Has Digg Already Picked the President?
Social bookmarking sites actual endorse candidates without actually trying to do so. By searching the sites, and sorting those searches by votes or popularity, you can get a sense of who members prefer. Interestingly, all the major social bookmarking and social networking sites agree on the same candidate. The very definition of a Web 2.0 site is one that derives its value from the actions of users. Users are voters, and if these user-voters choose a candidate, shouldn't that candidate WIN THE ELECTION?
8:54 PM * PERMALINK * 16 comments
Comments:
No - If that theory held, then Ron Paul would become president. He was the darling of all social sites for months prior to the primary season.
Agreed. Ron Paul got my vote, but he quickly faded in the real world.
***** "No - If that theory held, then Ron Paul would become president. He was the darling of all social sites for months prior to the primary season." *****
Ron Paul has been very hot on the social networking sites, especially after specific debates or comments. But Obama has been more consistently on top. For example, Paul has 83,624 supporters on Facebook (John McCain's page has 93,901 supporters; Hillary Clinton's 136,766; and Barack Obama's 703,062.)
I haven't suggested that social sites might be capable of predicting the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place. Just the winner.
Mike Elgan
it's interesting to study the dynamics of new media vs. old media when it comes to elections. i think everyone's still trying to figure out how to best leverage new media in their favor. however, it still seems to be a bit of a dark science. we've seen the old media get excited in the past about a candidate's ability to generate online contributions, only to see that candidate quickly fade from the scene. when it all comes down to it, it's very difficult to predict mass human behavior.
That assumes that the people on these sites all vote and that no one not on the sites vote. If the demographics of the sites line up with the demographics of the typical voter then you've got another poll, but since most sites aren't country specific you end up with foreign "voters" who can't impact the actual election. And then there's the issue of the US being a republic (anyone grumpy about the 2000 elections should really read up on the electoral college), a simple majority isn't enough if some states aren't represented. In all likelihood what you're actually seeing is which candidate teenage girls find the most dreamy, but then again that's not far off from how the real elections take place...
All of you are assuming that the demographics visiting these social networking site are the same as those that vote. I tend to not agree with that assumption.
One of the problems I see with this theory is that social bookmarking sites have a ton of overlap (same people using multiple sites), so don't be fooled by the numbers. What percentage of Americans actually use these sites?
I wonder how George Bush won the reelection then... grrrr...
Call me a conspiracist, but I think there's some pretty powerful political machinery that we don't know about.
Look, I'm a 40-something white guy with a high-tech background, and I must admit I don't really know what a "digg" is, I don't use facebook or myspace, and, sadly, I'm the most technical and web-savvy person I know - and I know a lot of people. Who the (mostly young) people on these social networks prefer has little more national and unbiased relevance than talking a poll in black church in Harlem or a white gas station in Bismark.
Mike - would you consider tutoring us on Diggs some time?
Mike - thanks for the response (original "Anonymous" here)
I was, rather ambiguously I admit, commenting on social news sites like Digg as per your post; rather than social networking sites like facebook.
The demographics of the two user bases are vastly different, Digg, reddit, HN etc members are generally more technically literate and likely to research off their own back, whilst facebook is more reflective of the general voting population - i.e. covers everyone.
Also by their very nature of being online both sites skew heavily towards the younger generation, and the statistics don't take into account geo-loacation. (I'm in the UK and a Obama supporter!)
>>Ron Paul....
>>But Obama has been more
>>consistently on top
You must be pretty new to digg then ;-)
The people who actually vote access the AARP web site or crochet.org, if they use the web for anything but email or QVC.
Social networking sites have no more connection with reality than porn sites. Perhaps less.
Obama cannot get elected. Nether can Clinton. McCain doesn't need to spend another dime. Once again the Democrats have lost their grip on reality and handed the election to the Republicans.
Then again, remember who became chancellor in January 1933.
***** Digg, reddit, HN etc members are generally more technically literate and likely to research off their own back, whilst facebook is more reflective of the general voting population - i.e. covers everyone.
Also by their very nature of being online both sites skew heavily towards the younger generation *****
What evidence do you have for any of this? The reason I ask is that there's something about social sites or any online site where the "content" is produced by members that makes us feel like we know what the demographics are, but those feelings often turn out to be false. For example, half of all MySpace users are over 35.
Mike
No real hard proof I'm afraid Mike, but spending time on say digg, you get a feel for the type of people posting, commenting etc, based on their understanding of topics, technology etc. Now I understand thats a VERY unquantifiable measurement, and obviously there could be a 90% audience share of people who "digg/bury" but don't comment who all happen to be females in their 70s.
The closest I can get to any actual data is from one of their their advertising partners
http://www.federatedmedia.net/authors/digg/
# 94% male
# 88% 18-39
# 52% IT professionals, developers or engineers
But how up to date that is I don't know.
http://www.quantcast.com/digg.com
I think it's pretty clear that the web 2.0 community demographics and the Obama supporter demographics are very similar. In other words, social bookmarking trends are not a good cross section of the country, they are good cross section of Obama supporters. Look at the primary popular vote, much closer than is reflected by the sentiments of the web 2.0 community.
Post a Comment
<< Home