LaQuedra Edwards entered a Tarzana Vons supermarket and put $40 into a Scratchers vending machine back in November 2021 as reported by the Sacramento Bee. However when she was about to choose her scratcher selection (several less expensive tickets) she inadvertently hit the selection for a $30 scratcher as a result of being “pushed” by a fellow market go-er.
That wrong or accidental button pushed resulted in Edwards winning $10 million as reported by the California Lotto press release on April 6. Oy, in a good way.
They’re also chipping away at the most fundamental freedom of all: the right to vote – restricting everything from mail-in voting to ballot dropboxes.
But their chipping away at freedom is even bigger than all this.
Can you really be free if you’re saddled with medical debt and have to routinely pay outrageous health care costs?
Can you really be free if you have no voice in your workplace and your employer refuses to let you organize with your coworkers for the right to collectively bargain?
Can you really be free if you’re not paid a living wage and have to choose between feeding your family or keeping your lights on?
A living wage, the right to join a union, guaranteed healthcare, the right to vote – these are the foundations of real freedom.
Yet Republicans oppose all of these.
There’s a reason the historic 1963 rally was called The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Because freedom also means the ability to work in a job that pays enough to provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.
What Republicans want to preserve isn’t freedom, it’s power. The power to impose their narrow ideology on everyone else, no matter who suffers. Don’t let their propaganda convince you otherwise.
The renowned American philosopher, historian and social critic, Noam Chomsky, has been a free-thinker almost all his life and has written books challenging the many ways society has programed us to think and believe. Chomsky is among one of the most cited living authors across the globe.
Growing up in a politically active household, he learned from an early age the concepts of politics and anarchism. By age 10 he had written an essay on fascism and by 16 years old he was studying philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. And although he has contributed greatly to the field of linguistics, below are some title, which are among the best and noteworthy books to read on politics, war and media.
For fifty years, Noam Chomsky’s writings on politics and language have established him as a preeminent public intellectual and as one of the most original and wide-ranging social critics of our time. Among the seminal figures in linguistic theory over the past century, since the 1960s Chomsky has also secured a place as perhaps the leading dissident voice in the United States.
Chomsky’s many bestselling works–including Manufacturing Consent, Hegemony or Survival, Understanding Power, and Failed States–have served as essential touchstones for dissidents, activists, scholars, and concerned citizens on subjects ranging from the media to human rights to intellectual freedom. His scathing critiques of the U.S. wars in Vietnam, Central America, and the Middle East have been the intellectual inspiration for antiwar movements over nearly five decades. As the political landscape has changed over the course of Chomsky’s life, he has remained a steadfast voice on the left, never wavering in his convictions and always questioning entrenched power.
The Essential Chomsky assembles the core of his most important writings, including excerpts from his most influential texts. Here is an unprecedented, comprehensive overview of Chomsky’s thought.
On Anarchism
Click photo for more on “On Anarchism” on Bookshop
With the specter of anarchy being invoked by the Right to sow fear, a cogent explanation of the political philosophy known as anarchism has never been more urgently needed. In On Anarchism, radical linguist, philosopher, and activist Noam Chomsky provides it. Known for his brilliant evisceration of American foreign policy, state capitalism, and the mainstream media, Chomsky remains a formidable and unapologetic critic of established authority and perhaps the world’s most famous anarchist.
On Anarchism sheds a much-needed light on the foundations of Chomsky’s thought, specifically his constant questioning of the legitimacy of entrenched power. The book gathers his essays and interviews to provide a short, accessible introduction to his distinctively optimistic brand of anarchism. Chomsky eloquently refutes the notion of anarchism as a fixed idea, suggesting that it is part of a living, evolving tradition, and he disputes the traditional fault lines between anarchism and socialism, emphasizing the power of collective, rather than individualist, action.
Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda
Noam Chomsky’s backpocket classic on wartime propaganda and opinion control begins by asserting two models of democracy–one in which the public actively participates, and one in which the public is manipulated and controlled. According to Chomsky, propaganda is to democracy as the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state, and the mass media is the primary vehicle for delivering propaganda in the United States.
From an examination of how Woodrow Wilson’s Creel Commission succeeded, within six months, in turning a pacifist population into a hysterical, war-mongering population, to Bush Sr.’s war on Iraq, Chomsky examines how the mass media and public relations industries have been used as propaganda to generate public support for going to war. Chomsky further touches on how the modern public relations industry has been influenced by Walter Lippmann’s theory of spectator democracy, in which the public is seen as a bewildered herd that needs to be directed, not empowered; and how the public relations industry in the United States focuses on controlling the public mind, and not on informing it. Media Control is an invaluable primer on the secret workings of disinformation in democratic societies.
Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance
An immediate national bestseller, Hegemony or Survival demonstrates how, for more than half a century the United States has been pursuing a grand imperial strategy with the aim of staking out the globe. Our leaders have shown themselves willing-as in the Cuban missile crisis-to follow the dream of dominance no matter how high the risks.
World-renowned intellectual Noam Chomsky investigates how we came to this perilous moment and why our rulers are willing to jeopardize the future of our species. With the striking logic that is his trademark, Chomsky tracks the U.S. government’s aggressive pursuit of full spectrum dominance and vividly lays out how the most recent manifestations of the politics of global control-from unilateralism to the dismantling of international agreements to state terrorism-cohere in a drive for hegemony that ultimately threatens our existence. Lucidly written, thoroughly documented, and featuring a new afterword by the author, Hegemony or Survival is a definitive statement from one of today’s most influential thinkers.
n an incisive, thorough analysis of the current international situation, Noam Chomsky examines the way that the United States, despite the rise of Europe and Asia, still largely sets the terms of global discourse. Drawing on a wide range of examples, from the sordid history of U.S. involvement with Cuba to the sanctions on Iran, he details how America’s rhetoric of freedom and human rights so often diverges from its actions.
He delves deep into the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel-Palestine, providing unexpected and nuanced insights into the workings of imperial power on our increasingly chaotic planet. And, in a new afterword, he addresses the election of Donald Trump and what it shows about American society. Fierce, unsparing, and meticulously documented, Who Rules the World? delivers the indispensable understanding of the central issues of our time that we have come to expect from Chomsky.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a virtual address on Wednesday urged Congress to push for both a no-fly zone over Ukraine, as well as for additional planes and defense systems to respond to Russia’s continued invasion.
Zelenskyy said in video, “Russia has turned the Ukrainian sky into a source of death for thousands of people”.
Citing Pearl Harbor and 9/11, the Ukrainian President showed graphic video of death and devastation his country has suffered and continues to deal with daily in the war.
The live-streamed address in the Capitol complex had a translator for majority of his speech. To close, Zelenskyy spoke in English, pleading directly to President Biden: “I wish you to be the leader of the world. Being the leader of the world means to be the leader of peace.”
A day earlier, on Tuesday, President Biden signed into law a $13.6 billion package for emergency aid in Ukraine to help with humanitarian and weaponry assistance. According to Reuters, Biden is also expected to announce further aid in the amount of $800 million in security assistance to Ukraine.
