Jon Hilsenrath’s Post

Excellent New Yorker piece offering a global survey of approaches to regulate and counter the power of American Cyberlibertarianism. And great to see Trebor Scholz's recent book Own This cited. His book is a vision of a future where platform cooperatives, powered by peer principles, transform our economy into a more equitable and sustainable system, challenging the dominance of major tech corporations and offering a practical solution to economic inequality, climate change, and poverty. Wiser ways are already growing. Quote from the article: "In “American Capitalism” (1952), the first volume in a trilogy on economics, John Kenneth Galbraith outlined his notion of “countervailing power.” He was living in a time—much like our own—of rising corporate concentration and faltering competition; at such moments, Galbraith argued, markets could not be relied upon to police themselves. The solution he favored was a form of ecological balance: forces such as trade unions and consumer coalitions would act as a constraint. “Private economic power is held in check by the countervailing power of those who are subject to it,” Galbraith wrote. “The first begets the second.” The past decade has seen the search for a countervailing power to offset the mighty tug of commercial interests. As Galbraith noted, government is not the only—or even the preferred—option; various other ideas have been mooted. In “Internet for the People” (Verso), Ben Tarnoff calls for a “deprivatized” Internet with new “models of public and cooperative ownership”; in “Own This!” (Verso), R. Trebor Scholz likewise explores the potential of worker-and-user-owned “platform co-ops.” (He discusses, although does not endorse, the idea of nationalizing large companies like Amazon and Facebook.) Dixon, in “Read Write Own,” reverts to a form of technological purism, resting his hopes in the potential of blockchain. The trouble is that, after more than a decade of casting about for checks on Big Tech, the only countervailing power seemingly able to muster the required heft and legitimacy is the nation-state." https://lnkd.in/eD67PhiT

In the aftermath of the so-called Washington Consensus in the early 1990s a new class did emerge, the billionaires´ class. A new class that, by nature, may be small in size, but that by using their power over ever bigger and more powerful business corporations and employing an army of hacks, all well-paid for their ´service´, are now shaping the world. Not only the policies, but also the published opinion, that is the ways how way we should see, understand and think about it. It started in the US - and the article is about it - but quite rapidly reached a globalized dimension. In fact, they are the essence of globalization, the global exploitation of resources that, inevitably, increases their wealth, their power and the influence at a rate that would have go any other ruling class before them green with envy. It is a short summary as to how big money manages to buy political influence undermining democracy and corrupting the legal system.

Indeed, misinformation is a symptom of deeper problems. I read David Brooks' 'How to Know a Person' and finally finished Amanda Ripley's 'High Conflict' this weekend - both speak to a similar point and reference a wealth of research about how social disconnection and not feeling seen and heard are related to these trends. That when people shut down socially they become suspicious, take offence when none is intended, and harden into solitude. It's in these conditions that the 'us vs them' 'high conflict' situations take hold as well. The stats from the past two decades about increase in suicides, increase in depression, the percentage of people who say they have no close friends quadrupling, number of people without a romantic partner increasing by a third, and the fact that 36% of people feel lonely most or all of the time (61% amongst young people!) give a glimpse into some of the root causes behind the symptoms of the democratic dysfunction disease. The vast majority of people are missing a sense of agency and dignity, of being seen and heard and understood. If we don't address that, we will perpetually need to keep treating the increasingly severe symptoms...

In this carefully researched article, Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null underscore the inadequacies of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information and knowledge. The free encyclopedia is created, edited and verified by an army of online volunteers whose credibility and integrity are unknowable, even questionable. The supposed separate entries for the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Global Research (globalresearch.ca) and its editor-in-chief, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, have been merged into a single Wikipedia item, which consists of unwarranted smears, unfounded claims and disputable accusations. Such efforts by the largest reference website, consulted by billions of people worldwide, are supportive of the Establishment’s global agenda, which aims to discredit dissenting yet highly-knowledgeable and qualified scholars and activists (“character assassination”) and push their contributions and endeavors to the margins. This, in effect, denies their vision to share knowledge that “fully represents human diversity.” What Is the Solution to “the Wikipedia Problem”? Wikipedia is the largest and most read reference source in the world. Billions rely on it every day for unbiased facts and truthful information. Unfortunately, what they often get are slander and lies. This poses an existential threat to society, because lies and slander corrode the fabric of society and harm all of its citizens, no less than they harm the ones who are lied about and slandered. If Wikipedia were a marginal website with little influence, it could be regarded as harmless, just as you might regard it as harmless to be bumped by a toddler on a tricycle traveling at a snail’s pace – but not if you were run down by a pizza delivery boy on an electric bicycle travelling at 30 mph. Because Wikipedia dwarfs every other reference source on the face of the earth not only in size but in influence, what is at stake is the very pollution of knowledge itself. What shall we do about it? https://lnkd.in/eZD79eJH

