Regarding Disqus & Social Well-Being

Zeta Global

Context

Yesterday I discussed my triple. I got blocked on three major radical right, alt-reality and alt-reason websites. I guess that Biden's pick of Kamala Harris set off threat sensors on the radical right.

The complaint

I unleashed a minor blast at Zeta Global earlier today. The response so far is zero, no surprise. Maybe later today a deceptive burp will come forth. Maybe not.

Who is Zeta Global? Glad you asked. It owns Disqus.

What is Disqus? Good question. ZG describes itself like this:

"Zeta Global has continued to double down on data, AI and omnichannel activation capabilities by organically developing and strategically acquiring cutting-edge marketing technology. We are one of the first companies to successfully implement industry-leading innovations in big data and AI to be the recognized leader in the convergence of marketing and advertising technology. 

Today, Zeta Global has offices on four continents, serving over 1000+ enterprise clients such as: Samsung, Toyota and Sprint. Our data-powered marketing technology platform houses the third largest data set in the marketplace (2.4B+ identities) and combines with outcome-driven AI to predict consumer intent, personalize experiences across every channel and power business growth for Fortune 1000 companies."

It sounds really big, but it employs less than 1500 people. What does ZG do? It does what Facebook, Google, Apple and most everyone else who is online seems to do. It collects and sells your data. It sells you and me. On December 5, 2017, Zeta Global acquired Disqus. The news of the acquisition was announced in a blog post by Disqus, apparently signalling a penchant for corporate secrecy.

OK, what were you whining about this time?

Good question. Over the years, I've filed about 3 or 4 complaints, mostly about loss of upvotes. Today's blast was about social damage flowing from the Disqus comment platform.[1] Specifically, the damage was related to two deeply flawed aspects of the Disqus comment system, upvotes and downvotes. Since I have complained twice about the upvote problem, today's blast was mostly related to downvotes. Both contribute to the same serious social problem that is tearing Americans apart today.

What social problem? Belief the problem that belief by millions of Americans in disinformation causes. My rationale is explained in footnote 1 below.

OK, what do you base that crackpot theory on?

Another good question. I do not have solid evidence, but others have come to conclude about the same thing. The blog Shelly and Friends said this about that sometime last year:

"The downvotes do effect the persons Disqus reputation and though it makes the publisher have to whitelist a lot more people due to the false information it adds to Disqus's statistics, it does far more harm to Disqus by making their statistics and using those for literally anything, totally invalid and turns them into garbage statistics that is of zero use to anyone."

In short, both the hackability of people's upvotes to drain them all way and, the abuseability of down votes to pile them on, on the Disqus comment system both contribute to maintenance and strengthening of echo chambers where disinformation can live, grow and thrive and where social damage occurs.

As I have argued here before based on the historical record and a lifetime of personal experience, most (not all) American capitalism is usually not about helping society or average people. It is usually about making as much money as possible, as fast as possible, legal or not. In that cauldron, social well-being, the environment, democracy and honest governance be damned to to hell. But to be fair and balanced, there are many exceptions. Many businesses honestly try to give help their employees and vendors and/or be serious about social concerns. Many are beyond the cynical lip service that most big businesses try to con us into believing they stand for.

Questions: Is that too idealistic to constitute a complaint that an honest, serious person should take seriously? Is there a flaw(s) in the facts and/or reasoning? Too little evidence?


Footnote:
1.  Here is my complaint in it's entirety and here is the link: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/channel-discussdisqus/bug_reports_feedback_downvote_abuse_social_damage/ :

Wednesday, August 12, 2020 

On partisan politics sites, some of the partisans routinely downvote truthful comments that are inconvenient. Some of those partisans follow the person making inconvenient comments and downvote every comment, regardless of what it is. That makes downvotes a powerful tool for ideologically cleansing partisan sites, because the accumulated downvotes leads to honest commenters being blocked. From what I can tell, none of those sites ever whitelist inconvenient commenters. The people who own such partisan sites want ideological purity. They do not want inconvenient truths or reasoning to be present in the comments. 

