Why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid – article by Jonathan Haidt in The Atlantic, referenced in John Naughton’s Memex 1.1 blog, but see also critique by Daniel Kreiss (also referenced in John Naughton's blog) arguing that it is historically incorrect in positing a golden age of unity in knowledge and community and that it lacks an analysis of power. “The story of Babel is the best metaphor I have found for what happened to America in the 2010s, and for the fractured country we now inhabit. Something went terribly wrong, very suddenly. We are disoriented, unable to speak the same language or recognize the same truth. We are cut off from one another and from the past…. The high point of techno-democratic optimism was arguably 2011, a year that began with the Arab Spring and ended with the global Occupy movement. That is also when Google Translate became available on virtually all smartphones, so you could say that 2011 was the year that humanity rebuilt the Tower of Babel…. But gradually, social-media users became more comfortable sharing intimate details of their lives with strangers and corporations…. They became more adept at putting on performances and managing their personal brand—activities that might impress others but that do not deepen friendships in the way that a private phone conversation will…. In 2009, … Facebook offered users a way to publicly ‘like’ posts with the click of a button. That same year, Twitter introduced something even more powerful: the ‘Retweet’ button, which allowed users to publicly endorse a post while also sharing it with all of their followers. Facebook soon copied that innovation with its own ‘Share’ button, which became available to smartphone users in 2012. ‘Like’ and ‘Share’ buttons quickly became standard features of most other platforms…. Facebook developed algorithms to bring each user the content most likely to generate a ‘like’ or some other interaction, eventually including the ‘share’ as well. Later research showed that posts that trigger emotions––especially anger at out-groups––are the most likely to be shared…. One of the engineers at Twitter who had worked on the ‘Retweet’ button later revealed that he regretted his contribution because it had made Twitter a nastier place…. ‘We might have just handed a 4-year-old a loaded weapon.’… What happened [I believe] to many of America’s key institutions in the mid-to-late 2010s [is that] they got stupider en masse because social media instilled in their members a chronic fear of getting darted. … The new omnipresence of enhanced-virality social media meant that a single word uttered by a professor, leader, or journalist, even if spoken with positive intent, could lead to a social-media firestorm… Participants in our key institutions began self-censoring to an unhealthy degree, holding back critiques of policies and ideas—even those presented in class by their students—that they believed to be ill-supported or wrong…. But when an institution punishes internal dissent, it shoots darts into its own brain.“
Chums: How a Tiny Caste of Oxford Tories Took Over the UK by Simon Kuper – review by Tim Adams in The Guardian. “[At the Oxford Union, ] Johnson’s own rhetorical style differed from the self-conscious rigour of his peers. He had learned, Simon Kuper writes, in debates at Eton, ‘to defeat opponents whose arguments were better simply by ignoring their arguments’. He offered instead ‘carefully timed jokes, calculated lowerings of the voice, and ad hominem jibes’. In this manner, he had won the election to union presidency with the help of various self-described ‘votaries in the Boris cult’, including Gove and future Covid sceptic Toby Young…. if you thought you knew the extent of the stubbornly incestuous Oxford networks that currently sit at the top of our politics, this book will still surprise you. Financial Times columnist Kuper himself arrived at Oxford in 1988, just after Gove and Johnson had left. Kuper, from a north London comprehensive school, mostly inhabited a different social world to the subjects of his book but, like them, he acknowledges, he was trained by his Oxford humanities degree primarily ‘to write and speak for a living without much knowledge’.”
Elon, Twitter is not the town square, it’s just a private shop; the square belongs to us all – article by John Naughton in The Guardian. “Many years ago, in a landmark book, Power: A Radical View, the sociologist Steven Lukes wrote that power comes in three varieties: the ability to stop people doing what they want to do; the ability to compel them to do what they don’t want to do; and the ability to shape the way they think. This third capability is clearly the kind of power that a society’s communications media wield. But until Trump arrived on the scene, Twitter didn’t look like a particularly powerful player…. As any local politician knows from doorstep canvassing, very few ‘ordinary’ citizens use it. So wherein lies its importance? Answer: virtually every mainstream journalist is an obsessive user of it. And mainstream media – print and broadcast – outlets are still the forces that shape how citizens perceive the world.”