Above: Collage by Lynxotic, Original Photos by various
What are the institutions—public and civic—that could roll back this fast-approaching U.S.-style fascism with the snarling visage of serial criminal and constitutional violator, Donald J. Trump?
“Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun…” is the title of an article in the Atlantic, just out, by Barton Gellman, a Pulitzer Prize winner and author of many groundbreaking exposés. He describes the various maneuvers that Trump-driven Republican operatives and state legislators are developing to overturn elections whose voters elected Democrats from states with Republican governors and state legislatures. Georgia fit that profile in 2020—electing two Democratic senators in a state with a Republican legislature and governor.
Tragically, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices—three selected by Trump—has no problem with his usurpation of the American Republic.
Getting ready for 2024, the Georgia GOP legislature has stripped the election-certifying Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, of his authority to oversee future election certifications. The legislature has also given itself the unbridled authority to fire county election officials. With Trump howling his lies and backing his minion candidates, they created a climate that is intimidating scores of terrified election-precinct volunteers to quit.
Added to this are GOP-passed voter suppression laws and selectively drawn election districts that discriminate against minorities—both before the vote (purges, arbitrary disqualifications), during the vote (diminishing absentee voting, and narrowing dates for their delivery), and after the election in miscounting and falsely declaring fraud.
The ultimate lethal blow to democratic elections, should the GOP lose, is simply to have the partisan GOP majority legislators benefiting from demonically-drawn gerrymandered electoral districts, declare by fiat the elections a fraud, and replace the Democratic Party’s voter chosen electors with GOP chosen electors in the legislature.
Now take this as a pattern demolishing majority voters’ choice to 14 other GOP-controlled states, greased by Trumpian lies and routing money to his chosen candidate’s intent on overturning majority rule, add Fox News bullhorns and talk radio Trumpsters and you have the apparatus for fascistic takeovers. Tragically, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices—three selected by Trump—has no problem with his usurpation of the American Republic. All this and more micro-repression is broadcast by zillions of ugly, vicious, and anonymous rants over the Internet enabled by the profiteering social media corporations like Facebook.
Anonymous, vicious, violent email and Twitter traffic is the most underreported cause of anxiety, fear, and dread undermining honest Americans working, mostly as volunteers, the machinery of local, state, and national elections, with dedicated public servants. These people are not allowed to know the names behind the anonymous cowardly, vitriol slamming against them, their families, and children.
What are the institutions—public and civic—that could roll back this fast-approaching U.S.-style fascism with the snarling visage of serial criminal and constitutional violator, Donald J. Trump?
1. First is the Congress. Democrats impeached Trump over the Ukraine extortion but left on the table eleven other impeachable counts, including those with kitchen-table impacts (See Congressional Record, December 18, 2019).
All that is going on to deal with Trump’s abuses in any focused way on Capitol Hill, controlled by Democrats, is the House’s January 6th investigation. So far as is known, this Select Committee is NOT going to subpoena the star witnesses—Donald Trump and Mike Pence. So far, the Congress is feeble, not a Rock of Gibraltar thwarting the Trumpian dictators.
2. The federal courts? Apart from their terminal delays, it’s Trump’s Supreme Court and his nominees fill many chairs in the federal circuit courts of appeals. The federal judiciary—historically the last resort for constitutional justice—is now lost to such causes.
3. The Democratic Party? We’re still waiting for a grand strategy, with sufficient staff, to counter, at every intersection, the GOP. The Dems do moan and groan well. But where is their big-time ground game for getting out the non-voters in the swing states? Are they provoking recall campaigns of despotic GOP state legislators in GOP states having such citizen-voter power? Why aren’t they adopting the litigation arguments of Harvard Law School’s constitutional expert, Professor Larry Tribe? Where are their messages to appeal to the majority of eligible American voters who believe that the majority rules in elections? Why aren’t they urgently reminding voters of the crimes and other criminogenic behavior by the well-funded Trump and his political terrorists?
Bear in mind, the Democrats are well-funded too.
4. The Legal Profession and their Bar Associations. Aren’t they supposed to represent the rule of law, protect the integrity of elections, and insist on peaceful transitions of power? They are after all, not just private citizens; they are “officers of the court.” Forget it. There are few exceptions, but don’t expect the American Bar Association and its state bar counterparts to be the sentinels and watchdogs against sinister coup d’états under cover of delusional strongarming ideologies.
5. Well, how about the Universities, the faculties, and the students? Weren’t they the hotbeds of action against past illegal wars and violations of civil rights in the Sixties and Seventies? Sure. But that was before the Draft was eliminated, before the non-stop gazing at screens, and before the focus on identity politics absorbed the energy that fueled mobilizations about fundamental pursuits of peace, justice, and equality.
6. How about some enlightened corporate executives of influential companies? Having been given large tax reductions, sleepy law enforcement regulators, and a corporatist-minded federal judiciary, while the war contracts and taxpayer bailouts proliferate, why should they make waves to save the Republic? The union of plutocratic big business with the autocratic government is one classical definition of fascism.
7. The Mass Media. Taken together, they’ve done a much better job exposing Trumpism than has the Congress or litigation and the judiciary. However, their digging up the dirt does not come with the obvious follow-ups from their reporting and editorializing.
Covering the Ukraine impeachment, but not covering at least eleven other documented impeachable offenses, handed to them by credible voices, left them with digging hard but never hitting pay dirt. Trump has escaped all their muckraking as he has escaped all attempts by law enforcers who have their own unexplained hesitancies. If reporters do not dig intensely into just how Trump and his chief cohorts have escaped jail time and other penalties, their usual revelations of wrongdoings appear banal, eliciting “what else is new?” yawns by their public.
What’s left to trust and rely upon? Unorganized people organizing. What else! That’s what the farmers did peacefully in western Massachusetts in 1774 (See: The Revolution Came Early—1774—to the Berkshires) against the tyrant King George III and his Boston-based Redcoats? By foot or by horse, they showed up together in huge numbers at key places. These farmers collectively stopped the takeover of local governments and courts by King George’s wealthier Tories. Their actions can teach us the awesome lessons of moral, democratic, and tactical grit—all the while having to deal with nature and their endangered crops.
What are our excuses?
Originally published on Common Dreams by RALPH NADER and republished under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
Facebook insists that mainstream news sites perform the best on its platform. But by other measures, sensationalist, partisan content reigns
In early November, Facebook published its Q3 Widely Viewed Content Report, the second in a series meant to rebut critics who said that its algorithms were boosting extremist and sensational content. The report declared that, among other things, the most popular informational content on Facebook came from sources like UNICEF, ABC News, or the CDC.
But data collected by The Markup suggests that, on the contrary, sensationalist news or viral content with little original reporting performs just as well as—and often better than—many mainstream sources when it comes to how often it’s seen by platform users.
