#even if i have no interest whatsoever in engaging in the arguing on that website | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

jkspn · 4 years

Text

Facebook’s Accountability Problem

IN the past few days there has been much talk in the tech sphere of how Facebook and Twitter (and other social media networks) handle posts by public officials (like Trump) that could lead to or incite harm directly or indirectly.

Twitter went out ahead and labeled posts by Trump that could be misinformed/misleading, or could incite violence. On the other hand Facebook has defended its position of not labeling or removing posts like these because they argue it is in the public interest to leave these posts up for public debate and discussion.

I am not here to discuss the content of these hotly-debated posts—but I'll be diving into the difficulty I see with Facebook's decision.

The short of it: Facebook demands accountability on a platform that inherently cannot guarantee the identity of a person to make them accountable.

Before anything else, let me lay down first how Facebook works.

Facebook (through the News Feed) is focused around the number of accounts who interact with a post—whether by posting a reaction on it, commenting on it, or sharing it.

In addition, Facebook's primary goal is to surface content to you that you'll most likely interact with, and spend a longer time on.

The longer the time you spend on Facebook (and its properties, including Instagram), the more opportunities can they show you ads (and also keep them shown on the screen). At its core, Facebook is an ad inventory company that uses your personal data to target you with ads of any kind. Think about that.

This ad-targeting is really, really, specific by the way. For example, if I wanted to show ads to people between 25-30, male, supports LGBTQIA+ intitiatives, are freelancers, into design and technology, has a dog, and posts lengthy posts about political matters, I could do that (and incidentally target myself, lol).

By knowing what you usually like (or post a reaction on), comment on, and share, Facebook can then approximate what your political leanings are, what viewpoints you mostly agree or disagree with, and what kinds of content can make you stay longer on the website.

The way I see it (and I may be completely wrong), is that Facebook doesn't care what content you post or see, as long as it makes you stay longer on the website, and as long as it allows them to know more about you, your preferences, and what you like consuming.

Following this (likely flawed) logic, then you can understand why they're generally reluctant to remove posts from public figures ESPECIALLY if what they wrote can be a huge attention-grabber. Imagine all the times that you've seen a post about politics—pulls you in right? Even if sometimes they're just flatly false, delusional, or can actually lead someone to harm? But they're there because people bicker about it, or posts lengthy posts about it in sort of a meta way.

To be honest, I really understand how putting it up for people to discuss and debate upon can be really beneficial. In an ideal world, where we can discuss issues with courage and prudence so as not to devolve into personal arguments, there is really a path to mutual understanding, acceptance, and communal enlightenment. I've been in many situations where we've been able to achieve that—online and offline. BUT that would require lots of patience, time, and effort to uphold—not to mention that it requires full accountability on part of the different actors involved in the conversation. I know who you are (or at least I can see you), and you know who I am, based on how little or much I know about you I can adjust how I discuss with you so as to not escalate matters. And at the end of the day, if we can't arrive to a mutual understanding, I can, at the very least, respect you, or earn your respect as a fellow human being.

On Facebook however, there's not much accountability we can demand of anyone, really. Facebook has a policy that users must create accounts using their real names and using real pictures to sort of demand this accountability. Rarely though has it held, and if you would through your friend lists you would know that you might have a few friends who have used other names or even other photos to represent their accounts. Inherently there is nothing malicious about this, and I'll further discuss below some reasons why people would intentionally create accounts like these, but at the same time that would really diminish any sort of accountability that you would want from that user.

Another dimension to consider about this is what Facebook incentivizes its users to do—that is to gather more likes, comments, and shares, and teach us that posts that have more likes, comments, and shares must be true or credible. In simpler terms, Facebook is a numbers game. And in any game concerning numbers, the way to win is to rack up the numbers anyway possible—which brings us to fake accounts and trolls.

Absent from most of the discussion about the Facebook-Twitter-Trump incident is how trolls/fake accounts could artificially rack up the numbers and in turn, show it to more people who might feel strongly about it. Depending on which part of the spectrum you fall on, what you read and see could either galvanize to action and create a greater sense of loyalty to what you believe in, or incite you to create or surface content that would antagonize people who you disagree with.

Trolls and fake accounts these days have become so sophisticated that they can impersonate real people, or even invent new ones. Trolls can be actual real people who are just incentivized to game the system towards what their goals are! And fake accounts don't even need to be convincingly real to create some real damage to people's psyche and emotions online.

Save for the users who own up to what they're doing, trolls and fake accounts have no accountability whatsoever when they're online. And there is no way we can demand accountability from them because either they don't exist, or they don't even care what they're writing or posting about just so they can post something about it to help in the numbers game.

Now we arrive at the crux of what I'm trying to say: how does Facebook think we can cultivate a lively discussion or debate about critical issues when we are overwhelmed with content from people we can't actually hold accountable? When we are overwhelmed with statistics that are actually irrelevant to the discussion, and actually falsely show the level of support or 'agreement' which we have come to associate with higher numbers? More importantly, how can we surface legitimate discussion and debate when there are accounts whose primary goals are outside of 'lively discussion and debate' as Facebook puts it?

Interestingly, the rise of these fake and troll accounts are actually leading people to create accounts that don't accurately represent them. For many, the purpose of Facebook is to connect with others—family and friends—and not to participate in politics or 'lively debate and discussion' online. Moreover, fear of persecution or targeting from bad actors or poorly-interpreted and -implemented laws actually makes people more reluctant to be truthful of who they are.

In these contexts it's more attractive to not have your real name and photo up there, especially if you're really fearful that fake accounts or trolls may steal your likeness or if government or external actors would target you for posting something online.

Just as deepfakes can harm the reputation of the real people that the fakes are referenced from, fake accounts (whether or not they're used as troll accounts or just for share/like farms) can also harm the original person that they're copying.

