The Curmudgeon Speaks

I have been toying with spending more time on social media alternatives to Facebook. I spent a great deal of time writing on Facebook during the Trump administration explaining my opposition to his behavior and Republican policies. I posted close to daily and as the election of 2020 approached several times a day. I wrote elsewhere as well, but all of my political activities were focused on Facebook and its larger user base.

I have explored alternatives to Facebook before, but my reasons had nothing to do with politics. My reasons include a) a concern that Facebook has grown far too large limiting the development of competitors because of the network effect and b) because I object to Facebook’s confirmation bias and emotion encouraging biases that it uses to increase attention to the platform.

I have explored several alternatives and I have been disappointed to discover that these platforms have decided to encourage a pro-Trump bias (MeWe and Parler) in what appears to be a desperate attempt to attract users who believe Facebook is anti-free speech and anti-conspiracy. I am interested in encouraging educational topics and the last thing I want is to spend time on platforms that have become a refuge for extremists with anarchist views of the world. I don’t see educators being attracted to MeWe if it gains this attention.

I will have to wait a few weeks until the aftermath of the election dies down and see what happens.

I would find it interesting to know how many hours I have spent on Facebook in the past 4.5 years. I do not regret this effort and did it out of a personal sense of duty whether justified or not. I felt a need to argue the values I hold in what I hope was a rational and factually based approach. I know my civility slipped from time to time, but I do have limits. My approach was to present my views linked to credible sources and to take the time to write rather than simply forward what others have generated or said. Others may have represented what I feel, but forwarding without personal effort does not signal commitment. 

Anyway, I intend to post far less content on Facebook. When I do, I would guess my posts will focus on issues and policies rather than what I consider the flawed values and selfishness of leadership. I miss discussing policy matters – equity, health care, education, climate decline, global awareness, and even net neutrality.

I have issues with Facebook, but I have spent so much time on this platform because of the presence of so many other people. If you have a message you want heard, you must go where the people are. The lack of participation in other social media outlets is a problem simply because monopolies limit innovation and offer the opportunity for manipulation. A competitive environment fights these limitations. Beyond these general objections, I see Facebook flawed by a double whammy. Individuals select those they follow AND Facebook applies the algorithmic selection of content to feed existing biases. Of the most common social media services, Twitter does not shape the sharing of the content shared by those selected. 

My preference would be for those wanting to share online to operate a personal blog and follow the blogs of others using RSS. This takes a little more work and I happen to think the commitment required is a good thing – it is a test of commitment. However, I have also been exploring alternate social media platforms as what I see as a professional responsibility. I have been cross-posting some blog content to learn about these alternatives and to offer content to build up the material these platforms can offer. My initial reaction has been that these platforms struggle to create the network necessary to reach the level necessary to motivate investment – meaning you have to see yourself contributing in the hope the future may bring benefits. 

Anyway, here are some options I urge others to try for at least six months or so. Take the same attitude I have described – work to build up the population and the body of content necessary to reach critical mass.

The following order is kind of ranked, but you should explore enough to make your own decisions.

WT:Social

MeWe

Liker – more liberal, but may level out after election

Parler – conservative, but may level out after election

Diaspora – this is a federated group that consists of multiple points of contact that share content as a public feed

In the last few days of October, the Senate Commerce Committee requested that the CEOs of major technology companies appear to defend their practices. Those on this committee representing the Democrats and Republicans had very different grievances they wanted to address. The Democrats were mainly focused on predatory practices taking advantage of the near monopolistic status of these companies. The Republicans focused on the concern that conservative voices were being silenced and were particularly irked by the lack of attention given to a recent story in the New York Post promoting a conspiracy theory involving the son of Presidential candidate Biden. In the time since, this story has pretty much disappeared. Twitter was singled out for the most intense attacks because they were ignoring the posts of the President and others attempting to share this story. Twitter CEO Dorsey claimed the post was being blocked because the content relied on hacked content violating its policies. Several days after this meeting Twitter did allow the sharing of this content.

Fast forward to election eve through today.

President Trump in response to disappointing vote counts has been tweeting accusations of improper voting procedures and vote counts. Twitter has again warned again against these tweets. The claims are not actually blocked as a viewer can click through the warning and view the claims made by the President. Twitter is also offering related information explaining the rules by which the election was held and the procedures by which votes are being counted.

Again, I am guessing some will be critical of Twitter’s behavior using some kind of free speech defense. I am guessing I could get away with making whatever claim I wanted in regard to the election. I have not tried submitting something I know to be factually inaccurate so I am just guessing, but I judge this to be the case from comments I observe when scrolling Twitter. Here is why I think the President should be treated differently. Protestors are converging on some of the locations where votes are being counted demanding that the counting of ballots be stopped. Counter-protesting demanding that all votes legally cast be counted are showing up. This situation is dangerous. My claims on this matter would generate very little attention and I would not have the standing resulting in people taking to the streets. The President is different and hence I agree with Twitter in blocking these yet to be validated claims.

At this point, any possible justification for blocking the counting of votes submitting under the rules established by the states with close elections has failed to be established. Counting any votes that might eventually be deemed to be in violation of state rules could later be deemed invalid. To stir up anger and division in this manner is dangerous and irresponsible.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act establishes two principles – social media sites are not responsible for the content posted by those outside the company and these companies can act in good faith to protect those who use the sites. Promoting potentially violent and illegal acts by the leader of a country would seem to qualify.

Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”, as long as they act “in good faith” in this action.

I agree with Tom Friedman’s assessment. However the election turns out, the Trump years have revealed the hidden ugliness in America. Some folks always knew it was there, but those of us who are white, privileged, and comfortable financially could pretend. Trump did not change his focus on division and selfishness and making these values evident over time did little to diminish his level of support. Biden offered a normal, if bland, but principled alternative and it is clear American values remain what they were only now more visible.

The Google doodle has a get out the vote message. Click the doodle for resources.

Conspiracy theories abound in the Trump era. I think we have reached the point at which we consider an award. It could be called the Hokey – kind of like the Hobie for college hockey, but awarded for a different type of accomplishment. The election is still a few days away and anything is possible, but as of today my vote for the Hokey would have to go to Tucker Carlson. If it were possible and I guess it is because this is my idea, Carlson deserves a double Hokey.

While this would be the first year for the Hokeys, we definitely need a Lifetime Achievement category. Experts in this area doubt Donald Trump has an equal in this category so if you bet you will get great odds on almost anyone else. Stay tuned.

Hokey of the year nominee

I have a scholarly interest in what we learn or think we learn from social media. This topic became a popular research topic after I completed my career as an active researcher, but I still try to follow the studies, thinking, and methods applied in this area. The education types are probably most interested in the learner and the role the learner plays in selecting and interpreting information. The tech types often have a somewhat different interest focus involving how algorithm-based decisions are made about what individuals see. These algorithms are carefully guarded so it is not easy to understand how decisions are made.

This post is mostly related to this second topic. Some weeks ago I began participating in some online research I admit I did not take a lot of time to understand. I knew it was about the ads I viewed as a function of the time I spent online and sites I visited, but I did not read the fine print. Not smart because I was providing access to data based on my behavior and I should have done more to understand what and why. Anyway, I thought no more about my commitment until I saw a couple of news stories and realized I was one of the participants.

What I describe here involves my looking back. I have discovered the study is called the NYU Ad Observatory. One goal as I have discovered now involved trying to reverse engineer why Facebook users see the ads that they see. Some observations related to this goal are included in the content provided in the link I provided above. I started investigating a bit about the project itself because I read that Facebook was not pleased this information was being collected. I can understand their reluctance, but I do agree we all need better understanding of how we are being targeted and what possible consequences might be. 

If what I describe here interests you, you can download the extension required by Chrome or FireFox at the Ad Observer Site. 

The site provides access to the extension needed to add the service to your browser and you should see something when you select the browser of your choice that looks like this image. This page should also contain additional information about the extension and a link to a site explaining the details of the project. The blue botton installs the extension.

Once the extension has been added, you will be asked to provide some personal information (preferences) that will be related by the ad project to the ads you see. From that point, you just browse without any requirement to pay any more attention.

If you are interested, do this. The extension will add a small icon at the top of your browser.

The icon will open a drop-down menu. The “My archive” button will provide some information collected about your activity. It will display ads and the category you are in that targeted you with this ad.

There are limits in the methodology that seem obvious. My access to Facebook is primarily through my phone or tablet. This extension is in the browser on my desktop. I also use two different chrome-based browsers on my desktop (Chrome and Brave) so I doubt the service can generate a composite representation of my ad viewing experience. Still, I think the collection of such data is valuable and we need something to allow thinking about why we see what we see. Read the user agreement.

Yes – as you can see from the ad I am being targeted as a Democrat which is an accurate determination by Facebook. I write often about the value of Facebook. It is not a place to get your news.

I have struggled with understanding the political environment and the emotional reactions the environment has generated since 2016. Why have the anger and hatred been elevated when disagreement and argument have always been part of politics and some other areas in which I participate (e.g., science)? 

I have come to this conclusion. This period in political awareness has brought to the surface and distributed for public consumption core differences in important values that were not so visible in the past. This surfacing and visibility have resulted from the behavior of prominent politicians (i.e., Donald Trump) and from social media which has opened up communication about issues and values. My political candidates have often lost elections, but while I was not pleased, life for me went on pretty much as normal. Again, in past elections the constant coverage of candidate behavior was limited and now the capacity to make public so much information about behavior revealing much more about attitudes, core beliefs, and inconsistencies between public messaging and lived behavior or between just messaging from one week to the next, offer so much more of value to the development of personal insights. The reaction of plain folk to this deluge of information offers a secondary input that has also been disconcerting. Time and again, I wonder how anyone seeing what I am seeing could possibly turn a blind eye. Are they not seeing what I am seeing because they spend all of their time with Fox News or Breitbart or are they seeing the same things that so bother me and are willing to ignore the message and values being expressed in such behavior. I can’t say, but both differences matter. Knowingly limiting your information inputs is a problem a good education should have prevented. The term academics now use to explain the counter to disinformation and misinformation is lateral reading.

Explaining away what I regard as completely reprehensible behavior because “he gets things done” (which I am not sure I actually see) or “he tells it like it is” is unacceptable to me. I don’t buy the ends justify the means rationale. The acceptance of evil and morally corrupt behavior by people who claim to be Christian is possibly what troubles me the most. What exactly is the basis for the faith being professed?

So, am I willing to back down? I don’t think so. I have far less influence than the political establishment and I observe that leaders model and will continue to push ideas I find reprehensible. In fairness, if you object to my positions, make certain you are also complaining about the individuals I have made it my mission to counter. Show me this isn’t the case if you can. I find it personally irresponsible to know these messages and values are out there without push back. The positive thing about social media is that it provides this opportunity. Use the opportunity fairly. 

I try to offer facts when I know facts exist, but in some cases the interpretation of facts rests in values such as indifference to the less fortunate and those who happen to have been born in other countries or as a member of a minority race or as a female, indifference to those who have the bad luck to be born with genetic or other causes of medical predispositions for poor health outcomes, failure to accept that individuals value different religious convictions or are not believers, indifference to the decline of the environment to the detriment of those who will live in this environment in the future, and so many similar issues that have at the core a lack of acceptance of others in the past, present, or future as equals. I admit to not accepting certain differences in values I see as necessary for a just society.  

So, in the language of the 60s, this is where I am coming from.

I happen to like Black Walnut trees. The nuts can be messy, but squirrels love them and will remove them from your lawn. I grew up on a farm with a grove that had several rows of giant walnut trees. Stories of my youth aside, walnut trees and gardens don’t go together. Don’t plant a garden near these trees (see my garden under my tree) and if this is already your situation do not use the leaves as a compost for next year. I like to rake the leaves. Pile them on top of my raised beds. Cover the leaves with some dead branches and then dig what remains of the leaves into the soil in the Spring. Not a good idea if you plan to grow certain plants in these beds (e.g., tomatoes).

According to Iowa State University (my school), walnut trees produce juglone – a substance secreted by the roots and present in the leaves that can cause severe damage and even kill solanaceous crops (tomatoes, potatoes, peppers and eggplant). I have no idea what a solanaceous crop is, but juglone is going to be my new vocabulary word for today. Say it with me – juglone.

Whoops – always read articles to the end. Walnut leaves can be composted because the juglone toxin breaks down when exposed to air, water, and bacteria. Now I am going to have to rake and pile.

I am now more concerned and more involved in the political direction of this country than at any other time in my 70+ years. My candidates certainly did not always win, but I have not experienced the same depth of despair before. I have not been a heavy Facebook user, but I have written almost daily for the past four years using this site as a way to explain my frustrations and concerns. I use Facebook for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks – that is where the people are (pardon my abuse of this quote).

As we are approaching the election, I wanted to offer one post here associated with my frustration for the direction of the country and my contempt for the individual in the White House. I find Donald Trump and some of the Republican leadership to be corrupt and offering terrible values to the country. When a topic interests me, I tend to read to learn more. In this case, I have read a lot about the corruption of the Trump presidency. Given the approaching election, I thought I would offer some recommendations should be you be on the fence and still trying to decide on whether would like to see four more years. I voted several weeks ago.

Here is my list of sources on the corruption of the Trump administration and related political issues. Not included is the Mueller report – which you can read without spending your money at a book store. I have tried to rank them by both readability and quality of research. My suggestion – read one if you are undecided.

Toobin – True Crimes and Misdemeanors: The investigation of Donald Trump

Woodward – Rage

Strzok – Compromise: Counterintelligence and the threat of Donald Trump

Woodward – Fear: Trump in the White House

Bolton – The room where it happened

Comey – A higher loyalty: Truth, lies, and leadership

There are obviously many more books – pro and con – on the Trump Presidency. These are the ones I have read. Are these all on one side in evaluating this President? Obviously. I rely on the NYTimes, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal for a broader view.