Danah Boyd was back, to reflect on “Networked Privacy.”  Member of the European Parliament, Marietje Schaake, weighed in with the suggestion that the United States couldn’t really address Internet freedom in other parts of the world — if they didn’t have their own house in order.  The “globally connected environment” got plenty of play, as did the acknowledgment that when dictators understand the power of social and mobile — they move toward controlling it down or shutting it down.  There was hearty agreement that access to the Internet should be an “international right.”  Emily Parker indicated that “the mere existence of vibrant networks will not change countries overnight.  Something else must shift.”

The need for transparency was repeatedly invoked.  Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), expressed concern that people were losing faith in government.  She is putting all her earmarks online and working on the Public Online Information Act.  She also remarked that in many rural localities around the country there is no Internet access — a cause she is working to fund.

The roster of speakers talking about the role of technology in Nigeria, Tunisia, and Egypt had charisma and energy.  Alaa Abd El Fattah, known in the west as a top Egyptian blogger and activist, drilled down on “hyper-local networks” and how “tech has normalized the dialogue of politics.”  Rasha Abdulla conversed about social media as a “democratizing agent, which helped to facilitate the flourishing of opinions while simultaneously becoming a “primary tool for political activism.”  Abdulla called for making it “criminal to block the Internet and mobile communications.”  Mona Eltahawy, who has been challenging the stereotypes of Muslim women, related how on May 25^th, women activists and reporters in Egypt were physically attacked and had their clothes and headscarves ripped off — in order to “shame them.”  She also referred to “virginity tests” that were being perpetrated upon young women activists.  All three presenters moved into an afternoon breakout panel entitled “The Revolution in Egypt,” with Nancy Scola moderating.   It was identified that pre-revolution, comments on blogs numbered in the hundreds.  Moving into the post-revolution time frame, comments had risen to the thousands.  Audience questions ranged from, “What’s next?” and “What can we do to support you?” to “Why are you here?”

The men behind the Personal Democracy Forum, Andre Rasiej and Micah L. Sifry, informed the crowd that they had reached 50-50 gender parity, as well as bi-partisan representation.  Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who characterized himself as “a fiscal conservative,” discussed technology making government better for the people.”  While he called for providing data on how billions are being spent, a tweet with the PdF11 hashtag informed folks that he supported making abortion illegal.  However, party lines were put on the back burner when Anthea Watson and Mindy Finn explained “The Power of Open Voting Data.”

Without doubt, “The Internet is My Religion,” a riveting talk delivered by Jim Gilliam, had a major narrative impact.  Gilliam spoke about his background — which included being “born again,” home schooling, and church attendance three times a week.  He revealed the story of an awakening of a different sort — “getting on line.”  Then, both he and his mother got cancer.  She died, and he lost faith in God.  When Gilliam’s cancer came back, infecting his blood, he needed a donor to survive.  He made a connection and was “replenished” by “the blood of a stranger.”  After 9/11, he started working with Robert Greenwald on his Iraq film, and together they founded Brave New Films.  Gilliam then discovered that he needed a lung transplant. He started blogging about his quest to find an organ.  Although the insurance company gave him a hard time, he persevered and got on the list.  Eventually, he was the recipient of a lung from a 22-year-old who had died.  Gilliam recounted how he thought about all the people who had helped him, and how he had rediscovered God in the actions of people who were working together on his behalf.  He concluded, “We are all connected.  We serve God best when we do what we do best.  Each one of us is a creator.”  He received a standing ovation.  Sifry thanked him for his insights with the simple acknowledgment, “What a gift.”

Picking up on the theme of individuals making a difference, Ben Rattray from Change.org spoke about dealing with issues “on a granular level.”  His concept is to build from the ground up, focusing on the impact a personal story can have over a large-scale approach. He coined it as “the value of small.”

Jeremy Heimans, co-founder of Avaaz.org, pointed out in “The Untapped Power of Consumer Campaigns” how collective power has other options beyond government.  He underscored that corporations were “porous targets,” worried about their brands.  In response to pressure, he put forth that they would actually change their “supply chain.”

The matter of Net Neutrality was mentioned several times, and when speaking about the “new ecosystem of journalism,” Dan Gillmor specifically urged the audience to stand up for the principle.  Jay Rosen, a PdF regular, had several pithy pronouncements, including “Professional journalism has been optimized for low participation,” and “The story isn’t hidden, it’s uncollected.”

Marko Rakar, who delivered “The Power of Transparency, Croatia-Style,” and was a presenter at PdF Europe, was one of my favorites.  With shades of The Daily Show humor, he explained how in his country, there are more voters than people.  Despite having been arrested, Rakar continues to reside in Croatia, working to make it “a better place to live.”  He left the audience with the line, “May the bridges I burn l light the way.”  Before bringing on the next speaker, Sifry opined, “Our government has to stand for freedom of speech online.”

As a Firefox user, it was engaging to hear from Mitchell Baker of Mozilla. She reflected on the need for more innovation, suggesting that “not every venture is about capital.”  Mozilla is a hybrid organization that thinks about the “individual first,” she said.  During her talk she pointed out that, “The government we get when we do nothing is not the government we want.”

The late afternoon round of talks fell under the umbrella of People and States in a Hype-Connected World.  Anne-Marie Slaughter indicated the way men have driven traditional foreign policy with the straightforward description, “Opaque, separate, no connection.”  She proposed that the viewpoint of gender and generation accounted for a different way of looking at connection than the “old model.”

Her final words of “Build local, go global, change the world,” resonated as a fitting take away from a jam-packed two days.

Courtesy of Blogworld

The BlogWorld and New Media Expo, recently held in New York City, was packed with panels and content based on a series of different “tracks.”  Content creation, publicity, mobile, branding, media, and monetization were just a few of the offerings.  Sharing the huge west side Javits Convention Center with Bookexpo America (their attendees were the people with bags of free books), the location offered too much air conditioning and not enough bandwidth.  The most oft-repeated interaction I heard was, “Are you able to get on the wifi?”

I was able to live tweet several sessions, but despite the fact that I had my computer in tow every day, I eventually gave up and took a lot of notes.  Some presentations were very casual.  Others were chock full of information.  Chris Penn’s “Facebook Analytics” talk fell into the latter.  Phil Hollows energetic “List Building for Bloggers” was a rat-tat-tat explanation of why an e-mail list is your greatest asset.  Michael Margolis captured the room’s attention with his take on how individuals can get their true story out by bypassing the traditional approach.

As in any culture, there are buzzwords, and this “space” has plenty.  Community, conversation, influence, networks, and tribes were repeated with regularity.  There were numerous funny moments and some great one-liners.

In a discussion about trolls and cliques in community management, I heard about how one person had to ban the whole IP for the country of Brazil for a short period.  Jodee Rich related the story of his young son explaining that the typewriter was “what they used in the old days to write e-mails.”  On a more serious note was the pronouncement that “every 25 years, forms of entertainment change.”  Chris Heur stated, “We’re living now between two worlds.”

