The Wayback Machine is a useful expedient even if the site hasn't been taken down, if you don't want to give them clicks. I don't technically know if it would keep Facebook from filtering it out, but it's worth a shot next time.
I have only thought fragments on this, but it seems to me that the problem with bad faith right wing disinformation is more of a demand thing than a supply thing.
Also, put the FD back in place and it'll immediately get weaponized by the far right, demanding that every time someone mentions the earth being round, they have to have someone on saying no it's flat.
I'm wide open to persuasion on either point.
Facebook is turning out to be among the most responsible arbiters of public discourse we have
Wha? I can't tell if pf is being sarcastic here. FB basically was the Radio Mille Collines for the Burmese Rohingya genocide. If/when it happens again they'd do it again. FB sucks.
I do have one question that I've wondered: Would it be sufficient to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, as long as it was enforced and not toothless, and expanded to include new media markets beyond broadcast license holders? Or was that such a product of its time that it enforced mid-century notions well enough, but wouldn't really be a solution to modern day problems?
The latter, I think. Technically, it could be reinstated for broadcast and even cable, but not internet. I took a look at the 1949 FCC report that's apparently one of the closest things to a formalized version of the doctrine in full - hard to distill! - and it only makes sense in the context of entities choosing what is broadcast given the constraint of limited time.
[I]t is evident that broadcast licensees have an affirmative duty generally to encourage and implement the broadcast of all sides of controversial public issues over their facilities, over and beyond their obligation to make available on demand opportunities for the expression of opposing views. It is clear that any approximation of fairness in the presentation of any controversy will be difficult if not impossible of achievement unless the licensee plays a conscious and positive role in bringing about balanced presentation of the opposing viewpoints.
I have to disagree with the OP and agree with 3. "Trust Facebook" just doesn't seem like a very good idea.
If there were some way to just nuke all social media on the other hand, I'd definitely be up for that.
5 You see this? https://www.bookforum.com/print/2703/a-psychoanalytic-reading-of-social-media-and-the-death-drive-24171
"Most responsible" doesn't mean "acceptably responsible".
7: Right.
3,5: Facebook has decided to accept a certain amount of responsibility precisely because people have refused to "Trust Facebook." That should absolutely continue.
4: Yeah, the Fairness Doctrine was a scarcity-of-airwaves thing. You needed government permission to broadcast, and so the government felt it had a stake in what you broadcast.
2: The rest of the Western world is much more restrictive of speech than Americans. I used to think that was a bad thing.
Best not to live in an oligarchy. But if you do, then you need to influence the oligarchs where you can. Like heebie, I would want the next administration to take steps. I lack confidence in the Democrats on this, but I think social media wants to be regulated. Facilitating genocide carries reputational risks that are bad for a business like Facebook.
I recall nodding along to this article when it came out 2 years ago: "Mark Zuckerberg runs a nation-state, and he's the king. Thanks to decades of research on political economy, we know how hard it is to check the powers of a king."
8: Exactly what "steps" do you propose? Much better to hang on to that lack of confidence in the Democrats "on this"! I'd suggest that you shouldn't have confidence in the Republicans either. In fact, let's just have no confidence in any party, and no "taking steps" on this issue.
I think there are two rather simple steps that could be taken which would do a lot of good.
1- Robust antitrust action.
2- More or less outlawing the entire data-harvesting industry.
Interestingly, the GDPR & European Court of Justice may eventually go a long ways towards #2 -- Austrian privacy activist Schrems just won another big victory against the EU's attempt to just ignore American violations of European privacy regulations, but the wheels grind very, very slowly.
x.t., do you think you might have an informed opinion (if you looked into it) on the disputes of fact on California's Prop 24 on consumer privacy? Its backers say it's a step forward, the ACLU says it's ill-thought-out, the EFF is taking a "we don't support or oppose" stance; I'm not sure what to make of it.
How about a huge fucking capital gains tax, just in case it works?
Or in case the real problem is concentration of wealth.
The answer is taxes, progressive taxes and estate taxes. it may be that simple.
X. Trapnel - I was thinking of you. We have ranked choice voting on the ballot in November, and I'm trying to think of any downsides. I know Cambridge has it and it's very complicated there, but they also have. Some kind of proportional representation. Bummed right now that the least progressive candidate won in the 4th, because the vote was split which makes me in the pro camp right now.
