The difference between the Facebook responses and the Twitter responses are interesting. Twitter people went massively for STV while Facebook went massively for SM. Very few people went for FPP or PV. Almost all those who chose FPP said they were doing so tactically as they were MMP supporters, and see FPP as the system least likely to win in 2014 if there is a second referendum.

Some tentative conclusions I draw.

1. Those on Twitter and Facebook (well those who follow me anyway) are far more politically astute than the general population, as FPP is by far the most popular option with the public who only know FPP and MMP, but very few picked it in this survey.
2. If one assumes that those who punted for SM tend to be more right leaning, it suggests that people on Twitter are more left-leaning. This reinforces my general impression over a couple of years.
3. I think those who are of a different political persuasion to each other are generally more willing to engage on Twitter, than on Facebook. You tend to see someone’s Facebook page as “their property” so don’t challenge them as much, while Twitter is seen as basically neutral ground and one gets far more challenging of views.
4. Most MMP supporters will vote for STV and most MMP opponents will vote for SM, at least amongst the politically aware. This is based on my general knowledge of those who responded. I didn’t ask about Part A as I didn’t want it to turn into a debate on MMP. I may do a later informal survey on Part A.

I’m still amazed that to the best of my knowledge there are no TV debates scheduled on the referendum. Sure there has been the odd segment on Breakfast TV or Close Up where proponents have exchanged views. But I think the referendum deserves the same scrutiny as the election. There should be a 60 to 90 minute debate or debates. I’d do it like a leader’s debates. Have a couple of proponents for keep MMP and change MMP and a panel of journalists questioning them. Pretty much like Radio NZ did it, but you know on TV where you reach massively more viewers.

This is not surprising. I am sure others are also. My policy for the last couple of years has been to say “yes” to all Facebook friend requests, unless they are a known sociopath etc.

I used to only say yes to people I actually knew, but the hassle of trying to recall had I met someone or not, and potentially offending them by saying no got to much, so I went for an automatic yes policy.

In an ideal world I’d set up a second account, and restrict it to close friends only. Might do that, when I have the time.

The mother of a 14-year-old girl at the centre of an Australian “sexting” scandal that has seen three boys convicted of underage sex crimes has called for Facebook to be banned for under-18s.

Yeah that will work – try to kick 10 million+ teenagers off Facebook. Good uck with that.

The boys responsible avoided serving jail time after pleading guilty in the Bunbury Children’s Court to raping a girl over 13 and under 16, and are now registered sex offenders despite being aged 15 and 16 themselves.

In court it was revealed the boys had been drinking when they convinced the girl to sneak out on a Friday night, on August 27 last year, and meet them in a local park.

The boys then brought her back to one of the 16-year-olds’ homes where she was plied with vodka and gave the boy oral sex. She then had intercourse with his other two friends in the bedroom. The sexual acts were filmed on a mobile phone and sent to others.

And so we blame Facebook for this? I blame the kids involved – not the Internet or Facebook.

THE Commonwealth Bank has threatened its employees with disciplinary action, including dismissal, if they do not report criticism of the bank made by others on social media channels, including Facebook.

The Finance Sector Union yesterday demanded the suspension of the bank’s new social media policy, accusing it of trying to restrict freedom of expression.

Bank employees have been told they must immediately notify their manager if they become aware of “inappropriate or disparaging content and information stored or posted by others”, including non-employees, in the “social media environment”.

It says the content may damage the bank and its reputation.

“For example, your friend could post an inappropriate comment about the group on your Facebook page or create a blog about the group,” the policy says.

As well as notifying their manager, employees must assist the bank with any investigation into the material, and its removal.

This goes way way too far, and on this issue I’m all with the union. You absolutely should not slag your employer off on Facebook, but you have no duty at all to report online criticisms of your employer to them. Employees are not the Internet Police in their spare time.

I mean it really is so stupid to be almost laugable – requiring you to nark on your friends if they criticise your employer online.

They also have a copy of the official letters from BK.

Sometimes an employer can over-react to comments on Facebook, but in this case I don’t think Burger King is over-reacting. She directly slagged her employer off in a public forum.

