The Curmudgeon Speaks

The major social media services have recently offered their plans for political ads. Twitter is out. Facebook is in.

As I understand the Facebook position, Zuck is arguing that he is pro free speech and suggests that his platform offers the opportunity for those who find fault with an ad to voice their objection. He also has created a database of political ads so that anyone who is interested can investigate just what different candidates claim.

I see the Facebook argument as an attempt to justify the ad revenue generated. It is based on an inaccurate representation of how people use Facebook. My perspective follows:

1. The most serious practical fallacy concerns the suggestion that public discussion of ads will identify false claims. This might be true if all posts were shown to all individuals. This is not what happens on Facebook. People tend to follow individuals who think like they think and Facebook puts items in the feeds Facebook users see based on the priorities Facebook has determined motivate readers. Simply put, Facebook has created a filter bubble that shows people what they want to see.
2. Responses to flawed ads would have to be offered as comments. First, the comments added to an ad would come mostly from those who see the ad (see #1) and most readers don’t bother to review comments anyway.
3. The Facebook ad library is not likely to draw much attention. In case you care interested, here is the link. Even if those concerned take the opportunity to investigate this library and use Facebook to complain would those reading the complaint be likely to be those individuals who were positively influenced by the ad in the first place? Again, not likely.

Tensions are running high as Democrats and Republicans argue about the Trump impeachment inquiry. The most salient accusation at present concerns the alleged efforts of Trump to extort the cooperation of the Ukrainian government in generating evidence of inappropriate use of connections by Mr. Biden’s son. By association, the goal was to reduce the effectiveness of Biden senior as a credible opponent to Trump in the 2020 election. Politicians do investigate their opponents for ways to accuse them of different things, what is different about this situation is the accusation that the President took advantage of his office to use aid promised to the Ukrainians to ward of Russian military action as a trade for evidence that could be used against Biden senior.

Key evidence in this controversy is a transcript released by the White House describing most of a conversation between Trump and Zelinsky (Ukrainian leader). Trump argues this transcript documents a “perfect call” and Democrats in the House argue it is an important part of the evidence showing the use of U.S. funds in an inappropriate way benefiting Trump as politician rather than Trump as leader of the U.S.. Lots of folks have weighed in on this controversy with the intent of influencing public opinion. It can be argued that it would just be better if the public just read the document for themselves rather than relying on folks who might be described as having ulterior motives.

Reading the document should be easy enough to do as nearly every news outlet has provided links to the document. I wonder how many folks have bothered. This situation is different from expecting citizens to review the Mueller report which was long and complex. This is a short read of a transcript of folks talking in simple language.

This situation reminds me of a potential use of technology I think I has great potential. What if folks made the effort to review and comment on something concrete offering a conversation starting point? This is the suggestion made in support of an open source service called hypothes.is. Hypothes.is is what I would describe as a “layering” tool. I have spent most of my time promoting the potential of various layering services for educational purposes. Hypothes.is originated as a tool for public conversation and morphed into a tool with potential for more specific applications. By layering, what I mean is that a freely available online document can be highlighted and annotated without actually changing the original document as provided on a server. The annotations and the original content are separate layers, but individuals who take advantage of a layering service can view the composite. This composite offers an opportunity for discussion and commenting to be shared.

I wondered about comments on the Ukrainian call transcript. For this to work, you need access to text within a web page and not a pdf. You can comment on a pdf, but layering works best if the public view is a static page. I finally found such a presentation of the call USA Today. You get some idea from the following image what my comments would look like on this document.

I offered these comments as “public” so anyone opening this page with Hypothes.is can see my comments, offer their own, etc. Hypothesis also offers a way for private annotation and annotations shared with a designated group. This group option is what I recommend for educational applications.

Hypothes.is is a free service supported by a wide variety of educational and news sources. It is an extension that can be added to most browsers, but I would suggest it is easiest to install as and use with Chrome.

I have been reading Mark Levin’s Unfreedom of the Press. If you have read this book or read the review I link here, you probably find my interest rather strange. Levin is at heart a talk show personality with a perspective that journalism is dominated by those with a progressive orientation. While my own political orientation could not be more different, what I find interesting about Levin’s book is his identification of reasons and data in support of his general argument. I grapple with understanding how Republicans in recent times can possibly take the positions that they take. The behavior and attitudes I see from my perspective lack any possible logic. At least with Levin, I have something to work with in terms of understanding.

