#analytical democratic theory

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Ostromizing democracy

Friday (May 5), I’ll be at the Books, Inc in Mountain View with Mitch Kapor for my novel Red Team Blues; and this weekend (May 6/7), I’ll be in Berkeley at the Bay Area Bookfest.

You know how “realist” has become a synonym for “asshole?” As in, “I’m not a racist, I’m just a ‘race realist?’” That same “realism” is also used to discredit the idea of democracy itself, among a group of self-styled “libertarian elitists,” who claim that social science proves that democracy doesn’t work — and can’t work.

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/2023/05/04/analytical-democratic-theory/#epistocratic-delusions

You’ve likely encountered elements of this ideology in the wild. Perhaps you’ve heard about how our cognitive biases make us incapable of deliberating, that “reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments.”

Or maybe you’ve heard that voters are “rationally ignorant,” choosing not to become informed about politics because their vote doesn’t have enough influence to justify the cognitive expenditure of figuring out how to cast it.

There’s the “backfire effect,” the idea that rational argument doesn’t make us change our minds, but rather, drives us to double-down on our own cherished beliefs. As if that wasn’t bad enough, there’s the Asch effect, which says that we will change our minds based on pressure from the majority, even if we know they’re wrong.

Finally, there’s the fact that the public Just Doesn’t Understand Economics. When you compare the views of the average person to the views of the average PhD economist, you find that the public sharply disagrees with such obvious truths as “we should only worry about how big the pie is, not how big my slice is?” These fools just can’t understand that an economy where their boss gets richer and they get poorer is a good economy, so long as it’s growing overall!

That’s why noted “realist” Peter Thiel thinks women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Thiel says that mothers are apt to sideline the “science” of economics for the soppy, sentimental idea that children shouldn’t starve to death and thus vote for politicians who are willing to tax rich people. Thus do we find ourselves on the road to serfdom:

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/

Other realists go even further, suggesting that anyone who disagrees with orthodox (Chicago School) economists shouldn’t be allowed to vote: “[a]nyone who opposes surge pricing should be disenfranchised. That’s how we should decide who decides in epistocracy.”

Add it all up and you get the various “libertarian” cases for abolishing democracy. Some of these libertarian elitists want to replace democracy with markets, because “markets impose an effective ‘user fee’ for irrationality that is absent from democracy.

Others say we should limit voting to “Vulcans” who can pass a knowledge test about the views of neoclassical economists, and if this means that fewer Black people and women are eligible to vote because either condition is “negatively correlated” with familiarity with “politics,” then so mote be it. After all, these groups are “much more likely than others to be mistaken about what they really need”:

https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2015/03/the-demographic-argument-for-compulsory-voting-with-a-guest-appearance-by-the-real-reason-the-left-advocates-compulsory-voting/

These arguments and some of their most gaping errors are rehearsed in an excellent Democracy Journal article by Henry Farrell, Hugo Mercier, and Melissa Schwartzberg (Mercier’s research is often misinterpreted and misquoted by libertarian elitists to bolster their position):

https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/68/the-new-libertarian-elitists/

The article is a companion piece to a new academic article in American Political Science Review, where the authors propose a new subdiscipline of political science, Analytical Democracy Theory:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/analytical-democratic-theory-a-microfoundational-approach/739A9A928A99A47994E4585059B03398

What’s “Analytical Democracy Theory?” It’s the systematic study of when and how collective decision-making works, and when it goes wrong. Because the libertarian elitists aren’t completely, utterly wrong — there are times when groups of people make bad decisions. From that crumb of truth, the libertarian elitists theorize an entire nihilistic cake in which self-governance is impossible and where we fools and sentimentalists must be subjugated to the will of our intellectual betters, for our own good.

This isn’t the first time libertarian political scientists have pulled this trick. You’ve probably heard of the “Tragedy of the Commons,” which claims to be a “realist” account of what happens when people try to share something — a park, a beach, a forest — without anyone owning it. According to the “tragedy,” these commons are inevitably ruined by “rational” actors who know that if they don’t overgraze, pollute or despoil, someone else will, so they might as well get there first.

The Tragedy of the Commons feels right, and we’ve all experienced some version of it — the messy kitchen at your office or student house-share, the litter in the park, etc. But the paper that brought us the idea of the Tragedy of the Commons, published in 1968 by Garrett Hardin in Science, was a hoax:

https://memex.craphound.com/2019/10/01/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-how-ecofascism-was-smuggled-into-mainstream-thought/

Hardin didn’t just claim that some commons turned tragic — he claimed that the tragedy was inevitable, and, moreover, that every commons had experienced a tragedy. But Hardin made it all up. It wasn’t true. What’s more, Hardin — an ardent white nationalist — used his “realist’s account of the commons to justify colonization and genocide.

After all, if the people who lived in these colonized places didn’t have property rights to keep their commons from tragifying, then those commons were already doomed. The colonizers who seized their lands and murdered the people they found there were actually saving the colonized from their own tragedies.

Hardin went on to pioneer the idea of “lifeboat ethics,” a greased slide to mass-extermination of “inferior” people (Hardin was also a eugenicist) in order to save our planet from “overpopulation.”

Hardin’s flawed account of the commons is a sterling example of the problem with economism, the ideology that underpins neoclassical economics:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/27/economism/#what-would-i-do-if-i-were-a-horse

Economism was summed up in by Ely Devons, who quipped “”If economists wished to study the horse, they wouldn’t go and look at horses. They’d sit in their studies and say to themselves, ‘What would I do if I were a horse?’”

Hardin asked himself, “If I were reliant upon a commons, what would I do?” And, being a realist (that is, an asshole), Hardin decided that he would steal everything from the commons because that’s what the other realists would do if he didn’t get there first.

Hardin didn’t go and look at a commons. But someone else did.

Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel for her work studying the properties of successful, durable commons. She went and looked at commons:

https://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmons

Ostom codified the circumstances, mechanisms and principles that distinguished successful commons from failed commons.

Analytical Democratic Theory proposes doing for democratic deliberation what Ostrom did for commons: to create an empirical account of the methods, arrangements, circumstances and systems that produce good group reasoning, and avoid the pitfalls that lead to bad group reasoning. The economists’ term for this is microfoundations: the close study of interaction among individuals, which then produces a “macro” account of how to structure whole societies.

Here are some examples of how microfoundations can answer some very big questions:

Backfire effects: The original backfire effect research was a fluke. It turns out that in most cases, people who are presented with well-sourced facts and good arguments change their minds — but not always.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x

Rational ignorance: Contrary to the predictions of “rational ignorance” theory, people who care about specific issues become “issue publics” who are incredibly knowledgeable about it, and deeply investigate and respond to candidates’ positions:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08913810608443650

Rational ignorance is a mirage, caused by giving people questionnaires about politics in general, rather than the politics that affects them directly and personally.

“Myside” bias: Even when people strongly identify with a group, they are capable of filtering out “erroneous messages” that come from that group if they get good, contradictory evidence:

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674237827

Majority bias: People are capable of rejecting the consensus of majorities, when the majority view is implausible, or when the majority is small, or when the majority is not perceived as benevolent. The Asch effect is “folklore”: yes, people may say that they hold a majority view when they face social sanction for rejecting it, but that doesn’t mean they’ve changed their minds:

https://alexandercoppock.com/guess_coppock_2020.pdf

Notwithstanding all this, democracy’s cheerleaders have some major gaps in the evidence to support their own view. Analytical Democratic Theory needs to investigate the nuts-and-bolts of when deliberation works and when it fails, including the tradeoffs between:

“social comfort and comfort in expressing dissent”:

https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37004-3

“shared common ground and some measure of preexisting disagreement”:

https://sci-hub.st/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1080

“group size and the need to represent diversity”:

https://www.nicolas.claidiere.fr/wp-content/uploads/DiscussionCrowds-Mercier-2021.pdf

“pressures for conformity and concerns for epistemic reputation”:

https://academic.oup.com/princeton-scholarship-online/book/30811

Realism is a demand dressed up as an observation. Realists like Margaret Thatcher insisted “there is no alternative” to neoliberalism, but what she meant was “stop trying to think of an alternative.” Hardin didn’t just claim that some commons turned tragic, he claimed that the tragedy of the commons was inevitable — that we shouldn’t even bother trying to create public goods.

The Ostrom method — actually studying how something works, rather than asking yourself how it would work if everyone thought like you — is a powerful tonic to this, but it’s not the only one. One of the things that makes science fiction so powerful is its ability to ask how a system would work under some different social arrangement.