In essence, what this does is it makes it easy to keep a site ideologically cleansed. The administrators or moderators don't have to do anything to keep inconvenient content from appearing at all. In turn, that fortifies false narratives that some sites routinely promulgate as "news". In turn, that disinformation tends to further polarizes and deceive the audience. What that boils down to is social damage that is caused by downvote abuse. 

Both downvotes and upvotes should be completely eliminated to foster free information flow among people who want knowledge and not divisive ideological or partisan fantasies and disinformation. People who lost their upvotes due to whatever caused that disaster cannot comment on sites that ignore or do not want to whitelist those people. Now, commenters themselves can further limit exposure to inconvenient truth by just downvoting comments they dislike for any reason or no reason. 

Given the abuses and social damage it causes, why downvotes exist in the Disqus system is incomprehensible from a social well-being point of view. Whatever value some people see in downvoting is far outweighed by the social damage that comes from reinforcing partisan disinformation sources. In view of the large size of Disqus, this is a significant social problem.

Of course, the unspoken criticism is this: What arguably is abuse from the social well-being point of view is good from the Zeta Global corporate well-being (profit) point of view. Zeta wants big sites to be able to keep their big political sites ideologically cleansed from reality- and reason-based inconveniences (mostly facts, truth and sound reason) if that is what they want. That freedom to discriminate inconvenient against reality and reason increases Zeta's revenue flow.

Zeta folks - aw, they're nice

I Hit a Triple Today

As some of you may recall, I decided to try to engage with the radical right. I chose three big sites, Breitbart, Town Hall and the Daily Caller to try to engage with. In response to Biden's pick of Harris, I figured it is be a great time to inject a contrarian view. I was right that it is a very good time to inject a contrarian view.

Apparently, all three sites decided they have had enough of me and blocked my comments. It looks like I have to find more radical right sites. Sigh.

This adds to evidence that the radical right is no longer willing to tolerate dissenting facts or opinions. This tells me they are now all in on their run at building an American dictatorship built on demagoguery, irrational fear and irrational intolerance.

Town Hall - I tried twice, then gave up 
(but they did let me respond to another person's 
criticism of Harris as a slut)

The Daily Caller

Breitbart

I bought my first gun because I no longer feel safe in America | Solomon Jones

 In the first half of 2020, gun purchases by African Americans increased by 58% over the same period last year. That’s a bigger increase than any other group, according to a study by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearm industry’s trade organization.

I’m not surprised. I’m one of the Black people who bought a gun for the first time this year.

Though I spent my teen years in North Philly during the rise of crack-driven violence in the ’80s and ’90s, I’ve never been a proponent of guns. Not because I was against their use. I just never believed I needed one.

But that’s changed over the last few years.

I still believe I’m fairly safe among Black people. I think my family is, too. However, in a time of economic and medical strife, with a president who regularly engages in racial rhetoric that paints Black and brown people as the other, I’m concerned about what the future may hold. To be blunt, President Donald Trump has emboldened America’s racists, and I’ve come to the conclusion that it would be irresponsible to leave my family defenseless.

I didn’t come to this decision easily. When my children were younger, my wife and I determined that we wouldn’t have guns in our home. It was too dangerous to do so with little ones afoot, and our East Mount Airy community was relatively safe. Yes, there were property crimes that served as nuisances, but serious violence was rare, and our home was a place of peace.

I’ve also worked hard to stop gun violence through my work with ManUpPHL, an organization I founded to provide mentoring and resources to men who are at risk of becoming victims or perpetrators of gun crimes. That’s why, when I walked into a gun store and underwent a background check to legally purchase a gun, I did so with the knowledge that I was entering into a pact with my community. I knew I was making an unspoken agreement that I would never use my gun to engage in anything other than my responsibility as a husband and father, the responsibility to defend and protect those I love.

