Australian internet users more social, connected and politically aware than non-users

As reported by ARN in the article It's official - the Internet is good for you: ANU poll, the eighth ANUpoll, The Internet and Civil Society (PDF), shows increased use of the Net is leading to a more politically engaged and socially inclusive Australian society.

The report asked whether virtual contacts (made over the internet) are less important than personal ones in building a strong society, and whether a reliance on virtual over personal contact had implications for the quality of citizenship.

In his foreword to the report, ANU vice-chancellor, Professor Ian Young, stated that,

“The results from ANUpoll are largely positive, and counter the pessimistic view that the Internet is undermining effective social relations and good citizenship.

Frequent Internet users are not more socially disengaged than their counterparts who rely on personal interaction. They are at least as good citizens, and report similar or higher levels of social capital."

Some of the key findings from the report included:

Household Internet use

• A total of 82 per cent of respondents reported having broadband access with only two per cent saying that they have dial-up access (2 per cent did not know and 12 per cent did not have internet access at home)
• Around two-thirds of respondents said they use the Internet at least once a day.
• Nearly two-thirds of Australians reported knowing how to use the Internet to download audio,
  video and image files.
• 21 per cent of respondents indicated they had used the Internet to design a webpage or a blog.

Internet use and social capital

• 35 per cent of respondents said that the Internet helped them interact with people of a different race from their own.
• Just over half (54 per cent) of respondents said that the Internet helped them interact with people from other countries.
• A relatively small percentage of respondents (15 per cent) felt the Internet helped them interact with people who share the same political views.
• 59 per cent of respondents felt the Internet helped them interact with people who they shared hobbies with.

Internet use and good citizenship

• The report concluded that frequent Internet use does not necessarily lead to a more atomised and individualistic society.
  
• 70 per cent of frequent Internet users felt that to be a good citizen it was very important to support people who are worse off than themselves.
• 86 per cent of frequent Internet users felt that to be a good citizen it was very important to report a crime if they witnessed one.
• Only 15 per cent of frequent Internet users felt that to be a good citizen it was extremely important to be active in politics, compared to 25 per cent of infrequent users and 21 per cent of rare users.
  
  However:
• Frequent Internet users were less willing than infrequent Internet users to accept that traditional norms of citizenship such as obeying laws and regulations, serving on a jury if called and being active in voluntary organisations are very important in order to be a good citizen.
  
  For example, only 38 per cent of frequent Internet users believe that to be a good citizen it was important to always obey laws and regulations, compared with 51 per cent of infrequent Internet users.

Internet use and political involvement

• Those who use the Internet more frequently are more likely to be involved in offline political activity such as contacting a local politician, signing a petition or buying products for a political reason. The findings showed that Internet use was linked with promoting offline and online political engagement.
  
  On that basis the report drew the general conclusion that online political activity complements, rather than replaces, traditional forms of political activity.
  
• Around one in four (27 per cent) respondents said they had visited the websites of political organisations or candidates and one in five said that they had forwarded electronic messages with political content (28 per cent of frequent Internet users).
  
• Those who use the Internet frequently are significantly more likely than those who use the Internet sparingly to be involved in political activity through virtual interactions.

Read full post...

View summary...

Battle of the sockpuppets (part of the discussion at Media140 Brisbane)

I'm at Media140 in Brisbane today on the panel Web 2.0 or Web too far? where six of us will be discussing how the internet can be used to "distort, misinform and distribute propaganda" and how we should use the web to democratise scientific knowledge.

This is a key topic for governments as well. The internet is a fantastic mechanism for democratising communication, giving every citizen a voice. However it can also be used to create a choir of false voices to amplify a given point of view or drown out legitimate perspectives.


These voices are often referred to as sockpuppets, a term Wikipedia defines as "an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community."

The first sockpuppets were used by individuals to pose as third parties in support of their views during a debate on an online forum or chat channel. This use, while annoying, was often detectable by other participants or administrators and often resulted in the perpetrator being named and shamed, suspended or even expelled.

With the growth of the internet as a mainstream media and with the rise of social media, sockpuppets  became important tools for people pushing particular views. By creating multiple personas, individuals were able to have a disproportionate influence over discussions on matters important to them, and sometimes matters of interest to the public.