This will not be a review of Levin’s book. This may come later. My post here deals mostly with the claim made in Levin’s first chapter. Levin begins by claiming the press is by nature progressive (Democratic) as most journalists have this orientation. This claim interested me because I have lately been considering the claim that this is also true of college professors with the related suggestion by some that hiring practices should take this into account and attempt to balance things out a bit. There is a similarity here in professional goals that occurs to me. Journalists could be seen as interested in a form of education. Why this imbalance exists is an interesting question and I will attempt to offer a perspective as a summary statement. If the commitment to education has something to do with progressive values, does it really make sense to seek out more individuals with a different orientation?

I started to wonder whether there was a correlation between occupation and political ideology and what this says about the perceived mission by those working in different occupations. I was able to find several sources (here is one from Business Insider). One of the more interesting presentations I found comes from Verdant Labs. This presentation includes some direct comparisons (e.g., Catholic Priests are far more likely Republican than Episcopalian Clergy). The visual comparisons also allow the exploration of subdivisions within occupational categories.

At some level, the data are unremarkable – e.g., business types are generally more Republican and those who provide services to people are more Democratic. The data are just interesting to consider.

These differences in political ideology can already be identified in college majors. I found these data difficult to find online which kind of surprises me as college students are kind of a captive audience for researchers. Among other things, this would point to the pool of talent available in different areas.

Here is what intrigues me about the claim that those in a profession should be different. There is nothing that prevents Republicans from becoming college professors or journalists and nothing that prevents Democrats from becoming actuaries or dentists. People gravitate toward occupations as a function of aptitude, interests, and values. Unless it can be demonstrated that there are biases in hiring practices is this a bad thing? I understand that a case can be made that educators and journalists are somehow different or have different obligations. What exactly would this case be? Let’s say that I resent what I believe is a greater financial orientation among dentists that I would like. I would guess this is the case, but I would also guess many might suggest that my call for dentists with different values would be considered ludicrous or at least impractical. Psychologists and social workers tend to be among the most democratically dominant professions. Would we really want this not to be the case? What about educators and journalists?

I found this article from Make Use Of to be helpful. It argues that the Spin and Accuracy of different news outlets to reflect different issues. In other words, the factual accuracy of claims made (facts) can be differentiated from the opinion/interpretation placed on these facts (spin). The article contains a useful chart if you would like to search for their take on your favorite sources.

I became interested in online influence as an adversarial tactic because much of my professional work made use of the Internet as an educational tool. It is impossible to promote this communication tool for influencing others without becoming aware of the negative possibilities to which influence can be applied. Becoming an educated information consumer offers one level of defense against damaging influence campaigns. I would not pretend that education will totally solve this problem and my interest has clearly moved beyond the issue of online information literacy. 

I have read several books related to foreign interference of different types involving the Internet and other digital tools. I admit that the election of 2016 and Russian interference in that election was intensified and broadened my interest. Without getting into whether or not there was collusion, the processes by which a foreign adversary can influence the attitudes and behavior of citizens of our country is an issue we all should find interesting. We are the targets.

You can probably locate my accounts of several books on related topics if you follow my blog posts. My most recent read is Shadow War by CNN reporter Jim Sciutto. If my suggestion alone is not sufficient to encourage you purchasing or borrowing this book, I would encourage you to listen to Sciutto’s hour-long Westminster lecture. The Westminster Townhall Forum originates from a Presbyterian Church in Minneapolis. I heard the Sciutto lecture on Minnesota Public Radio, but all of the lectures are available online.

Listen to a related presentation by Clint Watts

Zuckerberg’s logic on not fact checking political ads seems to be that Facebook will leave it to other parties to do so. This logic might seem to make some sense, but ignores the way Facebook actually works. Individuals end up biasing the inputs they receive from Facebook by choosing the individuals and services they follow. If most folks targeted with an ad tend to agree with the sentiment expressed, accurate or not, how would responses to such ads generate much in the way of pushback. If Facebook is not going to ban political ads or fact check political ads, perhaps it would make the most sense to not allow political ads to be targeted. If viewed by all, all would have the opportunity to respond.

We started a Fall tradition last year of taking a tour of regional brewery as a family. We take everyone who can attend and break up the beer tasting with hiking, outdoor games, and food. Here are some images for the family and friends of the family.

Red Mug Coffee

Earth Rider Brewery

Ursa Minor Brewery

Bent Paddle Brewery

Lester Park

Castle Danger Brewery

Thirsty Pagan Brewery

I won’t call you a socialist for assuming farmers should receive government subsidies when they cannot sell their beans if you don’t call me a socialist because I believe all Americans deserve health care. [just to get your attention and encourage you to read further]

I have been bothered for some time by the way politicians attack Democratic positions on topics such as health care or funding of higher education by labeling such commitments as socialism. I wonder whether those applying this label with this sentiment could even come up with a definition for what they assume is a derogatory term. I was not certain that I could generate a meaningful definition myself and this resulted in my impression that socialism was essentially a term with a generally negative connotation, but lacking a useful definition. By useful, I don’t mean that those who study the characteristics of governance have no precise definitions, I mean the average individual on the street has little insight and whatever description might be provided would be different from what the next individual asked to offer a description would generate. This lack of specificity for a label that implies a negative practice works great for the dismissal of something you can’t criticize in a specific way. 

