Wednesday, April 6, 2022

The big question now is when will Elon name himself founder of Twitter?

[For those who just tuned in to the Tech Messiah show, Musk retconned himself in as a founder of Tesla and of the company that would become PayPal. Twitter seems the next logical step.]

The Musk/Twitter story has been getting more play than I expected though, given the popularity of the platform with journalists, I should have seen it coming. Perhaps it merits one more post.

 Summer Concepcion writing for Talking Points Memo
News of Tesla CEO Elon Musk acquiring a 9.2 percent stake in Twitter has fired up the social media platform’s users in a special way today.

And the takes are, indeed, hot as right-wingers and Musk-devotees see the development as a sign their free speech savior has come to rescue the platform and seek vengeance for Donald Trump’s booting.

Musk’s appointment to Twitter’s board of director was confirmed by CEO Parag Agrawal in tweets posted Tuesday morning. Agrawal praised Musk as “both a passionate believer and intense critic of the service” who would “bring great value to our Board.”
Concepcion breaks down the responses into earnest critiques and right-wing praise. First the earnest.
This one might need a quick recap. Early in the pandemic (in addition to denying its seriousness and insisting that his factories should be exempt from lockdown rules), Musk promised to have Tesla start making ventilators for ICUs (The good news is that he was right about car companies helping with the crisis. The bad news...). He also took to Twitter to explain subtle principles of ventilators, intubation, etc. I'm not going to go into these topics because I know nothing about them. Unfortunately, neither did Musk. Immediately doctors with relevant expertise piled on to humiliating effect.  Elon quietly dropped the subject, but not before blocking some of the offending experts. 
 


And from the right.



The Disney plug seems a bit ironic.


Michael Hiltzik (writing for the LA Times) points out that the legal issues are even worse than they first appeared to be.
Agrawal’s announcement glossed over what’s probably the real reason he invited Musk onto the Twitter board: A day earlier, Musk disclosed that he had accumulated a 9.2% stake in the company’s stock. That made Musk, who already was among Twitter’s largest users, with more than 80 million followers, Twitter’s largest shareholder.

Any shareholder with that much heft is going to make his views known to management in a way that would be impossible to ignore, so from Agrawal’s vantage point, it was probably just as well that Musk be on the inside than on the outside looking in.

It’s proper to observe that Musk may not have been entirely candid about his intentions for Twitter.

He disclosed his ownership stake on the Security and Exchange Commission’s schedule 13G, which is typically used by shareholders intending to play a passive role in the subject company; investors buying stakes to play an active role, such as seeking control, generally disclose on schedule 13D, which is more detailed and requires more prompt disclosures of changes in shareholdings and intentions.

Musk also checked a box on the 13G form designating himself as a “passive investor.”

It’s possible that Musk never intended to be more than a passive investor, but Agrawal offered him a board set unbidden.

Agrawal did disclose, however, that he had held discussions with Musk, apparently about his joining the Twitter board, for “weeks.” It’s also worth noting that Agrawal did extract a written commitment from Musk not to increase his holdings beyond 14.9% as long as he’s on the board and for 90 days after he leaves.

It’s also possible that Musk is testing the SEC’s determination to force him to comply with its regulations, a practice that has made him a thorn in the agency’s side for years.
Or as another LAT writer puts it...

And for those who like their social media news with no Twitter but plenty of schadenfreude, enjoy.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, April 5, 2022

It's not quite like Ponzi buying the Boston Post, but...

Elon Musk just became the largest shareholder in Twitter with almost 9% of the company. This would be big news whoever the buyer was, but it takes on layer upon layer because of the relationship Musk and Tesla have with the social media platform. 

Tesla, unlike virtually every other major company, does not have a PR department. There are literally no set official channels for journalists to reach out to for questions or for comments on articles. Practically everything is done through tweets to Musk's eighty million followers (a plurality of who are fan boys or bots) giving him a great deal of control over the narrative, particularly with damaging stories like the revelation of widespread racial harassment at Tesla plants.
 
A lot of those followers are also retail investors, making Twitter an ideal platform for stock manipulation. 

Brian Contreras and Russ Mitchell writing for the LA Times.
Indeed, the CEO has clashed repeatedly with financial regulators over his use of Twitter. His latest purchase comes as he’s locked in a bitter dispute with U.S. securities regulators over his ability to post on the site.

In October 2018, Musk and Tesla agreed to pay $40 million in civil fines and for Musk to have his tweets approved by a corporate lawyer after he tweeted about having the money to take Tesla private at $420 per share.

The funding was far from secured and the electric vehicle company remains public, but Tesla’s stock price jumped. The settlement specified governance changes, including Musk’s ouster as board chairman, as well as preapproval of his tweets. The SEC brought a securities fraud charge, alleging that Musk was manipulating the stock price with his posts.

