More broadly, internet advertising needs to be regulated, and the displayers of advertising have to take legal responsibility for the content of those adverts. Not even primarily for election integrity reasons, but for security/privacy reasons.
1 seems right, but regulations targeted at security & privacy concerns wouldn't necessarily address content issues (fake news).
Is there currently a precedent for making newsprint publishers responsible for the content of their advertisements?
3: I think so - if a newspaper publishes a defamatory statement, they don't get to avoid liability just because someone paid them to do so.
3, 4: Times v. Sullivan (the case that articulated the "actual malice" standard) was about an advertisement (a political advertisement, at that).
There is a defence of "innocent dissemination" which is basically "I just provide the platform, it's not up to me what people do with it". That means that if I post a defamatory letter to 10,000 people, they don't get to sue the Royal Mail. But that would hardly apply for a newspaper advertisement.
5: exactly. And note that the Times did not win Times v. Sullivan because the court decided that the Times was not liable for the content of an advertisement; the Times won Times v. Sullivan because of an argument that implicitly assumed the Times was as liable for the content of its adverts as it was for the content of its articles.
In the UK, absolutely. If a newspaper publishes a libellous advert, for instance, it can be sued. Broadcasters are subject to the Code of Broadcast Advertising .
I'm not necessarily saying that, for instance, if an advertiser makes a false claim about a product, the displayer of the advert should be equally liable as the advertiser itself. Merely that there needs to be a framework that requires displayers of advertising on the internet to take ownership of it. If they serve malicious code, or illegal cookies, they can't disavow responsibility by saying it was the ad network's fault.
7: yes, but "as liable" there is "liable only in very narrow circumstances". Which I suspect would be much harder to establish with respect to an advertisement than it would be with respect to the newspaper's own reporting (but that's just a guess and there must be actual precedent out there on that aspect).
The narrowness is only because of the public figure standard, not the nature of publication. If they'd defamed a random punter, the circumstances wouldn't be narrow at all.
A random punter couldn't try MLK for perjury.
"as liable" there is "liable only in very narrow circumstances".
I am not sure what you mean here - newspapers are not liable for their articles "only in very narrow circumstances".
As I understand it, Times v. Sullivan didn't see it as mitigation that the apparently libellous statement was only in an advert rather than an article. The decision didn't raise that distinction at all.
And typically advertising rate cards include boilerplate to the effect that "advertiser guarantees that the content of the advertisement is not libellous or misleading, and agrees to indemnify the publisher with regard to any loss from publishing an advertisement that is libellous or misleading". They wouldn't need to include that if the publisher wasn't liable for the content of the ads it published...
Which I suspect would be much harder to establish with respect to an advertisement than it would be with respect to the newspaper's own reporting (but that's just a guess and there must be actual precedent out there on that aspect).
10: Sure, but in the context of political advertisements Sullivan's standard would almost certainly apply.
12: I mean that, whether it's an ad or the paper's own reporting, a plaintiff has to prove more than just defamation (at least in the context of political ads), and the additional element means that the paper will only be liable in circumstances much narrower than "they ran defamatory content".
Just so we're on the same page, is this another "Wish Fulfillment and CounterFactuals" thread?
But as for personally choosing to not use Face/book, I think I actually could and wouldn't lose much. When I'm bored and can get my phone out, I'll often open the app, scroll quickly through a dozen or so links, and close it again. I'd estimate I follow a link an average of every other day. Honestly I find Reddit better despite its reputation - more content, better tailored to me. As time-wasters go I'm sure I could replace it if I have to. As for keeping in touch with people, I have a few distant-ish family who use it a lot and their posts reassure me that they're still doing OK, but that's not exactly keeping in touch. I have one friend who is much easier to reach via Face/book than other options. Four years ago losing touch with her would have been a big deal, but these days I see her very little anyway. Sometimes you people say cogent stuff there and not here for some reason, and I'd miss that, I guess.
Other than that? Email is more common in my circle of friends and family. I often get invites to events on it, but 90+ percent of the time they're from Cassandane, and the rest, I'd go to them with her. Maybe it would be rude of me to make her take even more responsibility for my social life than she already does, but other than all that, I really think I wouldn't notice losing Face/book. Maybe I should quit.
Does the legal definition of advertisement include that it's publicly visible by all? FB political ads are targeted, with audience secret to all except fb and in principle the buyer (actually just fb, since buyer has no verification of targeting accuracy), and content secret to all but the targets.
In both of these ways, they seem more like direct mailings than public ads.
I wonder to what extent these shenanigans are not an inevitable product of the technology but of the inane way their business model works. I mean, it would be perfectly reasonable for Facebook to charge its users a nominal fee - $10/year maybe - and not rely on advertising to make ends meet.
Absent that revenue stream, it's not even a little bit surprising that the most detailed, focused advertising market the world has yet devised would be turned towards achieving political ends. The only thing that surprised me was that it happened this soon, that it was so effective, and as we are learning, how deeply involved Facebook, et. al. were in helping improve the propaganda.
14.2: OK. But that's not really relevant to the advertisement vs. article distinction.
16: But print advertisements aren't publicly visible by all. If I put an ad in a newspaper it's only visible to people who buy the newspaper. And perhaps not even to all of them; national papers have different editions for different regions, and different ads run in each one.
