idlnmclean - Tumblr blog

idlnmclean · 6 hours ago

Text

Expert agencies and elected legislatures

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/2024/11/21/policy-based-evidence/#decisions-decisions

Since Trump hijacked the Supreme Court, his backers have achieved many of their policy priorities: legalizing bribery, formalizing forced birth, and – with the Loper Bright case, neutering the expert agencies that regulate business:

https://jacobin.com/2024/07/scotus-decisions-chevron-immunity-loper

What the Supreme Court began, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are now poised to finish, through the "Department of Government Efficiency," a fake agency whose acronym ("DOGE") continues Musk's long-running cryptocurrency memecoin pump-and-dump. The new department is absurd – imagine a department devoted to "efficiency" with two co-equal leaders who are both famously incapable of getting along with anyone – but that doesn't make it any less dangerous.

Expert agencies are often all that stands between us and extreme misadventure, even death. The modern world is full of modern questions, the kinds of questions that require a high degree of expert knowledge to answer, but also the kinds of questions whose answers you'd better get right.

You're not stupid, nor are you foolish. You could go and learn everything you need to know to evaluate the firmware on your antilock brakes and decide whether to trust them. You could figure out how to assess the Common Core curriculum for pedagogical soundness. You could learn the material science needed to evaluate the soundness of the joists that hold the roof up over your head. You could acquire the biology and chemistry chops to decide whether you want to trust produce that's been treated with Monsanto's Roundup pesticides. You could do the same for cell biology, virology, and epidemiology and decide whether to wear a mask and/or get an MRNA vaccine and/or buy a HEPA filter.

You could do any of these. You might even be able to do two or three of them. But you can't do all of them, and that list is just a small slice of all the highly technical questions that stand between you and misery or an early grave. Practically speaking, you aren't going to develop your own robust meatpacking hygiene standards, nor your own water treatment program, nor your own Boeing 737 MAX inspection protocol.

Markets don't solve this either. If they did, we wouldn't have to worry about chunks of Boeing jets falling on our heads. The reason we have agencies like the FDA (and enabling legislation like the Pure Food and Drug Act) is that markets failed to keep people from being murdered by profit-seeking snake-oil salesmen and radium suppository peddlers.

These vital questions need to be answered by experts, but that's easier said than done. After all, experts disagree about this stuff. Shortcuts for evaluating these disagreements ("distrust any expert whose employer has a stake in a technical question") are crude and often lead you astray. If you dismiss any expert employed by a firm that wants to bring a new product to market, you will lose out on the expertise of people who are so legitimately excited about the potential improvements of an idea that they quit their jobs and go to work for whomever has the best chance of realizing a product based on it. Sure, that doctor who works for a company with a new cancer cure might just be shilling for a big bonus – but maybe they joined the company because they have an informed, truthful belief that the new drug might really cure cancer.

What's more, the scientific method itself speaks against the idea of there being one, permanent answer to any big question. The method is designed as a process of continual refinement, where new evidence is continuously brought forward and evaluated, and where cherished ideas that are invalidated by new evidence are discarded and replaced with new ideas.

So how are we to survive and thrive in a world of questions we ourselves can't answer, that experts disagree about, and whose answers are only ever provisional?

The scientific method has an answer for this, too: refereed, adversarial peer review. The editors of major journals act as umpires in disputes among experts, exercising their editorial discernment to decide which questions are sufficiently in flux as to warrant taking up, then asking parties who disagree with a novel idea to do their damndest to punch holes in it. This process is by no means perfect, but, like democracy, it's the worst form of knowledge creation except for all others which have been tried.

Expert regulators bring this method to governance. They seek comment on technical matters of public concern, propose regulations based on them, invite all parties to comment on these regulations, weigh the evidence, and then pass a rule. This doesn't always get it right, but when it does work, your medicine doesn't poison you, the bridge doesn't collapse as you drive over it, and your airplane doesn't fall out of the sky.

Expert regulators work with legislators to provide an empirical basis for turning political choices into empirically grounded policies. Think of all the times you've heard about how the gerontocracy that dominates the House and the Senate is incapable of making good internet policy because "they're out of touch and don't understand technology." Even if this is true (and sometimes it is, as when Sen Ted Stevens ranted about the internet being "a series of tubes," not "a dump truck"), that doesn't mean that Congress can't make good internet policy.

