Tech Crunch notes NRA un-publishing its Facebook page.
Some have accused the organization of cowardice for taking down the Page and ceasing to tweet. However, this crisis-management strategy may be succeeding. It’s prevented creating a centralized place under the NRA banner where perspectives of its independent supporters could have been taken as its own. The last thing the NRA wants is to be characterized as sharing an extremist or offensive position posted by someone who doesn’t speak for it or the rest of its fans. Other brands and organizations might follow the NRA’s lead by retreating from social media when they face times of crisis.
It’s an interesting point of view. I think the tactic is correct in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy, but at some point, people need to hear from NRA. At some point it flips from helping to hurting. When is that point? Damned if I know. I’m playing this by ear just like everyone else.
I think that what the NRA did was actually quite good. I agree with the article that no good would have come from the “discussions” (read: rampant flame sessions and outbursts) that would have been published there.
It also does something quite unexpected, it decentralizes the discussion on firearms. Since we already know that “fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man”, shouldn’t this apply to the internet defense of the Second Amendment as well?
By decentralizing the efforts of pro second amendment people on Facebook, the NRA has done something truly useful. Instead of having the NRA speak for us on social media, we can all speak for ourselves. It does, in fact, make the debate more personal, and one on one. This makes it more effective, I think.
What say you?
–Matt
It’s only Monday; we’re not at that point yet.
Wayne LaPierre has been through this before; he knows what to do. Unlike the antis, we have competent leadership.
Taking a look at the comments on the techcrunch article just goes to show that the NRA move was the right one.