Marissa Mayer's changes at Yahoo!, 2012-2013

Here's an excerpt from an upcoming book about Mayer and the history of Yahoo! If this account is accurate, she made changes that are very similar to Google practices, but I guess that's the only other company she's worked for - so no big surprise.

• She tried to increase mgmt. transparency and communication, so she started a series of Friday afternoon townhalls called "FYIs" (Google's meetings are on Thursdays and called "TGIFs")
• The food and drink at Yahoo! are free and high quality (I believe they were not free in the past?)
• She implemented a goals-based quarterly performance review process ("QPRs", called "OKRs" at Google) with fixed %s of workers allocated to each ratings tier (and repeat low performers would be let go)

QPRs are the biggest source of employee complaints now. It's possible that the Yahoo! system is closer to Microsoft's (that was abandoned after Ballmer left, due to myriad problems and perverse incentives). 

• When FTEs are uniformly stack-ranked vs. immediate peers, the company risks punishing the "weakest" high performers on strong teams, and rewarding the "best" slackers on poor teams
• The best talent didn't want to work together (harder to get top rating), and focused on specific projects that had the best chance of making them look good
• Due to calibration (where higher managers could unilaterally change ratings for workers they barely knew so their teams would fit the target distribution), resentment and workplace politics increased - meaning less time spent on actual work
• The quarterly rankings left little room for error and set people up for disappointment: an FTE who was rated misses/misses/meets/meets may still get fired, even if (s)he was showing diligence and improvement, and an FTE who was rated exceeds/exceeds/meets/exceeds might not get promoted

Mayer earned some love for refusing carry out massive layoffs (~30-50% staff) that the Board and others were calling for (she did conduct some small layoffs and product sunsets). However, some commented on Glassdoor that she carried out "stealth layoffs" instead. By eliminating WFH and implementing QPR attrition, Yahoo! likely encouraged less committed folks to leave, fired the ostensible low performers, and saved money by not having to pay severance. I am not sure how much their headcount has shrunk since Mayer joined, but some Yahoos are not happy that the salary saved from the stealth layoffs might have been spent to recruit new talent with comp packages much higher than what veteran Yahoos were making. And the stricter promo reqs of QPR makes it harder for veteran Yahoos to advance and get raises too.

Yahoo! needed to cut some dead weight, motivate the staff, and recruit new talent to revitalize their business. Mayer seemed to carry that out with some success, but there were morale and priorities consequences. I'm not saying that turning Yahoo! around is an easy task (others have tried before Mayer), and you can't please everyone, but it may be hard to accurately estimate the net benefits of her policies because there are so many complex repercussions.

Apple and Facebook offer employees egg freezing benefit

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/upshot/egg-freezing-as-a-work-benefit-some-women-see-darker-message.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

News broke that Apple and Facebook provide a new benefit to female employees: they will cover the costs of egg freezing up to $20K. Bloomberg Businessweek says this is the "great equalizer" to "liberate" women, but I call BS. It is pretty disturbing to me for several reasons.

We know that tech is fairly misogynist and gender-unequal, especially in leadership and technical roles. Despite Sanberg's "Lean In" evangelism, most FB leaders are male (the major female execs are her, and in the HR dept). Apple and Google are similar. I don't know if the egg freezing benefit is the most crucial thing that women in tech (or prospective women) need now. In this 2011 list, Apple-FB-Google did not make the top 100 best companies to work for as a mom, despite offering great mat-leave, health care, and subsidized onsite day care. Why? Because the stress and workloads are not worth it. You can set up massage and watering stations at each mile of a Marathon course, but it's still a painful grueling Marathon.

What is the egg freezing signaling? A cynic (like me) would conclude that Apple/FB wants its women to fully focus on work (and work super hard) during their fertile younger years (~25-35). Just like their concierge and commute benefits, this is another way that workers don't have to be bothered by "real life", and can just stay in the work bubble thinking about company goals and their career growth all the time (you know, the truly important things in life). They are all about hacking and disrupting everything, so why can't they disrupt family planning too? Who says you can't have it all as a working mom?