As it has become easier to register domain names and build websites, generate hundreds - or thousands - of email addresses and program personas to provide differently worded statements supporting the same cause, sockpuppetry has grown from being the act of passionate or misguided individuals into a strategy used by groups seeking to amplify their voice beyond their active membership.

In the last few years sockpuppets has expanded into use by commercial and political interest groups. Sockpuppetry has become big business, with groups creating fake personas to emphasise points of view and influence government decisions and outcomes.

In some cases this approach has been embraced by governments, for example The Guardian recently revealed that the US military has tendered for the creation of sockpuppets to be used to spread particular messages online. Reported in the article, Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media, the article states that,

A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.
...
The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries".

These sockpuppets - or perhaps 'socksoldiers' - have been designed to go into battle against extremist and radical forces who, presumably, are using similar techniques to incite negative views and violence against the USA.

This specific approach is designed to target websites outside the US and the company involved has stated that the sockpuppets are not being designed to infiltrate Facebook, Twitter or US forums and blogs.

However there have been past claims and concerns that the US government has targeted citizens, such as in the below video regarding the possible use of sockpuppetry to deflect complaints about the Army Corp of Engineers after Hurricane Katrina.



Sockpuppetry may be illegal in certain countries, if you are impersonating a real (and usually living) person. However there may be loopholes regarding totally fake personas, 'anonymous' posts or people use pseudonyms, which could also be for legitimate purposes. I'm not a lawyer and can't comment on Australian law in this regard.

However, regardless of the legal position, it can be hard to detect well-executed sockpuppetry particularly where experienced operators are involved. It can also be difficult to prove offences and prosecute perpetrators, who may be based anywhere in the world.

While it may be very hard to detect the scope of sockpuppetry, its impact can be profound.

Imagine running an online government consultation on an issue where there's commercial interests and millions of dollars at stake. A business, or a lobby group representing them, could invest in the creation of a few hundred sockpuppets to emphasise a particular perspective or provide weak or offensive opposing arguments (known as a 'strawman sockpuppet' - used to discredit or weaken an opponent's argument by presenting an extreme or distorted view).

How about during the public (online) discussion of a policy initiative - such as a mining tax, carbon price, same-sex marriage, plain-packaging of tobacco products or limits on pokie machines. Lobby and pressure groups, political parties and corporations could all create hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of sockpuppets to represent their views. Or maybe they already are using these, and similar, tactics to create the perception of having public support.

These sockpuppets could even become well-defined personalities, expressing a particular set of views across a set of topics, interacting with both real people and other sockpuppets to coordinate and amplify particular views through Twitter, Facebook, blogs, forums and newspaper comment columns.

Due to the sophistication of modern sockpuppetry techniques, some simple sockpuppets - partial personas - could be partially or completely computer-generated and operated, providing short sloganistic comments on a defined range of topics, or amplifying the statements of more fully-formed human operated sockpuppets.

We could see a virtual arms war erupt between groups to design and construct the most influential and cost-effective sockpuppets. At the same time social media, forum and blog sites will be working to design the most effective sockpuppet countermeasures - software that can identify sockpuppets and block them (probably blocking some legitimate human voices in the process).

So to preserve the integrity of online consultations and engagements, what do governments need to do?

Firstly there's the need to educate public servants and politicians about the risk of sock puppets and how they may be used in attempts to derail legitimate policy and program discussions and consultations. People need to be educated on how to recognize basic sockpuppets and on how to implement preventative policies and barriers to screen out fake voices and personas.

Secondly government needs to consider its own countermeasures. Automated tools that can detect potential sockpuppets from their behavioral patterns, use of stock phrases and by who they follow, support and revile. These can provide flags for human moderation, after publication, of positively identified sockpuppets.

Finally, government needs to consider approaches to verify individual identities online (in its own consultation and engagement sites) which still permit anonymity and the use of pseudonyms, however present high barriers for sockpuppets to surmount. This can be done through human detection techniques, IP matching and semantic analysis, as well as by providing a facility for authenticated identities online while still protecting the privacy of participants.

For governments, still coping with moderation issues and the concept of consulting online, there needs to be significant thought and reflection put into the risk of sockpuppets - not to mention significant thinking on whether it is ever appropriate for government agencies to use their own.