If she had not named the employer, then that would not be an issue. Likewise if an employee just posts about a bad day at work, then an employer might be over-reacting to take action. But the comments made by Tyler undermine the good faith needed in the employer/employee relationship.

As it happens, she was also on a final warning for swearing and customer relations.

Now as it so happens, I support Grant Robertson’s bill, and think it probably does have wide support. But what I want to focus on is this segment of the story:

A Facebook page – dubbed Mondayise NZ – has called on the Government to make the move.

One post reads: “Crazy. Currently if our NZ national day Waitangi Day falls on a weekend, we don’t get the day off! What’s that about?”

Another said: “Let’s tell the New Zealand Government through a Facebook community [that] we want our public holidays Mondayised!”

If one is going to cite a Facebook group as evidence of wide support, one should cite how many members belong to or “like” the page. In this case, it is 47 people.

More than 1500 Facebook users, most of whom appear to be students, say they plan to attend the “Castor Bay Beach Party 2!” on Auckland’s North Shore in December.

At a similar gathering last Saturday night some 130 drunken youths refused to leave Castor Bay about 10pm. Police were pelted with bottles after they were called by residents when property was damaged. One man was arrested for jumping on a vehicle.

The mayhem mirrored a similar party at Cheltenham Beach the previous weekend.

More than 1500 people have signalled their intention to attend the December Castor Bay event, organised by student Ash Hilton, with another 440 “maybe attending”.

On the Facebook page, posters do not appear to care about the residents of the area, the police, the illegality of their actions, or grammar. …

Laura Petrova Isaac also intends on going.

“ha ha went to the first one… and the next day it was all over the news and i was watching it with mum and she goes ‘some children these days! im glad u dont do stupid things like this’ lol… uuhhmmm…. [sic]” she wrote.

Oh dear. Laura should know Facebook is public. Her mum probably doesn’t read Facebook, but I am sure Laura is hoping her Mum (or Mum’s friends) don’t read the Herald (or Kiwiblog)!

I can just imagine the thought process of the reporter as they read those comments, thinking I am going to teach that little miss a lesson.

A jilted lover has made legal history by being jailed for posting a photograph of his ex-girlfriend naked for millions of Facebook users to see.

After 12 hours, police and Facebook authorities shut down the woman’s account but not before it was available to all 500 million active users of the social network.

Joshua Simon Ashby, 20, held a piece of paper over his face yesterday in an attempt to prevent The Dominion Post photographing him as he was being sentenced.

Judge Andrew Becroft, in Wellington District Court, allowed Ashby’s photo to be taken, saying “there was a certain symmetry to it”, then stepped in to tell Ashby not to hide his face.

Yeah if you post naked photos of your ex for revenge, you can’t expect to have the media unable to take your photo.

Ashby posted the photo in an “irresponsible drunken jealous rage” after the breakup of their five-month relationship, the judge said.

It is believed to be the first time someone has been sentenced for a crime committed using social media under the seldom-used morality and decency section of the Crimes Act.

At first I thought jail might be over the top, but then I see he was not sentenced only for the photo.

The Island Bay painter was jailed for four months after pleading guilty to a charge of distributing indecent matter and six others of threatening to kill, wilful damage, theft of the woman’s clothes, and assault.

He had included in text messages to her on July 23: “I’m going to kill you” and “Dead bitch”. He then posted a photograph he had of her naked in front of a mirror to her Facebook page. Initially, 218 of her friends had access to it, but Ashby then made it publicly available and changed her password. Her friends saw the photo and texted her to tell her.

A very nasty piece of work.

At the same time as the Facebook incident, Ashby stole two of the woman’s dresses, soaked them in water and cut them up. She forgave him and they reunited briefly before a drunken argument in October led to Ashby pushing her to the ground and snapping her cellphone in half.

Oh, why did she go back to him. The moment anyone texts their ex to say “I’m going to kill you”, the Police should be breaking down his front door and arresting him.

I think he is lucky to only have four months jail.

I made the point that the problem is the media can take a flippant comment online, and treat it as a press release, and demand the CEO comment on it or respond to it. My suggestion was that a good CEO should tell anyone who comes to them with a media inquiry about a flippant comment on Facebook or Twitter, that the person needs a life and the CEO is too busy with real issues.