These fake accounts can be used to falsely accuse someone of doing something, whether by posting something, sharing, or even commenting on other posts. In addition, these fake accounts can also bolster the number of shares, likes, and comments of other posts (malicious or not).

In recent years, companies and government agencies actually ask you to put in your usernames on social media accounts. Whether or not you would put you real accounts there, a search on Facebook or Twitter could lead to an account that maybe isn't yours and could harm your reputation with that company or government agency.

Most dangerous however, is that you can be implicated in whatever web of conspiracy is being floated around online, simply for having your name in there or your likeness!

So as you can see, more and more it makes less sense to be honest and accountable for who you are online, especially on social media networks. And if legitimate users are becoming more and more reluctant to be honest of who they are online, how can we hold anyone accountable? Is accountability going to be reserved for the courageous?

On the other side of the coin, what's damning is that it wouldn't even hurt Facebook's bottomline whether or not there is accountability on its website. The more time you spend, the more ads it could show you. Whether you're engaged or enraged, it's irrelevant to the News Feed algorithm, so long as you contribute to the numbers. The more you share, the more it knows about you. And even if you don't share, or don't have an account, you already have a shadow one, collected from the trackers Facebook has all over the web through its partners. In other words, Facebook doesn't care if you're accountable or not, just as long as you're still using the service.

In addition, Facebook isn't really incentivized to verify or demand accountability from its users on the website. Fake accounts and trolls add more users to the website, and if they target these all with ads, what does it matter to them? Actually it could help their numbers, because they can show higher engagement and interaction, regardless if its from legitimate users or troll/fake accounts.

It's not a zero-sum game, but whichever way you look at it, Facebook wins, and it doesn't matter if we, as users, win or not.

So it really baffles the mind how can Facebook talk about keeping discussion and debate lively and open, which rests on a platform of accountability, and not setup their platform to have accountability.

Putting into context, if Facebook wants to keep up certain posts that could actually lead to harm or is misinformed, then they should just start verifying the identity of its users when they create accounts. Let the maximum number of accounts on Facebook be whatever is the current global population minus those who aren't eligible to have a profile on their website.

It's such a cynical view on the matter, and actually could be more harmful especially if Facebook can't protect that data, but I think that's the only way we could have the 'lively debate and discussion' that can actually change things for the better.

And if they can't do that, then consider the alternative: have a baseline level of responsibility about the content that gets shared on your website. I'm not saying that Facebook should moderate all of the content that gets posted, but be more sensitive to the content that gets posted on the website. I even daresay have a more editorial approach to what gets posted—if you think something should be taken down or left up, discuss why. Start the discussion. Because if it's just all platitudes and virtue-signaling about 'respecting' the freedom of speech, it's a hollow promise.

Adjacent to this discussion is how time and time again posts about 'not staying silent' is important, and that 'staying silent is being complicit.' Personally I don't believe in this completely, but really it's just so difficult to participate in a forum where we can't really hold each other accountable. If you're someone I know, or if you are a legitimate account posting these sentiments, I respect your position, and I actually do believe that we should be taking more action. But unless the incentives our social media networks give us actually makes us less accountable or prefer less accountability, I don't think that the proper forum or avenue to act are on these networks.

#facebook #twitter #social media

0 notes

mikemortgage · 5 years

Text

Trump choice of Herman Cain for Fed board could face hurdles

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Thursday that he intends to nominate Herman Cain, a conservative political ally and former presidential candidate, for a seat on the Federal Reserve board.

“I’ve told my folks that’s the man,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, adding that Cain is undergoing background checks before a nomination.

“He’s a very terrific man, a terrific person,” Trump said. “He’s a friend of mine.”

The choice of Cain would mark the second nomination to elevate a Trump ally with deep roots in conservative politics to the Fed’s main policy-making body, a panel that the president has sharply criticized in recent months as insufficiently committed to low interest rates.

The president two weeks ago said he planned to nominate Stephen Moore for a separate vacancy on the board. Moore’s nomination has ignited criticism that he is unqualified and too politically minded to serve on the board of the world’s most influential central bank. By design, the Fed is supposed to remain free of political taint in order to maintain the trust of financial markets and global policymakers.

Cain, a former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, ran for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination but dropped out after allegations of sexual harassment and infidelity.

The selections of Cain and Moore would require Senate confirmation, and their potential nominations could face hurdles in the Senate. Sen. John Thune, the Republican whip, said lawmakers would want to question both men.

“They all have to go through the process and see whether or not they’re a good fit — both in terms of qualifications and just the experience and everything else,” Thune said. “You want somebody on the Fed to be somebody who’s very knowledgeable on economic issues.”

The seven-member Fed board, along with presidents of the Fed’s regional banks, plays a critical role in the U.S. economy, holding meetings to debate and vote on interest rates that affect everything from currency values to mortgage rates to savings accounts to the health of the economy.

After Trump announced his intention to nominate Moore to the Fed board, published reports indicated that Moore had had a lien of more than $75,000 filed against him in January 2018 for unpaid taxes and that he has fallen behind on alimony and child support payments to his ex-wife.

Still, Larry Kudlow, Trump’s top economic adviser, told reporters Wednesday that the president remains “fully behind” Moore’s nomination. Moore served as a campaign adviser to Trump in 2016 and helped formulate the president’s signature tax cut plan.

Like Trump, Moore has been sharply critical of the Fed, asserting in December that Chairman Jerome Powell should be fired for supporting a fourth Fed interest rate hike that month. Moore now says that comment was written “in a time of anger.”

Cain met with Trump in January to discuss a possible nomination to the Fed board. But at the time, the White House said Trump was considering multiple candidates for the two vacancies on the Fed board.