It’s a radical proposition. Don’t just ask what the gadget does: ask who it does it for and who it does it to. That’s the foundation of Luddism, which is smeared as a technophobic rejection of technology, but which was only ever a social rejection of the specific economic arrangements of that technology. Specifically, the Luddites rejected the idea that machines should be “so easy a child could use them” in order to kidnap children from orphanages and working them to death at those machines:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/20/love-the-machine/#hate-the-factory

There are sf writers who are making enormous strides in imagining how deliberative tools could enable new democratic institutions. Ruthanna Emrys’s stunning 2022 novel “A Half-Built Garden” is a tour-de-force:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/07/26/aislands/#dead-ringers

I like to think that I make a small contribution here, too. My next novel, “The Lost Cause,” is at root a tale of competing group decision-making methodologies, between post-Green New Deal repair collectives, seafaring anarcho-capitalist techno-solutionists, and terrorizing white nationalist militias (it’s out in November):

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250865939/the-lost-cause

Catch me on tour with Red Team Blues in Mountain View, Berkeley, Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, DC, Gaithersburg, Oxford, Hay, Manchester, Nottingham, London, and Berlin!

[Image ID: A lab-coated scientist amidst an array of chemistry equipment. His head has been replaced with a 19th-century anatomical lateral cross-section showing the inside of a bearded man's head, including one lobe of his brain. He is peering at a large flask half-full of red liquid. Inside the liquid floats the Capitol building.]

[determinate-negation]

its obvious that a lot of people consider themselves leftists or marxists but have never really engaged with marxism as a theory and analytic framework that necessitates a complete rethinking of the organization of the world and social reality on every level. youre literally just a social democrat then

[stephenjaymorrisblog]

The Very Last Resort

(Arron Bushnell self-immolates)

Stephen Jay Morris

3/2/2024

©Scientific Morality.

A normal person cannot comprehend someone walking up to the Israeli Consulate and pouring gasoline all over themselves, striking a match, and burning to death while screaming, “Free Palestine!” Was he insane? Back in the 60’s, Vietnamese Buddhists set themselves on fire to protest America’s occupation of their country. They believed in reincarnation and had faith that they would return to earth for their sacrificial good deed. But Arron? He was a member of the United States Air Force. It is alleged that he was a Gay Anarchist, which makes me very inquisitive about him. Why was he in the Air Force? Was he a weekend leftist? I wonder if this question will ever be answered.

Let’s talk about his political suicide. Or was it suicide? This is a very controversial point. This act was, indeed, an existential shock. As for me, I am afraid of death, even were it to occur in my sleep. But many brave souls are willing to die for a cause, or for a loved one. I would die for my wife. That is understandable. But for my country? People who send others to war would never die for the USA. So, why would I?

Why would a 25-year-old man self-immolate? Was it because he was experiencing a moral panic? Maybe. If you are a moralist and hear continuous, daily death tallies of innocent men, women, and children, you feel helpless. He may have had fantasies of being a Rambo type and going into Gaza with an AR-15, shooting IDF soldiers, and freeing Palestinians. Or, perhaps, parachuting into Gaza with food and water to help. Maybe Navy Seals could complete such an unimaginable act, but without professional help, it is not really feasible. What Arron did was apparently self-determined and purposeful. It was his protest of the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Palestine, the genocide of the Palestinian people, and the U.S. support of the Israeli government in these actions.

The mainstream media played this down as suicide. The reactionary element of America has played it cool. Oh, there have and will be insensitive memes or hateful posts on X, but I would be very surprised if some conservative pundits pose analytical theories on Arron’s motives. Maybe some MAGA lunatic will set himself on fire to stop abortion. (Am I now a participant in stochastic terrorism? Sure, why not.) I doubt that it would ever happen. It would be fun, though.

What Arron Bushnell did was a humanitarian act of altruism; the highest form of altruism, which is putting someone else’s needs above your own. America is so indoctrinated with the Ayn Rand virus of, “Fuck you! Me first.” Sacrifice is more moral than self-interest. What Bushnell did was the highest form of morality: sacrifice.

If you are willing to die for a cause, die in the anarchist revolution. Bakunin once said, “A revolutionary is a doomed man!” There is nothing romantic about revolution. It is full of hardship, bloodshed, and death. If that scares you, then become a Democrat or Republican, and waste your vote.

Me? I’m almost 70 years old. Unlike President Biden, however, I know my limitations.

[mitchipedia]

Ostromizing democracy: Cory Doctorow discusses a proposed new subdiscipline of political science, Analytic Democracy Theory, that studies collective decision-making—a/k/a “democracy”—and particularly how it goes wrong.

Also: Libertarians are claiming democracy never works because it doesn’t always work. And the myth of the Tragedy of the Commons and other anti-democratic misconceptions.

[trans-lunarinjection]

democrats calling you a red fash is ridiculous to watch, as theyre the ones voting for what they call "99% hitler"

It really feels farcical and almost comical if it werent so dangerous. This is kinda the reason my focus rn in my reading of theory lately has been early analyses of the rise of fascism, I wanted a really good analytical grasp of the mechanics from ppl who were watching it in the 20s-40s, our historical counterparts. I reccomend everyone in countries experiencing this kind of rise at least read the book I mentioned for that exact reason. Almost all this shit comes up in some form, even the seemingly silly "99% hitler" level shit.

[bakaity-poetry]

Alain Badiou on Gilles Deleuze, Pocket Pantheon, page 113 - 118

How is it that, even more so than ten years ago, he is our contemporary? And how is it that he is still out of step with the times, so out of step as to be that rarity: a future contemporary? He is certainly not 'modern' in the eyes of the academics who write the balance sheet of the twentieth century as though its spirit had always resided in the discussion, which now triumphs in our classrooms, between pious phenomenologists and democratic grammarians. Speaking of phenomenology, Eric Alliez is quite right to say that Deleuze's most constant - and most difficult - project was to prove that we can escape it. And that we must do so because it had, as he put it, 'blessed too many things'. As for analytic philosophy and the 'linguistic turn', he hated them with a vengeance, and took the view that a sort of Viennese commando had, at least in university philosophy departments, turned the rich American thought of the Emersons, the Thoreaus and the Jameses into a desert. As for democracy, it cannot be said too often, given that it is such a courageous and correct declaration, that one of the major characteristics of philosophy according to Deleuze is that it positively loathes the very notion of 'debate'.

But that does not necessarily mean that Deleuze completed the Heideggerian programme of modernity - that interminable 'end of metaphysics' that also goes by the name of the work of deconstruction. He liked to say that he had no problem with metaphysics. It is not easy to insert Deleuze into the usual genealogies. Of course he held that our times began with Nietzsche, as do so many others, and credited him - though this is not, in my view, his most powerful inspiration with having introduced into philosophy the notion of meaning, as opposed to that of truth, which had been killed by conformisms. And yet this Nietzsche, whose ancestor is a Spinoza baptized the 'Christ of philosophy' and whose French brother is Bergson, would surprise a lot of people. Truth to tell, Deleuze constructed a very unusual history of 'interesting' doctrines ('interesting' was a word he liked) that was meant only for himself: the Stoics and Lucretius, Duns Scotus, Spinoza and Leibniz, Nietzsche, Bergson, Whitehead ... It is not easy to generalize this panorama, or to make it the stigma of a shared 'modernity'.

Shall we say, then, that he is, as transatlantic classifications tend to see him, one of the postmodern (or post-postmodern?) representatives of continental, and especially French, thought of the 1960s? If we do, we forget that, at the time, he was swimming against the current. He spoke very eloquently about structuralism, about non-meaning as the cause of meaning, and about the theory of the 'empty set'. He shared certain of Blanchot's analyses of death and writing, but he also rectified them. But he did not belong to that school, and still less does he belong to it ten years later. His polemic against Lacan was violent, and he challenged him - in vain - with his schizoanalysis. His 'Marxism', fraternally woven together with Guattari, was the complete antithesis of Althusser's. Which leaves, obviously, the deep friendship that governs his tributes to Foucault. Although I do not have time to prove it here, I insist that their creative friendship must not conceal the fact that it changes completely as their central idea of what a concrete singularity itself is changes.

So how can we evoke him for our times? Why is it so obvious that he is by our side, even in the ironic distance of his perpetual retreat from the frontline where we were fighting against reactive infamy? I will disseminate this evidence in five major motifs, which are all bound up with the realization that something has been exhausted (another word he liked). He was often 'exhausted', and felt at such times that he was a brother to many of his heroes, such as Melville or Beckett.

1. Deleuze contrasted all thought of 'ends' (the end of metaphysics, the end of ideologies, the end of grand narratives, the end of revolutions . . .) with the conviction that nothing was 'interesting' unless it was affirmative. Critique, impotencies, ends, modesties . . . none of that is as valuable as a single real affirmation.

2. The motifs of unity, gatherings, 'consensus' and shared values are nothing more than thought's tiresome moment of fatigue. What does have value is certainly synthetic, as is all creativity, but in the form of separation, disjunction. Disjunctive synthesis: that is the real operation of anyone who is 'forced' to think (for we do not think 'freely', we think under pressure, we think as 'spiritual automata').

3. We have to stop speculating about time, its precariousness, and its subjective ubiquity. For what matters is eternity or, to be more specific, the temporal atemporality that has received the name 'event'. The great and unique 'throw of the dice' on which life wagers both its chance occurrence and its eternal return.