I think this discussion may be over complicating the simple truth that social media is shit and should go away.
But to join the thread anyway, I doubt there is a workable legal remedy that would meaningfully address or fix the badness of facebook or twitter.
18.1: then comity, because I wasn't suggesting there was an advertisement vs. article distinction (hence my agreement that they were "as liable"). My poorly-expressed point was that ads (of this sort) don't get any less First Amendment protection than the rest of the paper, so it wouldn't be any easier in the U.S. to regulate toxic political ads than it would be to regulate the publication's own content.
Through the book, he traces the many potential problems that the "personalization" of media might bring. Most germane to this discussion, he raised the point that if every one of the billion News Feeds is different, how can anyone understand what other people are seeing and responding to?
I feel embarrassed just asking this, for at least two reasons - partly because it feels like the answer should be so obvious that it's a dumb question, partly because it's a close-minded question and right-thinking people try to be open-minded - but my question is, so what?
I mean, suppose my Ron-Paul-fanatic high school classmate was appearing on my news feed again. I assume he holds his views because he is seeing a lot of Breitbart, which is a mix of outright lies, paranoid rumor-mongering, and wildly skewed selective reporting. Seeing his news feed and his takes on his links would inform me about whether he personally is stupid, evil, or some combination, but that's about it. Breitbart does not become more credible and I do not make more informed decisions if I'm exposed to it more. What do I gain from understanding right-wing nuts better?
Every piece of shit is a snowflake.
22: Maybe you would have been aware they were entirely serious about destroying your country at any cost, and done something to stop them before it was too late?
Less snarkily, knowing your enemy isn't the same as tolerating him.
Every piece of shit is a snowflake.
Thankfully, the reverse is not true.
YOU JUST KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT, LITTLE MAN.
Maybe I should quit.
Given that Fa/ceb/oo/k is evil (and that's been established beyond doubt, right?), can we start a broad movement for people to delete their accounts en masse on a certain date? (The irony is that the best way to spread word of this plan would be via F/aceb/o/ok.)
I'm primarily interested in this because I no longer want to see family photos of people I barely even knew back when I knew them, and I want an excuse to sever ties under cover of principled indignation, rather than just because I'm an anti-social asshole.
What do I gain from understanding right-wing nuts better?
I've been thinking about this. First, "you" personally might not gain directly from such knowledge, but people who run campaigns that you support do. Or should. Related to this, right-wing nuts are also lazy and don't want to understand what others are thinking unless they absolutely have to. Most of them don't want to watch whatever they have that passes for news. Thus, they would be very much less likely to see some of this propaganda if you could stop it from being forwarded by their even-shittier cousin.
In the US, the issue is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which makes Facebook and its ilk more like Internet Service Providers that are conduits for information, and less like publishers.
There is talk these days about changing the law.
Social media is not the only propaganda channel exploited by bad actors. But there should at the very least be a publicly accessible database of all ads on facebooglewitter and their targeting parameters.
ooh, do you think we can make "facebooglewitter" fly? Can I get it into print?
31: yes, I can remember when all my EFF friends thought Section 230 was a wonderful shield against tyranny ...
Why doesn't somebody try this from the left? For example, right now Jeff Sessions is appealing a court decision to try to create an anchor baby. News you need if you need a reason to be a shit.
Or like pictures of a liberal professor beating up Kevin Sorbo.
Ask yourself, "Why have I never seen Roy Moore and Richard Dawkins in the same room?"
I rarely use FB, and what I see that's "fake news" isn't the advertisements but people forwarding idiotic stuff. In fact, I'm not even sure I see FB ads because I use an adblocker (or maybe my perception mechanism has been trained to ignore them -- dunno). Most of the bullshit posts I see on FB (and ignore) are left-wing fake news and hyper-partisan ventilating, since most of my FB friends who post about politics are lefties.
I remember back in the shiny, happy, optimistic past how one of the Really Awesome Things computers would do for us is allow us to only see ads that were relevant to us. Well, we got that. Flying cars next, I guess.
30
Maybe FB should randomly expose right-wing nuts to left-wing partisan ads and left-wing nuts to right-wing partisan ads. Limit the ads shown due to their algorithms to 50%, say, and require the rest to be filtered by popularity or (if there is one) some other method that ignores the epistemological bubbles. I bet it wouldn't make any difference.
For example, right now Jeff Sessions is appealing a court decision to try to create an anchor baby.
Whatever gets you off, I suppose.
A mass exodus would be good if people within social groups were explicit about alternate ways to keep in touch. I left in 2010 (and then had a dummy acct for a while with one friend, then deleted that too) and... I don't think I was much less lonely or isolated while using it, but I am for sure lonely and isolated now. (In a matter of fact way that deserves zero pity, given my many other privileges and advantages and so on.) Many small overlapping alternatives seem preferable to attempting a replacement-service-without-the-bad-stuff.
What would each of you want from a replacement? What do you use? Discuss.
I'm glad I never even started a FB account though the only reason I've really been tempted before is because of all the references here to that "other place".
41: I've never had a Facebook account as myself, but for a while I was "Faceless Friendless" -- it made it easier to look at public Facebook pages, but Mark Z. called me up and said, "I know that's not your real name! You can't fool me!" So I hung up on him and closed the account.