Cain, who formerly served on the board of the Fed’s Kansas City regional bank, has also criticized the central bank’s policies. In a 2012 Wall Street Journal column, Cain argued that the Fed’s policies had manipulated the value of the dollar. In the article, he advocated a return to the gold standard as a way to control inflation — a position taken by some other Fed critics but which most economists call unworkable.

In September, Cain co-founded a pro-Trump super political action committee, America Fighting Back PAC. It features a photo of the president on its website and says, “We must protect Donald Trump and his agenda from impeachment.”

Cain dropped out of the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination after allegations that he had engaged in sexual harassment when he led the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s. An Atlanta woman also said she had conducted an extramarital affair with Cain for more than 13 years.

Cain called the allegations false but said he had “made mistakes in my life.” Before leaving the race, Cain had put forward a “9-9-9” tax plan that called for replacing the current tax system with a flat 9 per cent business and individual income tax, and a 9 per cent sales tax.

Trump told reporters Thursday that he believed that after the background checks Cain would “be in great shape.”

“I find Herman to be an outstanding person,” he added.

Asked if he had any concerns, Trump said: “None whatsoever. He’s a highly respected man. He’s a friend of mine.”

Trump has repeatedly denounced the Fed leadership of Powell, whom he selected as chairman after deciding not to re-nominate Janet Yellen. In addition to choosing Powell for the chairmanship, Trump has nominated all the current Fed board members with the exception of Lael Brainard, who was nominated by Barack Obama.

Trump’s other nominees have held views more in line with traditional selections for the Fed board. The White House announced Thursday that Trump was nominating Michelle Bowman, a Kansas banking regulator, for a full 14-year term on the Fed. She joined the Fed last year, taking over a term that will end next year.

But Trump has grown increasingly unhappy with the Fed decisions under Powell, especially after the stock market tumbled last year as the central bank was hiking rates four times. Since January, the Fed has reversed course and now says it foresees no further rates hikes this year.

Even with that change, Trump has kept up his attacks on the Fed. Kudlow last week called for the Fed not only to pause rate hikes but to cut rates by a steep one-half percentage point and said the president believed that was the best course of action.

In a tweet Thursday, Trump said the economy was looking very strong “despite the unnecessary and destructive actions taken by the Fed.”

——

AP White House reporter Darlene Superville and Chief Congressional Correspondent Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

from Financial Post https://ift.tt/2Idiif6 via IFTTT Blogger Mortgage Tumblr Mortgage Evernote Mortgage Wordpress Mortgage href="https://www.diigo.com/user/gelsi11">Diigo Mortgage

#IFTTT #Financial Post

0 notes

whatisonthemoonarchive · 5 years

Text

Is is just about Transparency & Accountability?

I saw Frank F. asking about Robert a couple of days ago, which is kind of prompting me to address the petition Robert (Maynard) is behind.

I don't have any hope whatsoever, that that petition is going to have any effect at all, on how Mrs. Moon runs her organization. She needs to change her ideas on how she can help this world, for that petition to have any meaning.

Will Mrs. Moon change? I'm certainly not hopeful. However, I have an interest in that change coming about, since I still have many friends in the Family Fed that I deeply care about. So I will ask this two-part question:

By having Family Federation become completely accountable and transparent about it's use of assets...is that supposed to rectify the so-called "ills' of the organization?...or rather...does the organization need transparency, ect.,...but also then, has to use those assets to serve a higher purpose?

What really is, supposed to be the purpose behind these assets? Weren't they originally for the purpose of building the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth?

Maybe Peter Joseph has some concrete ideas, that if implemented, could change this world for the better...and in a big way.

Will we ever have a true "Kingdom of Heaven on Earth"? I don't know. I'm not even sure what that Bible verse means now.

That said, we certainly have to make this world a better place...IN TANGIBLE WAYS...and not wait too long to do it. Otherwise, this planet in the 22nd Century will be a whole lot worse than it is now.

Here's an excerpt from Peter Joseph's website:

In our increasingly interconnected world, self-interest and social-interest are rapidly becoming indistinguishable. If the oceans die, if society fractures, or if global warming spirals out of control, personal success becomes meaningless. But our broken system incentivizes behavior that only makes these problems worse. If true human rights progress is to be achieved today, it is time we dig deeper—rethinking the very foundation of our social system.

In this engaging, important work, Peter Joseph, founder of the largest grassroots social movement in the world—The Zeitgeist Movement—draws from economics, history, philosophy and modern public health research, to present a bold case for rethinking activism in the 21st century.

The conventional wisdom views poverty, social oppression and the growing loss of public health as an unfortunate and immutable side effect of our way of life. The New Human Rights Movement argues that these outcomes are, in fact, contrived—only natural to our outdated economic system. Social activists can never succeed in dramatically improving human life on this planet until they understand the structural reasons these problems exist.

Arguing against the long-standing narrative of universal scarcity and other pervasive, legitimizing myths that defend the current state of affairs, The New Human Rights Movement ultimately presents the case for an updated economic approach. Joseph explores the potential of this grand social shift and how we can design our way to a post-scarcity world—a world where poverty doesn’t exist and the human family has become truly sustainable.

The New Human Rights Movement reveals the critical importance of a unified activism in this direction, through understanding and working to alter the inherent injustice of our current social system. It not only warns against what is in store if we continue to ignore our broken society, but also reveals the positive future possible if we succeed.

(http://www.thenewhumanrightsmovement.com/)

Who knows...maybe we, as a human race, can still go in the direction, that God is hoping for us.

"Til the next,

Don Diligent

0 notes

nicholemhearn · 6 years

Text

A Response to Nancy MacLean

I have honestly tried as hard as possible to maintain my equilibrium and good nature when engaging with Professor Nancy MacLean around the subject of her book, Democracy in Chains. And I sincerely attempted to have my say last year in a couple of pieces with Henry Farrell and leave it at that, but Professor MacLean insists on repeating outright falsehoods that could be avoided by a two minute Google search.

