Democrats Favored On Twitter's Suggested User List, Watchdog Claims

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Democrats Favored On Twitter's Suggested User List, Watchdog Claims stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

DON THOMPSON | 10/27/09 07:16 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?
Newsom

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — When people sign up for Twitter, the popular social-networking site presents a list of suggested users to follow, driving significant traffic to sports figures, celebrities, politicians and other prominent posters.

In California, the list has attracted the attention of political watchdogs because it apparently favors Democrats over Republicans in next year's race for governor. That raises questions about whether Twitter should change its policy at a time when the site is catching on as a popular recruiting tool for candidates.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is on the suggested user list and has 1.2 million followers. His likely opponent for the Democratic nomination, Attorney General Jerry Brown, also made the list and has 960,000 followers, even though he is not a declared candidate and has posted the fewest tweets of all the gubernatorial hopefuls.

None of the three Republican candidates is on the list, and each has fewer than 5,000 followers.

"It's a dumb move," said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, an independent nonpartisan think tank in Los Angeles. "Somebody should have been thinking that it's pretty obvious you don't put just the Democrats on it."

Such apparent favoritism does not violate any California campaign regulations, but it has caught the attention of the state's watchdog agency. The California Fair Political Practices Commission has formed a committee to examine how campaigns intersect with social media and to determine whether additional regulations are necessary.

Twitter co-founder Biz Stone said in a March posting on his blog that he and a handful of other company employees make the final choice about who will be featured, a list that has grown to about 500 people.

He compared it to "your local book store's staff picks," a benign way of introducing new authors.

Story continues below
advertisement

New users are linked automatically to 20 people they might want to follow, selected at random from the list of 500, but can reject or include as many from the master list as they like.

In an e-mail to The Associated Press, Twitter Inc. spokeswoman Jenna Sampson said the suggested user list is based on users "who show that they provide value by posting often and engaging with their followers." It includes some nationally known Republicans, including California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sen. John McCain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The company is updating its features, which could lead to a change in the list, she said.

Twitter's exclusion from the list of the three Republicans running for California governor is touched with irony because all have strong ties to Silicon Valley, the nation's hub of high tech innovation and social networking.

Former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman – with 4,160 followers – led the online auction site during an era of explosive growth.

Former Congressman Tom Campbell – with 1,660 followers – is a former Stanford business professor who represented the region in Congress for 10 years.

And state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner – with nearly 2,600 followers – headed a tech startup and made a fortune before becoming insurance commissioner.

"Our observation of the list is it tends to be left-leaning politicians or celebrities. Tom Campbell is neither, so we're not surprised not to be on there," Campbell spokesman James Fisfis said.

Said Poizner spokeswoman Bettina Inclan: "We think there's no doubt that getting a Twitter recognition by being featured on the suggested users list gives an advantage. It does make it an uneven playing field."

Whitman's campaign declined to comment.

Among the issues the Fair Political Practices Commission will examine during next year's hearings is whether candidates should be required to disclose preferential social network listings as in-kind contributions. No decisions are expected until 2011, after next year's election cycle.

It's difficult to determine the monetary value – if any – of being included on Twitter's list because candidates do not pay for the listing. Earlier this year, one Internet executive offered to pay Twitter $120,000 a year, $250,000 for two years or $500,000 for three years for a spot on the suggested user list.

"They declined. Which was smart because my offer has proven to (be) half or 1/3rd of the value," Jason Calacanis, the chief executive of the Mahalo search engine, said in an e-mail last week to the AP.

Even without a firm monetary value, the suggested user list provides a clear advantage by driving more people to a candidate, several campaign advisers said. In turn, candidates can steer followers to their Web sites and donor links.

"Does it bring voters? Does it bring contributors? Does it bring volunteers? Probably all of the above," said Garry South, a Democratic campaign strategist who is advising Newsom. "It's great to be able to brag about having over 1 million followers on Twitter. What that gets you at the end of the day, on Election Day, is not really clear at the moment."

Janis Hirohama, president of the League of Women Voters of California, said the social networking field should be leveled so all candidates have an equal chance to get their messages out.

"Then it's up to the candidates to make the most of their presence on Twitter and Facebook and other social networking sites," she said.

Twitter may be coming around to that view. Speaking at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco last week, Twitter chief executive and co-founder Evan Williams said he wants to get rid of the company-selected favorites.

"The suggested user list has been controversial for a while," Williams said. "It's gone on too long, and I desperately want to kill it or evolve it."