On Thursday, I sat in on “Speak Up: Empowering Women to Find Their Voices.”  The description addressed the stats reflecting the “dearth of female speakers at business, tech and venture conferences, particularly keynotes.”  Aliza Sherman and Jill Foster started their presentation with the standard clichés that women have internalized.  “Be polite.  Don’t draw attention to yourself.  Don’t be so aggressive. Don’t be self-promoting.”  And the ultimate biggie, “You’re not good enough.”  Before getting interactive with the audience, Sherman, with the determination of a drill sergeant, told the women (and a few men), “Banish the negative talk!  It’s not about perfect.  Identify your passion.  Own your power!”  She asked everyone to write down three topics they could speak on currently.  She then told them to “title it, bullet point it,” and determine when they were the one to deliver the goods.  On how to be accepted at a conference, she suggested seeing what kind of presentations were being featured.  She pointed out that they needed to take into consideration two audiences: the organizers of the event and the conference attendees.  Her top advice was, “Don’t hide your powerful accomplishments.”

One session I made a point not to miss was Jeremy Caplan’s talk on “How Journalists Can Overcome Information Overload.”  Thrilled to learn that I wasn’t the only one who could benefit from “36 Tools, Tips and Sites for Digital Efficiency,” Caplan didn’t disappoint.  I was already on target with some of my own strategies, but he broke it down into digestible components.  With many people getting 3,000 e-mails per month, Caplan’s mantra of, “do, delete, defer” made plenty of sense.  The goal of doing a weekly sweep to get “back to zero” resonated. Keeping it simple, emptying your mind (so you don’t have to go over stuff when it is time to go to sleep) and  “taking time to be unplugged” were powerful reminders on how not to be overtaken by technology.

I referred to his handouts repeatedly over the following days, as I tried to navigate through all the correspondence that had accumulated while I was immersed in the conference.

I’m still catching up.

©2010 Justin Hackworth for BlogHer

The Hilton Hotel in New York City was packed on August 6^th and 7^th with 2400 attendees who had come for the 6^th Annual BlogHer Conference.  The last time I had been in the Grand Ballroom was to see Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama onstage, for a post-convention unity event.  Ironically, it was the divisive politics of the 2008 election that pushed greater numbers of women into the blogosphere, as they clamored to make their opinions heard.

That same year, the New York Times covered the San Francisco BlogHer conference with a story—on their fashion page—that had a tinge of snark.  Now, in 2010, no one doubts the influence or economic muscle of women online.  Anyone who remains unconvinced needed only to navigate the exhibition hall lined with 100 sponsors (a 50 percent increase over last year). Natural and green items, kids products, and an array of services all shared the floor.  From the smaller supporting sponsors like thredUp (a children’s clothing exchange) to the ranks of the top “Diamond” brands such as Pepsico and Procter and Gamble, the message was clear.  Women have clout to be reckoned with. As consumers—they are able to drive purchasing dollars.

When I asked a number of the corporate reps why they had chosen to be present at BlogHer, their answers all echoed the same mantra.  Amy Goodman, Fashion Trend Director at Timex said, “We’re working to make more connections in the blogosphere and to provide content opportunities.” Their booth was devoted to the company’s Fall line of watches.  Anne Westbrook, handling External Relations for Procter and Gamble, told me that P&G was back at BlogHer for its second year.  “We’re here because women bloggers are major influences.  We want to talk with them on their terms and bring them opportunities and relevant content.” In their large, house-styled booth was a full range of brands from CoverGirl to Bounty. I gravitated to the demonstration of their project, “Clean Water Blogivation.” The social media campaign was designed to “showcase the power of female bloggers to improve the lives of people in need of clean drinking water,” and to enable “women bloggers to be part of the clean water solution.”

PepsiCo chose the BlogHer conference to roll out their new women’s platform, “Women, the 5G Network.” A “Sofa Summit” breakfast early on Saturday featured top female brass from the PepsiCo team in dialogue with Campbell Brown. I contacted Jamie Stein, Director of Communications for Tropicana and the point person on PepsiCo’s online women’s initiatives, for a comment on their interest in the women’s blogging sector.  She replied via e-mail, “Women are, and have always been, incredibly influential on social issues, in business and at home with their friends and families. Now, with connectivity, women are wielding even greater power. As a company, we want to help enable the change women see, through innovative platforms like our 5G Network online channel and interactive experiences at events like BlogHer.”

On the lookout for socially conscious business tie-ins, I learned that Liberty Mutual was onsite to familiarize women with their mission, “The Responsibility Project—exploring what it means to do the right thing.”  Paul Alexander, the Senior VP of Communications, walked me through the company’s profile and its commitment to the “culture and values of integrity, dignity, and respect.”

Whether in the exhibition hall or over lunch, I saw a lot of action. Connections were being made. Women had come to learn, build their brands, and be energized.  Eyeballing the crowd, I saw moms with babies in strollers or on their backs (yes, there was a place to breastfeed) and a wide range of ages.  Elisa Camahort Page, BlogHer’s co-founder and COO, explained to me in an e-mail that one of the hallmarks of their events is diversity.  Regarding the speaker roster she wrote, “One third of our speakers were women of color, a slight improvement over last year.  We also ensure that we bring both liberal and conservative voices, LGBT voices, mom and non-mom voices to the microphone.”

The keynotes and panels delivered.  With forty-two sessions divided into seven verticals (change agents; passion; personal; professional; geek lab; writing lab; job lab), participants could be heard lamenting the difficulty of having to choose among topics.

“The FTC Guidelines: After a Year, Has Anything Changed,” had a room full of people trying to get a handle on the Endorsement Guidelines that were put in place to insure that “no deception in advertising” occurred on blogs. Top advice included being transparent, explaining connections to advertisers, and keeping disclosures in close proximity to the content.  One fundamental boiled down to, “When you get a product or cash, you must disclose; when you are not compensated, you don’t.”  Stacey Ferguson, Senior Attorney in the FTC’s Division of Advertising Practices, suggested the safest approach—“When in doubt, disclose.”

At “Creating Tangible Social Change: How to Move People to Action,” led by Women and Hollywood’s Melissa

©2010 Trevor Christensen for BlogHer

Silverstein, each panelist described how they were impacting specific communities.  Beth Terry, writing at Fake Plastic Fish, blogs about “living life with less plastic.” Terry discussed how her writing had helped to revise the plastic filter recycling policies of Britta in the United States.  Stephanie Himel-Nelson, the Director of New Media at Blue Star Families, outlined how the organization’s blog—dedicated to supporting and empowering military families—was becoming a go-to resource.  The biggest laugh lines went to Gina McCauley. The founder of two blogs, What About Our Daughters and Michelle Obama Watch, she is also the organizer of the Blogging While Brown conference, the first conference for bloggers of color.  Answering a question on how she handles personal attacks and negative feedback, McCauley responded, “I’ve built up a lot of scar tissue and taken a lot of body blows.”  On dealing with trolls she advised, “Don’t engage with people on platforms you don’t control.” She added, “She who pays the hosting fees makes the rules!”  All the speakers emphasized that an “authentic voice” was more potent than stats on page views or the number of Twitter followers.  McCauley pointed to one of her most valuable realizations from the blogging experience saying, “It brought out the reality that my ideas matter.”