Facebook is great for getting the updates my mom would have given me if I (and everyone I went to high school with) had stayed in my hometown. As it is, it allowed me to skip my 20th high school reunion because I already knew what everyone was up to. Which is a whole FB-related debacle since it was organized on FB and only FB active people went.
I honestly don't enjoy the conversations there nearly as much as here. It's very scattered and hard to track and follow. I almost never participate in the conversations of commenters taking place over there, aside from a stray comment.
I'm not Faceless, but I've kept the same picture for eight years or so. I would change it but I have less hair I would have to get another picture of me with James first.
I managed to skip my 20th and 25th and 30th high school reunions without any help from Facebook.
I went to my 20th and 25th, but not my 30th.
I'm super nosy so I probably would have gone without Facebook.
I also don't enjoy the conversation there. Partially the people to be honest. One of my best high school friends still apparently has the same points of view, which were not terribly sophisticated then.
Full disclosure: My 30th reunion isn't until 2019.
49: The Blade Runner reunion.
47: Haven't you previously disclosed that your high school was tiny? How many people were in your class? Do they all show up at the reunion?
It wasn't tiny unless you consider a graduating class of 17 to be tiny. About half showed up.
52: I'm thinking you probably knew everyone.
You know what a lot of people can't see? An email thread about a Pittsburgh meetup. But a front page post? Transparency!
It's looking like Sharp Edge, 10/26, exact time TBD.
I kept my Facebook account so I can still sort of keep in touch by having a way to contact people, but deleted all my posts, comments, and likes. I check maybe once every month or two.
I haven't been to any high school reunions so far, but I'm seriously considering the 20th. My parents still live in the town, so it's as good a time of year as any to visit them. It's still a couple years away so plans aren't definite, but it's on my mind.
As for Facebook profile pictures, I think I've had the same one on it since creating the profile. If so, that could seriously be 13 years by now. I might be setting a record.
Facebook as the default organizing tool for groups - like "parents of kids in school X" - is maddening for all sorts of reasons, not least of which is that ordering choices by The Algorithm make it very easy to miss important things. Email has its issues, and people get behind and miss things, but a whole layer of a system deciding not to show you things is a real wrench in the works.
As many of you know, I'm a regular FB user. It's a convenient way to talk with Legendary Commenters, and I think I only have 3 or 4 people from high school -- and they'll all pretty interesting.
Yes, the 70s were better, and you kids ought stay off my digital lawn. Unless you want to be on my digital lawn.
Regulated by whom? Trump and the Republicans?
58: Aren't there other services that could host shared conversations?
I always assumed "the other place" referred to a cooler, more exclusive blog that I wasn't invited to be a member of.
I'm going to try my 40 mile walk in the wood again, starting tomorrow. I won't post pictures on Facebook, unless I get eaten by a bear.
65 40 miles is a long damn walk for a fall day.
63 I think I'm FB'd to 70 people that I met here. Maybe it's more. A lot of the conversation migrated: certainly half those folks don't comment here much any more, and probably more.
67.2: ...yeah, I figured something like that was going on. Unsurprising to hear.
67.1: I thought I'd camp for two nights also.
30: right-wing nuts are also lazy [...] they would be very much less likely to see some of this propaganda if you could stop it from being forwarded by their even-shittier cousin.
37: what I see that's "fake news" isn't the advertisements but people forwarding idiotic stuff
This is the thing. Enabling targeting and duplicity is one thing, but ISTM what does the damage and what has to be policed is the content. Blacklisting identifiable criminal actors like hostile foreign powers can do some of that work, but that's just a small fraction of the cesspool. To deal with the rest I think one must have explicit epistemic standards* established in law and enforced in real time. Some of that can be done manually by greylisting individual sources, but ultimately you'll need bots parsing content and evaluating claims made against an established consensus reality. Technically I think that's approaching the realm of possibility, but still monstrously difficult. And it still sticks us with the real problem:
60: Regulated by whom? Trump and the Republicans?
Whichever regime establishes its standard first is likely to have serious staying power.
*And maybe ideological standards too; though of course establishing an official epistemology would be ideological in itself.
67.2: So make sure they read this thread, quit FB and come back here instead. I want the blog to live long and prosper. With more cock jokes.
Mossy, can you send me an email at pseud dot gm? I want to ask you something.
70: this is why I believe that China and Israel are the only nations that have moved into the 21st century. Fascism has made its comeback. Censorship is coming next because you can't have common values without it. (If these common values are to be Mill-type liberal, then censorship itself has to become unspeakable and unthinkable). If a free market in ideas turns out to be as much of a spherical cow as a free market in everything else, then we have to think seriously about who is to censor what, where, and on what grounds.
[insert cock joke here]
+already
(The point about fascism, in this context, is that it gratifies hungers which under the 90s consensus were not supposed to exist at all. And which, suppressed, found some truly horrible outlets. Of course, punching Nazis is a much healthier and more desirable outlet for aggression than actually becoming punchable. But in both cases there is a yearning for direct personalised action which is missing from consumerist politics. I don't know what the long-term answer is, or even if a stable long-term answer exists. But I think that there are a lot of horrible arseholish instincts that need to be harnessed rather than either being denied or becoming our masters.)
74: Israel? Not disagreeing, just ignorant. Could you elaborate?
There is talk these days about changing the law.