Prof. MacLean chose to slander me on Facebook, a medium that I have had the good sense to avoid. Here’s what she had to say:

Let’s start with the simply wrong and move on from there. First, Bill Niskanen was not president of Cato, but chairman of the board. That’s a pretty big difference. She can find the evidence right here on Wikipedia. If she had done any research on the Niskanen Center whatsoever, she would recognize that Bill Niskanen’s work has very little in common with the Center’s, beyond a willingness to call things as we see them. Second, when the book was published Brink Lindsey was no longer at VP at Cato, as he had moved to Niskanen. She would have found that here.

Third, the Niskanen Center does not describe itself as libertarian. For those who are interested, here’s Niskanen’s “About” page. It is certainly true that a lot of Niskanen’s staff came out of libertarian organizations, including Cato. And it’s right that Jerry Taylor’s original motivation for starting Niskanen had a lot to do with his rejection of climate science denial. But she might also find that Jerry was very involved on one side of the battle over control of Cato, with a certain bête noire of hers on the other side.

In any case it’s certainly not even remotely correct to say that that Niskanen “holds on to the libertarianism.” Has she even bothered to visit the Niskanen website before saying things like this? If she had, she’d have run into, for instance, Sam Hammond’s excellent work on the “free market welfare state,” which argues that in an era of market disruption the cause of social insurance is even more vital than ever. If that was too long she could have read Jared Bernstein’s interview with Sam, craftily hidden at the Washington Post.

Looking around elsewhere on the Niskanen site, Prof. MacLean might have read our Vice-President for Research Will Wilkinson’s attack on the Republican tax bill last year, which traces its flaws back to libertarian ideas. It was deep in the dark web…no, it was in the New York Times, which is easily available in Durham. She might also be interested in Will’s argument with a prominent George Mason University libertarian, Ilya Somin, on what he sees as libertarianism’s fundamental conflict with democracy. The piece, by the way, says that Professor MacLean is right on the question of libertarian hostility to democracy, but that, among other things, she is “overly fond of Infowars-style dot-connecting.”

If Professor MacLean was under the impression that Niskanen is just a libertarian mouthpiece, she could have also picked up my book with Niskanen VP for Policy Brink Lindsey, The Captured Economy. There are two copies in Duke’s library, for her reading pleasure. There she would have found us arguing for reversing Republicans’ cynical cuts in Congressional analytical capacity, which we argue simply empower lobbyists for concentrated interests. She might have also looked on the New York Times website, where she would have found Brink and I criticizing the Trump administration’s record on regulation as simply advancing upward redistribution and rent seeking. Neither of these are the standard argument around the halls of Reason or Cato.

Why does Professor MacLean make such basic errors and misstatements of motivation? The answer, I fear, is that she cannot imagine any criticism of her work that is not motivated by partisanship and financial conflict of interest. But the truth is that there are now significant scholars who are not on the right who read her book and had much the same reaction that Henry and I had. Those range from the sociologist Elizabeth Popp Berman at Albany (who describes the book as “hyperbolic, overly speculative, and sometimes uses sources in misleading ways”) to the Stanford University historian Jennifer Burns (“Democracy in Chains is characterized by a fundamental lack of curiosity. The book is disconnected from not just economics or political theory, but from all the social sciences…it bears witness to an alarming parochialism.”) And that’s just as a taste.

It’s also worth noting that the co-author of my critical essays, Henry Farrell, is a full-throated Irish-born social democrat and ringleader of the wonderful but quite lefty blog Crooked Timber. And given that she quotes me extensively in her book, Prof. MacLean clearly thinks my scholarship is valuable and not just financially conflicted ideological claptrap.

Prof. MacLean cannot, despite all the evidence to the contrary, imagine this as anything but a political dispute, when it is at its core a scholarly disagreement. At the end of her post she says that this whole conflict is a waste of time because “people could be our (sic) registering voters and canvassing to stop the cause the two [myself and Geoff Kabaservice] are at pains to defend.” I will let Geoff account for his own partisan leanings.

But Prof.MacLean seems to have a very mistaken impression of where I’m coming from where electoral politics is concerned. That’s because she is now reading backwards from scholarly criticism to partisan motivations, and in doing so simply embarrassing herself. But where the general elections of 2018 are concerned, there is no daylight between myself and Prof. MacLean. Neither was there in the general election of 2016. Or 2012. Or 2008. Or…well, any general election since I first voted for president back in 1988.

My scholarly impression of Prof. MacLean’s work, however, has nothing to do with any of this. It’s just that, wearing my scholar’s hat, I came to the same impression as Professors Berman, Farrell and Burns—that Prof. MacLean had written a very poor piece of scholarship, regardless of my agreement with some of her positions. She can disagree with that, but she should do so as a scholar, responding to the specific criticisms that have been made of her book. My original pieces with Henry Farrell are here and here. I would hope that she would finally address them substantively, along with the other work cited above, and cease hurtling slander at her critics as a way of avoiding responsibility for the scholarly merits of her work.

The post A Response to Nancy MacLean appeared first on Niskanen Center.

from nicholemhearn digest https://niskanencenter.org/blog/a-response-to-nancy-maclean/

#nicholemhearn digest

0 notes

darbiblog-blog · 7 years

Text

Training is not clearly some other commodity to shop for and sell on a market.

New Post has been published on https://darbi.org/training-is-not-clearly-some-other-commodity-to-shop-for-and-sell-on-a-market/

Training is not clearly some other commodity to shop for and sell on a market.

market opposition inside the context of faculties, for this reason, opens the opportunity for a vicious cycle in which weak and coffee-acting communities are punished for their failings and wealthy groups get hold of greater and extra funding benefits. Individuals must ask themselves a fundamental question of justice when it comes to the Education device: ought to it be prepared round a version wherein the extra you win the extra you get, and the more you lose the less you’re given? Markets are by using their nature non-egalitarian. For that reason, neo-liberalization has been certainly one of the biggest elements contributing to the developing inequalities and diminishment of the center and lower instructions.