Saturday’s morning keynote featured the International Activist Blogger Recipients. They were Esra’a Al Shafei, the founder of Mideast Youth; Dushiyanthini Pillai, the force behind Humanity Ashore; Marie Trigona, who publishes Latin American Activism; Freshta Basij-Rasikh, who contributes to the Afghan Women’s Writing Project. It was a dynamic and moving presentation. The focal points of their respective blogs included bringing together young people in the Mideast region, human rights, war and landmine victims, the 30,000 who disappeared in Argentina during the 70s and 80s, and developing a platform for Afghan women to tell their stories.  Underscoring the importance of global issues widened the perspective of the conference. It also made it impossible to ignore the risks being taken by these bloggers, a contrast to the secure setting of the BlogHer event.

Immediately afterwards, I attended “Radical Blogging Moms: Don’t Even Think of Not Taking These Moms Seriously.”  Joanne Bamberger (PunditMom) moderated.  Stephanie Roberts spoke about her photographic and digital documentary work.  Annie Urban discussed how her anger had pushed her to become politicized.  At her blog, PhDinParenting, Urban has been an outspoken critic of the Nestlē Corporation for “unethical business practices.”  Urban uses stories to explain a situation, rather than “prescribing or instructing.” She shared an interesting anecdote about how the legal firm employed by Nestlē had been scrutinizing her blog.

A number of women in attendance entered the blogosphere in response to family concerns, personal challenges, or the need to reach out and build a support system.  I met and spoke with Ellen Seidman, a magazine editor who writes “Love That Max—A blog about kids with special needs (and the parents who adore them).”  There was a panel on “Blogging Autism: Shattering Myths, Opening Eyes and Finding Your Tribe” and one entitled “Grief, Loss, Tragedy and Community on the Internet.”

The closing keynote was “How to Use Your Voice, Your Platform and Your Power.”  Alison Stewart helmed the dialogue with The White House Project founder and president Marie Wilson, author and activist Gloria Feldt, and journalist P. Simran Sethi. The participants parsed the question of power. Earlier, the audience had been reminded

©2010 Justin Hackworth for BlogHer

that in 2009, BlogHer placed #4 on Katie Couric’s list of the “seven most powerful people in media”.  The prevalent question was how to best leverage the power of women in the blogosphere—which was characterized as “the great equalizer.”  With the democratization of the media, Simran Sethi asked, “How do you want to use your voice?”  Wilson stressed the importance of women running for office and becoming part of government.  Feldt, who has a book coming out on “how women can change the way they think about power,” insisted that women have more of it than they realize.  She noted that corporate sponsors were “finally getting the picture,” but questioned if women understood the full import of what that entailed.  When I contacted her for additional thoughts on this concern she wrote me, “The two floors full of exhibitors aren’t here just because they love us. They’re here because they know the power of women’s collective purse.  So we need to use that power intentionally and collectively to shape the consumer market, to get what we want—whether it’s healthy snacks for our kids, green products, or shoes that are comfortable rather than hobbling us—and not allow ourselves to be bought.”

Before taking questions from those sitting at tables in the ballroom, Stewart asked each woman to speak about their own most difficult moments.  A roar of laughter greeted Wilson’s comment, “Behind every success is years of crap.”  Listening to women from the audience, it was clear that a sense of validation was achieved from their blogging contributions. One woman reveled in the realization that online, she was understood. “Wow,” she exclaimed, “You get me!”  Another participant thanked the speakers and the conference planners for “lighting candles in the darkness.”

Whether a woman was reaching out to build a community of mothers, dish on beauty and style, reflect a political agenda, or explore a lifestyle choice, it was clear that the BlogHer’10 demographic had a wide range of interests.

The general consensus was that once you were out there, pushback would be inevitable.  The response to that fact was the same…at every session across the board:  “Stand your ground and keep writing.”

Andrew Rasiej, Founder and Executive Producer and Micah L. Sifry, Editor and Curator, led the first day of conversations and panels through the high points and rough spots – with equal amounts or humor and taste.  Rasiej, the epitome of good manners, did his best to smooth over the tech issues that beleaguered the Skype talks. For the one featuring Newt Gingrich, he gently admonished the largely progressive crowd, reminding them that PDF was an event that reached out to all constituencies.

Gingrich’s segment had been part of a series of short talks on the topic, “Can The Internet Fix Politics.”  The other eleven speakers included Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org, Anil Dash, Jane Hamsher, and Scott Heiferman, CEO of Meet Up.  In one of the most retweeted comments of the morning session, Heiferman proposed, “Use the Internet to get off the Internet!”  His suggestion to deal directly with people was applauded, despite the furious blackberry scrolling in the midst of the proceedings.

Daniel Ellsberg, of the Pentagon Papers fame, and Julian Assange, Founder of WikiLeaks, compared notes on “Whistleblowing, Then and Now.”  I attended two press conferences.  At the first,  The Sunlight Foundation rolled out TransparencyData.com, which lets “anyone keep track of campaign donations, lobbying, and contracts at the federal and state level.”  The foundation has consistently worked to facilitate how the public receives information about the government through sites like ReadTheBill.org and FedSpending.org. New Media Ventures gave a thirty-minute talk on the launch of their “National Network of Progressive Angel Investors,” which will focus on creating progressive political change.

The structure of the afternoon presented attendees with the dilemma of choosing only one out of eight potential sessions.  Some people could be seen leap-frogging around, but as I was live blogging via Twitter, I followed the panels from start to finish.  “Truth, Factchecking, and Online Media” was a robust dialogue that included speaker presentations.  Jay Rosen began his with a reflection upon the legacy of Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

An integral part of a PDF get together is the exchange of innovative ideas with the people who are driving them.  I had several engaging conversations.

Simon Dermer, the Managing Director of Essential Accessibility, told me about how his company was providing “software-based service that makes online environments fully accessible to individuals with physical disabilities.”  Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat, the President and CEO of Overseas Vote Foundation, was in from Munich.  Born in the United States, she has created tools and services that help overseas and military voters participate in federal elections.

There were innumerable nuggets of insight and sound bites throughout the day.  Below are some of my favorites:

Hashtags are the bumper stickers of the 21^st Century

More data was created in 2009 than since the beginning of time.

Clay Johnson:    ”There’s more to an online strategy than an online campaign.” “Let’s solve problems with technology and stop counting our list.”

Deanna Zandt:    “Tools are trees in the forest.”

Jane Hamsher:    ”We are pouring concrete into our problems.”

Scott Heiferman: “A movement is when people self-identify. Have your  followers connect with each other and watch leaders emerge.”

John Perry Barlow: “The Internet is the greatest thing since the advent of fire.”

Cheryl Contee:      25% of people on Twitter are African-Americans.

Looking forward to Day 2.  The theme is “Rethinking…”  Follow the “real-time” conversation on Twitter stream with #PDF10.  I’ll be on the ground @mgyerman.

As parents sought to navigate a situation where their healthy daughters had become sick and, in the worse case scenario – died, they turned to the Internet for answers.  Scouring the web for information, checking message boards and chat rooms, they found out that their predicament was not isolated.  They reached out to others; harnessed the power of social media; created support systems and advocacy networks. They began to build a grassroots movement to square off against Merck & Co., the producer of Gardasil.  Most importantly, for families who were at the start of an overwhelming and arduous process, they found a space to enter which had been constructed by those who had been there before them.