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — When people sign up for Twitter, the popular social-networking site presents a list of suggested users to follow, driving significant traffic to sports figures, celebrities,...
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — When people sign up for Twitter, the popular social-networking site presents a list of suggested users to follow, driving significant traffic to sports figures, celebrities,...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
51
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

What a surprise! No one is following Republicans. Wonder how much adding Republicans to a "suggested users to follow" list would affect their numbers. After all, only 20% admit to Republican Party affiliation.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 PM on 10/29/2009
- goodog I'm a Fan of goodog 131 fans permalink
photo

It's not appropriate to treat Twitter like a media outlet governed by journalistic standards.

http://www.isle-of-avalon.net/DerInsuranceUntergang.html

If facebook, myspace, frienster, and twitter want to name their favorite users, more power to them.

Hp regularly refers to the Hottest Legislator and the Hottest Aide... so I think we can cut a social networking sight some slack.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:16 PM on 10/28/2009
- goodog I'm a Fan of goodog 131 fans permalink
photo

sigh(t)

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 PM on 10/28/2009

This is yet another thing Twitter should do that follows FaceBook (which I've started to hate, BTW, this is NOT a plug for FB). The suggested user list should have nothing to do with who the company picks. It should be based on user preferences. People you may WANT to follow, not just people who have the most Tweets. I would like to know other people who are interesting to me, not rap artists and athletes.

When it comes to politicians on Twitter, I agree that the Right is wrong in their stance of leveling the playing field, but I also think the comments I've read from the Left is just as wrong by insulting the Right about things like literacy and knowledge.

If anyone, on the Left OR Right, wants to be found on Twitter, the main criterion for that should be said candidates advertising of their Tweets. NOT relying on executives of the company to promote your site for you.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:25 PM on 10/28/2009
- Babooshka7 I'm a Fan of Babooshka7 2 fans permalink
photo

Of course the republicans are complainin­g...they have done nothing this year or the past 8yrs except destroy our country..>­NOW its TWITTER??? republicans are idiots

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 PM on 10/28/2009
- Subterfuge I'm a Fan of Subterfuge 21 fans permalink

What they're trying to say is-- Republicans suck at Twitter.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:04 PM on 10/28/2009
- Eris23 I'm a Fan of Eris23 45 fans permalink

Sounds like Republicans want the Fairness Doctrine to apply to the internet. Haha! :)

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 AM on 10/28/2009
- Subterfuge I'm a Fan of Subterfuge 21 fans permalink

Nailed!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:03 PM on 10/28/2009

"who show that they provide value by posting often and engaging with their followers.­"

This is why most Repubs fail at Twitter anyway. They don't understand that social media is a two way street.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:49 AM on 10/28/2009
- bzb I'm a Fan of bzb 260 fans permalink
photo

Bingo!!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:20 AM on 10/28/2009
- stevebest I'm a Fan of stevebest 15 fans permalink

it seems to me its just the free market at work, the republican brand is by their own admission dog food, everybody knows good products go in the front and the crap gets stuffed in the back. This just demonstrates the hypocricy of the republican party they want to keep government out of private industry when it comes to the banks we had to bail out but they want to lean on twitter to try and prop themselves up typical.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:40 AM on 10/28/2009
photo

A. The fact that it promotes left-leaning politicians is one thing, but the assertion that it also promotes left-leaning celebrities is irrelevant. Aside from pundits there are like 10 right-leaning celebrities total.

B. I love that this is only a big deal when it's Republicans who are excluded. The converse situation always results in the "they're a private company, they can do what they want" argument. Which is exactly right! There is no "equal opportunity advertising" law for social networking sites! Even if they were intentionally restricting suggestions to left-leaning people it's their prerogative to do that.

C. Why does the right REFUSE to acknowledge the implications of all of this? They cry about liberal bias in media. They complain that Hollywood is a liberal propaganda machine. And now even social networking is stacked against them. Whatever happened to "free market"? If people are lending a bigger voice to liberal outlets that means PEOPLE ARE LIBERAL! Why is this a difficult concept to understand?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:28 AM on 10/28/2009
- hoopesaz I'm a Fan of hoopesaz 23 fans permalink

"B. I love that this is only a big deal when it's Republicans who are excluded. "

You mean, kinda like how it's only NOT a big deal when it's Democrats that are included? Sure, it's hypocrisy.­..by BOTH sids. You're just only able to recognize half of it.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 AM on 10/28/2009
- Eris23 I'm a Fan of Eris23 45 fans permalink

