Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Not sure in what direction that's aimed. But Swisher is becoming my new favorite podcast. And Ruhle really surprised me.

I was reacting to the way you used "destroys," which is its own sort of click-baity cliche.

I don't know Ruhle. Working in Silicon Valley, I have known Swisher's stuff for a long time, and she is excellent. I want to like podcasts, but I don't have space in my life to listen to them. This morning I was driving to work alone, which is uncommon, so I listed to a bit of Preet Bharara's podcast -- I think he is quite good.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Trying to catch up on the news today, is Meth a Gateway Drug to Fracking or the other way around?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I was reacting to the way you used "destroys," which is its own sort of click-baity cliche.

I don't know Ruhle. Working in Silicon Valley, I have known Swisher's stuff for a long time, and she is excellent. I want to like podcasts, but I don't have space in my life to listen to them. This morning I was driving to work alone, which is uncommon, so I listed to a bit of Preet Bharara's podcast -- I think he is quite good.

True. Bad word choice. But she was pretty harsh to the media’s cattle herders. I’m not one to defend Zuckerberg, either, but she made a great point that he’s not at fault. He’s doing what a CEO is supposed to do, and if the narrative crafting machines of the media hadn’t failed, hadn’t been clearly acting in the interests of the institutions that spend advertising dollars with them, people would not have so willingly accepted FB as a valid news alternative. So I lazily used destroy. But it fits. But delegitimize might’ve been better.

I’ve not heard Bharara’s podcast, but I’ve heard him as a guest on many. He’s excellent... even for a prosecutor.

I think the important facet of podcasts is if you select good ones, you’ll never again pay serious attention to the larger outlets. They won’t address the niche issues you’ll find interesting. I guess there’s a risk of audience atomization, but the positive side of that is audience enlightenment.

I suspect Swisher hits more high value ears than all of Fox or the NYTimes. It’s encouraging because it’s like the talk radio revolution, but instead of crazy bullshit, it’s more focused on higher brow topics and truth (Apple gets a slightly different group of early adopters than AM radio).

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Trying to catch up on the news today, is Meth a Gateway Drug to Fracking or the other way around?

Does ANYONE believe the gateway drug theory anymore?

Hell, I had a very awkward conversation with my suddenly curious parents about the various cannabinoids and their benefits and the various ways to take them. "Do you HAVE to smoke it?" My mom is now a CBD devotee, and Graham volunteered to help should they decide to go further into THC territory. Amazing how aches and pains will open minds.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’m not one to defend Zuckerberg, either, but she made a great point that he’s not at fault. He’s doing what a CEO is supposed to do, and if the narrative crafting machines of the media hadn’t failed, hadn’t been clearly acting in the interests of the institutions that spend advertising dollars with them, people would not have so willingly accepted FB as a valid news alternative. So I lazily used destroy. But it fits.

I would like to talk about whatever you are talking about here, but I haven't heard the podcast, so maybe you could explain to me what the point about Zuckerberg is?

I’ve not heard Bharara’s podcast, but I’ve heard him as a guest on many. He’s excellent... even for a prosecutor.

Yes, he's good. Friend of a good friend, too.

I think the important facet of podcasts is if you select good ones, you’ll never again pay serious attention to the larger outlets. They won’t address the niche issues you’ll find interesting. I guess there’s a risk of audience atomization, but the positive side of that is audience enlightenment.

My problem with them is that I prefer text to audio. That's about me, not them.

Podcasts are part of a broader trend in media we have discussed before, which is that the costs of the equipment needed to publish have come way, way down.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I would like to talk about whatever you are talking about here, but I haven't heard the podcast, so maybe you could explain to me what the point about Zuckerberg is?



Yes, he's good. Friend of a good friend, too.



My problem with them is that I prefer text to audio. That's about me, not them.

Podcasts are part of a broader trend in media we have discussed before, which is that the costs of the equipment needed to publish have come way, way down.

Ruble was challenging the argument that Zuckerberg had a duty to police content. She argued it’s not his responsibility unless regulation or law makes it so, so rather than beat him on him, pass a law (likely unconstitutional) or shut up.

I think podcasts are also a way to produce content that skips past traditional gatekeepers in a world where text is less relevant. They’re very niche, and they also allow for criticisms of institutions and challenges to “attempted forced consensus” that can’t occur in a medium controlled by corporate ad dollars.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ruble was challenging the argument that Zuckerberg had a duty to police content. She argued it’s not his responsibility unless regulation or law makes it so, so rather than beat him on him, pass a law (likely unconstitutional) or shut up.