In 2009, Rosemary Mathis and Marian Green started the website TheTruthAboutGardasil.  It comes up in a Google search for Gardasil second, directly underneath the Gardasil website.  With a play on Merck’s advertising pitch, their tagline is “I don’t want to be ‘One Less.’ Investigate before you vaccinate.” I spoke with both women in a joint interview by telephone.  They explained their struggles to understand why their daughters’ health had become impaired.

Lauren, Mathis’ 12 year-old, had been told by her pediatrician that the Gardasil vaccine was “the best thing for her.”  The first shot left Lauren with nausea and headaches.  She had the same symptoms three to four weeks after her second shot, and was advised that she had a “virus.”  The third shot, which Lauren received in mid-August of 2008, disabled her.  By September 4th, she had pains in her legs and side.  A series of hospital visits determined that her gall bladder was only functioning at 7 percent of its capability. Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center found that her gall bladder was, in fact, healthy – but that something else was going on.  Massive doses of antibiotics helped, but Lauren was put on a modified school schedule.  At Duke University Hospital, a doctor who was slated to retire in four weeks told Mathis that her daughter had “vaccine injuries,” and prescribed medication for the ulcers in her stomach.  In February of 2009, after six months of medical visits, Mathis filed a report with VAERS.  Lauren missed 100 days of school.  Mathis told me, “I honestly did not know if that child was going to live or die.” She continued, “She is still disabled, because she had to redo her modified school schedule this year.  She is still not able to attend school on a normal basis without a lot of absences.”

Marian Greene feels that her 16-year-old daughter, Holly, was pushed to get the vaccine.  An athletic girl and top runner who was being recruited by colleges, Holly had recently lost a coach and a grandfather to cancer.  This predisposed her to seek protection by getting the “cervical cancer” vaccine.  Holly got her first dose of Gardasil on a Thursday, and on Saturday had what she thought was an allergy attack.  Sunday, she had problems breathing and took her asthma medication.  The following Monday, she had severe chest pains and could not breathe.  Her pallor was grey.  Over nine days she repeatedly visited the emergency room, telling her mother that her “chest hurt so badly it felt like someone was ripping her heart out.”  She had pericarditis, a swelling and inflammation that surrounds the heart with fluid.  The doctor said it was directly caused by Gardasil, and wrote that in his report.  Holly now has a team of five doctors she is working with: a cardiologist, a rheumatologist, an allergist/immunologist, a naturopath, and a pediatrician.

Mathis questions the role of pediatricians who promote Gardasil as a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, without a complete enough disclosure and informed consent process.  She e-mailed me a letter from Lauren’s doctor who expressed his concern, while admitting that he was not convinced of the link to Gardasil.  He wrote, “As you know, however, I am not convinced that Gardisil is the root cause of the problem.  I say this not because I trust Merck, because I don’t fully trust any of the drug companies.  But I do trust the CDC, as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the ACIP, who thoroughly review the vaccine research and make recommendations to the CDC.  That being said, I know that new info always can show up later, so I just plan on keeping an open mind about this vaccine, like I try to do with all of the various medicines and treatments.   However, I rely on the experts, and at this time they still recommend giving the vaccine.”

Green noted that in her experience with doctors in the hospital setting, there is an acknowledgement of a potential Gardasil and illness relationship.  However, most of these doctors are being told by the legal departments of their institutions not to speak out publicly.

As Mathis elucidated, “You are on your own when this happens.  The Internet has been a lifeline.” So their site has been set up to centralize and store information, create easy reference links, sign a petition, make connections with “Guardian Angels,” and to contextualize the fifty deaths that have occurred post-vaccine.  Mathis explains, “It helps Moms just coming into the process.” Their site’s outreach is international.  The countries that appear on their hits stats include Israel, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Greece, Canada, the United Kingdom, Singapore, India, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Italy, Mexico, and Scotland.

Jodi Speakman, the administrator of the Facebook group, “Stop Gardasil! Victoria’s Story,” spoke to me about the power of her Facebook connections.  She is currently working to promote awareness of the potential side effects of Gardasil, and the issue of informed consent. “I’ve never had a problem with vaccines,” she stated flatly.  “If I could vaccinate my children against anything, I would.”  However, her point of view changed when two and a half weeks after her daughter Victoria received the Gardasil shot, she began having seizures and full body tremors.  She was advised at Jeanes Hospital in Philadelphia that her daughter was having an “allergic reaction to something.”  It didn’t occur to her to mention the vaccine.  As Victoria’s symptoms grew worse, she missed her entire senior year of high school.  “All of her friends have graduated and gone to college,” Speakman said.  Now her goal, as she described it, “is to get help for our daughters, as we have been abandoned by the medical establishment.”  She has contacted her state representatives, but was disappointed when all she received was “form letters in return.”

Others are reaching out to officials as well.  Karen Maynor, a New Mexico mother whose 20-year-old daughter Megan died in November 2008, wrote a four-page letter to Dr. Margaret Hamburg, the Commissioner of the FDA.  She expressed her belief in the “common link” between the young girls who have died and Gardasil.  Her frustration is palpable in her statement, “No one seems to care.”  Points in her correspondence included a call for tests on autoimmune disease genetics before Gardasil is administered; the inefficiency of VAERS to track adverse reactions; lack of doctor knowledge about VAERS protocol and informed consent; the explanation of the full range of side effects.  The letter was sent by e-mail and postal mail to a slew of high-level people including Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Maria Shriver, and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX).  Maynor wrote, “Someone has to take responsibility to initiate an immediate investigation into why these deaths and illnesses occurred.”

In Australia, Stephen Tunley, founder of gardasilactiongroup.com, had a face-to-face meeting with Australian Health Minister Nicola Roxon and the Chief Medical Officer of Australia, Professor Jim Bishop. As Tunley wrote via e-mail, he presented them with a “comprehensive file of data to consider regarding Gardasil and health issues.”  The response from Bishop, responding to “specific issues” Tunley had raised at the meeting, was, “The objective scientific evidence supported by experts and governments around the world is that Gardasil remains a safe and effective vaccine.” Bishop’s final sentences in the letter states, “I trust this information will address your concerns around this vaccine. Thank you again for bringing these to my attention.” This phrase can be viewed as conscientious, or as a supreme brush off.

David and Freda Birrell have been active in Scotland.  Freda Birrell, who is involved with ICAP.org, sent me comments via e-mail about her political experience in the United Kingdom.  Her advice to her American counterparts was “to try to alert as many elected representatives” about the vaccine as possible.  In New Zealand, efforts have been put forth by Julie Smith, with her website offtheradar.co.nz.  Medications.com has 269 entries on Gardasil, including a link to a CNN report.  Numerous sites point to genetic traits or predispositions that can be triggered by Gardasil, and warnings not to get the vaccine bundled with other shots.

