#socialism adjacent

[governmentcheeseboy]

True freedom will not be a possibility until everyone understands that all oppression is interconnected, and none of us can be free until we are all free.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

“Brand safety” killed Jezebel

I'll be at the Studio City branch of the LA Public Library this Monday, November 13 at 1830hPT to launch my new novel, The Lost Cause. There'll be a reading, a talk, a surprise guest (!!) and a signing, with books on sale. Tell your friends! Come on down!

Progressives: if you want to lose to conservatives, all you need to do is reflexively praise and support everything conservatives turn into a culture-war issue, without considering whether they might be right. Because sometimes…they're right.

Remember early in the Trump presidency, when conservatives all woke up and discovered that America's spy agencies – excuse me, "the intelligence community" – were dirty-tricking psychos who run amok, lawlessly sabotaging democracy? Progressives have been shouting this ever since Hoover's FBI tried to blackmail MLK into killing himself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_letter

But millions of progressives forgot about COINTELPRO, CIA dirty tricks and CIA mass spying when this "intelligence community" temporarily set out to wrong-foot Trump. Remember James Comey votive candles?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/30/james-comey-fbi-memo-leaks-trump-inspector-general-report-column/2157705001/

Anthropologists have a name for this phenomenon, in which one side reverses its positions because their sworn enemies have done so. It's called schizmogenesis, and it goes like this: "If they hate it, we love it":

https://pluralistic.net/2021/12/18/schizmogenesis/

Schizmogenesis is an equal-opportunity delusion. Within living memory, white evangelicals supported abortion, because their sworn enemies – Catholics – opposed it. Some of those white Boomer women who voted Trump because abortion was literally the only issue they cared about held the opposite position on abortion not so long ago – and completely forgot about it:

https://text.npr.org/734303135

The main purpose of the culture war isn't immiserating marginalized people – that's its effect, but its purpose is to distract low-information turkeys (working people) so they'll vote for Christmas (the ongoing seizure of power by American oligarchs). For the funders of conservative movement politics, the cruelty isn't the point, it's merely the tactic. The point is power:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/03/09/turkeys-voting-for-christmas/#culture-wars

Which brings me to "woke capitalism." Conservative string-pullers have whipped up their base about the threat of companies embracing social causes. They (erroneously) claim that corporations have progressive values, and that big business is thumbing the scales for causes they despise. The purpose here isn't to sow distrust of capitalism per se. Rather, it's to stampede talk-radio-addled supporters into backing the oligarchy's agenda. Remember when culture war leaders told their base to support being gouged on credit-card junk fees "to own the libs?"

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/04/owning-the-libs/#swiper-no-swiping

That's schizmogenesis working against the conservative rank-and-file, tricking them into taking the side of a cartel of wildly profitable payment processors who are making billions by picking their pockets (credit card fees are up 40% since the covid lockdowns), because (checks notes), Target pays these profiteers a lot to process its payments, and Target sells Pride merch (no, really):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/04/owning-the-libs/#swiper-no-swiping

It's easy to point and laugh at conservative dopes when they're tricked into shooting themselves in the balls to own the libs. This is not a hypothetical example:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/05/28/holographic-nano-layer-catalyser/#musketfuckers

But progressives do it, too, particularly when they embrace monopolies as a force for positive social change. Remember 2019, when people got excited about playing loud pop music at Nazi rallies in the hopes that the monopoly video platforms' copyright filters would make any video from that rally impossible to post?

https://memex.craphound.com/2019/07/23/clever-hack-that-will-end-badly-playing-copyrighted-music-during-nazis-rallies-so-they-cant-be-posted-to-youtube/

I warned then that if this tactic worked, it would be used by cops to prevent you from recording them when they're macing you or splitting your skull with a billyclub, and yup, within a couple years, cops were blaring Taylor Swift music in hopes of preventing the public from posting videos of their illegal conduct:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/07/moral-hazard-of-filternets/#dmas

Conservatives are (partially) right about woke capitalism. It is a threat to democracy. Concentrating the power to decide who gets to speak and what they get to say into the hands of five or six corporations, mostly run by mediocre billionaires, is bad for society. The moderation decisions of giant platforms are a form of (commercial) censorship, even these don't violate the First Amendment:

https://locusmag.com/2020/01/cory-doctorow-inaction-is-a-form-of-action/

(The progressive delusion that censorship only occurs when the First Amendment is violated is a wild own-goal, one that excuses, for example, the decision by school book-fair monopolist Scholastic to remove books about queers and Black and brown people from its offerings as a purely private matter without consequences for free speech):

https://www.themarysue.com/scholastic-response-to-authors-and-illustrators-on-diverse-books/