DaveLMA - have you looked at Question 2? I'm also confused about telematics and the right to repair law in Question 1. I'm generally pro giving independent repair shops the data to compete, but I don't know how to evaluate if there are privacy and security concerns.
15 to 25: I think that's a record.
BG, I've been in an RCV jurisdiction for a while now, and I like it a lot, for cities at least. I can try to answer specific questions if you have them. It has failure modes, but it's much more common for it to work better than alternatives.
Also, if you currently have a plurality system, almost anything is an improvement over that.
In the present state of the media the fairness doctrine is crap. The world is not flat, covid19 is not made up by a conspiracy of pharma companies and there is no central committee of Antifa.
I don't want my time and bandwidth taken up by people being polite to malicious lunatics. I want the malicious lunatics marginalised. The only helpful discussion is how to achieve that.
I think the fairness doctrine was broad enough to allow platforms to thoughtfully marginalize trolls in a lot of circumstances... but not the circumstance where they're in charge of an entire major political party. And the different but related equal-time doctrine really wouldn't work today. It does seem to come from an assumption of a limited range of opposed but reasonable viewpoints.
I think it's a mistake to concentrate too much on the supply side of this problem. The broader problem is ultimately on the demand side -- when people have no feeling of agency, no reason to suppose that their actions or beliefs matter very much, they have no strong reasons to prefer awkward truths to comforting falsehoods.
The contemporary advertising/entertainment industry is the greatest machinery ever assembled for discovering what people want to be told, and telling them it, while selling them things. Since most of what people want to hear is reassuring lies, that's what an advertising business (such as FB or Google) will deliver.
The demand for truth is limited, and only strong where people must make decisions on the basis of what they believe. In democracies where gerrymandering of one sort or another has robbed most voters of any power at the ballot box the demand for truth will fall dramatically once it is widely believed that voting changes nothing. That is of course a vicious circle.
This is why the collapse of local journalism and proper reporting worries me so much -- in local politics people can vote for meaningful change. But if there's no proper reporting going on they can't do so in an informed way. That's one of the least obvious but more pernicious ways in which the faceboogle advertising duopoly has damaged democracy.
The other point about this analysis is that it doesn't require exceptional bad faith on the part of any of the actors. Whether or not Zuckerberg is a sociopath, or Page and Brin are idealists, their companies have the same effect through the logic of the market. Fox News is a partial exception, but then I am shocked by all US TV news.
||
Speaking of voting, I get a lot of e-mails about Warren Democrats. I don't have a ton of money to throw around but would like to give to some folks who will push Congress to the left.
I read an annoying article saying Biden told Wall Street folks that he did not really support postal banking, and I thought, we need to elect some people who will keep Biden honest.
Any names or organizations you guys recommend?
|>
I think it's a mistake to concentrate too much on the supply side of this problem.
This is what I used to think. I used to very much be the type of internet triumphalist that Charley's link in 5 mentions: Now that people aren't constrained by the mainstream media, they will be able to discover the truth! This has actually worked out quite well for me, personally.
But now I am the sort of internet pessimist that Charley's link in 5 is primarily about. The demand problem (as I think you say yourself) is intractable. There is no getting around what people want.
There is a strong argument that the supply problem is also insoluble, but if there is a solution, that's primarily where it is.
We have to, as a society, decide to stop feeding people poison. The market has failed us here, as it once did with providing people with clean food. Some kind of centralized action is required.
This is why the collapse of local journalism and proper reporting worries me so much
Yup. But that's a supply problem. People are happy to read local news -- but there's no longer any way to pay for it.
People are working on solutions. Certainly part of the answer is for entities such as Facebook and Google to pay for news. And in the US, cable companies need to ban crap such as "One America News." With the Fairness Doctrine, "fairness" didn't require networks to air flat earth theories. And Facebook and Twitter are finding that they don't have to be nonjudgmental about craziness -- even when it comes from the president of the United States.
What would examples of demand-side interventions be, in this framework?
It's a big missed opportunity that local media didn't shift to nonprofit status as it declined in revenue, as I think they could stay self-sustaining if that were their only goal - instead they keep shrinking and cutting in hopes of chasing monopoly profits. We'll need some big grants to get them back on that basis, imo.