Here's the panel presentation:

media140 Brisbane 2011 // Panel - Web 2.0 or Web too far? from media140 on Vimeo.

Read full post...

View summary...

2011 Intranet Innovation Awards are now open for entries

The fifth annual global Intranet Innovation Awards have just opened and you have until Tuesday 31 May to submit your entry.

What I particularly like about these awards is that the judges aren't simply looking for the best Intranet, you can simply submit the best functionality or feature in your Intranet. This means that if you have a 'average' internet, but have one brilliant and innovative feature you can enter just that feature and have a chance at winning.

The four categories for the Awards include,

• Core intranet functionality
• Communication, collaboration and culture
• Frontline delivery, and
• Business solutions

Full details of the categories, with examples, and the scoring criteria is available on the entry page.

Read full post...

View summary...

Advertising agencies, digital agencies, web developers & printers - you need to understand government's online requirements

It has been an interesting experience working with advertising and digital agencies, web developers and printers while in government - particularly having been on the other side myself for more than ten years.

While some are very good, others definitely 'need development' - particularly in the web delivery space.

Government has a number of requirements for websites and other online properties, however it sometimes appears that these are not always well understood by service providers - or maybe it is simply that some may occasionally seek to 'cut corners' on quality to increase profit margins.
 Service providers are expect to know the mandatory government web requirements when responding to government tenders. As AGIMO states in the WebGuide:

Service providers should be familiar with the Mandatory Requirements and the other guidance provided by the Web Guide when responding to Australian Government tender processes for relevant services.

Below is a list of things that service providers really, really need to know when building Australian Government websites:

• Complying with WCAG's accessibility minimums is a mandatory requirement for government
  I've been told by supposedly experienced (private sector) web developers that the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 doesn't apply to government, and that it is optional for governments to meet WCAG requirements as it is a 'non binding international agreement'.
  I've also been told by web developers that they won't implement some accessibility features because they 'believe the site is accessible enough already' - despite not meeting WCAG standards.

• A scanned document turned into a PDF isn't accessible under WCAG 2.0
  Telling me that a scanned document - essentially an image - is accessible to screenreaders if it is converted to PDF doesn't communicate that you're a 'web professional with more than 10 years experience'.
  A Microsoft Word document or InDesign file converted to a PDF also won't meet the Australian Government's minimum standards.
  When you provide PDFs to government, if you are not also providing the content in an alternative accessible format, you will often not meet your contractual requirements.

• You must include a privacy statement, disclaimer and appropriate copyright notices on government websites
  Telling government staff that a 'Website privacy policy is only necessary if you're collecting email addresses or other information online' is incorrect and creates significant risk for your client.
  
  
• Government Departments can use social media channels
  There is no stricture forbidding Government agencies from using social media channels for communication or engagement activities. In fact many already do - and often in more advanced ways than the private sector.
  There's also no 'conclusive study showing that Australians don't want to associate with agencies or government campaigns via social media channels'.
  There's also limited need for government to engage 'social media experts' who don't understand how to use social media services - such as having a Twitter account that doesn't use hashtags or retweet others or writing a Facebook strategy that just lists the standard Tabs and doesn't provide evidence of expertise in using 3rd party applications or iframes to customise a Page.
  
  Having an account illustrates you're aware of a channel, using the account well demonstrates your expertise.
  
• Building a fake persona on a social media channel then revealing it as fake and a government promotion can be considered false and misleading practice
  Suggesting to a government agency that they should create fake personas and interact as though they were real, build a following or trusting friends and then unveiling the activity as a campaign at the end isn't good advice to provide any organisation.
  Sure there's LonelyGirl and the Jacket Girl, and several other instances of actors used to create fake personas - but never by government agencies. Providing the truth is important in government campaigns and being authentic is important to build trust and respect online. Creating fake personas usually isn't conducive to these and can also break the acceptable usage terms of services such as Facebook (which you should read).
  

Finally here's some tips - collected from discussions with my peers across a range of government agencies and jurisdictions:

• We don't need you to build us a CMS and we don't want to finance the creation of your own 'you-beaut' in-house CMS and then pay you every time we need it upgraded. Consider building expertise in an off-the-shelf product - particularly an open source platform with global support.
  