Musk’s lawyer is now asking a U.S. District Court judge in Manhattan to throw out the settlement, contending that the SEC is harassing him and infringing on his 1st Amendment rights.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Musk's stock manipulations have made him the world's richest man and conveniently allowed his brother Kimbal to unload over a hundred million dollars worth of stock at the exact peak of the market.  The SEC is looking into this but if Elon's attitude is the same as it was, he's not too concerned.

Twitter is also the primary platform for critics of Tesla and Musk, which brings up some troubling free speech questions, as does Musk's recent and increasingly open move toward the MAGA wing of the Republican Party. 





For more from Ed (who literally wrote the book on Tesla), check out this thread.


The good news is that, in order to get around some pesky rules, Musk signed on as a passive investor. 

From the LA Times:
Although Musk is now Twitter’s largest shareholder, his stake is a “passive investment,” meaning under U.S. securities laws he is barred from seeking control of the company — but that doesn’t preclude him from doing so in the future, through active investments.

It also doesn’t mean Musk must remain passive in communicating his thoughts about Twitter, in public or within the company, said Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance.




In case you were wondering how long it took Musk to start pushing that envelope...

Update: There's more.
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, April 4, 2022

"Incorporation by reference"

Cory Doctorow has a disturbing thread (rolled up here) on how for pro-fit entities have managed to set up a system where you actually have to pay them to read actual laws. 

These days, he's tangling with the Great State of Wisconsin, where access to the publicly financed manual of jury instructions will cost you $500/year (nothing for a white shoe firm, an infinite sum for, say, an incarcerated person working on an appeal):

https://pluralistic.net/2020/10/22/the-robots-are-listening/#rogue-archivist

...

And nowhere is the law more closed than when it comes to public safety codes. Across the world – but especially in the USA – local and state governments have fallen in love with the idea of "incorporation by reference." That's when a town council writes in its law books that "The plumbing code of Lower Pigsknuckle shall be version 2.1 of the American Society of Plumbers and Pipefitters Standard Plumbing Manual."

In theory, that's a reasonable way to make safety codes – each town shouldn't have to hire experts to create its own hand-rolled plumbing, electric, fire and other rules. But the problem comes with the standards bodies – generally adjuncts to or offshoots of industry associations – that develop these codes. These bodies are nominally nonprofits, but they still charge fortunes – thousands of dollars – to access their documents (some of that money goes to paying for standards development, but their IRS filings reveal that their top officers also skim 6- and 7-figure salaries from those fees).

Which means that if your plumber or electrician assures you that your wiring or pipes are up to code, you have to spend thousands of dollars to check on them, or just take their word for it. It also means that if you think that these codes are deficient, you have to pay to find out their exact wording, and your neighbors have to pay to figure out if you're onto something before they join with you in pressing the city council to amend them. Finally, it means that everyone who ever pays for a plumber, an electrician or other tradesperson is subsidizing these societies, because the cost to access the law is passed along in the prices that the trades charge to their customers.


The fight to erode access to information has been a relentless, multi-front effort for the past few decades. Copyrights have not only been extended beyond all reason, but we've actually seen works like It's a Wonderful Life snatched out of the public domain. Farmers can often no longer plant seeds from their own crops. Ridiculously broad patents are issued.

Eventually all information will belong to whoever has the best lawyers.

Posted by at 1 comment:

Friday, April 1, 2022

Eight years ago at the blog -- reposted because of the April Fools connection and because I really liked the title on this one

 Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Being a management consultant who does not suffer fools is like being an EMT who faints at the sight of blood

An April 1st post on foolishness.
When [David] Coleman attended Stuyvesant High in Manhattan, he was a member of the championship debate team, and the urge to overpower with evidence — and his unwillingness to suffer fools — is right there on the surface when you talk with him.

Todd Balf writing in the New York Times Magazine

Andrew Gelman has already commented on the way Balf builds his narrative around Coleman ( "In Balf’s article, College Board president David Coleman is the hero and so everything about him has to be good and everything he’s changed has to have been bad.") and the not suffering fools quote certainly illustrates Gelman's point, but it also illustrates a more important concern: the disconnect between the culture of the education reform movement and the way it's perceived in most of the media.

(Though not directly relevant to the main point of this post, it is worth noting that the implied example that follows the line about not suffering fools is a description of Coleman rudely dismissing those who disagree with his rather controversial belief that improvement in writing skills acquired through composing essays doesn't transfer to improvements in writing in a professional context.)

There are other powerful players (particularly when it comes to funding), but when it comes to its intellectual framework, the education reform movement is very much a product of the world of management consultants with its reliance on Taylorism, MBA thinking and CEO worship. This is never more true than with David Coleman. Coleman is arguably the most powerful figure in American education despite having no significant background in either teaching or statistics. His only relevant experience is as a consultant for McKinsey & Company.

