I just finished this new video for Welcoming America. What do you think?

I agree with Messina and am concerned that overusing hashtags keeps Twitter in the “geekosphere” and scares off people who aren’t yet using this great tool. Don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing wrong with tech-oriented communities online and I don’t think Twitter will save the world. My concern is how we use them and unintentionally create barriers or exclude people from experimenting with digital tools. I’ve had conversations with folks who don’t use Twitter and get tripped up by “all the weird symbols”.  For these non-users, Twitter seems like another language that has to be learned. My question: why should it be?

Let’s take a step back and think about why we use hashtags. I’ve found that following hashtags or search terms is often more effective than following people on Twitter. If you’re using the search feature on Twitter or an application like Tweetdeck or Hootsuite, hashtags and search terms make it far easier to find conversations and information from sources you might not know.

With this in mind, my contention is that hashtags should be reserved for tweets on a topic that does not include the search term in the tweet body. For example, here’s a sample tweet that demonstrates overusing hashtags:

Urgent Action Needed – Harmful #Immigration #Detention Amendments Introduced in Senate. http://… #ri4a #p2 #cir #dwn

The final four hashtags are useful because they are abbreviations and tags that many people follow.

• #ri4a = Reform Immigration for America
• #p2 = Progressives 2.0
• #cir = Comprehensive Immigration Reform
• #dwn = Detention Watch Network

But why is it necessary to tag immigration and detention? If I’m following the search term “immigration”, I’ll have a fuller understanding about who’s talking about immigration than I would with #immigration. Searching for #immigration is far narrower. I think you should only use #immigration if the word immigration is not in the body of the tweet. Using #dwn also tags tweets that relate to immigration enforcement. (The http://… is meant to indicate a link but I’m trying to protect the identify of the tweeter I’m reviewing).

So in summary, here’s how I think we should use hashtags and search terms:

• When you use Twitter search or set up your Twitter desktop application, search for hashtags that are abbreviations, like #ri4a or #p2 but, for real words, don’t use the hashtag, like “immigration”.
• For the most part, try to use hashtags at the end of tweets and in front of well-known abbreviations. To discover these hashtags, follow the lead of other tweeters on the topic you’re interested in.
• If the tweet you’re sending doesn’t contain a key search term, add a hashtag at the end of the tweet followed by the real/whole word. For example, if I’m sending a tweet related to the Gulf oil spill, I could add #environment or #green at the end so people following those terms will see it.

So, using these suggestions, this is what the above tweet would look like:

Urgent Action Needed – Harmful Immigration Detention Amendments Introduced in Senate. http://… #ri4a #p2 #cir #dwn

Isn’t that easier to read?

I’m interested to hear what you think of these suggestions for making Twitter more accessible to new users. What do you think?

I made the video above for the Opportunity Agenda to document their event in LA earlier this month.

Quick aside for those of you new to Twitter (you know who you are, you’ve uttered the phrase “I don’t get it”). Let me explain a little background. In many ways, Twitter for me is more about following hashtags and topics rather than about following people. By hashtags, I mean those words or abbreviations preceded by the number or pound sign: #. People who use Twitter invent hashtags to tag and find conversations on certain topics within the Tower of Twitter Babel. Instead of following people on the Twitter website, users resort to applications like Tweetdeck (my preference), HootSuite, etc. in order to follow the issues they care about. I will openly admit that I’m one of those people who love to share information. Until recently, I was the person who posted too much on listserves. When I realized that Twitter is a space where you can’t share too much, I’ve re-directed my energy there and learned a lot in the process.

As a person passionate about immigrant rights, I’ve been noticing more people using Twitter who are opposed to just and humane immigration reform. I’ll refrain from calling them ‘haters’ or ‘racists’ but they believe in “personal responsibility”, abiding by laws even if they are unjust or outdated and, in the words of cognitive linguist George Lakoff, they have an authoritarian worldview that sees the nation as disciplined father-dominant family (“Do it because I told you so.”).  As someone who sees my country as a nurturing family, I often find it difficult to engage the other side. Here’s what I’ve learned:

1. Judge whether an argument is really worth it. Outspoken opponents of your advocacy issue are not going to change their point of view; no matter how persuasively you state your case and no matter what facts you cite. The opposing tweeter is not going to suddenly type, “I see your point! You’re right and I was wrong!” Not going to happen. That said, debates can help sharpen your advocacy skills. To break out of our issue silos in our balkanized media age, it’s healthy to engage the other side. But often these are not the folks you are going to convert and enlist in your movement.  The people on the sidelines, the tweeters who are eavesdropping on your conversation, are the ones you want to enlist. Keep that in mind and be sure to tweet in a respectful manner. As Quakers put it, recognize the light of God in all people.
2. Give yourself a time or tweet limit. Debates on Twitter often go in circles, especially between entrenched sides. Before you jump in, tell yourself how much time or how many tweets you’re willing to commit. More than 10 tweets can be excessive no matter how passionate both parties are. You have a life offline: enjoy it (I say this in part to myself because I wasted an afternoon at the museum by tweet debating on my iPhone).
3. Use hashtags to tag team the opponent. When you start or engage in a debate, be sure to include a popular hashtag so that your allies can see the conversation and jump in. While Twitter is not the right place for a town hall (see #4 below), it is useful for your opponent to grasp that you’re not alone in your “kooky” beliefs. One funny thing I’ve noticed is that tweeters opposed to my beliefs are often using hashtags without realizing their meaning or perhaps to pick a fight. For example, #ri4a refers to “Reform Immigration for America”, a pro-immigrant campaign by many immigrant rights organizations. Some folks interested only in heavy-handed immigration enforcement, have used #ri4a in their tweets.
4. Redirect your opponent elsewhere. Conversations between multiple members are difficult on Twitter: the more people you include in tweets cuts into your 140-character limit. I think a better option is to redirect your opponent to a blog post or another online space where comments are allowed, i.e. “Let’s discuss this further over here…” There are many advantages to this. Not only will the blogger love you for getting a conversation going on their site, it provides a way to track an overall argument and involve others.

• For avid tweeters out there: Based on your experience, do you have other recommendations for debates on Twitter? What would you add or disagree with above?
• For folks unfamiliar with Twitter: don’t let this scare you away. It’s still worth dipping your toe into the white water rapids of Twitter. Be sure to use an application and follow hashtags or search terms you’re most interested. Find me on Twitter @willcoley and let me know how it goes!

In an impressive multi-state action, the new national campaign “Reform Immigration for America” launched this week. The video above shows highlights from the Los Angeles rally.

More than 800 activists then went to Washington, DC for a summit that featured dozens of impressive speakers. Following up on the 100,000 faxes that the campaign generated from supporters, the advocates visited legislators on Capitol Hill.

Here’s more on the Summit and the overall campaign:

• Immigration Impact: wrap up of speeches
• Dream Activist: critique of event from youth perspective
• Jonathan Laurence: photos
• The Sanctuary blog
• Standing FIRM
• Twitter feed about the campaign (Search for hashtag #ri4a)

Stay tuned: more debriefings, actions from the campaign, etc.

Here’s a video I made for the Center for Community Change and their Mobile Action Network. Obviously we parodied those ubiquitous Verizon commercials. I’m itching to make another one like the new commercial in an ice cream shop.

Here’s the Spanish version:

It’s interesting to watch swarming behavior on-line and figuring out how it happens. Conflict and debate seems to be a  key part.

With the inauguration of Barack Obama just around the corner, the internet has been buzzing with hope for real change. As an example of this, Change.ORG, the social networking website that launched in 2007, has been compiling “ideas for change in America” to present to the new Obama administration. In the first round of idea-gathering, advocates on multiple issues rallied their respective members to post ideas and vote for them on the site. From November 24 – December 31, 2008, Change.org reports that it had more than 7,783 submissions for ideas and over 288,694 votes.

At the beginning of 2009, Change.org announced the winning issues for the second round and the results were contentious, especially in the case of immigrant rights.  Some proponents of immigration enforcement weren’t happy that their agenda didn’t make the final list. One of the “hater” groups, admitted to its members that it had confused Change.org with Change.GOV, Obama’s official site for his transition that launched in November 2008.

Student activists for the DREAM Act (which would give undocumented students legal status) saw the difference between the two sites and rallied their supporters on both platforms. The Dream Act is now in Change.org’s Top 10 issues and it’s also getting traffic on Change.gov. See one of their videos below “Vote for the DREAM Act at Chang.org.”

So who benefits from this flurry of activity?

Well, Change.ORG to begin with: it now has lots of new users and members. Even the people unhappy with the results are helping publicize the site. Advocates also benefit because they learn something about cyber-rallying supporters and what it means to communicate the change they want to see. Activists unhappy with the results might write off websites when they don’t see the results they want. Some idea “losers” are dismissing the entire site, citing that drug legalization tops both lists.

But unlike corporate media, social media means that people on both sides of an issue are learning what it means to frame and support thier beliefs, something integral to civic engagement.

The problem for bi-national couples is that immigration is a federal issue and right now the debate over gay marriage is at the state level. As you know, every four years around election time, President Bush and other Conservatives in Washington threaten a Constitutional amendment to bar same-sex couples from marrying. As a result, state legislatures and courts are hashing it out. So even if a couple could marry in a gay marriage-friendly state today, their union would mean nothing to federal immigration officials.

