Still asking the question: did the DNC tilt the 2016 primary against Bernie?

Who knew this paranoid conspiracy theory was still churning around? I didn’t.

But it seems that Bernie supporters had banded together to sue the Democratic National Committee and Debbie Wasserman Schultz for…something.

Their case was dismissed in District Court.

Here’s a brief abstract of the decision in the federal appellate court:

Did the Democratic National Committee tilt the 2016 primary in favor of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders? Eleventh Circuit: We can’t feel the Bern when the complaint’s missing key facts. Dismissal affirmed.

Want to read the whole decision? Click on the Eleventh Circuit link.

Want not to read the whole decision? Then do read its first paragraph, which prompts me to think once again I might enjoy reading de Tocqueville:

In his classic treatise on the United States and its political system, Alexis de Tocqueville famously remarked that “[t]here is almost no political question in the United States that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. I, at 257 (U. Chicago Press 2000)[1835]. This case, which pits a political party against some of its supporters, confirms de Tocqueville’s reputation as an astute observer of American life.

Posted in Politics, Q. Appeals, The Facts of Life | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Still asking the question: did the DNC tilt the 2016 primary against Bernie?

What should we do about Facebook? I have a plan*

(*Thanks, Elizabeth Warren, for this catch phrase.)

Boy, is everyone going crazy over Facebook!

It is evil, it has to be censored. It allows politicians to sell ads with ugly and discredited smears. It was and will be again the Chosen Vehicle for alien forces attacking our elections by feeding us fake stories and conspiracy theories — a lot of them about child pornography. (I’ve made it as a Russian trolling tell. A rumor is it’s Putinesque projection.)

Facebook facilitates kompromat, trolling, bots, chatbots, deepfakes and whatevers. Facebook gives criminals, politicians, political surrogates, autocrats and liars open access to us, to our minds.

Mark Zuckerberg thinks fakery is OK in political ads and he will not restrict it.

Facebook has just created Facebook News, headed up by a woman who avidly supports charter schools and is a good friend of Betsy DeVos.

We are under attack. Again. No question.

So how do we defend ourselves?

We don’t have to.

Because — I fear I might startle you, this is so radical…

We can block ads, political or commercial, on Facebook and if an ad does sneak through our settings onto our pages, we are not forced to believe it or buy it!!!!!

Thing is, I was pretty much immune to the 2016 propaganda of all kinds. I remember seeing fakery only once, just after the election, with that utterly crazy business about that evil sex ring run out of the (non-existent) basement of a Washington, DC pizza place.

What I saw were political statements, news articles about the coming election and the campaigns — some of which did annoy me — and tweets.

The fakes were obvious fakes, the facts were persuasive facts. If I questioned anything I read, I checked it, confirmed it with reputable sources.

Must say, I am not easy with the demand public figures are making that We The People desperately need all these expressions and opinions on social media be censored — kept from our eyes and delicate brains.

It’s condescending and, worse, its patriarchal. It’s a demeaning pat on the head of us little kids who aren’t smart enough to know fact from fake by ourselves.

Hey. I’m smart enough. And so are you. And I do not appreciate everybody yelling that some large entity — a government agency, Mark Zuckerberg — should be curating what we might accidentally see because…what? We’ll be brainwashed?

Phooey. You can only brainwash people who are begging to be brainwashed. And you can’t save people who want to be brainwashed from being brainwashed.

So, propagandists, Russian trolls, et al: spew it out. Vent, vilely. Fill cyberspace and the internet with crapola.

I, for one, will barely notice and if I accidentally notice, I certainly will not and cannot be influenced by you. And I have enough respect for my fellow citizens to believe they won’t be fooled, either.

It comes down to wise words via Kara Swisher, who is a Times op contributor because of her expertise as a business technology specialist and founder and editor of Recode. Here’s what she said (my bolding) in a December 2018 Times column:

For now, it’s not clear what we can do, except take control of our own individual news consumption. Back in July, in fact, [Renée] DiResta, [a disinformation expert and director of research at New Knowledge], advised consumer restraint as the first line of defense, especially when encountering information that any passably intelligent person could guess might have been placed by a group seeking to manufacture discord.

“They’re preying on your confirmation bias,” she said. “When content is being pushed to you, that’s something that you want to see. So, take the extra second to do the fact-check, even if it confirms your worst impulses about something you absolutely hate — before you hit the retweet button, before you hit the share button, just take the extra second.”

They’re right. It only takes a couple of seconds to fact check.

You don’t buy every product you see in a TV commercial. No reason to buy everything you read in social media, either.

Posted in 2020 presidential campaign, Politics, The Facts of Life | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What should we do about Facebook? I have a plan*

The definition of “Disruption”?: “We own this mess”

Other critics spoke of the need for disruption, borrowing a term from the analysis of technological innovations. When applied to politics, it again carries the implication that nothing can really change, that the chaos that excites us will eventually be absorbed by a self-regulating system. The man who runs naked across a football field certainly disrupts, but he does not change the rules of the game. The whole notion of disruption is adolescent: It assumes that after the teenagers make a mess, the adults will come and clear it up.

But there are no adults. We own this mess.

–Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century

Posted in Politics, The Facts of Life, Trump Stuff | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The definition of “Disruption”?: “We own this mess”