Given who is in charge of the federal government right now, I can't imagine the Communications Decency Act would be changed in a positive direction.
67.2: This is another grudge I have against facebook/twitter, they seriously diminished the blogosphere. And the quality of the new facebook/twitter mediated conversations is, in general, much lower.* Get off my lawn, in other words.
*I'm sure that the unfogged facebook discussions are the glorious exception to the rule, although I've never seen them, since I refuse to have a facebook or twitter account.
Mostly I use FB to interact with common interest groups that point me to material I'd otherwise have no chance of finding, but while there I occasionally talk to people from here and people I actually know. Also, I'm still a sucker for Emerson.
A lot of the conversation migrated: certainly half those folks don't comment here much any more, and probably more.
Some people will do anything to evade the analogy ban.
Israel because I suspect that it as the most complete surveillance apparatus outside China, but very light touch. I doubt very much that you can get Isis videos in an internet cafe in Jerusalem. No, I am not going to try.
Chris Y -- entirely agree about Emerson, a sage pursued by both beers and bears, if I understand Minnesota rightly.
I feel like I'm linking this because people expect it of me, but there really isn't anything surprising here: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/shakeup-democratic-national-committee-longtime-officials-ousted-n812126
I wasn't online then, but there was this early 2000s window where the social web could have been anything, and then FB won, it became an irredeemable hellhole. What if it had been LJ? Open source, not even for-profit for years, with a paid account layer, support for pseudonymity and hidden groups? (I say this never having used it, and I know it has its own horrors. I'm just thinking this timeline isn't the only one.)
On the other hand it is hard to believe anyone could be this dumb: https://theweek.com/articles/731134/silver-lining-trumps-rank-cynicism
83.1: I see. But do they censor domestic speech as well?
85: LJ was an interesting space, and somewhat more open to importing external content (RSS feeds, mostly, at the time). The open source aspect was kind of neat but not really helpful, because the system still didn't really federate. So there were knock-off sites, but a single user pursuing a single feed (which I think is tends to end up, mostly) isn't going to see them. Dreamwidth seems to be the non-Russian spiritual successor, and it seems to be pretty niche.
I think one of the interesting effects of the whole "social media" thing, including LJ and blogging, was the shift away from topic-oriented groups. They aren't dead, there are still plenty of forums out there (even if the tech/interface is annoying), but an awful lot of energy was siphoned out of them.
yes, I can remember when all my EFF friends thought Section 230 was a wonderful shield against tyranny ...
It seemed like a good idea at the time ...
If a free market in ideas turns out to be as much of a spherical cow as a free market in everything else, then we have to think seriously about who is to censor what, where, and on what grounds.
I like the "free market" framing of the issue. That clarifies the matter for me.
Benquo asks the relevant question in 60. I don't know the answer.
I think one of the interesting effects of the whole "social media" thing, including LJ and blogging, was the shift away from topic-oriented groups. They aren't dead, there are still plenty of forums out there (even if the tech/interface is annoying), but an awful lot of energy was siphoned out of them.
Although I've heard that possibly the majority of FB traffic takes place in the groups? It's about half of all my feed content - various local groups, health concerns related groups, or PM threads with friend groups.
70 and 74 are interesting to me-- hopefully I'll find a way to put my thoughts into coherent form to add something. Sifu's OP is also really good IMO.
I feel like I'm linking this because people expect it of me
There is a crucial difference between "people expect you to do this" and "people want you to do this".
74: If the only "21st Century" states are Israel and China, then I'm intending to stay in the 20th for as long as possible. I've lived in China for several years. Even as a relatively privileged foreigner, the tight control of the internet (and use of it to investigate people for relatively minor offenses - I know several other foreigners who were deported after being monitored through WeChat) is an obvious, day-to-day reminder of the State's high level of control over the lives of their citizens, and the poor use to which they put this control.
I was both an early adopter and early abandoner of FB in my home country. I gave it up when it switched from being a network of "your stupid undergraduate drinking buddies" to "everyone you have ever known" - because I was not the same person around those two groups of people. That was a pragmatic rather than ideological decision, but I genuinely find the insistence on a "personal brand" model of identity depressing, dehumanising and extraordinarily sinister. Way back when, Zuckerberg said that "having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity." Putting aside the irony of Zuckerberg lecturing anyone about integrity, the idea that your online identity = you, leads quite smoothly and easily to the famous "social credit" (or "Sesame score") that's being rolled out in China. I read 70 as suggesting that government monitoring and control is a necessary step to prevent fascism, but once the government has this, you are already in an authoritarian society. Is that a worthwhile trade-off? I mean, is it really a trade-off at all?
Apologies for both hyperbole and for forgetting to close my tags
||
Kevin Drum has a post today which should be sent to anybody who comments that Clinton needed to campaign in Wisconsin (with the implication that her campaign decision was a crucial factor)
Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are, of course, the three famous "firewall" states that Hillary Clinton lost by a whisker. In two of them, which lacked new photo ID laws, black turnout was down slightly. Nationally, black turnout was down by seven points, returning to 2004 levels.
But in Wisconsin, black turnout was down a stunning 29 points. This is not only because Wisconsin passed a very strict photo ID law, but because it made sure to go above and beyond in enforcing it illegally. ...
|>
(93 was addressed* specifically to 74, and not 70, or even 75.)
