Claus.dahl

My Unix is a general purpose operating system, Chris Siebenmann says.

Bedwyr is a generalization of logic programming that allows model checking directly on syntactic expression possibly containing bindings.

HyperLogLog in Practice: Algorithmic Engineering of a State of The Art Cardinality Estimation Algorithm, by Stefan Heule, Marc Nunkesser, and Alex Hall.

ana voog on vimeo. “i am experimenting with making little mini videos from the anacam archives i have.”

Poor man kept alive by own dialysis invention, WJW.

Malaria, a short film by Edson Oda.

A Thompson hack virus is found in the wild (2009), infecting Delphi.

“Ich trete hiermit aus der EU aus”, sagt Harald Martenstein.

Top Five Objections to the White House's Targeted Killing Memo | Juan Cole:

1. In the Western tradition of law, there can be no punishment without the commission of a specific crime defined by statute. The memo does not require that a specific crime have been committed, or that a planned criminal act be a clear and present danger, for [anyone] to be targeted for execution by drone.

2. To any extent that the president’s powers under the memo are alleged to derive from the 2001 Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force, i.e. from the legislature, they are a form of bill of attainder (the History Learning Site explains what that is here):

“A bill, act or writ of attainder was a piece of legislation that declared a person or persons guilty of a crime. A bill of attainder allowed for the guilty party to be punished without a trial. A bill of attainder was part of English common law. Whereas Habeus Corpus guaranteed a fair trial by jury, a bill of attainder bypassed this. The word “attainder” meant tainted. A bill of attainder was mostly used for treason … and such a move suspended a person’s civil rights and guaranteed that the person would be found guilty of the crimes stated in the bill as long as the Royal Assent was gained. For serious crimes such as treason, the result was invariably execution.”

What, you might ask, is wrong with that? Only that it is unconstitutional. Tech Law Journal explains:

“The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.” …

“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

The form of the AUMF, in singling out all members of al-Qaeda wherever they are and regardless of nationality or of actual criminal action, as objects of legitimate lethal force, is that of a bill of attainder. Congress cannot declare war on small organizations– war is declared on states. Such a bill of attainder is inherently unconstitutional.

3. The memo’s vision violates the principle of the separation of powers. It makes the president judge, jury and executioner. Everything is done within the executive branch, with no judicial oversight whatsoever. The powers the memo grants the president are the same enjoyed by the absolute monarchs of the early modern period, against whom Montesquieu penned his Spirit of the Laws, which inspired most subsequent democracies, including the American. Montesquieu said:

“Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.

There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.

Most kingdoms in Europe enjoy a moderate government because the prince who is invested with the two first powers leaves the third to his subjects. In Turkey, where these three powers are united in the Sultan’s person, the subjects groan under the most dreadful oppression.

Ironically, given contemporary American Islamophobia, the Obama administration has made itself resemble not the Sun-King, Louis XIV, who at least did have a court system not completely under his thumb, but rather, as Montesquieu saw it, the Ottoman sultans, who he claimed combined in themselves executive, legislative and judicial power. (Actually the Muslim qadis or court judges who ruled according to Islamic law or sharia were also not completely subjugated to the monarch, so even the Ottomans were better than the drone memo).

4. The memo resurrects the medieval notion of “outlawry”– that an individual can be put outside the protection of the law by the sovereign for vague crimes such as “rebellion,” and merely by royal decree. A person declared an outlaw by the king was deprived of all rights and legal protections, and anyone could do anything to him that they wished, with no repercussions. (The slang use of “outlaw” to mean simply “habitual criminal” is an echo of this ancient practice, which was abolished in the UK and the US).

I wrote on another occasion that the problem with branding someone an “outlaw” by virtue of being a traitor or a terrorist is that this whole idea was abolished by the US constitution. Its framers insisted that you couldn’t just hang someone out to dry by decree. Rather, a person who was alleged to have committed a crime such as treason or terrorism had to be captured, brought to court, tried, and sentenced in accordance with a specific statute, and then punished by the state. If someone is arrested, they have the right to demand to be produced in court before a judge, a right known as habeas corpus (“bringing the body,” i.e. bringing the physical person in front of a judge).