Conservatives are only partially right about woke capitalism, though. Here's what they're wrong about: corporations don't have values. Target isn't selling Pride tees because they support progressive causes, they're selling them because it seems like a good way to increase returns to their shareholders. Individuals – even top executives – at Target might endorse the cause, but the company will only durably support the cause if that endorsement is profitable, which means that when it stops being profitable, the company will stop supporting the cause:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/23/business/target-lgbtq-merchandise/index.html

The idea that corporations have values isn't merely stupid, it's very dangerous. The Hobby Lobby decision – which allows corporations to deny basic health-care expenses for women on the basis that a Bronze Age mystic wouldn't approve of an IUD – rests on the ideological foundation that corporate personhood includes corporate values:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.

Citizens United – the idea that corporations should be allowed to funnel unlimited funds to politicians who'll sell out the public good in favor of investor profits – also depends on a form of corporate personhood that includes values:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

There are undeniably instances in which corporate monopoly power benefits progressive causes, but these are side-effects of corporate power's main purpose, namely: taking money and power away from working people and giving it to rich people. That is what monopoly power is for.

Which brings me to ad-tech, "brand safety," and the demise of Jezebel, the 16 year old feminist website whose shuttering was just announced by its latest owner, G/O Media:

https://www.metafilter.com/201349/This-is-the-end-of-Jezebel-and-that-feels-really-really-bad

Jezebel's demise is the direct result of monopoly power. Jezebel writes about current affairs – sex, politics, abortion, and other important issues of great moment and significance. When we talk about journalism as a public good, necessary for a healthy civic life, this is what we mean. But unfortunately for Jezebel – and any other news outlet covering current events – there are vast, invisible forces that exist solely to starve this kind of coverage of advertising revenue.

Writing for the independent news site 404 Media, reporter Emanuel Maiberg and former Motherboard editor-in-chief Jason Koebler go deep on the "brand safety" industry, whose mission is to assist corporations in blocking their ads from showing up alongside real news:

https://www.404media.co/advertisers-dont-want-sites-like-jezebel-to-exist/

Maiberg and Koebler explain how industry associations like the World Federation of Marketers' Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) promulgate "frameworks" to help advertisers automatically detect and exclude real news from consideration when their ads are placed:

https://www.peer39.com/blog/garm-standards

This boycott makes use of scammy "AI" technology like "sentiment and emotional analysis" to determine whether an article is suitable for monetization. These parameters are then fed to the ad-tech duopoly's ad auction system, so Google and Meta (who control the vast majority of online advertising) can ensure that real news is starved of cash.

But reality is not brand-safe, and high quality, reputable journalistic outlets are concerned with reality, which means that the "brand safe" outlets that attract the most revenue are garbage websites that haven't yet been blacklisted by the ad-safety cartel, leading to major brands' ads showing up alongside notorious internet gross-out images like "goatse":

https://www.404media.co/sqword-game-dev-sneaks-goatse-onto-a-dozen-sites-that-stole-his-game/

More than a fifth of "brand safe" ad placements end up on "made for advertising" sites, which 404 Media describe as "trash websites that plagiarize content, are literally spam, pay for fake traffic, or are autogenerated websites that serve no other purpose than capturing ad dollars":

https://www.ana.net/miccontent/show/id/rr-2023-06-ana-programmatic-transparency-first-look

Despite all this, many progressives have become cheerleaders for "brand safety," as a countervailing force to the drawdown of trust and safety at online platforms, which led to the re-platforming of Nazis, QAnon conspiratorialists, TERFs, and other overt elements of the reactionary movement's vanguard on Twitter and Facebook. Articles about ads for major brands showing up alongside Nazi content on Twitter are now a staple of progressive reporting, presented as evidence of Elon Musk's lack of business acumen. The message of these stories is "Musk is bad at business because he's allowing Nazis on his platform, which will send advertisers bolting for the exits to avoid brand-safety crises."