4. We have to get away from the obsession with language. Speech is of vital importance, but it is caught up in its multiform correlation with the integrality of affirmative experience, and has no constituent syntactic power. To confuse philosophy with grammar or with an inventory of rules is aberrational. Let us abandon, like an old corpse, the idea that the natural form of thought is judgement. And above all, do not judge: that is a good axiom for thought. Replace judgement with personal experience, with becoming 'caught up in our milieu'.

5. The dialectic is exhausted. We must rise up against the negative. In accordance with the 'Return' method, this brings us back to point 1: finding the integral affirmation of the improbable and doing so ascetically, which means of course without any negation of any kind, trusting - involuntarily - in becomings.

I would happily say that what sums up all these precious lessons - both for him and for me, even though I agree with neither the details nor the argument - can be summed up in one negative prescription: fight the spirit of finitude, fight the false innocence, the morality of defeat and resignation implicit in the word 'finitude' and tiresome 'modest' proclamations about the finite destiny of the human creature; and in one affirmative prescription: trust only in the infinite. For Deleuze, the concept is the trajectory of its real components 'at infinite speed'. And thought is nothing more than a burning to a chaotic infinity, to the 'Chaosmos'. Yes, that is the frontline I was talking about earlier, the frontline where he stands alongside us, and by doing so proves himself to be a very important contemporary: let thought be faithful to the infinity on which it depends. Let it concede nothing to the hateful spirit of finitude. In the one life we have been granted, and caring nothing for the limits that conformism assigns us, we will attempt at all cost to live, as the Ancients used to say, 'as immortals'. Which means: exposing within us, so far as we can, the human animal to that which exceeds it.

[230281117]

Should economics be compulsory subject ?

Economics is a discipline that examines how individuals and communities distribute their limited resources to meet their countless goals and requirements. This subject fosters the growth of critical thinking, decision-making, and leadership skills by giving students a realistic grasp of how the world functions. Thus, economics should be established a required subject in schools to aid pupils in understanding fundamental economic concepts and their real-world applications.

For students to become informed citizens, they must have a solid understanding of the economy, and economics gives that understanding. People make decisions in a democratic society that might affect the larger neighborhood.

Additionally, economics knowledge offers students a fantastic chance to refine their critical thinking abilities. Students who study economics need to think strategically and analytically to apply these principles because economic concepts and theories frequently call for a thorough grasp and analysis of data. Students’ decision-making abilities will improve as a result of this advanced thinking process.

Additionally, economics is an interdisciplinary discipline that also includes mathematics, political science, psychology, sociology, and geography. As a result, studying economics helps students become more interdisciplinaryly knowledgeable, which fosters critical thinking and a well-rounded education.

[cozyunoist]

i don't like the analytical marxists at all, the only one i find tolerable is cohen. what do you like about them?

that's very interesting to me! cohen is the one i’ve more or less the least interest in; he's a tolerable writer, and maybe the only contemporary philosopher of history analytic types paid attention to, but he might as well have never read marx at all. when he does turn normative a few years later, he is a fine egalitarian political theorist but for my money i am not fully convinced his political-theoretical work represents much of an advance on the stuff already there in rawls. elster on the other hand is imo a bit of a genius, really quite brilliant, even if at the end of the day he’s not particularly interested in marx-reading & not much past being another sen/nussbaum-type left-liberal. and eow, even if i haven’t looked back on him in a while, used to matter a fairly good deal to me back when i was a little-s socialist who saw myself as dabbling in ‘social theory’ when i could. (could go on through the whole list of them but i’ll spare you)

to your question—analytic marxism was really a rather teeny-tiny movement, more or less just the september group with a couple hangers-on, & i don’t think i have terribly much in common with any one of the folks one might consider analytical marxists. for more or less contingent sociological reasons, they were united in the belief that markets were the alpha & omega of organisation of economic behaviour (of course had this been the 30s they would’ve been mealy-mouthed ‘planners’); nearly all of them were liberals in the basic sense; all were democrats. but just by dint of having some non-zero interest in marx & at least (in elster, cohen & to some extent roemer’s cases) a mild tolerance for the New Philosophy got to have a monopoly on… being both a marxist, & competent at conceptual analysis. well, i’m not a marxist per se, but i do think that conceptual analysis is more useful than puffing up one’s chest about correct hermeneutical strategies & the canon. doing conceptual analysis is kind of the bare minimum, as far as using diligently language goes. (and, to be honest it’s not even like the AMs did much conceptual analysis either! again, at best one-and-an-half of them were even philosophers, and it’s not like ‘analytic philosophy’ signifies much more than anglo-american philosophy either!!). it’s more that when i was, again, a little-s socialist who saw private property as silly and civil society as broken but marx as otiose, they were more or less the only game in town.

so this all is to say that it's less a matter of my liking the analytical marxists, let alone finding them worth going back to, & more a matter of finding them very nearly the sad sole occupants of one of the lanes in which i'm wont to think. they attempted to think about what the words they were using meant; they attempted to make their conclusions clear for the benefit of those who disagreed; they broke with the stranglehold of marxist dogmata by dint of being utopian socialists-slash-bourgeois liberals going about their project with the benefit only of a very vague acquaintance with marx's work. i'm alike in some of these ways. i talk too much about what the words i mean use; i fetishise convincing the imaginary breed of left-liberal who wouldn't tune me out; and i have indelibly bourgeois vibes. but, at the end of the day, i'm a communist, my life is top-through-bottom bound up in attempting revolution, and i don't know what might make me 'analytical', even if i could gussy up some marxian point with possible world semantics if in some possible world david lewis held a gun to my head. it's nice that they tried, & you're obliged to tip your hat & give them a read if you have some vague interest in attempting to talk about socialism outside of talmudic studies on the watchwords of the 19th century, but it's pretty easy to clear the bar their work sets if you've ever been homeless, worked a shitty dead-end job, or managed to avoid going to oxford.

[archivyrep]

Archivists on the Issues: Sophisticated Bureaucracies, Archives, and Fictional Depictions [part 1]

Archivists on the Issues is a forum for archivists to discuss the issues we are facing today. Today’s post is by Burkely Hermann (me), Metadata Librarian for National Security Archive and current I&A Blog Coordinator. There are spoilers for each of the books, animated series, films, and other media he will be discussing. It was originally published on the Issues and Advocacy blog on Jan. 3, 2023. It was also published on my Wading Through the Cultural Stacks blog on Feb. 13, 2023.

This organizational chart of the National Archives and Records Administration is an example of an archival bureaucracy

Large government, corporate, and private archives are bureaucratic. Even though the so-called Information Revolution threatened to upend existing practices within archival bureaucracies, and structures of these institutions, new records management strategies developed, in Europe and U.S., which are as hierarchical as previous methods. [1] Bureaucracy remains firmly entrenched, in language, practices, and strategies of collecting institutions, whether the National Archives or Library of Congress. In this post, I'll discuss the role of bureaucracies in archival institutions and connect my findings to fictional depictions.

Recordkeeping often lends itself to bureaucracy, whether in non-profit organizations, corporations, or governments. Sometimes practices change and reinforce the bureaucracy of these institutions. This can include discouraging creation of "rich narrative reports", while supporting archival classification and arrangement as an "infrastructural tool". Furthermore, some bureaucracies are repressive, affecting restitution of captured wartime records. [2]

Unsurprisingly, culture of documentation has changed from being transactional to bureaucratic as organizationally sophisticated bureaucracies first developed in the 19th century. Scholar Francis Blouin called for new principles about diplomatics, referring to study of form, creation, and transmission of records, and their relation to facts within them, and their creators, to order to "identify, evaluate, and communicate their nature and authenticity." [3] Blouin argued that bureaucratic culture produces transactional and literary records, systematic recordkeeping, analytic records, and records created in respect to "sovereignty of people in democratic societies". In Blouin's view, in such societies, public accountability necessitates "particular forms and genres of recordkeeping." [4]

Other scholars have noted growing complexity, changing nature, and interrelatedness of government bureaucracies. Recently there has been a tendency to "free up" bureaucracy while encouraging entrepreneurship and risk-taking. The latter undermines archival missions. [5] Modern bureaucracies have defined existing file systems, even as archivists and historians are presented with many challenges. This includes influence on archival theory, especially by Weberian bureaucratic thinking, and controlling access to records. This was even the case in Eastern Europe, with political shifts in latter years of the Cold War caused archival access procedures to change. [6]

Modern bureaucracies have produced a "sheer mass of records". In the past, this caused archivists to use sampling in order to determine "research potential" of records and appraise them. Even so, archivists continued to experience frustrations when "dealing with" bureaucracy, while being a part of complex bureaucratic structures, which can include competing groups. [7] More recently, there has been discussion of how various technologies can change bureaucratic processes, including in the United Nations and Vatican. Other scholars have asked whether the role of archives in the life-cycle of government records is a way of "holding democratic governments accountable". The latter is the case in Germany, which has a strict division between records management and archival functions, with records remaining in custody of government bureaucracies. [8]

Fictional depictions of bureaucracies reflect some of these realities. One of the best known examples are the Vogans in Douglas Adams' The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, who destroy Earth because the planet is in the way of a hyperspace freeway. They are the embodiment of bureaucrats. The Vogans are inefficient, with absurdly lengthy official processes, and their continued efforts to thwart "any real progress in the galaxy." Adams' makes clear a metaphor: the house of protagonist Arthur Dent will be destroyed by an uncaring (and extremist) bureaucracy, just as the Vogans are doing to the planet. [9] Archives are not directly shown, but characters in the 2005 film view a restricted archival record from the Magrathean Public Archive. The record cuts off before revealing the name of a supercomputer, with a message stating that information has been deleted, as I noted in my post on the Issues & Advocacy blog back in December.

