Social Media Is an Attack Surface

The pseudonymous writer WBF posted a piece called Social Media Has Not Brought Liberation on Liberal Currents today. 

The premise is that social media has "been a boon to autocratic regimes and their allied movements in democracies."

A few quotes from the piece, all of which is worth reading:

It’s fair to ask what makes social media such a uniquely vulnerable attack surface* for authoritarians. After all, foreign countries have always been able to print newspapers or operate radio stations in other nations, and frequently have. But the difference in the ease of social media as an attack vector means that a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind.

The example given is that the Soviets spent $3 billion per year on propaganda in the 1980s to little effect, vs. just $1.25 million per month for the Internet Research Agency in more recent years, where they reached over a hundred million Americans on Facebook alone. That's bang for your rubles. 

The Soviets weren't short on resources or ambition. They were short for not yet having an information environment where placement is free, laundering is instant, and distribution is handled, at scale and for pennies, by the target country's own most widely used consumer products....

Cold War information control was control over discrete activities: the paper you read in the morning, the broadcast you watched at night, the pamphlet someone pressed into your hand. You consumed media, and then you stopped consuming it and went about your day. But social media is not an activity—it is the substrate of daily life. It is where people find jobs, sell furniture, meet spouses, argue with their uncles, and store their baby photos....

The reason that none of the promised liberatory effects of social media have materialized is simple: it actually is not that difficult for competent authoritarian states, unbound by any kind of commitment to rule of law or free expression, to control the medium....

It may be difficult to track down a single dissenting voice if it belongs to someone with the determination and technical competency to post anonymously. But it’s trivially easy to drown them out.

I first saw reference to the article this morning from Will Stancil on BlueSky. He gave the example of the Soviets' spending reduction, and then said:

I’ve been convinced for some time that that social media is the taproot of the madness that has slowly consumed our politics. Traditional media was full of gates – some editorial, some practical, some economic – that prevented ideas from spreading freely. Social media has few, close to none. 

Traditional media’s gates reinforced each other. It was expensive to produce a newspaper so lots of effort went into planning the content; it was the product of great intentionality. There was limited broadcast spectrum available so access was regulated and placed under competent institutions. 

By reducing the cost and technical difficulty of worldwide publishing to almost nothing, the internet has also destroyed any pressure to maintain standards governing which information circulates. Instead of institutions structuring the public’s collective mind, you get this roiling ocean of ideas. 

There are two problems here, one eternal and one novel.

The eternal problem is humanity’s preference for self-validation. Left to our own devices we seek out ideas that flatter our biases and resentments, reinforce our own notions of how the world works. Crowds develop manias, they hallucinate. 

The novel problem is the falling cost of publishing - first through the internet, and then again through social media. That means publishers have endless competition. Vast institutions like the New York Times are jostling with random teenagers for audience eyeballs. 

With so much competition, publishers - the institutions and the randos alike - are dragged back towards audience validation as a strategy for keeping eyeballs on them. If anyone demurs they’re simply outcompeted by a publisher who did not. 

So the long-observed tendency of groups of people to collapse into hysterias and manias, to swing wildly between feverish ideas, has reemerged — but at a massive scale, a scale previously almost impossible because the spread of ideas required structures that could filter out the madness.

One related comment in response to Stancil:

I get why gatekeeping in its negative sense is bad but also it feels an awful lot like gatekeeping in the positive sense was a load bearing pillar of society. 
The Fig Economy @figgityfigs.bsky.social

As a person who spent almost 10 years within a journalism school before these changes happened, working with people who studied the history, political economy, and sociology of news-making, and before that worked with organizations in Washington as the Reagan administration was deregulating broadcasting, I know that 20th century U.S. media were not perfect. 

We had many ideas about how to make things better, how to create "a more perfect union" in news. More voices, different voices was part of that and in some ways was finally starting to happen just as the bottom began to drop out of the economic model of "traditional" media. 

Mediation by humans with values based at least partly in ethics is what has been lost in media. Is that irony? That there's no mediation in media? It's all direct transmission through an algorithm, programmed from economic interest. 

