Will #MeToo Really Make A Difference?

What Should The Rules Be, Anyway?

Among The Washington Post's Thursday opinion columns is one written by Donna Lenhoff, titled The #MeToo Movement Will Be In Vain If We Don't Make These Changes.  After presenting an outline of her proposal, I offer a few brief thoughts:

#1 Increase the $$ caps for damages, so that corporations have to get serious.  Currently, large firms are subject to a maximum $300,000 fine.

#2 End the confidentiality of settlements reached between accuser and accused.

#3 Provide investigators with sufficient funds.

#4 Measurement, reporting and investigation should all be enhanced.  Possibly corporations should be required to conduct anonymous surveys and report results on their websites.  Also, more research on where the problem is occurring and what works in addressing it.

What do I think?  I read through the Comments section, and feel there may be a few tweaks to be made, but otherwise, you'd think this would generate a fair amount of consensus among lawmakers.

#1 Just multiply that $300,000 by a large enough number and large corporations would get on it.  The maximum for smaller firms is currently $50,000.

#2  Ending confidentiality when settlements are reached does have its drawbacks, as those in Comments have pointed out (What about the embarrassing details made public?).  The comeback is that without an end to confidentiality, abusers can remain in place and find other victims.

#3  Having sufficient funds to look into serious allegations seems like a way to tell how much politicians really want the problem to end.

#4  The other area some in Comments found fault with was the anonymous survey idea that would require corporations to report results on company websites.  The problem here being that relations between 'management' and 'employees' is not always good.  This doesn't seem to me to be a big deal if surveys are conducted among employees only, and not open to just anyone.  There's a jobs site company called Glassdoor that encourages employees to rate their bosses, for example.  See this article in the New Yorker.

So, overall, I'm on board, and look forward to a bi-partisan push in Congress.  As for confidentiality, I'd need more information.

What's To Be Done About Facebook

Social Media Monopolies?

Roger McNamee, an early investor in Facebook, and mentor to Mark Zuckerberg when FB reportedly received a $1 billion buyout offer, has written up the case for dealing with FB's and other social media's monopolistic tendencies.

Here's my very brief characterization of his 8-point case (the full article is available at the link, above):

1.  Have FB contact every recipient of hacker fake news, with an explanation of what was fake and why we know this.  Twitter has just announced steps in that direction.

2.  Call social media bigwigs (Zuckerberg, and the heads of Google, Twitter, etc.) to testify in person before Congress.  Also, ban digital bots that impersonate people.  And no additional acquisitions for FB, Google, etc.,  until these matters have been addressed.

3.  Social media platforms must be transparent about who pays for quasi-political issue ads (aggrieved voice: "Don't let the dogs get away with stealing the cat chow."), as well as overtly political campaign ads (upbeat voice: "I'm the best doggie you'll ever vote for.")

4.  There must be transparency regarding the algorithms used to decide what ads you see; possibly even third party audits.  ("You liked 'The Catacombs of Rome', so we're showing you this ad for 'Dungeon Bikers'")

5.  Relationships between social media corporations and users should be more equitable.  For example, you should be able to opt out of a 'new' version of a platform that you don't want.

6.  A limit on commercial exploitation of your personal data.  Why did Google just buy a huge trove of credit card information?

7.  Consumers, not corporations, should own creative content (writing, photos) and be able to move it to another site if they wish.

8  Discouraging monopolies, on principle, unleashes innovation.

What do I think?  These proposals would probably have half the senate sponsoring them if this was 50 years ago.

My opinion, in more detail:

1.  Since Twitter is notifying victims of fake news, this doesn't sound like too much to ask of FB.  Being shown evidence could be the first inkling some social media users have that they're in an unreal bubble.

2.  If we could ban digital bots, that would be great.  Can it be easily done?  As for limiting acquisitions, that's likely one way to get social media platforms to comply.

3.  This makes sense.  If we could click to see who's behind a weird ad we see, that would be interesting, and might stop some of the worst of it.

4.  This doesn't seem necessary to me, but I'm restrained in what I click on and what I buy, and I ignore most ads.

5.  Ok, though until there's a problem that I can see....

6.  A good idea.

7.  So agree.

8.  This is something I'm usually for and feel strongly about, so I'm inclined to agree.  I'd have to know more, though.

Another article about reining in FB, further back in time.

A New Year's Resolution

Three blogging projects for the new year:

1. TR (Teddy Roosevelt) 110 years later.  Re-imagining our 26th president's outlook if he were alive today.  Busting monopolies, experiencing Nature, and admitting he was wrong about Imperialism.  I turn on the energy--for a change.

2. Rock Music, Revisited.  I look back at my Mighty 55 rankings, and make adjustments, adding a few newer acts and removing a few British gents.  Or, maybe bigger changes.

3. Election Boardgame Trilogy.  My brother and my 2016 design is finished.  It will be the most complex and satisfying of the three--for experienced gamers.  2012, which we'll likely revisit in the coming year, is of medium complexity.  2020, which we'll then create, will likely be the easiest to play.

Will I actually get to all the above?  A year from now we'll see just how resolute I was.