Training Shop

A not unusual neoliberal reaction to that is definitely to mention that monetary inequality is the value paid for personal liberty and private obligation. But the hassle is this discourse of individualism followed to its logical conclusion removes any public items whatsoever. As an instance, if student price range is transportable based totally on consumption picks, why shouldn’t the growing variety of childless taxpayers be capable of flow their investment out of doors the Education device completely in the direction of goods they simply eat, like canine parks or public golf courses?

This is the logical end of Margaret Thatcher’s famous neoliberal pronouncement that “there is no such aspect as society” however only “individual ladies and men.” The hassle with this manner of wondering is that Schooling isn’t truly some other commodity to buy and promote on a market. It is a shared precise. Unfastened societies need to be educated individuals to intelligently and significantly deliberate over public existence, pick out representatives, and assist guide policy decisions. marketplace freedom is for this reason in tension with the liberty of democratic participation.

Many human beings apprehend this fact and for that reason want coordinating movement and to share prices via the authorities on the subject of goods like Training, protection, public parks, transportation, public health, and the environment. Yet forming a shared collective action thru authorities or a hard work enterprise is the one kind of man or woman freedom that neoliberal philosophy does now not tolerate. As the preeminent historian of Neoliberalism, David Harvey, puts it, “neoliberals have to position strong limits on democratic governance … even as people are supposedly Loose to choose, they’re no longer imagined to choose to assemble robust collective institutions.”

china stock market

stocks markets

stock market numbers for today

Free Websites

Neoliberalism is thereby basically opposed to any democratic, man or woman choices that searching for to constrain markets—be it instructors unions or in reality majority decisions approximately the way to fund and from public colleges. Indeed, historically speaking, neoliberal attempts to marketise public items are frequently unpopular and so have required non-majoritarian institutions like the courts, the world Financial institution, or even strong guys and authoritarians (like Chile’s Augusto Pinochet) to enact guidelines against the will of most people. Authoritarianism and market freedoms can and regularly do pass collectively. there’s a simple tension between neoliberal market desire and democratic freedom to form one’s community in ways that don’t comply with marketplace good judgment.

Of course, considerate advocates of college preference might argue that whilst possibly there are motives to be skeptical of neoliberal principle, there are numerous colleges of desire that in exercise are out of the ordinary websites for instructional innovation. Such advocates might point to instances of a successful charter faculties in poorer communities—For instance, the Understanding Is Power Application (or “KIPP”) charter faculties throughout the USA. Despite the fact that KIPP is non-profit, It is still engaged in the assignment of new liberalizing public items by using introducing patron desire as a shape of subjecting the college system to a sort of market field.

KIPP isn’t without its critics, however, there’s also a simple advantage in efforts to experiment with Schooling on a more local stage (a number of these completed by means of shrewd properly that means teachers and administrators at Constitution faculties). Rejecting neoliberal guidelines like faculty choice does now not suggest that human beings consisting of DeVos and charter-school personnel who are interested in experimentation and less centralization of curriculum don’t have a point. Us’s public faculties—like any institutions—are inconsistent want of reform, rejuvenation, and innovation.

However debates about “freedom” and educational reform might be extra optimistic if participants middle their questions around democratic freedoms—the freedom of each citizen to get right of entry to Education and the liberty of numerous groups to form what that Training looks like. Arguments over democratic freedom may contest how a whole lot of curriculum decision-making can be taken rightfully by using the federal government as opposed to devolution onto localities. Likewise, disagreements over democratic freedom could contain optimistic debates over whether or not and how to fund personal nonsecular faculties.

Educational policy in democratic societies ought to be a challenge to spirited or even intense debate and confrontation. But tries to reduce freedom to markets and patron choice remains in critical anxiety with democratic liberties and ideals of self-authorities. Destiny debates might be no less vigorous at the same time as additionally in search of options to a simplistic equivalency between markets and “desire.”

Community Marketers Can Make use of academic Advertising to Boom Sales

Instructional Advertising is an opportunity to the “tough sell” technique that has been a part of Network Marketing within the beyond. When you engage in educational Advertising, you’re now not Advertising your business possibility – you are Advertising statistics. Of direction, you’re in a roundabout way promoting your opportunity by means of developing a hobby. However, it isn’t always the traditional Income pitch that offers your potentialities without real records.

Positioning Yourself as a pacesetter

Ann Sieg, the creator of The Renegade Community Marketer, says that fulfillment depends on Positioning Yourself as a leader. I’ve determined that I can set myself apart from other Community Entrepreneurs by way of providing my potentialities with valuable facts, even before they ever sign onto my possibility.

that is what is known as Education Advertising. academic Advertising is one manner to set up Yourself as a pacesetter within the area of Community Marketing. In case you’re going to offer instructional Advertising a strive, you must first recognize what you should be teaching your potentialities about. The answer? a way to build a commercial enterprise.

The Benefits of Educational Advertising and marketing

At the start look, this seems counter-intuitive. In spite of everything, in the event that they recognize a way to construct a commercial enterprise, why could they join up to your opportunity? Why not strike out on their very own? Consistent with Ann Sieg, the purpose for teaching your potentialities how to build a commercial enterprise is two-fold.

First, analyzing about starting a commercial enterprise gets them enthusiastic about your possibility. They’ll say to you, “Now that I recognize a way to begin a commercial enterprise, I need an enterprise to start!” Luckily, it seems you’ve got a possibility just watching for them! What you have additionally done is convert your enterprise opportunity into an “upload-on” sale. This is, in preference to looking to sell the possibility prematurely, you are supplying it at a later time when your client’s interest is piqued. add-on Income, most often, is some distance less difficult to make than the preliminary sale.

