Tag: Social Issues

Ben Rhodes, Facebook, and News Manipulation

A New York Times profile of Ben Rhodes inflamed controversy on a number of fronts. First on Ben Rhodes contempt for journalists and his claim that he manipulated reporters to push the Obama Administration’s narrative on the Iran Deal, and secondly on claims of poor reporting. Aside from displaying the arrogance of Ben Rhodes, and possibly the administration, it shows that the primary manipulation of news is still done by people, not by algorithms and not for pageviews.

More traditional news media has been breaking down for some time now and another story highlights the consequences of that. A recent report by Gizmodo displayed the manipulation of trending news topics at Facebook. Facebook has become an important source of news and a primary means of information dissemination for a large part of the Western populace. And now, with the fake news scandal after the election it is obvious that people are the culprit and not merely algorithms.

Pressure to break stories, because the first person or organization to post a story online will get an enormous bump in traffic, has never been greater for journalists. This has led to the fraying of ethics and helps people like Ben Rhodes manipulate the public. So now, as prominent individuals manipulate the traditional media, and unreliable news sources overwhelm social media, the basis for public cooperation in democratic governments is eroding. The prospect of the collapse of democracies is not unthinkable as it may have once been.

"Pricking Media Bubbles" with Trevor Noah and Tomi Lahren

There has been a lot of sober, respectful applause (especially from the left) concerning the debate between Tomi Lahren and Trevor Noah. Dialogue and discourse is the only way to make conservatives realize they are wrong – this seems to be the argument of many liberal observers. The idea that the left and right inhabit different media landscapes is certainly correct, but bursting those bubbles is not so simple. It certainly seems to make sense: if you want to engage people of different political positions, have their avatars (with large followings) debate.

But it is a sad commentary that Trevor Noah, a comedian, and Tomi Lahren, an enraged commentator  best known for two-minute anti-liberal screeds, are the political right and left’s surrogates. The type of discussion they had lacks the intellectual rigor of true debate, does nothing to bridge the gap between left and right, and exposes the two personalities as purveyors of cynical, insincere outrage. The two figures can come together and calmly discuss issues which, on their own programs, they rail on or against to provide the needed fix of outrage for their audience.

If Trevor Noah and Tomi Lahren are avatars for their sides of the political spectrum than they display the shallowness of political opinion. The reactions to the debate have also exposed the hubristic naïveté of the left. To think that a debate like that does anything except raise the profiles of the two actors involved is foolish, it does not bridge political divides. Sustained understanding of universal facts can draw people together and closer to the same opinions. The show also exposed the outraged populism that has consumed the right. Instead of reasoned debate about government spending there is outrage over Black Lives Matter and other social issues, which are societal issues more than governmental.

This was nothing more than an advertisement for the two, and it should not be seen as a model for bringing the country together. The two did nothing to burst media bubbles, but surely inflated their own sense of importance and moral righteousness.

Technology and Information in the Western World

At the start of the 21st Century it was obvious that information (data, communications, news) was valuable as it had not been before. The ability to collect, utilize, and disseminate information reaped efficiencies and knowledge from the multitudinous amalgamation of modern society. Sifting and organizing this data became the paramount task for business and government, and the sifting is done with algorithms. Algorithms dominate modern life in subtle and pervasive ways and they are often placed on a pedestal: the better the algorithm the better your software. With all of this data and all of this organization of data, there is a loss of focus on the issues data is actually used to resolve. There is a dark side to the task of intertwining society and reducing every tendency and action to a data point – and it’s not Big Brother sifting through your personal life that is a problem.

People are the problem. Technology does not exist in a vacuum and it exists to aid people. Technology does not make all decisions for us. The proliferation of data has led to a problem that algorithms cannot solve. People must interpret and use the data, and if there is so much information available to the public, it is up to people to filter it themselves and decide what is important to listen to. There is also the problem of trying to force people to be better at reaching certain data points. For instance, children shouldn’t get a higher grade on an English exam, they should be better at analyzing and writing in the language. Likewise, people shouldn’t just read more information, they should be analyzing the available information more efficiently.

A narrative after the presidential election centers around the dissemination of fake news and its possible impact on the outcome. Much of the blame has centered on Facebook and social media for allowing the spread of fake news, but this criticism is misplaced. People must take some responsibility before we force technology to make decisions for us. The centrality of data and algorithms, information culture in its entirety, must be maintained as an AIDE and not as a LEADER.   Our reliance on technology cannot extend to giving up agency. If people cannot decide between believing fake news sources or not, and we need an algorithm to decide for us, then people are abdicating their right to self-government to mathematical constructs.

Fandom, the Ship of Theseus, and Corporate Culture

When Lebron James went from the Cleveland Cavaliers to the Miami Heat, it was widely noted that he left for a better chance at winning a championship. He grew up outside of Cleveland but it was understandable that he left, and it didn’t hurt his personal brand significantly. It diminished the Cleveland Cavaliers’ brand because they were missing a star athlete, but when he left the organization did not cease being the Cleveland Cavaliers.

There is a thought experiment in philosophy that is used to examine Platonic and Aristotleian concepts of ideas. If, over the course of time, every plank of a ship is replaced, what makes it the same ship as when it started? The same can be said of any professional sports team. A general answer to that question is memory is the determinant of the maintenance of identity. Certainly the athletes of a team identify with the goals of the team as they play for them, but a stronger determinant of team identity is the excitement of the fans. Fans stay in one place more and offer a stronger sense of location and history for teams and help differentiate them from one another. But the thing outside of this that often separates one team from another is its ownership and organizational culture and structure. When fans are rooting for a team because of the venerated genius of their system, organization, or technique (think Bill Belichick) they are rooting for a corporate culture. Teams are now even praised for their skill in navigating the marketplace, as in “Moneyball.”

Is there any deeper expression of American capitalism than the fact that fans are bonded to teams and creating their identities by rooting for the efficiency of their corporate structures? It is a tribute to the importance that we pay to organizational success and to the rise of computer-based analysis.

What does Freedom mean to me? Lots of guns.

The implementation of law allowing for the concealed carry of weapons on University campuses in Texas on August 1st is a perfect example of the increasingly distorted concept of “freedom” in the United States. The backers of the law tout the Second Amendment right to bear arms as being instrumental to the American concept of Liberty, and view an assault on the Second Amendment as an attack on the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution as a whole. This ideological concept of radical Liberty, including the right to bear arms in an academic setting, reveals itself to be problematic when put into practice. The response of Universities in Texas and of law enforcement to this new freedom has been to increase surveillance in order to better protect students and academicians. Not only does this express the inherent danger of increasing access to concealed weaponry, it undermines another, more universal aspect of human liberty: freedom from the threat of government intrusion and surveillance.

What is under threat is not American freedom and liberty, it is a clear presentation of what those concepts mean. If freedom is defined as protecting only the rights enshrined in the Constitution, and those rights are strictly defended against any rational restrictions, then we have, in fact, narrowed our definitions of liberty and freedom. Guns are not a terribly important part of personal freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from unfair coercion and surveillance by the government are all much more vital to our current system of governance than the unrestricted right to access firearms. These rights are not defended nearly as vociferously as gun rights in most public forums. The myriad opportunities and social safeguards provided by a liberal economic system and an independent judiciary are also keys to personal freedom in the United States. Focusing on such a limited form of freedom elevates it to a more prestigious position than it deserves, and obscures the fact that the benefits it provided to the populace in respect to the government were neutralized by the establishment of 1) a standing army, and 2) modern industrial techniques. The rights to freedom and privacy have not been made moot by changes in technology or institutional structures. If Americans wish to maintain their freedom from government interference it would be better for the citizenry to not make the Second Amendment the priority above all other rights.