Data from The Markup’s Citizen Browser project shows that during the period from July 1 to Sept. 30, 2021, outlets like The Daily Wire, The Western Journal, and BuzzFeed’s viral content arm were among the top-viewed domains in our sample.
Citizen Browser is a national panel of paid Facebook users who automatically share their news feed data with The Markup.
To analyze the websites whose content performs the best on Facebook, we counted the total number of times that links from any domain appeared in our panelists’ news feeds—a metric known as “impressions”—over a three-month period (the same time covered by Facebook’s Q3 Widely Viewed Content Report). Facebook, by contrast, chose a different metric, calculating the “most-viewed” domains by tallying only the number of users who saw links, regardless of whether each user saw a link once or hundreds of times.
By our calculation, the top performing domains were those that surfaced in users’ feeds over and over—including some highly partisan, polarizing sites that effectively bombarded some Facebook users with content.
These findings chime with recent revelations from Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, who has repeatedly said the company has a tendency to cherry-pick statistics to release to the press and the public.
When presented with The Markup’s findings and asked whether its own report’s statistics might be misleading or incomplete, Ariana Anthony, a spokesperson for Meta, Facebook’s parent company, said in an emailed statement, “The focus of the Widely Viewed Content Report is to show the content that is seen by the most people on Facebook, not the content that is posted most frequently. That said, we will continue to refine and improve these reports as we engage with academics, civil society groups, and researchers to identify the parts of these reports they find most valuable, which metrics need more context, and how we can best support greater understanding of content distribution on Facebook moving forward.”
Anthony did not directly respond to questions from The Markup on whether the company would release data on the total number of link views or the content that was seen most frequently on the platform.
The Battle Over Data
There are many ways to measure popularity on Facebook, and each tells a different story about the platform and what kind of content its algorithms favor.
For years, the startup CrowdTangle’s “engagement” metric—essentially measuring a combination of how many likes, comments, and other interactions any domain’s posts garner—has been the most publicly visible way of measuring popularity. Facebook bought CrowdTangle in 2016 and, according to reporting in The New York Times, has since largely tried to downplay data showing that ultra-conservative commentators like The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro produce the most engaged-with content on the platform.
Shortly after the end of the second quarter of this year, Facebook came out with its first transparency report, framed in the introduction as a way to “provide clarity” on “the most-viewed domains, links, Pages and posts on the platform during the quarter.” (More accurately, the Q2 report was the first publicly released transparency report, after a Q1 report was, The New York Times reported, suppressed for making the company look bad and only released later after details emerged.)
For the Q2 and Q3 reports, Facebook turned to a specific metric, known as “reach,” to quantify most-viewed domains. For any given domain, say youtube.com or twitter.com, reach represents the number of unique Facebook accounts that had at least one post containing a link to a tweet or a YouTube video in their news feeds during the quarter. On that basis, Facebook found that those domains, and other mainstream staples like Amazon, Spotify, and TikTok, had wide reach.
When applying this metric, The Markup found similar results in our Citizen Browser data, as detailed in depth in our methodology. But this calculation ignores a reality for a lot of Facebook users: bombardment with content from the same site.
Citizen Browser data shows, for instance, that from July through September of this year, articles from far-right news site Newsmax appeared in the feed of a 58-year-old woman in New Mexico 1,065 times—but under Facebook’s calculation of reach, this would count as one single unit. Similarly, a 37-year-old man in New Hampshire was shown 245 unique links to satirical posts from The Onion, which appeared in his feed more than 500 times—but again, he would have been counted just once by Facebook’s method.
When The Markup instead counted each appearance of a domain on a user’s feed during Q3—e.g., Newsmax as 1,065 instead of 1—we found that polarizing, partisan content jumped in the performance rankings. Indeed, the same trend is true of the domains in Facebook’s Q2 report, for which analysis can be found in our data repository on GitHub.
We found that outlets like The Daily Wire, BuzzFeed’s viral content arm, Fox News, and Yahoo News jumped in the popularity rankings when we used the impressions metric. Most striking, The Western Journal—which, similarly to The Daily Wire, does little original reporting and instead repackages stories to fit with right-wing narratives—improved its ranking by almost 200 places.
“To me these findings raise a number of questions,” said Jane Lytvynenko, senior research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center.
“Was Facebook’s research genuine, or was it part of an attempt to change the narrative around top 10 lists that were previously put out? It matters a lot whether a person sees a link one time or if they see it 20 times, and to not account for that in a report, to me, is misleading,” Lytvynenko said.
Using a narrow range of data to gauge popularity is suspect, said Alixandra Barasch, associate professor of marketing at NYU’s Stern School of Business.
“It just goes against everything we teach and know about advertising to focus on one [metric] rather than the other,” she said.
In fact, when it comes to the core business model of selling space to advertisers, Facebook encourages them to consider yet another metric, “frequency”—how many times to show a post to each user on average—when trying to optimize brand messaging.
Data from Citizen Browser shows that domains seen with high frequency in the Facebook news feed are mostly news domains, since news websites tend to publish multiple articles over the course of a day or week. But Facebook’s own content report does not take this data into account.
“[This] clarifies the point that what we need is independent access for researchers to check the math,” said Justin Hendrix, co-author of a report on social media and polarization and editor at Tech Policy Press, after reviewing The Markup’s data.
“No,” said Sen Bernie Sanders. “Congress should not provide a $10 billion handout to Jeff Bezos for space exploration as part of the defense spending bill. Unbelievable.”
Progressives on Wednesday slammed what they called a proposed $10 billion handout to Amazon founder Jeff Bezos—the world’s first multi-centibillionaire—in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act as a “giveaway of galactic proportions” in the face of growing wealth inequality and the inability of U.S. lawmakers to pass a sweeping social and climate spending package.
“Jeff Bezos’s business model includes feasting on public subsidies—and the U.S. Senate must not acquiesce to his demands.”
According toDefense News, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) plans to merge the $250 billion U.S. Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 (USICA)—aimed largely at countering the rise of China—with next year’s NDAA, which would authorize up to $778 billion in military spending. That’s $37 billion more than former President Donald Trump’s final defense budget and $25 billion more than requested by President Joe Biden. The NDAA includes a $10 billion subsidy to Bezos’ Blue Origin space exploration company.
“Providing Jeff Bezos with $10 billion of taxpayer money would be an inappropriate giveaway of galactic proportions,” Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union (RWDSU), said in a statement Wednesday.
STATEMENT on Blue Origin subsidy in #NDAA: “Until Jeff Bezos changes the way his employees are mistreated and dehumanized at Amazon and elsewhere, no elected official should support the passage of subsidies for him or any of his projects” –@sappelbaumhttps://t.co/LOppvCfXdcpic.twitter.com/t30afGKQzc
“Jeff Bezos shouldn’t receive taxpayer subsidies for his personal projects—period,” he continued. “In at least two recent years, one of the richest people on the planet paid no income tax; yet he then demands billions in taxpayer funds for a project that’s already been awarded to another company. This is the height of hubris.”