© 2022-2023 Burkely Hermann. All rights reserved.

Continued in part 2

Notes

[1] Bearman, David. “Diplomatics, Weberian Bureaucracy, and the Management of Electronic Records in Europe and America.” The American Archivist 55, no. 1 (1992): 169–70, 173–76, 180.

[2] Wosh, Peter. "Bibles, Benevolence, and Bureaucracy: The Changing Nature of Nineteenth Century Religious Records." The American Archivist 52, no. 2 (1989): 166-167, 169, 172, 175, 178; Montgomery, Bruce. "Saddam Hussein's Records of Atrocity: Seizure, Removal, and Restitution." The American Archivist, 75, no. 2 (2012): 326, 331, 333, 357.

[3] Blouin, Francis. "A Framework for a Consideration of Diplomatics in the Electronic Environment." The American Archivist 59, no. 4 (1996): 466-467, 471, 477-478.

[4] Ibid, 476.

[5] Wilson, Ian. "Reflections On Archival Strategies." The American Archivist 58, no. 4 (1995): 414, 416-417, 421, 423-424.

[6] Elliott, Clark. "Science at Harvard University, 1846--47: A Case Study of the Character and Functions of Written Documents." The American Archivist 57, no. 3 (1994): 448-450, 460; Menne-Haritz. "Appraisal or Documentation: Can We Appraise Archives by Selecting Content?" The American Archivist 57, no. 3 (1994): 528, 532-533; Ress, Imre. "The Effects of Democratization on Archival Administration and Use in Eastern Middle Europe." The American Archivist 55, no. 1 (1992): 86, 90-91.

[7] Kepley, David. "Sampling in Archives: A Review." The American Archivist 47, no. 3 (1984): 237-238; Lutzker, Michael. "Max Weber and the Analysis of Modern Bureaucratic Organization: Notes Toward a Theory of Appraisal." The American Archivist 45, no. 2 (1982): 120-122, 124, 126, 130.

[8]Taylor, Hugh. "'My Very Act and Deed': Some Reflections on the Role of Textual Records in the Conduct of Affairs." The American Archivist 51, no. 4 (1988): 456, 459-460, 464, 466; Zandt, Lauren. "A Future in Ruins: UNESCO, World Heritage, and the Dream of Peace." The American Archivist 84, no. 1 (2021): 214-217; Blouin, Jr., Frank. "A Case for Bridging the Gap: The Significance of the Vatican Archives Project for International Archival Information Exchange." The American Archivist 55, no. 1 (1992): 184, 186-188; Hering, Katharina. "Zwölf Wege ins Archiv. Umrisse einer offenen und praktischen Archivwissenschaft." The American Archivist 84, no. 1 (2021): 212-213.

[9] Fatima, Zahra. "Humor, Satire and Verbal Parody in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: A Relevance Theoretic Approach." NUML Journal of Critical Inquiry 14, no. 11 (2016): 45, 51; Thompson, Thomas David. “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: A Metaphorical Look at Life, the Universe, and Everything.” Bachelors, California Polytechnic State University, 2015, see pages 15-16.

[ear-worthy]

"Conspiracy, She Wrote" Podcast Debuts: No Theory Too Wild To Investigate

Before the internet and social media, crazy conspiracy theories (is there another kind?) remained the fantasies of people on the fringe of society, either financially, emotionally or culturally.

Those conspiracy "nuts" were consigned to forced isolation from society because their ideas were so extreme. Then the internet and social media enabled people of similar flights of fancy to join forces. 

The result? Alex Jones and his false flag insanity and depravity about Sandy Hook. Pizza parlors with Democrats involved in sex trafficking and devil worship, perhaps with cheesy bread as a loss-leader. Then, in 2017 the new president became the conspiracist-in-chief, spewing crazy tales that were nonsense to most but ambrosia to MAGA illuminati. Nothing was off the table, from a lost election that had to be fraudulent to bizarre tales of mind control via low-flow toilets, LED bulbs, and energy-efficient dishwashers.

 Parachuting in from this conspiracy bacchanalia is the Conspiracy, She Wrote podcast. The host is Cristen Conger, who you may know from the Unladylike podcast and is the cofounder of Unladylike Media. Conger has a long podcast history, with "My accidental podcast life beginning in 2009 as co-creator and co-host of the podcast Stuff Mom Never Told You, now a part of the iHeartMedia network." She is also the co-author of Unladylike: A Field Guide to Smashing the Patriarchy and Claiming Your Space (Ten Speed Press, 2018) and she is a seasoned speaker on gender, feminism and women’s histories.

First, let me assure the readers that I have not conspired with Cristen Conger to write these words. Second, Conspiracy, She Wrote is like a scrumptious podcast casserole, with ingredients for everyone. 

For history buffs, the first episode is essentially a history of conspiracy theories with quick stops at the Illuminati, Freemasons, and the role of key women in baking this new conspiracy quiche. 

For fans of comedy, sardonic humor, and caustic comebacks, Conger discovers dark humor in the history of conspiracy theories. Her brand of humor can elicit smirks, chuckles, and even belly laughs.

For analytical thinkers, Conger explains that there are three fundamental components of conspiracy theories:

1. Accidents don't happen

2. Nothing is as it seems

3. Everything is connected

Finally, for current news junkies, she has tackled a topic that punches us in the face every day. Whether it's childless cat ladies destroying our way of life, Taylor Swift as a left-wing psyop, or incredibly Megan Markle's children are dolls, Conger has found the geyser from which much misinformation bubbles up to the surface. 

In the first episode, Conger explains that conspiracy theorists believe that rich and powerful people are secretly plotting to achieve some kind of nefarious outcome.   Conger uses the image of "conspiracy red strings" to convey how pulling one string of misinformation can lead to spooling an entire nest of "hidden truths."  In that first episode, Conger's guest, Dr. Lindsay Porter, a cultural historian and writer who specializes in rumors and conspiracy theories of the 18th century, provides listeners with a fascinating history of such theories. Trust me. Porter unveils a tale with more secrets, twists, and turns than National Treasure, the 2004 film with Nicolas Cage.

Even after one episode, it's obvious that Conger is having fun, and that spirit of delight infects her listeners. Conger admits, "Conspiracy, She Wrote is my fun, and I can't wait to share everything I've learned, from pastel QAnon to celebrity pregnancy truthers."

Conspiracy, She Wrote is one of the best podcasts released this year. It's not that other podcasters have not discussed conspiracy theories; it's just that, as Carly Simon once sang, "Nobody does it better."

[thatstormygeek]

Aside from being a white man from the Midwest to “balance” the ticket according to more conventional campaign wisdom, it really matters what Democrats in Minnesota achieved under his leadership. His ascension should be read as a statement of intent: Look what we have done in Minnesota – yes, that’s what we want for all Americans. Republicans are certainly trying to transplant to the national level what they are already doing in “red” states: Impose a reactionary vision by increasingly authoritarian measures. This has been the biggest advantage for Democrats over the past few election cycles. Rightwingers can talk about the dangers of “woke” radicalism all they want. But Americans see, in “red” states, what GOP rule means, as Republicans are rolling back fundamental rights, installing vindictive reactionary regimes. Walz represents the positive counter to that. Not just “We reject the Right’s vision for the country,” but “Here’s what a fairer, more egalitarian pluralistic America looks like” – not just in theory, but in the form of actual legislation, and based on narrow majorities too.