After all, most Americans can safely drink their tap water, a novelty in human civilization, whose history amounts to short periods of thriving shattered at regular intervals by water-borne plagues. The fact that most of us can safely drink our water, but people who live in Flint (or remote indigenous reservations, or Louisiana's Cancer Alley) can't tells you that these neighbors of ours are being deliberately poisoned, as we know precisely how not to poison them.

How did we (most of us) get to the point where we can drink the water without shitting our guts out? It wasn't because we elected a bunch of water scientists! I don't know the precise number of microbiologists and water experts who've been elected to either house, but it's very small, and their contribution to good sanitation policy is negligible.

We got there by delegating these decisions to expert agencies. Congress formulates a political policy ("make the water safe") and the expert agency turns that policy into a technical program of regulation and enforcement, and your children live to drink another glass of water tomorrow.

Musk and Ramaswamy have set out to destroy this process. In their Wall Street Journal editorial, they explain that expert regulation is "undemocratic" because experts aren't elected:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/musk-and-ramaswamy-the-doge-plan-to-reform-government-supreme-court-guidance-end-executive-power-grab-fa51c020

They've vowed to remove "thousands" of regulations, and to fire swathes of federal employees who are in charge of enforcing whatever remains:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/20/24301975/elon-musk-vivek-ramaswamy-doge-plan

And all this is meant to take place on an accelerated timeline, between now and July 4, 2026 – a timeline that precludes any meaningful assessment of the likely consequences of abolishing the regulations they'll get rid of.

"Chesterton's Fence" – a thought experiment from the novelist GK Chesterton – is instructive here:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

A regulation that works might well produce no visible sign that it's working. If your water purification system works, everything is fine. It's only when you get rid of the sanitation system that you discover why it was there in the first place, a realization that might well arrive as you expire in a slick of watery stool with a rectum so prolapsed the survivors can use it as a handle when they drag your corpse to the mass burial pits.

When Musk and Ramaswamy decry the influence of "unelected bureaucrats" on your life as "undemocratic," they sound reasonable. If unelected bureaucrats were permitted to set policy without democratic instruction or oversight, that would be autocracy.

Indeed, it would resemble life on the Tesla factory floor: that most autocratic of institutions, where you are at the mercy of the unelected and unqualified CEO of Tesla, who holds the purely ceremonial title of "Chief Engineer" and who paid the company's true founders to falsely describe him as its founder.

But that's not how it works! At its best, expert regulations turns political choices in to policy that reflects the will of democratically accountable, elected representatives. Sometimes this fails, and when it does, the answer is to fix the system – not abolish it.

I have a favorite example of this politics/empiricism fusion. It comes from the UK, where, in 2008, the eminent psychopharmacologist David Nutt was appointed as the "drug czar" to the government. Parliament had determined to overhaul its system of drug classification, and they wanted expert advice:

https://locusmag.com/2021/05/cory-doctorow-qualia/

To provide this advice, Nutt convened a panel of drug experts from different disciplines and asked them to rate each drug in question on how dangerous it was for its user; for its user's family; and for broader society. These rankings were averaged, and then a statistical model was used to determine which drugs were always very dangerous, no matter which group's safety you prioritized, and which drugs were never very dangerous, no matter which group you prioritized.

Empirically, the "always dangerous" drugs should be in the most restricted category. The "never very dangerous" drugs should be at the other end of the scale. Parliament had asked how to rank drugs by their danger, and for these categories, there were clear, factual answers to Parliament's question.

But there were many drugs that didn't always belong in either category: drugs whose danger score changed dramatically based on whether you were more concerned about individual harms, familial harms, or societal harms. This prioritization has no empirical basis: it's a purely political question.

So Nutt and his panel said to Parliament, "Tell us which of these priorities matter the most to you, and we will tell you where these changeable drugs belong in your schedule of restricted substances." In other words, politicians make political determinations, and then experts turn those choices into empirically supported policies.

This is how policy by "unelected bureaucrats" can still be "democratic."