Companies like McKinsey spend a great deal off their time trying to convince C-level executive to gamble on trendy and expensive "business solutions" that are usually unsupported by solid evidence and are often the butt of running jokes in recent Dilbert cartoons.  While it may be going too far to call fools the target market of these pitches, they certainly constitute an incredibly valuable segment.

Fools tend to be easily impressed by invocations of data (even in the form of meaningless phrases like 'data-driven'), they are less likely to ask hard questions (nothing takes the air out of a proposal faster than having to explain the subtle difference between your current proposal and the advice you gave SwissAir or AOL Time Warner), and fools are always open to the idea of a simple solution to all their problems which everyone else in the industry had somehow missed. Not suffering fools gladly would have made for a very short career for Coleman at McKinsey.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, March 31, 2022

"You say this daily walk will reduce my risk of death from cardiovascular disease by 30%, but also increase my risk of death by bear attack by 300%? That's a 280% increased! I'm not a sucker; I'm staying inside."

 It's an odds ratio cartoon. We're contractually obligated to run it.



Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, March 30, 2022

How extreme is Peter Thiel?

A quick follow-up to yesterday's post. 

I've noticed that mainstream media have a tendency to underplay or perhaps underestimate how far out of the mainstream Thiel is, despite the man literally being on the record that he thought women's suffrage was bad for the country. Nonetheless, outlets like the New York Times and NPR continue to treat him as a deep and sensible thinker. He is neither.

His reputation comes partly from the bizarre but widespread view that the elite of Silicon Valley are some unearthly breed of super-intellects. Thiel is smarter than peers like Musk, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything that he said that was either profound or insightful. He's a reasonably bright fellow who won the lottery a couple of times by being at the right place at the right moment hanging out with the right people. 

He is also arguably to the right of the Koch Brothers with a comparable sense of personal ethics.

From TPM:

But fear not, [Thiel protégé and good ol' boy cosplayer J.D.] Vance has their back — or at least Greene’s. Referring to Greene as a “friend” last night, Vance declared the congresswoman — who has turned her role as a lawmaker into a platform for annoying everyone in the Republican caucus, spreading vicious conspiracy theories and calling for violence against her colleagues — “did nothing wrong.”

“The accusation against Marjorie is pretty simple: that she appeared at a conference where somebody said something bad,” he said, referencing Holocaust-denier Fuentes, who used the event last month to lament that America has abandoned “young white men” and to praise Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Did she say something bad at the conference?” Vance continued. “I actually watched her remarks, I agreed with nearly every word that she said.


From Vanity Fair:

Billionaire Peter Thiel hosted about two dozen Republican donors at his 10,000-square-foot Miami compound on Wednesday night to raise money for Wyoming Republican Harriet Hageman, the Donald Trump–backed candidate running a primary challenge against GOP representative Liz Cheney. According to a person briefed on the event by an attendee, the gathering had the feel of a MAGA rally in miniature. Thiel introduced Hageman, who then launched into a stump speech about why Cheney needed to be defeated because of her disloyalty to Trump. “It was all about how the 2020 election was stolen and Cheney is a RINO,” the source told me. The source added that Donald Trump Jr. arrived with heavy security and spoke about how Republicans need “to take back the country.” 

Thiel’s foray into the Wyoming Republican primary shows how devoted the secretive PayPal cofounder and early Facebook investor has become to the MAGA movement. In October, Politico reported that Thiel donated the maximum $5,800 to Hageman’s campaign. His support is helping Hageman, a Wyoming lawyer, close the significant fundraising gap with Cheney, who raised more than $3.6 million by the end of September, Politico reported last month. According to the outlet, Hageman reported having only $245,000 in the bank at the end of September.

...

A spokesperson for Thiel did not respond to a request for comment. 

Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

The New York Times – for it before they were against it

If you haven't already, read Joseph's post "Free speech for the first speaker," a dismantling of the New York Times recent editorial on cancel culture. He does an excellent job addressing the logical flaws. Personally, I couldn't get past the stomach-turning hypocrisy.

Actual examples of cancellation are rare, vanishingly so when the opinions are on the right. The conservative movement always made sure that those pushing the correct views worked with a net. Between sinecures, sympathetic (and often heavily subsidized) publications, right wing media and the occasional discreet bulk purchase of a “New York Times best-selling” book, journalists and pundits who stand up against the liberal establishment know they will never walk alone. No one who still routinely appears on Fox News or has cashed in big on Substack has been in any meaningful way canceled. 

If you’re looking for a real example of someone with what had been a wide-reaching voice being effectively forced out of the discourse for expressing controversial opinions, the first name to come to my mind would be Gawker.

In case you’ve forgotten, Gawker was an angry, bomb throwing, afflict-the-comfortable family of blogs. They violently rejected bothsiderism and the view from nowhere. Instead, they were completely open with their biases, especially a hatred and disgust with tech messiahs, obscenely rich people, and the establishment press.