The idea that attacking leading figures on the Right as “weird” obscures a more substantive discussion about the issues that really matter in favor of empty campaign rhetoric is similarly misleading. The attack hasn’t just been directed at weird mannerisms, rhetoric, or superficial stylistic features – it has been directly tied to policy. What’s weird is the Right’s obsession with controlling women’s bodies and subjecting children to full-body inspections before letting them do sports; what’s weird is banning popular children’s books; what’s weird is abandoning all attempts at figuring out how to solve collective action challenges via public policy because you are too busy propagating conspiracies about the evil forces that have supposedly taken over all the institutions of American life. The official thrust of the Harris campaign has been seamlessly building on that: What these weird guys want to do is take away fundamental freedoms that most Americans agree should define the nation – but we are not going back to that dark place to which they want to take us. Democrats – and by extension: (almost) all the people who, for better or worse, rely on America’s sole (small-d) democratic party to fight back against the authoritarian assault – are feeling relieved. They are on the offensive. They are, dare we say it, having fun. The reactions from the Right have been immensely helpful too, as rightwingers have reliably lost it and freaked out in ways that are really not doing much to dispute the impression that they are weirdos (witness Christopher Rufo’s rather unhinged tirades against Walz, for instance). The Right desires to project strength and intimidate those who dare to deviate from the reactionary vision; “you guys are just weird” directly undermines these assertions. Another reason for the immediate success of this messaging is probably that it provides a way to attack the Right’s aggressively bigoted political project without calling them racists, sexists, or homophobes. If that is indeed the case, I feel somewhat ambiguous about it. The tendency in the mainstream political discourse to discard terms like “racist” and “sexist” – or fascist! – as merely slurs, rather than analytically correct assessments of core elements of the rightwing worldview, and to consequently regard those who call out racism and sexism with as much suspicion as the discriminatory structures and behavior that we urgently need to call out, is a disaster. Given this frustrating reality, however, it’s good to have found a way to circumvent those taboos to some extent, in a way that doesn’t give an inch to the rightwing agenda on substance. Tim Walz himself plays a crucial role in this respect: He is modeling a white male masculinity that is not either obsessed with its own power over others and/or consumed by whining about its own frailty, but confidently focused on using the power and privilege that comes with being a “normal” white Christian man to improve the lives of others.

Since the late 1960s, Republicans have successfully weaponized the idea that they represent the norm that should define the nation. This assertion (in)famously crystallized in the “silent majority” notion Richard Nixon popularized early in his presidency. In his address to the nation on the war on Vietnam in November 1969, Nixon spoke to – and, as he claimed, for – “the great silent majority of my fellow Americans.” Nixon presented himself as the proponent and defender of these normal, everyday Americans, of “the quiet voice in the tumult and the shouting,” as he had put it in his speech accepting the nomination at the Republican Convention in August 1968: “It is the voice of the great majority of Americans, the forgotten Americans – the non-shouters; the non-demonstrators.” These Americans, according to Nixon, were under assault from the loud radicals, the protesters, the young hippies, and the Black people causing “unrest.” Nixon’s “silent majority” was unmistakably white, it was older, it shared conservative or even reactionary sensibilities. He precisely captured the trajectory of the Republican Party, both ideologically but also in terms of the demographics and self-perception of its supporters. The civil rights legislation of the 1960s had acted as a catalyst for a longer-term process of party realignment or partisan sorting. The result was a profound reconfiguration of the two major parties, ultimately uniting those opposed to egalitarian, multiracial, pluralistic democracy in the GOP. Their voices have dominated the Republican Party since at least the late 1970s. The mainstream political discourse – and far too many Democrats as well (more on that in a second) – has accepted and perpetuated this assertion of a white conservative Christian norm that is supposedly shared by the majority of Americans for far too long. ... For the longest time, most leading Democratic officials and lawmakers were unwilling and/or unable to really pounce on this drastic discrepancy between the Republican claim to power and the GOP’s descent into extremism and its embrace of reactionary minority rule. A distinct asymmetry in the way the two sides treat each other has defined the political conflict: While the GOP has been engaging in an escalating authoritarian assault on the political system and Republican leaders could not have been clearer about the fact that they consider Democrats the “Un-American” enemy within and Democratic governance fundamentally illegitimate, powerful Democrats have acted as is politics as usual is still possible and a return to bipartisanship and cross-party consensus, to “normalcy,” imminent.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

AI is a WMD

I'm in TARTU, ESTONIA! AI, copyright and creative workers' labor rights (TOMORROW, May 10, 8AM: Science Fiction Research Association talk, Institute of Foreign Languages and Cultures building, Lossi 3, lobby). A talk for hackers on seizing the means of computation (TOMORROW, May 10, 3PM, University of Tartu Delta Centre, Narva 18, room 1037).

Fun fact: "The Tragedy Of the Commons" is a hoax created by the white nationalist Garrett Hardin to justify stealing land from colonized people and moving it from collective ownership, "rescuing" it from the inevitable tragedy by putting it in the hands of a private owner, who will care for it properly, thanks to "rational self-interest":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/04/analytical-democratic-theory/#epistocratic-delusions

Get that? If control over a key resource is diffused among the people who rely on it, then (Garrett claims) those people will all behave like selfish assholes, overusing and undermaintaining the commons. It's only when we let someone own that commons and charge rent for its use that (Hardin says) we will get sound management.

By that logic, Google should be the internet's most competent and reliable manager. After all, the company used its access to the capital markets to buy control over the internet, spending billions every year to make sure that you never try a search-engine other than its own, thus guaranteeing it a 90% market share:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/21/im-feeling-unlucky/#not-up-to-the-task

Google seems to think it's got the problem of deciding what we see on the internet licked. Otherwise, why would the company flush $80b down the toilet with a giant stock-buyback, and then do multiple waves of mass layoffs, from last year's 12,000 person bloodbath to this year's deep cuts to the company's "core teams"?

https://qz.com/google-is-laying-off-hundreds-as-it-moves-core-jobs-abr-1851449528

And yet, Google is overrun with scams and spam, which find their way to the very top of the first page of its search results:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/24/passive-income/#swiss-cheese-security

The entire internet is shaped by Google's decisions about what shows up on that first page of listings. When Google decided to prioritize shopping site results over informative discussions and other possible matches, the entire internet shifted its focus to producing affiliate-link-strewn "reviews" that would show up on Google's front door:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/24/naming-names/#prabhakar-raghavan

This was catnip to the kind of sociopath who a) owns a hedge-fund and b) hates journalists for being pain-in-the-ass, stick-in-the-mud sticklers for "truth" and "facts" and other impediments to the care and maintenance of a functional reality-distortion field. These dickheads started buying up beloved news sites and converting them to spam-farms, filled with garbage "reviews" and other Google-pleasing, affiliate-fee-generating nonsense.

(These news-sites were vulnerable to acquisition in large part thanks to Google, whose dominance of ad-tech lets it cream 51 cents off every ad dollar and whose mobile OS monopoly lets it steal 30 cents off every in-app subscriber dollar):

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/saving-news-big-tech

Now, the spam on these sites didn't write itself. Much to the chagrin of the tech/finance bros who bought up Sports Illustrated and other venerable news sites, they still needed to pay actual human writers to produce plausible word-salads. This was a waste of money that could be better spent on reverse-engineering Google's ranking algorithm and getting pride-of-place on search results pages:

https://housefresh.com/david-vs-digital-goliaths/

That's where AI comes in. Spicy autocomplete absolutely can't replace journalists. The planet-destroying, next-word-guessing programs from Openai and its competitors are incorrigible liars that require so much "supervision" that they cost more than they save in a newsroom:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/29/what-part-of-no/#dont-you-understand

But while a chatbot can't produce truthful and informative articles, it can produce bullshit – at unimaginable scale. Chatbots are the workers that hedge-fund wreckers dream of: tireless, uncomplaining, compliant and obedient producers of nonsense on demand.

That's why the capital class is so insatiably horny for chatbots. Chatbots aren't going to write Hollywood movies, but studio bosses hyperventilated at the prospect of a "writer" that would accept your brilliant idea and diligently turned it into a movie. You prompt an LLM in exactly the same way a studio exec gives writers notes. The difference is that the LLM won't roll its eyes and make sarcastic remarks about your brainwaves like "ET, but starring a dog, with a love plot in the second act and a big car-chase at the end":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/01/how-the-writers-guild-sunk-ais-ship/

Similarly, chatbots are a dream come true for a hedge fundie who ends up running a beloved news site, only to have to fight with their own writers to get the profitable nonsense produced at a scale and velocity that will guarantee a high Google ranking and millions in "passive income" from affiliate links.

One of the premier profitable nonsense companies is Advon, which helped usher in an era in which sites from Forbes to Money to USA Today create semi-secret "review" sites that are stuffed full of badly researched top-ten lists for products from air purifiers to cat beds:

https://housefresh.com/how-google-decimated-housefresh/

Advon swears that it only uses living humans to produce nonsense, and not AI. This isn't just wildly implausible, it's also belied by easily uncovered evidence, like its own employees' Linkedin profiles, which boast of using AI to create "content":

https://housefresh.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Advon-AI-LinkedIn.jpg

It's not true. Advon uses AI to produce its nonsense, at scale. In an excellent, deeply reported piece for Futurism, Maggie Harrison Dupré brings proof that Advon replaced its miserable human nonsense-writers with tireless chatbots:

https://futurism.com/advon-ai-content

Dupré describes how Advon's ability to create botshit at scale contributed to the enshittification of clients from Yoga Journal to the LA Times, "Us Weekly" to the Miami Herald.

All of this is very timely, because this is the week that Google finally bestirred itself to commence downranking publishers who engage in "site reputation abuse" – creating these SEO-stuffed fake reviews with the help of third parties like Advon:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/03/keyword-swarming/#site-reputation-abuse

(Google's policy only forbids site reputation abuse with the help of third parties; if these publishers take their nonsense production in-house, Google may allow them to continue to dominate its search listings):

https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2024/03/core-update-spam-policies#site-reputation

There's a reason so many people believed Hardin's racist "Tragedy of the Commons" hoax. We have an intuitive understanding that commons are fragile. All it takes is one monster to start shitting in the well where the rest of us get our drinking water and we're all poisoned.