But the Nutt story doesn't end there. Nutt butted heads with politicians, who kept insisting that he retract factual, evidence-supported statements (like "alcohol is more harmful than cannabis"). Nutt refused to do so. It wasn't that he was telling politicians which decisions to make, but he took it as his duty to point out when those decisions did not reflect the policies they were said to be in support of. Eventually, Nutt was fired for his commitment to empirical truth. The UK press dubbed this "The Nutt Sack Affair" and you can read all about it in Nutt's superb book Drugs Without the Hot Air, an indispensable primer on the drug war and its many harms:

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/drugs-without-the-hot-air-9780857844989/

Congress can't make these decisions. We don't elect enough water experts, virologists, geologists, oncology researchers, structural engineers, aerospace safety experts, pedagogists, gerontoloists, physicists and other experts for Congress to turn its political choices into policy. Mostly, we elect lawyers. Lawyers can do many things, but if you ask a lawyer to tell you how to make your drinking water safe, you will likely die a horrible death.

That's the point. The idea that we should just trust the market to figure this out, or that all regulation should be expressly written into law, is just a way of saying, "you will likely die a horrible death."

Trump – and his hatchet men Musk and Ramaswamy – are not setting out to create evidence-based policy. They are pursuing policy-based evidence, firing everyone capable of telling them how to turn the values espouse (prosperity and safety for all Americans) into policy.

They dress this up in the language of democracy, but the destruction of the expert agencies that turn the political will of our representatives into our daily lives is anything but democratic. It's a prelude to transforming the nation into a land of epistemological chaos, where you never know what's coming out of your faucet.

402 notes · View notes

idlnmclean · 6 hours ago

Text

Readers, make sure you have all your favourite Ao3 fics downloaded.

Writers, make sure you have copies of all the fics you have posted on Ao3.

I don’t want to be alarming, but things could get really bad really fast. OTW shared this today on Twitter, and I'm a bit worried about it 😅

Ao3 is a non-profit organisation. If they have to start paying taxes, I have no idea what will happen.

36K notes · View notes

idlnmclean · 18 hours ago

Text

imagine being forced to do all of the courting in your relationships. now imagine having gendered expectations around doing that courting. now imagine having dysphoria that is triggered by those gendered expectations but still being put in a position where if you do not do the courting you will not have a dating life. text that trans gal first.

10K notes · View notes

idlnmclean · 18 hours ago

Text

Asking for millions of America

76 notes · View notes

idlnmclean · 18 hours ago

Text

There's an open pit in the middle of our office plan that drops down into a bunch of very sharp spikes that kill you instantly. This is bad. People keep falling in there and dying. Someone put a sign up, the other day, all bright yellow so you can't miss it, that says "Beware!!! Spikes!!!"

The office immediately split into two factions over it. One says that if anyone falls in the spike pit it's their own fault for being so stupid and not watching where they're walking, so we should remove the sign. The other says that the sign is an insult, there shouldn't be a spike pit in our office at all, and having the sign up like that is just normalising the existence of the spike pit, so we should remove the sign.

We ended up removing the sign. Probably for the better. Still... for a while there it looked like it might have worked...

53K notes · View notes

idlnmclean · 1 day ago

Text

What to do now

Or how I stopped weeping and learned to love my community

I hate to remind everyone but the Trump administration will soon be in power. Don't bank on his platform only being campaign promises or rhetoric. Here's what you can do now to prepare for January and the years ahead.

This list is very incomplete, please add more information and organizations if you know of other issues that could use increased attention.

Healthcare:

Medicaid may soon be reduced or eliminated for many people. If you may soon become uninsured please visit a healthcare provider as soon as possible. If you are unsure of whether you are up-to-date on your vaccines, screenings, etc. call or visit your healthcare provider.

If you are uninsured, you can still receive healthcare at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). FQHCs can vary from area to area but always offer a sliding fee scale, meaning that what you pay for healthcare will be determined by your ability to pay. You can find a FQHC near your using this tool. Find a clinic or healthcare provider that will work for you now, before the administration changes. Heads up that if you live in a small town or a rural area, your FQHC will likely be in the nearest big town, all the more reason to figure out your plans now including transportation. (If you don't have a hospital in your town, your FQHC is likely in the nearest town with a hospital)

If you have been diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, the Ryan White Program is a federal program that provides HIV treatment to low-income patients. Find a program near you using this tool. Find the state hotline to call for help here. You can also visit your local AIDS project by searching "[name of state] AIDS project." Planned Parenthood and other sexual health centers can provide care, find clinics near you using this tool.