In the few hours since the conference, we’ve had a perfect example of this play out – but with MPs not public servants.

In the House on Thursday, Melissa Lee embellished her question to Judith Collins of “Can she explain the reasons behind the record low number of escapes” by adding on “except for the fact she is such a fantastic minister”.

Nikki Kaye promptly facebooked that Melissa’s effort should win her “brown nosing backbencher of the year”.

Now Nikki and Melissa are good mates. Melissa actually responds to “Blondie” in the facebook thread. It is very obviously two mates having a friendly hassle.

Then early this morning on Red Alert Trevor Mallard posted a screenshot of the Facebook thread. It is bloody obvious that it is a friendly exchange. They even have Melissa doing a lol on it.

So far so good. But then someone at NewstalkZB thinks this is somehow a newsworthy story. They actually dispatch a reporter to phone Nikki Kaye up and ask her why she called a colleague a brown noser, and does she think John Key would approve of it.

For fuck’s sake. This was the exact point I was making at the Labour conference. An idiot media outlet thinking that a piece of friendly banter is somehow a news story, let alone some sort of scandal that the Prime Minister might need to be informed about.

The Prime Minister, I am confident to predict, would find the exchange as funny as most people would.

What really annoys me is that the consequences of such media stupidity is to encourage our MPs to become automatons – never showing any personality or humour – playing everything safe, just to avoid a potentially bad media story.

One of New Zealand’s largest unions says the Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) is “scaremongering” when it claims employees should face legal action for complaining about their jobs on Facebook.

The Engineering and Manufacturers Union (EPMU) has come out strongly against the call from the EMA, saying that prosecuting people for what they say online comes “dangerously close” to impinging on fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression.

EMA employment services manager David Lowe said the use of social media was untested in employment law but employers should take action if employees badmouthed them online.

“Some employees continue to say things on their social networking pages forgetting it isn’t private. Businesses must not sit back and allow their reputations to be sullied by the thoughtless comments of employees or ex-employees.”

Not much one can do about ex-employees, except to point out the obvious that slagging a former employer off in public may make it difficult for them to get future jobs.

In terms of current employees, the EPMU’s position seems rather strange. As much as I support free speech, that is not to say speech does not have consequences.

If an employer or manager posted on their Facebook site that they wanted to strangle a employee because the employee was always fucking things up, I have no doubt the EPMU would say this is outrageous and a breach of the good faith needed in employment relationships.

The same applies in reverse. If an employee is slagging off the employer, managers or even colleagues, that is a breach of the relationship.

Now having said that, an employer should not over react. If an employee is being indiscreet with their comments on say Facebook, the best approach would be to point out why this is a bad idea, and the consequences that could occur.

Now if someone has their Facebook page restricted to friends only, you can argue this is not in public. But then one presumes an employer would not get to see it. If they do, then pretty much by definition it is not private.

Last year, New Zealand exports to Russia were worth $187 million, a modest sum even if well up on the $51 million of a decade earlier. As Russia has a population of 142 million, those figures hint at the potential of a free-trade pact.

But more telling still is the fact that not so long ago, New Zealand enjoyed thriving commercial arrangements with the former Soviet Union despite an often strained diplomatic relationship, not least over the invasion of Afghanistan.

But Keith Locke supported that invasion, so maybe we should make Keith the free trade negotiator for Russia

The Press supports the creation of a new bank:

The proposal to merge three finance organisations to create a new locally owned bank is a timely one.

For the finance institutions themselves, it is an opportunity, driven by necessity, to turn themselves into stronger, more robust entities, particularly after the turmoil of the last three years or so.

For investors, looking to diversify their investments away from the great Kiwi stand-by, domestic real estate, it could provide a worthwhile and productive place to put their money.

And for borrowers, particularly small-business owners who have complained of being cold-shouldered by unsympathetic banks during the financial crisis, it could provide a friendlier, more knowledgeable lender to local business. …

The three entities involved – Pyne Gould Corporation’s finance arm Marac Finance, the Canterbury Building Society and the Southern Cross Building Society – are established names in finance.

