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
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. Maybe t
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
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
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 <dan...@pocock.pro>
ha scritto:
On 27/07/17 00:36, Federico Bruni wrote:
It
> [...] 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 have no e
quot;. 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? Beca
oli
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 campaigning ov
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
> should use
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 should
not be
11 matches
Mail list logo