The financial markets love these monsters. Mark Zuckerberg's key insight was that he could make billions by assembling vast dossiers of compromising, sensitive personal information on half the world's population without their consent, but only if he kept his costs down by failing to safeguard that data and the systems for exploiting it. He's like a guy who figures out that if he accumulates enough oily rags, he can extract so much low-grade oil from them that he can grow rich, but only if he doesn't waste money on fire-suppression:

https://locusmag.com/2018/07/cory-doctorow-zucks-empire-of-oily-rags/

Now Zuckerberg and the wealthy, powerful monsters who seized control over our commons are getting a comeuppance. The weak countermeasures they created to maintain the minimum levels of quality to keep their platforms as viable, going concerns are being overwhelmed by AI. This was a totally foreseeable outcome: the history of the internet is a story of bad actors who upended the assumptions built into our security systems by automating their attacks, transforming an assault that wouldn't be economically viable into a global, high-speed crime wave:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/24/automation-is-magic/

But it is possible for a community to maintain a commons. This is something Hardin could have discovered by studying actual commons, instead of inventing imaginary histories in which commons turned tragic. As it happens, someone else did exactly that: Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom:

https://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmons/

Ostrom described how commons can be wisely managed, over very long timescales, by communities that self-governed. Part of her work concerns how users of a commons must have the ability to exclude bad actors from their shared resources.

When that breaks down, commons can fail – because there's always someone who thinks it's fine to shit in the well rather than walk 100 yards to the outhouse.

Enshittification is the process by which control over the internet moved from self-governance by members of the commons to acts of wanton destruction committed by despicable, greedy assholes who shit in the well over and over again.

It's not just the spammers who take advantage of Google's lazy incompetence, either. Take "copyleft trolls," who post images using outdated Creative Commons licenses that allow them to terminate the CC license if a user makes minor errors in attributing the images they use:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/01/24/a-bug-in-early-creative-commons-licenses-has-enabled-a-new-breed-of-superpredator/

The first copyleft trolls were individuals, but these days, the racket is dominated by a company called Pixsy, which pretends to be a "rights protection" agency that helps photographers track down copyright infringers. In reality, the company is committed to helping copyleft trolls entrap innocent Creative Commons users into paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars to use images that are licensed for free use. Just as Advon upends the economics of spam and deception through automation, Pixsy has figured out how to send legal threats at scale, robolawyering demand letters that aren't signed by lawyers; the company refuses to say whether any lawyer ever reviews these threats:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/13/an-open-letter-to-pixsy-ceo-kain-jones-who-keeps-sending-me-legal-threats/

This is shitting in the well, at scale. It's an online WMD, designed to wipe out the commons. Creative Commons has allowed millions of creators to produce a commons with billions of works in it, and Pixsy exploits a minor error in the early versions of CC licenses to indiscriminately manufacture legal land-mines, wantonly blowing off innocent commons-users' legs and laughing all the way to the bank:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/02/commafuckers-versus-the-commons/

We can have an online commons, but only if it's run by and for its users. Google has shown us that any "benevolent dictator" who amasses power in the name of defending the open internet will eventually grow too big to care, and will allow our commons to be demolished by well-shitters:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/04/teach-me-how-to-shruggie/#kagi

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/2024/05/09/shitting-in-the-well/#advon

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

--

Catherine Poh Huay Tan (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/68166820@N08/49729911222/

Laia Balagueró (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/lbalaguero/6551235503/

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

[sbanimation]

The Future of Learning: VR Training Revolutionizing Education and Industry

Virtual Reality (VR) technology has rapidly evolved from a gaming novelty to a transformative tool in education and industry. VR training, particularly, has emerged as a game-changer, offering immersive learning experiences that bridge the gap between theory and practice.

Interactive Learning Experiences

VR training goes beyond passive observation by enabling interactive learning experiences. You can manipulate objects, make decisions, and engage with virtual environments in real-time. For instance, in medical training, students can perform virtual surgeries where they interact with anatomically accurate models, providing a hands-on learning experience without the risks associated with live procedures.

Adaptive Learning Paths

Another powerful feature of VR training is its ability to adapt to individual learning needs. Through real-time feedback and analytics, VR systems can track user performance and adjust the difficulty level or content based on the learner's progress. This personalized approach not only enhances engagement but also ensures that training is tailored to each user's pace and proficiency.

Cost-Effective and Safe Training

VR training eliminates the need for physical equipment or facilities, reduces travel expenses, and minimizes risks associated with high-stakes training scenarios. For industries like aviation or manufacturing, where mistakes can have costly consequences, VR provides a safe environment for trainees to practice without jeopardizing safety or operational efficiency.

Remote Collaboration and Accessibility

In an increasingly globalized world, VR training facilitates remote collaboration and accessibility. Geographically dispersed teams can participate in collaborative training sessions in a virtual space, fostering teamwork and knowledge sharing across borders. Moreover, VR training makes training accessible to individuals who may not have access to specialized facilities or resources, democratizing learning opportunities across socio-economic barriers.

Measurable Learning Outcomes

One of the most compelling advantages of VR training is its ability to generate measurable learning outcomes. Through data-driven assessments and simulations, trainers can objectively evaluate trainee performance, identify areas for improvement, and track progress over time. This data-driven approach not only enhances accountability but also allows organizations to optimize training programs based on empirical evidence.

Applications Across Industries

The versatility of VR training extends across various industries, including healthcare, military, construction, and retail. In healthcare, VR is used for surgical simulations, patient therapy, and medical education. In the military, it supports tactical training and battlefield simulations. In construction, VR enables architects and engineers to visualize designs and identify potential issues before construction begins.

Future Prospects

As technology continues to advance, VR systems will become more sophisticated, offering even greater realism, interactivity, and scalability. Enhanced AI integration and haptic feedback systems will further enrich the learning experience, making VR training an indispensable tool for education, skills development, and professional training.

By harnessing the power of immersive technology, VR training not only enhances engagement and retention but also prepares individuals and organizations for the complexities of a rapidly evolving world. As adoption grows and innovations flourish, VR training is set to redefine the future of education and industry, ushering in an era where learning knows no boundaries.

[bllsbailey]

Dark Tech, Dark Harvest: Categorizing the Democrats’ Hidden Tech Network

This article is the 16th installment of the VICI Report, a comprehensive multi-part series exploring the sophisticated use of technology in political operations.  This series aims to uncover the processes, mechanisms, tools, and technologies used by Democrats to master our political processes and to develop strategies that answer and ultimately defeat their manipulations in 2024 and beyond.

Read the previous article in this series, Long March Through Venture Capital, where we expose the Venture Capital industry as one of the major drivers of Democrat technology dominance, or start from the beginning of our series.

Introduction

The Democrat tech ecosystem is a meticulously crafted network, integrating advanced technology, big data, and grassroots activism to create a formidable political machine. Over the past few decades, left-wing ideologies have permeated venture capital and corporate finance, embedding Critical Theory, ESG, and DEI into the core of business operations. This ideological infiltration has transformed traditional profit-driven motives into vehicles for social engineering, compelling companies to adopt leftist agendas to secure essential investments.

As the tech industry became a battleground for ideological control, early principles like Google's "Don't be evil" have morphed into frameworks like Effective Altruism, justifying extreme measures under the guise of social good. Simultaneously, the influx of cheap money and global investment strategies have detached valuations from reality, creating inefficiencies and fostering internal social agitation within companies.

Understanding the intricate collaboration within this ecosystem is crucial for comprehending its political prowess. From big data analytics to digital grassroots mobilization, the Democrat tech ecosystem exemplifies a sophisticated approach to influencing voter behavior and election outcomes, revealing both its strategic brilliance and its potential pitfalls.

Synergy of Interests and Roles

The Democrat tech ecosystem is a highly interconnected network where numerous companies and projects collaborate seamlessly. This integration allows for efficient data sharing, strategic planning, and execution of political campaigns. The collective effort of these entities creates a robust infrastructure that maximizes voter engagement and turnout, demonstrating the power of coordinated strategy and advanced technology.

A key aspect of this ecosystem is its integration with traditional non-profits through their data and technology vendors. Non-profits focused on social justice issues, for example, may use advanced data analytics tools to identify and engage potential supporters. The data from these non-profits, though not overtly political, can be used to enhance the efforts of ballot harvesting non-profits or Democrat campaigns due to shared, politically aligned vendors. 

A person receptive to a local-centric environmental group is more likely to be receptive to Democrat politics, making this indirect collaboration a critical component. This alignment amplifies the ecosystem's impact by leveraging the shared technology and data of these vendors.

Big Tech corporations play a crucial role in this ecosystem in multiple ways. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter provide platforms and tools that support Democrat political strategies. While these companies have "banned" political advertising and officially ceased providing political campaigns with the same quality data they previously offered, they now supply this data to Democrat-aligned non-profits for GOTV and other voter contact canvassing. 