*to the degree to which it was addressed to anything, and not hot-blooded and slightly incoherent ranting
Say what you will about the tenets of Nat'l Socialism, at least Goebbels didn't have to go on the radio everyday to offer a ridiculously convoluted explanation of what Hitler was *actually* trying to say.
Seeds. I'm on the phone so can't give your rant the thoughtful reply it deserves. But my underlying argument is not that authoritarian, Chinese style states are better than the alternatives but that they may be more successful and - as we've seen with Russia - they can attack the rest of us more effectively than we can them
I'm pretty sure 67.2 is the only reason I ever signed up for FB. TBH I've never had any of the angst about it, either for its direct or meta social effects.
101 it's certainly the reason I've ever been tempted. And I do miss Emerson..
Emerson actually blocked me as a result of post-election arguments. I miss him, but not that much, because, at least for the first 4-6 months after the election, he pretty much posted nothing but bitter anti-liberal rants.
On Twitter, which I finally signed up for mostly because of Kendzior* (but also because the conversation that used to happen on political blogs migrated there), one of the first people I followed blocked me, and I have literally zero idea why. I'd been on for less than 2 weeks, and I'm pretty sure my only interactions had been liking a couple of her posts and tweeting something in agreement with her. She was actually one of the people I signed up for, so I was bummed as hell. She might still be the only person who's blocked me; certainly the only person I was following.
*what happened was that I would manually go to her feed every day, but I kept seeing other interesting people in her mentions, so it became too much to follow without an account
Blocks are weird on twitter. I'm blocked by Arthur Chu, among others, and I've never interacted with him. I find Kendzior problematic, not quite a Louise Mensch but maybe a quarter of the way there? Though she does sometimes have good points (Kendzior, not Mensch). There does seem to be quite a cult around her.
100: I see what you mean, and it's a depressing thought in many ways. However, that's not to say that authoritarian societies have no advantages, in the vein of "say what you will, he did make the trains run on time". I've found myself wondering whether China will be able to save the world from catastrophic climate change (if it's not already too late) by saying "right lads, this seems to be a real thing and a threat to the Party. Electricity twice a day for 15 minutes from now on until we build enough nukes / solar panels / wind farms".
Also, I still resent his support of the Iraq war, which I believe he's since renounced, but I Josh Marshall's twitter feed is one of the few where I read every single tweet so I don't feel like I've missed any of the craziness that is the Trump era.
people forwarding idiotic stuff
My thoughts are still incoherent, let me write a few anyway; fb makes putting forward an exaggerated identity much easier than before, so makes the most strident and indiscriminate the loudest. Fb makes it easier for professionals (that is, advertisers who pay) to choose who to target with a particular identity, and to hide their own identity.
I don't know about the idea of an epistemic qualification. I know a few rural people who seem genuinely against wind turbines in their county-- "they'll change the weather." I suspect that it's fear of more change that's behind it, because the last 10 years of change have not been good. They also use fb mostly to check in family and neighbors; is an image of Trump with Jesus or a photo of a heroic pickup truck with a confederate flag epistemically acceptable?
Suppose that an impartial and effective governing authority, say an artificial one, banned thoughtless speaking on fb; is that really a winning move? What about just banning shares or cut-and paste reposts?
I'd guess that as a European who didn't grow up with the First Amendment, the idea of simply forcing people to STFU because their speech affects others would sit more easily with me than it would with many Americans.
But still, this seems like an attempt at cure, rather than prevention. If you're finding that you need to do a lot of shutting people up, it's likely a sign that something has gone badly wrong with your education system and/or press.
103: Emerson has deliberately immersed himself in a bubble where he won't permit contradiction on politics, but he's still funny and worth keeping an eye on. Plus, there are other folks who find interesting ways to disagree with him.
When I see that sort of thing, I am always reminded of Belle Waring's mockery of libertarians in the famous "and a pony" blog post.
In its total estrangement from our political and social life today, its wilfull disregard of all known facts about human nature, it resembles nothing so much as a debate over some fine procedural point of end-stage communism, after the state has withered away. Child-care arrangements, let's say. Position A: there will be well run communal creches! Position B: nonsense! the amount of work required from each individual to maintain a perfectly functioning society will be so small that people can care for their own children and those of others on a spontaneous basis, as the need arises!Those are the debates Emerson wants to have. He wants to engage with people who accept 99% of his worldview, but might have interesting disagreements with him about the remaining 1%.
100. Absolutely, but Israel is not authoritarian for many of its citizens and is a more effective state than its neighbors.
108.last This has happened, the (printed) press partly because Craigslist destroyed the classified ad revenues, and Google then fb took the other ads. The problem at hand is how to recover without the active cooperation of the worst afflicted.
107.2: That's what 70* is about.
The cesspool involves truth claims;
The censorship I suggest in 70 would suppress false claims;
Much of the cesspool comprises false claims about the external world (climate-change denial, Pizzagate); these would be suppressed.
But much of the cesspool (I suspect the most important) comprises true claims about the personal beliefs of the speaker. The people posting the Confederate flag are claiming implicitly that *they* believe in white supremacy; these claims wouldn't be suppressed.
108.2 is right. To solve the problem at root you need to prevent most people from ever believing unacceptable things.
s/b (the most important part)
111. The distinction between claims about external reality and claims about personal belief does not come naturally to most people, see 108.2.