They have not been unscathed by the upheavals of the financial crisis, but they have survived it with credit ratings still at very respectable levels for non-bank institutions.

Two have BB+ ratings and the other a BB rating, which is at the high end for entities that are not banks.

But still not great. The acceptable grades are:

• AAA : the best quality borrowers, reliable and stable (many of them governments)
• AA : quality borrowers, a bit higher risk than AAA
• A : economic situation can affect finance
• BBB : medium class borrowers, which are satisfactory at the moment
• BB : more prone to changes in the economy
• B : financial situation varies noticeably

Once you start to get into CCC and below, institutions are officially vulnerable.

The Dom Post talks off shore drilling:

But for recent events in the Gulf of Mexico, the Government would be making more of a fuss of Brazilian oil giant Petrobras’ decision to explore for oil and gas off the East Coast of the North Island.

The world’s fourth-biggest energy company, a world leader in offshore drilling, this week won the right to explore about half of the Raukumara Basin, which extends north and east of East Cape. The company will spend up to US$118 million (NZ$174m) over the next five years gathering seismic data and drilling an exploratory well.

The project will create jobs and draw international attention to New Zealand as a potential source of petroleum.

But the big gains will come if Petrobras makes a commercial find. Already the petroleum sector generates about $3 billion a year in export revenue. Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee has estimated that figure could rise to $30b by 2025 if preliminary estimates of New Zealand’s petroleum resources prove to be correct.

Which would make a huge difference to our standard of living, and ability to fund health and education services.

However, celebrations this week have been muted by the ongoing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Six weeks after an explosion on BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig killed 11 workers, the well 1.6 kilometres beneath the sea is continuing to spew between 1.9b and 3b litres of oil a day into the gulf, polluting the fragile Louisiana coastline, threatening fisheries and destroying the livelihoods of fishermen and tourist operators.

For that reason it is essential that the promised overhaul of New Zealand’s health, safety and environmental arrangements for offshore petroleum operations is completed well before any deepwater drilling begins.

Agreed.

The ODT looks at Facebook and privacy:

Facebook, once a small, “free” social networking site for university undergraduates to share personal information, has become a vast subdivision on the information super highway.

It is expected soon to reach a landmark figure of 500 million registered users.

This would make it the third largest country on Earth, bigger than all but India and China.

On Monday this week – “Quit Facebook Day” – Canadian campaigners urged people worldwide to remove themselves from the site.

They, and many others, were riled about the way in which they felt their privacy was being purloined for profit.

Quite why they should have been so surprised is another matter: you do not pay upfront to belong to Facebook, but the company must make ends meet – and a tidy profit – somehow.

That “somehow” is no great secret.

The site sells advertising to companies tailored to the defined demographics of its users.

The “footprint” they create in their Facebook activities is like gold to advertisers and marketers who will pay accordingly.

I was talking last night to someone about Facebook, with the idea being that if a user is aged under 18 then their privacy settings are set by default to not share data with anyone but friends.

I have a modest proposal.

Sedighi claims that not dressing modestly causes earthquakes. If so, we should be able to test this claim scientifically. You all remember the homeopathy overdose?

Time for a Boobquake.

On Monday, April 26th, I will wear the most cleavage-showing shirt I own. Yes, the one usually reserved for a night on the town. I encourage other female skeptics to join me and embrace the supposed supernatural power of their breasts. Or short shorts, if that’s your preferred form of immodesty. With the power of our scandalous bodies combined, we should surely produce an earthquake. If not, I’m sure Sedighi can come up with a rational explanation for why the ground didn’t rumble.

It seems a most worthy scientific experiment.

And in just a few days, the Facebook page for the event has 145,000 confirmed attendees.

I suspect we will see a lot of coverage of this event on TV!

Maori should be equal partners with settlers in the NZ government. There are now 120 MPs. Maori should control 60 seats.

The most prominent member of Maori 60 is Green co-leader Metiria Turei.

That is some heavweight support, to have a party leader join your group.