The Tories’ biggest trick is making their opponents fight post-Brexit policies in the courts – article by Anton Jäger in The Guardian. "It seems like every few months brings news of another defeat for the UK government in the courts.... [But] what if [the left's] increasing embrace of the justice system is not just a sign of political weakness, but rather a gift to the right? ... By forcing opponents to lawyer up instead of building movements and pursuing state power, the right can pose as the defenders of an assailed, disfranchised majority.... A variety of trends may well decrease the vote share of rightwing parties in the near and distant future. In Britain, persistently low wages and a cost of living crisis do not make for great electoral prospects. Faced with these demographic and economic trends, the Conservative party (and other rightwing outfits) could increasingly prefer its opponents to fight them on the terrain of courts and judges. This is an easy option: it allows rightwing parties to pose as the representatives of a frustrated majority, while camouflaging their own anti-democratic plans – to gerrymander voting districts, for instance, or even to introduce tests at the voting booth.... if progressives are serious about offering a real political alternative, they will be better off focusing on the (re)building of durable institutions, rather than appealing to the moral conscience of high judges. Courts will not always be their best friend – sometimes, they might even be an enemy."
‘I had to be broken to be fixed’: the courses trying to change abusive men – article by Anna Moore in The Guardian. "For decades, perpetrator programmes ... have been low profile and low priority.... Now, however, something is shifting. Respect, the UK’s lead organisation on perpetrator programmes, has firmly positioned itself as part of the movement tackling violence against women and girls. Some of its programmes are delivered in partnership with groups such as Women’s Aid, or the domestic violence charity SafeLives.... Respect was formed 21 years ago when a handful of perpetrator programmes joined together, partly to raise the profile of their work, but also to articulate good practice at a time when they worried about perpetrators setting up self-help groups, or short interventions such as weekend courses, and simplistic 'anger management' programmes. (Most perpetrators are already 'managing their anger' very precisely. They manage not to explode at their boss or the big man at the gym, but still terrorise and control their partners.) Ciara Bergman, Respect’s head of perpetrator services, cautions that programmes that don’t adhere to certain principles could make things worse. 'When you’re delivering perpetrator work, the primary client is not the person in front of you,' she says. 'It has to be focused on the adult and child survivors of that abuse. We don’t think any work should take place with perpetrators in the absence of parallel but separate support for survivors.' Because of this, a Respect-accredited programme will only take on a perpetrator if their partner (or ex-partner if there are children and contact) agrees to be involved."
Who owns Einstein? The battle for the world’s most famous face – article by Simon Parkin in The Guardian. “Albert Einstein died in 1955. In article 13 of his last will and testament, he pledged that his ‘manuscripts, copyrights, publication rights, royalties … and all other literary property’ would … pass to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an institution that Einstein cofounded in 1918. Einstein made no mention in his will about the use of his name or likeness on books, products or advertisements. Today, these are known as publicity rights, but at the time Einstein was writing his will, no such legal concept existed. When the Hebrew University took control of Einstein’s estate in 1982, however, publicity rights had become a fierce legal battleground, worth millions of dollars each year. In the mid-1980s, the university began to assert control over who could use Einstein’s name and likeness, and at what cost. … Einstein had been a well-paid man. … But his earnings in life were insignificant compared to his earnings in death. From 2006 to 2017, he featured every year in Forbes’ list of the 10 highest-earning historic figures – ‘dead celebrities’ in the publication’s rather diminishing term – bringing in an average of $12.5m a year in licensing fees for the Hebrew University, which is the top-ranking university in Israel. A conservative estimate puts Einstein’s postmortem earnings for the university to date at $250m. ... [Roger] Richman became a lawyer, and in 1978 founded an agency that specialised in product placement in film and TV. The following year, the heirs of the late American comedian WC Fields contacted his office. They wanted Richman to become his agent… A few months later, … Richman learned the US Postal Service planned to produce a commemorative stamp in honour of WC Fields’ 100th birthday. … After initial protestation, the Postal Service paid its first licence fee to the estate of a dead celebrity. Richman soon built an enviable roster of deceased clients, which included Marilyn Monroe and Sigmund Freud. Descendants of late celebrities were often pleased to hear from Richman, who offered them a way to protect their loved ones from legacy-tainting associations and to make some money along the way.”