This approach was exemplified by Zuckerberg's $400 million contribution in 2020, which was largely used for these purposes. Additionally, Big Tech companies allow aligned developers to take leaves of absence to work on political tech projects, with stipends often funded by Impact Investment advisors like Arabella Partners. This process aligns with the ideological infiltration and takeover across all educated professions, further integrating Big Tech into the Democrat tech ecosystem.

The collaboration within this ecosystem extends beyond direct partnerships. The scope of the ecosystem involves data and activity from various vendors at different stages feeding into each other. This allows billions of dollars of investment capital and non-profit donation capital to play a role in the Democrat ballot harvesting machine without "hard" money being spent or otherwise trackable. 

Media organizations shape public opinion, tech startups develop innovative tools for political engagement, and educational institutions cultivate the next generation of tech-savvy activists. The seamless integration of these roles and interests enhances the overall effectiveness of the Democrat tech ecosystem, making it a powerful force in shaping political outcomes.

Moreover, this type of collaboration raises significant legal and ethical concerns. The intertwining of non-profit and political campaign activities, facilitated by shared vendors and aligned interests, might be illegal and warrants thorough investigation by law enforcement. The potential misuse of non-profit status, the blending of tax-deductible donations with political operations, and the covert flow of data and resources across aligned entities demand rigorous scrutiny. Understanding the synergy within this ecosystem reveals the strategic sophistication behind Democrat political operations and underscores the urgent need for accountability and transparency in these practices.

Big Data and the Voter

The use of big data tools and technologies is central to Democrat political campaigns today. These tools enable detailed voter profiling, allowing campaigns to tailor their messages to specific demographics with pinpoint accuracy. Data collection methods include social media analytics, voter databases, and online behavior tracking, which together provide a comprehensive view of potential voters. By analyzing this data, campaigns can identify trends, preferences, and behaviors, creating highly targeted outreach strategies that significantly increase voter engagement and turnout.

One of the striking similarities between Democrat digital campaigning and modern business practice is the use of profile marketing and customer relationship management (CRM) techniques. In the business world, companies use data-driven strategies to manage customer interactions, segmenting and targeting customers based on detailed profiles and driving customers toward desired responses. Democrat campaigns have adopted these techniques to manage voter interactions in a similar manner. By applying data-driven approaches, these campaigns efficiently allocate resources, prioritize outreach efforts, and craft messages that resonate deeply with their targeted voter segments.

Sales management pipelines, a staple in business operations, have their counterparts in political campaigns. Voter data is segmented and targeted similarly to sales prospects, with campaigns using sophisticated data analytics to prioritize outreach efforts and maximize impact. This approach allows campaigns to focus on high-value targets, ensuring that their efforts are both efficient and effective. By mirroring sales management pipelines, Democrats streamline their operations and improve their overall efficiency.

The promise of personalized marketing, a key component of early internet ambitions, has been fully realized in the political realm through data-driven manipulation. Campaigns craft personalized propaganda based on detailed voter profiles derived from data available from social media titans, ensuring that their messages resonate with individual voters. This approach leverages big data insights to influence voter behavior on an individual level. Personalized propaganda is crafted to address the specific concerns and interests of individual voters, making campaign messages more persuasive and impactful.

Big data tools and technologies also play a crucial role in the broader Democrat tech ecosystem by enabling the integration and coordination of various campaign activities. The data collected from different sources is used to create a cohesive strategy that spans multiple platforms and outreach efforts. This integration allows campaigns to maintain a consistent message and approach across all channels, enhancing the overall effectiveness of their efforts.

This seamless integration of data-driven strategies with campaign activities extends to the grassroots level, where digital tools empower activists and volunteers. By understanding the role of big data in shaping voter interactions, we can better appreciate the strategic depth of the Democrat tech ecosystem and its ability to leverage advanced technologies to achieve its political objectives. Activists use these tools to drive digital grassroots efforts, creating a powerful feedback loop that further amplifies campaign effectiveness.

Activists, Tools, and the Digital Grassroots

Digital tools play a crucial role in grassroots activism, serving as both inputs and outputs within the broader data and voter management efforts of Democrat political campaigns. These tools collect valuable data from activist actions and feed it back into the system, refining and enhancing overall strategy. This feedback loop ensures that campaigns remain agile and responsive to changing dynamics, continuously optimizing their efforts.

The Democrats have mastered the use of these digital tools to create a CRM-style pipeline that attracts and manages like-minded, activist-minded individuals. By organizing activities ranging from event promotion to complex street canvassing, these tools ensure coordination and impact. Activists receive real-time updates and instructions, allowing campaigns to mobilize quickly and efficiently. Leveraging these digital platforms, Democrat campaigns can strategically direct efforts, maximizing the effectiveness of grassroots initiatives.

Campaigns use these digital tools to direct and reap benefits from activist actions, whether it involves simple tasks like event promotion and fundraising or more complex efforts like personalized local street canvassing. Personalized engagement plans and targeted interaction scripts are crucial in this process. Activists are provided with detailed voter profiles and contact histories, enabling them to engage voters in informed and persuasive conversations. This approach enhances the effectiveness of both traditional door-to-door canvassing and digital outreach, ensuring every interaction is meaningful and impactful.

The ability to individualize outreach and activism at scale using technology represents a significant advancement in political campaigning. Traditional canvassing methods are now complemented by digital techniques that allow for more efficient and personalized voter contact. Canvassers can access individual profiles and contact histories on their phones, integrate voter data into relational graphs for instant analysis, and optimize their routes to avoid wasting time on already convinced or impossible-to-convince voters. This integration of traditional and modern methods significantly enhances the reach and efficiency of campaign efforts.

The synergy between technology and grassroots activism within the Democrat tech ecosystem generates a powerful dynamic. Activist actions produce valuable data that continuously refines campaign strategies, ensuring every effort is optimized for maximum impact. This strategic sophistication enables the Democrat tech ecosystem to leverage grassroots activism effectively, achieving its political objectives through coordinated and data-driven efforts. By harnessing the power of digital tools, Democrats have created a formidable grassroots operation that not only mobilizes support efficiently but also adapts swiftly to changing political landscapes.

Collusion and the Harvest

The Democrat tech ecosystem extends its influence through a complex network of non-profit organizations and strategic alliances, effectively transferring the responsibility for voter turnout from traditional campaign operations to the non-profit ecosystem. This strategy allows campaigns to channel vast resources into voter mobilization efforts without breaching campaign finance laws. By leveraging the legal and financial structures of non-profits, Democrats have crafted a sophisticated approach to ensuring voter engagement and turnout.

Effective Altruism, which emphasizes quantifiable results, drives many of these non-profit-based strategies. Organizations focused on voter turnout and engagement adopt this principle to ensure their efforts are both efficient and measurable. This data-driven approach allows them to demonstrate tangible outcomes, attracting more funding and support. The focus on quantifiable impact ensures that every dollar spent directly contributes to increasing voter participation.

The ballot harvesting process, a cornerstone of Democrat voter mobilization strategy, necessitates a holistic collusive effort. This involves integrating data management, activist mobilization, and strategic planning to ensure ballots are collected and submitted effectively. By aligning these efforts, Democrats can systematically harvest ballots, maximizing voter turnout in key areas. The coordination between various entities, from local activists to national non-profits, creates a seamless operation that ensures every possible vote is counted.

The success of Democrat strategies in ballot harvesting is evident in historical and contemporary election outcomes. Leveraging advanced technology and coordinated efforts, Democrats have refined their processes to dominate voter turnout. Strategic use of data, coupled with grassroots mobilization, has created a powerful system that enhances their electoral advantage.

However, this intricate web of collaboration and strategic alignment raises significant legal and ethical questions. The blending of non-profit activities with direct political campaigning, facilitated by shared data and resources, might skirt or even violate campaign finance laws. The covert flow of funds and data through aligned entities demands rigorous scrutiny to ensure transparency and accountability. Law enforcement must investigate these practices to uphold the integrity of the electoral process and ensure that campaign finance regulations are not being subverted.

Understanding the depth and complexity of the Democrat tech ecosystem's approach to voter turnout reveals the sophistication of their strategies. By integrating non-profit operations with political campaigns, Democrats have created a formidable machine for mobilizing voters. This strategic alignment, while effective, necessitates careful examination to ensure it operates within legal and ethical boundaries. 

Democrat Technology Categories

The Democrat tech ecosystem is a multifaceted network, strategically designed to maximize political influence and voter engagement. To fully understand its complexity, it is essential to categorize its components. This categorization not only provides clarity but also sets the stage for detailed analyses of each category in subsequent articles. The Democrat tech ecosystem can be described in five broad categories: Data and Research, Voter Relationship Management, Activist Marshalling, Finance and Fundraising, and Ballot Harvesting. Each category plays a crucial role in the overall strategy, and understanding them is key to comprehending the ecosystem's full impact.