This post [dead link but you might be able to find it on the Internet Archive]by Ryan Tate originally spotted by Andrew Gelman and the subject of one of our posts, shows a perfect example of a Gawker 3 for 3:

If you want Facebook to spend millions of dollars hiring you, it helps to be a talented engineer, as the New York Times today [18 May 2011] suggests. But it also helps to carouse with Facebook honchos, invite them to your dad's Mediterranean party palace, and get them introduced to your father's venture capital pals, like Sam Lessin did.

Lessin is the poster boy for today's Times story on Facebook "talent acquisitions." Facebook spent several million dollars to buy Lessin's drop.io, only to shut it down and put Lessin to work on internal projects. To the Times, Lessin is an example of how "the best talent" fetches tons of money these days. "Engineers are worth half a million to one million," a Facebook executive told the paper.

We'll let you in on a few things the Times left out: Lessin is not an engineer, but a Harvard social studies major and a former Bain consultant. His file-sharing startup drop.io was an also-ran competitor to the much more popular Dropbox, and was funded by a chum from Lessin's very rich childhood. Lessin's wealthy investment banker dad provided Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg crucial access to venture capitalists in Facebook's early days. And Lessin had made a habit of wining and dining with Facebook executives for years before he finally scored a deal, including at a famous party he threw at his father's vacation home in Cyprus with girlfriend and Wall Street Journal tech reporter Jessica Vascellaro. (Lessin is well connected in media, too.) . . .


That attitude combined with sharp, funny writing and a willingness to tell interesting, important stories that the rest of the press were ignoring made Gawker a remarkable success story. It also unsurprisingly pissed off tech messiahs, obscenely rich people, and the establishment press

The editors did believe in pushing the envelope, especially when the target were rich white men doing despicable things. They were also reckless and self-destructive and had a huge problem with authority. Combine that with a desire to be provocative to the point of shocking, and you guaranteed that any enemy with deep pockets and a deeper grudge would have plenty of ammunition.

It was right wing billionaire and cartoon villain Peter Thiel who finally came after them. Thiel was a member of the PayPal mafia along with Elon Musk. According to a mutual acquaintance "Musk thinks Peter is a sociopath, and Peter thinks Musk is a fraud and a braggart" showing that for all their other flaws, both men are reasonably good judges of character. 


Thiel’s politics are not central to this story, but it is worth noting that he’s arguably the biggest Trump supporter in the tech industry (now even more so) and is also on the record as believing that it was a mistake to give women the vote.

Rather than take open action, Thiel went the coward's route and secretly bankrolled a lawsuit then engineered it so that Gawker was forced into bankruptcy. When word leaked out of his involvement, he showed no shame (because shame’s not really a big emotion for sociopaths). Instead, he immediately started depicting himself as a courageous defender of privacy (which was pretty ripe coming from someone who'd made a billion off of Facebook, but remember what we said about shame), and he was given the world’s best piece of journalistic real estate to do it from.

Thiel’s NYT opinion piece was as bad as you would expect -- self-serving and highly distorted – but even if it had been objective and honest, the very fact that the paper handed him the biggest gift it had to bestow meant that the gray lady was actively supporting the billionaire who set out, not just to punish, but to silence a publication that criticized him and his circle. 

Have there been excesses on the left? Progressive intolerance of other ideas? Instances of free expression of ideas being squelched? Of course. It is by no means the cultural epidemic we’ve been warned about, but the right does not have a monopoly on assholes. 

There is room for an intelligent and measured conversation about how “constraints on speech can turn into arbitrary rules with disproportionate consequences,” but this is one topic on which the New York Times should keep its goddamn mouth shut.


Posted by at No comments:

Monday, March 28, 2022

Eight years ago at the blog -- R.I.P. old (and better) SAT

 Not the timeliest subject, I'll admit, but the way bad changes are sold to a mathematically illiterate press as improvements is always relevant. 

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

The SAT and the penalty for NOT guessing

Last week we had a post on why David Coleman's announcement that the SAT would now feature more "real world" problems was bad news, probably leading to worse questions and almost certainly hurting the test's orthogonality with respect to GPA and other transcript-based variables. Now let's take a at the elimination of the so-called penalty for guessing.

The SAT never had a penalty for guessing, not in the sense that guessing lowed your expected score. What the SAT did have was a correction for guessing. On a multiple-choice test without the correction (which is to say, pretty much all tests except the SAT), blindly guessing on the questions you didn't get a chance to look at will tend to raise your score. Let's say, for example, two students took a five-option test where they knew the answers to the first fifty questions and had no clue what the second fifty were asking (assume they were in Sanskrit). If Student 1 left the Sanskrit questions blank, he or she would get fifty point on the test. If Student 2 answered 'B' to all the Sanskrit questions, he or she would probably get around sixty points.

