A "Right To Be Heard"

      By: Tim Jones  |  June 4, 2005

      There's an evolving discussion on the blogs today about the politics of web technology providers. The focus is on Convio, Inc., an Austin-based company that made its name last year providing web services to the Dean campaign.

      It began Friday afternoon, when John Aravosis' AMERICAblog linked to a little-noticed Washington Post article revealing that Convio has begun working for The Alliance For Marriage, a major advocate of the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Aravosis contends that in doing so, Convio is violating its own "Right To Be Heard Policy," which promises that Convio "does not work with groups that promote prejudice and hate even if they are in full compliance with the law."

      John called for a left-wing boycott of Convio. The call was picked up by trendsetters like Daily Kos and Atrios, followed by a host of other political blogs. The chatter promises to only get bigger.

      The currently emerging pattern has played out many times over the past year -- with Dan Rather, with Kryptonite Locks, and with Trent Lott, to name just a few. In each case, a blog or small group of blogs quotes and comments on a low-profile but potentially scandalous news story. That kicks off a process in which a steadily-growing number of blogs link to the original post, comment on it, then begin posting new reactions and links to each other, until the aggregate noise from the blogosphere becomes too loud for the mainstream to ignore.

      These sorts of happenings, while vicious, are sometimes forces for positive change, as when Aravosis' criticism helped to change Microsoft's anti-gay policies last month.

      It remains to be seen whether the Convio boycott will take hold and whether Convio will change its policy.

      As a disclaimer: EchoDitto does help some of our clients work with Convio, and we're in a dialogue with Convio now about all of this. We'll post more here later in the week.