Second, sharing this sort of precious Understanding proves which you are an expert. humans need to paintings with a professional as it improves their odds of success. In place of simply claiming to be a pacesetter in Network Advertising and marketing, you’re displaying them you are a professional at constructing a business.

Use educational Advertising to Ease Their Fears

In lots of regions of lifestyles, now not just Community Advertising, lack of information is a primary cause of fear. educating your possibilities, then, is the only manner to appease their issues approximately Community Marketing. Exaggerated statements which include “You can make $5000 per week doing most effective 10 minutes of labor every day!” do no longer cope with a possibilities fears .

Your potentialities want to recognize how their investment goes to translate into income. If You may provide them with the solutions, you may advantage they’re accepted as true with, and you will be the individual they flip to while they are prepared to get commenced. I had a possibility to position this principle into exercise at a recent Networking Occasion and turned into surprised at the amount of interest I generated with the aid of sharing some of the Information I had received with the aid of analyzing the e-book. As a minimum four humans approached me following the meeting to get more information from me.

Instructional Advertising possesses genuine value. The obvious vintage Income pitch does not own value. Your data product, then, needs to not be an Income pitch disguised as an editorial or e book. The facts ought to stand alone as a profitable retail product. providing your possibilities with informative, interesting and precise content must be your consciousness. Making an investment in a person earlier than they have devoted to you is the exceptional manner to prove that you honestly care approximately their achievement.

best do it yourself website builder

top 5 online store builders

open online store free

retail website builder

0 notes

kalachand97-blog · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on Globeinfrom

New Post has been published on https://globeinform.com/training-is-not-clearly-some-other-commodity-to-shop-for-and-sell-on-a-market/

Training is not clearly some other commodity to shop for and sell on a market.

Training Shop

A not unusual neoliberal reaction to that is definitely to mention that monetary inequality is the value paid for person liberty and private obligation. But the hassle is this discourse of individualism followed to its logical conclusion removes any public items whatsoever. As an instance, if student price range is transportable based totally on consumption picks, why shouldn’t the growing variety of childless taxpayers be capable of flow their investment out of doors the Education device completely in the direction of goods they simply eat, like canine parks or public golf courses?

Many human beings apprehend this fact and for that reason want coordinating movement and to share prices via the authorities on the subject of goods like Training, protection, public parks, transportation, public health, and the environment. Yet forming a shared collective action thru authorities or a hard work enterprise is the one kind of man or woman freedom that neoliberal philosophy does now not tolerate. As the preeminent historian of neoliberalism, David Harvey, puts it, “neoliberals have to position strong limits on democratic governance … even as people are supposedly Loose to choose, they’re no longer imagined to choose to assemble robust collective institutions.”

Free Websites

Neoliberalism is thereby basically opposed to any democratic, man or woman choices that searching for to constrain markets—be it instructors unions or in reality majority decisions approximately the way to fund and from public colleges. Indeed, historically speak, neoliberal attempts to marketise public items are frequently unpopular and so have required non-majoritarian institutions like the courts, the world Financial institution, or even strong guys and authoritarians (like Chile’s Augusto Pinochet) to enact guidelines against the will of most people. Authoritarianism and market freedoms can and regularly do pass collectively. there’s a simple tension between neoliberal market desire and democratic freedom to form one’s community in ways that don’t comply with marketplace good judgment.

Of course, considerate advocates of college preference might argue that whilst possibly there are motives to be skeptical of neoliberal principle, there are numerous colleges of desire that in exercise are out of the ordinary websites for instructional innovation. Such advocates might point to instances of a success charter faculties in poorer communities—For instance, the Understanding Is Power Application (or “KIPP”) charter faculties throughout the USA. Despite the fact that KIPP is nonprofit, It is still engaged in the assignment of new liberalizing public items by using introducing patron desire as a shape of subjecting the college system to a sort of market field.

KIPP isn’t without its critics, however, there’s also a simple advantage in efforts to experiment with Schooling on a more local stage (a number of these completed by means of shrewd properly that means teachers and administrators at constitution faculties). Rejecting neoliberal guidelines like faculty choice does now not suggest that human beings consisting of DeVos and charter-school personnel who are interested in experimentation and less centralization of curriculum don’t have a point. Us’s public faculties—like any institutions—are inconsistent want of reform, rejuvenation, and innovation.

Community Marketers Can Make use of academic Advertising to Boom Sales

Positioning Yourself as a pacesetter

Ann Sieg, the creator of The Renegade Community Marketer, says that fulfillment depends on positioning Yourself as a leader. I’ve determined that I can set myself apart from other Community Entrepreneurs by way of providing my potentialities with valuable facts, even before they ever sign onto my possibility.

The Benefits of educational Advertising and marketing

Use educational Advertising to Ease Their Fears

Your potentialities want to recognise how their investment goes to translate into income. If You may provide them with the solutions, you may advantage their accept as true with, and you will be the individual they flip to while they are prepared to get commenced. I had an possibility to position this principle into exercise at a recent Networking Occasion and turned into surprised at the amount of interest I generated with the aid of sharing some of the Information I had received with the aid of analyzing the e-book. As a minimum four humans approached me following the meeting to get more information from me.

Instructional Advertising possesses genuine value. The obvious vintage Income pitch does not own value. Your data product, then, need to not be a Income pitch disguised as an editorial or e book. The facts ought to stand alone as a profitable retail product. providing your possibilities with informative, interesting and precise content must be your consciousness. Making an investment in a person earlier than they have devoted to you is the exceptional manner to prove that you honestly care approximately their achievement.