Certainly, Democrats tend to look to the government more frequently for assistance in solving problems and there is a tendency to tie this expectation in with a greater emphasis on taxation as a way to pay for such solutions. Of course, not having a way to pay for solutions would be irresponsible. Here is the thing, it is also easy to generate a list of things that Republicans want the government to emphasize and I assume would tax citizens accordingly. So what then does this label of socialist actually mean?

I read an article in the Minnesota Post (see below) that addressed the issue I just raised (what do the different parties expect citizens to pay for) and did these differences in priorities influence how and when the label of socialism is applied? According to this article, the Democrats are more likely to see spending on the military, interstate highways, tax credits for business development, and Social Security (surprise) as more socialistic than Republicans. Republicans are more likely to see Medicare, free health care, and support for higher education as more socialistic than Democrats. Now, to be fair, the degree to which the label of socialistic applies varies – e.g., military spending is rated lower as a socialistic value by both parties and free health care was rated as more socialistic by both parties. So, there are differences in how socialistic different investments are labeled and there are party differences in how socialistic a given investment is perceived to be. Not only are there differences in the extent to which the parties see a given form of spending as socialistic, the party labeling a specific funding as more socialistic varies.

The news article uses data from a YouGov survey (https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/07/25/are-democrats-socialists-poll) and I would think that the survey could have included more items (e.g., farm subsidies, food stamps) likely to generate party differences.

It seem to me that the term socialist has little value in political discussions. For more productive conversation, it would be far better to just describe what areas the different parties want taxpayers to spend money on.

President Trump will do one of his rallies in Minneapolis this week. Once this was announced, Minneapolis Mayor Frey and others made some uncomplimentary comments about Trump and were not particularly welcoming to the President. This negativity brought some negative reaction in the local paper and from Republicans basically arguing that you respect the office and recognize that elected officials are representatives for all.

At first I agreed kind of buying into the Minnesota nice thing, but then I thought about Trump’s behavior and the way he has treated Representative Omar. He is taking his road show into her home area. Representative Omar is my representative. She was elected by a significant majority of those she represents. Hence, the argument that we ALL should respect duly elected officials who were elected to represent all of their constituents is not the attitude of our President. Leaders model the behaviors they value. Well – what you see is what you get. Respect is something you earn.

Podcasts I listen to indicate that the Trump re-election campaign has made Facebook and television ad buys. I confess that I do not remember seeing any of these ads. I assume Fox News would be a likely outlet. I very, very seldom watch Fox News, but I do watch Fox sports because some of the teams I follow sometimes show up there. Maybe the ads show during the news programming and not the sports. I do spend some time each day on Facebook and nothing from the Trump campaign shows up. Why?

I am genuinely interested in Trump ads. Really. My motivation may be different from true believers. It bothers me if false statements appear in political ads and I tend to want to respond. Offer policy positions all you want, but don’t blatantly lie in a way I can identify and because I feel that I must respond.

The fact I don’t see these ads bothers me in a different way. If you see these ads and I don’t, we have each been categorized politically and this is not a good thing. Elected officials, especially those elected at the highest level, end up representing us all. In such cases, hidden agendas that play to some and are not apparent to all are a serious problem.

If you rely on Facebook for your news, you play right into this problem. You need to diversify your inputs. My suggestion is to pay for access to a quality local paper (paper or digital) and follow a quality national paper. My suggestion for a quality national paper would include the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. My definition of quality is basically that the paper employs actual journalists and is not primarily a source for opinions. Read opinions if you respect the author, but include in your reading journalists would report stories based on facts. See facts can be twisted or contextualized in different ways, but it helps if the opinions that follow start with facts. There are certainly many sources for opinion online and my attitude toward such sources is the same. Test the opinions you read against your best effort to read factual accounts.

You may regard these recommendations as outside your price range. You can access some articles from these sources through online sources (Google or Apple News). You will have to decide if these offerings cover a broad perspective – I can’t say. Both the NY Times and the Washington Post allow you to read a fixed number of articles each month without paying for full access. I typically reach my limit and expend this limit on articles I encounter in other ways (e.g., Twitter and Facebook).

We pay for an Apple+ news account. This is a reasonable way to obtain the Wall Street Journal and a range of other news magazines. If you read much, this is a pretty good deal.