Not that I’m going to go leave this comment on the Breitbart website or anything, but there’s one huge problem with the so-called “buttering-up” strategy which Joel Pollak attributes to the president, and as someone who has negotiated my fair share of contract terms, I think I can comment on this to some degree. That strategy can work, if a few things are in place: First, you have to already possess a reputation for having an amiable personality. If you don’t have that, and you then go to the negotiation table pouring the sugar on as thick as you can, whoever’s on the other side is going to see right through that, and proceed accordingly. Second, as with any negotiation, you don’t show your hand before talks begin, and you sure as hell don’t hand over all your cards, (as the president appears to have done), before you secure worthwhile concessions from the other side. To do otherwise isn’t negotiation, it’s desperation to save face, and it usually never turns out that way. So I think it’s safe to conclude that the president, (once again) got played like a baby grand.
When the news came late Thursday night that denuclearization talks between the United States and North Korea had broken down without a resolution, it didn’t take long for the president’s media allies to arrive at a consensus: Trump had demonstrated strength by walking away from a bad deal.
This is worth a read for several reasons. First, for me at least, this is definitely “Essence of Convergys” material. Granted, we weren’t moderating content, just people’s prescriptions and who could get them, or rather, we were responsible for telling people whether or not judgment had been handed down in their favor or not. Second, I saw this on Twitter, and the general reaction I’m seeing is concern over moderators adopting misinformation and conspiracy theories, and nothing about what clearly is the toll being taken on them as people. I think that’s rather dehumanizing. The final thing that comes to mind is the complete disregard by the “anti-deplatforming” crowd, who dehumanize these people just as easily as the “misinformation” crowd, except in the latter case the dehumanization occurs because it’s far too easy to attribute malice to these people than to recognize that moderation is a very difficult job and God forbid you moderate something I approve of on a platform I don’t own.
For me at least, it’s obvious we have a separate problem above and beyond the problem of “Hey we put a camera in the living room and are probably recording and if you mind you’re now a person we don’t like.” If you’re blind, how the hell are you supposed to figure out from the AirBnB site if cameras other than the stated cameras at the entrances are present? I haven’t stayed in an AirBnB yet, although I’ve heard they can be cheaper than hotels. I also understand that this is probably completely irrational, but frankly it scares the hell out of me that a host can essentially have hidden cameras in the residence and AirBnB is going to do nothing about it because technically you consented. I can think of several ways this could go very very wrong, complete with the online backlash when it does and somebody decides to complain or report or anything. So I’ll be holding off on AirBnB until this kind of thing is sorted.
Imagine you’re looking for a home on AirBnB. You’re doing your due diligence, reading the description of the home, and looking through the pictures. One of the 20 or so photos on the listing is: "A view of a corner of a living room. It's really hard to see, but there is a little camera up in the corner."
This is a long piece, but worth a read, and I would encourage everyone to read it, regardless of what your politics are. Ignorance really is considered a virtue in our society, and for once, this really is something that occurs frequently on both sides and by this point is a deeply held belief. Nobody gets to be smug on this one. As a result of the belief that ignorance is a virtue on the right, we now have President Trump, who quite proudly will not listen to any advisor who tells him something he doesn’t want to hear or anything that would cause him to question an already-held belief. And on the left, we have Alexandria Ocacio Cortez, who is young enough to still believe that she is more knowledgeable than she actually is on a whole range of subjects. In Cortez’s case, there is hope that she will mature before seeking the presidency, if that’s even one of her goals. But hope is not a strategy that anyone should rely on. In Trump’s case, I’m afraid we’ve passed the point where we can reasonably expect that there’s going to be a shift in his personality that would cause him to begin not only listening to, but seeking, the advice of those who are experts in the various subjects he must make decisions on as president. In my view, Ocacio Cortez and Trump are, (in some very striking ways), mirror images of each other. But that’s for exploration in another post. This article is enough to be getting on with for now.
In many ways, the populist surge that brought Donald Trump to office represents a rejection of experts and all they represent. Americans today see ignorance as a virtue. Here’s why they’re very, very wrong.
I find myself in the same position as Ryan with regard to Facebook. It’s where all my (biological) family are and a ton of my chosen family, and to add to that, there are work-related reasons why I need to maintain an account. My posting there is pretty rare, and I’m trying to get to the point where I’m posting only links to my own site with my thoughts, as opposed to native status updates and photos. The native updates tend to garner more engagement, but at this point that engagement serves as a reminder of the inferiority, (at least inn my eyes), of only being able to engage on one platform with people who have accounts on that platform. We don’t really have a catchphrase for the concept of “Once you discover the joys and even fulfillment of widening your circcle of engagement to the entire open web instead of just silos, you never go back”, but I think we need one, because that’s the position I find myself in. With Twitter and Micro.blog, I can pull in replies and other interactions. With Mastodon, I can’t pull in replies and other interactions yet, but it’s still decentralized which lessens the sting a bit, although I’m getting to the point where I really want to crack that nut. With Facebook, it’s either Facebook’s way or the highway and I really, really don’t like that. At all. Twitter also bothers me, although I suppose not as much as Facebook, but eve if it did, I still find myself in a position where I at least need to maintain some sort of presence. It’s a lot easier to handle posting only links from my own sites to Twitter though because this step is automated. I think that’s the part of Facebook’s changes that has impacted me the most: Not being able to (1) automate publishing, and then (2) pull the conversation back in.
I deleted all of my Facebook posts last week. I deleted my Google+ posts too. They were pretty much all posted here on my web site too, so nothing was truly lost, but I still feel a bit lighter, somehow.
I mostly track everything I’m doing manually, and am still working on the automation part. This seems like a worthy goal to work on in 2019, because while manual tracking has its advantages, (well, OK one, which is thinking about what you’re tracking and hopefully therefore tracking intentionally), it’s mostly a pain and means that I forget to track things and post them to my website.
In the most recent episode of Two Dads Talking, Jonathan and I talk about tracking our information and whether we are using active or passive applications. Jonathan is using mostly passive applications that collect his behavior and translate that into posts on his website. I, on the other hand, spend way too much time tracking all sorts of information:
Oh great. Just what we need. Facebook, except with brains. How about let’s not and if you want to you can pretend we did.
Neuroscientists have successfully hooked up a three-way brain connection to allow three people to share their thoughts – and in this case, play a Tetris-style game.
I think tending to your own website more than your social media is always good advice. For one thing, regardless of whether or not you go full indieweb or full federated. Granted, you need all the indieweb building blocks if you want to add more semantic meaning, along with the social components, but the basics of owning the content you create are as simple as purchasing a domain, some hosting, and setting up your own website, followed by posting there. Of course this means you might miss out on the instant gratification of social media, and you’ll have to do more work on those platforms to get the word out, but to really have an impact at this point on social media, you need to put in that work anyway. It’s not just about using the right hashtag. I also think you can take a middle road when it comes to social media by posting on your own site first and then syndicating to social media, instead of posting on social media first.
if I re-wrote the book now, I would encourage artists to use much more caution when it comes to using social media websites like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
It seems ridiculous to say, but 2013, the year I wrote the book, was a simpler time. Social media seemed much more benign to me. Back then, the worst I felt social media did was waste your time. Now, the worst social media does is cripple democracy and ruin your soul.