From an analytic standpoint, that's a big concern. We want to rank the students based on their knowledge of the material but here we have two students with the same mastery of the material but with a ten-point difference in scores. Worse yet, let's say we have a third student who knows a bit of Sanskrit and manages to answer five of those questions, leaving the rest blank thus making fifty-five points. Student 3 knows the material better than Student 2 but Student 2 makes a higher score. That's pretty much the worst possible case scenario for a test.

Now let's say that we subtracted a fraction of a point for each wrong answer -- 1/4 in this case, 1/(number of options - 1) in general -- but not for a blank. Now Student 1 and Student 2 both have fifty points while Student 3 still has fifty-five. The lark's on the wing, the snail's on the thorn, the statistician has rank/ordered the population and all's right with the world.

[Note that these scales are set to balance out for blind guessing. Students making informed guesses ("I know it can't be 'E'") will still come out ahead of those leaving a question blank. This too is as it should be.]

You can't really say that Student 2 has been penalized for guessing since the outcome for guessing is, on average, the same as the outcome for not guessing. It would be more accurate to say that 1 and 3 were originally penalized for NOT guessing.

Compared to some of the other issues we've discussed regarding the SAT, this one is fairly small, but it does illustrate a couple of important points about the test. First, the SAT is a carefully designed tests and second, some of the recent changes aren't nearly so well thought out.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

On SAT changes, The New York Times gets the effect right but the direction wrong

That was quick.

Almost immediately after posting this piece on the elimination of the SAT's correction for guessing (The SAT and the penalty for NOT guessing), I came across this from Todd Balf in the New York Times Magazine.
Students were docked one-quarter point for every multiple-choice question they got wrong, requiring a time-consuming risk analysis to determine which questions to answer and which to leave blank. 
I went through this in some detail in the previous post but for a second opinion (and a more concise one), here's Wikipedia:
The questions are weighted equally. For each correct answer, one raw point is added. For each incorrect answer one-fourth of a point is deducted. No points are deducted for incorrect math grid-in questions. This ensures that a student's mathematically expected gain from guessing is zero. The final score is derived from the raw score; the precise conversion chart varies between test administrations.

The SAT therefore recommends only making educated guesses, that is, when the test taker can eliminate at least one answer he or she thinks is wrong. Without eliminating any answers one's probability of answering correctly is 20%. Eliminating one wrong answer increases this probability to 25% (and the expected gain to 1/16 of a point); two, a 33.3% probability (1/6 of a point); and three, a 50% probability (3/8 of a point). 
You could go even further. You don't actually have to eliminate a wrong answer to make guessing a good strategy. If you have any information about the relative likelihood of the options, guessing will have positive expected value.

The result is that, while time management for a test like the SAT can be complicated, the rule for guessing is embarrassingly simple: give your best guess for questions you read; don't waste time guessing on questions that you didn't have time to read.

The risk analysis actually becomes much more complicated when you take away the penalty for guessing. On the ACT (or the new SAT), there is a positive expected value associated with blind guessing and that value is large enough to cause trouble. Under severe time constraints (a fairly common occurrence with these tests), the minute it would take you to attempt a problem, even if you get it right, would be better spent filling in bubbles for questions you haven't read.

Putting aside what this does to the validity of the test, trying to decide when to start guessing is a real and needless distraction for test takers. In other words, just to put far too fine a point on it, the claim about the effects of the correction for guessing aren't just wrong; they are the opposite of right. The old system didn't  require time-consuming risk analysis but the new one does.

As I said in the previous post, this represents a fairly small aspect of the changes in the SAT (loss of orthogonality being a much bigger concern). Furthermore, the SAT represents a fairly small and perhaps even relatively benign part of the story of David Coleman's education reform initiatives. Nonetheless, this one shouldn't be that difficult to get right, particularly for a publication with the reputation of the New York Times.

Of course, given that this is the second recent high-profile piece from the paper to take an anti-SAT slant, it's possible certain claims weren't vetted as well as others.
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, March 25, 2022

Free speech for the first speaker

This is Joseph

In the process of pointing out actual laws limiting free speech, the New York Times manages this interesting perspective: 

Liberals — and anyone concerned with protecting free speech — are right to fight against these pernicious laws. But legal limits are not the only constraints on Americans’ freedom of speech. On college campuses and in many workplaces, speech that others find harmful or offensive can result not only in online shaming but also in the loss of livelihood. Some progressives believe this has provided a necessary, and even welcome, check on those in power. But when social norms around acceptable speech are constantly shifting and when there is no clear definition of harm, these constraints on speech can turn into arbitrary rules with disproportionate consequences

I think that this perspective is shifting between "free speech" and "consequence free speech". The first is an important way to introduce new thinking and to allow for political discourse. The second gives enormous privilege to the first speaker. 

That said, there is a lot of nuance here. For example, when teaching I can occasionally adopt an unpopular position (that I don't necessarily hold) to force students to engage with criticism. When I discussed IRBs, I ended up seeing it on teaching evaluations. It pushed me to improve how I taught the topic, as offending students is rarely the way to force them to critically evaluate assumptions (even if only to strengthen them and ground them in principle). 