Ummmmm, no. Personally, I don't care what media companies or social networking sites do when it comes to politicians. If they happen to appear to be pushing for a bunch of candidates who I think are garbage, I won't use the site. It's that simple. Besides, the mere notion that Republicans could even think to complain about this or find it surprising, when they were the fools pushing to regulate the "series of tubes" in a way that could harm companies like Twitter is pure comedy. People that you have no intention of playing fair with don't have any obligation to play fair with you.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:23 AM on 10/28/2009
photo

Nope. It's true wherever it occurs. Sorry, but hypocrisy is recognized by the left on BOTH sides when it happens.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:31 PM on 10/28/2009
photo

A. The fact that it promotes left-leaning politicians is one thing, but the assertion that it also promotes left-leaning celebrities is irrelevant. Aside from pundits there are like 10 right-leaning celebrities total.

B. I love that this is only a big deal when it's Republicans who are excluded. The converse situation always results in the "they're a private company, they can do what they want" argument. Which is exactly right! There is no "equal opportunity advertising" law for social networking sites! Even if they were intentionally restricting suggestions to left-leaning people it's their prerogative to do that.

C. Why does the right REFUSE to acknowledge the implications of all of this? They cry about liberal bias in media. They complain that Hollywood is a liberal propaganda machine. And now even social networking is stacked against them. Whatever happened to "free market"? If people are lending a%

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:27 AM on 10/28/2009

Next, Republicans will accuse knowledge of being biased towards Democrats. Of course, for once they'll be right.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 AM on 10/28/2009
photo

Well done!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:29 AM on 10/28/2009

Not ALL knowledge is based to one side or the other. BOTH sides have a lot of hypocrisy, which is why I subscribe to NEITHER ideology completely. I take issue with people saying that someone is wrong simply because they're a liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, left or right. Why can't peoples' opinions be taken at face value, as the opinions of PEOPLE, rather than the opinions of PARTIES?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:13 PM on 10/28/2009
photo

Wasn't there an article last month about how Twitter favored Republicans?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:16 AM on 10/28/2009

I'm concerned/amused by the idea of leveling the social media playing field. Most of it's driven by user content. That would be like driving through a neighborhood street and saying that too many frontyards have a sign for "X" and not for "Y".

Whitman's low follower count isn't due to a lack of mention on the suggest list, rather than a lack of interest by twitter users. my dad who is most inclined in the family to vote for Whitman has never sent an email in his life.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:15 AM on 10/28/2009
photo

Exactly! The second it becomes leveled it STOPS being a true voice of people!

This Affirmative Action line that everyone needs to be equally voiced is the antithesis of democracy.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:32 AM on 10/28/2009

I'm new to Twitter, and haven't yet found many of the politicians I'd like to follow. The problem isn't that they aren't on the Suggested User page, or that there isn't enough interest, or even that they don't post often enough. MY biggest problem in finding people is the lack of verified pages (There are many, and I appreciate that, but it's not quite good enough) because I can't figure out who's real and who's someone messin' around.

Another problem that people have finding (especially) politicians to follow, is that most don't advertise on their websites that they're on Twitter, or even what name they use on there.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 PM on 10/28/2009
- allonfla I'm a Fan of allonfla 36 fans permalink

OK. This is a total contradiction to all those other articles saying the GOP was doing better on Twitter than Dems.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:08 AM on 10/28/2009
- jde I'm a Fan of jde 53 fans permalink
photo

The GOP doesn't deserve automatic credibility as a legitimate political party. They need to earn it just like everyone else.

Besides, if GOP identification is running around 20%, then you are bound to get squeezed anyway.

Twitter does not "owe you" 20% of their bandwidth to advertise your crappy product.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 AM on 10/28/2009
- Suggie I'm a Fan of Suggie 31 fans permalink

Does the democrat party deserve to be automatically recognized as a legitimate political party?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:07 AM on 10/28/2009
photo

There is no party called the "Democrat" party. It's the "Democratic Party." Show a little respect for the founding fathers.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 AM on 10/28/2009

They don't have to be automaticalloy recognized since they're the only party at the moment attempting to actually DO SOMETHING about the myriad of huge problems our country faces. They can be considered legitimate by their actions. The same cannot be said about the party of NO.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 AM on 10/28/2009

The 'democrat' party doesn't deserve to be automatically recognized because it doesn't exist.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:14 AM on 11/06/2009

Actually, upwards of 40% of the American public is currently describing their views as conservative (I lost the link, but the story was here on HuffPost).

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:18 PM on 10/28/2009

I am one of them but have never voted and will never vote for a republican.

Conservative != republican.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 AM on 11/06/2009
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect