[grc] Media Alliance referenced

Sun May 2 22:29:55 PDT 2021

Hi all,

I'm sorry this landed on this list, and it appears to have been an error by
the OP, which I'll mention below. But since my name was dragged here w/o my
permission, let me clarify a few things.

1)  What is commonly known as "terfing" or gender pronoun disrespect isn't
okay and it isn't about that righwing canard "political correctness". It is
about letting people tell their own stories about themselves and respecting
others
as being as fully human as oneself and not refracting their ideas about
themselves through a self-centered perspective about how it makes "you"
feel. It is new for many of us. I have mis-gendered people. And in so
doing, I have
learned a lot about why I was doing that and why I needed to stop. Progress
is hard. But it is when we stop trying that we commit sins against fellow
human beings. There is no excuse for not recognizing anyone's chosen gender
identity and no excuse for whining about it or dismissing it.

2) Media Alliance does not send our organizational bulletins to the GRC
list, just like no one else does. Riva is mistaken in her claim that Media
Alliance sent the circuit breaker petition to GRC. We did not. Riva
receives our email bulletins because she is subscribed to our mailing list
and if she does not want to be, there is a little button called unsubscribe
at the bottom of each one. It is possible a member of GRC forwarded the
petition here. I dunno. If so, that was their choice. But I expect that the
original poster just got confused by their email inbox.

3) The ensuing conversation is confused on several counts. To start with,
social media is not the same thing as email. "The Internet" is not the same
thing as social media, nor is it the same thing as email. No one is
censored on "the Internet". For the price of a domain name, anyone can set
up a free website and say whatever they want. When people talk about
"censorship", what they mean is traffic to their site or their content,
which is a different matter. Free speech is not the same thing as a
guaranteed audience size.

4) With regard to Spencer's post. Demand Progress are friends of mine, as
are some others that have been using this talking point in their
fundraising emails, like Common Dreams. It stems from a righwing talking
point used at a Congressional hearing when a Republican started yelling
about how his brother's campaign emails ended up in his spam folder and
used it as proof that Google is biased against Republicans. Most of us made
fun of it for a long time
afterwards and I can't tell you how distressed I am to see progressives
picking up a dumb rightwing talking point. As Pichai explained, and I will
repeat, spam filters on email accounts like Gmail are a) popular with users
and b) based on a long list of technical factors related to bulk emailing
that include how fast unsubscribes and bounces are tended to, the number of
bad email addresses, the frequency of emails sent, the open rates, the SPC
setting on the sender email address, the number of spam complaints received
and so on. While of course, these formulas could be more transparent, they
aren't unknown and that is why digital directors are a job category. With
political emails, because I got all of them (Sanders, Warren, Trump, Biden,
Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Yang, Gabbard et al), I can personally testify that
for all of them, some made it to my inbox and some ended up in spam. My
recollection is that Trump was fairly adept at avoiding the spam box and so
was Sanders later in his campaign, but not earlier. Warren did not have top
knotch digital staff. The answer to what emails end up in spam is a tech
question, not a political question and it isn't helpful to pretend
otherwise. For those groups sending fundraising letters, well the accuracy
of fundraising letters leaves a lot to be desired. It is a good idea not to
pretend a donate email is a meaningful political analysis. It's a hook to
encourage you to donate money.

5) A circuit breaker policy on social media has been recommended by a
number of blue ribbon experts. The idea seems to have originated with
Rutgers law professor Ellen Goodman (
https://law.rutgers.edu/directory/view/1020). It is not censorship, which
is the prevention of content being posted.  The problem of virality in
social media is pretty much just the web 2.0 version of the old mainstream
media problem of "if it bleeds, it leads". Being machines, the AI that
powers social media algorithims pretty much interprets engagement as
popularity. So a post of blatant lies that gets 600 people correcting it
(i.e. the sun is closer to the earth than the moon) is perceived as
desirable content, because so many people said "fuck no, that's wrong",
while valuable posts that don't motivate so many people to correct them are
seen as less popular and less desirable. It's the same thing that happened
when daily newspapers plastered a bloody victim of a crime picture on the
front page and sold three times as many copies as usual because people
reacted and they drew from that exactly all the wrong conclusions.
Everything old is new again.

So left to their own devices, repulsive social media posts are served by
the algorithim. This is exacerbated by the fact that the right wing has
invested in a bot ecosphere to rapidly engage and kick up the AI and
neither progressives nor centrist democrats have anything even remotely
equal. That is why when you get lists of the 20 most viral posts any week
of the year from Facebook, it is all or almost all rabid right wing
frothing at the mouth. Similarly, that is why Donald Trump had so many
followers on Twitter. It was a bot collection for the purpose of
supercharging his content. When people play the system, it  is more than
reasonable to play back. A circuit breaker censors nothing, but it slows
down super-spreader content that is being manipulated for virality by
coordinated networks for a short period of time, allowing for human review
before it appears in hundreds of thousands or even millions of feeds. None
of this impacts the original post, It remains. And none of this impacts
progressive media because I hate to break it to you, progressive media
content is not the superspreader content.

This is apart from issues of community standards and terms of service,
which on social media platforms are frequently applied by low wage workers,
often in India, who make frequent mistakes. The answer for that is more
resources for the function, which is a hard sell for the move fast and
break things crowd.

But all a circuit breaker is, is an artificial intelligence brake, and it
is foolish to equate that with censorship. Way too broad a brush and
essentially a meaningless argument imho.

- Tracy

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 4:34 PM Ann Garrison via grc <grc at maillist.peak.org>
wrote:

> I agree that internet censorship is now such a critical media issue that it
> merits discussion on this list, so long as it remains rational rather than
> vituperative.  Discussion within Pacifica Radio often becomes vituperative
> fast, and I wish that weren't so, but over the years I've learned it's best
> to walk away once that happens.
>
> We produced two shows on censorship and surveillance, with particular
> emphasis on internet censorship, for "COVID, Race, and Democracy."  Nick
> Huntley, cybersecurity specialist and producer of "Nick’s Nerd News," a
> show syndicated on Audioport, contributed a piece on Amazon surveillance to
> the last one.
>
> https://covidtaskforce.pacifica.org/2021/01/25/covid-surveillance-and-big-tech-censorship-january-25-2021/
>
> https://covidtaskforce.pacifica.org/2021/03/02/covid-big-tech-censorship-surveillance-part-2-march-1-2021/
>
> On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 3:22 PM riva enteen via grc <grc at maillist.peak.org>
> wrote:
>
> > MA put out an email to this list supporting Silicon Valley censorship.
> So
> > this is not a forum to respond to that?
> > Frankly, I find it shocking that GRC doesn't grapple with this new, very
> > controversial and potentially dangerous trend.  The debate was shut down.
> > I guess Adrienne agrees that we are not to talk about Silicon Valley
> > censorship.  No wonder the left is dead.
> >
> > On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 3:18 PM David Devereaux-Weber <
> president at wortfm.org
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi riva,
> > >
> > > The GRC is an email list created for the Grassroots Radio Conference.
> The
> > > purpose of the list is to discuss things about starting and operating
> > > community radio stations. We don't run Facebook. We don't determine
> > > policies for Facebook. Radio stations who subscribe to this list may
> wish
> > > to broadcast programs about this topic, but that is not the purpose of
> > this
> > > list.
> > >
> > > You seem to be passionate about the topics of interest to you. That is
> > > great. But this is not the forum for that discussion.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > David Devereaux-Weber
> > > President, WORT Board of Directors
> > > president at wortfm.org <President at wortfm.org>
> > > (608)576-2599
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 5:08 PM riva enteen via grc <
> > grc at maillist.peak.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> It was too much trouble for you to allow debate about your "circuit
> > >> breaker
> > >> technology."  So you think FB can censor Robert Kennedy, Jr. because
> he
> > >> violates their terms of service?
> > >>
> > >> I think pressure and judgement about remembering a person's pronouns
> > >> (plural yet) when a large group is introducing themselves is a
> > distraction
> > >> from what we face, such as the real threat of nuclear war.  And yes, I
> > >> know
> > >> I will be called transphobic, but I am proud to use the word feminist,
> > >> although that apparently makes me a TERF.
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 10:04 AM Tracy Rosenberg <
> > tracy at media-alliance.org
> > >> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > You were not considerate, Riva. You said that it was too much
> trouble
> > >> for
> > >> > you to observe the gender identities that people wish to be
> recognized
> > >> by.
> > >> > By definition, that is rude and not considerate. You clearly need to
> > >> > rethink your position on not eradicating others.
> > >> >
> > >> > You also do not understand what circuit breaker technology is.
> > Platforms
> > >> > do not determine truth, but they do define their terms of service,
> > like
> > >> any
> > >> > other website, list serv, company, radio station or organization.
> > >> >
> > >> > -Tracy
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sun, May 2, 2021, 09:55 riva enteen via grc <
> grc at maillist.peak.org
> > >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> I am glad to be considerate, butI think controversial issues must
> be
> > >> >> addressed in a principled manner.  MA seemed to shut down any
> debate
> > >> about
> > >> >> Silicon Valley determining truth and I think Tracy's response with
> > >> circuit
> > >> >> breaker begs the question.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 9:47 AM kenya lewis <kenyalewis at gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Riva,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > What “stablished” this poorly edited set of personal observations
> > and
> > >> >> > grudges is broadly relevant to this GRC list (or as part of a/the
> > >> black
> > >> >> > agenda)?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Is it possible to be considerate of each other and use this
> > listserv
> > >> to
> > >> >> > cooperate?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Kenya
> > >> >> _______________________________________________
> > >> >> grc mailing list
> > >> >> grc at maillist.peak.org
> > >> >> http://maillist.peak.org/mailman/listinfo/grc
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> grc mailing list
> > >> grc at maillist.peak.org
> > >> http://maillist.peak.org/mailman/listinfo/grc
> > >>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > grc mailing list
> > grc at maillist.peak.org
> > http://maillist.peak.org/mailman/listinfo/grc
> >
>
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> @AnnGarrison <https://twitter.com/AnnGarrison?lang=en>
> Independent Journalist,
> SKYPE: Ann Garrison, Oakland
> 415-503-7487
> _______________________________________________
> grc mailing list
> grc at maillist.peak.org
> http://maillist.peak.org/mailman/listinfo/grc
>

-- 
Tracy Rosenberg
Executive Director
Media Alliance
2830 20th Street Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94110
www.media-alliance.org
415-746-9475
510-684-6853 Cell
Encrypted email at tracy.rosenberg at protonmail.com
Text via Signal

-