Another website that is prominent in posting and disseminating information has been HolyHormones.com, run by Leslie Carol Botha, a health educator and broadcast journalist.  In an e-mail exchange she discussed how her site, a repository for articles on women’s health, has featured close to 700 articles on Gardasil.  She wrote, “I think that the social media networking has made all of the difference in the world – and changed the fabric of how information is passed.  This is the first time that Big Pharma has seen a ground swell of people come out against their vaccine.”  Her archives include “research papers posted on the vaccines and numerous PDF files on adverse reactions.”  Botha attributes the worldwide connections to creating a movement of awareness.

The grandmother of Jessica Ericzon found Botha’s site when she was searching for answers to Jessica’s death.  I spoke with Jessica’s mother, Lisa Ericzon.  She has been in touch with three other women who have lost their daughters.  “We call each other when we are down,” she told me.  Before ending our conversation she said, “I never want to hear another mother say, ‘I didn’t have an idea.’  Because,” she added, “I didn’t have a clue.”

This article originally appeared on the women’s health site Empowher.

Two years ago, I had a personal epiphany at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York City. I joke about how I was so deep in revelatory thought that I fell down a few stairs. Yet it was the moment when it all clicked for me. The way that new media could change everything… From communications to politics to culture. Since that moment I haven’t looked back, convinced that a shift is taking place that is as seismic as the printing press or the Industrial Revolution.

At the PDF conference a month ago, the conversations were light years away from 2008, when the prevailing topics were the election and Mayhill Fowler. There were new speakers and different vendors in attendance, as well as many familiar players. In the welcoming statement in the program folder, Founder/Executive Producer Andrew Rasiej and Editor/Curator Micah L. Sifry wrote,”…the web keeps rewarding those actors who empower ordinary users, eliminate wasteful middleman, share information openly, and shift power from the center to the edges.”

Two days of keynotes and panels provided plenty to chew over. Gina Bianchini, co-founder and CEO of Ning, spoke about “Owning Your Identity in Social Media.” With 1.3 million people in social networks, she addressed how individuals now had “a means to drive real world events.” Jeff Jarvis, author of What Would Google Do? talked about the interrelationship between government and the Internet. He emphasized that the populace “must give government permission to fail,” and allow them to try things and experiment. Jarvis outlined the goal as making government “truly collaborative.”

Dave Weinberger took on the issue of truth and transparency in the hyperlinked age of information. He declared, “transparency is the new objectivity,” and “we were beyond a paper-based democracy.” Regarding the Twittering from Iran, he acknowledged that the source of each Tweet was not verified, but maintained “keeping people connected online was a political act.”

Perhaps the biggest buzz of the first day came from Danah Boyd‘s deconstruction of “The Not-So-Hidden Politics of Class Online.” Having just completed a PhD focusing on “How American Youth Use Networked Public [sites] For Sociable Purposes,” the Microsoft researcher talked about the digital divide between teenagers using MySpace and those on Facebook. Boyd pointed to “pervasive stratification” where “not everyone is sitting at the table.” Referencing the Harvard origins of Facebook, she spoke of the respective communities as places where teens are not only reinforcing their relationships, but also bringing structural and cultural divides to the next generation. In discussing the “cultural wall” between the users of the two sites, she intoned, “I’m telling you this because it matters.” The following day, when Randy Zuckerberg from Facebook spoke on “social networks and social revolutions,” she responded, “Facebook is a completely neutral platform.”

That topic correlated to the dialogue centered on the “Obama broadband initiative and the future of the Internet.” Rasiej moderated the debate between Josh Silver, co-founder of the Free Press, James Assey (National Cable & Telelcommunications Associates) and Hank Hultquist (VP Federal Regulatory at at&t). Silver zoned in on the stats about the cable and phone companies protecting a “very lucrative market.” He informed the crowd that Verizon had 124 lobbyists working to protect their interests. He said, “The cable and phone companies have been making lots of money, but not reinvesting it. The U.S. wireless market [an extension of the Internet] is a disaster.” He was emphatic when he said flatly, “This social policy issue is too important to get wrong.”

Rasiej, who has actively supported net equality and is the co-founder of MOUSE.org (a non-profit working to connect public schools to the Internet), advocated for the need to change the dynamics of the country’s infrastructure. He wants to see more young and disenfranchised people online. Rasiej said, “People need to get online to break the chains of economic and social inequity.”

It was noted that 63 per cent of Americans have broadband, and the states where the higher speeds are available reflect where the more affluent neighborhoods are located.” Rasiej stressed his belief that “Internet access was a human right” and that the “public interest was tantamount.”

As a senior advisor for “innovation in Hillary Clinton’s State Department,” Alec Ross, was on hand to tackle “21st Century Statecraft.” He asked rhetorically, “How do you get power into the hands of the citizenry?” He posited that technology shows we don’t need to have decision making strictly in the model of government to government. It can be “people to government” or “people to people.” Ross made the concept visceral when he suggested in a humorous vein, “Paul Revere wouldn’t have ridden down Main Street. He would have Twittered.”

There were plenty of sound bites to take away. Zuckerberg suggested “the small things we do everyday online prime us for big actions.” Dave Troy (Twittervision) asserted, “Old media needs to figure out how to be part of the solution.” Amanda Michel (ProPublica) elucidated, “New Media focuses on the principles, rather than the tools.”

In addition, there were oft-repeated mantras that floated around from setting to setting, such as: “Information – Share it out” or “Work outside your network.”

My personal favorite remains, “Anything can go viral.”

Joan Blades, co-founder of moveon.org and the force behind mobilizing women at momsrising.org, spoke clearly about what the Net has to offer women.  She stated, “The virtual world is good in breaking down barriers…and has unarticulated advantages for those who don’t fit the mold.” In the field of technology for twenty years, Blades spoke about her “aha” moment.  She related that 80 percent of women have children, and 79 per cent of the demographic are less like to be offered a job when in competition with a man having the identical resume…if she is a mother.  In addition to her belief that social media has been helping women find their voice, she sees the virtual world as dovetailing with mothering.  It makes it safe for women to work differently and it creates a new reality where people can fulfill their responsibilities outside of work (both for children and aging parents).  Blades has been working on both a culture change and a policy change with an eye to underscoring the importance of parenting, which embraces both motherhood and fatherhood.  She said, “When we create flexibility, it is better for all.”

The need for women to embrace their expertise was put forth bluntly by Tracy Viselli, know to her Twitter followers as Myrna the Minx. Qualifying how men and women approach the issue differently she said, “Men call themselves experts if they have something to contribute.”  Women, regardless of their knowledge, tend to minimize the importance of their input.  Leslie Hawthorn, Program Manager for Google’s Open Source Team, mentioned the devaluation of what are considered “soft skills,” such as nurturing and communications.  She suggested that they were not respected since they are not considered “quantifiable or measurable.”

The question of who was building a “digital ceiling” and if it in fact existed, was addressed by Lynne D. Johnson, Senior Editor at FastCompany.com.  She stated that in the tech world, the majority the players were white males, but that women were part of the reason for strictures.  “Women need to put themselves out there,” she said, and spoke of the need to have “enough courage to speak for [oneself].  Susan Mernit emphasized the importance of “not allowing yourself to be silenced,” adding “women ask permission too much.” A common concern in the discussion was what to do when colleagues take “male opinions more seriously.”