      Leave a comment

      Comments

      Anonymous (not verified) — Mon, 06/06/2005 - 07:43
      Must EVERYTHING be politicised? Before signing up with service providers, we're going to start reading their life philosophies? Isn't this about getting a solid service that works towards our cause? Must our providers share our every thought and agree with our opinions? I think it's great EchoDitto is talking with Convio on behalf on their clients. John Aravosis on the other hand, has opened the following can of worms: "You are philosophically with us or against us". "The Blue can only get services from THIS list of providers and the Reds can have their own. When a new service provider emerges, we MUST enter round table discussions and see if they make the list. Failure to abide by this will make you UN-progressive." Does Aravosis like Brocolli? Because George Bush Sr. doesn't. I'm going to boycott his blog if he doesn't like Broccolli. Not liking Brocolli is REPUBLICAN and unacceptable.
      Bobby Clark (not verified) — Mon, 06/06/2005 - 13:07
      Tim, I've also been talking to Convio. I spent hours on the phone with them this weekend, including a call with Gene. And I just got off the phone with Gene again. I hope that, in all the noise about this, we don't forget some of the larger issues this brings up. Check out my posts about this: http://www.progressnow.org/weblog/archives3/permalink/004515.cfm http://www.progressnow.org/weblog/archives3/permalink/004516.cfm http://www.progressnow.org/weblog/archives3/permalink/004517.cfm
      Anonymous (not verified) — Mon, 06/06/2005 - 18:20
      AmericaBlog definitely is taking a hard line on this, but the idea of having red and blue vendors is quite, quite old.
      Anonymous (not verified) — Fri, 06/10/2005 - 03:56
      This brings up the larger issue that as progressives (in the npo political tech space) should we care whether our vendors serve Dem/Progressives only? I say 'hell, yes!'. Convio is not the only one out there, Kintera in that camp as well. Get Active too. I for one do think that progressive NPOs should give deferential treatment to consultant/tech providors that are progressive/Dem only. Here are a few: Echo Ditto (!) Democracy In Action Bronx Cash Register Consulting Company NGP Software ... and others ...
      Anonymous (not verified) — Wed, 06/15/2005 - 13:14
      Is the issue technology vendors or strategic consultants? I can understand not wanting to feed the kitty of a consulting firm that is also working to strategically undermine your mission by advising your enemy, but isn't technology agnostic? Don't we want access to the same best of breed technology as Republicans? I am tired of the mentality that too often has progressives choosing to stick it out on pride island while conservatives innovate our asses into the ground. Where do we draw the line? Pssst...I have it on good word the NRA and the God Hates Fags folks run Windows.
      Anonymous (not verified) — Mon, 06/20/2005 - 08:03
      As a lifelong leftists activist since college days and through six positions with democrats on and off the Hill and involvement in every presidential race since Carter, I had to respond to the sophistry and commercial hustling inherent in the "sufficient ideological purity" argument. Simply put, the idea that an ideological test is required of a vendor of technology is a throwback to the middle ages. If the vendor is in a nontech role and instead performing in the mode of advisor for strategy and policy, then of course hire the advisors that fit -- as we've always done. Anyone involved in democratic primaries knows there are often more differences in substance between dems on, say, freedom of choice or the war in Iraq, than between moderate or liberal Repubs and the dem nominee. If, however, you are NGP, the firm put forward in the blog, and you've just been caught in a political spam deception by a respected liberal privacy group (Privay Times), you need to rally your connections and naive believers to push the "ideological purity" scam. Speaking from experieince, there has never been a case for excluding AT&T, to cite a recurrign example, or Verizon, from bidding on the IT services contract for any Dem National Convention because their board was GOP dominated -- they've both won a couple, or for the cell phone providers to stop favoring the GOP in their PAC contributions etc. It's a bogus argument made by monopolists seeking classic rigged advantage and condemns the party to deal with a shrinking pool of mediocre second raters in both technology and data. We have NEVER asked: Is my cell phone maker a progressive or conservative democrat? Is my ISP or Google sufficiently left for my taste? This is sophistry designed for one purpose: to protect a racket, to favor pre-selected insiders who must get the deal, not through an honest competittive comparison on merit -- as in the real world of technolgy, but through the sly exclusion of potentially superior products via an ideology test. Advancing fraudulent arguments along the "sufficient ideological purity" line aren't doing us DEMS any favors.
      Jim (not verified) — Mon, 06/20/2005 - 09:47
      The DNC does NOT endorse NGP/spammers. http://privacy-issues-2005.blogspot.com/
      Anonymous (not verified) — Thu, 06/23/2005 - 09:07
      Friends don't let friends do business with spammers like NGP. Use Patton Technologies instead. www.privacytimes.com Volume 25 Number 11 June 8, 2005 MAJOR STORIES IN THIS ISSUE Pro-Spam Political Consultants Claim 25 Million E-Mails . . . LIVE STRATEGY: E-MAIL SOLICITATION FOR POLITICAL GAIN Despite the public’s professed dislike of “spam,” some political consultants, anxious to help their clients achieve or maintain success, appear to be promoting unsolicited e-mail as a central strategy. Some think the strategy could backfire, particularly against politicians who have publicly railed against spam. A look at NGP Software and Advocacy, Inc., two Washington consultants which service Democratic politicians and liberal groups, provides a window into the world of politically-oriented e-mail solicitation. When Privacy Times began its work on this story, the NGP Software Web site indicated that it maintained opt-in e-mails. “We now have email addresses for registered voters who have agreed to receive information from political candidates,” the Web site stated. http://www.ngpsoftware.com/voteremail.html Just below, however, the NGP Web Site more specifically stated, “Where the email addresses came from: Working with partners, we’ve matched the entire national voter file against multiple email databases nationwide. We then sent each of those people an email saying that political candidates and organizations were interested in communicating with them and giving them the opportunity to opt-out. In some states and districts we got up to a 20% match rate. You can buy email addresses for voters targeted by party, geography, age, gender and/or voting frequency and in most cases we can have them in your hands within 24 hours.” Previously, the NGP Web site said it had about 25 million e-mail addresses and gave a state-by-state breakdown. http://www.ngpsoftware.com/stateslist.html However, NGP Software recently revamped its Web site, taking visitors to www.ngpsystems.com. The site only has an obscure reference to the 25 million e-mails; its privacy policy is silent on the source of the e-mails. NGP President Nathanial Pearlman (ed. corrected) said the previous site’s statements about e-mails were provided by one of the company’s partners. Although he declined to specify which one, he suggested that Privacy Times contact Advocacy, Inc. for more information. Pearlman said that unsolicited e-mails did not work very well, and that his company was moving away from them. ... Advocacy Inc.’s President is Roger Alan Stone. Privacy Times was unable to find a privacy policy on Advocacy’s Web site... So where did Advocacy obtain 25 million e-mails? The company is not saying, and would not respond to Privacy Times’ queries. It is worth noting, however, that before Stone founded Advocacy, Inc. in August 2002, “he previously founded the Juno Advocacy Network (JAN) in 1998 and built it into a $5 million business,” according to the firm’s Web site. JAN’s parent company, Juno, launched in the late 1990s by offering free Internet service in exchange for customers granting permission for use of their e-mails. Sources said that Juno was a possible source of Advocacy’s e-mail address database. But Sylvia Goeffrey, of Juno’s Security & Abuse Dept., said, “Juno prohibits unsolicited email, and we would never share our members email address with others.” However, Goeffrey did not respond to a follow up e-mail asking if Juno customer e-mails could have migrated with Stone to Advocacy, Inc. ... “The candidate surveys these voters and sends targeted messages based on their responses. Testing the messages by the rate at which a recipient opens the message, the candidate blasts out the best message to the rest of the list.” “What we’re talking about here is political spam,” Pam Fielding, co-author of “The Net Effect: How CyberAdvocacy is Changing the Political Landscape,” told the Washington Post. Several leading Democrats have favored strong anti-Spam proposals. Sen. Charles Schumer (NY) said in 2003, “The e-mailing public has been at the mercy of spammers for way too long,” he said. “This survey confirms that people are screaming out to be empowered with the ability to stop the constant flow of unsolicited e-mails in their in-boxes.”