After thinking more about it, I have the feeling than instead of
discussing about negative vs positive campaigning it might be better to
focus on thinking about the characteristics of effective campaigning.
On that topic, I can strongly recommend the book "Join the Club: How
Peer Pressure Can T
On 07/29/2017 05:08 PM, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> Sorry, the link to De Rezende's article on voting system in Brazil is
> absent, it is this one:
> [[http://www.cic.unb.br/~rezende/trabs/entrevistaINFO2.html]].
maybe a stupid question, but is there an English version available?
Regards,
Th
prietary social networks aggregate your data and sell it, which may
> violate your privacy.” - a neutral, fact-based message that conveys a clear
> problem. Not negative campaigning. Good.
Right. But the problem here is that a lot of people don't know which social
networks are proprietary. Ma
Hello,
I am one of the people that have argued against negative campaigning in the
past. From the discussion however, even after many emails there is still not a
common understanding what it is. Daniel gave some examples, let me build on top
of that:
“Free Software is good as it gives you
On 30/07/17 11:26, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
> And even if you are at a conference on the stage with your "opponent",
> by attacking you usually shows you have no arguments. It's what our
> most unsuccessful politicians do all the time.
>
Well, Brexit was all about negative and they "won". Not
Thanks Johannes and Alessandro for a good explanation what negative
campaigning actually is and how it can backfire to the sender. Some
nitpicking comments from my perspective:
# Alessandro Rubini [2017-07-30 11:26 +0200]:
Negative campaigning doesn't work. You may be self-confident you a
ving a
discussion about arbitrary definitions of "negative campaigning", let us
consider an example of something we might not like and how we might respond:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/30/13-step-digital-declutter-
clean-up-online
Here, the author presents a clas
Indeed, he has a point. This can be associated with a losing party by
some people.
However, since I don't know if he considers "negative campaigns" as
"those saying things without facts and references being exposed" or if
he considers "negative campaigns" as "those merely based on insults". I
woul
I would like to add just that a simple consideration into the table:
negative campaign doesn't propose a solution, it may be present in the
initial message but it would most likely be lost when referring to a
friend.
Also a negative message is usually associated with a losing party.
___
I guess that everybody has a different idea of what "negative
campaigning" may be.
I like how Daniel tried to frame the discussion below.
Il giorno gio 27 lug 2017 alle 9:17, Daniel Pocock
ha scritto:
On 27/07/17 00:36, Federico Bruni wrote:
It looks like your opinion is th
> [...] let's consider the advantages of negative campaigning:
> + it increases the reach of a message (due to its emotional nature)
Or not. In Europe we are "shocked", "outraged", "indignados" every
day. We've got enough of that. Negative messages
Sorry, the link to De Rezende's article on voting system in Brazil is
absent, it is this one:
[[http://www.cic.unb.br/~rezende/trabs/entrevistaINFO2.html]].
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/disc
Interesting topic you all brought up! :)
As far as I can see it, despite having negative informations about some
products (I'm ignoring brands and for-profit organization names because
of [[https://k7r.eu/there-is-no-free-software-company-but/]] and
[[https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/
Hi,
I've already sent a lengthy mail detailing my position w.r.t. negative
campaigning, but I would like to add this point:
Not every "negative" message is negative campaigning.
On Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2017 12:14:49 CEST Daniel Pocock wrote:
> If I was in somebody's house
Hi,
On Freitag, 28. Juli 2017 19:43:32 CEST Ioli Papadopoulou wrote:
> Thank you for your comments. This is what I am trying to say: Yes to a
> negative campaign, but in a POLITE and POSITIVE way.
So: no negative campaigning ;-)
I think this debate is missing the point about ne
it is not aggressive.
Hi Ioli
It looks like your opinion is the opposite of Daniel's opinion.
He's saying that we, as free software activists, should do _more_
negative campaigning. Why? Because a positive attitude, like
On 27/07/17 00:36, Federico Bruni wrote:
> It looks like your opinion is the opposite of Daniel's opinion.
> He's saying that we, as free software activists, should do _more_
> negative campaigning. Why? Because a positive attitude, like caring for
> the privacy of the u
Hi,
"J.B. Nicholson" writes:
> Trying to manage other people's feelings, or framing issues in terms
> of "negative" (and presumably "positive") language is a wasteful
> distraction that doesn't address substantive issues we can solve with
> software freedom.
I think figuring out how people migh
Hi Daniel,
I think the question of negative campaigning is very interesting. I
would say that while pointing out flaws technically falls in the realm
of negative campaigning, it is far from what I mostly associate with the
term: Attack ads in American elections. Those are vicious and often
Hi J.B.,
>I have to wonder: if FSFE is seriously getting caught up in framing
>debates
>like this, is FSFE an open source advocacy group or a free software
>advocacy group?
We're neither, and both. We do prefer to speak of free software, and try to be
consistent in this. We do not, however, co
Daniel Pocock wrote:
This was raised by Jonas in the thread about proprietary software, but
it is a completely different topic, so I'm starting this thread about
it: "we also don't do negative campaigning overall. We tell people they
should use Free Software; we don't tel
ommons, etc.). It was 10 years
ago, perhaps the situation of "digital rights" was less negative than
now. I think that negative campaigning matters today more than in the
past.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
eports". It is true, everybody
understands it and it is not aggressive.
Hi Ioli
It looks like your opinion is the opposite of Daniel's opinion.
He's saying that we, as free software activists, should do _more_
negative campaigning. Why? Because a positive attitude, like caring
Ioli
On 26/7/2017 1:14 μμ, Daniel Pocock
wrote:
This was raised by Jonas in the thread about proprietary software, but
it is a completely different topic, so I'm starting this thread about
it: "we also don't do negative camp
On 07/26/2017 12:14 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> This was raised by Jonas in the thread about proprietary software, but
> it is a completely different topic, so I'm starting this thread about
> it: "we also don't do negative campaigning overall. We tell people they
> s
This was raised by Jonas in the thread about proprietary software, but
it is a completely different topic, so I'm starting this thread about
it: "we also don't do negative campaigning overall. We tell people they
should use Free Software; we don't tell them what software they
26 matches
Mail list logo