Dots to connect here that I believe are important to call-out from this piece by Manvir Singh as well as from my follow-up re: Scott Galloway's problems/solutions TED Conferences talk here: https://lnkd.in/gAevuips Key call-outs: 🎯 "A recent study found a strong correlation between the prevalence of conspiracy beliefs and levels of governmental corruption...reflecting a fraying sense of institutional integrity. More than Russian bots or click-hungry algorithms, a crisis of trust and legitimacy seems to lie behind the proliferation of paranoid falsehoods → misinformation more as a symptom than as a disease. Unless we address issues of polarization and institutional trust...we’ll make little headway against an endless supply of alluring fabrications. 🎯 "people are more often drawn to conspiracy theories when they feel “uncertain and powerless,” and regard themselves as “marginalized victims.” Berinsky cites scholarship suggesting that conspiratorial rumors flourish among people who experience “a lack of interpersonal trust” and “a sense of alienation.” Now tie this back to Scott Galloway's critical presentation on our problems at hand and tie this back to where we must be investing. Trust (integrity) is at the core of healthy Democracies vs autocracies, oligarchies, and ultimately anarchy. And critically, trust --and our Democracies-- are in need of repair (investments). Investments include, but are not limited to, solutions that: ✅ strengthen the integrity, quality, and transparency of our information and information environments ✅ improve our discourse & dialogue and reduce "us vs them" ✅ provide the foundational backbone for effective civic services ✅ implement policies & incentive structures that support the aforementioned and incentivize the attributes and investments critical for trust https://lnkd.in/gUEucc5D ht Celine Paul Thagard Sander van der Linden Adam Berinsky Sacha Yesilaltay Daniel K. Williams Jill Mark Sue Xander Ellen Daniel Ed Nina Olivia Matt Carolyn Greg Kelly Josh Jeff Chris Alan Emerson Alexander Giulia Olga David H. Perry Josh Elizabeth Charlie Claudia Robbie Lucy Ethan

Publican: “After WW II, prophylactic actions were taken to stabilize the system and guard against a World War happening again. Nations wanted render the geopolitical system resilient to shocks. Trans-national leader-to-leader communication protocols were established to ensure transparency regarding intentions and actions that might otherwise be misinterpreted.” Slow Pint to Flaming Cosmo: “I don’t want any of my actions to be misinterpreted. I’m just a soul whose intentions are good – oh Lady in Red, please don’t let me be misunderstood. [1]” Publican: “Nations were determined to stabilize society across cultures, borders, and hemispheres. Disarmament treaties, alliances, and détentes followed one after another. Decolonialization was promoted and applauded. Over time, pan-national institutions were established, e.g., the U.N. with a focus on worldwide security and peace took the place of the ineffective League of Nations established after WW I. “Economic collaboration blocs and international trade agreements were inaugurated to take advantage of market economies of scale and act as an economic disincentive to future opportunistic wars. “Memories of the horrors of WW I, the Great Depression, and WW II faded over time as new generations rose to replace those who had lived through or fought the wars. “The flower of Postmodernism epoch had been sown – by 1968, it was in full bloom. “Domestic radios became broadly available in the late 1940s - big-valved, cackling radios in huge, purled walnut wood cabinets the size of hotel minibars. People listened to classical music and opera at home, enjoying a respite from the worries of post-war deprivation and re-building.” Double Red Bull: “My father controlled our big-box radio. He gave me no option but to listen to Jussi Bjorling, Mario Lanza, and Enrico Caruso. That big radio would buzz when those tenors hit high notes – I think that was the start of my problems…” Publican: “Inexpensive transistor radios were invented and made music even more accessible. Soon, everyone had a radio and was in heaven with the music: “Turn you radio on And listen to the music in the air Turn your radio on and glory share Turn your lights down low And listen to the Master’s radio Get in touch with God, turn your radio on.” - “Turn Your Radio On”, Ray Stevens, 1972 “On Saturday nights in the ‘50s in western Europe, people listened avidly to the Top Ten on Radio Luxembourg, and during the week turned their dials to Radio Caroline – a popular, unlicensed ‘pirate radio' ship floating on the Irish Sea in International waters. “At the height of the Postmodern epoch, positive, energetic, loving, peaceful music would burst upon the psyche of the people...” Tbc… [1] “Please Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood”, The Animals, 1965