It is common to want the rules to favor your own viewpoint. Newspaper opinion writers have a challenging job in which they have to create provocative opinions to generate interest but are very visible if there is a backlash. I can see why they would prefer to not face consequences for misjudgments and I am sympathetic to wanting economic security.

But the marketplace of ideas requires a robust culture of criticism. This is a fine paragraph until the last sentence:

The progressive movement in America has been a force for good in many ways: for social and racial justice, for pay equity, for a fairer system and society and for calling out hate and hate speech. In the course of their fight for tolerance, many progressives have become intolerant of those who disagree with them or express other opinions and taken on a kind of self-righteousness and censoriousness that the right long displayed and the left long abhorred. It has made people uncertain about the contours of speech: Many know they shouldn’t utter racist things, but they don’t understand what they can say about race or can say to a person of a different race from theirs. Attacking people in the workplace, on campus, on social media and elsewhere who express unpopular views from a place of good faith is the practice of a closed society.

 How do you tell that the views are coming from a place of good faith? "I am just asking questions" is a powerful bad faith rhetorical technique. Assessment of good or bad faith is going to be inherently a subjective question and there are some cases where it just strains plausibility.

For example, Loving versus Virginia (a landmark civil rights case allowing for interracial marriage) cam up in the confirmation hearings of Ketanji Brown Jackson. In context, Judge Jackson has an interracial marriage (as do many prominent figures in government/judiciary like Judge Thomas and Mitch McConnell). Consider:

When asked by a reporter whether he would consider the Supreme Court potentially striking down Roe this year to be “judicial activism,” Braun said he thought what justices did in 1973 to pass Roe was “judicial activism.”

“That issue should have never been federalized, [it was] way out of sync I think with the contour of America then,” he said. “One side of the aisle wants to homogenize [issues] federally, [and that] is not the right way to do it.”

Individual states, he said, should be able to weigh in on these issues “through their own legislation, through their own court systems.”

The same reporter asked Braun whether he would apply the same judgment to Loving, and Braun said “yes.”

“I think that that’s something that if you’re not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you’re not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too,” he said. “I think that’s hypocritical.

Now is it inappropriate to wonder why this question was asked of Judge Jackson and not Judge Barrett? Is it because people assume that Judge Barrett is against Loving v. Virginia? Or because it is settled law with broad national support and was a tool to try to rattle a candidate based on their personal situation? Or because Senator Braun was just a curious person who happened to bring up an example that shows that he holds very polarizing opinions?

I think that it is reasonable for people to critique the decision of how to spend the limited time in a Supreme Court confirmation. In other words, like a classical liberal, I am strongly in favor of Senator Braun being free to speak his mind but I am also free to change my opinion of his character (in a positive or negative way) based on his speech. Similarly, the whole point of Judge Jackson's confirmation hearing is to try and change people's opinion of her (reassuring political allies and converting political foes, one presumes). 

So I think that this perspective on free speech is not really advancing the conversation but rather erring on the side of being a bit to kind to provocative speakers. It's a big privilege to be able to be provocative (many places have not allowed it at all) but the only way it makes sense is to the ability to freely respond to the original speech. 

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, March 24, 2022

Twelve years ago at the blog -- part II

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Blockbusters, Franchises and Apostrophes

More on the economics of genre fiction

The story so far: last week Andrew Gelman had a post on a book that discussed the dominance of best seller lists and suggested that it was due to their increased quality and respectability. I argued that the quality and respectability had if anything decreased (here), posted some background information (here and here) then discussed how the economics of publishing from the late Nineteenth Century through the Post-War era had influenced genre fiction. The following closes with a look at where we are now and how the current state of the market determines what we're seeing at the bookstore.

As the market shrank in the last part of the Twentieth Century, the pay scale shifted to the feast and (mostly) famine distribution of today. (The century also saw a similar shift for musicians, artists and actors.) Non-paying outlets sprang up. Fan fiction emerged (non-licensed use of characters had, of course, been around for years -- Tiajuana bibles being a classic example -- but fan fiction was written for the author's enjoyment without any real expectation of payment). These changes are generally blamed on the internet but the conventional wisdom is at least a couple of decades off. All of these trends were well established by the Seventies.

With the loss of the short story market and the consolidation of publishing, the economics of writing on spec became brutal. Writing and trying to sell a novel represents a tremendous investment of time and energy with little hope of success. By comparison writing on spec in the Forties meant coming up with twelve to fifteen pages then sending them off to twenty or so potential markets. The best of these markets paid good money; the worst were hungry for anything publishable.

