Thanks for the link! A fantastic quote from the piece:

Candidates need to stop looking at this technology as a one-way system [...] another way, another channel of broadcasting a message.

Notice in the blurb from the Edwards Second Life volunteer, he points out the trail you can follow to learn more about John Edwards and “the issues that are important to him.” That’s great - but what about finding out what issues are important to the voters? Does the campaign have a way to accept and document feedback from SL visitors, or are the SL volunteers just running interference?

Indeed, Robert Smith was complimentary of the way that the Edwards and Obama campaigns have created spaces (”virtual clubhouses”) for supporters to chat with each other about issues, coordinate volunteers, and advertise events, and I agree - it’s better to have something than to have nothing. But there’s still a one-way flow of information unless the voices of supporters (and non-supporters!) are actually making it to the candidate.

What more would I have Edwards do? I wouldn’t; I’d have him do less. He’s making himself so available on so many fronts that he can’t possibly keep up with it all, and it seems insincere. My argument is that social software should be used in proper quantity (not too little, not too much) and, most importantly, for the right reasons (not just to get email addresses but to actually connect with more people). As for fear: I can’t define it, but I know it when I smell it.