That's bullshit. If you run a supermarket in a residential neighborhood, and your neighbors complain about the noise from trucks making deliveries at your store in the middle of the night, do you say, if you don't like it, sue me under the law of nuisance or take it to the city council, or do you say, OK, we want to be a responsible member of the community, we'll try to find a way to operate without waking people up?

And people are beating on Zuckerberg and Facebook lately because they choose to police content for commercial speech, but decline to do it for political speech. That's his choice -- why shouldn't the rest of us talk about it?

If she doesn't like that people are complaining about Zuckerberg, she should try to amend the First Amendment to make it illegal or shut up.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That's bullshit. If you run a supermarket in a residential neighborhood, and your neighbors complain about the noise from trucks making deliveries at your store in the middle of the night, do you say, if you don't like it, sue me under the law of nuisance or take it to the city council, or do you say, OK, we want to be a responsible member of the community, we'll try to find a way to operate without waking people up?

And people are beating on Zuckerberg and Facebook lately because they choose to police content for commercial speech, but decline to do it for political speech. That's his choice -- why shouldn't the rest of us talk about it?

If she doesn't like that people are complaining about Zuckerberg, she should try to amend the First Amendment to make it illegal or shut up.

Zuckerberg’s duty is to his employees and shareholders. Is it wise to placate others? Of course. But does anyone have a right to complain that allows free speech on a platform for it in a country where it’s a constitutional right? Yes! And he has a right to ignore them. Which is a passive aggressive corporate form of telling them to shut up.

She didn’t dislike the complaints. She seemed to dislike the public confusion about what could be done about Facebook. A lot of people think the govt should be able to lean on the company and have it respond by removing content they don’t like. Right wing loons like Brent Bozell tried that with boycotts and letters to advertisers in the 80s and 90s. Today, “cancel culture” offers the same thing. Zuckerberg is right to side with free speech absolutists on political speech. If he instead makes FB the arbiter of what’s acceptable and not acceptable political speech, he’s not running a platform but a propaganda machine.

People have a right to lie their asses off in politics. It’s part of the game. It’s expected. If one is dumb enough to buy the lie, the liar has earned that vote. We cannot and should not let the govt, via regulation, play Decider in Chief as to what bullshit may be offered by politicians and what may not. The credulous voting public may need education, but a babysitter to tell them what’s true and false is not education. It’s a step backward - a coddling that creates idiots.

If Trump can dupe you, natural selection should remove your genes ASAP.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Zuckerberg’s duty is to his employees and shareholders. Is it wise to placate others? Of course. But does anyone have a right to complain that allows free speech on a platform for it in a country where it’s a constitutional right? Yes! And he has a right to ignore them. Which is a passive aggressive corporate form of telling them to shut up.

Of course he has that right, but he pays attention when right-wingers criticize him, so that encourages the rest of us. Also, Facebook in general is very sensitive to criticism. They think it's very unfair. They want to be rich monopolists, and for no one to ever complain about what they do.

She didn’t dislike the complaints. She seemed to dislike the public confusion about what could be done about Facebook. A lot of people think the govt should be able to lean on the company and have it respond by removing content they don’t like. Right wing loons like Brent Bozell tried that with boycotts and letters to advertisers in the 80s and 90s. Today, “cancel culture” offers the same thing. Zuckerberg is right to side with free speech absolutists on political speech. If he instead makes FB the arbiter of what’s acceptable and not acceptable political speech, he’s not running a platform but a propaganda machine.

No one has a problem when he regulates lies in commercial speech. What's the principled reason that he should let politicians lie when he's not willing to let for-profit businesses do it?

And please note: He is running a propaganda machine. That's exactly the problem.

People have a right to lie their asses off in politics. It’s part of the game.

He has a right not to permit it on his platform, so the language of rights only takes you so far.

If one is dumb enough to buy the lie, the liar has earned that vote. We cannot and should not let the govt, via regulation, play Decider in Chief as to what bullshit may be offered by politicians and what may not. The credulous voting public may need education, but a babysitter to tell them what’s true and false is not education. It’s a step backward - a coddling that creates idiots.

If Trump can dupe you, natural selection should remove your genes ASAP.

No one has a problem with the idea that TV networks/stations can decline to run ads that have lies in them. There's no particular virtue to allowing people to lie.


2016 apparently taught you nothing.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Trying to catch up on the news today, is Meth a Gateway Drug to Fracking or the other way around?

Randy, I am the liquor.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Of course he has that right, but he pays attention when right-wingers criticize him, so that encourages the rest of us.

I hear your point. He should ignore both sides.

Also, Facebook in general is very sensitive to criticism. They think it's very unfair. They want to be rich monopolists, and for no one to ever complain about what they do.