SIGNAL: Why it matters: Well, there's compelling evidence we've been trapped in a reality distortion bubble — social media, cable TV and tribal political wars — long enough to warp our view of the reality around us. The big picture: Yes, deep divisions exist on some topics. But on almost every topic of monthly outrage, it's a fringe view — or example — amplified by the loudest voices on social media and politicians driving it. - - - Tags: social,technology - - - What is this? Signals are part of Adventuring Ventures' research methodology for exploring possible futures. A signal is a small or local phenomenon and a potential sign of change that might grow in scale, where it shows up, or who it influences. The tags refer to 5 lenses through which we look for signals - society, technology, economics, ecology, and policy. - - -

Interesting as always, Paul Kennedy looks back at his spectacular failure to see what was around the corner 12-24 months after publishing the Rise and Fall of Great Powers, ie USSR's implosion and Japan's stagnation and America's unipolar moment. https://lnkd.in/erZ9KA3V But has the time come now, he wonders, as the factors he recognised then as being important remain so, even if a historian usually only can tell a story about the past rather than what is to come? One, however, to pay attention to is Azeem's interview with Niall Ferguson as it tackles the next-gen issues around demographics and migration as a threat to innovation and economic growth — and whether AI can alleviate the burden of aging, among other things. Britain might no longer be a great power but it's been producing some of the better researchers it seems (throw in Bleddyn and andrew) https://lnkd.in/eWTCUkpt GCV's spacetech and spacepower roundtable this month will lead into a wider perspective on geostrategic security through private capital markets and freedom capital over the next year www.globalventuring.com

How some masters are good at Weaponizing Institutional and Historical Influence. And what are all the major institutions it entails. In the complex landscape of power, influence, and control, some actors have mastered the art of weaponizing not just their institutional power but also their historical legacy. Institutional influence can be wielded as a formidable weapon, often with real-world consequences. Consider these facts: Governments and organizations have used their control over media outlets, both traditional and digital, to shape public opinion. The spread of misinformation and disinformation has been weaponized in recent years to manipulate elections and sow division. Institutions like central banks can influence economies by adjusting interest rates and monetary policies. Nations can weaponize economic influence through trade embargoes, tariffs, and sanctions, impacting the stability of other nations. We all know how frequently we have seen it taking place and less I narrate about Sanctions here, the better. Tech giants have amassed immense power over the digital realm, influencing the flow of information and even the behaviour of individuals. This power can be harnessed to shape narratives, suppress dissent, or amplify particular voices. On this, we have seen what kind of immunity Tech Giant was enjoying while wiping off the presence of sitting POTUS from their platform. History, too, can be weaponized to serve political agendas and consolidate power: Leaders often invoke historical narratives to rally citizens around a common identity. The glorification of past triumphs and grievances can be used to justify actions or stoke nationalist fervour. Former colonial powers sometimes leverage their historical dominance to maintain economic and political influence in former colonies. This can perpetuate inequalities and influence resource extraction. Nations showcase their historical achievements and cultural contributions as soft power tools. Museums, cultural exchanges, and heritage sites become tools for projecting influence on the global stage. Manipulation of facts and narratives can erode trust in institutions and create a climate of uncertainties. These tactics can exacerbate global power imbalances and hinder international cooperation. Leaders and organizations face ethical dilemmas when choosing to weaponize influence, as it often comes at the expense of democracy, human rights, and fairness. And Here Socrates' wisdom echoes: 'An unexamined influence is not worth wielding.' The thoughtful wielding of power demands introspection, as the consequences ripple through societies, shaping the very fabric of democracy and justice.