The following quote from Alexis resonated with me and cut through a lot of noise in the debate about social media's effect on politics: “As the Internet contin

The following quote from Alexis resonated with me and cut through a lot of noise in the debate about social media's effect on politics: “As the Internet continues to get more clout, we have a very different value proposition to politicians. Unfortunately, for many politicians running for office, money dictates so much. And what do they use it for? Advertising, campaigns, TV commercials. As that medium loses its value, and as things like YouTube, Reddit and Facebook gain value, you get this wonderful leveling of the playing field in the political world as well.” I agree with the basic premise that social networking sites including those he mentioned are increasing in value (value being defined here as the ability to influence political opinions, and which candidates to support) relative to "advertising, campaigns, and TV commercials." He seems to imply (correct me if wrong) that money dictated access to and control over older media like TV commercials, whereas today, social networking sites are free for users to disseminate information, and influence opinion, so money doesn't play as significant of a role, and people are and will increasingly be influenced by these more 'democratized' forms of media (i.e. social networking sites). I think this (i.e. a more democratized playing field for influencing public opinion) is an improvement to our political system, and I'm glad Alexis is using such a public platform for clarifying the real effect social media and the Internet can potentially have on politics. I still wonder though, will money just shift media and still continue to shape the debate? Will it mean, in part, that the campaigns that have the best retargeting technology, most promoted Tweets, best sponsored stories on Facebook, and the best video ads and branded channels on YouTube will become the most likely candidates to win elections?