So, Barack Obama has a webpage. The webpage has a social network. To find a group within this social network to join, there’s a group search page. The search fields on the group search page include “search group descriptions” with the following helpful example:
Example: Gay Nigger Association of America -#@ for Obama, 16892
It can be seen here:
Tech Crunch - Very Ugly Bug at BarackObama.com
It turns out it wasn’t a hard coded thing, but only a feature that uses the most recently created group as the example text. There was some discussion of this at the Tech Crunch blog. Then, scroll down and find the comment from the Obama people, Peter’s quotes:
It’s up to folks who support this kind of open approach to politics online to push back on the kind of knee-jerk “look! look! look!” that more traditional or tech-phobic writers are inclined to engage in. …
In general I would hope that folks concerned about questionable content on the site will turn to the system of flags or some other means of contacting the campaign directly rather than playing “gotcha”. If we want to play that game, there plenty of content in the comments on the blogs of both the Republican and Democratic Party’s web sites to keep us all distracted from the real task of building better technology, engaging more people, and opening up the process.
He just called Mike Arrington, THE web 2.0 writer, a tech-phobic “traditional” writer! Bwahahaha! And Mike’s reply!
Joe - way to reach out to the community. When you fuck up, the best thing to do is not attack the people who alerted you to it. Why in the world you allowed something like this to happen is beyond me. Why didn’t you just hard code the example into the page? It would have been easier and this wouldn’t have happened.
This isn’t Washington DC politics, and you shouldn’t assume I have some racist or other bias against your campaign. We’re a tech blog and I pointed out what looks like a rookie mistake on your site that caused some embarrassment. Most of our readers (me included) are going to be inclined to be on your side. But Obama just lost my vote, because of you.
Hahahahaha
Ah, this will be fun.
Update:
So a lot of the later comments (word seems to have spread) run along the lines of:
Saying that you’re not going to vote for a candidate because of the response of one of his staffers is a juvenile response. You’ve just pigeon-holed the entire Obama campaign based on a response that offended you, and not even from the candidate himself.
So he points out something and a staffer lashes back in a not very reaching-out-to-allies sort of way, but we shouldn’t judge the candidate on that. But then the Prime Minister of a large country in a sensitive area and a key military ally and trading partner points out something and the candidate calls him a chicken hawk, and generally lashes back in a not very reaching-out-to-allies sort of way. Can we judge the candidate yet?
Date: Feb 12th, 2007 ·
Comments RSS ·
Tags: Politics
March 1st, 2007 at 3:23 am
To a hammer everything looks like a nail…
March 1st, 2007 at 9:01 am
And quite a bit that doesn’t…
March 1st, 2007 at 6:52 pm
To true ninme, some hammers see nothing but aquariums.