On Ice Cream

#390: Three Cheers For Homegrown Cherries

.....................

 

Self-Moderated Social Media

 #388: No Squaring Of The Moderation Circle Required

................................

What if we as a nation are on the brink of a major change in how we organize ourselves, socially and politically?  Something akin to the drafting of our nation’s constitution in 1787.

Of course I’m thinking about social media and the way we organize ourselves online.  At present, it looks likely that Twitter will become more divisive and contain greater misinformation.  Facebook, meanwhile, is hard to moderate.  Could there be an emerging way around these problems that takes social media to the next level?

Nowadays, we expect our social media feeds to be whatever generates the most clicks, replies, etc.  This transactional focus on what’s exciting underpins most platforms.  And there’s nothing inherently wrong with that arrangement; except, we don’t yet know how to eliminate the accompanying problems of divisiveness, exploitation, and even poor taste that tend to hitch a free ride.

A recent article in the Washington Post pointed to one possible solution: a revamped algorithm that seeks out “bridges” between different points of view, and thus feeds us a more balanced, and let’s say healthy, take on any given subject.  Here's a fascinating, professionally written paper on how such a system might work.

A possible alternative, that might reach the same goal and yet take a much simpler, more direct path, is to enable and reward self-moderation on any given platform.  Ideally, multiple platforms would emerge, each offering a different style of moderation, which taken together would accommodate every taste that lay within the bounds of an agreed upon minimal decency.

This self-moderation would involve:

  * Well-defined standards set out by a given platform 

  * Specific rewards for identifying material that either does not meet those standards, or is one or more degrees away and deserves some official warning or commentary

  * These rewards would involve greater prominence on the platform, and if necessary, cash prizes

  * Unlike hiring thousands of moderators, self-moderation would draw in volunteers to flag content, with posts representing the greatest potential harm assessed prioritized by a few hundred expert moderators

  * Variations in flag color could be used to guess at a post’s eventual fate, with rewards being assigned in relation to each guess's accuracy

  * The algorithm used would then significantly depress the circulation of future posts generated by those creating offending material, and thus gradually rid the platform of indecency

Importantly, the vast majority of a platform’s content would be unaffected, except for the increased prominence of the rewarded users who actively understand what constitutes indecency and its fainter shades of untoward content.

A China Q & A

 #387: What Might Make Taiwan Want To Reunite?

...................

I happened upon and read Dan Wang's annual letter for 2021, written from Shanghai (as well as his 2020 missive, from Beijing).  If you're interested in what's happening in China these days, you should absolutely find an hour to commit to it.  

The key ideas that have stuck with me: 

* The Chinese bureaucratic state has become much more efficient and user-friendly.  

* The recent crackdown on things like kids video-game-playing and outside tutoring was part of a push to focus on manufacturing and furthering the economy, rather than some random fist shaking.

* Wang points out the lack of 'culture', when compared to Western societies (a contrast to worldwide phenomena like manga, K-pop, and other cultural exports that have emerged from China's neighbors).

* The future's growth industries are hard to predict.  In a Western country, the hottest innovation is free to quickly emerge on its own.  Can a top-down command economy replicate this same flexibility--especially if, let's say, there are state-owned industries in the way?  If not, China will always be playing catch-up--though this is something it's done remarkably well over the past few decades.

* The discussion of regional ambiance (his 2021 letter) and China's regional cuisine (2020) were quite welcome.  A section on Mozart's operas, vis-a-vis Italian opera (2021) was a yawner for this reader--though if opera I must, let it be Mozart.

* The introductory second page to his blog lists all the books he's read since college.  Impressive.

Anyway, let's get right to this post's question:

Question: What Might Make Taiwan Want To Reunite With China?

Answer: Nobody knows, but we can guess.  So, here's a 'what if'.

At first glance, there's little that Taiwan could possibly gain from reuniting with the Chinese mainland.  And, after what happened to Hong Kong in the past few years, there aren't likely to be many Taiwanese who're even interested in looking into a possible deal.

As for the government in Beijing, there's the obvious, ultimate feather-in-the-cap that is reunification.

The first step is for us to see this imbalance, and imagine something that could possibly entice a voluntary union, hard as that may seem.

The key is that the Communist party would have to take a step into the future, reshaping and refashioning itself into something with the same structural power, but with a democratic foundation.  It would have to create a Chinese version of a modern democratic state.  

Luckily, Taiwan itself seems to have come up with just such a system.  So, what better way to unite than for the mainland to adopt the island's innovation, remaking the Communist party apparatus into something much less threatening, even inviting.  Would this be possible for a proud, assertive government?  Well, many a groom has found such a remake conceivable, even desirable, in order to secure his beloved's hand.  And what if that groom discovered that he'd be giving up nothing, yet be on his way to being a hero, to his people, and the world?  What if Chinese democracy then went on to sweep the world?  Rather than a pariah in democratic high society, China would be, indeed, the world's leader, eagerly greeted in every country's capital.

In exchange for adopting her political innovation, Taiwan, during an interim transition, would agree to set a future date, and hold annual talks, leading up to reunion, which might tentatively be, say, 2038.  Obviously, the wedding could be called off at any time, by either party.

First, what exactly is Taiwan's recent political innovation, and how might it be incorporated--seamlessly, let's hope.  First, here's a link to my post #252, which describes it.

Essentially, it's a way of using an online app to steer interest groups that are in conflict towards consensus:

Process:

1. Crowdsource objective facts from stakeholder factions about a specific issue

2. Communicate via dedicated social media, with statements aimed at resolving the issue drafted within each faction; these internal discussions then alternate with suggestions to resolve the issue at hand, that are offered to all parties

3. A rough consensus is reached between factions, followed by hammering out detailed recommendations

Tweaks (courtesy of the app being used):

  * no 'reply' button (so no person-to-person vitriol)

  * messages within factions regarding their own drafts are not shared with other factions

  * instead, only 'consensus' messages that find minimum support across different groups are trumpeted and copied to future messages; the message(s) with the most support appear at the top of a user's screen

  * thus, rather than fostering negativity, the process is gamified to tilt toward consensus

There's no point in defining the process in too great a detail, since the hope is that Beijing would make it its own (even I've fiddled with it a bit to make it make sense in my own mind).

A consensus-building tool, the app would be used to create a democratic foundation, starting with local community issues, and building higher and broader, as the system finds its footing.  And of course the Chinese Communist Party would have to tenderly nurture the ensuing process, guiding and reworking and re-envisioning, and always scaling larger as participants get used to the process.  

Could it be done?  It's conceivable.  

Would it end up being mere window dressing?  If so, the reunification date could be pushed back.  Perhaps a long-term, 2100s date would be likelier.

Are There Any Heretical Ideas That Have Merit?

 #386: In Short, Yes

.................

I ran across an interesting list of "heretical" ideas put together by Tyler Cowen on the Marginal Revolution blog.  I will react (in green type) to a select few, along with several others found in the post's comments:

The author first lists "partially heretical" ideas, then asks for truly heretical beliefs (they can’t be absurd, or simple insults).  He comes up with this list (I've cut it down to the most interesting):

5. ESP works.

Most would discover vague 'directions' difficult without modern GPS.  The same is true with ESP.  If you haven't experienced it, it's unimaginable.  Plus, the confounding truth --> the more one seeks to exploit ESP, the less it occurs; like the mysterious morel mushroom, it's never a sure thing--let alone a thing to boast about and thus test for.  Just believe.

7. In fact you can trust Congress to do the right thing.

This truly is heretical.  What makes it interesting is that in 50 years it may actually be vaguely correct.  Rather than a long, sorry tradition, we're likely witnessing the flameout of a few decades worth of crackpot ascendancy (1980 - 2020 --give or take an extra decade on either side).  "We now return you to your normal programming."   

11. Non-human animals suffer more than they enjoy, and it would be better if they did not exist.

Again, ridiculous.  What makes this interesting is the inability to distinguish our minds (which anticipate, think abstractly, and can thus evaluate a life's 'misery index') and the brains of animals (who, for the most part, live in the moment).  Or do they?  There's also the failure to view animals as part of an organic whole that is Nature.  

12. American TV was much better in the 1960s and 1970s.

Obviously incorrect on many counts (production values, slllooow, boring), but makes us think.  What's it about TV in those decades?  Probably a combination of universality (everyone watching the same shows), classicism (training being more rigorous) and novelty (many programming ideas have now been used).

Commenter Dave C:

People get benefits from non-scientific things like astrology because their brains evolved to extract wisdom from...oracles.

This isn't really heretical, and isn't quoted in full, but there's something interesting here.  Could there be something to self-selected 'inspiration' that benefits the mind?  It would have to outweigh the usual: "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."   

Commenter Mark T:

Health care is not a right.

First, we have to distinguish between: 

1) the theoretical concept of a human Right derived from basic math (When more than one mind is present, how are decisions made?  Answer: by giving equal weight to each and voting on a path forward--this equality is a Right), and 

2) the common political usage found in advanced democracies ("In this great nation everyone has a right to the basics.")

So, it's only in the second sense that health care is a right, but that's what most people mean.

Commenter asdf:

1) The best life outcomes come from following the Biblical commandments on chastity, and while this [may] never be perfectly obtained, it should be considered the societal ideal rather than scorned.

This is one-sided, but not heretical.  Logically, if one thinks of a future life partner, and pleasing them, the thing to do is arguably abstinence, but just as arguably, self-discovery.  So, following hard and fast rules is probably not the answer.  But neither is ignoring the distilled wisdom of past generations.  Ideally, one can discover without becoming prematurely entangled.

3) ...single family zoning is the only way people have to protect a middle class upbringing for their family....

Here's a thought experiment: What if a neighborhood was asked to sign off on an underground multi-story building that had its own tunnel to the nearest freeway?  So, no eyesore, no big increase in traffic; just more residents paying taxes.  And let's say this new development was in a run-down part of town, replacing abandoned, dilapidated buildings with a tidy, park like setting.  Wouldn't it get approved right away?  Yes, most likely.  Which suggests that a good deal of the resistance to multi-story developments in single family neighborhoods involves aesthetics ("eyesore", "traffic", "elbow room").

4) The War on Drugs actually isn't that bad....

It's not unusual to encounter this sentiment.  I'd say it's close to a 50/50 matter, nationally, with sentiment moving steadily against.  Eventually, more tolerant laws will be implemented.

5) MLK did not ultimately believe that people should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

Most reasonable people will find this heretical.  What makes it interesting is that those who only pay lip-service to Martin Luther King like to quote the "...content of their character..." line.  Unfortunately for his detractors, King had discovered universal truths (equality, non-violence, justice, freedom, progressive fairness) that ring true on the part of a vast majority.

Disarm Government Critics

 #385: Ok Then, Let's Make D.C. Work Better

........................

I checked out a comprehensive, government reform proposal, by Arnold Kling, writing in National Affairs, that proposed two new positions, a COO (chief operating officer) and an CA (chief auditor) to oversee federal bureaucracy.  After checking out comments here, I realized that my initial ("...but you couldn't do that") reaction was correct.  Kling's proposal is all but unworkable, as it ignores the reality of career civil servants, the existence of current department auditors, as well as congressional authority in these matters.

On the other hand, there's something perfectly aligned about the desire to reform government bureaucracy.  The party in power at any given time will be doing itself a favor if it preempts the 'party of big government' label by seriously addressing the issue--especially halfway through a presidential term, when seeking a thumbs up from voters in midterm elections.

Nothing would win over more independent-minded voters than announcing an effort to, for example:

1. Take on, and rebuild, one government agency, or one area of responsibility per year.

2. Invite bi-partisan input from congress.

3. Appoint a how-government-works expert to oversee the reform.

4. Seek input and reform ideas from the affected workforce.

5. Split any monetary efficiencies between:

 * employees (an incentive to make reform work)

 * other budget priorities (perhaps everyone could vote for a favorite recipient program), and

 * deficit reduction 

Aim for less--but better--government.  Start small, get bigger, then ask to 'finish the job' in 2024.

Predicting The Future: 2022

 #384: Vox's 2021 and 2022 Predictions, Reviewed

..........................

First, let's look at how the Vox crew did last year (about 14 right predictions out of 22) (here's the link with an explanation for each pick).  Then we'll look at their choices for the coming year (here's the link for commentary). For '22, we'll either agree or disagree on each (my comments are in green).  The percentage in parentheses is the prediction's confidence level:

Vox Staff's 2021 Predictions (how they did in bold)

Trump will uneventfully leave office on January 20 (70 percent) — TECHNICALLY RIGHT

Biden will have a treasury secretary, secretary of state, defense secretary, and attorney general confirmed by the end of the year (70 percent) — RIGHT

At least one US state will have an abortion ban currently blocked by the courts go into effect (40 percent) — WRONG [technically, but they got the gist RIGHT]

No one in Trump’s immediate family will be indicted (65 percent) — RIGHT

Trump approval rating by year’s end will be in the 40 to 45 percent range (70 percent) — RIGHT

The US unemployment rate will stay above 5 percent through November (70 percent) — WRONG

US poverty will be higher in late 2021 than it was in late 2020 (80 percent) — WRONG

The median home price in the Bay Area will fall 5 percent or more (70 percent) — WRONG

100 million Americans will be vaccinated, at least partially, against the coronavirus by the end of April (70 percent) — RIGHT

Restaurant reservations and consumer spending outside the home will be back to normal by the end of the year (70 percent) — MOSTLY RIGHT

A deadly new zoonotic outbreak will emerge (55 percent) — WRONG

The US will enact policies to hold China accountable for its treatment of Muslims, but the internment camps will remain open (80 percent) — RIGHT

The Hadi government and Houthi rebels in Yemen will reach a peace agreement (60 percent) — WRONG

LDP will continue to govern Japan (90 percent) and CDU will continue to govern Germany (80 percent) — RIGHT and WRONG

India’s economy will grow in the first three quarters of 2021 after shrinking briefly in 2020 (70 percent) — RIGHT

At least three new basic income pilots will be launched (75 percent) — RIGHT

No more countries will leave the EU (80 percent) — RIGHT

An AI breakthrough will lead to a game-changing advance in biology (75 percent) — RIGHT

Global carbon emissions will increase (90 percent) — RIGHT

Average world temperatures will increase relative to 2020 (80 percent) — WRONG 

Plant-based meat market share will increase by at least 20 percent (80 percent) — WRONG

Their discussion of these predictions reveals just how studious serious predictors are.  They were unlucky at least once (Average World Temps just missed 2020's level), and were thrown for another three losses by Democratic senate candidates winning runoff races in Georgia, changing the playing field.  So, their record is likely to improve to, say, 18/22 this year.  

Let's see if we can guess where things might go wrong for the Vox crew in '22.  We'll agree with their pick if we don't have feelings one way or another:

Vox Staff's 2022 Predictions (a confidence level of 55% or more means Yes)

*** Democrats will lose their majorities in the US House and Senate (95 percent)

95% 'yes' is a (perhaps slightly high) standard prediction.  I am feeling a current running the other way and will give it a 45% NO for either the House or Senate.  My reasoning is that

1. Trump is causing trouble for Red by endorsing candidates who could easily say dumb things.  Example: Mary Miller in IL-15 (downstate) has been endorsed over Rodney Davis (a Trumper, but voted to certify 2020's election results, and for a bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection) (Note: Miller's mailbox fliers were seen in the pre-Christmas rush, long before her endorsement--she's hitting the ground running).

2. The truth about January 6th has yet to be fully understood and 'experienced' as a definitive, dominant story in the media.

3. The anti-science tilt of some in the Red base (especially regarding Covid) may be a bigger drag on Red than we might think.

4. Our former president does not look healthy.  Poor health could doom his command of Red; would be ironic if some of his candidates won, only to be yesterday's news.

5. The two things weighing down President Biden (and the Democrats') polling: inflation and Covid, could conceivably evaporate, at least partially, by the summer.

*** Inflation in the US will average under 3 percent (80 percent)

I'll lower that to 65%.

*** Unemployment in the US will fall below 4 percent by November (80 percent)

*** The Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade (65 percent)

I'll lower that 65 to 55 YES.

*** Stephen Breyer will retire from the Supreme Court (55 percent)

*** Emmanuel Macron will be reelected as president of France (65 percent)

*** Jair Bolsonaro will be reelected as president of Brazil (55 percent)

I will again go with a 45% NO.

*** Bongbong Marcos will be elected as president of the Philippines (55 percent)

*** Rebels will NOT capture the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa (55 percent)

*** China will not reopen its borders in the first half of 2022 (80 percent)

*** Chinese GDP will continue to grow for the first three quarters of the year (95 percent)

*** 20 percent of US children between 6 months and 5 years old will have received at least one Covid vaccine by year’s end (65 percent)

*** The WHO will designate another variant of concern by year’s end (75 percent)

*** 12 billion shots will be given out against Covid-19 globally by November 2022 ... (80 percent)

*** ... but at least one country will have less than 10 percent of people vaccinated with two shots by November 2022 — (70 percent)

*** A psychedelic drug will be decriminalized or legalized in at least one new US state (75 percent)

*** AI will discover a new drug — or an old drug fit for new purposes — that’s promising enough for clinical trials (85 percent)

*** US government will not renew the ban on funding gain-of-function research (60 percent)

*** The Biden administration will set the social cost of carbon at $100 per ton or more (70 percent)

*** 2022 will be warmer than 2021 (80 percent)

*** Kenneth Branagh’s Belfast will win Best Picture (55 percent)

*** Norway will win the most medals at the 2022 Winter Olympics (60 percent)

So, I've tweaked two percentages, and changed two predictions from YES to NO.  Most of the other matters are not subjects I know all that much about, or are almost impossible to predict.

A New Compromise Repeal of Section 230

#383: Nurturing Local Creative Types

......................

Dean Baker, at Center For Economic And Policy Research, has been blogging and tweeting about his proposal that would both counter the current decline in local journalism, as well as rein in 'bad actors' posting disinformation and slander on social media.  Its net effect would be to help little guy creatives at the local level.

We start with the founding fathers, who, when creating the US Post Office, established a subsidized postal rate for newspapers.  This was because citizens, in order to vote wisely, needed to know the truth about their government.

Fast forward to 2022, and that link between citizens and their local government is disappearing.  Most newspapers are much less profitable than before the arrival of Google, Facebook and the like--all of which yanked away advertising revenue while distracting readers with a universe of diverse entertainment.  Unprofitable newspapers have folded, or been turned into bland shadows of their former selves.

In the meantime, social media corporations like Facebook have been shielded from having to aggressively clean up the falsehoods and slander that appear on their pages.  This shield is referred to as Section 230, and recently there've been calls for its repeal, meaning that Facebook, for example, could be sued if it didn't remove offending content, once notified.

The debate over whether to repeal Section 230 has mostly concerned whether Facebook (now, along with Instagram, etc., a part of Meta) and other social media companies could survive, and what repeal would do to our ability to enjoy them.

Enter Baker's plan that would remove Section 230's shield for sites that accept paid advertisements or sell customer information.  This would be coupled with a tax credit for all citizens to assign, as they see fit, to one or more enterprise headquartered locally and addressing that local audience.  This would have the effect of not only encouraging local news outlets, but of also cultivating local creative businesses and individuals.

Baker discusses the pluses and minuses involved in his proposal, most of which point to its being feasible.  I won't dwell any longer on his ideas except to say that an 'outside in' approach is inherently harder to pull off than is an 'inside out' change like the one I've proposed, that Meta could implement on its own.  But, Baker's package would accomplish much more, since it would take on more than a single social media platform.