“Rather than waste $10 billion on a redundant space contract for Bezos, that money could be used to adequately fund Social Security Disability, Medicare and Medicaid, and the food stamps that many of his own employees at Amazon and elsewhere have to rely on to make ends meet,” Appelbaum said.
“Jeff Bezos’s business model includes feasting on public subsidies—and the U.S. Senate must not acquiesce to his demands,” he added. “Furthermore, until Jeff Bezos changes the way his employees are mistreated and dehumanized at Amazon and elsewhere, no elected official should support the passage of subsidies for him or any of his projects.”
No. Congress should not provide a $10 billion handout to Jeff Bezos for space exploration as part of the defense spending bill. Unbelievable.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has condemned the NDAA for containing $52 billion in “corporate welfare” for Big Tech. Explaining why he would vote against the NDAA, Sanders said Tuesday that “combining these two pieces of legislation would push the price tag of the defense bill to over $1 trillion—with very little scrutiny.”
“Meanwhile,” he added, “the Senate has spent month after month discussing the Build Back Better Act and whether we can afford to protect the children, the elderly, the sick, the poor, and the future of our planet. As a nation, we need to get our priorities right.”
Originally published in Common Dreams by BRETT WILKINS and republished under Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
If four years of the Former Guy taught us anything, it’s that we have no time left for evil, soulless greed run amok
– Opinion & Analysis –
Recent attempts by politicians, beholden to the fossil fuel industry in Texas, to use the collapse of the energy infrastructure during the recent weather disaster as an opportunity to bash and trash wind and solar energy is an example of an unfortunate, banal and still common form of pure evil.
The deeper connections, easily seen lurking just beneath the surface, are rich and multilayered.
If this extreme weather disaster is one of many that are linked to climate change, a manifestation of dangers that climate scientists have been warning of for decades, the irony goes beyond just sick.
Wind and solar energy exist as an early and tentative positive step toward somehow stopping, or at least slowing down, the negative man-made climate change repercussions before it is too late.
The real reasons behind the Texas power grid collapse are related to traditional fossil fuel based energy sources and bad management of the energy infrastructure that can be traced back to an arrogant belief that Texas is better off without connections to the national system.
The local political response to this eminently preventable catastrophe was to bash and trash and blame the very technology that, ultimately, is part of a tentative start to actually begin to solve the bigger problem of man-made climate change.
…the time is gone to accept “two sides” to an argument that, by postponing any real solutions, will kill us all.
Just as the history of the internal combustion engine and the fossil fuel and auto industry’s attempts to prolong its near monopoly, using disinformation and other tactics for over 50 years was evil, the anti-sustainable energy politics in Texas today is just a continuation of that effort.
The time is gone to accept “two sides” to an argument that has one side trying, by attempting to postpone any real solutions, to kill us all, in the name of short term greed.
Under unique circumstances lending legitimacy to evil is too costly to condone
Looking at “both sides” of an issue is a practice based on a theory that “reasonable people” can disagree on diametrically opposed views. This idea is often suspended, however, by unreasonable people for their own reasons. That is sometimes called “war”.
Reasonable people, people, for example that understand climate science and want to prevent the total destruction of the earth and the extinction of all inhabitants, are often reluctant to suspend this idea of “good people on both sides” by their very nature as caring individuals.
“Now we need to understand that the “silence of one good man” can spell disaster for all good people. Each of us who remained passive as our impending disaster continued might have been the one “good man” who didn’t act, didn’t speak out, didn’t resist…
Now is a time when huge changes are going to be forced by an external and highly powerful and dangerous threats to our survival. The changes that are needed involve radically new ways of thinking and acting across many spheres of activity.
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
New technologies, such as the aforementioned wind turbines and solar collectors, new forms of transportation, new ways of looking at other causes of, and remedies to, the excessive expulsion of carbon into the atmosphere will be absolutely required.
The truth is that for these new ways of thinking and acting to take over in human commerce the old ways must be cancelled. With extreme prejudice.
The past and those that want to go back to it are a lost cause, unfortunately
Many many “rich” people will be unhappy about this. And they will have politicians in their pocket that will gladly spread lies and disinformation to try and sustain the sick, evil gravy-train of polluting, carbon spewing systems as long as possible.
Sick and evil, not because those ways of surviving for humanity, burning fossil fuels and using them for a million different things that were a benefit in the short term, but because the short term is over.
The various arguments that somehow it is a good idea not to change and for the changes to slow down and not step on any toes as they gradually become “viable” have zero validity as of today (really as of 25 years ago but that’s water under the bridge).
Eventually the climate itself will kill them for their mistakes. Unfortunately it will also kill the rest of us if we allow them to continue to postpone positive change with lies and disinformation.
– D.L.
There must be an understanding among “reasonable” people, people who want to be part of an urgent crusade to save the world, literally, that points of view and the people who espouse them represent evil, plain and simple.
They will scream that reasonable people are “femi-nazis and “eco-terrorists” and say and do whatever it takes to protect what’s left of a deadly status quo. But they are wrong.
Eventually the climate itself will kill them for their mistakes. Unfortunately it will also kill the rest of us if we allow them to continue to postpone positive change with lies and disinformation.
“Every one of these people is the banality of evil personified. Every one of them became what Arendt called a “leaf blowing in the whirlwind of time.” Now every one of them bears responsibility for what could lie ahead.”
This change in thinking about how to respond to this kind of evil will be a more important factor in the survival of humanity than all the technological advances combined.
“World War III is a guerrilla information war with no division between military and civilian participation.” – Marshall McLuhan (1970), Culture is Our Business, p. 66.
–Marshall McLuhan
“Info-wars” were predicted as the battlefield of WWIII by Marshall McLuhan in 1970 and now we are in it and there must be an understanding of what is at stake.
When disinformation is used as a perennial weapon against positive, necessary change it is necessary to do more than disagree. It is necessary to expose the lies and, more importantly, the obvious sick and criminal motives for the lies. Over and over as often as necessary.
Tesla CEO, Elon Musk took to Twitter and tagged the official account for the Kremlin to ask if Russian president, Vladimir Putin would like to join him in the new social networking audio-only app Clubhouse.
He then followed up with the initial question with a tweet in Russian, when translated, reads: “it would be a great honor to talk to”. It is unclear what his ideas are on the topic or goal of having this highly visible, public, yet intimate chat. Speculations have pointed to issues that SpaceX, Starlink and Tesla have had getting opportunities in Russia, but the real reason or outcome could be something entirely different. Never a dull moment when Elon takes to social networking:
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call: “In general, this is of course a very interesting proposal, but we need to understand what is meant, what is being proposed… first we need to check, then we will react.”
Subscribe to our newsletter and get the latest updates sent directly to your inBox.
“We want to figure it out first. President Putin does not personally use social networks directly, he doesn’t have them” said Peskov.
This isn’t the first invitation Elon Musk has publicly asked of high profile people, last week he also asked and seemingly confirmed via Twitter that he and Kanye West would chat on the app. At this time there has been no confirmation of date or time when the two would be on Clubhouse, however there have been many rooms on the highly anticipated topic (Where is Kanye West?).