70 et seq: This problem of course isn't new. The Trump base wasn't created by filter bubbles, it was created by decades of indoctrination through conventional media, church and school socialization (and presumably other stuff you people will tell me about). Social media adds new layers to the problem, but I suspect those are just froth on the ocean. I've thought for years (lazily) that authoritarian followers are the core problem; a succesful polity must indoctrinate those followers to believe in the consensus values of the polity, else they are vulnerable to takeover by hostile actors; and there are always enough of them to be severely destabilizing.
95
that voter ID bill isn't a very good reason for Clinton not to have campaigned in Wisconsin
113 is true, but I don't see how it relates to 108.2.
As for regulation of Internet media, I'd start with the same regulations as we already have about old media: transparency about who pays for what. Seems like a no-brainer, and completely harmless. If anything it's too toothless to matter, it's been pretty ineffective since Citizens United, but better than nothing. One difference between old and new media is that maybe with new media we should also have transparency about how stuff is targeted. The devil is in the details but it might be doable. Facebook says they couldn't do this for technical reasons. There's almost always some cost to regulations, and yet, they exist.
This would probably take an act of Congress, either giving the FCC new authority over social media that closely parallels what they have over old media, or directing them to use what they have differently. Any overreach beyond that would require another act of Congress. The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy.
And, yeah, even that modest measure of transparency is not likely to happen in a way we'd like any time soon, but there should be something ready to go when/if Democrats ever are elected. I'm on the pessimistic side but I still think there's some value to discussing post-Trump policies.
I started out talking about epistemic standards because the OP is about duplicity and fake news, but the problem obviously extends far beyond epistemology, as 113 points out.
Blocks are weird on twitter.
I am blocked by exactly two people on Twitter: Keith Olbermann and the Vice Principal of Rory's high school. This is an admittedly weird source of pride for me.
119. Nice to see you here
116. I hope this isn't too much condescension, but education can help with this. Not a certainty, since lots of well-schooled people have huge blind spots about this and will eg develop weird ideas about deficit spending or dating their students that are ostensibly about external reality.
118 Isn't it like the middle of the night for you?
No, it's the end of the night for me. Circadian rhythms how the fuck do they work.
115 If only Russ Feingold had campaigned in Wisconsin, he'd have won.
that voter ID bill isn't a very good reason for Clinton not to have campaigned in Wisconsin
The argument is that the voter ID law had a dramatically greater impact than expected such that the failure to campaign in WI would not have been a problem absrnt that impact. An argument that Clinton should have anticipated that impact might be fair (if there is a reason outside hindsight to argue she should have expected it). But just beating the same damn drum that she should have campaigned more in WI is tiresome Monday morning quarterbacking. Did anyone express concerns about the lack of campaigning in WI before we found out the results of the election?
I guess the real tragedy is that hardly anyone in Wisconsin knew there was an election campaign going on.
If only Clinton had appeared before 25,000 Wisconsinites who were already going to vote for her (and did so) then the ensuing hubbub would have led ordinary folks to look into her, maybe even take a look at the speeches being made by the President and the First Lady in the last couple weeks of the thing.
She should probably have run more ads on the TV, because otherwise no one in Wisconsin could have known how her pitch differed from her opponent's.
I am blocked by Alex Burns since last September (NYT reporter after I suggested that @NYTPolitics had the self-awareness of a sea cucumber). Also Ron Fournier because I said something.
114.last is a very interesting thought.
Belatedly, I like NW's "free market of ideas" move.
119 is great.
Ironically, I've pointedly ignored almost everybody Unfogged-related on Twitter. I can't exactly explain why, although I think some of it is that my personal Twitter is sort of like my personal rounds of blog reading, and I wouldn't want you all to be seeing my comments about baseball or cars, either. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that I want to be free to say shit on Twitter that I don't have to defend to you all. I don't think any of it is out of line with my persona here*, but still.
Actually, thinking about it more: while Twitter is good for the sorts of rapid-fire joking that used to be common here, it's beyond awful for the sorts of thoughtful discussions we still have. And I don't want to see or be in idiot-grade Twitter discussions with people that I know are really smart.
*which is not IMO a conscious construct, but is obviously a construct nonetheless.
I hope this isn't too much condescension, but education can help with this.
There are some basic ideas that every citizen should know. I think the concept of collective action problems -- "The Tragedy of the Commons" -- should be taught in high school. So much public stupidity could be avoided if people only had a grip on that one idea.
130 gets it exactly right. It's stupid and bizarre that the average (white?) American will read Ayn Rand before every learning that concept.
It's almost as if the problem with America is Americans.
132 is right.
I've just been FB chatting with a distant cousin in CHC about their new PM. What a thing!
I gave up personal blogging, to a large extent, a few years before I joined FB, largely because I was worried about getting a job. These days, the site serves almost all of the functions that my old blogs did, with the added bonus of groups.
Not sure why, but I feel more fully "myself" there than here, even when interacting with the Unfogged-affiliated.
I renounce Twitter and all its works and all its pomps.
131: Before formally learning the concept. Ayn Rand is, to cranky teenagers, a response to collective action problems, right? It's just that her solution is "let everyone else die if you got yours." I think you're right that it would be helpful, but I think the most helpful detail would be to elaborate on solutions that don't involve retreating from a collapsing society to a libertarian paradise of milk and honey and gold ingots.