A topic that dogs the feminist community is the need to develop more diversity when lining up tech experts for symposiums and conferences.  Connie Reece suggested that women should not wait to be asked, but instead, step up and suggest potential speakers.  In a specific panel entitled “Social Network and Diversity Barriers” Shireen Mitchell (socialmediawoc.com) spoke about why diversity has been missing and what we can do about it.  Mitchell noted, “If we were inclusive to begin with, we wouldn’t have to go back and fix it.”  Mitchell believes that to retrieve missing voices, ”we need to be more intentional and create a structure where no one person is more important than someone else.”  The conversation included a concern for “transparency,” “propelling power to the edges,” and making sure that a “core of people don’t become like the “cool kids clique in high school.”  Mitchell summed up, “We’ve got to get past the token members…and keep the gene pool mixed in.” When it comes to lining up tech experts for symposiums and conferences, Connie Reece suggested that women should not wait to be asked, but instead step up and propose potential speakers.

Tools for online communications were discussed.  Taking place before the Iranian news story, nobody would have guessed how central to communications the Twitter aspect would be. A link went up for Twitter basics from the site of tech guru Deanna Zandt.  Rebecca Moore, Manager of Google Earth Outreach, talked about a new generation of mapping tools that can help clarify a public issue concern (http://earth.google.com/outreach).  She explained how satellite imagery was used to visualize the crisis in Darfur to “show the actual destruction of villages.”  Natalie Foster, Director of New Media at the DNC, commented on the viability of translating “activity in technology to real world activism.”

“Launching Your Own Start-Up” featured a group of women with different philosophies, but who all agreed it that “you do it when it is the only thing you can do.”  Lisa Stone, co-founder of BlogHer, went to her users and asked the community what they wanted.  A written mission, building, and “trying things” was the strategy for two years…before they went for outside money.  They were constantly soliciting feedback.  Stone sensed a “fear of failure among women,” that prevented them from leaping into an opportunity.  Mary Hodder offered, “Who cares if you fail?  Just go flying off the cliff!”

When it came to the question of funding, Stone related her conviction that “community was the bedrock of the project,” and investors need to care about the product. Amy Muller, Chief Community Officer of  Get Satisfaction, suggested going as long as possible “boot-strapping,” thereby holding off on the venture capitalist route.  Getting advisors, giving them stock, and asking other women how they were funded was offered as options.  When it came to the question of revenues, Hodder was emphatic about “building for revenue from Day One, even if it’s $1,000 per month for Ad Sense.  The general mantra was, “Start building it and get it out there!”

Three weeks later, at the MediaBistro Circus in Manhattan, I was able to interview several of the women who were on-site the first day.  Eileen Gittins, Founder and CEO of Blurb, sees the situation for women as “better than ever…because when markets are difficult it’s all about talent.”  Her staff is 50 per cent women. She believes that “women in Silicon Valley are about meritocracy,” adding that “in start-ups, there are no glass ceilings.”  Gittins told me, “The Internet is gender blind.  It’s more of a level playing field.”

Valerie Maltoni, Founder of ConversationAgent.com, echoed some of the same sentiments I had heard during the Women Who Tech panels.  “I don’t like to be self-promotional, and tech is an amplifier of who we are,” she said.  As an after thought she commented, “Women are afraid of controversy.”

The founder of MediaBistro, Laurel Touby, was on hand to oversee the ceremonies. She sat down to give me some feedback on women in new media.  Having sold her creation to Jupitermedia in 2007 for millions of dollars, I was all ears.  She said, “I think we’re really behind, still.  We need more women in engineering.  I think we are starting to browse more in the tech world, but we need to browse more on the Internet [not just use it to accomplish a task].  We need to be more gatherers on the web, not just surgical browsers.”  Tackling the subject of women raising funds for their endeavors she observed, “Women still cave in to their desire to help without helping themselves.  [They] don’t have confidence to raise capital, they don’t have enough role models.  There is a different way that men seem to approach the problem.”  Touby admitted that she didn’t have the know-how to do financial projections on her own, but realized that she could use her creativity and leverage her abilities to find people “out there” to do what she didn’t have experience with.

Shortly afterwards, I spoke with Deborah Siegel and Kamy Wicoff about their new site SheWrites.  An example of women reaching out to others to form a supportive community, it is an online destination for literary women, both readers and writers.  Wicoff said, “Women want to create their own networking systems.”  When I last checked, the site had over 1,000 subscribers, which proved the theory I had heard proffered at MediaBistro Circus 2008.  “Go granular.”

With technology making it possible to connect with others that share common interests and beliefs, women can no longer sit on the sidelines and be intimidated. There’s too much to do and too much at stake.

Bill Johnstson, the Chief Community Officer for Forum One Network, gave me a brief overview of what to expect. He explained the unconference format, which has been around for twenty years. “In an open space methodology,” Johnston said, “the participants set the agenda.” He walked me over to what had started out as a large, empty grid – that was now filled with a wide variety of topics. There were six to eight time slots for breakouts in different rooms. “It’s very democratic and participatory,” Johnston told me. “Also responsibility based,” he added. “If you don’t see a topic, propose it!”

We conversed briefly about the “Obama effect” on the online community. Johnston mentioned that members of Obama’s campaign team have been spotted attending “these types of events.” Johnston spoke of the new administration’s commitment to the use of web tools, referencing the change.gov site and its innovative features, proposals, and citizen briefing book.

With some time to spare before the start of the next session, I checked out the information on the four event sponsors: Hive Live, Amplify, Athena East, and Leverage Software.  The media sponsor was Mashable.

HiveLive‘s materials featured a reprinted Q & A with CEO John Kembel, who posited a now entrenched POV that “social networking is changing the rules of marketing.” Kembel emphasized the shift away form the “traditional one-way message to a two-way dialogue.” He opined, “Every community is unique…so it’s absolutely necessary to find a solution that can support the specific activities of your community.”

Amplify characterized the top challenges for community managers as “moderation, monetization, and measurement.” Athena East was offering strategic methods to “develop, moderate, and maintain online communities.” Leverage Software was touting tools that could be “customized, and integrated into existing systems” with ease, as well as an “eventconnect” platform.

I sat in on the “Monetizing the Web” session, a topic Johnston had told me earlier “has been a challenge since day one of the web.” The “conflict between print and the web” was brought up. The question was raised, “Is it worthwhile trying to sell content anymore? A reply came suggesting, “Content is the sizzle that sells something else.” The exchange kept circling back to how the distribution model was changing — and the fixation on how to impact old media concepts.

Michael T. Petit, Co-Founder of Amplify, referenced one of the tenants of his company…”Keeping advertisers secure that you won’t serve ads where users are trashing their products (i.e. A Toyota car ad adjacent to a blog about how “Toyoto sucks.”). Petit, who comes out of advertising, commented that one of the durable trends of the Internet was, “We don’t control content.”

The theory that there was “a lot to be learned from looking at the past,” was put forth by Donald Schwartz , Technology Coordinator for Fast Company.com. He was interested in social communities going back to the bulletin board systems, because the forms worked so well due to “easy to follow threads.” A vigorous debate on the “tyranny of the clicks” took place, with statements ranging from “CPV became the metric because that was all that was available” to “It’s not about how often people click, but about face time.” A man in his mid-twenties inferred that there was a generational disparity, as “Millennials don’t even see the ads.”