Prominent business and political figures have been propelling the Clubhouse app to a large increase in membership, even while the app is still invitation only and iOS-only (no android yet).
Mark Zuckerberg, who has allegedly been studying the app to produce his own copycat version, as well as celebs like Oprah and The Rock and many others have also all set up accounts and been involved in chats (room sessions).
Yesterday there was an hours long session hosted my Mr. Beast of YouTube fame who has nearly 50 million followers on the video streaming platform.
Above: Collage by Lynxotic, Original Photo by Rosie Kerr on Unsplash
Clubhouse: Social Audio App, currently iOS only and invitation required
Clubhouse is a fast growing “new” social media sensation that is growing at an amazing rate. It is also constantly morphing in an endless kaleidoscopic experience that comes from an amazing new technology: the conference call.
Exploring the paradox that having no gifs, no photos, no memes, not even a string of text is now the most added social app with the biggest buzz is as good a starting point as any.
Imagine you are unable to text, unable to send or post a photo, unable to speak unless you are called up or invited to be on on stage, need to use your real name for sign-up and must adhere to the specified topics and protocols of each room.
Sounds restrictive right? But it is this very contrast with other forms of social media that seems, for many, liberating, even transcendent. Once you realize that you are in a room with, in some cases, 12 or so people on stage and thousands of people listening in the audience, its a bit like a panel discussion, but in a smaller rooms it’s like a small gang in Philly circled around an oil drum fire chatting (or conspiring as it were) while they rub their hands together to keep warm.
Next, imagine, in a few years, when apple’s “Animoji” capability is added, perhaps with a body, the ability to walk around with some scenic backgrounds and you have “Ready Player One” in real life.
Obviously gaming platforms approximate this but for non-gamers, as the tech sophistication advances, it becomes more viable and interesting. And it’s the enthusiasm from the public exploding for the speech only version of this that could be key in hastening the realization.
On the other hand, clubhouse users are raving about, while others are lamenting, the intense intimacy that comes with speaking to, or sometimes whispering in, each other’s ears. The ASMR version of a conference call. With an audience.
There are also music rooms and a music mode – a higher fidelity version of a room where singing playing instruments and more is possible. The idea is to eventually do concerts (possibly paid) and even live collaborations and more.
The phenomenal nature and accelerated adoption since the launch is is perhaps just as much a reaction to the chaos and collisions that are so ubiquitous on platforms like Twitter, Instagram and others, as it is a fascination with the “new-yet-old” options enabled by the Clubhouse technology.
Add to all this the perfect synchronicity of the first lockdown phase of the pandemic corresponding to the initial public launch in March, 2020 and you have a historic paradigm shift that may well carry forward for years or even decades. Adaptation to new ways of communicating as a necessity and a natural next step.
How to get your account set up and what’s-what in the app
For a basic breakdown: the app is audio only. Once you are invited (or get on the waiting list and are let in by a sponsor) and ready to set up your account you will be prompted for the usual things, username, real name, bio, phone number and so forth. You can also direct-connect a live link for Twitter and Instagram accounts, which is where the “DMs” have to happen since the app has no built in messaging.
Once in, you will see there are “rooms” and “clubs”. Rooms are always available and can be joined or created by all members. If you join a “live” room you are, as default, put into the “audience” which has two sub-sections: the “followed by the speakers” section which gives you a kind of front row seat, and the “non-followed” regular audience. The audience members have no microphone button and cannot speak without it.
To become a speaker you can click on a “hand” symbol which activates “raise your hand” allowing any “moderator” (designated with a “green bean” asterisk icon) to invite you to the “stage”, which is where the speakers reside.
The moderators do have the power to interrupt a speaker or even kick a speaker back to the audience, thereby removing any speaking privileges.
The magic of the app is in this structure, clubhouse etiquette, and the ability to have multi-minds from all walks of life that, generally, choose a topic for the room and then, with the guidance of the moderators, get input from various speakers on stage.
“Clubs” are like permanent rooms that also have signed-up members (some have thousands or tens of thousands of them) and these often have scheduled sessions, weekly, daily or otherwise, in advance.
Search Interest in Clubhouse
According to data from Exploding Topics, searches for “clubhouse app” have increased by 99x over the last 6 months. And are up 3250% over the last 90 days.
The celebrity juice effect; enter Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Robinhood’s CEO, Zendaya and more
Rooms and clubs vary in content style, membership and atmosphere, almost in as many ways as can be imagined.
At the top of the list for the media buzz are the recent “spontaneous” appearances of huge names like Musk & Zuckerberg, Andrew Yang, Zendaya, Guy Kiyosaki and many more.
In these “hot” rooms, the audience is currently capped at five thousand, and in the big demand-surges they create “spillover” rooms which are listen-only and also cap out at five thousand each.
Needless to say, when word spreads that a huge celebrity, especially a tech luminary, is in the house the demand for the room skyrockets. This is also a kind of beta test for the servers and for the potential of the future changes expected for the app: paid content.
Various ideas have been floated, including “creator” payments, but it is unclear if there will be an admission fee for certain events-based or high-demand rooms, or if some other system will be used to compensate “star” moderators and content creators.
Since the experience shares some characteristics with podcasts, albeit live, and radio, the professional communities from those industries along with Vloggers, social media marketing pros, influencers, a lots and lots of people in finance, fin-tech and most of all Venture Capital, Angel Investors and Startup mentors are everywhere in the house.
Notable Clubhouse Users
Clubhouse has added a number of notable users over the last few months. Here’s a list of notable people that are currently on the platform:
According an article in Medium by Will Oremus as well as another By Casey Newton in The Verge, the initial population of invited members on the app were primarily from tech leaders, tech investors and venture capitalists. Due to this somewhat puzzling choice – as opposed to, for example, college students, there is a feeling that the Clubhouse is built to create a safe space for accomplished, established tech stars and personalities to be on stage as they might at SWSX or CES (more the former), without being heckled by journalists or the audience (which is by definition on mute).
There’s a somewhat conspicuous absence of political rooms or anything related to journalism or digital media, which according to the articles above is potentially by design. Even that has already started to change, however.
With a kind of trade-show, live podcast-feeling and endless variations in topics added to the almost overwhelming changes and expansion of speakers and audiences, any disappointing feelings you may have about using the app are likely to disappear once the next, totally different room or topic is encountered. Like the weather in Montana.
Social status competition that carries over from other platforms is rampant but not all pervasive
At this point, many rooms and clubs are, not surprisingly about making money and / or how to achieve success online, on social media networks in particular. Aa a powerful educational tool, these rooms can seem like you are auditing a lecture or panel discussion at Harvard, or at least your local community college.
At the same time many on stage come across as having an eye on the prize of becoming, by early entry, a clubhouse star, just as everyone saw with TikTok and YouTube beforehand.
