Stelter takes the practical position (as have I) that many social media users and bloggers have become quasi-establishment journalists, supplementing the major media, and helping with “keeping them honest”, as Anderson Cooper often says. So amateurs need to take fact-checking seriously.
This freedom may well be undermined by a number of concerns explored here recently. These include erosion of downstream liability protections for service providers (the Backpage-Section 230 problem), increasing legal exposure to “amateur” journalists for certain kinds of hyperlinks and embeds, the fake news scandals of the past year (really, the observation that “average joe” social media users tend to follow tribal crowds rather than read critically), and particularly the ease with which teens and young adults seem to be recruited into violence, which includes but is by no means limited to radical Islam and gang activity. As I’ve noted here before, these kinds of concerns can make amateur journalism seem “gratuitous” (e.g unnecessary and capable of being shut down) although Trump seems much more concerned about the establishment (Fourth Estate) press than the newbies (Fifth Estate).
But you have to take seriously he demands made on social media platform and search engines to “pre-censor” user ouput.
Speakers on the Internet benefit in different ways from search engines, social media sites (some like Facebook create more opportunity for permanent “publication” than do others, like Snapchat), and shared or dedicated third-party hosting for conventional or blog sites; these providers also usually provide domain name registration. Users also benefit from security services like Cloudflare and SiteLock. Generally, social media sites are taking more “responsibility” for certain kinds of damaging speech (hate speech, bullying, or terror recruiting) than are neutral site hosts. However, after the Daily Stormer matter (post Charlottesville), a few hosts participated in kicking off at least one neo-Nazi site from domain registration.
The “Mediator” Jim Rutenberg wrote a piece “Terrorism Is Faster than Twitter” Nov. 5 in which he traces how NYC bicycle lane terrorist Sayfullo Saipov followed terror recipes exactly, and tries to explain where he found them. There are supporting details in a Nov. 2 story by Rukmin Callimachi There is reference to the magazine Rumiyah (related to Dabiq). A web operation called “Site Intel Group” tries to trace how this material is distributed on the web. Much of it moves to the Dark Web or P2P. Generally, it appears that material from these groups disappears quickly from better known social media and from conventionally hosted sites and moves around on offshore providers a lot. There are articles on the Internet Archive (“WayBack”) which require specific logon (rather uncommon for less controversial material). In general, it does not appear that the sort of material that the Boston Marathon or other domestic “lone wolf” or small cell terrorists tried to use came from the more conventionally accessed and indexed parts of the Web. Most of it seems pretty underground (after initial recruitment) with various encrypted apps. We’re left to ponder what is making some of these young men (and sometimes women) tick, and have to face that modern civilization, with its individualized hypercompetitiveness, seems to offer them only failure and shame.
(Posted: Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 6:45 PM EST)
Vox has a detailed commentary by Umair Irfan, pretty standard for mainstream and progressive media companies.
And this brings me to my next big point. The mainstream media has done a pretty good job of presenting the case that we need to take climate change very seriously, particularly if we take our responsibility to future (unconceived as well as unborn) generations as a moral issue (Point 5 of “DADT IV”)
Trump has played the denial game to his base with shocking effect, most of all when he announced June 1 that he was pulling out of the Paris accords on the day I was looking at the recovery from wildfires in Shenandoah.
The more mainstream conservative media (Fox, OANN) have demurred a bit but still covered the bases. Yet, we aren’t to the point that there is a bipartisan political will to face the problem with federal action, but there is obviously a lot incentive in private American hands.
On other issues that I view as “hidden in plain sight”, I could say that the major media have covered issues of fiscal sustainability (social security, population demographics, debt ceiling) with some consistency but again without the result of a political will to face the issue squarely, partly because the demographic component (longer life spans, fewer kids) seems so intractable.
So I come to the starkest issues that give me an incentive to “stay in the game” as a blogger. Notable, it’s hard for me to “join the movement” for an “oppressed group” when I think there are big issues that could blow our entire civilization (and make my whole life’s Akashic record pretty irrelevant and forgettable). And the biggest of these is the stability of the three major US power grids.
Part of the controversy concerns whether there really exist relatively inexpensive fixes (like neutral ground circuits) that (for maybe $10 or so per American, that is, a few billion dollars) make the grid far more resistant to terrorist or enemy attacks (especially E3 level) as well as to big “Carrington” solar storms. I’ve read that utilities in Virginia and Maine in particular have a head start on this issue.
Another part of the controversy really concerns the likelihood that an enemy (most recently in view, North Korea, as well as radical Islam) could credibly carry out an EMP attack (which doesn’t necessarily have to be nuclear) instead of a conventional thermonuclear strike. Again, the mainstream press has demurred on this somewhat.
So part of my own personal mission is to try to encourage the mainstream press, maybe starting with some of the more conservative news companies (Fox, OANN, Sinclair – which has reported on this as reported on this blog already) to give the public an objective assessment on the problem. Yes, I’m ready to get on planes and go interview people.
There are other problems that need this kind of approach. One is filial responsibility laws, part of the whole population demographics problem mentioned above. Another is, of course, the threats to our permissive atmosphere of user generated content on the web – ranging from Section 230 (the Backpage controversy) to fake news and enemy (especially by ISIS) recruitment, as just reported last night on AB 20-20 on a scathing report by Diane Sawyer (“ISIS in America”).
I have a particular take on the whole Russia fake-news and social media trolling thing. I have long been personally concerned that foreign enemies could target individual people (and those connected to these people, like family or business associates), such as what we saw from North Korea at the end of 2014 with the Sony Pictures hack. What I did not see was that enemies would try to goad “oppressed minorities” (BLM) or reactionaries to these minorities (less educated white males connecting back to white supremacist groups) into forming movements and fighting each other internally.
Diane Sawyer’s report (just mentioned) makes the good point that the asymmetry of the Internet (and user-generated content) makes young men who feel “powerless” or “left behind” individually dangerous in a way we haven’t seen before. That is part of the old inequality paradox: you need to accept inequality and ego to have innovation that benefits everyone, but then people need to somehow “pay their dues” or you get instability (the “Epilogue” or Chapter 6 of my DADT III book in 2014).
I write all this today by using other funds (some inherited, but mostly my own) to support my own news commentary activities. At some point, I need to partner up with someone to tackle some of the bigger problems I mentioned here (no, I really want to do better things with my life than scream in demonstrations for mass movements, but even my saying that is provocative). It’s true I am a globalist and somewhat “elitist’ but I call myself conservative (but in the libertarian sense, not Trump-ian). But I wanted to note that billionaire Joe Ricketts just shut down some local news sites he owns because they couldn’t pay their own way. His own WordPress blog post on unionization is interesting.
(Posted: Saturday, November 4, 2017 at 1 PM EDT)
Update: Friday, Nov. 10 (12 noon EST)
I have to note this article in Vox on the effect of “tribal elites” especially on the climate change debate. Sorry, I really do try to investigate the world’s woes (like the power grid exposure) “hands separately”. I could say, “tribalism is for losers”, ha ha. And I’d get executed or beheaded quickly and there would be no funeral.
CNN has run an op-ed by John Blake, “White Supremacists by Default: How ordinary people made Charlottesville possible.”
Yes, to some extent, this piece is an “I am my brother’s keeper” viewpoint familiar from Sunday School. But at another level the piece has major moral implications regarding the everyday personal choices we make, and particularly the way we speak out or remain silent.
I grew up in a way in which I did not become conscious of class or race or belonging to a tribe, or people. I was not exposed to the idea of “systematic oppression” against people who belong to some recognizable group. My self-concept was pretty separated from group identity.
I gradually became aware that I would grow up “different” especially with respect to sexuality. But I believed it was incumbent on me to learn to perform in a manner commensurate with my gender, because the welfare of others in the family or community or country could depend on that capacity. My sense of inferiority was driven first by lack of that performance, which then morphed into other ideas about appearance and what makes a male (or then female) look desirable.
I remember, back in the mid 1990s, about the time I was starting to work on my first DADT book, an African-American co-worker (another mainframe computer programmer) where I worked in northern Virginia said that he was teaching his young son to grow up to deal with discrimination. Another African-American coworker who had attended West Point said I had no idea what real discrimination was like, because I could just pass. (That person thought I lived “at home” with my Mother since I was never married.) I would subsequently be a witness in litigation by a former black employee whom I replaced with an internal transfer, and the “libertarianism” in my own deposition seemed to be noticed by the judge dismissing the case.
Indeed, the activism in the gay community always had to deal with the “conduct” vs. “group identity” problem, particularly during the AIDS crisis of the 1990s. Libertarians and moderate conservatives like me (I didn’t formally belong to Log Cabin Republicans but tended to like a lot of things about Reagan and personally fared well when he was in office) were focused on privacy (in the day when double lives were common) and personal responsibility, whereas more radical activists saw systematic oppression as related to definable gender-related class. Since I was well within the upper middle class and earned a good income with few debts and could pay my bills, both conservatives with large families and radical activists born out of disadvantage saw me as a problem.
The more radical commentators today are insisting that White Nationalists have an agenda of re-imposing or augmenting systematic oppression by race, even to be ultimate end of overthrowing normal civil liberties, reintroducing racial subjugation and other forms of authoritarian order. The groups on the extreme right are enemies (of people of color) as much as radical Islam has made itself an enemy of all civilization. Radicals insist that those who normally want to maintain some objectivity and personal distance must be recruited to actively fighting with them to eliminate this one specific enemy. This could lead to vigilantism (especially online) to those who speak out on their own but who will not join in with them. Ii do get the idea of systemic oppression, but I think that meeting has a lot more to do with the integrity of individual conduct. But this goes quite deep. Refusing to date a member of a different race could be viewed as active racism (June 26).
The possibility of including ordinary independent speakers or observers (or videographers) among the complicit indirect systematic “oppressors” should not be overlooked. Look at the comments and self-criticism of Cloudfare CEO Matthew Prince, about the dangers of new forms of pro-active censorship by Internet companies. This does bear on the Backpge-Section 230 problem, and we’ll come back to this again. In a world with so many bizarre asymmetric threats, I can imagine that Internet companies could expand the list of certain speech content that they believe they cannot risk allowing to stay up (hint: Sony).
I want to add, I do get the idea that many left-wing activists (not just limited to Antifa) believe that Trump was elected in large part by white supremacists and that there is a more specific danger to everyone else in what he owes this part of his base. I have not taken this idea very seriously before, but now I am starting to wonder.
(Posted: Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:15 PM EDT)
Every time I go into Twitter or Facebook on my new laptop, I get a lecture from Trend Micro on my lenient privacy settings.
Particularly I get warned that the Public can see my Facebook posts and Twitter messages, that others can tag me in photos, and that others can see personal information. On the last point, only “business address and phone” information ever gets posted online, anywhere. In fact, I normally don’t have circles of security clearances among who can see what information about me online. It’s all or nothing.
Some of my curiosity about this was motivated by the video in the previous post, where the speaker (a television station reporter) said that allowing anyone but approved “Friends” (Faceook) or approved “followers” (Twitter) would create gratuitous security risks that insurance companies would find unacceptable behavior on the part of consumers.
Facebook has different concepts, like Friends, Pages, and Groups. Many people have Pages with followers. They cannot be made private (you can block comments from specific people). You can make a Group by invitation only, which is closer to the concept Trend seems to be encouraging. The conventional wisdom has been that you allow only Friends to see your posts on your Friends page. But Facebook allows up to 5000 friends. It is common for people to have over a thousand. Many, perhaps most, Facebook users don’t carefully screen who gets approved as a friend. I do allow friends from overseas (including Arabic names). I generally disapprove of minors only. (Posts made by others on your timeline in public mode can normally be seen by “friends of friends”).
Some people, after being friends, do behave in an unwelcome way. Some send greetings or messages and expect to be answered back. A couple have made pleas for “personal” help with matters I can do nothing about (at least lawfully). One female kept making silly posts on my Timeline claiming to tag me in sexual pictures when the individual was not me. I did unfriend her and the posts stopped.
I also had one occasion where someone created a fake copy of my account with no posts. A legitimate friend (the person who copyedited my books) caught it and reported it to Facebook and the entry was removed before I knew about it.
Tagging has crept up as a problem, for users who allow it. I’ve noticed that some people are more sensitive about being photographed in bars or discos than they used to be, say, before 2010. A few social establishments have started prohibiting photography inside their facilities.
In Twitter, it is possible to set up your account so that all followers have to be approved. Relatively few users do this, but they will block followers who seem stalky or who don’t follow supposed etiquette (by replying to too many tweets when not being co-followed), although etiquette standards are changing again rapidly.
As a practical matter, limiting visibility of posts to “Friends” or approved followers probably doesn’t increase security very much, because it is so easy to be approved and because, to be successful and have an outreach, people need friends and followers. Indeed, it wouldn’t stop “catfishing” (as in Nev Schulman’s 2010 film “Catflish” for Rogue pictures, as with a recent incident from a fake female catfisher in Manitoba).
On Facebook, I notice that some Friends (even with privacy set to “Friends only”) will “check in” with that red dot that lets others track their movements; I don’t think this is a good idea myself. But part of this is that I don’t want anyone to “take me for granted”, beyond security. Likewise, I don’t announce (even to Friends) what events I will attend, even if I report on the events after the fact on blogs. Maybe that isn’t playing ball. I think back to the days of my upbringing in the 50s; my parents probably “shared” their lives with about ten other families, as with Thanksgiving and Christmas gift sharing that I remember so well (and with the Ocean City beach trips with one family I remember, too). As for services like Snapchat: I feel that if I need a conversation that doesn’t go anywhere, I just have it by smart phone or in person. I don’t like the idea of sharing video or photo that disappears. (Kathy Griffin should know.)
All of this is interesting because Zuckerberg invented Facebook at the time that Myspace had become popular (to the extent that Dr. Phil had programs about misbehavior on Myspace), and, despite winning out over several competing ideas (the movie “The Social Network”; the books “The Accidental Billionaires” by Ben Mezrich, or “The Facebook Effect” by David Kirkpatrick). Zuckerberg originally intended to set up Facebook for campus environments. It wasn’t fully public until about 2007 and it didn’t get into its controversial news feed aggregation (so plagued by the fake news that is said to have helped elect Donald Trump) until maybe about 2010 (when Time Magazine honored Zuckerberg as person of the year, the “Connector”).
What such a practice would do, however, is try to discourage online self-publishing with free content. Social media was built on the premise that known lists of people see your content, more or less like email listservers (or restricted membership sites) that were popular before modern social media. When people are popular and have lots of “fans”, the practical effect is that social media account is public anyway. It is true that actual friends or followers are more likely to see posts even on public accounts. Blogs can also have “followers” and, with Blogger, can be made “private” (as can YouTube videos), but the normal result is that few people would see them. Blog following has become less popular since Facebook took off, although YouTube channel subscription is still somewhat popular.
The relevant point seems to be that when you publish a hardcopy (or Kindle or Nook) book, you don’t have the “right” to know who bought it. That’s the traditional idea or model of “open publication”. Self-instantiation by open self-publication, with leaving a lot of content free, seems to be a morally suspect or gratuitous practice (even if it purports to offer alternative viewpoints and critical thinking as I think mine do) in the minds of some people: if it doesn’t pay its own way, it competes unfairly with writers who do need to make a living at it; it discourages professionalism and facilitates fake news, it can attract cultural enemies (to others as well as the self), leading to the insurance concerns, and (probably most of all) it breaks up political solidarity for those (on both the (alt) right and left) who want to recruit loyal volunteers and who want to control the (often polarized and tribally-centered) message. “Belonging” to some group seems to be imperative. The election and relentlessly tribal and boorish behavior of Donald Trump seems to have brought this point home.
In fact, in the eyes of intellectual property law, this isn’t quite right. “Publication” in defamation law is communicating the false defamatory claim to even one person who understands the message (which can be one approved friend or follower, or just one email recipient).
I opined before, back in 2000, that “open” self-publication can become an unethical practice for people in some positions (like those with direct workplace reports, when there is a concern over possible workplace results). Now it’s a possible security issue, especially in asymmetric warfare where civilians can attract enemies who view civilians as combatants. Yet it’s odd that security company like Trend Micro gets to define what that means, for everybody.
Some observers (like Ramsay Taplan, “Blogtyrant” of Australia) urge an inside-out approach to blogging, focusing on consumer niches that are inherently profitable, the narrower the better. Then, he says, become aggressive in building email lists from actual customers who need you wand welcome hearing from you, which confounds the conventional wisdom today about spam. But this practice refers to writing that supports an inherently commercial product or service, not self-expression online for its own sake or even for promoting critical thinking on political or social controversies.
Partly out of healthy self-interest to be sure, Google is developing methods to intercept teens and young adults looking to join terror organizations (ISIS or otherwise) and present them with information that would discourage further pursuit.
NBC News Saturday Night carried the story by Ronan Farrow, Roch McHugh and Tracy Connor, here.
The project “Redirect” was developed by the think tank in NYC for Google, called Jigsaw, link. Was the name of the group inspired by a notorious horror movie villain (the Lionsgate “Saw” series), originated by Leigh Whannel?
Donald Trump and even Hillary Clinton had, last December, suggested clamping down on much Internet activity as necessary to stop terror recruiting, which Trump has, with some controversy, regarded as a potentially existential security threat, at least discouraging “nuisance” use (Nov. 7).
On Nov. 25, ABC Sharktank featured a contestant, a teen Trisha Prabhu, who had developed a smartphone app called “ReThink” which could help discourage teens from cyberbullying. This idea could fit into first-lady Melania’s ideas about reducing cyberbullying.
Update: Monday, Nov. 28, 2016
A major incident at Ohio State University this morning seems to provide evidence of radical recruitment (probably by ISIS) of a Muslim from Somalia (Abdul Razak Ali Artan) who vented his fraternal rage on Facebook shortly before the attack, as in this ABC News story(with more details here). He had apparently left Somalia for Pakistan and then come to the US legally with his family. This case can only heighten the security debate on the enemy online recruiting national security issue (Nov. 7). Google’s tool is welcome news. (A later Inquisitr story on his rants is here.)
One video seems to give different facts about Artan. He does blame “the media” in part for the portrayal of Muslims. This doesn’t quite agree with ABC’s account.
This one is blunt, probably from right-wing sources.
(Originally posted: Saturday, Nov. 26, 2016 at 11:30 PM EST)
Three years ago, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a piece maintaining that enjoying college football (and presumably pro football too) as a fan is “morally problematic” because the sport is inherently dangerous, exposing young men to a not completely controllable concussion risk. (Is it OK for actor Richard Harmon to tweet about the Fighting irish?) I’ll leave the linkto my coverage of it on a legacy blog. I’ll leave this particular point about conditional morality out in view for a while, as I return to my own situation.
My own situation is that I do get criticism and questions about the way I manage my web presence and books, particularly questions about the fact that I don’t seem to be trying hard to sell them to make money, as if I had to make a living from them. I don’t. I covered this matter pretty well here with a blog posting July 8. Likewise, I get questions about the point of my blogs and websites. The normal free market would say that it would be very difficult for most bloggers to make a living from advertising revenue from their sites, but some niche bloggers (like “dooce ”, the famous mommy blog by Heather Armstrong) have done well. Australian blogging guru Ramsay Taplan (Blogtyrant ) has written lots of tutorials on how to make niche blogging work, but you have to be very serious about the business aspects and become aggressive. Adsense support forums on Google indicate that a number of bloggers, especially overseas, do try to make ends meet even on Blogger.
It’s important, for the moment, to retrace how I got into what I would now call “citizen journalism” (or “citizen commentary” would be more apt) It all started with my incentive to write my first “Do Ask, Do Tell” book, which I first totally self-published with my own print run in 1997. I was originally motivated by the debate over gays in the military. My own life narrative, even up to that point, had displayed an unusual irony (much of that having to do with the Vietnam era military draft) But my arguments moved into many “civilian” areas, including workplace discrimination, “family values”, public health, and law. I proposed some constitutional amendments, which I thought fit the temper of the mid 1990s. Some of what I proposed (I was very cautious on the marriage issue) has become outmoded by the progress of history since then.
It had become possible to publish text essays on Hometown AOL in the early fall of 1996. I got my own domain (called “hppub.com” then, for “High Productivity Publishing”) in the summer of 1997 at the same time as the book publication. Originally my intention was to maintain footnotes from the book as more events regarding the various issues unfolded. By the summer of 1998, I decided to post the html text of the book online for viewing. Copies of the book did sell fairly well the first two years, and by 1999, volume of hits on the site was quite significant (even from places like Saudi Arabia).
I would go on to accumulate a large amount of material about various issues regarding personal liberty, organized in a concentric fashion. Soon I would add movie-tv, book, and stage event (including music) reviews, with an emphasis on how major issues were addressed in books (including fiction) movies (both conventionally acted and documentary). The tone of my material, in the personal liberty area, took a somewhat alarming turn after 9/11 in 2001, but that resulted in more attention to my coverage of some issues (for example, after 9/11 there was talk about renewing military conscription). Eventually I would migrate to placing most of my new content on Blogger starting in 2006, and then gradually started a migration to hosted WordPress at the start of 2014 (as I published my third DADT book, POD).
During most of this time, I was a litigant (through Electronic Frontier Foundation) against COPA, the Child Online Protection Act of 1998, which would finally be overturned in 2007 (after a complicated history including two trips to the Supreme Court).
I think my “value” to the world — and what gave me a sense of “identity” for the second half of my life (since the mid 1990s, and especially after my official “retirement” at the end of 2001) is that I keep all the arguments about a “network” of liberty-related issues on the floor, available at all times. Even with a modest number of unique visitors (who don’t know me), there is an influence on policy way beyond my own numerosity of 1. I could say I’m “keeping them honest”. I’ve had very good up time reliability over all the years, and in the earlier years, the simple organization of my sites with simple html caused many articles to rank high in search engines (above those of established companies and organizations), with no optimization, even without attention to metatags.
So, you can imagine my annoyance at appeals for donations from sites that purport to speak for me as a member of one group or another. And also my annoyance of the slogans and baby talk of most political campaign ads. In fact, I don’t donate to candidates. Here we get more into my head. Ironically I perceive needing to have a “strongman” protect me from would be a sign of my own status as a “loser” (and how does that come across as “Trump-talk”?)
Likewise, I have some inner disdain for the idea of being a “marketeer” (something touted by some ads on my sties even). I remember a job interview onetime in 2002 where the “sales” person (for a financial service) said “We give you the words.” I don’t need anyone to do that for me. That sounds like something to appeal to someone not “smart” enough to do anything other than hucksterizing. I don’t like to manipulate others, and I don’t get manipulated (just like I don’t join mass movements as in Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer“). But I know this sounds like posturing from a position of “unearned privilege”. The tone of numerous solicitations I got after “retirement” seemed to be that I was mooching and should grovel for customers like everyone else (indeed, even if that meant manipulating people to get subprime mortgages), so that the selling playing field was fairer to “them”. “Always be closing”, indeed!
OK, I can think back, and remember even Mark Cuban said the other day, he had a knack for selling door-to-door, as his first job selling sneakers at 12 (story). Today, when I think of door-to-door I wonder about home invasions; and with telemarketing, I wonder about robocalls and scams. You can see how false pride and insularity, as it becomes more common,, only adds more divisions in our culture and makes it harder for a lot of people to earn a living at all. Make America Great Again, indeed!
This biggest “objection” from some quarters seems to be that a presence like this that doesn’t pay its own way (in terms of the way a business other than a proprietorship would have to report) represents a possible public risk (getting back to the Gladwell reference on football that I started out with). It requires a permissive legal culture for me to be able to post anything I want under my own “publicity right” with no gate keepers. One of the mechanisms that makes this possible, as I have explained elsewhere on legacy blogs, is limits on downstream liability for service providers (Section 230 for defamation or privacy issues; DMCA safe harbor for copyright). Without these protections, user-generated content as we know it now (and “citizen journalism”) would not be possible. Only content that made money on its own could get published (which was pretty much how things were until the 1990s), and “getting published” meant something.
The implicit security problems, of course, are abuse, particularly recruiting of young people for criminal or enemy activity (as by ISIS), and the issue of cyberbullying, as mentioned by Melania Trump recently. It’s all too easy for me to imagine Donald Trump saying in a speech shortly after winning (if he won) that there is no legitimate reason the country should tolerate these risks, given the peril. Web sites, he could argue, should carry their own freight, and be able to pay employees and support families if they stay up. Remember how he measured teams simply by “money” on “The Apprentice”? He could indeed become “The Accountant” in a very narrow sense.
That is to say, the permissiveness that benefits me, allows danger to others, especially less advantaged parents raising kids. (Well-off kids with educated parents don’t usually have as many problems with this, and generally well-off kids learn to “make it” in the real world. This is definitely related to economic class and even race.)
As for the national security and ISIS risk, one could probably counter that most of the recruiting material is actually accessed from the Dark Web anyway, off shore, in encrypted and untraceable fashion; and most of this illicit activity involes P2P, BitTorrent,. TOR, and other “clandestine practices” like digital currency. All of these things have morally legitimate uses (especially in other countries with authoritarian leadership) and their own followings and adherents. (A lot of people have invested their hearts into bitcoin just as I have done with my own versuon of “citizen journalism”.)
Still, Trump, late in 2015, made some vague proposals for “shutting down” much of the Internet, and some in Congress (like Joe Barton, Nov. 5 posting) have wanted to shut down much of social media (the companies already say they shut down accounts that facilitate terrorism, but it’s impossible to stop new ones from growing like mushrooms). I can imagine the hit on Wall Street if Facebook and Twitter were forced to close. One could imagine another model, however, where social networks on line mean exactly that: they are much smaller, and only accessed in white-listed, private mode. I, for example, use Facebook and Twitter as publication adjuncts; I really don’t use them to flirt or find “companionship”. So I have little use for a service like Snapchat, because I don’t need a lot of day-to-day interaction with lots of people. I don’t announce where I am going or what events I will attend on Facebook – for security reasons. So I don’t “play ball” with friends whose life model is to organize others.
Would the Supreme Court continue to protect speakers from this kind of development (as it seems to have done with COPA and the earlier CDA)? One problem, it seems to me, is that conceptually, distribution of speech (which used to require gatekeepers, based on profitability) is somewhat a distinct potential “right” from the mere utterance itself.
I do wonder about the business models of many Internet service facilitators (and even POS companes), if they can sustain themselves indefinitely with content that consumers don’t pay for.
It seems that to “sell”, you have to offer something more focused that people want. Citizen journalism and commentary is not something that you would normally expect to “sell”. Of course, some socially “questionable” things (porn) do sell “easily”. So do focused “special interests” (and that bemuses Trump’s message as he often delivers it). But one way to improve “popularity” (and actual sales potential) is meeting special needs. For temperamental reasons (as I covered yesterday) that isn’t something that I want to identify me as something to be known for. Meeting need is one thing, but “pimping” need is another. As I said yesterday, this whole area of “indulgence” drags me down the rabbithole of being identified by other people’s causes, not the ones I chose. But I can see how it fits the idea of “right-sizing”.
For me, the future of “citizen journalism” comes very much into question, especially if Trump wins. I understand the questions about the legitimacy of the practice ( well laid out in Wikipedia ) but that journalism is often mixed with original analysis (sometimes from unusual life narrative perspectives, like mine, as well as from professional surveys and studies) and commentary. The New York Times has an interesting perspective today, “Journalism’s next challenge: Overcoming the threat of fake news”, in the New York Times, by Jim Rutenberg. Timothy B. Lee of Vox has a relevant piece Nov. 6 “Facebook is harming our democracy...“, with its user-mediated newsfeeds, which has the effect of diluting “real” journalism with amateurism (let alone “clickbaiting”). On CNN, Ted Koppel (“Lights Out“) told Chris Cuomo that the public doesn’t trust professional journalism any more. (On Nov. 11, New York Magazine’s Max Read claimed “Donald Trump won because of Facebook“. My own role is not to replace traditional establishment media but to keep it honest by supplementing it with material that confounds reporting and organizing according to traditional identity politics — but some people just stop reading traditional media altogether and see only what they want to hear from amateurs, reinforcing their “UFO” beliefs.)
I’ve approached these problems before, from the viewpoint of “conflict of interest” (Aug. 7, orhere ). We saw this first back around 2001 (before 9/11) with talk of the need for “employer blogging policies”, especially for associates who have direct reports or make decisions about others. (That’s what drove Heather Armstrong to go solo and then to invent the word “dooce”).
While Gladwell’s idea of unaccounted “moral hazard” subsumed by others (as well as authoritarian ideas about “right-sizing” individual speech as with Russia and China) ( could cause Trump and some in Congress to want to crimp user generated content, it’s indeed (fortunately) hard to see any straightforward way he could do it. But (to make “A Modest Proposal”) one way would be to prevent (“nuisance”) domains from being owned by (or even renewed) by entities that don’t offer full public accounting of their funding, even self-funded proprietorships like mine. Accounts could have to “pay their own way” with their own revenues (that sounds like Trump’s style of thinking, valuing everything in terms of money). But, then again, Trump has a lot of trouble disclosing his own good fortune in life very publicly. But so does Hillary. This kind of problem could intersect with the Network Neutrality debate, if Trump guts neutrality and allows ISP’s to charge businesses for access to their networks (which wasn’t a problem in practice before 2015, however — and some say that this could be a problem “only” for high-volume “porn” sites).
If my “accomplishment” were taken away from me, from public sight, what be left? My own model is horizontal, using prior content to build more content (for example, for eventually getting my music performed), but that content must remain public, even if it doesn’t pull in short term revenue, to remain strategically effective. Pimping victimhood or group loyalty? I’d love to get on with a real news outlet reporting critical things that the media just hasn’t covered well (like electric power grid security, as with Koppel’s book). Or should I just “merge” with Wikipedia? Actually, there’s no article on me there yet.
Has the growth of social media (preceded by older forms of user-generated content such as discussion forums, blogs, and even many flat sites) actually created a new threat for national security in the US?
The most obvious concern, much reported in the media for the past eighteen months or so, is the recruiting of vulnerable young men and women (often but not always in Muslim communities), most of all on Twitter, and then “going dark” as apparently recruiters groom “candidates” on encrypted channels. Heritage has as good an explanation of the process as any (June 2015).
Social media, and its inherent asymmetry, allows a sociopathic person like the Orlando perpetrator to create excessive theater when creating an event.
The other alarming idea is the wide availability of information on the web of how to make and use all kinds of weapons, some of which could be exotic devices like local flux EMP’s (roughly, like in the movie “Oceans 11”). It’s very easy to find this stuff, and I suspect that most of the directions you could find wouldn’t really work. It’s alarming that media reports (now after the Turkey attack) that there are lots of instructions on how to make suicide vests that work automatically when a terrorist is shot by police.
More socially acceptable would be the wide variety of videos of how to defend your home, how to live without electricity (there are videos on starting your car after an EMP event, for example). Knowing how to take care of yourself and your family in a “Revolution” world sounds like a good thing. You might not be able to log on after such an event, so print it all out now.
I think it’s pretty obvious that a demagogue like “The Real Donald Trump” can easily suggest we just “shut down those tubes” (that’s a Facebook friend’s paraphrase of a December speech he made) as a security measure, saying we’re effectively at war. Trump especially could build on the point that a lot of user generated content (including mine) doesn’t pay its own way, in helping actually make a living or support families. I’ll come back to that again soon in the whole topic of “selling books” and my being prodded to become more “commercial”.
To counter such an idea, I’d add that “revolutionaries” have always been dangerous, and most of them knew pretty well how to blow things up when I was coming of age, long before the Internet instantiated itself. Think about the history of radicalism and terrorism all the way back to the 70s (well documented in the CNN series). In the past, censorship of print and downstream liability for print has been an issue. Consider, for example, the case of Paladin Press and the book “Hit Man” (and the 2000 movie “Deliberate Intent”). I remember a lot of incidental discussion of this book in Minnesota shortly after I had moved there after publishing my own “Do Ask Do Tell” book from another author quite interested in Second Amendment issue (in the Minnesota Libertarian Party).
In the gun control argument, we say people kill people, and that inanimate weapons don’t. And we say the same with propaganda – words don’t kill, but unstable people inspired by words and graphic images (and group hate ideology, including homophobia) may do so. There are ways where the gun control debate can influence the speech debate.
But we need to look at what really makes people who go on these rampages tick. It looks less and less like religion alone all the time, when we see “radical Islamic terrorists” as lone wolves inspired online from overseas. Often they have conflicting familial influences and many serious personality disorders (including narcissism) that drives them to want to stage theater that makes the whole world seem to be about them, using religion as a proxy (as David Brooks explains as “Religion’s Wicked Neighbor”). But there is something to the profile of young men (and many young women) drawn to extremist ideology, often overlaid with religion. They see a world where privileged overlords above them don’t really have to earn what they have, and wonder if the rules of civilization really mean anything. They start living on the edge, as develop nihilistic outlooks. Young men may look for camaraderie and a place to a “belong” after not being able to succeed in an individualistic world that stresses abstraction (you know, why do I have to learn algebra?) There was a recent episode on “Days of our Lives” with a female character who seduces a minor male character that illustrated that point chillingly. A world where everyone has to “pay your dues” on a few levels might reduce the appeal of extremism to some young adults.
(Published: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 11:45 PM EDT)