This isn't wrong. Musk is a bad businessman (he's a good scam artist, though). Twitter is hemorrhaging advertisers, notwithstanding the desperate (and easily debunked) stats-juking its "CEO," Linda Yaccarino, floats onstage at tech conferences:

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/11/math-problem-for-linda-yaccarino-if-90-of-the-top-advertisers-have-come-back-but-are-only-spending-10-of-what-they-used-to-how-screwed-are-you/

But progressives are out of their minds if they think the primary effect of the brand safety industry is punishing Elon Musk for secretly loving Nazis. The primary effect of brand safety is killing reality-based coverage of the news of the day, and since reality has a well-known anti-conservative bias, anything that works against the reality-based community is ultimately good for oligarchy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

We can't afford to let schizmogenesis stampede us into loving things just because conservative culture warriors have been momentarily tricked into hating them as part of oligarchs' turkeys-voting-for-Christmas project. "Swivel-eyed loons hate it, so it must be good," is a worse-than-useless heuristic for navigating complex issues:

https://locusmag.com/2023/05/commentary-cory-doctorow-the-swivel-eyed-loons-have-a-point/

A much better rule of thumb is "If oligarchs love something, it's probably bad." Almost without exception, things that are good for oligarchs are bad for the rest of us. I mean, this whole shuttering of Jezebel starts with an oligarch imposing his will on millions of other people. Jezebel began life as a Gawker Media site, beloved of millions of readers, destroyed when FBI informant Peter Thiel secretly funded Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against the publisher in a successful bid to put them out of business to retaliate for their unfavorable coverage of Thiel:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/02/hogan-thiel-gawker-trial/554132/

This, in turn, put Jezebel under the ownership of G/O Media, who are unwilling to pay for a human salesforce that would – for example – sell advertising space on Jezebel to sex-toy companies or pro-abortion groups. G/O has been on a killing spree, shuttering beloved news outlets like Deadspin:

https://deadspin.com/this-is-how-things-work-now-at-g-o-media-1836908201

G/O's top exec, an oligarch named Jim Spanfeller who answers to the private equity looters at Great Hill Partners, is bent on ending reality-based coverage in favor of "letting robots shit out brand safe AI-assisted articles about generic topics":

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/ai-articles-disinformation-future-g-o-media-rcna95944

Three quarters of a century ago, Orwell coined a term to describe this kind of news: duckspeak,

It was not the man’s brain that was speaking it was his larynx. The stuff that was coming out of him consisted of words but it was not speech in true sense: it was a noise uttered in unconsciousness like the quacking of a duck.

When investors and analysts speak of "content" (rather than, say, "journalism"), this is what they mean – a warm slurry of platitudes, purged of any jagged-edged fragments to render it a perfectly suitable carrier for commercial messages targeted based on surveillance data about the "consumer" whose eyeballs are upon it.

This aversion to reality has been present among corporate decisionmakers since the earliest days, but the consolidation of power among large firms – ad-tech firms, online platforms, and "brands" themselves – makes corporate realityphobia much easier to turn into, well, reality, giving advertisers the fine-grained power to put Jezebel and every site like it out of business.

As Koebler and Maiberg's headliine so aptly puts it, "Advertisers Don’t Want Sites Like Jezebel to Exist."

The reason to deplore Nazis on Twitter is because they are Nazis, not because their content isn't brand-safe. The short-term wins progressives gain by legitimizing a corporate veto over what we see online are vastly overshadowed by the most important consequence of brand safety: the mass extinction of reality-based reporting. Reality isn't brand safe. If you're in the reality based community, brand safety should be your sworn enemy, even if they help you temporarily get a couple of Nazis kicked off Twitter.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/11/ad-jacency/#brand-safety

[icewindandboringhorror]

Little bright colored outfit with a fun vest ~

(shoes from ebay like 10 years ago. everything else is thrifted)

[enlitment]

Average reading The Social Contract experience:

[introspectres]

A strategy for creatives who share art online that has helped me tremendously:

step 1: finish art

step 2: share w/ small peer group for immediate "good job"s / positive feedback

step 3: wait a week or more then post it online. Ideally by scheduling it in advance.

After the week buffer, I'm usually already excited about my next project, so I tend to care a lot less about how the first is received on social media. No notes? No worries, we'll keep moving forward

[anoant-haikyuu-dump]

thinking about a Nekoma band au... Fukunaga as the bassist because you don't really notice it's there despite it being one of the most important instruments. Fits with his under-the-radar powerhouse thing

[straightlightyagami]

i think movements calling for the abolition of [given institution] need to address what to replace it with, because it is not at all apparent how society would function without it, and sometimes the proposed replacement ends up being like. well that's literally the same thing under a different name. which is not to say their ideas are wrong btw often times they make very good points. just it's like one of the first things that should be addressed

[tonyglowheart]

one of my favorite but also again alas relatively rare flavor of fic is where actually, it turns out Q is the well-adjusted one (well, as well-adjusted as anyone working at MI6 can be), and Bond is the manic pixie disaster nightmare

[snakeautistic]

Any other autistic people overcome with a sense of deep dread and anxiety when thinking about gender or is it just me?