And that lust for acceptance and followers (there are no likes or heart emojis to gift) can create an odd mixture of profusely and oft professed love for prospective followers combined with a fear of possible encroachment by lower level competitors looking for status by getting more attention.
Fortunately, as more Rooms and Clubs proliferate, many topics and learning categories have various rooms to choose from, and the ones with the most professional and genuine moderation and room-vibes will likely be the most popular.
No one really knows how the evolution and expansion will manifest, but it will not be dull to watch it unfold, at least not for quite a while.
Politics, controversy and offbeat subject matter are only now beginning to proliferate…
An odd and strange exception to the dearth of political fireworks came in a club session recently that featured a very, very angry man railing against, surprise, the media (and its coverage of the US gov). I won’t mention any names as recording and perhaps quoting from rooms is verboten.
To paraphrase the gist of his wildly eloquent tirade, on a level one might expect from a highly educated technologist, he posited that “because he is very smart” “team fortify” (his coinage for the “blue team” that sounded like shorthand for Democrats and some part of the left) was going to destroy him “reputationally” [sic], “financially and potentially, physically” (meaning he expects to be killed for being too smart) and that his response to that is “Fuk You!”.
He repeated this several times in alternation with his ultra-educated machine-gun word-bullets aimed at an unseen enemy, all with an incredible furor and volume. He never elaborated, during the time I listened in, as to what hits his reputation or finances had taken and seemed to be physically quite alive.
He was surrounded on “stage” by some extremely impressive, talented and articulate people who also seemed somewhat baffled as to why the man was so incredibly upset. No one dared to contradict him or say much except to mirror his highly intelligent ramblings with supportive sounding intellectual elaboration on his larger point, which was something like “the bad guys are expecting to be considered good guys because that are better than the really bad guys.”
There were around 3000 in the silent audience (no clapping or sound of any kind allowed).
The experience of that club session was truly surreal and perhaps a preview of what may come when the android half of the world joins and the most “engaging” characters begin to make waves (and dollars) via this new medium.
Clubhouse (and similar voice and audio based social media networks or features) is here to stay and will only get more interesting
While there are many disappointing reactions that are natural to feel, like how quickly all the biographical pages of members suddenly look like the emoji-filled corollary on Twitter, the fascinating diversity of ideas options and uses far outweigh the negative aspects.
And, although, mirroring an Instagram norm, people religiously compete to see how few others they can follow while amassing thousands of followers themselves (in the belief that status comes from being so desirable that every one needs you but you don’t need anyone else), this may not remain, as Clubhouse, for the most part, does not have much in the way o bikini competitions or other glamor and status seeking options of that type.
For some, it might be just too intense to speak directly with people you’ve never met and perhaps never will, even as hundreds or thousands listen in.
If that’s the case, you can still just pop into a room or join a club on your favorite topic. Once there you can listen, learn and build the confidence to raise your hand and give your 2 cents, or even get invited to be onstage as a featured speaker.
Please tune in for more updates on new features and developments, as this article will be the first in a series on Clubhouse and the new social audio revolution..
On a crazy night Zuckerberg, KimDotCom and Guy Kawasaki all join rooms at the same time
Clubhouse, the red hot “social audio” app which is growing, even by invitation only by the millions per week. Part of the appeal is the up-close and personal audio interactions that happen among people from all walks of life; including big names. Last week it was Elon Musk “interviewing” the CEO of Robinhood (see video below).
KimDotCom is a bit of a crazy one, could be perhaps called infamous rather than famous, as the founder of “MegaUpload” and the New Zealand Extradition saga. There’s a strange kind of irony to having Mark Zuckerberg show up. Obviously it shows how Clubhouse is just too hot to ignore – it will probably spur rumors that he is circling the rooms with designs on acquiring or copying the app.
We have been testing Clubhouse for a future feature article and it is truly remarkable what the atmosphere is while using the app. The intimacy of group audio, combined with a kind of democratic algorithm / interface (for the most part), makes for a social media experience that is nothing like any other platform that has caught on.
In some ways it’s like being at a huge trade show like CES and going to a keynote or a panel discussion. However, the fact that it is live 24/7 365 days a year makes for more impromptu access, more spontaneity and more… chaos (sometimes for good or…).
I’m tryna see Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook in the same Clubhouse room
Clubhouse was launched, in what may be the most fantastically serendipitous timing ever, in March 2020. Tearing a page, ironically, from the Zuckerberg and Facebook playbook, it has been and continues to be an invitation only club.
After the session with Zuckerberg was over one of the “Stage” speakers coined the term “Digital Teepee” to describe the feeling of being in such an intimate setting with such a controversial figure like Mark Zuckerberg. Others speculated what his motivations might have been to join the club.
Here’s what Mark Zuckerberg said on Clubhouse about AR, VR, and Remote Work
In a nod to the “Trade-show” aspect the first affinity group was… Venture Capitalists
In an interesting twist, however, the initial focus for invites was not on college students, as was the case with the early days of facebook, but mainly consisted of venture capitalists.
Perhaps this was indirectly related to the fact that , Alpha Exploration Co., the company behind Clubhouse was launched after a $12 million investment came from Andreessen Horowitz after they had only been in existence for approximately two months.
The invitations are being handed out more liberally now and the “club” is growing at over a million users per week at the moment. The demand is so extreme, however, that invites are even being sold on eBay in the US and even on equivalent platforms in China and elsewhere.
In a first, in what will almost surely crash the app again, Netflix will be doing a promotional room (which has never happened before) to promote Zendaya’s new film‘Malcolm & Marie’ which will be live on Netflix tomorrow.
Wisconsin & Arizona Certified results while Georgia Republican Governor says he won’t break the law for his “hero”. The cards are stacking up against the criminal grifter in the WH and not in any way that was “rigged” by anyone but him.
We are all still waiting for him to recede from the public discourse (haha not discourse in his case) but in the end it is ok to want to congratulate Biden and all of those that helped him win so we can all be rid of the terrorist clown club.
Though there are many who do not look fondly on “never-Trumpers” like The Lincoln Project and plain that they had a self-serving agenda, nonetheless, they were a powerful force in countering the Russian-bot army that would possibly otherwise have made 2020 more like 2016.
And the MeidasTouch, RVAT and others all contributed to the fight with great ads that kept people informed of the dangers of a second term for the maniac, and at the same time used his own words, actions and inactions to prove that he had to go, one way or another.
We’ve compiled some of the greatest hits here and think we should all give ourselves permission, one last time, to revel in the absurdity that this man was ever “leader of the free world” and how glad we are that ads like these will soon be in the history books (internet archives).
As antitrust suits loom, a digital tax appears as additional government option
Related to French “digital tax” hopes, and which may have future repercussions for other tech related regulation attempts, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook have” signs on for the “Tech for Good Call”. Amazon has declined which Apple continues to negotiate, according to reports.
A list was released by the French government with signatures of 75 executives of tech companies who have signed up to the initiative so far. Notably, the list included Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Microsoft President Brad Smith. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Apple’s Tim Cook were absent, however.