The shift from short story to novel also meant greater risk for the publisher (and, though we don't normally think of it in these terms, for the reader who also invested money and time). A back-pages story that most readers skipped over might hurt the sales and reputation of a magazine slightly but as long as the featured stories were strong, the effect would be negligible. Novels though are free-standing and the novel gets that gets skipped over is the novel that goes unsold.

When Gold Medal signed John. D. MacDonald they knew were getting a skilled, prolific writer with a track record artistically and commercially successful short fiction. The same could be said about the signing of Donald Westlake, Lawrence Block, Joe Gores and many others. Publishing these first time authors was a remarkably low risk proposition.

Unfortunately for publishers today, there are no potential first time authors with those resumes. Publishers now have to roll the dice on inexperienced writers of unknown talent and productivity. In response to that change, they have taken various steps to mitigate the risk.

One response was the rise of the marketable blockbuster. The earliest example I can think of is the book Lace by Shirley Conran. If memory serves, Lace got a great deal of attention in the publishing world for Conran's huge advance, her lack of fiction-writing experience, and the role marketing played in the process. The general feeling was that the tagline ("Which one of you bitches is my mother? ") came first while the book itself was merely an afterthought.

More recently we have Dexter, a marketer's dream ("He's a serial killer who kills serial killers... It's torture porn you can feel good about!"). The author had a few books in his resume but nothing distinguished. The most notable was probably a collaboration with Star Trek actor Michael Dorn. The first book in the series, Darkly Dreaming Dexter was so poorly constructed that all of the principals had to act completely out of character to resolve the plot (tip for new authors: when a character casually overlooks her own attempted vivisection, it's time for a rewrite*).

The problems with the quality of the novel had no apparent effect on sales, nor did it prevent the character from appearing in a successful series of sequels and being picked up by Showtime (The TV show was handled by far more experienced writers who managed to seal up almost all of the plot holes).

The point here is not that Darkly Dreaming Dexter was a bad book or that publishing standards have declined. The point is that the economics have changed. Experienced fiction writers are more rare. Marketable concepts and franchises are more valuable, as is synergy with other media. The markets are smaller. There are fewer players. And much of the audience has a troublesome form of brand loyalty.

Normally of course brand loyalty is a plus, but books are an unusual case. If you convince a Coke drinker to also to drink Sprite you probably won't increase his overall soda consumption; you'll just have cannibalization. But readers who stick exclusively with one writer are severely underconsuming. Convince James Patterson readers to start reading Dean Koontz and you could double overall sales.

When most readers got their fiction either through magazines or by leafing through paperback racks, it was easy to introduce them to new writers. Now the situation is more difficult. One creative solution has been apostrophe series such as Tom Clancy's Op Center. Other people are credited with actually writing the books but the name above the title is there for branding purposes.

Which all leads us back to the original question: Why did thrillers become so dominant?

They tend to be easily marketable.

They are compatible with franchises.

They lend themselves to adaptation as big budget action movies.

Their somewhat impersonal style makes them suitable for ghosting or apostrophe branding.

They are, in short, they are what the market is looking for. As for me, I'm looking for the next reprint from Hard Case, but I might borrow the latest Turow after you're done with it.


* "Is that a spoiler?"
"No, sir. It was spoiled when I got here."
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, March 23, 2022

Twelve years ago at the blog -- part I

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

The Decline of the Middle (Creative) Class

I suggested in an earlier post that the rise to dominance of the thriller had not been accompanied by a rise in quality and reputation. In this and the next post, I'll try to put some foundations under this claim.

Popular art is driven by markets and shifts in popular art can always be traced back, at least partly, to economic, social and technological developments as well as changes in popular taste. The emergence of genre fiction followed the rise of the popular magazine (check here for more). Jazz hit its stride as the population started moving to cities. Talking pictures replaced silents when the technology made them possible.

Crime fiction, like science fiction first appeared in response to demand from general interest magazines like the Strand then moved into genre specific magazines like Black Mask and a few years later, cheap paperbacks. The demand for short stories was so great that even a successful author like Fitzgerald saw them as a lucrative alternative to novels. There was money to be made and that money brought in a lot of new writers.

It seems strange to say it now but for much of the Twentieth Century, it was possible to make a middle class living as a writer of short fiction. It wasn't easy; you had to write well and type fast enough to melt the keys but a surprisingly large number of people managed to do it.

Nor were writers the only example of the new creative middle class. According to Rosy McHargue (reported by music historian Brad Kay) in 1925 there were two hundred thousand professional musicians in the United States. Some were just scraping by, but many were making a good living. (keep in mind that many restaurants, most clubs and all theaters had at least one musician on the payroll.) Likewise, the large number of newspapers and independent publishers meant lots of work for graphic artists.

I don't want to wax too nostalgic for this era. Sturgeon's Law held firmly in place: 95% of what was published was crap. But it was the market for crap that made the system work. It provided the freelance equivalent of paid training -- writers could start at least partially supporting themselves while learning their craft, and it mitigated some of the risk of going into the profession -- even if you turned out not to be good enough you could still manage food and shelter while you were failing.