But even if the algorithms are done away with or made financially liable for their promotions, as the Liberal Currents article calls for at the end, is that enough? It may be better, but I wonder.

A few more comments:

it's not that social media produces fascists, but that it produces antisocial behaviour broadly, where even good acts of protest can quickly devolve online into just another method for expressing antisocial impulses in a way that feels "safe" to do
Corey Atad

yeah, I think that's right. and relatedly I think it cannibalizes in-person social institutions by substituting a worse but omnipresent version of human interactions
ryan cooper

Enough writing online for today. Time to go do something in the real world.

__

* I learned this term from reading Cory Doctorow. Social media is an attack surface.

Fridays for a Few Weeks

Here's what I plan to be doing on Friday afternoons in rush hour for the next few weeks: standing on a corner in Saint Paul with this sign or another related one:

That's in addition to the morning rush hour already spent over one of our local highways.

And No Kings is happening once again on Saturday, October 17, focused on the election and early voting.

We all need to get everyone to turn out so they can't try to mess with a close election.

Their Personal Dignity Is So Important

Always read Ari Berman on voting rights. 

His latest work in Mother Jones is on redistricting and the Supreme Court's Louisiana v. Callais decision. Louisiana, with a population that is one-third Black, has in recent years had two of its six Congressional districts with majority-Black populations.

Until the Callais decision. 

Once again, [Rep. Fields'] district was immediately challenged, this time by the “non-African American” voters led by Bert Callais, an election denier who attended the “Save America” rally that preceded the January 6 Capitol attack. Some of the insurrectionists carried Confederate flags that day—a striking symbol of their mission to overturn not just the 2020 election, but multiracial democracy writ large. Under Chief Justice Roberts, the high court used the Callais plaintiffs to accomplish this goal.

They claimed that the creation of a second majority-Black district was an affront to their “personal dignity”—an absurd argument, Fields says: “Literally, Louisiana elects more white members of Congress in one year than [Black members] we’ve elected in my whole lifetime.”

In a 6–3 decision, the court held that a majority-Black district that gave equal representation to Black people actually violated the rights of white voters under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

It's important to understand how the most recent voting rights repression fits into the long history that came before. 

__

John Roberts Playing the Long Game (March, 2021) 

Ari Berman's Give Us the Ballot (August, 2016) 

Strong Man, Weak Man

Trump's illegal ousting of three major news outlets from the White House this week has gotten a lot of attention and finally some solidarity from the rest of the press corps, which suspended coverage by the press pool. Loss of the pool meant a decrease in visual coverage of his state visit with President Xi of China.

I think the timing of his attempt to ban the three was partly to show how strong he is to Xi, as was the timing of the ads the regime ran this week on Fox News and Newsmax that are essentially Trump campaign ads, but which end with the line "paid for by the U.S. government."

The ads have no content that could legitimately carry that endorsement. It's almost absurd to describe them. Their words say "America will never be a communist country" and boast about "the largest tax cuts in history" — both Republican talking points — and intersperse footage of Donald Trump with a chorus of voices singing the words "Love me." 

Anyone who made that ad, or accepted it to run, knows that it is in violation of U.S. law. Such a violation I wouldn't have even thought this regime would try it.

But it's a show of power, the same as Trump's ejection of the journalists, and it comes at the same time he has been praising the Chinese puppet media accompanying Xi. 

The ad has not gotten as much coverage as his action against CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, but it's of a piece. He's showing he's a strong man who can get away with anything. 

Meanwhile, the White House doctored a photo of Trump with Xi and others taken during the unprecedented ceremonial reception for Xi at Andrews Air Force Base, another show of his disregard for the existence of truth. 

He's a weak, weak man enabled by people who never tell him no. When will this end?

Finding Yourself After College

The Star Tribune carried this advice column letter yesterday, and for some reason it really bugged me:

Dear Eric: After college, I moved to Chicago even though my parents wanted me to move back home. They live in a suburb outside of Indianapolis. It’s fine for them but I wanted better career prospects and a social life that was different from what I had growing up.