0 notes

repwinpril9y0a1 · 7 years

Text

Trump Is About To Find Out Why Obama Avoided Military Intervention In Syria

WASHINGTON ― On Thursday night, President Donald Trump authorized the military to launch several dozen cruise missiles from the Mediterranean Sea at a Syrian airfield. The strike was meant to punish Syria’s President Bashar Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons to attack his own citizens.

It was a dramatic reversal, not only from Trump’s own pledges to limit U.S. involvement in Syria but from his predecessor, who for years resisted growing calls to intervene militarily against the Assad regime. President Barack Obama’s decision to refrain from engagement in 2013 was criticized as feckless at the time and is cited now as one of the reasons that Trump was forced to act. But a revisiting of the arguments and calculations that led Obama to make his decision ― from the fear that it would not be a deterrent to the concerns over how the U.S. would respond to future attacks on civilians ― provides an important blueprint for the major hurdles that Trump will now have to confront.

Even if the Assad regime stops using chemical weapons, it will continue to pummel civilians with barrel bombs, predicted Ilan Goldenberg, a former State Department official during the Obama administration. “You’ll see many more pictures of ‘beautiful [Syrian] babies’ [dying] on TV ― specifically to humiliate the United States and show the fecklessness of military action,” he said.

“What will the United States do? Will it get drawn in the way it did in Libya where we started with a civilian protection operation and ended up with a regime change operation?” Goldenberg continued. “This is the biggest danger and I think this was Obama’s biggest concern.”

The Obama administration resisted getting pulled into the Syrian civil war, which began during the Arab Spring protests in 2011. But in August 2013, a sarin gas attack allegedly carried out by the Assad regime killed 1,400 Syrians. It was a humanitarian catastrophe and a clear challenge to Obama’s self-imposed “red line” against the use of chemical weapons, which he laid out the previous year. At first, Obama appeared poised to respond quickly with limited airstrikes ― a variation of what Trump did on Thursday. Three days after the 2013 chemical weapons attack, the U.S. sent armed warships into the eastern Mediterranean Sea and the military drew up attack plans.

But Obama never ordered the military to strike. In the days following the 2013 gas attack, the administration attempted to drum up international and domestic support for a retaliatory response. Obama had hoped for a coordinated response with an ally, but the British Parliament voted down the United Kingdom’s participation. Their vote raised the specter of whether Obama, as well, would allow his government’s legislative branch to have a say. After a 45-minute walk around the South Lawn of the White House with his chief-of-staff, he announced that he would ask for Congressional approval ― even as he maintained that he had the authority to order the strike without consulting lawmakers.

By that point, however, it was becoming clearer that the American public, still reeling from drawn-out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and an ill-fated intervention in Libya, opposed the move. Lawmakers said they were inundated with calls from constituents urging them to vote against military action. After weeks of deliberation, it was unclear if Obama could get enough votes from Congress. Inside the administration, staffers were split 51 to 49 on whether to attack, said Perry Cammack, a staffer for then-Secretary of State John Kerry, at the time. And then, in what appeared to be an-off-the-cuff rhetorical remark, Kerry told reporters the only way for Assad to avoid military action was to turn over his chemical weapons stockpile to the international community within a week. “But he isn’t about to do it and it can’t be done,” Kerry said.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov jumped at the narrow opportunity. Five days later ― Washington and Moscow announced a deal in which Syria would do what Kerry had almost jokingly proposed. Obama called off the military strike.

In the years since, even some of Obama’s most strident supporters questioned whether this was the right call. Backing down, they said, damaged U.S. credibility and strengthened Assad’s sense of impunity. But even as the civilian death toll in Syria mounted, Obama maintained that he’d acted prudently. A limited strike would have no practical effect on the Assad regime ― and surviving an attack from the U.S. risked emboldening rather than deterring the dictator, his camp argued. Obama also worried about starting down the slippery slope to deeper involvement in another quagmire in the Middle East.

Whereas Obama has been faulted for overthinking matters to the point of crippling inaction, critics of the current president say his weakness is his apparent lack of interest in planning. “I have no confidence these guys have any plan whatsoever,” Goldenberg said.

Moreover, all of the concerns that made the Obama administration second-guess military action in Syria are still relevant today. If anything, the situation there is messier now than in 2013. The Islamic State militant group controls parts of Syria and Iraq. The U.S. air war against the group depends, in large part on Syria staying out of the way. Meanwhile, Russia has entered the Syrian civil war as a staunch defender of the Assad regime, providing air support to the embattled dictator. The crowded airspace is managed by a fragile deconfliction pact between the U.S. and Russia.

Trump seemed to recognize these complications too ― both during the 2013 debate when he strongly advised the U.S. not to engage in Syria and the presidential campaign when he warned that involvement would precipitate World War III. But in a span of a news cycle, his tune changed this week. During his daily intelligence briefing on the day of the attack, he asked for military options, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters. Two days later, he had settled on an option and ordered the military to move forward. His administration notified foreign allies and Congressional leadership after the missiles were launched, minutes before they hit their targets.

The haste with which Trump acted stands in contrast to the weeks of deliberation culminating in a decision not to strike in 2013. Cammack, the former Kerry staffer, described it as “a reflection of the temperaments of the two presidents.”

But it also allowed Trump to avoid a pitfall that ensnared his predecessor. By moving swiftly, the president earned plaudits from lawmakers and pundits ― some of whom swooned over the images that the military had released of the damage to the Syrian airfield. Even those who have accused Trump of being unhinged in the past praised the strikes as a decisive and proportionate response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons. That might be because the U.S. was already regularly dropping bombs in Syria against ISIS, making the public somewhat desensitized to further military action there.

But it also could be because by skipping the deliberative process that the Obama administration so meticulously engaged in, the Trump administration didn’t give the public time to sour on the idea.