Organizations such as Immigration Equality and Out4Immigration have been seeking a remedy for this situation. They have proposed the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) that has been introduced in the House and in the Senate . So far they have 99 cosponsors in the House and 13 Cosponsors in the Senate . The bill does not hinge on gay marriage, however, since it seeks to make it possible for someone to sponsor his/her “permanent” domestic partner. This legislation would make the U.S. part of a global trend on the issue. Such sponsorship is already possible in Canada, 13 European countries, Brazil, Israel, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. So when will the U.S. join this ever-expanding list by recognizing LGBT bi-national partnerships?

ACTION STEP: Contact your Representative and your Senators and ask them to support this important legislation. To reach them by phone, call the Congressional Switchboard: (202) 224-3121.

Immigration has been a thorny issue for John McCain. Over the past few months, he seems to be playing both sides of the issue. As co-author of the 2006 “McCain-Kennedy” bill , his primary opponents assailed McCain as being for “amnesty”. To counteract this perception, McCain was often quoted as saying that he would secure the border first before making any other immigration reforms. Now that he’s wrapped up the nomination, the Republican Party is casting him as pro-immigrant. National Public Radio broadcast a story this past week suggesting that Latinos might support McCain because of this. Also this week McCain met with Latino leaders on Wednesday in Chicago. One Latino Republican in attendance was quoted as saying, “He’s one John McCain in front of white Republicans. And he’s a different John McCain in front of Hispanics.”

Obama on the other hand has promised immigration reform during his first 100 days in office. Even so, Latino congressional reps are worried that Obama isn’t doing enough to court Latinos.

There was also news this week that Democrats are playing both sides of the issue by pushing for more funding for strong-arm enforcement measures.

Immigration is one of those “Alice in Wonderland”-type policy issues where normal positions seem to warp and change at random. With the national elections less than five months away, we’re sure to hear a lot more about the issue.

ACTION STEPS: Check out your candidate’s website to see what he says about immigration policy: McCain or Obama . Contact your candidate and tell him what you think of their position: Obama or McCain

Anti-immigrant groups and journalists like Lou Dobbs use “broken” literally and often use images of the border where holes allow “illegals” to slip into the U.S. It also evokes “breaking” the law, which many opponents claim when they hurl statements into the debate like “What part of illegal don’t you understand?”

Pro-immigrant advocates on the other hand often use “broken” to evoke broken families and disregard for human rights. Fixing the system in their minds means making it more just and fair not repairing literal holes.

Due to this double-edged nature of the word, I’m concerned that both sides of the issue never get down to what they’re really talking about. If an immigrant rights advocate uses “broken system” in a press release, opponents may see a validation of his views since it is so strongly connected in our mind’s eye with a broken border wall.

I’ve been trying to substitute the adjective “out of date” to describe our immigration system. It is the 21st century after all and our current laws are so “retro.” The bulk of the law was written back in the 1986, well before the U.S. signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, a treaty that has had a profound impact on our continent. More than 3 million agricultural workers lost their jobs in Mexico as a result of NAFTA and the US-subsidized corn we dumped there. Add to that the Mexican government’s ballooning foreign debt and how it prevents them to institute job creation programs. Is it any wonder Mexicans come to the US in search of ways to feed their families? Since 1986, there have also been civil wars throughout Central America that have caused significant refugee flows. Not only do our current laws fail to reflect the economic reality in our 21st century “globalized” world, the bulk of the changes made to immigration law have only made it harder and more restrictive to work and live in the U.S.

To encourage the adoption of the adjective “out of date”, I’ve brought it up in several fora of immigrant rights advocates. I even made a video short with friends on this topic “Thru the Plexiglass.” I’ve pointed out to folks that it might be the antidote we need for white-haired Lou Dobbs who is so “out of touch”, “last century”, and “just plain old.” Some folks have agreed. Others think “broken” is a point of agreement between both sides of the issue.

This week, I attended an event at the Santa Monica Public Library where George Lakoff talked about the “Political Mind” , the topic of his new book. Lakoff, the Progressive strategist who also wrote “Don’t Think of an Elephant” regaled the audience with the 21st century’s research findings on “real reason” and how it relates to current political debates.

Somehow Lakoff chose me to get the first question right out of the gate. I presented my concerns over the use of the adjective “broken” and my proposal of “out of date”. Lakoff didn’t seem to think that contested meaning where a problem since “freedom” is used by conservatives and liberals to mean different things, such as “Freedom FROM…” vs. “Freedom TO…” He thought it was still worth fighting over. Lakoff was more disturbed by the lack of gratitude that most Americans have for undocumented immigrants since they make their current lifestyle possible. Lakoff also riffed on the use of “illegal” and why it’s so inaccurate. “No one calls you an ‘illegal parker’ if you get a parking ticket,” he pointed out. Since Lakoff teaches at Berkeley, he may have heard his colleague Geoffrey Nunberg who’s pointed out the same problem with the term.

So I’m left wondering which term is better. I invite you, dear blog reader, to add your two cents in the comments section below. Do you vote for “Broken System”, “Out of Date Laws” or some combination of the two?