The relevant text is the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

5. The memo asks us to trust the executive to establish beyond the shadow of a doubt the guilt of an individual in a distant land, to whom access is so limited that the US cannot hope to capture him or have local authorities capture him. But Andy Worthington has established that very large numbers of the prisoners the US sent to Guantanamo were innocent of the charges against them. If the executive arm of the government can imprison people mistakenly, it can blow them away by drone mistakenly. A US government official once told me the story of an Iraqi Shiite who had fled persecution under Saddam through Iran all the way to Afghanistan. In 2001, locals eager to make a buck turned him in as “Taliban” to the US military, which apparently did not realize that Iraqi Shiites would never ever support a hyper-Sunni movement like that. So the Iraqi Shiite was sent to Guantanamo and it could even be that Taliban themselves were paid by the US for turning him in. The official may have been speaking of Jowad Jabar. These American officials are way too ignorant to be given the power to simply execute human beings from the sky on the basis of their so-called ‘intelligence.’

Then there is the whole premise of the memo, quite apart from its substance. The memo, as Glenn Greenwald points out, ratifies the Bush/Cheney theory that the whole world is a battlefield on which the US is continually at war. Treating the few hundred al-Qaeda, spread around the world in 60 small cells, as an enemy army, making them analogous to German troops in WW II, is insane on the face of it. Our current secretary of state, John Kerry, largely rejected the notion. Al-Qaeda consists of criminals, not soldiers, and they pose a police counter-terrorism problem, not a battlefield problem. The notion that the whole world is a battlefield violates basic legal conceptions of international law such as national sovereignty.

“A REVOLUTIONARY ACTION within culture must aim to enlarge life, not merely to express or explain it. It must attack misery on every front. Revolution is not limited to determining the level of industrial production, or even to determining who is to be the master of such production. It must abolish the exploitation of humanity, but also the passions, compensations and habits which that exploitation has engendered. We have to define new desires in relation to present possibilities. In the thick of the battle between the present society and the forces that are going to destroy it, we have to find the first elements of a superior construction of the environment and new conditions of behavior — both as experiences in themselves and as material for propaganda. Everything else belongs to the past, and serves it.”

- Guy Debord, Report on the Construction of Situations  (via revolutionaryhopes)

Bring Back Postal Banking ...:

Interesting article on the post office problems.

According to the FDIC’s 2011 National Survey, over 10 million US households are “unbanked,” with no access to the financial system. Another 24 million households are “underbanked,” meaning they have a bank account but they also rely on providers of “alternative financial services”: remittance or money order shops, payday lenders, check-cashing operations, pawn shops, or associated services. Many of these services are among the most unscrupulous in American society, preying on people with few other options and charging usurious interest rates or carving out large fees. These roughly 68 million unbanked or underbanked Americans represent a huge market for non-bank financial predators.

In other countries, this market is served at the post office.

“What happens when you can’t find the City Hall’s Bible and you need to promote some firefighters to Battalion Chief and Fire Captain? If you’re the Atlantic City Fire Department of Atlantic City, New Jersey, you grab an iPad and load up your favorite Bible app to complete the swearing in ceremony.”

(iPad app replaces physical Bible in New Jersey swear-in ceremony | The Verge via Irwin)

Briefing til bureauet: Vi er lige blevet kåret til at være Danmarks bedste arbejdsplads for andet år i træk. Det skal fejres! Kan I ikke finde en ussel arbejdsløs, som ingen har respekt for, og så sparke til ham i den anledning?