I’m really happy here. It’s been five years and I don’t see any reason to move back.

Recently, I joined my parents on vacation at the lake, and they had what felt like an intervention for me. They and my aunt and uncle basically ambushed me at dinner and pointed out all these things that had changed about me. Each one of these things was an indication I was “losing myself.” Some of them were so silly, like I was letting my facial hair grow out and I once talked about a friend of mine and used “they” to refer to them (because they are non-binary).

They ended the meal by saying I had a lot to think about. I don’t really know what to do with this.

– Changed for the Better

The columnist responded with a reasonable answer, I'm happy to report: It's not you, it's them, he said, but try to hear what may be underlying their dis-ease. Maybe they're asking for more connection with you. 

That's not bad advice. At the same time, there's clearly something wrong here.

My first reaction: Why aren't his parents happy that he's launched successfully, instead of moving home to live in their basement? What a couple of weirdos. The writer is now (probably) at least 27 years old. He's an adult!

My second reaction: He's been in Chicago for five years. If his parents were worried about his safety in "the big city," I would think they'd have gotten over it by now. 

The two examples he gave of their worries are not about safety: they're coded or not-so-coded culture war points.

I wondered — is he an only child? It seems like it. I asked Daughter Number Three-Point-One what she thought about this letter, and she said it might be an example of "when parents don't interact much with their adult kids, and they see their kids as an extension of themselves and then it has changed." She said she has other friends who've had things like this happen. 

My own two-generations-old experience in similar circumstances was very different. After a year post-college working near where I grew up in central New York, I moved to Washington, D.C. This was 1983, when the crime rate was a lot higher than it is now. 

There were no cell phones or other devices then, of course. I had no car and took public transit everywhere. The only thing my parents did was give me a small, battery-operated screech alarm that I could press in case of a mugging or other attack. (I soon forgot I had it and stopped carrying it.) And my political views continued to change over the next three years, as they had during college, and no one ran an intervention on me. 

I was one of four kids instead of an only, and times were not the same in terms of parenting in general, so I'm sure that made a difference. And I admit my mother may have tried to question two of my sisters as they drifted to the Right in later years. 

But I don't think she ever told them they "had a lot to think about" or pressured them to move home to be under her thumb. 

António Guterres

There was a speech worth listening to at the United Nations 81st General Assembly yesterday, but it wasn't given by Donald Trump, who only knows how to self-aggrandize and threaten.

This speech was by outgoing UN Secretary-General António Guterres. In my limited, American way, I've been admiring his commitment to climate advocacy throughout his 10 years in office. I will miss him and I hope his successor continues on that path.

In his final opening speech, he talked about power in four ways. In one part, he said:

...we are witnessing an extraordinary transfer of power away from governments to a handful of private corporations and individuals [whose] reach now extends across politics, economies, information flows, technological development, and the civic space on which societies depend.

At the very moment when humanity faces an unprecedented convergence of threats, our mechanisms for collective action are under growing strain.

Will we fall into “transactionalism,” “rising tensions and deepening mistrust,” “fractured markets and weakened institutions,” “shrinking cooperation and zero-sum calculations,” or will we instead follow the path the UN was created for: 

[a] networked multipolarity, [a] world built on interdependence — and sustained by a dense web of economic, political, social, and technological connections. A world in which multiple centres of influence coexist within a common framework of international law and shared rules....

Will we act to ensure that power is governed by law or by force? By cooperation or coercion?

He also talked about power and equality among men and women, and came to this:

... institutions are more effective when power is shared equally. Equality is not a dream. It is a decision.

Excellencies, the test before us is whether power will be exercised with the law — or beyond it.

In the face of a global catastrophe more than 80 years ago, the United Nations was created as an act of defiance. The defiance of people who refuse to surrender the future to fear. The defiance against the self-defeating notion that might makes right. The defiance of countries that know our futures are bound together. The defiance of hope.

The whole transcript is here. 

__

Thanks to Heather Cox Richardson's for highlighting this speech in her daily post. It was not covered in the Star Tribune this morning, though it was in the Pioneer Press. 