It was also a remarkably graduated system, one that rewarded quality while making room for the aforementioned crap. The better the stories the better the market and the higher the acceptance rate. In 1935, Robert E. Howard made over $2,000 strictly through magazine sales. Later, as the paperback market grew, writers at the very top like Ray Bradbury or John O'Hara would also see their stories collected in book form.

Starting with Gold Medal Books, paperback originals became a force in 1950. This did cut into the magazine market and hastened the demise of the pulps but it made it easier than ever before to become a novelist. It was more difficult (though still possible) to make a living simply by selling short stories, but easier to make the transition to longer and more lucrative works.

It was, in short, a beautifully functioning market with an almost ideal compensation system for a freelance based industry. It produced some exceptionally high quality products that have generated billions of dollars and continue to generate them in resales and adaptations (not to mention imitations and unlicensed remakes). This includes pretty much every piece of genre fiction you can think written before 1970.

The foundation of that system, the short story submarket, is essentially dead and the economics and business models of the rest of the publishing industry has changed radically leading to the rise of marketing, the blockbuster mentality and what I like to call the Slim Jim conundrum.

Tune in next time.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, March 22, 2022

"The explainers I found were bad — boring, biased, inaccessible" and if they can do it, why can't I?


This is bad, but it's bad in an instructive way for anyone who would like to understand the coverage of crypto, NYT's credulous attitude toward tech trends, bothsidesing, and the career of Kevin Roose. 
It would probably take more than 14,000 words to go through all the problems with this. I'm trying to get Joseph in on the discussion, but even between the two of us, I doubt we can do a comprehensive job of it. For tonight, the best I can do is give you a quick tweet-level view. 

[Before we go on, the phrase "the casino is a trojan horse with a new financial system hidden inside” needs to be singled out for special praise.]


[When I said "Given enough time and money, there's no question something along these general lines would work," I meant a maglev vactrain. Musk's air-caster idea was so bad that all the "hyperloop" companies quietly dropped it immediately. Not a penny of those hundreds of millions of capital raised have been spent developing Musk's actual proposal. All they kept was the name.]   

"A balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality." — Norm Ornstein


Every good tech puff piece has to have a historical example of skeptics doubting some earlier revolutionary technology. These examples generally range from unrepresentative to complete bullshit. 

Here's a more thoughtful thread on this section.

Editors also love to see some hot strange bedfellows action, even if you have to fudge a few details.

Nor does the piece end on a strong note.


We have by no means mined out Roose's explainer -- everywhere you swing a pick, you're likely to hit paydirt -- and we seem to be less than halfway through the project.
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, March 21, 2022

Someone saw Double Indemnity and thought "what a great concept for a life insurance ad"


Sure, we've all thought it, but we didn't expect them to just come out and say it.




There's a long and very mixed history for edgy advertising. If done with a light touch it can be effective. Secret Weapon, until recently the company behind Jack in the Box's long running campaigns, was a master of hitting just the right balance.




Really edgy ad campaigns are often built around the theory that name recognition, particularly for a new company, is necessary and initially sufficient and the best way to achieve that is with an ad that gets everybody talking. Apple's "1984" was only tangentially related to the Macintosh PC, and yet it often routinely lands on lists of the best television commercials.

Of course, "1984" was in one sense highly traditional. It associated the product with positive things: freedom, self-expression, empowerment. What happens when a campaign focuses on nothing but making an impression?

We have at least one prominent example that debuted during the 1999 Superbowl. Anybody remember Outpost.com?




At least in this case, things didn't work out that well.


Posted by at No comments:

Friday, March 18, 2022

Weekend Web3 notes

First, Ben McKenzie gives an excellent interview on crypto from the very heart of the trendiness beast. 




Next is a conversation with a software and dev ops engineer named Geoffrey Huntley who has "stolen" all the NFTs available through the Ethereum and Solana blockchains. It's all part of a satirical art project to educate people about what NFTs are and, more importantly, are not. Coffeezilla is a YouTuber who specializes in uncovering get-rich-quick gurus who make up much of the advertising on the platform (including on his own channel because that's how the algorithm works).





The innate absurdity of stealing NFTs was also the subject of this Colbert sketch.






We'll let John Wick have the last word.



Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, March 17, 2022

Two alternatives to daylight saving time, one of which is just silly

First, from XKCD:



I come from a nocturnal family, so we had a strong preference for falling back over springing forward. My father insisted that after losing that hour, he never felt right till he got it back. If anything, I feel the same only stronger.

We currently have a system that's pretty good in the fall but which sucks in the spring, which raises the question, why not just keep the good part? If we gain an hour twice a month, we'll get twenty-four 49 hour weekends, we'll all be well-rested and at the end of the year, we'll be back where we started.

Who's with me? 


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)