I’m worried about whether they did enough of their homework given how quickly decisions were made. Eric Pelofsky, former NSC official

And yet, the speed with which Trump flipped positions and ordered military action based on his newfound distaste for the Assad regime risks doing exactly what Obama feared in 2013: sparking a series of unforeseen consequences. It is unclear whether the strikes will have any meaningful impact on the Assad regime. Hours after the U.S. attack, Reuters reported that Syrian warplanes took off from the base hit by American cruise missiles. On Friday and Saturday, Khan Sheikhoun, the opposition-held site of the chemical weapons attack earlier in the week, was hit by more airstrikes.

“I’m worried about whether they did enough of their homework given how quickly decisions were made,” said Eric Pelofsky, a former National Security Council official in the Obama administration. “ What happens if the Assad regime targets our aircraft as they are continuing to prosecute the war on ISIS inside Syrian airspace? Are we prepared to take down their air defenses ― and for the consequences of doing that?” continued Pelofsky, who is now a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Even some who criticized Obama’s inaction worried that Trump’s impulsive decision-making process could backfire. “Horrible as the Khan Sheikhoun attack was, the Assad government has used chemical weapons dozens and dozens of times, and has committed numerous other war crimes,” Kori Schake, a former Bush administration official, wrote Friday. “The indiscipline that has characterized the Trump’s actions may lead him to emotional reactions without corresponding strategy.”

S.V. Date contributed reporting.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2nreXjm

#DIYS

0 notes

pat78701 · 7 years

Text

Trump Is About To Find Out Why Obama Avoided Military Intervention In Syria

But it also could be because by skipping the deliberative process that the Obama administration so meticulously engaged in, the Trump administration didn’t give the public time to sour on the idea.

I’m worried about whether they did enough of their homework given how quickly decisions were made. Eric Pelofsky, former NSC official

S.V. Date contributed reporting.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2nreXjm

#DIYS

0 notes

celticnoise · 7 years

Link

Aaaah back on the habit.

Stress at work? Feeling like a tit because some of your biggest calls of the last twelve months have gone up like a bonfire? Aaaah, not to worry. Get the old tube out. Pop off the lid. Take a good waft of it. Then sit down, Adrian, and write your new column.

Because that, at least, explains it.

Nothing else comes close.

You picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

We’ve all done it.

But it’s easily fixed.

Less easily fixed is the standard of your writing.

I appreciate you see yourself as a “shock jock”, one of those guys paid to be “controversial” but you miss the point and fail on several levels when you try to turn that into column writing, the most obvious of which is that in giving you that face for radio God was trying to tell you something about what you were supposed to be. Stick to talking crap. Speak fast enough and people miss half what you’re saying, and find it harder to break down your arguments.

Put it on paper or online …. Bad move.

Especially when it’s so filled with … how can I put this? Crap.

I remember your previous gushing pieces over Warburton. Including the one where you tipped him as a future England manager! Trolling of the finest kind, as some of us have said the same! But we were kidding. You weren’t, Adrian.

Dear oh dear.

I want to know if you still believe it?

Of course you do.

A man sniffs enough glue he will believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, and could even be encouraged to dress up like one as he hunts for them. Writing what you have today and putting it out there where people can see it is the journalistic equivalent of doing just that.

You need to either be out of your tree or possessing no self-awareness whatsoever. If you were trying to ape the likes of Keith Jackson and Neil Cameron, well you succeeded. You make those purveyors of fanzine-level tripe look like Pulitzer Prize winners.

In a way it’s encouraging to know that south of the border there are hacks every bit as weak, ignorant and stupid as the ones we have up here. In another sense it’s disappointing. Perhaps it was giving too many of our locals airtime back in 2012 that dropped your standards to this absurd level.

Or perhaps your work has always honked the house out like a broken lavvy after a curry buffet. I don’t know. I usually ignore it, but I guess someone thought I could use a good laugh this morning and sent it to me, and encouraged me to have a read.

That article contains every type of ignorance going.

From spiteful little Englander arrogance, a strong anti-Celtic streak, a wilful ignorance of facts … it really has it all. All products of the glue, no doubt. A mind warped beyond the point of rationality by toxic materials inhaled. Was it a poor upbringing? Did no-one ever tell you that it was wrong?

Aaaah well. Too late now.

There’s nothing like the shock, Friday night sacking of one of your icons to derail a substance abuse recovery.

My guess would be that it’s been coming. It’s been coming all this long year as Warburton’s managerial genius was exposed as another figment of your drug-addled imagination. Tell me, did you seek help at any time when you felt yourself slipping?

You’ll have noticed that little of this article is an effort to engage you on the points you made. I’m not going to bother. Because they were puerile and petty and stupid and pitched at exactly the level at which I’ve met you here. I’ve got no interest in combating your drivel with facts, because if you didn’t know it was drivel – and thus simple trolling – when you wrote it you really are one of those people who is simply too stupid – or high – to waste valuable time arguing with.

I have other things to do today.

And doubtless so do you.

I hope you’re going to take a shower before you see other people.

The trick with a glue habit is to try to maintain the appearance of normality as long as possible. Oh you blew it already, with this article of yours, but perhaps if no-one else draws attention to it you can get away with this one. It’s worth a shot. But for God’s sake man, put on a suit and comb your hair.

And the next time (if there is one) that you’re thinking about cleaning up your act, you might want to check with the Sevco directors first, to make sure they aren’t planning another Friday night special. We wouldn’t you to suffer another setback, would we?

ReLoaded Digital is my new website, guys, run by myself and a team who want to build one of the best, most diverse, most interesting sites online. You can check it out now at this link.

http://ift.tt/2lB2Yy6

#CelticNoise #Celtic #CelticFC #TheCelticBlog #News

0 notes