How to Insult Your Friends... in Gold

My opinion on the Kennedy Center is that people should be encircling it 24 hours a day, just to make sure the regime doesn't show up with heavy equipment to start dismantling it at some odd-ball time. I'm glad there were thousands of people there last Friday evening, but it's going to take more than that.

Someone said his actions are like desecrating a grave, and I agree with that.  

But in the mean time, can we all please make fun of these?

Trump — with his fist raised — is probably recognizable, but that's supposed to be RFK Jr. at lower left and Reagan at right.

Those blobs at right are supposed to be Rocky Balboa, to go with the quote.

That's a demented Elon Musk, in case you couldn't tell. 

I hadn't heard who the "artist" is until I read this story, which attributes them to Trump donor, billionaire ex-wife, and Scientologist Patricia Duggan, who clearly exudes gold leaf, if not talent:

Duggan, who lives in Florida, gave $7 million to pro-Trump groups in 2024 and $9 million in 2020, according to the Tampa Bay Times. In 2019, the same paper reported that Duggan and her ex-husband, billionaire biotech entrepreneur Bob Duggan, had given over $360 million to the Church of Scientology, making them the church’s biggest donors.

The regime has been busy removing all of the real artwork from the Kennedy Center, much of which was sent by governments from around the world. It has been replaced with this stuff. 

Not that anyone is going in the building, since it's closed because of the regime's sham bankrupting. I'm not sure why or how a reporter got access to take photos of these framed objects. 

Well, at Least It's Only 38%

Do you ever want to ask a Republican how it feels to be led around by the nose?

I do.
 

Yay for Rain!

Did I mention it finally rained here? (Yes, I think I did.)

Over the past five days or so, we've gotten about 2.5" and there's a good chance it will rain on a few more days in the coming week. 

Crossing my fingers that the drought of 2026 is broken, and our trees will be saved. 
 

Frogs Say Land Back

It was a long day outside, mostly in the rain even though it wasn't supposed to be raining. 

I hate complaining about rain when we've been in a drought all summer, but we finally had good rain this week and it was supposed to stop this morning and be nice for outdoor events the rest of the day. 

But then... more rain. 

The good news: it helps the plants. And the frogs didn't mind it either:

As seen in the Creative Enterprise Zone during the Chroma Zone mural festival.
 

Acorns

I live in a house that has several white oak trees in or adjacent to its yard. The one near the back door had a mast year a few years ago, and it's having another one right now. 

That means there has been a rain of acorns for the past few weeks. If I wasn't collecting them, the path between the back door and the alley would be completely crunchy underfoot. The planted areas of the yard, where just as many acorns have fallen invisibly among the large perennials, will be producing seedling trees next year, each one with a little taproot that will make them hard to pull out. 

Oh, joy.

While I was collecting the gallons of acorns from the hard surfaces and bit of lawn grass, most of which were just the nut meat, I found a few that were intact, with their little nubby cap and stem. 

I thought it would be a good idea to get a photo, because who doesn't need to have a photo of what acorns looks like, since they're often used as a symbol of growing something large from a tiny beginning?

So here you go, a free photo to use as you see fit:

(Click the photo to enlarge.) 

It doesn't make up for the constant noise, the physical bombardment when I'm outside, or the many weed trees I will have to pull in the future. But at least I will have this photo to remember the mast year.

Just a Bit More Crop Art

Boréal, a shop on Como Avenue in Saint Paul, is showing several dozen crop art works from the Minnesota State Fair in its Art Loft until September 28. I got a chance to stop in a few days ago. 

Because there are so many fewer pieces and there's no crowd, the experience is startlingly different. You can also stand inches away from each work if you want to. 

I saw one that I don't remember noticing:

Private equity — my not-favorite thing. How did I miss this one the first time?

And these two, which I do remember, but I now appreciate much more, once that I could see them up close, and particularly take time to look at their accompanying seed cards:

So many clever choices to create the colors and textures on the animals.

Hulled oat groats and corn, painted in pastels. Who would have thought?