I do understand why fourteen-year-olds find Rand's ideas attractive, but I will never understand how they can force themselves to read her terribly, horribly, incredibly ill-written books which are all longer than War and Peace AFAICS to find them.
I really don't comment on Facebook other than to wish people a happy birthday. Tim is supposed to give his Facebook info as part of the citizenship application, so I get nervous about posting political stuff there.
101: I have an aunt by marriage I had fallen out of touch with and I used Facebook to send her a message but then we continued the conversation over regular e-mail.
123: I really didn't understand the Feingold race. Are there any good articles explaining the dynamics?
109: I stopped reading Emerson after the election for basically that reason.
Clinton campaigned the fuck out of Pennsylvania, and still lost it. Maybe she campaigned in Wisconsin too much?
Totally OT:
My husband's uncle is planning on publishing his father's WW2 diary. They were Armenians in Northern Italy, on the border between German-controlled Italy and Italian-controlled Italy. They had to carry around proof of their Armenianness, because otherwise based on looks the Nazis assumed they were Jews trying to pass as Italians. (They were forced to Italianize their names during WW2, and then went back to Armenian ones afterwards.) Once their Armenianness was established, they were treated better than standard Italians, on account of being more "Aryan" than them.
Anyways, it's interesting to think about how little race has to do with physical appearance.
German-controlled Italy and Allied-controlled Italy? I'd no idea Armenians were considered Aryan in any way shape or form.
143
I'm not sure about the exact dates. According to the wikipedia:
In spite of Nazi Germany acknowledging the Armenians as an Aryan people, Adolf Hitler personally did not trust them,[1][14] and as a result the Armenian battalion was mainly stationed in the Netherlands.[15] Speaking about military units from Soviet peoples, Hitler said: "I don't know about these Georgians. They do not belong to the Turkic peoples...I consider only the moslims [sic] to be reliable...All others I deem unreliable. For the time being I consider the formation of these battalions of purely Caucasian peoples very risky, while I don't see any danger in the establishment of purely Moslim units...In spite of all declarations from Rosenberg and the military, I don't trust the Armenians either."[14]
Minister of the Occupied Territories Alfred Rosenberg declared that the Armenians were Indo-European, or Aryans, and thus they were immediately subject to conscription. According to Versteeg, however, "Although Armenians officially were considered 'Aryans', the notion of them being 'Levantine traders', similar to the Jews, was deep-seated in Nazi circles, and racial 'purists' along with Hitler himself were prone to look upon the Armenians as 'non-Aryans.'"[14]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenische_Legion
In Littel's The Kindly Ones there's this superb chapter with a group of Nazi officers in the occupied Caucasus arguing at length about the racial status of various hill peoples.
I'm reading The Underground Railroad right now (for bookclub), and it's sort of like being forced to watch all the police brutality videos that I have sweetly opted not to watch. (I skip bookclub books all the time, but it feels like I ought to force myself through this.)
Anyway, I keep having to put it down. It's definitely hard to read. It's incredibly vivid and impossible to put distance between yourself and the characters. The sheer relentless nastiness of white people is written in a way that's particularly easy to believe.
You possibly wouldn't enjoy The Kindly Ones.
One could interpret that different ways. The characters though are total bastards.
guess who just popped up in my facebook feed with a comment on a facebook post about the whole sexual abuse thing?
Hugo Schwyzer !!!
I didn't read it because Hugo Schwyzer.
I was not eaten by a bear but also did not forty miles. My sense of duty, an intermittent cell signal, and blisters all conspired against me.
New topic for the weekend, maybe:
Who here has learned a new language outside of (or prior to) an immersion setting, let's say over the age of 22? What worked and what didn't? (Context: I'm back from Montreal and have decided it is fucking ridiculous that I don't speak French. I always haughtily regarded it as somehow too easy to bother with. Being humiliated by monoglossia for four days straight has given me a change of heart. How should I avoid fucking it up and wasting my time?)
Don't you have like a small child and a job? I couldn't even find the time to binge drink then.
I just caught a Pikachu wearing a witch hat, so I clearly have my time management game on.
You use witchcraft to manage time? Is 6 still "small" for children? I did just remind her to go to the bathroom, so maybe.
Lots of people in Quebec aren't required to learn English, so it's ok to not know French.
I'm multitasking. Civ 5, Pokemon Go, and beer.
I'm also learning that whoever puts expiration dates on pistachios isn't fucking kidding.
Ayn Rand is, to cranky teenagers, a response to collective action problems, right? It's just that her solution is "let everyone else die if you got yours."
Rand is only a response to the Tragedy of the Commons in the sense that denial is a response. The First Principle of libertarianism is that collective action problems don't exist. Everything unique in Rand comes back to that. Selfishness always leads to the greater good.
Republicans handle collective action problems in the manner that you're talking about -- and sure, yeah, they do so drawing on libertarian principles. What people need to learn in high school, or sooner, is that the Republican response is what makes the Tragedy of the Commons a tragedy.
Republicans are right that during a drought, the logical move is to water your lawn and fill your swimming pool. But I think high school isn't too soon to learn why people like this are loathsome. The only way Rand survives, even among 14-year-olds, is by being unrebutted.