I House of Cards møder vi Francis Underwood (Kevin Spacey) - demokraternes magtfulde indpisker i kongressen. Ved seriens begyndelse venter Underwood på, at den nyvalgte præsident giver ham den position som Secretary of State, som han er blevet lovet før valget. Men præsidenten holder ikke sit løfte.  Det svigt bliver indledningen til Underwoods målrettede og fuldstændig skruppelløse jagt på personlig magt, som er seriens omdrejningspunkt.   Traileren til House of Cards, hvor den den antagonistiske hovedperson, som spilles af Kevin Spacey, præsenterer seeren for et iskoldt politisk univers, som bærer præg af både Machiavelli, Shakespeare og faktiske begivenheder i amerikansk historie.    Magtbegær som permanent omdrejningspunkt I seriens første scene kvæler Underwood naboens trafiksårede hund, mens han ser gennem den fjerde væg og direkte ud på seeren, idet han siger: “I have no patience for useless things. Moments like this require someone who will act. Who will do the unpleasant thing; the necessary thing."   I anden scene giver Underwood os en intim indføring i Washingtons give-and-take-politics, hvor han har positioneret sig til en ministerpost. Men efter valget bliver Underwood vraget og skal i stedet blive i kongressen som præsidentens blikkenslager.   Da Underwood først én gang er blevet forbigået, vil han gøre alt for, at det ikke sker igen. Han påbegynder en fordækt og kynisk kamp for egen vinding, hvor ingen alliancer er bindende og intet er helligt. Kun viljen til magt er permanent. Gennem seriens 13 afsnit følger vi Underwood i kampen om magten – undervejs kommenteret af mesteren selv.   Kevin Spaceys karakter (vinkende til seeren) Francis Underwood indvier seeren i sine tanker og planer i små Shakesspeare-inspirerede 'solliloquies', mens alle andre føres bag lyset. Netflix, 2013   Underwood pakker kortene Underwood når langt omkring både politisk og strategisk. Udenrigspolitik, uddannelsespolitik og jobskabelse er blandt de adskillige aktuelle politiske temaer, serien tager op, men fokus er aldrig reelt på politikken. Det drejer sig hele tiden om spillet om magten. Og her viger Underwood ikke tilbage for hverken løgn, afpresning, bestikkelse, forræderi, vold eller mord. Og han håndterer alle situationer med kalkuleret kølighed.   Ifølge Underwood er mennesker som kort: De kan pakkes, så spillet falder ud til ens egen fordel. House of Cards handler om at pakke kortene og hele tiden undgå, at korthuset vælter. Og mens Underwood fører de fleste af seriens andre karakterer bag lyset, deler han ud af sine machiavelliske betragtninger og planer i form af direkte henvendelser til seeren, ligesom Shakespeares antagonister gør i fx Richard den tredje og Othello.   Når han deler ud af sin politiske visdom er det dog ofte form af vellydende ’one-liners’, hvis anvendelighed måske ikke altid kan overføres til virkelighedens politik. Til gengæld skildrer serien de mere overordnede tendenser inden for politisk manipulation med ubehageligt rammende paralleller til virkelighedens politiske korthus.   “Power is a lot like real estate. It's about location, location, location. The closer you are to the source, the higher your property value.” - Francis Underwood i House of Cards, Netflix 2013   (Pas på - konkrete dele af handlingsforløbet afsløres i det følgende)    Den nøgne sandhed  Blandt Underwoods one-liners er adskillige, der handler om en af de mest moderne tendenser i det politiske liv: At (tilsyneladende) ærlighed er vejen frem:   “We have to steal their ammunition from them. Honesty is your best defensive and offensive” - Francis Underwood   “There’s no better way to overpower a trickle of doubt than with a flood of naked truth” - Francis Underwood   Underwood beslutter, at protegeen Peter Russo (Corey Stoll), som han bruger som en slags menneskelig hånddukke, skal stille op til guvernørvalget i Philadelphia. Russo er på grund af lidt for stor hang både alkohol, stoffer og prostituerede totalt afhængig af Underwoods hjælp og vejledning i forsøget på at overleve på den politiske scene.     Så Underwood lægger en strategi om ærlighed og gennemsigtighed. Russo skal have en ny start, hvor han skal tilbyde den nøgne sandhed og fremstå som en ny, omvendt mand, så han kan opbygge sin identitet som en politiker, der kan gøre en forskel.   Underwoods protege Peter Russo skal have opbygget et image som en omvendt mand, der angrer fortidens forseelser. Ikke ulig Bush junior i sin tid. Netflix, 2013   Tæt på virkelighedens skandalehåndtering   Russo’s karakter leder tanken hen mod Bush junior, der har gjort det hele i det virkelige liv– måske bortset fra det med de prostituerede – men som ’genfødt’ kristen alligevel blev præsident. Ham lykkedes det også at re-brande, så hans fortid ikke forhindrede ham i at blive præsident.   Man må også konstatere, at Clintons berømte kommentar ”I didn’t inhale” (de joints, der blev delt på kollegiet) har fået betydelig mere omtale end Obamas tilståelser i Dreams from My Father (1995), hvor han selv skriver, at han røg pot i high school. Fordi han selv havde lagt det frem lang tid før han blev interessant for pressen, blev det aldrig en stor sag. Det er styrken i selv at klæde sig af.   Obamas selvbiografiske "Dreams from My Father", som blev udgivet i 1995, rummer tilståelser, der senere har vaccineret mod potentielle politiske skandaler, som kunne være opstået, hvis oppositionen i stedet havde gravet fortiden frem.    Derfor bruger alle amerikanske kampagner med prioriteterne i orden lige så mange ressourcer på ’candidate-research’ som på ’opposition-research’, så de selv kan grave historierne frem og vinkle dem, før andre gør det. Det var også George Stephanopoulos strategi, da han kæmpede for Clinton under Whitewater-sagen (hvor Clintonparret blev associeret med bolighandelssvindel), og også hans råd under Lewinsky-skandalen – om end det råd ikke blev fulgt fra starten.   To af Clintons centrale rådgivere, James Carville og Poul Begela har beskrevet, hvordan man bedst håndterer rigtig dårlige sager:

1. ’Fess up’: Indrøm fejlen og tag ansvar. Afmonter modstanderens våben.
2. Set things right: Igangsæt konkrete initiativer, der retter fejlen og løser problemet.
3. Fight back: Nogle gange skal der et modangreb til, når krisehåndteringen er overstået. Men gå først efter modstanderen, når du selv har tilstået, undskyldt og er kommet videre.

Strategien om hudløs ærlighed om egne fejl er altså både et klogt og realistisk greb fra Underwoods side, som også giver mening i en dansk kontekst. Blandt andet har Henrik Sass Larsen og Uffe Elbæk måttet ty til denne strategi i den seneste tid. Dog er ærligheden ikke altid en garanti for tilgivelse. Hvis fejlen ikke vurderes som  tilgivelig og uden direkte betydning for det politiske virke, så er det farvel. Uffe Elbæk er ikke længere minister og seriens Peter Russo bliver aldrig guvernør.   Karaktermordet og smædekampagnen er en farlig leg
En ting er åbenhed om egne fejl som udgangspunkt for en positivt ladet selvfremstilling, en anden ting er fokus på modstanderens (påståede) fejl som systematisk angreb. Sådanne personangreb og karaktermord gennemsyrer Underwoods strategi. Hans trofaste stabschef Doug Stamper (Michelle Kelly) graver ubehagelige, typisk halvfabrikerede oplysninger frem. De lækkes til den unge journalistspire Zoe, der beredvilligt lader dem glide ind i offentligheden, uden at karaktermorderen identificeres. En klassisk taktik, som desværre for Underwood også udløser en klassisk boomerangeffekt, hvor hans karaktersnigmord vender tilbage og truer med at afsløre hans karakter og dermed blive et karakterselvmord.   “Of all the things I hold in high regard, rules are not one of them”, udtaler Underwood, som altid er klar til at bortkaste alle etiske hensyn. Her ses han med journalisten Zoe, som hjælper ham med at lække beskyldninger om politiske modstandere. Netflix 2013   Kampagneledere uden skrupler Virkelighedens konge af det politiske snigmord og den negative kampagne er Lee Atwater, der som kampagneleder for Bush senior tog politiske snigmord og smædekampagner til helt nye højder. Dermed grundlagde Atwater en tradition, som Karl Rove fornyede i valgkampen for Bush junior.   Atwater brugte uhørt grove personangreb til at undergrave modstanderne og nedbryde deres karakter. Et fremtrædende eksempel er, da han ledte kampagnen mod Senator Tom Turnipseed I 1980. Som ung havde Turnipseed fået elektrochok mod depression. Da Turnipseed havde beskyldt Atwater for at bruge push poll (påvirke meningsmålinger uredeligt - hvilket han havde gjort), svarede Atwater, at man vel ikke kan stole på nogen, der “had been hooked up to jumper cables”. Turnipseed forsøgte at afvise angrebene, men han var allerede færdig i borgernes bevidsthed. Atwaters kandidat vandt og Turnipseed blev herefter kendt som politikeren fra gøgereden.   Lee Atwater og George W. Bush senior, da sidstnævnte var præsident. Atwater er kendt som en effektiv, men kynisk kampagneleder, der er ekspert i karaktermord   Racisme- og retfærdighedstematik i valgkampen 1988 I valgkampen 1988 var Atwater kampagneleder for Bush senior. Modstanderen var demokraten Michael Dukasis, der mente, at troværdighed var det vigtigste tema i valget. Han fik ret, men havde vist ikke ventet, at det var ham selv, der skulle stå for skud.   