I'm refusing to subscribe to the local paper because the owner is such a shit. I have donated to local independent media, but I don't think that's a long term substitute.
27: This is happening in some places. This publication, for instance, is a nonprofit, and it competes directly with the legacy daily newspaper.
TPM model! Sell subscriptions to the news junkies.
Smarter people go to Thucydides for their analogies, but I'm fonder of the 1777 Burgoyne campaign. St. Clair's surrender of Ticonderoga was a military necessity, but political a disaster, led to wild rumors of bribery etc. (Did the Brits pay him off by firing silver cannon balls into the fort? People will believe just about anything.) Adams wrote "I think we shall never be able to defend a post until we shoot a general."
I'm all for pressure campaigns on the supply side, but don't hold out much hope, in the near term, for the demand side.
Yesterday, the wife was recounting a story in German media how Qanon is making inroads in Germany. Many people are saying that Trump is going to liberate Germans from the Merkel dictatorship! (I shit you not.)
26: Finland? Haven't they had some success countering Russian propaganda with a media literacy program?
Yes, but only because the Russians were unprepared for the climate and sent their propaganda out into the snow on summer clothing and without skis
12 x.t., do you think you might have an informed opinion (if you looked into it) on the disputes of fact on California's Prop 24 on consumer privacy?
No, haven't followed it at all. Sorry! The EFF link made it sound disappointing.
17: I am torn on both questions.
Q1. On "Right to Repair," it's a big step from the 2013 question, which mostly was about making manuals available and allowing access to the sacred Check Engine Light, to the new one, which essentially asks that the interfaces to the computers in the car be (a) open to anyone and (b) standardized. At least that's how I read it. There really has to be some serious authentication mechanism (at minimum 2FA of some sort -- a simple password wouldn't be enough). A uniform telematics API/UI is nuts. Think back even to 2013, when the first question was passed. How much more complexity and UI additions/changes have appeared since then? Tons, and that's with an industry that is already pretty slow to take up new computer-related innovations. What if Honda wants to add a new feature? Etc. Cars are getting so computer-infested that the number of things your local mechanic can do shrinks constantly, and more of them require fancier equipment. Still, I'm on the fence; no love for the big auto makers, or the dealerships that (shockingly) charge more than the local mechanic to do anything. It's no wonder they are ponying up tons of money to defeat this question. Independent garages may well go the way of local newspapers. I don't think this proposal would slow that down much.
Q2. On "RCV," I'd like to see more small-scale tests. I wonder if it would be possible (or legal) to try it in one Congressional District for starters? (Also, isn't it weird that the question doesn't appear to cover Senatorial elections?) On the plus side, the winner at least has notionally proven majority support. On the minus side, there's some evidence that people often don't fill in more than a few contenders, if that, or really have a ranked opinion of all candidates. In a contest like the MA 4th district, who can guess how that would have worked out? Also, I think it would encourage more candidates to run: the "lightning might strike!" theory of running for office. We need fewer, better candidates who can build majority coalitions. Finally, 7 pages of instructions, and that's just the changes to the existing law. FWIW, my wife is very much in favor.
37: if I were in the 4th, Mermell would have been my 2nd or 3rd choice, but I really did not want Auchincloss, so I would have felt really guilty about voting for my preferred candidate. I would have felt the need to think about some other hypothetical voter and what they would want, I.e. vote like a pundit.
I did not read it carefully enough to know if it doesn't cover Senatorial elections.
30: That's responsive to the business model issue -- that's how journalists can still make a living. I, too, subscribe and have always admired JMM's work. But he's not really having an impact on the segment of society that we're talking about.
Q2: Do you know if the system as proposed limits people to 3 votes, like in the Bay?
I can give you some examples of how it's worked out here.
* 2010 Oakland: One establishment candidate who was expected to win despite a lot of frustration/dislike; two major progressive candidates that lent each other their second-place support. The expected winner got 34% of initial votes (first round), the other two 24% and 16%; after allocation, the progressives won in an upset with 51%. Exactly how the system is supposed to work (regardless of the later performance of that winner).