While I continue to feel safe in my home and community, America as a whole has grown increasingly dangerous for Black people under the leadership of Donald Trump. At first, it was just rhetoric that painted Mexicans as criminals and rapists. Then it was the notion that there were very fine people among the neo-Nazis who marched to protect a Confederate monument in Charlottesville, Va. Then it was the assertion that Black people came from s—hole countries, that monuments to slavery should be protected, and most recently, that federal agents should be called in to quell protests against racism.

All of this has emboldened those who hate Black people. We’ve seen their racist actions as they’ve called the police on Blacks for perceived infractions like barbecuing, or sleeping, or birdwatching while Black. We’ve seen white supremacists like Dylann Roof commit mass murders against Black people. We’ve seen them challenge government in places like Michigan with heavily armed protests that looked more like Klan rallies than demonstrations against coronavirus restrictions.

As a student of history, I’m concerned that in a time of economic hardship and overall uncertainty, such people will do what has historically been the norm. They will look for others to blame. Jews were the other in Hitler’s Germany, and Muslims were the other after 9/11, for too many Americans. As has been the case throughout American history, Black people are the other right now.

One glaring difference gives me some reason to hope. I’ve seen white allies take to the streets to protest against racial injustice. I’ve spoken with white pastors who’ve rejected the racist practice of segregated worship. I’ve seen much of America willing to listen to the views of those who’ve been oppressed.

Still, this reality remains. In Trump’s America, there is an emboldened and heavily armed faction that believes in racist ideology, and while I believe they’re vastly outnumbered by fair-minded people, they are here. But so am I, and I’m not going anywhere.

I hope I never have to use my gun to protect my family, especially since Black people who are legal gun owners risk being harmed by police who see them as threats to be eliminated rather than citizens to be assisted.

Still, as long as racists have the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, I will be practicing that right, too.

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/gun-purchase-increase-2020-african-americans-black-20200804.html

Dumping All Over American Trucks Goes Mainstream

 

It's not just a bunch of enviro hippies anymore

Two recent articles in not your usual sources of environmental news give me hope that the tide is turning for SUVs and pickups.

After a British organization recently proposed Treating SUVs Like Cigarettes and Banning Advertising I suggested that this wasn't enough; we had to learn from the entire anti-tobacco campaign, which not only banned ads but also regulated cigarettes and perhaps most importantly, made smokers into social pariahs. Cigarettes were no longer a personal choice but became "everybody's business."

The usual suspects like Treehugger or Streetsblog have been railing against light trucks (the proper name for SUVs and pickups) forever, but now, complaints about light trucks are everybody's business. An article by Ryan Cooper in The Week is interesting for a number of reasons. Titled The case against American truck bloat, Cooper uses humor and sarcasm to reinforce his case. Cooper notes, as we have, that the main reason for the jump in pedestrian deaths has been the proliferation of light trucks, and wonders why.

Trucks and SUVs do not make up 70 percent of automobile sales nowadays because Americans are now 70 percent contractors and HVAC repairmen. Nor has the average pickup gained 730 pounds since 2000 because 100 million people have taken up cattle ranching. The vast majority of SUV and truck drivers would have driven a sedan in previous ages, and for these people it's about looks, power, speed, and perceived safety for drivers. Thinking about pedestrians might upset this comfortable arrangement.

 In fact, if you look around, most HVAC contractors drive Ford Transits or Sprinter style vans, designed to European safety standards with low pedestrian-absorbing front ends and good visibility.

Both designs could have the boxes chopped off and be turned into great pickups, just like Volkswagen did decades ago, but that's not what people are buying. Cooper notes that the big front end is entirely a marketing gimmick:

Don't take it from me, take it from the guy who designed the latest GM Sierra HD: "The front end was always the focal point... we spent a lot of time making sure that when you stand in front of this thing it looks like it's going to come get you. It's got that pissed-off feel."

