Taking a Look at @2gov
- Written by
- Tom Lee
- Date
- 09/23/2009 2:43 p.m.
Last Friday I had a chance to meet with Dave Binetti, the man behind @2gov, a new service that aims to make it easier for Twitter-users to route messages to their elected representatives. The idea is pretty simple: register with the site, then include "@2gov" in your tweets. It'll grab your tweet, look up your previously-recorded location, then run your message through a classification engine that determines what issue(s) it concerns and to whom it should be delivered.
It's a neat idea, and although the interface is elegantly simple, it's clear both from meeting with Dave and from his announcement on the Sunlight Labs list that there's some serious horsepower under @2gov's hood. There's the classification engine, for one thing, which is being hand-tuned, but which Dave says is going to remain closed-source, making it not all that interesting from my perspective. And there's a voter-verification system based on exhaustively-collected voter rolls, which shows an impressive dedication to making sure that the service isn't merely spamming legislators. The whole thing's modular, too, opening the possibility of other, non-Twitter interfaces in the future.
What's most exciting to me is the data powering the site. Dave claims to have collected information on nearly 100,000 elected representatives. And while the data isn't too deep — he told me it's basically just name, email address, title and bio — it's still an impressively large set of useful information. I'd love to see that data set opened to the community. Dave seems game — frankly, I'm not sure how else he could reasonably expect to keep it up to date — but also says it's not a high enough priority to merit diverting resources toward an immediate release.
There's one major caveat to my excitement about @2gov: it's intended to be a commercial service. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but users should be aware of it, and developers should set accordingly realistic expectations about how much of the data and code we're likely to see. I get the impression that the business model is still evolving; Dave's talked about advertising, and also about trying to become a sort of mini-MoveOn, which could sell access to slices of the userbase for targeted fundraising appeals.
As a user, knowing that I'm joining a list that might be resold gives me pause. But it doesn't make @2gov any less neat, or its underlying collection of information any less useful. It's a great app, and I'm optimistic that the community will be able to benefit from and contribute to @2gov's success. Here's hoping that Dave lets us take a closer look at his data soon.
Discussion
What are Your Thoughts?
Have thoughts that might fuel this discussion further, post them below. (Markdown syntax is supported in comments.)
Thanks, Tom, for a great article!
Just one quick note on the 'commercial' aspects of @2gov:
I'm prohibited by law from using any voter-related information for any purpose other than related to elections. And these are criminal penalties (as in, jail time) for misuse, not just civil. So while you're correct that I'm still testing out models in the real world, selling for non-political commercial purposes will not be among them.
But 'non-political' obviously begs the question, "Well, then what about political purposes?"
I believe that the burgeoning Gov 2.0 revolution is all about symmetry. If there is a dialog -- a true, symmetrical dialog -- then I believe people will accept that value proposition. "You listen to me, I'll listen to you. Directly. We might not agree, but let's at least talk without needing to shout or, worse yet, ignore each other entirely." It makes sense, and frankly I think it's good for our Republic. Who knows if that's feasible, but I think it's at least possible on a local and state legislative level, and perhaps even Congressional (for the lower chamber.)
Regardless, this will NOT happen on @2gov without express permission. I know it's not a great solace to just 'take my word' for it, but we all know I won't last very long if I break the social contract implicit in this service. I do make this clear in my terms of service and privacy policy, but am happy to restate it here as well.
I feel strongly that organizations such as mine function best when they are self-sustaining. If there isn't a viable social contract, then it falls apart. I'd hate for that to happen, but I also have found that even the most well-intentioned donations tend to come with strings attached. So if the contract holds, it holds. And if it doesn't, then perhaps it wasn't meant to be (or I'm a tad early.)
We will see. Regardless, let's continue the dialog, and as I mentioned in our chat I 100% welcome and encourage Sunlight's watchful eye on what I'm doing. You don't need my encouragement, but keep it up just the same.
Dave