I wonder how many Green Party voters know that their co-leader does not support a democracy where all votes are roughly equal, but where 15% of the population should have 50% of the seats, and the other 85% have the other 50%. That make a vote from someone with Maori ancestry six times more powerful than a vote from someone who does not have the right relatives.

It started with this interview on Sunrise with Oliver Driver where he was advocating Edison Hour over Earth Hour.

The talk turned to climate change, and Rick was trying to say that his arguments against Earth Hour stood up, regardless of whether or not you thought man-made climate change was happening. However his exact use of words was:

I think my argument is so powerful, it’s not necessary to talk about it

He meant of course that you don’t need to debate whether climate change is happening to talk about whether Earth Hour is a good thing or not, but the phrase has become one of legend.

The “I think my argument is so powerful that it’s not necessary to talk about it” Facebook page was born shortly thereafter and is now up to an impressive 3,400 members.

TV3, knowing when they are onto a good thing, gave Rick the opportunity to submit a home video where he makes his case without interjection.

I especially like the part about the communists, the Islamists and all of Ghengis Khan’s hoardes.

I understand there is already a competition between certain MPs for who can be the first in the House to use the phrase “I think my argument is so powerful that it’s not necessary to talk about it”

So unless enough people support an alternative, we may still end up with a Wellywood sign. So for those who like the idea of a giant weta, I’ve set up a Facebook page you can join to show your support.

A US teen convicted of using Facebook to blackmail dozens of male classmates into sex has been sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Nineteen-year-old Anthony Stancl of New Berlin showed no emotion as the sentence was handed down on Wednesday.

Stancl pleaded no contest in December to two felonies, including repeated sexual assault of a child.

He apologised during sentencing, saying he has learned to understand what his victims went through.

He had faced a maximum 30-year sentence.

Stancl is accused of posing as a girl on Facebook and tricking more than 30 male classmates into sending him naked photos of themselves, then using the photos to blackmail them for sex.

You know if I was 16 and  a guy gave me a choice of him releasing a naked photo of me, or having sex with him, it would not be a difficult decision. I’d choose the embarrassing photo over well, coerced sex.

It seems he coerced 7 out of 31 classmates into sex over having the photos released. Amazing.

Last night Metiria Turei used my status to attack Labour. Of all things it was on our record on the minimum wage – probably one of the best areas of progress the last government – but the subject doesn’t matter.

As I said above I’m new to facebook.  I regard my page like my home. I chose who is there. While there are lots of discussions initiated by constituents I decide whether they run or not. But the idea of politicians using the comments section of my status to attack me just doesn’t seem right.

Good God. If you are an MP and you use your Facebook page to try and score political points, it is rather precious to then ban people because they disagree with you. Let alone the co-leader of your own remaining friendly party.

Metiria herself is an avid user of social media and on Twitter (for example) people often disagree with her on an issue. She normally responds constructively, and all is fine.

ps   I found Rod Donald and Sue Bradford good to work with (and Jeanette but only for a short time) – so its not a green allergy.

Ouch that makes it worse. He is saying it is personal with Metiria. And consider his earlier comment:

Not much real help from you guys esp since Russel started cuddling tories.

So Trevor is slagging off not one but both co-leaders of the Greens. Way to go.

I really wonder if Phil Goff is in control of his own caucus.

Trevor Mallard defriended me on Facebook last night and I have to tell you the story. He also defriended another person for asking the same questions I did. Not terribly sporting, I would have thought.

Metiria’s sin was to point out the gap between Labour’s rhetoric on the minimum wage and their record.

And Trevor got so annoyed he unfriended her!! Seriously – just like a teenager does when they are in a huff.

I love Labour’s strategy for making friends and influencing people.

First Shane Jones insults a priest at Ratana, and them declares war against the Maori Party.

And now Trevor Mallard defriends on Facebook the co-leader of the Green Party.

What next? Will Annette King call Jim Anderton a authoritarian tyrant, to get rid of their one remaining friend?

Anyway Damien has set up a Facebook group called I’ll (at least consider) voting for National if John Key grows a Mo’

So if you want to join the campaign to have John Key do Movember, join the Facebook group and promote it to your friends.