Cooper blames the automakers for "deliberately ranking insecure faux-macho looks over the safety of pedestrians as well as regulators for failing to rein them in" instead of having sloping noses with good visibility. When he tweeted about this he caught criticism from the likes of Ted Cruz and others who love their trucks.

Conservatives were quick to inform me that only beta male soyboys could possibly drive such a vehicle. It seems thousands of dead pedestrians — who are incidentally about 70 percent men — is just the price to be paid so the right can have another postmodern culture-war grievance in their eternal quest to own the libs.

 It's probably a stretch to call The Week a mainstream publication, but the article is getting spread around because it wasn't paywalled. Dan Neil also wrote a great article in the paywalled Wall Street Journal on the same subject, also with a bit of humor. This is key; in my writing, I am often sanctimonious, but Neil and Cooper make the drivers of these things look like insecure weenies.

Dan Neil explains how pickups changed from working vehicles to a different profile of customer:

That’s right: Gucci cow­boys. His­tor­i­cally aimed at com­mer­cial cus­tomers, sole pro­pri­etors, horse-haulers and mega-RVers, heavy-duty pick­ups are stronger and taller than or­di­nary (half-ton) trucks, with cabs mounted high above re­in­forced frame rails and heavy, long-travel sus­pen­sions. But HD trucks have evolved in the past decade, ir­ra­di­ated with the same pres­tige-lux­ury rays as light-duty trucks.

 He also blames the marketers for this, with one noting that “The face of these trucks is where the ac­tion is; a Ford has to say Ford from head-on, a Chevy must shout Chevy. Every pickup has be­come a rolling brand bill­board and the bill­boards are big.”

You don’t have to be Steven Pinker to see that truck de­sign­ers are lean­ing into the bully with these lantern-jawed bumpers and walls of chrome. De­troit’s blithe cod­i­fi­ca­tions of pur­pose­ful and pow­er­ful pickup de­sign fail to de­scribe the in­tim­i­da­tion fac­tor from the out­side.

The Pinker reference is significant, given that he studies mental imagery, shape recognition and visual attention. Both Neil and Cooper are writing in the same week, pretty much the same story: Pickups are all about image, about marketing, about being in your face.

There are many who will defend pickups for their practicality; one justified it in comments on the last post saying "I need my SUV/Pickup to tow my boat/trailer/ATV/jetski/snowmobiles which I do every weekend, and I need it to carry 4+ people with all their luggage for 1-to-20 days over 200+ km long trips." I can't argue with that but suspect that people like this are few and far between. Another commenter was true to form, noting that "pickups are very useful"– for crushing protesters' bicycles in Portland.

Both of these articles are important because they change the approach from complaining about the safety or the fuel consumption and carbon footprint of pickups, but instead, talk about the people who buy them and the motivations that drive them. About the marketing, and the need to look intimidating.

This could be the beginning of the end for the pickup truck, when non-Treehugger types write in non-treehuggerish publications about how silly these trucks are. They could finally become socially unacceptable and turn into a niche sideshow, the vehicle of choice for the anti-mask brigade.

https://www.treehugger.com/crapping-all-over-american-trucks-goes-mainstream-5074162

Contact Tracing Is Not Working Very Well

The New York Times published an article (not behind a paywall) that describes what a contact tracer in Los Angeles is facing. People are either amazingly unaware of their daily lives and/or fearful of giving out information for whatever reason, or maybe no reason. If what the NYT reported is reasonably representative of what contact tracers everywhere in the US are facing, we probably cannot effectively trace COVID-19 infections in this country.

This is an example of what can happen after decades of right wing propaganda sowing distrust in government, i.e., people distrust government.

Here are a couple of examples of how people are responding, or more accurately, often failing to respond:

Case 2
Two attempted calls.
Telephone call at 11 a.m. Unable to complete interview since case had a “work call” to attend to. Telephone call on 7/29 at 10 a.m. to conduct interview. Case stated that roommate has tested positive, but not sure about exposure. Denied any other contacts outside of household. Case thinks exposure may be from going to the beach, and denied any other contact/exposure. Case provided roommate information to be contacted by Contact Tracer.

