Yes, the plan is for the landing page to have an opt-in checkmark specifying this.
On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 12:14 PM Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > That's a great convenience. However, my initial impression would be that > you will really want to have people click an <okay> button to acknowledge > that they *want you* to fill out a form for them, since, among other > things, this now makes their donations publicly searchable, I believe. And > just so that they know that you are doing it. > > Paul Cz > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020, 12:03 PM Yosem Companys <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Also, we are working on making the filling out and submittal of FEC forms >> automatic, so people will do so without even realizing it upon signing up >> for the app. >> >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 12:01 PM Yosem Companys <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Agreed. Unfortunately, FEC form is required for donating. For candidates >>> (especially local ones), however, our app would streamline campaign finance >>> because our app does all the paperwork automatically in the back end, so >>> candidates would dramatically reduce the administrative burdens that often >>> prevent them from being able to accept small donations. >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 11:50 AM Paul <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you for the response, Yosem. >>>> #2 (the *second *#2 đ) is especially interesting, though filling >>>> out an FEC form feels to me like a fairly big obstacle to entry for users. >>>> >>>> Paul Cz. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020, 8:35 AM Yosem Companys <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 1. Wevoyce doesn't return any hits on Google Play. Is the app only >>>>> available from your site, at this time? >>>>> >>>>> The app is approved for the Apple and Android stores, but we have yet >>>>> to open for downloads. The only way to download the app at this time is >>>>> via >>>>> special link. I will send you one separately. >>>>> >>>>> 2. When it talks about propositions (I think that was the word) does >>>>> this mean only actual laws, ballot proposals, etc, or does it mean just >>>>> something that someone advocates and is looking for support for? >>>>> >>>>> Think of a prop as a 435-character petition labeled by a hashtag. >>>>> There are two types: >>>>> >>>>> - ?VoteFor props that are automatically tied to candidates (e.g., >>>>> ?VoteForBiden or ?VoteForTrump). >>>>> - Props focused on causes (e.g., ?SupportProChoice or >>>>> ?SupportProLife). >>>>> >>>>> Users can interact with props as they would on social media: >>>>> >>>>> - Follow props. >>>>> - Reply to props. >>>>> - Like props. >>>>> - Etc. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Do you have to put in $5 in order to use the app, or just if you >>>>> want to contribute? >>>>> >>>>> No, just if you want to contribute. >>>>> >>>>> Participation is tiered based on real-world validation: >>>>> >>>>> - Using the app is free (i.e., there is no financial cost to using >>>>> the app). Anyone may download the app, set up an account, and do the >>>>> following: (1) read propositions, (2) read what people post, and (3) >>>>> vote >>>>> on props and what people say. >>>>> - Anyone who registers to vote (and thus verifies they are a real >>>>> person) may post. >>>>> - Anyone who fills out the FEC form may donate. To ensure real >>>>> people have a real impact, donating occurs via liking, as little as a >>>>> penny. We call it, "Put your $ where your <3 is." Anytime you like >>>>> something, you are donating to it, so you need to put at least $5 in >>>>> your >>>>> account to like things. >>>>> >>>>> One thing to note is that all the donations end up going to political >>>>> candidates in at least three ways (and this is how we are campaign finance >>>>> reform in an app): >>>>> >>>>> - You may donate to candidates directly via their VoteFor prop. >>>>> - You may advocate candidates. If anyone likes you, any likes >>>>> (i.e., real money) you receive go to the candidate(s) you advocate. >>>>> - You may donate to a cause prop, and politicians who publicly >>>>> commit to support these causes get a share of the donations. (You are >>>>> told >>>>> in advance who will get your donations.) >>>>> >>>>> Reading, voting, and donating can be private. Posting is always public. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 12:55 PM Paul <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Yosem, >>>>>> I just started the signup process and I have three questions: >>>>>> 1) do you have to put in $5 in order to use the app, or just if >>>>>> you want to contribute? >>>>>> 2) Wevoyce doesn't return any hits on Google Play. Is the app >>>>>> only available from your site, at this time? >>>>>> 3) when it talks about propositions (I think that was the word) >>>>>> does this mean only actual laws, ballot proposals, etc, or does it mean >>>>>> just something that someone advocates and is looking for support for? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> Paul >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020, 12:18 PM Paul <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Yosem, >>>>>>> Thanks for letting us know about Wevoyce. I just skimmed it but >>>>>>> the bits about "real people*," upvoting and, especially, micro >>>>>>> donations, >>>>>>> sound very interesting. >>>>>>> Since my career has been in software testing, I will at least try >>>>>>> it and let you know about anything I see. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Paul Czyzewski >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * As long as you don't get swamped by real people who are, for >>>>>>> example, Proud Boys or NRA members >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020, 12:04 PM Yosem Companys <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Excellent point, Nathaniel. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some of us at Liberationtech have gotten together to try to fix >>>>>>>> political discourse on social media and campaign finance by developing >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> new mobile-based solution called Wevoyce. If you and others on the list >>>>>>>> would like to check it out and give us feedback, please let me know. We >>>>>>>> would really appreciate it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Yosem >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 11:42 AM Nathaniel Borenstein via >>>>>>>> cpsr-activists list <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This may sound naive, but here goes⌠>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Social media are just the latest way for people to communicate. >>>>>>>>> All the other ways we have found to communicate have allowed us to >>>>>>>>> express >>>>>>>>> both the best and the worst of ourselves. Itâs often easier to >>>>>>>>> figure out >>>>>>>>> how to express the worst, but that doesnât mean we canât focus on the >>>>>>>>> best. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To my mind the right question is this: how can we use social >>>>>>>>> media to create countervailing trends to the ones we have spent so >>>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>>> time bemoaning? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Unfortunately it is possible that the best answers to this >>>>>>>>> question will require wrenching control of the social media landscape >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> big companies, but I suspect there is a fair amount we can do short of >>>>>>>>> that. â Nathaniel >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Doug Schuler via cpsr-activists list < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One question is certainly why would one person use social media. >>>>>>>>> The "CPSR" angle on it in my opinion would be something like this: >>>>>>>>> Given >>>>>>>>> the immense damage that social media as it's currently deployed and >>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>> wreaks on society, the public sphere, democracy, mental health, >>>>>>>>> whatever >>>>>>>>> you want to call it, what ought computer professionals do about it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems like other hams that are perpetrated in that it affects >>>>>>>>> different people unequally. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I would also argue that, as with TV, individuals can "turn it >>>>>>>>> off" but they can't turn off social media culture... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 8:28 PM Paul via cpsr-activists list < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> rant >>>>>>>>>>> I think that the crucial issue with facebook, twitter, etc >>>>>>>>>>> is not just how manipulative they are, or are not. It's how Jeff >>>>>>>>>>> long ago >>>>>>>>>>> answered TV. I.E., don't use it at all. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course I realize that this side-steps the issue for the >>>>>>>>>>> hundreds of millions of people who *do* use them. But, news >>>>>>>>>>> aside, they >>>>>>>>>>> are too much of a time sink and, IMO, the signal to noise ratio is >>>>>>>>>>> unbelievably low.* Since I'm ranting, I'll throw in my Twitter >>>>>>>>>>> analogy; >>>>>>>>>>> it's like opening and reading two hundred fortune cookies because >>>>>>>>>>> *one* of them may include something that you're glad you've >>>>>>>>>>> read.** I'm not a very productive person, and I'm in no critical >>>>>>>>>>> function >>>>>>>>>>> (well, for a few more weeks, I will help some US Census enumerators >>>>>>>>>>> who are >>>>>>>>>>> having payroll issues) but, even when I'm unemployed, my time is >>>>>>>>>>> *far* too >>>>>>>>>>> valuable to spend on social media. >>>>>>>>>>> One more opinion before I step off my high-horse. Getting >>>>>>>>>>> news from Facebook or other social media is totally a losing >>>>>>>>>>> proposition. >>>>>>>>>>> Advising people on how to fix it, or how to confirm what they read, >>>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>>> waste of time. The crucial part of getting news is to somehow find >>>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>>> trustworthy sources, and start from there. I don't agree with the >>>>>>>>>>> spin on >>>>>>>>>>> everything in the NY Times but I fully believe that, for reasons of >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> personal integrity of the journalists and also to protect their >>>>>>>>>>> bottom >>>>>>>>>>> line, they are never going to invent things that they print. >>>>>>>>>>> /rant off >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> paul czyzewski >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> * if there was a way for me to just see my friends' family >>>>>>>>>>> photos on facebook; ie, no news, and also no "vital" links passed >>>>>>>>>>> on my >>>>>>>>>>> well-meaning friends, I'd probably start looking at it again. But >>>>>>>>>>> I think >>>>>>>>>>> that there is (deliberately) no way to filter it that way. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ** I once gave twitter what I thought was a fair test. There >>>>>>>>>>> were tsunami warnings in Hawaii so I used some filter -- I don't >>>>>>>>>>> know if >>>>>>>>>>> it's still exists or not -- to watch a stream of tweets about that, >>>>>>>>>>> real-time. Instead of the hoped-for "I see the wave entering the >>>>>>>>>>> harbor; >>>>>>>>>>> small boats are being overturned," I saw tweets on the order of >>>>>>>>>>> "The news >>>>>>>>>>> reported that, 30 minutes ago, the waves were twenty miles away." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 7:46 PM Jeff Johnson via cpsr-activists >>>>>>>>>>> list <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This article argues that âThe Social Dilemmaâ movie is >>>>>>>>>>>> overblown: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200928/11452045401/social-dilemma-manipulates-you-with-misinformation-as-it-tries-to-warn-you-manipulation-misinformation.shtml >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff >>>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/cpsr-activists >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/cpsr-activists >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Douglas Schuler >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> Twitter: @doug_schuler >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> Public Sphere Project >>>>>>>>> http://www.publicsphereproject.org/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mailing list ~ Collective Intelligence for the Common Good >>>>>>>>> * http://lists.scn.org/mailman/listinfo/ci >>>>>>>>> <http://lists.scn.org/mailman/listinfo/ci>4cg-announce* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Creating the World Citizen Parliament >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/may-june-2013/creating-the-world-citizen-parliament >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Liberating Voices! A Pattern Language for Communication >>>>>>>>> Revolution (project) >>>>>>>>> http://www.publicsphereproject.org/patterns/lv >>>>>>>>> <http://www.publicsphereproject.org/patterns/> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Liberating Voices! A Pattern Language for Communication >>>>>>>>> Revolution (book) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11601 >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/cpsr-activists >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/cpsr-activists >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing [email protected].