* 2014 Oakland: Lots of candidates including the mostly disfavored incumbent. A centrist-by-local-standards, well-funded candidate got 30% of the initial vote, with those same two progressive candidates from 2010 getting about 15% each. The initial-vote winner made it up to 63% after allocating, because she had a lot of second-place support from supporters of a wide range of other candidates - including the progressive ones.
* 2014 Oakland D6: A scandal-ridden Black incumbent, generally disliked but loved by a good portion of the district, runs against three other major candidates who try to team up to some extent and get that same kind of coalition support. The incumbent gets 43% to the others' 30%, 17%, and 9%. Despite the majority of the challengers' supporters choosing other challengers in second/third rank, the big initial advantage is enough to get the incumbent just barely over the top with 52% after allocation.
* 2018 Oakland D6: Same district, same incumbent, but more scandals including actual assault sustained in court (and possibly more spending against the incumbent). This time, the best-funded challenger gets 40%, the incumbent gets 25%, and other challengers get 14%, 12%, and 9%. The challenger easily wins.
* 2010 San Francisco D10: 21 candidates, of whom the top three get 12.07%, 11.8%, and 11.78% - no clear winner. Because you can only pick three, in the final allocation (round 20), more than half the voters' ballots can no longer be counted, and the 11.78% candidate gets the seat.
The main failure point as I see it is like that last one - no clear winners, it's unclear if the allocations got you to someplace meaningful. But if there were just a runoff of the top two, that would arguably have been just about as random. And that kind of election doesn't happen very often.
Overall, it achieves its goal in making it hard to spoil elections. If you have several candidates, they will help identify who is closer to each other, and how they can team up to better reflect the relative preferences of the voters - up to a point.
In most cases, getting the greatest number of initial votes is enough to win, so not that different from regular voting; the exceptions where the plurality winner doesn't win at the end is usually where they're pretty broadly disliked by everyone who's not fully for them. Also as intended!
Meaning it makes it somewhat easier, but still not easy, to turn out incumbents.
40: I don't know, and I was trying to find the text as opposed to the summary, but it would only apply for races where there could be one winner. I've read nothing that says you can't rank them all.
So, it wouldn't apply to the school board election, because there were 3 open seats at large and 5 people Running, and I got to vote for 3 people.
Here's the text: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/08/07/19-10.pdf
You're right about multi-seat races.
I read the text and I'm not sure it's clear that issue is specified. It might one of the details left to regulations to come from the SOS. I think here, only having 3 choices wasn't specified in the charter amendments, rather it was a limitation of the technology the county purchased and there's some movement to bump it up to 6.
43: those are always so hard to read without the full code, since only a few words are changed. Lots of elected officials have supported it. Warren said she was warming to the idea but needed to study it more.
34: Finland is a special case because everyone there lives under the existential threat of Russian propaganda, so to say. So they have a stake in knowing the truth, and are aware that they do. My argument is that the US (and British) case is very different in that the population feels, and is, disenfranchised. They have no more influence over political decisions at a national level than they have over Kanye West's marriage, and the Kardashians are more entertaining to be told lies about.
26: I'm tempted to say that a demand side measure would demand a complete change of heart and the rediscovery of God, or something like that. But that's wrong as well as silly.
The necessary condition for a demand side restriction is for the consumers to realise they have something to lose from believing lies. This isn't sufficient. The idea that there is something of great value to lose if you believe in lies is also the motivation of those who are very confused about what is actually a lie, the Qanons and the red-pilled.
None the less, that's a start. So long as it appears entirely cost free to believe whatever you like, or so long as the cost is rightfully borne by others, people will fool themselves and be happy to do so.
I'm finding Brexit a really depressing example of everything that's difficult about this programme: it's obvious that to readers of the Telegraph everything that goes wrong will only increase their conviction that they were right about foreigners all along. To acknowledge the truth becomes far more painful than to double down on the lie. And the lie was, to begin with, just an entertaining fantasy.
Eugh. I have to try to earn some money now. I wish I knew the answer.
47: rem acu tetigisti, as Jeeves would say. If you view politics as a medium for entertainment and self-expression, of course all this (gestures) will happen. You have to believe that politics can actually make a difference to your life - and a lot of people don't. They went through the Great Financial Crisis ten years ago and they felt nothing - it was all just "on the news". It didn't harm them any more than the War of the Ring harmed them.