For nearly three years President Emmanuel Macron of France has attempted to convince tech giants to begin collaborating with governments to seek remedies for a list of global challenges. Examples are; fighting hate speech online, preserving privacy or paying a so-called “digital-tax”, presumably to offset negative economic effects of the overwhelming dominance of big tech.
Reuters reports that Macron’s advisers said on Monday that the president had asked tech companies to sign up to a new initiative called “Tech for Good Call” underlining principles for the post-COVID world. This development comes as “anti-big-tech” sentiment is increasing, particularly during the massive profit spike the giants are enjoying due to a devastating world-wide pandemic.
A general publicity based initiative could be leverage for negotiations to rein in tech giants
Also, according to Reuters, the “Tech for Good Call” includes a non-binding pledge to “contribute fairly to the taxes in countries where (they) operate”; refrain & prevent the dissemination of “child sexual abuse material, terrorist or extreme violence online contents”; and “support the ecological transition”, in addition to other things.
Though not legally binding, it is expected that the French will use this tentative agreement to in negotiations during upcoming global forums on regulating Big Tech.
In addition to antitrust suits underway in the US and Europe, the idea of a “digital tax” is being explored and attempted with France and Australia leading the way.
The building chorus for regulation against Google and Facebook stem from the extremely dominant position each holds online, with Google having near total control of search traffic and advertising, while Facebooks monopoly in social media concerns its use of that position to monetize private data through advertising.
Also, according to Reuters, the “Tech for Good Call” includes a non-binding pledge to “contribute fairly to the taxes in countries where (they) operate”; refrain & prevent the dissemination of “child sexual abuse material, terrorist or extreme violence online contents”; and “support the ecological transition”, in addition to other things.
Though not legally binding, it is expected that the French will use this tentative agreement to in negotiations during upcoming global forums on regulating Big Tech.
In addition to antitrust suits underway in the US and Europe, the idea of a “digital tax” is being explored and attempted with France and Australia leading the way.
The building chorus for regulation against Google and Facebook stem from the extremely dominant position each holds online, with Google having near total control of search traffic and advertising, while Facebooks monopoly in social media concerns its use of that position to monetize private data through advertising.
“The supportive chorus of elected officials is giving assurance to [the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)] and the [Federal Trade Commission (FTC)] that they have the political support they need to blunt [the companies’] efforts … to pressure the agencies to back off or water down their cases,” former FTC Chairman William Kovacic told WSJ.
“Serious Journalist”, a phrase that, these days, almost seems like an oxymoron. “Investigative Reporter”, where have those all gone?
According to the New York Post, over 500 daily newspapers went out of business between 1970 and 2016. More recently, between January, 2017 and April 2018, one third of the largest newspapers in the US reported layoffs. Buzzfeed and Huffington Post among other “new media” outlets reported massive layoffs in 2017, 2018 and again in February of this year.
The Huffington Post, as just one example among many, paid most writers “nothing” for years and, although they had ad revenue of tens of millions of dollars in 2018, nevertheless, failed to show a profit.
For any of us in the current generation, all of this seems like old news. Yet, with all that is going on in the world, and facing down a, hopefully, longer future to endure within it, we should look to the past, even what seems like ancient history, to recapture a thread to what may have been lost, and to what a lone individual with “balls and a heart” can do. Mike Wallace was one such individual.
“We are, for the first time in modern history, facing the prospect of how societies would exist without reliable news”
Alan Rusbridger, The Guardian, editor-in-chief
In 2012 we lost a man who virtually defined both “serious journalist” and “investigative reporter” and all of us, in the media and the general public, would do well to look back at who Mike Wallace was, and what he did during his 93 years. Although rightfully revered, Woodward and Bernstein’s famous story of taking on the corrupt Nixon administration during the Watergate scandal was not the only blueprint for investigative storytelling that had the informative power to move the masses.
The truth hurts, as the saying goes. And it hurts more when you are a corrupt politician or a business mogul submersed in your own greed and lust for power.
Today’s world and future generations would be well served to view “Mike Wallace is Here” as a time-capsule showing what freedom of the press and the power of the Fourth Estate can produce in a country to attempts to practice democratic principles.
Could we see a Zuckerberg or a Bezos or a Trump or Trump supporter in Congress holding up well in an interview with Mike Wallace? Is there a modern equivalent of a interviewer or reporter who at once holds the power of his popularity, as a carrot to entice an interviewee to submit to an interview, and yet wields the stick of truth and is not afraid to use it? Or do we at least still comprehend the concept?
Sadly, no, and this points to how the release of this movie should really be seen: as a clarion call to current and future generations, to educate themselves on how it is possible to have the balls to stand up to greed, power and, yes, evil.
Spider-Man? Iron Man? This film should be seen and promoted as a Super Hero movie about the real world. Mike Wallace was not a perfect person. He was known to be a tough, cantankerous workaholic up to the very end. But his more than fifty years of standing up for principles of truth and the positive power of the press the affect change, amount to a legacy of which even Iron Man could be proud.
It was Wallace, who, at his peak, on 60 minutes in the 60s and 70s, could confront a scoundrel in an interview and change waves public perception in an instant, outing the evil and the corrupt.
Clash of Corporate Interests, and One Man Standing Up
The Oscar-winning movie “The Insider” has a sequence showing the last vestiges of this power as Wallace, played by Christopher Plummer in the film, clashes with the corporate heads of CBS who want to block his plan to air an interview with whistle blower Jeffrey Wigand, played by Russell Crowe, who gave an on-air interview where he exposed some of the tobacco industry’s darkest secrets.
Although Wallace said he hated the film, primarily as it depicted him as not standing up enough against the top brass at CBS regarding the story’s airing, it shows his unflinching, abrasive style when the truth was on the line. His career was a master class in taking risks in order to change opinions about injustices perpetrated by evil men and women, and as a result, changing minds and a small part of the world. The Wigand interview finally aired on February 4, 1996, after a protracted battle to prevent it from being shown.
The tobacco industry eventually had to pay for at least some of it’s misconduct, but in retrospect, the media was already losing it’s power to use investigation and information to affect change and expose corruption.
This all seems like ancient history, with Russian fake news hackers electing presidents, people thinking of facebook as a source of “real” information, and the idea of a journalist having the ability to fight evil, using little more than a well timed, provocative live interview, seems like science fiction.
This film “Mike Wallace is Here” may not win an Oscar, but should be seen by anyone wanting to observe a master at work, standing up to anyone and everyone that crossed his path. And how Wallace used nerve and cunning to expose the truth, often at the expense of the truly corrupt and pernicious.
“Mike Wallace is Here” is scheduled for US release on July, 26, 2019.
Summary from IMDB:
For over half a century, “60 Minutes” fearsome newsman Mike Wallace went head-to-head with the world’s most influential figures. Relying exclusively on archival footage, the film interrogates the interrogator, tracking Mike’s storied career and troubled personal life while unpacking how broadcast journalism evolved to today’s precarious tipping point.