If you are capable of becoming pregnant, find an abortion fund here. I hesitate to give more specific advice on this post, the link will provide additional information. I know it's scary right now but please use legal, science-backed methods of abortion. We are not yet to the point where it is necessary to induce abortion using herbal remedies or other methods, many herbal abortifacients are dangerous to the life of the pregnant person.

Become involved with any and all of the above organizations. Donate, volunteer, spread the word. Most of these programs rely on a combination of federal funding and public support. It is likely that federal funding will be reduced or disappear under the incoming administration.

If you or a loved one are or will soon be eligible for medicare please be aware that traditional medicare and medicare advantage are two very different services. Traditional Medicare is the program which most Americans expect to receive when they turn 65. It is administered through the federal government. Medicare Advantage is a health insurance program provided through private insurance companies. For most patients, the care they receive will be better through Traditional Medicare. It is likely that the information on this issue will become less reliable from the government.

The Center for Disease Control is the main federal agency which provides guidance for public health, including vaccines for children. It will likely be weakened or otherwise prevented from making public health recommendations. Your primary care provider will still be aware of vaccine schedules and able to vaccinate but the burden may fall on you to ask for vaccines. Get in the habit of asking for information on the latest vaccines at every visit.

Environment:

We will need environmental orgs to fight new policies, sue the government, and stall at every turn. Donate to your favorite environmental nonprofit. None of them are perfect, many of them are effective. Find out more here.

Become involved at the local level. Join a local chapter of a national group or a local organization. Visit parks and conservation areas around you, pay attention to any signage that has the names of local organizations that help to maintain that area and join them. If you see "adopt a stream" or "adopt a highway" signs, call to see what the responsibilities for that program are and if you are able to help. In my area, you organize a group of people and call a phone number to register. The requirements are that you adopt the stream for one year and clean it at least twice for about two hours, then they put a sign up that says you've adopted it. They provide trash bags, reflective vests, gloves, hand sanitizer, and trash grabbers.

Obviously, cleaning up litter from a creek or helping maintain a public park doesn't fight climate change or prevent strip mining. Those are problems that require big solutions from well-funded organizations. Those problems are the reasons you donate to organizations like the Sierra Club. You protest and disrupt big projects with organizations like the Indigenous Environmental Network who helped to organize the Standing Rock protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016-17.

However, cleaning up litter from one creek does mean that there's one less creek that's clogged with litter. That's one more area that can better support wildlife, help prevent flooding, and connect vital habitat areas that are otherwise fragmented. The organizations that lobby, sue, and stall cannot spend their resources on local environmental projects just like you cannot individually prevent the government from leaving the Paris Agreement.

If you have access to any outdoor area where you can grow plants, you should be planting native species. A balcony, a window box, a patio, even a single flowerpot will make a difference to pollinators and wild birds. Use this tool from the National Wildlife Federation to find native plants which support the greatest number of insects in your area. Insects are a vital link in the food chain, particularly for wild birds whose numbers are in shocking decline. Learn more about planting with natives here. A directory of native plant nurseries can be found here. Native plants can also be purchased from the NWF through its Garden for Wildlife shop.

Humanitarian Issues:

The National Alliance to End Homelessness works with providers and lawmakers to end homelessness with a housing-first approach. They have resources to educate yourself on becoming a better advocate for people experiencing homelessness including things as simple as contacting your representatives.

Get involved with local LGBTQ+ centers. Local LGBTQ+ centers are not always members of national organizations so it can be difficult to find them through a central database. However, you can find an on-campus LGBTQ+ center through a university which may be able to help you directly or point you toward organizations which can help. LGBTQ+ centers frequently have resources for finding queer-friendly healthcare, business to work for, advocacy organizations, and more.

Please keep the people of Gaza and all of Palestine in your thoughts as we fight for change at home. The Middle East Children's Alliance is providing food, clean water, medical and psychological care to families in Gaza. Please donate to them if you can.