• Frontpage doesn't qualifies as a modern web development tool used by experienced professionals. It also leaves code in your pages if you don't edit it out (caught!)
  
• We do often notice when you copy code and leave the original author's name and credentials in the (web page) source without appropriately compensating or crediting them.
• Everyone knows that designers love arty fonts, but if the government agency doesn't own the rights to them they can't use them. 
• Making all the text links in a website into images isn't a good idea - it makes them inaccessible!
  
• Audience usability testing should almost always be a required step in web design. Even if your random sample of three staff really liked the design and could use the functionality, what does the website's audience think?
  
• Background music is never acceptable in a website. Self-playing video is only acceptable where there's accessible alternatives and the video can be controlled by the user.
  
• Government agencies don't want to pay for your custom reporting system that only you can access so you can give us interpreted results for web traffic. Use a standard web-based platform and give the agency access to the reports.
• Don't tell agencies it will cost $5,000 per month to host a small government website via your ISP. Particularly when their website lists their prices (up to $30 per month) - oops!
  
• When a government agency asks for an email newsletter system with double opt-in subscription, bounce detection, automated unsubscribe, open and click-through reporting, simply using a web-form to collect email addresses and sending emails via Outlook is not a quality outcome.
  
• When asked to design a website for an agency to implement in-house, don't provide code or custom functionality that can't be used or build on the agency's platform.
  
• It doesn't cost $10,000 to add a share button / reporting system / embed a YouTube video into the website - particularly when the agency is providing all the code for you.
  
• You're not a 'Government 2.0 pioneer' if you've never heard of the Gov 2.0 Taskforce, the eGovernment Resource Centre or this blog. Knowing Obama used social media in his first Presidential campaign no longer earns brownie points.
• Even if this is 'the first time' a government agency has asked you to make a website or PDF accessible to WCAG 2.0 standards, that doesn't mean that your previous standard will meet current government needs.
• Just because your contact in government hasn't had previous experience developing websites doesn't mean they aren't supported by people who have a lot of experience.

Any other gems out there that people are prepared to share?

Read full post...

View summary...

Round up from the Canberra Gov 2.0 lunch

Several people have blogged about today's Government 2.0 lunch, and I've linked to their posts below.

I also took some notes on Alison's talk, as follows:

Community Management
Tools/tech are not community. Community is about the people and their relationships and may, or may not, be formed using all different kinds of tools.

Three roles of community managers

• Leader - guide, initiator
• Participant - listener, curator
• Advocate

Risks of communities

• Legal - terms of use, copyright, etc
• Departmental - reputation, internal rules
• User risks - behavioural, personal attacks, bullying, suicide, self-harm

Risk mitigation

• Timescale for non-permissible content being live (if post-moderation)
• Community guidelines - separate to terms of use (impersonation, sock puppets - multiple accounts, etc)
• Content assessment chart (what is permissible, not permissible)
• Escalation policy
• Internal community guidelines

Other notes

• Community management is not a 9-5th role (what are you going to do with the other 140hrs per week, public holidays, staff holidays, etc)
• Pre-moderation not recommended as it stifles discussion, but it may sometimes be useful in sensitive discussions.
• Never delete content - just hide from public view (keep reasons, why removed, who did it)
• Facebook can be a pain due to its lack of capability to hide comments rather than delete them
• Don't pre-guess your community by deciding on the topics that should be discussed - such as in a forum. This can fragment the community into groups too small to be sustainable. Instead first build the community, then open up specific topics based on need.
• Ensure you set context for the community, otherwise you might find the community takes its own direction without your influence.

Project CODE
Also at the lunch, Professor Rachel Gibson of the University of Manchester presented an overview of Project CODE (Comparing Online Democracy and Elections), a UK-funded project looking at the impact of social media use by politicians and citizens on the outcomes of elections, focusing on the US, UK, France and Australia.


Other blog posts about the lunch

• Tom Worthington of the ANU blogged about the Gov 2.0 lunch in his Net Traveler blog,  Government 2.0 at Parliament House.
• Rachel also blogged about the lunch at the Project CODE blog, Gov 2.0 in Australia.
• The role of the community manager in social media
  

Read full post...

View summary...