So does everyone. But ignoring can go both ways here, and would provide an elegant solution. The right and left can whine at FB, and then it can ignore them instead of whining about them whining about FB. Everybody is ignored and people can be left to sort out what is and isn't true on FB, as informed adult users of the site should be compelled to do.

No one has a problem when he regulates lies in commercial speech. What's the principled reason that he should let politicians lie when he's not willing to let for-profit businesses do it?

I do. He should not be regulating anything. He has terms of service that ban certain things (the ludicrous ban on display of female nipples comes to mind). But if he wishes to call himself a platform, he cannot start sifting content for truth and banning what he deems untruthful. That's a journalist's job.

And please note: He is running a propaganda machine. That's exactly the problem.

I hear this from the left and right. The right says he is somehow burying conservative content. How, I have no idea. The left says he's allowing Russian bots to flood FB with untrue content about Democratic candidates.

First, if you'll let FB posts inform your voting decisions, I have no time for you. You're an idiot who should be removed from the gene pool. But putting that aside, FB is simply a connective device. You don't punish the bullhorn manufacturer for the ramblings of maniac using it to scream awful things on the street corner.

He has a right not to permit it on his platform, so the language of rights only takes you so far.

He does. But you're asking him to play "god of content." What criteria shall he use to determine what's true and what's not? Real, actual media can barely do that effectively. FB is supposed to sift through billions of posts and eliminate that which it deems lies? There's a Flat Earth Society on FB. Should that be banned because it's clearly untrue? How about creationists? What about gold bugs predicting economic collapse?

What about politicians who lie? Shall we ban Warren's FB ads promising student loan forgiveness because we know she can't seriously think she can actually deliver it -- that it's clearly just an empty promise?

The suggestion there are 37 genders which exists on FB is untrue. It's scientifically unserious. Should that be banned? Some doctors think fibromyalgia is a made up disease. Ban that? Aspergers has been removed from the DSM-IV. Remove all references to it?

What about Pluto? Should Zuck decide if it's really a planet?

And more broadly, how should he deal with opinion pieces? Should he establish spheres of deviance that he likes and ban opinions that he deems to be based on sketchy facts or misunderstanding of facts?

Next time there's a murder trial involving clear guilt of an alleged perpetrator, should FB remove all stories offered by defenders of the accused? During the next OJ-like fiasco, should FB side with the overwhelming facts and declare anyone accusing the police of a frame-up to be trafficking in lies? Because if you're going to ban lies, you're going to ban a whole lot of what we call 'advocacy."

No one has a problem with the idea that TV networks/stations can decline to run ads that have lies in them. There's no particular virtue to allowing people to lie.

TV runs ads filled with lies all the time. If I had to list all of the snake oil pitches one sees on TV, I'd need a room full of servers to hold them all.

2016 apparently taught you nothing.

It taught me that there are arrogant people in the country with the temerity to say the following:

I think it's unfair that a lousy candidate lost an election because dumb people were manipulated. I think we should put safeguards in place to make sure dumb people cannot be manipulated, and I think my view of what is and isn't worthy of voters' eyes should be used as the measuring stick.

Channeling Hitchens in reply to a ludicrously arrogant critic (and I've seen him do this in the flesh): "To that, sir... Uh, fuck you. Fuck you."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ruble was challenging the argument that Zuckerberg had a duty to police content. She argued it’s not his responsibility unless regulation or law makes it so, so rather than beat him on him, pass a law (likely unconstitutional) or shut up.

Ah, yes, because corporations don't react to bad publicity or public sentiment and most definitely shouldn't need to worry about PR at all. Things are better that way...

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Right wing loons like Brent Bozell tried that with boycotts and letters to advertisers in the 80s and 90s. Today, “cancel culture” offers the same thing.

Both of these things are speech responding to speech. You're free to disagree with them, but don't go telling yourself you're a "free speech absolutist."

If he instead makes FB the arbiter of what’s acceptable and not acceptable political speech, he’s not running a platform but a propaganda machine.

He has the third option of not running political ads at all.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You don't punish the bullhorn manufacturer for the ramblings of maniac using it to scream awful things on the street corner.

He's a lot more than a bullhorn manufacturer, especially when he's selling targeted ads and helping advertisers pick their audience. Those are editorial decisions, because, hey, look, he's a publisher.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I hear your point. He should ignore both sides.

Samson shouldn't tell Delilah about his hair.

So does everyone. But ignoring can go both ways here, and would provide an elegant solution. The right and left can whine at FB, and then it can ignore them instead of whining about them whining about FB. Everybody is ignored and people can be left to sort out what is and isn't true on FB, as informed adult users of the site should be compelled to do.

Like Samson, who is less a real person than a parable, Facebook is incapable of quietly and ruthlessly exercising market power to dominate the world, like Amazon before Jeff Bezos's affair. Like anyone who ever put their picture on, well, Facebook, Facebook really wants to be loved.

I do. He should not be regulating anything. He has terms of service that ban certain things (the ludicrous ban on display of female nipples comes to mind). But if he wishes to call himself a platform, he cannot start sifting content for truth and banning what he deems untruthful. That's a journalist's job.

Maybe it's a platform's job. You have this rhetorical trick where you pronounce that things fall into categories and just are the way they are. It works for you about as well as when Esquire does it, which is to say not very well. (Let's just ignore that having terms of service that ban certain things (like nipples) is regulation. For these purposes, lies are like nipples. And when I say that let's just ignore this, I mean, let's just accept it as true, and then move on, as we do with our nipples.) We have these other platforms called newspapers. They don't run just anything.

I hear this from the left and right. The right says he is somehow burying conservative content. How, I have no idea.

Exactly. It's nonsense.

The left says he's allowing Russian bots to flood FB with untrue content about Democratic candidates.

Oddly, you say you hear this from left and right, and you debunk the right-wing nonsense, but something keeps you from just saying that the left (and center -- I'm pretty sure that the center is skeptical of Facebook too) is right. Facebook basically announced a new policy of permitting politicians to lie in ads. Who do you think is most interested in lying in ads? Whose campaign has been lying in Facebook ads?

First, if you'll let FB posts inform your voting decisions, I have no time for you. You're an idiot who should be removed from the gene pool.

That's a lovely sentiment, but you live in a country that gives all of those people the vote too, so your fate is bound up in how they get their information.

But putting that aside, FB is simply a connective device. You don't punish the bullhorn manufacturer for the ramblings of maniac using it to scream awful things on the street corner.

That's not what Facebook is. The power of Facebook is in the switches, not the wires.`

He does. But you're asking him to play "god of content."

I see you using quotation marks, but that's not something I ever said.

What criteria shall he use to determine what's true and what's not?

How about the same ones he uses for commercial speech? Why not have terms that say that Facebook won't accept money to runs ads that mislead, and then decline to run ads that Facebook thinks will mislead?

Real, actual media can barely do that effectively. FB is supposed to sift through billions of posts and eliminate that which it deems lies? There's a Flat Earth Society on FB. Should that be banned because it's clearly untrue? How about creationists? What about gold bugs predicting economic collapse?

Oh, enough. We're not talking about whether Facebook can enforce its own rules perfectly. We're talking about whether once someone points out to them that they are taking money to spread lies, they continue taking money to spread lies.

What about politicians who lie? Shall we ban Warren's FB ads promising student loan forgiveness because we know she can't seriously think she can actually deliver it -- that it's clearly just an empty promise?

I think there's a difference between a lie and an unrealistic promise.

The suggestion there are 37 genders which exists on FB is untrue. It's scientifically unserious. Should that be banned? Some doctors think fibromyalgia is a made up disease. Ban that? Aspergers has been removed from the DSM-IV. Remove all references to it?

I have much less of a problem with all of that speech if it's not trying to get someone to spend money or make a vote.

And more broadly, how should he deal with opinion pieces? Should he establish spheres of deviance that he likes and ban opinions that he deems to be based on sketchy facts or misunderstanding of facts?

No. I see your slippery slope and decline to slide down it. The fact that Facebook -- like many others -- has chosen a spot partway down the slope is an indication that it's not all that slippery.

TV runs ads filled with lies all the time. If I had to list all of the snake oil pitches one sees on TV, I'd need a room full of servers to hold them all.

The fact that there is under enforcement of existing law does not mean that existing law is worthless.

It taught me that there are arrogant people in the country with the temerity to say the following:

I think it's unfair that a lousy candidate lost an election because dumb people were manipulated. I think we should put safeguards in place to make sure dumb people cannot be manipulated, and I think my view of what is and isn't worthy of voters' eyes should be used as the measuring stick.

Channeling Hitchens in reply to a ludicrously arrogant critic (and I've seen him do this in the flesh): "To that, sir... Uh, fuck you. Fuck you."

Then you learned the wrong thing. The real problem is not that some people in this country are arrogant. The problem is the people who were manipulated in various ways to vote for Trump. That is, unless you are more bothered by the arrogant people who voted for Clinton than the fact that Trump won, something you creep around but don't quite say.

One lesson I take from the last election is that a lot of people now get their news from social media instead of traditional media, and that as a democracy we have a strong interest in making sure that works well. A system in which social-media companies make money disseminating lies doesn't seem to fit that bill.