Likewise remember the struggle in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Goma Actif provide medical care, food, and water for displaced Congolese. Please donate here. (Text of the fundraiser is written in French first, scroll down to find the English translation further down the page.)

This is just what I've been able to come up with so far. Please add any ideas for actions that support yourself or your community.

16 notes · View notes

idlnmclean · 2 days ago

Text

A little advice from someone studying extremist groups: if you’re in a social media environment where the daily ubiquitous message is that you have no hope of any kind of future and you can’t possibly achieve anything without a violent overthrow of society, you’re being radicalized, and not in the good way.

97K notes · View notes

idlnmclean · 2 days ago

Text

87K notes · View notes

idlnmclean · 2 days ago

Text

True story the ability to uninstall Internet Explore on the Windows OS was the basis of the anti-monopoly case against Microsoft in the 2000s. It is really unfortunate that ultimately that case was not upheld and enforced because it would have meant that we could legally expect to be able to remove software from the OS package that we didn't want including Edge and Copilot and Cortanna.

One of the unfortunate facts is that at this point in time, Microsoft could pretty much legally force a nearly irreversible patch to all OS versions that was just straight up ransomware, spyware, malware, or adware, and the consumers would have basically no recourse. Entire legal offices and professional services would be instantly disabled, and they'd basically not be able to contest it other than abandoning Windows for some other OS that would fundamentally have the same legal flaw.

I don't know I'm not done talking about it. It's insane that I can't just uninstall Edge or Copilot. That websites require my phone number to sign up. That people share their contacts to find their friends on social media.

I wouldn't use an adblocker if ads were just banners on the side funding a website I enjoy using and want to support. Ads pop up invasively and fill my whole screen, I misclick and get warped away to another page just for trying to read an article or get a recipe.

Every app shouldn't be like every other app. Instagram didn't need reels and a shop. TikTok doesn't need a store. Instagram doesn't need to be connected to Facebook. I don't want my apps to do everything, I want a hub for a specific thing, and I'll go to that place accordingly.

I love discord, but so much information gets lost to it. I don't want to join to view things. I want to lurk on forums. I want to be a user who can log in and join a conversation by replying to a thread, even if that conversation was two days ago. I know discord has threads, it's not the same. I don't want to have to verify my account with a phone number. I understand safety and digital concerns, but I'm concerned about information like that with leaks everywhere, even with password managers.

I shouldn't have to pay subscriptions to use services and get locked out of old versions. My old disk copy of photoshop should work. I should want to upgrade eventually because I like photoshop and supporting the business. Adobe is a whole other can of worms here.

Streaming is so splintered across everything. Shows release so fast. Things don't get physical releases. I can't stream a movie I own digitally to friends because the share-screen blocks it, even though I own two digital copies, even though I own a physical copy.

I have an iPod, and I had to install a third party OS to easily put my music on it without having to tangle with iTunes. Spotify bricked hardware I purchased because they were unwillingly to upkeep it. They don't pay their artists. iTunes isn't even iTunes anymore and Apple struggles to upkeep it.

My TV shows me ads on the home screen. My dad lost access to eBook he purchased because they were digital and got revoked by the company distributing them. Hitman 1-3 only runs online most of the time. Flash died and is staying alive because people love it and made efforts to keep it up.

I have to click "not now" and can't click "no". I don't just get emails, they want to text me to purchase things online too. My windows start search bar searches online, not just my computer. Everything is blindly called an app now. Everything wants me to upload to the cloud. These are good tools! But why am I forced to use them! Why am I not allowed to own or control them?

No more!!!!! I love my iPod with so much storage and FLAC files. I love having all my fics on my harddrive. I love having USBs and backups. I love running scripts to gut suck stuff out of my Windows computer I don't want that spies on me. I love having forums. I love sending letters. I love neocities and webpages and webrings. I will not be scanning QR codes. Please hand me a physical menu. If I didn't need a smartphone for work I'd get a "dumb" phone so fast. I want things to have buttons. I want to use a mouse. I want replaceable batteries. I want the right to repair. I grew up online and I won't forget how it was!

26K notes · View notes