With all the amazing products and software updates unveiled at Apple’s WWDC 2019, you’d think the viral meme would be something related. You’d be wrong. The trending topic for the first several days was… the monitor stand.
More specifically, the price of the monitor stand. Before you get really confused, it’s more the fact that the price was quoted separately, not a usual thing in general for monitor pricing. But this is no usual monitor.
As the name implies: The Pro Display XDR is meant for professional use. Hence the fairly hefty 5k price tag. So far, no big deal, right? Had Apple just announced a professional monitor, comparable in specs to pro monitors costing upwards of forty thousand dollars for 6k$, we’d probably have seen articles lauding them for creating thirty-four thousand in “savings”.
Further, if they had announced that the $6,000 monitor could be purchased “sans stand” for only 5k$, again, it’s all good. Instead, it was accidentally implied that the average-joe (who wants to buy a professional stand) would have to pay 5k$ for the screen and then another 1k$ for the “optional” stand.
Once this was announced scribes and haters all across the land began to decry the injustice to the world that this “arrogant” company would have the nerve to charge “as much as an iPhone XS”for nothing but a chunk of metal.
The race was on to compile the most outrageous comparisons: “you can buy an entire gaming PC for the price!”, wrote one, “it’s everything wrong with Apple today“, screamed another. After many such articles, each more ridiculous than the last, the “grown ups” began to chime in.
Digital Deflation is a Tricky Business
Finally, it was pointed out that professional video or film editing businesses, the folks for whom this stand was designed and priced, tend to have studio edit bays custom built for the purpose of high end editing, processing and color correcting, among other professional activities.
These bays, generally designed by a high tech professional architect, who costs himself, many times the “outrageous” $999, and monitor screens (you know, those forty thousand dollar ones mentioned by apple in the presentation), are generally wall mounted or set up on proprietary house-owned stands that go for far more than $999. The bays also have professional lighting design (to prevent visual inaccuracies when evaluating high end content), and, more often than not, really cool (read: expensive), furniture.
The plot thickens…
So, wait, what was really announced is that those same pros described above could opt-out of a monitor stand they do not need and save the much whined about $999? You don’t say. How nice those Apple folks are. So thoughtful. Trying to help rich folks avoid paying $999 for a stand that will end up in a storage room.
Why so misunderstood then, if this is all so obvious? Digital Deflation. Yes, that nasty sounding trend that has changed the world around us for more than 25 years.
History of cost reduction to zero dollars
To make sense of this hilarious tale, it seems, we have to first go back. Waaaay Baaack. All the way to around 1996. At that time there was no 8k video to edit, let alone multiple streams of said 8k. Nevertheless, a professional workstation, absolutely necessary at the time to do any non-linear editing or EFX, would set you back around $100,000+. And those monitors? They’d likely be CRT and still cost 50k or some ungodly number.
Many of the processes that were routinely required in editing, color correcting and EFX generation could not be achieved on any computer or software alone. Everything had hardware add-ons, tally up another 50k here and 50k there.
So, once again, why the huge misunderstanding?
Fast forward to 2019. Your iPhone can shoot excellent 4k video anywhere, anytime, since it’s already in your pocket. Cost: zero additional dollars after owning the phone.
Add to that software, if you are on a budget you can forego the daunting challenge of coughing up a couple of hundred dollars to buy Final Cut Pro (there’s that pesky “Pro” again in the name), and go with Blackmagic Design’s “DaVinci Resolve” software, which happens to include excellent non-linear editing, EFX generation and management, color correction and much more. Price tag? For the functioning entry level version, zero dollars. For added professional functionality, a few hundred dollars.
Bottom line, if you already have an iPhone and some kind of Mac, zero dollars.
Tricky Business, Indeed
Here’s where it really gets crazy. Apple, and other tech companies, have, in essence, engendered this deflation by reducing the costs of everything needed for digital media creation, at a higher and higher level to, practically, zero$.
Great, right? Well, not entirely. It seems that when the cost of production nears zero, the monetization of the fruits of creation head south even faster. Translation? It’s damn hard to get paid if you are a freelancer producing and editing digital media products. Only the highest level creators (Hollywood Heavyweights, top of the charts, you get the idea) can garner much of anything, and, of course, they can afford many times that $999 for fruit toppings at breakfast.
Everyone else (a.k.a. “the rest of us”) live in side-hustle hell. Hence the moans, groans, and whining over the “dream” of having $999 to spare for a monitor stand.
So, to re-cap, the same people who were “gifted” by massive advances in technical capabilities spearheaded by apple, to the point where millions of dollars of production overhead for hardware was reduced to almost zero, were also victims of an unemployment epidemic, unleashed by the “barriers to entry” for their chosen profession being reduced to… wait for it… zero.
And, yea, by the way, all this applies double to writers working for digital media outlets. So let the angst flow freely next time an arrogant monolithic company has the audacity to release a pro product at a pro price. I feel ya, Dog, I really do.
On the one hand, after more than a decade of growth and pure digital news models showing potential financial viablility, profitability remains elusive. On the other, a tsunami of artificial intelligence, software and hardware improvements over the last 2 years, in particular, have begun to reduce overheads, especially for those bulk production techniques such as employed by BuzzFeed.
While legacy publishers are showing some marginal improvement in subscription revenues, the business model for online media and content production continues to shift in search of a sustainable income mix. Cost of human contributions to content is an obvious issue.
“The restructuring we are undertaking will reduce our costs and improve our operating model so we can thrive and control our own destiny, without ever needing to raise funding again”
.@peretti email to staff: “Revenue growth by itself isn’t enough to be successful in the long run. The restructuring we are undertaking will reduce our costs and improve our operating model so we can thrive and control our own destiny, without ever needing to raise funding again” https://t.co/vvpCnMhPNF
Lowering overhead by cutting staff is the message sent as the primary explanation for the industry-wide layoffs. Digging just beneath the surface, however, is the not-so-gradual shift in technology that allow digital content production organizations to ramp up output while at the same time reducing costs.
Read: more work done by A.I., software and robots and fewer humans required. Result: Accelerated Digital Deflation.
The entire history of tech advances since the ubiquity of the personal computer has engendered digital deflation (ask anyone in the music industry). Meanwhile, advancements over the last couple of years are creating a massive acceleration of this trend, based on a shift toward automated production in all facets of content creation.
As a content creator the perspective seems amusingly bifurcated; improved tools for visual and verbal expression must be welcomed and adapted to, all while working in a monetization system that does not yet favor the individual creator.
Perhaps a headline: “Thousands of Humans Rendered Obsolete By Improved Robot Software” would seem less compassionate than merely indicating that they (the humans) stood in the way of reaching profitability?
In the long run, using more A.I., together with improved hardware and software tools to increase productivity in digital communication, will lead to lowered barriers to entry. And, for content creators and those 1000+ professionals just liberated, it might be best to consider all their options. One of the best may be to establish a free-lance future using the very technology that erased those jobs in the first place.
