chances of him winning are slim..because of the Neo-Con Nazi’s ..MSM..all the lies…But at least I slept good that night knowing I did my part for American Freedom.