Case 5
Seven attempted calls.
Left voice message at 9:16 a.m., and again at 2:05 p.m. Able to contact patient at 3:25 p.m. and call dropped mid-interview. Case was anxious about getting “excuse” for work. Reassured that Health Officer Order may be of assistance. Called back and voice message again. 7/29 Checked work voice mail and have a message from case. Telephone call on 7/29 at 10:44 a.m. and left message. Attempted to connect with case and left message at 11:56 a.m. Attempted to contact case at 2:07 p.m. and left voice message. Attempted to contact case at 4:02 p.m. and left message. 

Case 8
Two attempted calls.
Left voice message at 11:08 a.m. Attempted to contact case and able to conduct interview after lunch. Case is an elderly lady who lives alone. Tested positive prior to a medical procedure. Assured me that her family is doing the “right thing” to stop the spread by testing and “cleaning everything.” Case was very thankful for the phone call, and listened attentively, but was adamant about NOT providing contact information.

Case 11
One attempted call.
Family member of case #11. May have been exposed at workplace. Able to add other household members who have not tested nor have symptoms. Was not comfortable to provide individual cell number, and preferred to have case #11 cell number since they live in same household. Case was gracious enough to help with some contact information, and able to gain essential information to and connect to positive cases.

Lebanon's Tragedy: Government Corruption and Incompetence

Government incompetence and corruption caused the explosion. This is what society looks like when government is corrupt, and incompetent political leadership is in charge.

The New York Times comments on the Lebanon incompetence:

Since an orphaned shipment of highly explosive chemicals arrived at the port of Beirut in 2013, Lebanese officials treated it the way they have dealt with the country’s lack of electricity, poisonous tap water and overflowing garbage: by bickering and hoping the problem might solve itself.

But the 2,750 tons of high-density ammonium nitrate combusted Tuesday, officials said, unleashing a shock wave on the Lebanese capital that gutted landmark buildings, killed 135 people, wounded at least 5,000 and rendered hundreds of thousands of residents homeless.

The ship carrying the chemicals was en route to Mozambique when it was detained in Beirut. A Lebanese court impounded the cargo, so the ammonium nitrate was transferred to a port hangar.

Over the next six years, port officials repeatedly asked the judge to find a way to get rid of the chemicals.

In a 2016 letter, they cited “the serious danger posed by keeping this shipment in the warehouses in an inappropriate climate” and asked that it be dealt with “to preserve the safety of the port and its workers.”

The port’s director, Hassan Koraytem, said that port officials were told the materials would be auctioned off, but the auction never happened and the judiciary ignored the port authority’s letters.

He said he was unaware of the power of the chemicals so the port took no special precautions to protect them.

“Now we are living a national catastrophe,” he said. “There is no more port.”

Judicial officials could not be reached for comment.

Ah yes, the tried and true could not be reached for comment tactic. It is the favorite of crooks, liars, demagogues, tyrants, goons, politicians and corporate criminals when faced with questions they do not want to answer. There ought to be a law against it, but there isn't.

Also, the good 'ole bickering and hoping the problem might solve itself tactic is also a big hit among the corrupt, the incompetent and authoritarians who refuse to compromise to get something done. Very popular.

What's left of a small business in Beirut

What's let of the port in Beirut

The GOP and our president are similarly incompetent. Comparable incompetence and accompanying slaughter happened in 2013 in GOP controlled-America. The incompetence happened to the town called West, which is in Texas. That corruption and incompetence killed 15, injured about 160 and flattened some buildings.

West, Texas - after GOP anti-government ideology and 
a corrupt no-regulation mindset has been in place for enough years

Questions: When, if ever it is moral and justified to resort to illegal, violent protest in the face of "too much" government corruption and/or incompetence? Does it depend on how many die in a spectacular blast, or can a slow, accumulation of corpses also count, e.g., George Floyd? How does one define "too much"?