Data and Research

Data and research form the backbone of the Democrat tech ecosystem. This category encompasses the tools and methodologies used for gathering and analyzing voter data. Advanced data analytics, social media monitoring, and voter databases allow campaigns to gain deep insights into voter behavior, preferences, and trends. By understanding these patterns, campaigns can craft targeted messages and strategies that resonate with specific demographics. The ability to predict voter behavior and tailor outreach efforts accordingly is crucial for effective voter engagement and mobilization.

Voter Relationship Management

Voter Relationship Management (VRM) is akin to Customer Relationship Management (CRM) in the business world. This category involves managing interactions with voters, maintaining detailed profiles, and tracking engagement over time. VRM tools help campaigns stay connected with voters, ensuring continuous communication and relationship building. By leveraging these tools, campaigns can personalize their outreach, making voters feel valued and heard. 

Activist Marshaling

Activist marshaling focuses on organizing and mobilizing grassroots supporters. Digital tools play a significant role in this category, creating a CRM-style pipeline to attract and manage activists. These tools help coordinate activities ranging from event promotion to street canvassing, ensuring that every effort is impactful. Personalized engagement plans and real-time updates enhance the efficiency of activist efforts, making grassroots campaigns more effective. 

Finance and Fundraising

Securing financial resources is vital for any political campaign, and this category includes the tools and techniques used to raise funds and manage campaign finances. Democrat-aligned non-profits, PACs, and other fundraising entities work together to channel funds into campaign-related efforts. This category addresses the differing requirements for managing small donors and potential investor-grade donors, integrating these diverse streams into a cohesive strategy. Digital platforms facilitate online fundraising, social media campaigns, and donor management. 

Ballot Harvesting

Ballot harvesting is the process of collecting and submitting absentee or mail-in ballots on behalf of voters. This category involves strategies and tools used to ensure high voter turnout. By coordinating data management, activist mobilization, and strategic planning, campaigns and aligned activists systematically collect ballots and ensure they are counted. As the culmination of the entire ecosystem's processes and mechanics, ballot harvesting exemplifies the holistic nature of Democrat strategies. The tools facilitating this culminative process include advanced data analytics, coordinated activist efforts, and robust logistical planning. 

Conclusion

The Democrat tech ecosystem is a sophisticated, interconnected network designed to maximize political influence and voter engagement. By categorizing this ecosystem into these segments, we can better understand its complexity and effectiveness. Each category plays a crucial role in creating a seamless operation that leverages advanced technology and coordinated efforts to achieve strategic political objectives.

In subsequent articles, we will explore the tools, players, and processes that drive each segment of this ecosystem. These detailed analyses will reveal the intricate mechanisms that make the Democrat tech ecosystem a powerful force in modern politics. Understanding how these components work together is essential for grasping the full scope of their influence on voter behavior and election outcomes. Be sure to read the following articles to gain a comprehensive understanding of these critical elements.

Sinistra Delenda Est!

In the next installment of the VICI Report series, we expose Democrats’ Data and Research vendors, their capabilities, and how they bridge the collusion gap between Big Tech and Democrat campaigns.

The VICI Report and Project VICI are projects of UpHold America, led by Paul Porter (X:@PaulPorterPVB) and Jason Belich (X:@BelichJason). 

The VICI Report series is a culmination of many months of sleepless nights; the product of exhaustive research and analysis into the technologies used in politics by a Democrat adversary excessively skilled at manipulating political outcomes. Your support is critical to the success of this mission. Please visit our website, support our GiveSendGo, or join our Substack to contribute.

[automatismoateo]

The Republican Party has completely lost its mind surrounding religion via /r/atheism

The Republican Party has completely lost its mind surrounding religion As a lifelong Republican and a theist, I now feel deeply concerned about the way my party has gone. Adopting Donald Trump and the frightening religious goals of Project 2025 have me questioning whether the GOP still stands for the things that I hold dear. Because of this I have decided to vote for Joe Biden in the upcoming election. I don’t like him and I think he is corrupted to high hell but if voting him in means this countries freedoms can be maintained then so be it. Trumpism has mainly been described as the four years of divisions, democracy norms' obfuscation, and focus on personal loyalty away from policy and principle. This is not the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt or Reagan—this isn't even recognizable as what it was. It has devolved into a personality cult with no regard for conservative values and responsible government. Not to mention Donald Trump from an analytical perspective is clearly an egotistical maniac who only wants power not giving a care for this country or its citizens. It looks like Project 2025 simply doubles down on this dangerous trajectory: instead of an economic inequality crisis, a healthcare crisis, and an infrastructure crisis, it seeks to develop consolidation and power by undermining our democratic institutions and completely violating the carefully crafted separation of church and state—an America I don't believe in. This is not the America my ancestors fought for—a place where faith, reason, and compassion guide our decisions. And perhaps more concerning is the level many of Trump's followers have deified him. That kind of idolatry is a direct contradiction of the Christian faith. The very first commandment is not to keep false gods before us—yet here we are, with some in our party bound to treat Trump essentially as a messianic figure. It's a dangerous departure from what defines us religiously and morally. Consider the evidence: 1.Conspiracy Theories: Most of Trump's supporters have embraced QAnon—the parent theory that casts Trump as a savior fighting a cabal of deep-state actors. Culty, and distracts from real policy issues. 2.Trump Flags and Paraphernalia: Trump flags often outnumber American flags at rallies and in public. This visual allegiance to a single human being over the country is troubling. 3.Quotes from Religious Leaders: Some of the leading evangelical leaders such as Franklin Graham have declared Trump as being like King David of the bible, a sign of reverence that is quasi-idolatrous. 4.Violation of Church and State: Project 2025's policies suggest more governmental support for religious organizations—blurring the line between church and state undercuts the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, ensuring it stands utterly neutral on all matters spiritual. One has always believed faith and politics can coexist to better the world. To find myself at this kind of impasse, the direction of the current GOP feels more like a betrayal than a continuation of our proud legacy. It's time for us to look hard at where we are going and ask if this is indeed the path we want to follow. Are there others out there who feel the same? How can we reclaim and guide our country back to a path of sanity, integrity, and religious freedom? I look forward to hearing from you and joining those who want to build a better future for America and any who want to enjoy the freedoms that it has to offer. Submitted June 06, 2024 at 04:02AM by SteelViperZ (From Reddit https://ift.tt/rxbXBQy)

[gigglystudent]

Economic Perspectives: Voices from Today's Student Scholars

In the ever-evolving landscape of global economics, today's student scholars are uniquely positioned to offer fresh insights and perspectives. These emerging economists are navigating a world marked by rapid technological advancements, shifting geopolitical dynamics, and unprecedented economic challenges. One notable aspect of their academic journey is the reliance on resources like microeconomics homework help to deepen their understanding and refine their analytical skills.

Student scholars today are not merely passive recipients of knowledge; they are active participants in the discourse on economic theory and practice. Their engagement often transcends traditional classroom boundaries, as they leverage digital platforms and collaborative tools to explore complex concepts. The accessibility of academic support and assignment help websites has played a significant role in this transformation, enabling students to grasp intricate topics with greater ease and confidence.

For instance, a student delving into the intricacies of supply and demand can benefit immensely from detailed explanations and practical examples provided through these resources. The availability of expert guidance on assignments ensures that students are not just memorizing theories but also applying them to real-world scenarios. This practical application is crucial in fields like behavioral economics, where understanding human decision-making processes requires more than textbook knowledge.

Moreover, the perspectives of today's student scholars are increasingly informed by a global context. With the internet breaking down geographical barriers, students from diverse backgrounds can share their experiences and insights, leading to a richer, more inclusive economic discourse. This global collaboration often highlights the interconnectedness of economic issues, such as how fiscal policies in one country can have ripple effects across the world.

The rise of assignment help websites has also democratized access to high-quality educational resources. Students from different socioeconomic backgrounds can now access expert assistance that was once limited to those who could afford private tutors. This leveling of the playing field allows a more diverse array of voices to contribute to economic discussions, fostering innovation and new approaches to age-old problems.

In their research, student scholars are increasingly focusing on contemporary issues such as sustainability, digital currencies, and income inequality. Their work is characterized by a willingness to question established norms and propose novel solutions. For example, studies on the economic impact of climate change are not just academic exercises but are driven by a genuine concern for the future of the planet. Similarly, the exploration of cryptocurrencies is often motivated by a quest to understand and potentially reshape the financial systems of tomorrow.

The collaborative nature of today's academic environment means that student scholars frequently work in teams, bringing together diverse perspectives to tackle complex problems. This collaborative approach mirrors the interdisciplinary nature of modern economic challenges, where solutions often require input from fields such as technology, sociology, and political science.

In conclusion, the voices of today's student scholars are vital to the ongoing evolution of economic thought. Their innovative approaches and fresh perspectives are reshaping how we understand and address economic issues. The use of resources like microeconomics homework help exemplifies the blend of traditional and modern learning methods that characterize their educational journey. As these scholars continue to engage with the world around them, they are not only learning from the past but also paving the way for the future of economics