Da Dukasis var guvernør i Massachusetts, kidnappede, voldtog og myrdede den afroamerikanske, prøveløsladte Willie Horton et ægtepar. Dukasis insisterede på at prøveløsladelsesprogrammet (i øvrigt oprindeligt indført af en republikaner) skulle fortsætte på trods af tragedien.   Men Atwater lod ikke sådan en lækkerbisken gå upåagtet hen. Som da Underwood i House of Cards laver en mediestorm ud af et tilfældigt drive-by-shooting under en lærerstrejke, sørgede Atwater dengang for, at Dukasis blev associeret godt og grundigt med Willie Horton. Det skete både i tendentiøse reklamer, og i konkrete beskyldninger, hvor Atwater fx fremførte, at Dukasis ”just as well could take” Willie Horton som sin visepræsidentkandidat! Atwater sørgede også for altid at kalde Willie Horton for Willie og ikke Horton, fordi fokusgrupper havde vist, at navnet Willie i højere grad vækkede racistiske fordomme til live. Atwater fik blandet et heftig coctail af diskret racisme og en principiel dagsorden om at sikre retfærdighed i lovgivningen. En coctail, som Dukasis, der ikke rigtig fik mobiliseret et modangreb, men reagerede ved roligt at stå fast ved sin egen troværdighed, ikke overlevede.   Smædekampagne mod Dukasis i 1988, hvor han blev beskyldt for at være indirekte ansvarlig for, at det var lykkedes Willie Horten at mishandle og dræbe et ægtepar under en prøveløsladelse.    Derefter blev Lee Atwater for evigt forhadt og berygtet som spindoktoren fra helvede, men Bush senior blev præsident og Atwater blev leder af Republican National Convention. Herefter var den permanente kampagne født. Samtidig blev smædekampagner, push polling og karaktermord en fast bestanddel af amerikanske politiske kampagner. De strategier har siden domineret amerikansk politik og især Karl Rove – kendt som hjernen bag Bush junior– er berømt for at videreføre arven. Men teknikkerne blev også flittigt brugt i seneste valgkamp, ikke mindst i Obamas lejr.      Bush junior med Karl Rove, som var arkitekten bag Bush’ to succesfulde valgkampe   Korruptionens magt “Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries. Money is the McMansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after ten years.” - Francis Underwood er langt mindre interesseret i penge end i magt. Men serien handler også om, at penge er smørelsem, der får hjulene til at køre rundt.   Remy Danton (Mahershala Ali) er Underwoods pengemand. Virkelighedens Remy hedder Jack Abermoff og er Karl Roves gamle ven fra The College Republican (den største og ældste politiske ungdomsorganisation i USA). Han er en af de få, der rent faktisk er kommet i fængsel for korrupt omgang med amerikansk politik.   ’Casino Jack’ Abermoff specialiserede sig i at varetage indianerstammers interesser i kasinotilladelser. Han var meget aktiv og så intet problem i at varetage modsatrettede interesser. Hans vigtigste teknikker benævner han selv som Political Golf, The Favour Facory og the One Million Dollar Bet (ulovligt kampagnebidrag fra ikke-amerikaner camoufleret som et væddemål).   Abermoff har, som en anden Peter Russo, fundet Gud, og foreslår, at den korrupte magt begrænses ved at:

1. begrænse regeringens indflydelse på almindelige menneskers liv.
2. forbyde den økonomiske støtte til politikerne fra lobbyister.
3. forbyde at offentlige embedsmænd og politiske ansatte efterfølgende må arbejde for lobbyistfirmaer.

Ironisk nok har den kriminelle superlobbyist selv gennemført en nøgenhedsstrategi for at rense sig selv og komme videre. Han har skrevet en bog, Capitol Punishment, hvor han kritiserer sine tidligere kolleger i K Street for derved at genrejse sig selv. Og der er udgivet en film om hans storhed, fald og udvikling.   Hovedrollen i Casino Jack spilles i øvrigt også af Kevin Spacey. Men Abermoff er ingen Underwood. For Casino Jack ramlede korthuset i det, der ville svare til andet afsnit. Det bliver spændende at se om Underwood holder det stående i anden sæson.  
  "There is no solace above or below. Only us. Small. Solitary. Striving. Battling one another. I pray to myself. For myself.” - Francis Underwood i House of Cards, hvis første sæson er tilgængelig på Netflix ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Om House of Cards: House of Cards er et amerikansk politisk drama af Beau Willimon og David Fincher, hvis første sæson havde premiere 1. Februar 2013. Den er baseret på en britisk miniserie fra 1990 af same navn, der igen er baseret på en roman af Michael Dobbs.   Klip fra den britiske House of Cards med Ian Richardson   Læs mere:

• John Brady (1997): Bad Boy, The Life and Politics of Lee Atwater, Addison sley Publishing Company INC. 
• George Stephanopoulos (1999). All Too Human – A Political Education. Little, Brown
• James Carville & Poul Begela (2002): Buck up, suck up... And Come Back When You Foul Up: 12 Winning Secrets from the War Room. Simon &Schuster 
• Jack Abermoff (2011):Capitol Punishment - The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America's Most Notorius Lobbyist, WND Books
• James Moore & Wayne Slater (2003): Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential, Wiley
• Carl Rove (2010): Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight. Treshold Editions

Links: House of Cards på Netflix House of Cards trailer The Full Monty: kommunikationsforum.dk/the-full-monty Dukakis’s Regret: nymag.com/news/michael-dukakis Spindoktoren fra helvede: dr.dk/spindoktoren-fra-helvede Fra håb til hån: kommunikationsforum.dk/analyse-af-obama12-kampagnen  

There’s nothing worse than a story about social media and brands, so I apologize in advance for writing one.

