When the task is to hate.

You will recall how Barack Obama our first 'social media President' won the election. Making You the public aware of his political stance and his more personal identity. Part of the campaign was given voice and visualised moments through various social technology platforms. A first for politics. Certainly effective. And likely to be repeated.

Obama and his campaigners sort to cultivate a presence that could be seen and heard, and amass support. In the same manner Nick Griffin leader - I use such teminology in 'name' only, rather than to indicate a leading or inspirational figure-head (yes I'm Left) - as a less advanced political type is pitching for the same opportunity to voice his views on BBC's Question Time tonight.

I am not against Griffin's participation on Question Time. I am more concerned by his parties presence on SNSs like Facebook. But does this make me a hypocrite? I'm saying: Yes, to Question Time. No, to SNS Time?

Let me explain, here lies the distinction. It is likely, but by no means absolute, that those under the voting age will choose not to participate in the viewing of Griffin's (dross) dialogue. More likely in bed, on the wii, on Facebook, MSN etc. ... SNSs like Facebook, however, offer a different political ploy/ground. Children (above the age of 12years) are allowed and openly encouraged to have a presence on such sites. The same children who do not have the right to vote or to voice political opinion.

Surely, then following this line of argument then all politicians and political associations should be banned from Facebook?... And here lies the sticking point. SNSs are public venues; for friends, increasingly for Push PR, marketing and advertising and now for politicians. And you're not considered 'political enough' or 'down with' your supporters if you do not have a Twitter feed. Thus, there is one formulation that does equate. BNP stands for intolerance and discrimination against others. So yes they have a right to an equal voice in a political setting. But not in public spaces when they deny the same rights to others.

In short, it is perfectly useless to discriminate in the same manner as Griffin and his 'mates'. But I would add straight away that anyone/party that denies an equal footing to others should not be allowed to push their politics and presence in an open and public way on SNSs.

On Facebook, In 2007, a quick search for 'BNP' returned with 98 groups. Today, there are over 500. The second largest group being supportive of the BNP holds a disturbing accumulation of site users. Although the Group Admin's claim that 'This is the discussion group for those who can think for themselves'. Change 'think' to 'hate' and you have an idea of the general tone of postings and hoody-pictured members.

SNSs are public. And are also public with users who are underage in terms of political voting rights. There is no need for the BNP to hold such a public face. If they want to 'campaign' in such a manner there are 'secret groups' that they can set up.

The real irony is that the BNP, like many of us, enjoy the freedom that such social platforms provide. The very freedom that they seek to take away from others. So let them have a soapbox, but only across forums specifically set up for politcal discussion that can equalise the relationship between prejudice and fruitful debate.

Not full of hate, Obama remains my public 'Friend' on Facebook.

Macabre presence. Being Gordon Brown's (only) Fan.

'Bored at lunch' reveals that Gordon Brown has 973 Facebook Fans. And he is in good company, as new list that mixes Web 2.0 social media and Government highlights the 'Top 10 agencies with the most Facebook fans.' The Top Three, in descending order, congratulations to the White House (327, 592 fans at 23:04pm GMT, 16th September), followed by the Marine Corps and Army. Americanism bias aside, what's the fig big?

Let us return to the Brown. BBC Two’s Daily Politics have given Brown a Fantasy Facebook. Not a page unbound with high profile friends, instead revealed are Brown's likes and dislikes - as you or I may appear.The 'Profile' comes across as quite charming actually. One mere point, click and Google away on labour.org and Labour Vision lets you ‘send to Facebook’, Gordon Brown: You have to grow not cut your way out of a recession – one can only assume to promote Labour ‘success’ or as an indication to Facebook friends how bored you were on your lunch break, which leaves it up to them how seriously to take your friendly Facebook Share.

But what exactly is going on here? What are the likes of Government policy and party members doing roaming across social media platforms demanding 'fans' and tweeting to Followers? Is this all part of a new political t/ask force? A novel means of Government innovation? Representation of Civil Service modernisation? Well that’s not really Brown on the Facebook Fan Page. So what’s being done with all those ‘Fan’ comments, Wall posts and Discussion suggestions? Perhaps evidence of a new political Think Tank. I have not Googled/Facebook yet, but I’m sure David Cameron is in on the social media act.

The wider issue here links to social presence and surveillance. The overt stratregy may to sustain party interest, but isn’t this a little grey with covert tendencies as such pages stand somewhere between satirical irony and another aggregated data depot. Perhaps the thinking goes something like, ‘oh, I see that such and such is a Fan of Brown, yes that gives him credibility I will vote for him in the next election.’ Rather than, ‘I see such and such is a Fan of Brown, where do I ‘de-friend’?...’

Novel and engaging? Or annoying and vague? Perhaps this depends on not only the whom and what the social media noise is about, but the WHERE and WHO has published the information. FYI Gordon’s Facebook Fan Page has not been self created. Can we assume then that his endorser is a Fan, a friend, family, or just Spam?...

Personally I do not have a Facebook Fan Page (In much the same vain, I do not have a Wikipedia entry. Yet. I would prefer ‘another’ to create and nominate my namesake instead. Then look forward to various ‘facts’ running amok for their inaccuracy across the Web. Hint, hint dear reader). By deploying social media are political agencies seeking new validity with the common man? Are they anticipating immediate involvement from a ‘positive’ association with a brand development across such platforms? What happens to the information and who is reading/recording the postings to such pages?

Certainly not Brown. Surely not the Labour Party. Maybe this is a new opportunity for the next smear campaign between the political parties. Rather than email, they can really lay criticisms at each others door with a awkward Wall post or repeated Poke. Such mediation should safeguard political presence, could be part of a Government 2.0 strategy or simply evidence of Digital Britain innovation.

Maybe Gordon will be my BBFF (Best, Best, Facebook Friend)?