[sillycourtjester]

The Magnus Archives podcast was the tipping point in changing my mind on what major I wanted to study and I don't think I can over come back from that

[peacerisendove]

I'm still on my post-Impulse, post-everything (New Earth), thoughts about Thad, so bear with me for a moment.

But there is just so much potential with Thad after his death. Dying is literally the best excuse you can give a character to reinvent themselves and it's untapped potential with Thad.

Reinvention also fits so well with his character's sort of inherent theme of identity! Also reinvention doesn't have to have a positive or end-all-be-all outcome for him. He doesn't have to stick with it because right alongside identity is topic/theme of self-discovery.

Genuinely, he can go in any direction. It makes him such and interesting character to play with!

[loki-zen]

What ought a nightclub for neuroatypical shawtys be like?

well obviously that’s very broad. but basically there should be places that are not absolutely drowning in noise. don’t call it a chill-out room and then play whale noises at ear-splitting volume, and have good acoustic engineering going on so that the noise level is meaningfully different when you step outside the main club space. (and honestly there is literally no reason to play music as loud as clubs do. you can barely hear it for how loud it is.)

if the bar is inside the place where the music happens, then have a damn system where i order by pressing what i want on a touchscreen or something instead of expecting me to be able to hear the bartender. and if the bar staff need to say anything they have like an assistive tech speech device that displays their words on a lil screen.

also silent discos are cool.

[foolsocracy]

YOU'RE A TIM DRAKE STAN, TOO?? That guy's one of my favorite, but I think I'm leaning more towards Jason Todd as of the moment. Him and Peter-Noir have some things in common, like being forced to become an adult because of a responsibility that was given to them even though they were just kids/teens. I love my mentally unstable boys.

He's the one that really pulled me into DC. His earnest and obsessive ways endeared me.

I love all the robins though! They all have such different aspects to them that I really like. I haven't read too much of jason's robin days but from panels I've seen he looks really fun. And I had a great time watching Under the Red Hood which also broke my heart. He does have stuff in common with Pete! I feel awful for them both for their canon lives they've lived 😭

Strangely enough I think by now I have more Robin-Dick that I've read than Robin-Tim, but I feel like the Robin Tims ive read have more weight to them so who can say. 60s teen titans vs Death in the Family & Contagion & No mans land, etc. Its pretty different lol

[sangfielle]

i hate every dragon age fan

[thevioletcaptain]

do fandom people realize that gleefully firing off mean little zingers at the socially accepted online target of the week for clicks is functionally identical to the way high school bullies use cruelty for clout, or do they lack that level of self awareness?

[shallowseeker]

"I'm working on a Ph.D," Sam says.

Sam's lie about himself was so interesting in terms of how he sees himself. (I wish it had made it into the episode.)

Instead of defaulting to, "I'm working on a personal research project," or "I'm taking some classes at a local community," Sam says, PHD!

(And I get it. At my age, I wanna say that I'm working on a Masters' or a Ph.D, too. Not that I, "never made it," even though I was, "considered so low-budget genius and backwoods bright.")

From the 14x13 script Dean draws back-- huh? He and Sam swap a confused glance. SAM: What-- who do you think we are? ELIOT: I-- survivalist bigfoot hitmen? Sam and Dean trade a look. SAM: No-- we're-- my brother is a mechanic and I-- I'm working on a PHD-- (exasperated) Just tell us what you saw.

///

I recall, very fondly, this scene with Rowena in 12x02 Mamma Mia:

INTERIOR: INSIDE A RESTAURANT. ROWENA IS SITTING AT A TABLE WITH A MAN. ROWENA: Sent me to the grandest boarding schools, but I was a wee imp and ran away for a life in the arts. Mother didn't speak to me until I became a star. BEN: A star? Of? ROWENA: Uh, do you follow the Royal Ballet? BEN SHAKES HIS HEAD. BEN: Not a bit. ROWENA: The Royal Ballet. BEN: You know, it reminds me a lot of my story. I left school to work in a steel mill. I rose up through the ranks, and now I own half a dozen. ROWENA: You're not serious? FOOTSTEP’S APPROACH AND A WAITER COMES UP WITH A BOTTLE OF WINE.

NOTE: Ben turns out to be a cad and a fraud, but there's something so interesting about how Rowena wants to portray her class background. We know from 11x10 that Rowena, "was (before magic) nothing but Rowena, the tanner's daughter... a pale, scared little girl, who smelled of filth and death."

It's a brilliant thing about Samwena. They get each other, at least as far as this is concerned.

From 15x06 Golden Time:

SAM: Rowena got it. I mean, she didn't know all the details, but she knew the game was rigged. So this... Magic. This is how she kept control.