The worst are the ones like these announcing that, with all due respect to the Baltimore Ravens, Oreo was the real winner of Super Bowl XLVII. Or that hilarious CNET story bashing Poland Spring for not Tweeting a shitty Photoshop meme after its product made an appearance in Marco Rubio’s State of the Union response.

Thank God social media wasn’t around in 2002 when George W. Bush choked on that pretzel. Rold Gold would’ve had fits. We were promised flying cars, but all we got was Pepsi’s Instagram feed.

I’m not saying brands shouldn’t care about social media. Nor is there anything wrong with cultivating a voice on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or whatever. But some people refer to what brands are doing on Twitter with such reverence you’d think they were talking about the Arab Spring (ESPN’s Darren Rovell has made a lucrative career out of this). And then they focus on all the wrong things, like that fleeting Oreo meme.

So what is important for brands on social media? Beyond not monumentally screwing the pooch, brands simply need to be there for customers when things go terribly wrong.

Look at Mailbox, a new email client with over 900,000 sign-ups. Yesterday morning, their servers crashed, which would be a nightmare for any startup. It’s uniquely damaging for Mailbox, which has already irked some customers by its long waiting list. What’s the point of rolling out slowly if servers are going to crash anyway? That’s particularly acute criticism for something as mission critical to work and play as email.

So while the support team set sbout fixing the server problems, other team members hit the social media pavement, responding to as many Tweets as possible, as quickly as possible. Instead of placing the burden on one poor producer, Mailbox takes a team approach to social media. “We currently have 4 folks rotating through Twitter for almost 24 hours a day,” said Mailbox’s design lead Elle Luna, who was among those Tweeting during yesterday’s outage. “We have long been inspired by Tony Hsieh’s approach to customer service at Zappos — believing that everyone should work directly with customers, learn the language of the brand and have empathy for user experience.”

Of course, when servers are down, saying “thanks for your patience” over and over again can get old fast. So Mailbox got creative, Tweeting things like this:

And this:

Also this:

OK nothing brilliant there, but that’s the point. If Mailbox was spending all its time finding GIFs and Photoshopping memes, users would be pissed they weren’t concentrating on fixing the problem. Instead they gave each user individual attention (within reason) and did so in way that was light-heartened, yet still lightweight.

The idea of “social-media-as-customer-service” is something Mailbox takes to heart, says Luna. “We don’t see a difference between customer service and social media. To a user, and therefore to us, it’s all one and the same. And we’ll meet folks wherever they feel most comfortable — whether through email, Twitter or Facebook. We even sift through Instagram hashtags, jumping into the comments to give people insights about the reservation line.”

Following the freak-out over Oreo’s Super Bowl blackout Tweet, Slate’s Will Oremus wrote, “The real lesson here is that, at a time when most brands are so bad at social-media advertising that royal screw-ups are the norm, the bar for a Twitter campaign to be considered a smashing success is about knee-high. Clear it, and you’ll have a viral hit on your hands, with reporters tripping over each other to tell the country how you did it.”

Sure, but did it help Oreo sell more cookies? Will Poland Spring’s so-called “social media fail” make you less likely to buy a bottle from the dudes standing outside the subway? And remember Oreo’s Justin Timberlake-themed Tweet from the Grammies last Sunday? No, you probably don’t. The value of Oreo’s Super Bowl insta-Photoshop was that no one had done anything like it before, at least not that quickly. By its very nature it lacks repeatability.

So brands: Don’t hire a Photoshop person to be on-call 24 hours a day just in case a politician eats a cookie. Don’t stress out during the Oscars waiting for the moment Anne Hathaway uses a nasal inhaler. Instead, just be there when customers actually need you. And you know what’s the best part? It doesn’t take a social media “ninja” or “guru” to do it.

David Holmes

David Holmes is an LA-based journalist and the co-founder of Explainer Music, a production company specializing in journalistic music videos. His writing has appeared at FastCompany.com, the Daily Dot, NewYorker.com, and Grist. You can follow David on Twitter @holmesdm