I walked 35,000 steps today and boy are my legs tired.
Duolingo and some grammar books go pretty far. Mobile interface worse than full- sized.
153: I took two years of Chinese and ended up being completely lost (except for reading/writing) when I set foot on Chinese soil for the first three weeks. Then, over the next month it kind of kicked in. I wouldn't want to have forgone either study or immersion.
I personally don't like Duolingo and related apps (they don't have a Chinese, but I've used similar apps and I've used their Spanish). I can't help figuring out how to game it. I have slightly better luck with straight flashcard apps, but Chinese is heavy on memorization.
All that said, my Chinese still sucks, but that's partially because I haven't been over there in a few years and I've been slacking. It used to suck slightly less.
"What worked and what didn't?"
Georgian instruction did not work for me, although that was probably over-determined: tough language, teacher teaching in his third language, teacher expecting total devotion to the task, teacher using Soviet-era textbook.
Russian went much better: nice, well-behaved Indo-European language (at least compared with Georgian), clear goals with the instructor at the outset. That was six weeks of one-to-one instruction before a move to Moscow, and it got me up to speed for daily, mundane interactions. Unfortunately, I didn't get to stay in Moscow, so it has receded nearly completely.
I once attained a decent level of Polish with a combination of weekly night classes and self-study.
Hungarian is not the kind of language you can just pick up from interacting with people.
Over the past eight months I've been learning Italian on Duolingo. It's not anywhere near as good as having real speaking partners, but given that 1) you can do it entirely on your own time, in little tiny chunks; 2) it's not tapes, which I can't abide; and 3) it's free, it's a pretty good option. I went from having zero Italian to, this past summer, going to a small town in Northern Italy and passably communicating. Really not bad considering I had only been studying for a few months at the time.
It's also a good way to supplement whatever other language course you decide to take. I agree with Lw that you should do it on the computer, not your phone -- the mobile app is okay for practice when you don't have access to your computer, but the mobile lessons are actually slightly different and less good. Also, the marketing claims (that you can become fluent in another language in 5 minutes a day) are nonsense. I usually put in 30 minutes to an hour a day, but because this is broken up into little pieces (10 minutes while I have my tea in the morning, 5 minutes while procrastinating at the office, etc.) this is way more manageable for me than listening to a 30 minute tape, or driving somewhere and sitting in a classroom for an hour.
OT: I just learned that "Howard's End" isn't about the death of Howard. My son asks questions that I would feel stupid asking.
I thought a English class system up and killed Howard, but apparently Howard is a house.
Part of the being-a-houseness of Howards End is that, like Finnegans Wake, it has no apostrophe. If you're seeing a version with an apostrophe it might be a porn title.
Finnegan's not even Finnegan, really. "It's complicated."
Howards End is noteworthy for having a major character killed by a bookcase.
Finnegans Woke
a way a lone a last a loved a long AF
I have done the Michel Thomas things a couple of times, as a quick refresher, before I went to France and Spain. The latter, I spoke no Spanish (and my wife has at least some) but found that just those few hours of stuff were genuinely helpful in being able to get about and do basic things.
That said, I've been trying and failing to learn Czech* since 2001, so I'm not exactly the go to person on language learning.
* I can do better than tourist level, "can I have the spicy goulash, please? and two beers? and a water, but not with bubbles." type stuff. And follow the general gist of what other people are talking about -- although I sometimes get utterly the wrong end of the stick -- but I can't have a fluent conversation at all.
A person should be able to order two beers in just about any language.
Czech duolingo just came out.
My other general comment is facing-page or coordinated translations help me refresh languages I know a little.
Doesn't Georgian have like 8 cases?
I don't know, but they like their porticoes.
Sitting in the portico on a couch and while drinking beer and watching the rain fall is very relaxing.
179.last and crazy ass consonant clusters with nary a vowel in sight.
Porticoes consume a lot of vowels.
I can't say I've learned a language except through immersion, but my thoughts based on my experience in Francophone places is, don't confuse tourism with immersion.
Background: I learned French a bit in high school and I spent a year abroad in France between high school and college. Lived with French families, attended a French high school. In August 2001 I'd say I spoke it fluently or pretty close to fluently. In April 2017 I would have said I had lost a lot of it due to disuse. In between those two dates I barely used it at all. I read a few articles and I watched a few movies or TV shows in French, but they'd be subtitled for the benefit of someone I was watching with. I went to French-speaking places a few times but it was always as a tourist, and often traveling with people who didn't speak the language. My interactions with locals would be limited to ordering in a restaurant or bar, and the server would usually answer me in English. That doesn't necessarily mean my French was bad, they were just doing their jobs, but it doesn't mean it was good either.
But this past summer I went to France with a toddler, and stayed with my aunt, who's been living there for most of a year now. I had to use French more and in different ways, and I was pleasantly surprised by how well I did. Grocery shopping, apologizing for a toddler being a pest, talking to other kids she's made friends with and their parents, shopping for less traditional souvenirs, talking to my aunt's neighbors, etc.
Not sure how helpful that is to 153 specifically. Presumably if you grew up in Montreal and have yet to learn French, a lack of grocery shopping and talking to neighbors isn't the problem. But I don't know, maybe there's a different kind of interaction you could seek out, or you could do the same thing in a place you aren't already familiar with.