“The whole advertising model is broken,” insisted one participant. “It’s about engagement! The cornerstone to community content is to know where you resonate.” Relationship was another word that came up frequently, particularly in deconstructing the ad agency model which was “campaign based as opposed to relationship based.” At this point, a man chimed in, “The old model didn’t work. Why bother?”

Thinking about the ramifications of that question, I caught up with him to learn more about his perspective. His name was Vidar Brekke, CEO and Co-Founder of SocialIntent, a four-month-old company. Working in the industry for ten years, Brekke came from Norway to pursue a PhD in Communications. After getting a Master’s degree, became involved with start-ups and product development in the late 1990′s. He even did a stint as Vice-President of Marketing at JP Morgan Chase (“The one thing my mother’s proud of,” he confides.)

Brekke’s opinion is that brands need to be personal. “How do brands insert themselves into that personal space?” he asked. Then answering his own question he replied, “You have to give them the tools.” He emphasized, “Social media is a product extension.”

The problem, as Brekke sees it, is that those in charge are not yet ready to let go of the “agency model.” They are “risk averse” and “fail to see new capacities.” He points to what he terms “corporate vigilantes…tied in to the status quo.” Brekke related that he is “called in for all the wrong reasons.” A client may contact him, not because they are theoretically ready to integrate new media into their approach, but because of their anxiety that their “competition did
something.” In speaking of his company’s role Brekke said, “We’re a specialized unit. We figure out what’s wrong, and try to fix it.” But he still keeps crashing against the resistance to the fact that social media “doesn’t fit into the advertising/pr model.”

“Facebook is a tactic, not a strategy,” Brekke said, echoing a similar exchange that I had recently with Stan Magniant of linkfluence.

Talking about a current client, a book author who has written about finances,” Brekke elucidated how he would be “webalizing the book” through pulling it apart, creating tools, placing an application on Facebook and “bringing the book’s promise to life – because when your friends engage, there is reinforcement in the social group.” All this would “be on top of the traditional public relations campaign.”

The conference ended with an open forum where participants offered the most important things they had learned that day. There were numerous sound bites of advice. “If you get five to ten posts a day per forum on a community site, you’re doing well.” “It’s not the numbers in a community. It’s who the people are and what they are doing.” “Despite a down economy, there is a lot of innovation.” “Let your community grow organically. Don’t impose your thoughts on them.”

The group exemplified a true willingness to share. There is a conference wiki that is still being updated. Before leaving, I spoke with Scott Moore, who does strategy, design and consulting, gave me a brief primer on “computation linguistics.” Gadi Ben-Yehuda, a government 2.0 specialist, spoke about his work for the District of Columbia. “I came to the event to learn about how other people are managing their online communities, and activating them in the physical world.”

I saw Johnston again on my way out, and asked him how he thought the day had gone. “A lot of really good energy,” he replied. ” A lot of very specific information about what didn’t work, how to create engagement…and it spanned all sectors.” Reflecting on the “myriad set of experiences” that had been shared he remarked, “It was almost like group therapy.”

There was a full line of presentations and plenaries, as well as eleven breakout sessions. It was tough choosing between such offerings as “At the Cross Roads: Organizing the Next Generation of Feminists Online and Off” and “Broadening Our Reach: Feminism and Working Women.” The end objective was to open up conversations, and to examine how powerful alliances between women’s advocacy groups (both traditional and non-traditional) and new media could be forged.

There was plenty to learn. I appreciated the insights from Anne Stone, Senior Vice President at the National Women’s History Museum, who shared that only 5 per cent of all monuments in Washington D.C. were of women, and that actress Hedy Lamarr had co-developed the technology which was a precursor to wireless communications (who knew?).

Shireen Mitchell, the Vice Chair of the National Council of Women’s Organizations, moderated “Feminism on the Move – Where We Were and Where Are We Now?” Several different threads of conversation emerged. One evidenced the relief that the Bush Era was over. “We’ve been locked out of the White House for eight years,” said Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority. Commenting on the application of new media she stated, “The organizing online is just like what we used to do. We’re moving issues.”

Reflecting on the nuts and bolts of policy, Kim Gandy, President of NOW, emphasized that the “biggest challenge was funding 1.6 million women’s jobs.” She used the phrase “human infrastructure” to address the need for women to be integrated into the economic stimulus package, with job opportunities in the education and health sectors.

Viva la Feminista writer, Veronica Arreola, called for “amplifying voices to grow a movement.” Elisa Camahort Page, BlogHer Co-Founder, expressed her concern for ideological diversity. “There are opportunities to find common ground,” she said. Summoning the need to avoid an isolating echo chamber and to cultivate “civil debates,” Camahort Page stressed, “We need to humanize each other…There are issues all women care about. We need to think outside the political box.”

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, Executive Director of the 150,000 plus membership of MomsRising, commented, “There is no one right way to fight for feminism.” With 72 percent of mothers in the labor force, and single mothers earning 60 cents to a man’s dollar, she pointed to the imperative of breaking down “The Maternal Wall.”

I sat in on the discussion about “Women’s Health Online and Off.” The point was driven home that health care is a women’s issue, a number one economic issue, and that the two are intrinsically intertwined. Women are forced to forgo health care that they need because they can’t afford it. It was reiterated that reproductive issues are only part of the total picture. The sobering statistic that having a baby is a leading cause for poverty among women (what Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney has termed the “Mom-Bomb”) was cited.

After lunch I listened to a panel on how feminism could be injected into popular culture. There was agreement that women’s visions and voices were missing, and images had to be shifted. Melissa Silverstein (Women and Hollywood) referenced the “obsession with lookism.” Latoya Peterson (Racialicious) spoke to how women were still considered “optional and disposable,” and underscored that they were “more and more marginalized in communities of color.”

The conclusion that women must be in positions of leadership segued neatly into the closing session, “From Individual Voice to Law of the Land – Continuum for Change.” When you hear that women earn in sixteen months what a man makes in a year, it is obvious that women have to cultivate their piece of the economic pie. Linda D. Hallman, Executive Director of AAUW, made that clear with her premise, “We need to redefine the feminist agenda as an economic issue.”

The technology part comes into play as a tool to advance and advocate for the essential work to be done. Liza Sabater (culturekitchen) spoke about the intersection of networking and technology. She said, “We have to build social capital to create political wealth.”

For me, the revelation of the day was “Impact of Women’s Issues and Feminist Bloggers on the Political Web,” presented by Stan Magniant, VP & General Manger of linkfluence. Magniant observed that the feminist web existed as a separate and dense community that was enmeshed in the progressive community. He suggested that it was important to push the feminist agenda on the bigger sites because “the larger the network, the larger the footprint, the larger the impact.”

In the past week, several pieces have been posted questioning Magniant’s methodology. Concerns raised included, “How do you factor in the difference between feminist sites, feminist content, and those who reject the feminist label?” “How does this relate to the whole continuum of women active in media?”

The linkfluence methodology is based on link patterns analysis, which is similar in principle to the algorithms powering Google’s PageRank or Technorati’s Authority score. (Technorati.com is the leading blogosphere search engine).

