@Rick_Velvet, known as core-team member Rick Squirrel at AssangeDAO Discord, today posted on that platform that the May 1–3 AssangeDAO airdrop event “caused a big echo in social media.” For the benefit of members here who do not keep up with social media, I hope Rick will expand on this favorable outreach. I noted that Stella Assange and Gabriel Shipton each retweeted AssangeDAO’s Twitter announcement, as did WikiLeaks. However, I don’t know enough about Twitter to ascertain the effect of these and other tweets promoting the event. The WikiLeaks RT itself has received less than 400 RTs, which is obviously a tiny fraction of WikiLeaks’ 5.6 million followers; but maybe that’s normal.
In a related post yesterday at AssangeDAO Discord, core-team member xuxuyousheng downloaded data showing that, for an event where people were invited to register their Twitter account and wallet address so that 1000 participants could be rewarded with 3000 tokens and 100 participants would be whitelisted for a future NFT release, only 77 people registered. [Note: AssangeDAO Discord core-team member @Silke has since updated the total to 79 persons who provided their wallet address.] I’m no statistician, but to me as a layman that seems like less than resounding success.
Similarly confusing is the response to the instruction in AssangeDAO’s announcement tweet to “Follow AssangeDAO.” The official AssangeDAO Twitter account’s profile reflects a gain of fewer than 200 followers over the course of the 3-day event. But perhaps this metric is not used in calculating the airdrop’s social media impact. I honestly don’t know.
At a loss, I can only fall back on my experience as a volunteer editor at Wikipedia, where primary sources (in this case Rick Squirrel) are discounted in the absence of stories published by perennially reliable outlets such as mainstream news organizations. I shall remain on the lookout for such reports in the coming days, and will add them to this thread as they materialize.
Before this post maybe confuses people without understanding the context:
I didn’t choose to be a core member or whatever. Apparantly bZ liked my output and added me there. Probably because I was active and tried to be as constructive and helpful as I can.
I’m just a regular supporter that wants to free Julian. I saw a lot of twitter activity between 1-3rd May. Much more than usual. I’m not referring to crypto people that participated with their wallets in order to get a reward from the chinese foundation & the artist. I was talking about all the passionate supporters, that were thankful for the event, retweeting and joining to express their urge to free the most important publisher of our time. Supporters were inspired and added Hashtags that we used. It resonated well with the supporters. I think it’s not so easy to calculate it like you showed above, because these re\tweets or comments that got inspired by it (e.g. without the given hashtags), were potentionally more because supporters also retweeded or inspired each other to take action and this I called “echo”. I personally don’t like that you mention me like I made scientific analysis in discord, just because I expressed my humble opinion about the echo.
Once I saw you made a screenshot of me and put it on Twitter. Now you tag my name here and copy one single sentence of an opinion I expressed. It’s always important to understand the full context and background of a sentence or paragraph, that somebody uses, to make a point and sharing a sentence outside of a platform, so people can’t form their own opinion in the actual platform, is not really nice and can lead to misinformation or misunderstandings. If you don’t know something, you can at any time come into the chat too and interact, without taking screenshots of people and coming up with theories that are maybe not correct or can confuse people inside & outside of the DAO. This ‘can’ lead to more misinformation and in the worst case distortion and FUD. So please consider this next time, you copy one sentence of a person without the full context or the rest of its opinion.
- My conclusion. I personally, as a supporter think that every step, that helps to free Julian, is a right step. It was not my advertisement-idea and I’m sure that there could have been much better ones too, but there is just one World Press Freedom Day per year and I understand that there was not much more possible for the chinese foundation \ volunteers to put this advertisement-idea into reality. I appreciated though, that donors created an independent fund and the chinese marketing (i believe) came up with the idea and wanted to advertise us and at the same time take action, to improve chances that Priti Patel doesn’t sign the extradition order. That we DID something for Julian and the reaction of the supporters was heart-warming to me. I think every passionate supporter is happy about an action that helps to free Julian…
So what do I have left to say?
I hope that my lenghty attempt to make some points more clear here, were helpful and that we finally can focus on things that really matter.
I hope the DAO focuses finally on the proposals, finishing gouvernance and finds a common home to inspire each other, to grow, to learn together and of course, to fullfill our core mission as soon as possible and celebrate the day, where Julian is finally out again…
P.S.: Forgive me if I again made english-mistakes. I’m not a native speaker.
@Rick_Velvet, I hoped by linking in my first sentence to your entire comment at Discord, not just to a single phrase therein, readers would be encouraged to view your thoughts in full context. And speaking of context, let’s stipulate that I deleted my screenshot on Twitter promptly after you objected to it, and thanked you for the correction. And for additional context, you apologized to me for having misinterpreted my post completely.
Good. I hope that too. I’m just afraid that people only read the headlines, without reading the article, metaphorically spoken. Especially the ones, who just grab one sentence and use it in their context. (Not you in this case, but FUD)
Thank you, Tom.