What I learned about street harassment after I transitioned – article by Julia Serano in The Guardian. "Feminist theorizing of street harassment has tended to frame the matter in terms of sexual objectification – that is, these men viewed me as little more than an object for them to sexually evaluate, appreciate and potentially use. I believe that sexual objectification is playing a role in many of these instances, but not all of them.... My harassers acted as though I had invited their attention, when in fact I had done nothing of the sort.... Normally, if an individual invades your personal space, most people would agree that the individual has behaved inappropriately, and that you are warranted in calling them out. But because I was perceived as 'inviting' these men’s attention (due to the fact that I was a woman out in public), my harasser’s intrusions were suddenly deemed warranted. I want to suggest an alternative and non-mutually exclusive framework for understanding this phenomenon: male street harassers seem to view and treat women as though we are public spectacles."
With the left asleep at the wheel, the right has surged ahead with its cynical anti-woke narrative – article by Ellie Mae O'Hagen in The Guardian. "The wokemob, argues the modern story, is hellbent on lavishing minorities and immigrants with undeserved privileges at the expense of the white working class... This is clever on the part of the people promoting this anti-woke story, because they are essentially telling us that equality is a zero-sum game in which white people lose out when advancements in racial justice are made.... Thus, every time anyone uses the term culture war, the idea that two sides are at war over a clash of values is reinforced. Faced with such a vivid and emotive story, the response of the people on my side of the political spectrum – the progressive side – has been a kind of paralysis. ... It’s time for progressives to bite the bullet and start telling a story of our own.... Far more effective than focusing on problems, denouncing the right or listing policies is opening with shared progressive values (like the importance of a good quality of life and building a better world for our children), being clear about exactly who is getting in the way of those values being realised and why, and emphasising that by joining together across our differences we can make life better for all of us, whatever our race."
‘What are our lives for?’: a philosopher answers kids’ existential questions – article by Scott Herschoviz in The Guardian. "Every child is a natural philosopher. They’re puzzled by the world and they try to puzzle it out." Examples of their questions. "If God created everything, who created God? Leyha, 7." "I sometimes feel like I’m the only real person and everyone else is a robot. How can I know if that’s true? Ursula, 8." "Why are there numbers? Sahil, 5." "Where was I before I was born and before I was in your belly? Melia, 4." "Where was I before I was here? Josh, 3." "Where do you go when you die? Homer, 7." "What is it like to be dead? Arthur, 8." "What are our lives for? Caspar, 5." "When there is a mummy and a daddy, but their baby dies, are they still a mummy and a daddy? Zahra, 5." "Why is it bad to have everything I want? Abraham, 4." "Why do people end up doing things that they don’t want to do? Sarang, 4."
Zero by Jeremy Hunt: this is going to hurt – review by Rachel Clarke in The Guardian. "[The] ambition [of Hunt's new book] cannot be faulted: 'Zero is a book about how the NHS can reduce the number of avoidable deaths to zero and in the process save money, reduce backlogs and improve working conditions,' Hunt writes.... Historically, he explains, NHS culture has been opaque and evasive. When whistleblowers try to raise patient safety concerns, instead of listening to them, NHS trusts destroy them. In the worst cases ... bereaved relatives can be left fighting for years as NHS institutions close ranks, covering up their wrongdoing. What is desperately required in healthcare, then, is a root-and-branch cultural overhaul.... Disconcertingly, I entirely agree. More disconcertingly still, while researching this book, Hunt contacted me to ask if he could discuss where he’d gone wrong in the junior doctor dispute.... On one level, Hunt is clearly moved by poor patient care.... But this is also the work of a consummate politician.... What is most disappointing from a frontline perspective is Hunt’s failure to match his fine words on candour with action. I write as someone who this year has seen too many patients dying in misery to count. They’ve died on trolleys in the corridors of overwhelmed hospitals. Of cancers that should have been diagnosed months ago. In their own blood or excrement because the nurses are run ragged. In ambulances trapped outside jam-packed A&Es.... Political choices, in short, are causing avoidable deaths here, now, in every NHS hospital in the country. Hunt knows this yet chooses not to voice it. Presumably he still has one eye on Downing Street. And that’s the thing about candour. You can’t credibly advocate total transparency while dipping in and out of being candid when it suits you. A true patient safety champion would lead by example, speaking out about all kinds of patient harm, including those inflicted by their party in government."
