This is the most user-friendly White House in history. It was a nice experiment in Web-enabled democracy. But despite the great camera angles and the believable-but-composed real-world folks, it stretched the definition of "social media" pretty thin. User-submitted content is good, and the hand-picked live participants get to be involved, but for most of us, it's no different from television.

The Hangout dynamics did offer some back-and-forth between participants and the president. The action didn't feel scripted. On the contrary, it felt like people talking over each other, just like a video chat usually does, except there was a moderator to occasionally interrupt and move things along.

But for most of the audience, it was a YouTube stream. The link was posted all over Google+ by various accounts, including the White House, YouTube and Google Politics & Elections, but the comments there were spammed-up and useless. It wasn't a social event except for the selected participants.

In that sense, it wasn't much different from the president's live event at Facebook last April. It was good publicity for a social Web platform, pro-Web PR for the White House, and a TV-like experience for the rest of America.

This was certainly a game-changing event. It was a demonstration of YouTube's looming succession to television as the most influential video platform. This was a triumph of a tech company over media companies. The production values were high, the program was engaging, and the content was timely. But for the public, it was no more of a paradigm shift than changing the TV channel.

Did you watch the White House Google+ Hangout? What did you think? Share your reactions in the comments.

The statement, which lists all three anti-piracy bills currently under discussion - the PROTECT-IP and OPEN bills in the Senate, and the SOPA bill in the House - is a loud warning shot indicating the President's lack of support, and likely veto, of any legislation that requires tampering with the structure of the Internet to enable enforcement.

Thanks for taking the time to sign this petition. Both your words and actions illustrate the importance of maintaining an open and democratic Internet.

Right now, Congress is debating a few pieces of legislation concerning the very real issue of online piracy, including the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the PROTECT IP Act, and the Online Protection and Digital ENforcement Act (OPEN). We want to take this opportunity to tell you what the Administration will support--and what we will not support. Any effective legislation should reflect a wide range of stakeholders, including everyone from content creators to the engineers that build and maintain the infrastructure of the Internet.

While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.

Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. Across the globe, the openness of the Internet is increasingly central to innovation in business, government, and society and it must be protected. To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity. Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing.

We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk.

Let us be clear--online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders. That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders while staying true to the principles outlined above in this response. We should never let criminals hide behind a hollow embrace of legitimate American values.

This is not just a matter for legislation. We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy.

So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don't limit your opinion to what's the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what's right. Already, many members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are paying close attention to those opportunities, as well as to public input to the Administration. The organizer of this petition and a random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue further with Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions. Details on that will follow in the coming days.

Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge.

Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation. Again, thank you for taking the time to participate in this important process. We hope you'll continue to be part of it.

The statement indicates outright support for the position put forth by the petitioners, and suggests it would be their recommendation to the President as well that anti-piracy legislation in its current form should be vetoed.

That President Obama himself has not made a statement is probably intended to help him preserve his official position as against online piracy. However, this recommendation will very likely be heeded, and this move may slow, if not halt, any legislative activity on this matter for the remainder of this term in the Senate. In the House, which remains under Republican control, the SOPA bill (minus the court order provision that constituted its main enforcement provision) may still be voted on, but the chances of it facing reconciliation with a Senate version of the same bill are now extremely minimal.

An imminent show of dissent from the Administration against current anti-piracy legislation would likely have been the trigger for Sen. Patrick Leahy's (D - Vt.) decision Thursday to remove the court order provision from his PROTECT-IP bill. That led to Rep. Lamar Smith's decision Friday to remove the corresponding provision from his SOPA bill.

"Something new," Gibbs Tweeted,"You take first crack. Use #1q in a q & I'll answer 1 on vid before today's briefing. What do you want to know?" Given that this is a public forum, users can see all the questions asked of Gibbs, in addition to the ones he chose to answer. His video reply below.

As transparent public engagement goes, this looks pretty good. If such a campaign were to spread far and wide, some kind of systematic analysis would probably be good in order to make it scalable. Text analysis of the most common words used in questions, for example, could help surface issues emergent interest.

Earlier today, David McClure, the associate administrator of the General Services Administration's Office of Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies, introduced a government social media timeline in a blog post on the new citizen engagement platform, Citizen.apps.gov and called on the American people to send "the important U.S. government milestones you know about by emailing them to us at GovNewMedia@gsa.gov."

Here's what the timeline looks like so far:

If you follow the rapid acceleration in the use of social media by government, you know that the movement to use social media, data, blogs, wikis and online video to make government work better is broadly called "Gov 2.0." Think of it like Web 2.0 for government. There are unquestionably risks and rewards for the use of Web 2.0 technologies by government. The Obama administration, however, has been willing to try to use the Internet in new ways.

For example, did you tweet a question to President Obama in his recent MTV town hall? Did you see the @FCC live tweet the blacked-out Giants-Phillies baseball game yesterday? Did you follow tweets from the Mars Rover or follow @NASA astronauts as they orbit the Earth?

In his post McClure wrote that:

Gov 2.0 is like any social network- it's always changing, can be both difficult and rewarding, and occasionally get pretty hairy. And like Facebook, Gov 2.0 is only as valuable as the time you - and your community - put into it. It's been a rapidly accelerating ride - as more and more interest comes from the White House, and, more importantly, the American public to increase the reach and effectiveness of engaging and communicating with government.

