Comments on: Let Our Congress Tweet http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2008/07/10/let-our-congress-tweet/ Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants... Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:18:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: John Wonderlich http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2008/07/10/let-our-congress-tweet/comment-page-1/#comment-872 John Wonderlich Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:34:34 +0000 http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/?p=4948#comment-872 For more commentary, see this post on geek! daily... http://blog.geekdaily.org/2008/07/let-our-congr-1.html For more commentary, see this post on geek! daily…

http://blog.geekdaily.org/2008/07/let-our-congr-1.html

]]> By: Capitol News Connection http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2008/07/10/let-our-congress-tweet/comment-page-1/#comment-511 Capitol News Connection Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:04:55 +0000 http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/?p=4948#comment-511 Lawmakers 'tweet' away in the Congress. Listen to Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Oh) and Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) - http://tinyurl.com/5kauej I thought this would be of interest to you. Thanks, Ari Lawmakers ‘tweet’ away in the Congress. Listen to Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Oh) and Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) – http://tinyurl.com/5kauej

I thought this would be of interest to you.

Thanks,
Ari

]]> By: John Wonderlich http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2008/07/10/let-our-congress-tweet/comment-page-1/#comment-403 John Wonderlich Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:37:33 +0000 http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/?p=4948#comment-403 This is an excellent comment, thank you. As far as I can tell, the current problem with youtube videos being posted by member offices (which are treated differently than committee offices or leadership offices) is the concern that: -the youtube mark on all youtube videos implies some sort of endorsement -the syndicated youtube videos, in addition to the way ads and other content are served on the main page where each video resides, could introduce either commercial content or "decorum" problems (like inappropriate links etc) Both Capuano's and Pelosi's recent letters admit that the Franking rules are "antiquated", and probably the most compelling evidence to that effect is the confusion among congressional staff about what constitutes acceptable web use. Combine that confusion with the ad hoc advisory opinions whose judgments are public but not well known (even among staff), and you have an environment that isn't conducive to confident engagement, which is what we're interested in seeing. This is an excellent comment, thank you.

As far as I can tell, the current problem with youtube videos being posted by member offices (which are treated differently than committee offices or leadership offices) is the concern that:

-the youtube mark on all youtube videos implies some sort of endorsement
-the syndicated youtube videos, in addition to the way ads and other content are served on the main page where each video resides, could introduce either commercial content or “decorum” problems (like inappropriate links etc)

Both Capuano’s and Pelosi’s recent letters admit that the Franking rules are “antiquated”, and probably the most compelling evidence to that effect is the confusion among congressional staff about what constitutes acceptable web use.

Combine that confusion with the ad hoc advisory opinions whose judgments are public but not well known (even among staff), and you have an environment that isn’t conducive to confident engagement, which is what we’re interested in seeing.

]]> By: Jim Meyer http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2008/07/10/let-our-congress-tweet/comment-page-1/#comment-401 Jim Meyer Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:58:50 +0000 http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/?p=4948#comment-401 That quote is taken from the "Unsolicited Mass Communications Restrictions" section of the CHA Member Handbook, which is direct linked above, tied to the phrase "rules about their Web use": http://gop.cha.house.gov/services/membershandbook.shtml#unsolicited The gist of that section of the handbook can be summed up by its second paragraph: "Except where noted, unsolicited mass communications, regardless of the means of transmittal, must receive an Advisory opinion from the Franking Commission, prior to dissemination. Advisory Opinions may be obtained from the Franking Commission at x59337." The particular quote you ask about is pulled directly from item 4 under the "This restriction does not apply to the following" heading, which reads in full: "Web sites (including a Member's official web site) and other electronic bulletin boards on which information is posted for voluntary public access" So, as a layman reading this, I get the sense that House members may not spam me (good) but can post information freely to public websites where I can voluntarily find their information (also good). As a citizen and interested party, I can choose to use facilities available at that website to subscribe to these public postings; the CHA rules do not bind me in any way. Can you clarify the basis of the claim that the current CHA rules make it illegal for a House member to post videos on YouTube? That quote is taken from the “Unsolicited Mass Communications Restrictions” section of the CHA Member Handbook, which is direct linked above, tied to the phrase “rules about their Web use”:

http://gop.cha.house.gov/services/membershandbook.shtml#unsolicited

The gist of that section of the handbook can be summed up by its second paragraph:

“Except where noted, unsolicited mass communications, regardless of the means of transmittal, must receive an Advisory opinion from the Franking Commission, prior to dissemination. Advisory Opinions may be obtained from the Franking Commission at x59337.”

The particular quote you ask about is pulled directly from item 4 under the “This restriction does not apply to the following” heading, which reads in full:

“Web sites (including a Member’s official web site) and other electronic bulletin boards on which information is posted for voluntary public access”

So, as a layman reading this, I get the sense that House members may not spam me (good) but can post information freely to public websites where I can voluntarily find their information (also good). As a citizen and interested party, I can choose to use facilities available at that website to subscribe to these public postings; the CHA rules do not bind me in any way.

Can you clarify the basis of the claim that the current CHA rules make it illegal for a House member to post videos on YouTube?

]]> By: John Wonderlich http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2008/07/10/let-our-congress-tweet/comment-page-1/#comment-396 John Wonderlich Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:42:33 +0000 http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/?p=4948#comment-396 Can you say where "on which information is posted for voluntary public access" comes from? That would be helpful in answering the question... Can you say where “on which information is posted for voluntary public access” comes from? That would be helpful in answering the question…

]]> By: Jim Meyer http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2008/07/10/let-our-congress-tweet/comment-page-1/#comment-393 Jim Meyer Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:56:44 +0000 http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/?p=4948#comment-393 Reading Mr. Wonderlich's post last night caused me to do some research, including a reading of the rules you point to above. It's unclear to me which of those rules makes use of Twitter or YouTube by a House member illegal. Both would seem to be covered as either a subscribed list or a web site "on which information is posted for voluntary public access." Can you clarify? Reading Mr. Wonderlich’s post last night caused me to do some research, including a reading of the rules you point to above. It’s unclear to me which of those rules makes use of Twitter or YouTube by a House member illegal. Both would seem to be covered as either a subscribed list or a web site “on which information is posted for voluntary public access.”

Can you clarify?

]]>