The end of men: the controversial new wave of female utopias – article by Sandra Newman in The Guardian. "I’m describing a subgenre of science fiction, mostly written in the 1970s-90s.... Recently there has been a revival of the genre in radically different form... In their different ways, [these works] are thrillers, and the reception of these works in most quarters has correspondingly been about their success as such, not their politics, and has been mostly positive. The exception is the reaction of a group of critics who are hostile to the genre. You might think this would be about the fantasy of male genocide. In fact, it’s the erasure of trans identities. The line between male and female in these books is always based on traditional notions of biological sex; trans women share the fate of cis men. In the old utopian versions, female societies are always better; this is seen as implying that gender traits are biological. My own book has been the focus of attacks, even before its publication. Once again, it is the premise that matters. In my novel, all male humans disappear inexplicably in a single moment, and the resulting female society has a utopian odour. ... In the book, trans women are treated as women, trans men as men, and their problems are viewed sympathetically, but it has the hated premise.... The more thoughtful versions of the narrative don’t affirm a gender binary, but try to dismantle it by erasing sex as a category. Russ’s Whileawayans are better and happier not because they are biologically female, but because they are free from sexism. The premise also interrogates the belief that excluding certain people is a means to a peaceful society. Exclusion as social policy is a time-honoured tradition in America (think mass incarceration and racial segregation) and on the rise worldwide. It’s also the idea behind excluding trans women from women’s changing rooms. Making people ask hard questions about it is crucial to all campaigns for justice."
The big idea: could the greatest works of literature be undiscovered? – article by Laura Spinney in The Guardian. "When the great library at Alexandria went up in flames, it is said that the books took six months to burn.... For two millennia, we’ve been haunted by the idea that what has been passed down to us might not be representative of the vast corpus of literature and knowledge that humans have created. ... Researchers [have] concluded that a humbling 90% of medieval manuscripts preserving chivalric and heroic narratives – those relating to King Arthur, for example, or Sigurd (also known as Siegfried) – have gone. Of the stories themselves, about a third have been lost completely, meaning that no manuscript preserving them remains. ... It’s tempting to think that after the advent of movable-type printing, which happened in Europe in the 15th century (and centuries earlier in China), literary erosion might have slowed down, simply because churning out copies became easier. But ... that’s not necessarily true. For one thing, accidents continued to happen, as when rioters vandalised London’s Cockpit theatre in 1617, starting a fire in which all the theatre’s playbooks were burned. For another, not everything that made it to the stage made it to the page.... [David] McInnis estimates that the 543 plays that survive from 1576, when the first public theatres opened in London, to 1642, when the Puritans closed them, represent a fraction of all those produced. Another 744 that certainly existed have been lost, and hundreds more were probably written to fill the repertory calendar, of which no trace remains. ... Unfortunately, we can’t console ourselves that the plays that do survive were necessarily the best, or at least the most popular. McInnis crunched the numbers based on the meticulous book-keeping of one London impresario in the 1590s, Philip Henslowe, and drew the following conclusion: 'Lost plays performed at least as well as, and usually better than, the plays that have survived. They are definitively not inferior, they were good money-makers, and they have been lost for a variety of reasons that aren’t attributable to quality.'"
‘I’m begging the government to listen’: Martin Lewis on getting political, mental health and the cost of living crisis –article by Zoe Williams in The Guardian. "[There] is, as he’s the first to point out, 'an enormous distance' from the Martin Lewis of 2002, doing Deal of the Day on the satellite channel Simply Money. Then, he was a young man, 'thinking: "Look at me, I’m being so clever and I’m playing the system, and nobody has done this before."' ... But over time, his focus changed – first, towards customer rip-offs, and then two massive campaigns: [bank charges and mis-sold PPI]. Gradually, he became more preoccupied with people who were going under, either being deliberately ripped off or just not equipped to deal with the complexity of the system, particularly, but not exclusively around social security. This led him, among other things, to devise a financial literacy element to the school curriculum, and launch the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute in 2016, the work of which is essentially bug-fixing for society.... Once he started talking to charities ... his compassion met his inner terrier. During the campaign against unfair bank charges, he produced a template letter, and someone from CA [Citizens Advice] told him 15% of people weren’t taking 'Your name' out before they wrote their name, while 5% weren’t writing their own details in at all, they were just sending the template in blank. 'That was one of my epiphany moments. One in 20 people who’d had money taken off them unfairly couldn’t understand that you need to put your own name and address in the template letter. They’ve been ripped off, and they’ve got so desperate that they tried, but they can’t do it. I still find that quite a moving statistic now.'”