McClure cited milestones like the first government YouTube channel, the redesign of WhiteHouse.gov with open-source software and the use of Twitter by the State and Defense Departments after the Haiti earthquake. Now, the federal government is looking to the American people - yes, you - to contribute more milestones to the timeline via GovNewMedia@gsa.gov. Add a date, provide any sourcing information and keep eye on the evolution of this government social media timeline.

UPDATE: An alert reader in Washington pointed out that Uncle Sam's timeline probably won't end up including any official recognition of government surveillance of social media use in all contexts. For instance, thanks to the EFF's FOIA requests, we know that DHS monitored social media during Obama's inauguration. While it certainly makes sense for @FEMA or the @LAFD or the @Boston_Police to be monitoring social media channels during crises, government agencies haven't always been completely forthcoming about what they're monitoring, how they're doing it or why. That's why ECPA reform and digital due process matter.

Given national security concerns, protecting some sources and methods shouldn't surprise anyone. If we take it as a given that government will be using social media during crises, elections or for greater transparency, however, it's important that everyone involved know who's really listening.

Given that YouTube and the White House only announced this event today, it definitely looks like this was a last-minute effort to get the public involved. Topics for the event include BP accountability, Gulf Region recovery, the cleanup plan and the environmental impact of the spill. Even though this event was only announced about an hour ago, questions are already streaming in at a rapid pace.

Earlier this month, Google, in cooperation with the PBS Newshour, also enlisted the public's help in collecting the best ideas for stopping the spill and cleaning of the oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Over 15,000 people submitted their ideas at that time and over 100,000 Google users voted on these ideas.

According to the HHS, the program is "a public-private collaboration that is encouraging innovators to utilize community health data to develop applications that help raise awareness of community health performance and spark action to improve health." At today's event a number organizations are demonstrating a preview of their work with the data, including Google, Microsoft and GE.

First Results

• Google: The company imported the public data into Google Fusion Tables where it can be explored and visualized.
• Microsoft Bing: "Using community health data, Bing has created new features that allow easier selection of hospitals based on patient quality of care ratings and new ways to assess potential areas to live based on a combination of community health measures and access to goods and services."
• The Network of Care for Healthy Communities: A Web portal combined with community health data provides officials with policy information, local services, best practices and evaluation tools that can spur local action.
• Community Clash: Created by MeYou Health, "Community Clash is an online card game that engages you in a discovery of your community's health and well-being status and how it compares to other communities in a head-to-head clash. Community Clash gets personal, prompting each player to compare his or her own Well-Being Score and encourage social comparison with friends through Facebook integration."

Opportunities

• Data mashups: Sharing information across data sets and regions will create multiple opportunities. Will there be a management system in place to fix or enhance data sets and their underlying models as needed?


• Services engine: There are a mix of CSV, XML, map data, and other sources available in the data set. Will the sets be offered as APIs and how it will be leveraged across different parties?


• Missing gaps: Will the community health data initiative spawn new areas of research funding?


• Public and private: What will be the focus of private companies that offer services based on this initiative? Will it attract VCs and investors outside of the public sphere?

The current releases are Context HTTP Headers, GovDelivery and NodeEmbed.

The author of the memo, Peter P. Swire, who was also the attorney for the New Media team during the Obama-Biden transition, argues that the transition from a campaign to the White House is not just a transition to fewer staff members, but also a transition from having to scale from 10 million motivated supporters to 300 million Americans. While it would be great if the White House could respond to every comment on a blog individually, it would be hard to scale this with just a handful of people running whitehouse.gov (and, because this is Washington, there is already a White House Correspondence Office that is officially charged with answering letters and calls from citizens).

From Talking Points to Policy

In addition, responses now also have to be 'cleared,' that is, vetted by all the relevant agencies. As Swire points out, it was easy to ask a North Korea expert about what to say about a developing situation in North Korea during the campaign and to use that expert's opinion as a talking point, but now, White House bloggers don't just speak for the campaign, but for America, and a talking point could have real, potentially dangerous consequences. Now, the White House team has to get clearance to post about pretty much any topic.

Video

Swire also talks about the White House's extensive use of video. Thanks to using YouTube and other vendors, scale is not an obstacle for the New Media team, and thanks to the fact that these videos tend to be short, it is relatively easy to get clearance for these videos.

The Purple Folder

According to Swire, President Obama receives a purple folder every night, with 10 letters, faxes, or emails from the general public that are "broadly representative of the day's news and issues."  However, while it is nice that the President would read these letters, maybe it would also be nice if he read a couple of blog posts from representative political blogs every day as well (of course, we don't actually know that he doesn't do that already anyway).

It's All About Scale

The one recurring motif in this memo is that it is hard for the White House to scale its operation in order to really engage the public, and that politics obviously often get in the way. It obviously also doesn't help that the White House staff can't rely on the hundreds of volunteers that the Obama campaign was able to recruit at a moment's notice, as that would open up a whole other range of political issues.

Thanks to the Resource Shelf for pointing us to this memo.