Please note this is a re-post from an article I wrote on 09/06/2011 on http://www.brandseye.com but the website has since changed format and my posts are no longer accessible there.
It’s become incredibly easy for us to say that the “internet will enable [insert favourite social need here]…” Indeed, the internet does have the potential to create a fair democratic system – but what we’re not getting at is how the desired changes are actually going to happen. Digital has the power not only to understand what changes are needed but also to bring about their implementation.
What’s needed? Bright, go-getter and can-do people who not only believe in the change they want to happen but are prepared to go the full Monty and make it work. We have the necessary human resources available and via initiatives like crowd-sourcing and initiative incubation (note not just idea-incubation) we can realise these goals.
So, what’s the real issue?
Imagine you’re talking to a shrink, where you rant ceaselessly about a problem for session upon session and either he just listens and enquires about how you feel or potentially offers you a quick-fix antidote to ease your symptoms.
The result: a never-ending square-dance around the real issue. Symptoms are continually addressed and social graces are continually observed yet are we really setting realistic goals and developing constructive and deliverable action plans?
If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put foundations under them. – Henry David Thoreau –
How do we expect to solve global socio-economic problems like we keep saying we will, when we’re relying solely on the dialogue that the internet facilitates? Agreed, the internet is the best ideas’ incubator yet available to us. Its multinational, boundary-less scope is brilliant for stimulating ideas which really are worth sharing and without it, the world would be deaf to a large population of intelligent and worthwhile contributors. However, without a defined plan/vehicle for their implementation, any idea no matter how great, remains baseless.
Less Talk More Action
I fundamentally believe that the internet is a vehicle capable of facilitating advancements in societal progress. Though I remain convinced that unless more ideas evolve into actionable strategies – the internet will largely facilitate an impenetrable bubble of stale dialogue.
Let me give you an example. High level as this may be.
1) Listen, register and convey ideas/sentiment to the necessary referents
Online reputation management (ORM) services will enable not just consumers to air their opinions of the brands they use but also what citizens have to say about elements of their country’s governance.
Consumers the world over, and not just those from developed, urban areas are becoming more and more comfortable in using social media platforms particularly those accessed via mobile for conveying political sentiment. Engagements with/following of@BarackObama and @PresidencyZA on Twitter as well as the viral nature of pro-socially democratic conversation trending within North Africa and the Middle East are cited as key examples.
With auto-verification and natural language processing search functionality via online reputation management services, large volumes of public opinion issued across multiple platforms of digital communication, the public participation process can become fully automated with governments able to extract and act on relevant insights not only on a quantitative scale but on an on-going basis as well.
For example, in this way, citizens can directly participate in processes and decision making at all levels of government, improving the communication and transparency of the overall decisions which affect their day to day lives, airing their views which otherwise would not be heard.
2) Impose accountability – discourage inaction/compel action
One particular advantage of ORM is the ability to determine source credibility. This implies the scope of an author’s audience – how many people would have the opportunity-to-see his/her message at a time. If you can reach 4 000 people, you are considered a ‘respected source’. Similarly, if you can reach 1 000 000 people, you are considered to be an ‘authoritative source’
You may disagree with that. Even if they have seven million followers – how could a singer be authoritative? They’re not authoritative because they’re an authority on a subject, they’re authoritative because they’re accountable to a community seven or even ten million strong.
There is a certain amount of control that needs to be exercised not only when you can influence that many people but because that is a large population which controls the supply of your influence. That connection is an organic, human-defined relationship, which if abused, will cease to exist or at least substantially reduce in following.
The same rings true for state-centric governance. With a direct line to the collective voice of the opinions of millions, leaders have the potential to not only visualise those castles in the sky (the carrot) but facing the risk of their electorate literally unfollowing them (the stick) the compelling drive to actually build the necessary foundations.
What’s your great idea? How will you overcome the barriers to its enactment?
And how will it make a lasting difference?
On track and online 