When I called Magniant with some additional questions, he spoke to my belief that solely having a presence on the Internet was not going to create the change and momentum that was needed. The key is to “project and pollinate, syndication, cross-posting, widgets, and aggregate techniques.” Succinctly put, Magniant said, “You’re 2.0 when you are engaged in participatory and reciprocatory activity – not just a display page on FaceBook.”

That for me was the key to the Fem2.0 conference. To mashup, interact, and expand the dialogue. As long as the separate communities of women are siloed on the Internet, they will only be as strong as their individual voices and agendas. Magniant in a follow up e-mail note wrote, “With online efforts undertaken by the feminist community [to interrelate in a new way], I’m pretty sure we’d see a very different map if we were to repeat the study in a year or so.”

In the linkfluence map, red lines are inbound and yellow lines are outgoing. Until we see more of the green lines of “reciprocal links” between bloggers, organizations, feminists, womanists, and varying points of view, women online will continue to be disconnected in their efforts.

What happened? Why was one of the most solid Democratic voting blocs, the Jews, ever in doubt? There are a number of factors. Yet one element that the purveyors of fear did not count on was the incredible push back to their actions, spearheaded by the use of new media to fight the deception and vilification.

Sources close to the Obama campaign told me that they have seen a “marked shift in the past month or so” from people who had questions about Obama. Those concerns have now been resolved. The nomination of Palin, who was perceived as holding extreme views on social issues and being connected to the Christian right, was a negative. Her strong streak of anti-intellectualism and contrast to Joe Biden — a proven friend of Israel known for his foreign policy chops — helped to tip the scales.

Dan Shapiro, Senior Policy Adviser and Jewish Outreach Coordinator for the Obama campaign sent me a comment by e-mail stating:

“We are very confident that, despite millions of dollars spent trying to smear Barack Obama in the Jewish community, Jewish voters understand that the Obama-Biden ticket shares an unshakeable commitment to protecting Israel and shares their values, and we fully expect to receive strong support from the Jewish community, matching or exceeding the support John Kerry received in 04.”

In trying to tease out where the money muscle behind these attacks was emanating from, two names came up with frequency. Sheldon Adelson, casino magnate and billionaire with right-wing views on both American and Israeli politics, was one. The Republican Jewish Coalition was the other. There have been rumors of a million dollars spent on television buys, fraudulent mailings, and “push poll” calls. The latter is an unethical campaign tactic that asks phoned subjects misleading questions (i.e. What would you think if…Obama was a Muslim), planting seeds of disinformation and doubt.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, the founding Executive Director of J Street, saw the funded attacks as an attempt to “sow fear” among the Jewish electorate. Ben-Ami, whose father is Israeli, speaks of his deep commitment to Israel. He has been involved in American politics for twenty-five years, including as an advisor to Bill Clinton. For Ben-Ami, the lesson of the 2008 election is that the Republican expenditure of millions of dollars belied “a fundamental misunderstanding of the Jewish community, [and] is based on myths that must be dispelled.” He contends that Jews are being viewed through an incorrect prism. “You don’t have to pander to Jewish voters,” Ben-Ami told me. In the last analysis, Israel is not guiding their voting choices, nor making them one-topic voters. That characterization Ben-Ami attributes to 8% of American Jews, which he qualified as being “the loudest and most reactionary.”

Two players who were determined to create a shift in the Jewish community were Mik Moore and Ari Wallach. Seeing the poll numbers at only 60% of Jewish voters supporting Obama in late July, they recognized the inroads that the negative ads had made. Moore, who has a background in communications, Jewish issues, and online organizing, spoke with me by telephone and explained the evolution of their response. They pinpointed a “lack of information” on Obama’s background as the key problem. Knowing that Obama needed 500,000 votes to match Kerry’s 2004 performance, he and Wallach co-founded and launched the Jewish Council for Education and Research, which would be the springboard for their other initiatives.

The first action was a move to construct a response system. Since Jews were passing on the damaging and inflammatory e-mails they were receiving, they made a plan to inoculate against the attacks. Their methodology was simple. Have strong Obama supporters reach out to others, in a “direct communication from Jews to their friends.” People are most readily convinced by those they trust.

The concept yielded JewsVote.org, which allowed users to create an account and then have access to a set of tools including e-mails and talking points. Individuals could upload their contacts once, and then move ahead to compose and compete with the e-mails that were being disseminated questioning Obama’s solidarity with Jewish concerns. Moore stated that 6,500 people signed up and sent out 10,000 e-mails. How many times those original e-mails were forwarded can’t be gauged, but the ripple effect is easily understood.

Next, they focused on signatory ads in regional Jewish newspapers. Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Florida were the key target states. Then, pulling in the circle even tighter, they shrunk the outreach from friends and colleagues to family with the directive of “Take responsibility for people in your own family.” What evolved was “The Great Schlep” with Sarah Silverman. Five hundred people actually made the “schlep.” Half went to Florida, the remainder traveled to Nevada, Ohio, and Philadelphia. A cross-generational conversation on race and politics ensued. Web traffic showed that “hits were up during the HIgh Holiday,” as families watched the video together.

Roughly 200,000 people downloaded the website’s talking points. In a high-tech version of the David and Goliath story, the sling shot of online activism turned out to be very potent. As Moore said, “We feel like we played an important role.”

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Congresswoman from the 20th District of Florida, reasoned that at the beginning of the campaign “people didn’t know Obama.” “Now,” she explained, “they’ve come home. They’ve learned who he is.” Wasserman Schultz believes the Jewish community is firmly behind Obama because “he stands with Israel and will be a catalyst to move the peace process forward.” She has confidence on voter turnout because “older voters are the most reliable.”

It is impossible to parse out the components of this story without an examination of what Joe Lieberman added to the discourse. Reaction from those I spoke with was consistent. Lieberman, whose approvals ratings have recently plummeted, was characterized as “having a lack of decorum,” being “an incredible disappointment,” “inappropriate,” and “out of step with the views of most Jews.” Ben-Ami stressed that with “the history of our people, we are supposed to learn.” He added, “We hold ourselves to a higher standard.”

This concept was shamelessly discarded by Lieberman when he engaged in “coded messages” and subtexts during his appearances with McCain. The tactics he engaged in were addressed in a SeaChange Communications panel that took place during the Democratic National Convention, entitled The Unconscious Communication Wars: Racism, Sexism, and “Swift Boat” Attacks. Speaker Dr. Drew Westen, author of The Political Brain, spoke to these “stealth communications” directly in his comments, elaborating on his personal reaction as well.

“Joe Lieberman made it explicit when he said, ‘One of the candidates puts country first, and the other doesn’t.’ As someone who is Jewish, to see someone else who is Jewish attack a person of a particular ethnicity…that was one of the most despicable acts I have ever seen in American politics…coming from a Jew, when that has been the attack on our people for over 2,000 years.”

Moore defined the current numbers of support among Jews for Obama as “a real testament to the Jewish community.” Amos, the Jewish prophet (circa 750 BC) would agree. As he said, “Hate evil, love the good, and establish justice in the gate.”