But here's the thing, we know that it's illegal for employers to ask about or discriminate based on family. When a worker decides to start a family, often their career trajectory changes permanently, and managers may subtly or overtly perceive them differently from then on. It's only natural. So the egg freezing is a form of insurance, if you will. Those firms hired supposedly child-less younger women. They may be in relationships, but they will mostly be available for the firm 50-80 hrs/week and ~49 weeks/year. That is what the company expects when it hires. So the egg benefit prolongs that arrangement, for a measly sum of $20K (compare that to 1-6 months mat-leave, and all the lost productivity from childcare responsibilities, illnesses, etc. thereafter). And later when the egg freezer decides to finally start a family, the company can marginalize her to a lesser role, eventually replacing her with a man/new young woman. She's already contributed her value to the firm, now she can "go to pasture" and be a mom at Yahoo or Intel.

I could be underestimating Si Valley snobbery, but I think the # of women who will use this benefit will be small, and the # of women thawing their eggs later to start a family even smaller. Biologically, it's more likely they will have kids naturally. But for those who do choose to freeze and have a family via IVF, it won't be a cake walk either. Success rates are under 20% per egg. The mom might be 35-45 at that point. The older you get, the harder it is to deal with the physical strains of motherhood (unless they plan to nanny everything like Marisa Meyer). And by then they would be mid-career, with even more responsibilities and stress vs. their 20's. So is that a better time to start a family? Sure they'll be richer, but it may also be harder to transition from office rock-star to working mommy. So is the egg benefit just a scam from Apple and FB, tricking talented younger women to postpone their family plans to their detriment? And I don't know if there is data on it, but I wonder if child outcomes are different when the parents are older or younger. Of course teen parents are not preferable either, but I wonder if there is such a thing as "too old". Kids will still need their parents when they are 20-30, and it's just harder when they are geriatric by then. 

Lastly, what about the whole cryo-egg/IVF approach? Obviously it is not an option for most women, and is generally monopolized by wealthier white/Asian people (which tech is too). Will this further the rich-poor & racial gaps? Older pregnancies are a larger health risk for both mother and child. One option is a surrogate mom (pay a younger, poorer lady to carry your fetus - she's just renting out her excess capacity like AirBnB, right?). That is such a First World Problem: build vs. buy right? Outsource the non-value-add stuff, so you can focus on making money. Never compromise, innovate to have your cake and eat it too.

But it also reeks of exploitation. It's kind of sick - search for "surrogate mother" and you get a bunch of ads and sites trying to recruit wombs. Obviously demand > supply, especially with the rise of the Chinese upper class. And older couples who want to conceive will often pay any price. Those with medical need should have access to IVF, but what about those who elected to delay parenthood for their careers? That is kind of like paying to jump the line at Disneyland, or for organ donation. Clearly such procedures like IVF are not equal-opportunity, but the poor have the opposite problem - they sometime have too many kids because of lack of education and access to affordable contraception (as we discussed previously during the Hobby Lobby ruling).

There is even "surrogacy tourism" where Western couples lease a Third World womb (really, are they that cheap that they have to offshore it?). A case in Thailand made the headlines because an AUS couple may have "abandoned" one of their twins after discovering he had Down's (they left him with the surrogate Thai mom and returned home with the "desirable" twin). This is just one incident, but you can imagine the ethical and legal minefield that surrogacy presents.

All the sci-fi stuff from our childhood like Brave New World and Gattaca seem to be getting too close for comfort. Those in the "elite" class get all the privileges and get to lead charmed lives (yes, you can have it all when you work for Apple/FB!), and the rest of humanity just serves them, with the narrow/false hope of joining their ranks some day.

-----

This may also be a symptom of the competitiveness of silicon valley.  What else can you offer once money, food, on site massage, etc is covered?  The incentives are only going to get weirder at this point.

-----

I agree that there is an "arms race" re: employee benefits to attract good talent, but remember that Google, Apple, and maybe some others got sued for anti-competitive practices (no engineer poaching collusion to keep comp in check), but FB was not involved. So I guess several forces are affecting benefits. Supposedly US raises are being depressed by the rising costs of health coverage too.

If you took a poll at Apple on what new/enhanced benefits the workforce really wants, I doubt that egg freezing would be high on the list. I think it was a pet project by some HR person to "be innovative" and make some news. I assume the workforce really wants (1) more pay, (2) more vacation (true vacation, as in totally unplugged time), (3) more flex time, and (4) more coaching/training/career dev, not necessarily in that order. But most employers won't budge on that stuff. Speaking of vacation, some companies like Netflix offer unlimited paid vacation. But as you can imagine, this could have the opposite effect (workers scared to ask for a lot of time off, and without a vacation stipend, the firm saves money by not paying out unused balance).

There are some "nefarious benefits" that actually benefit the firm more than the worker. Like offering free dinner - that could encourage workers to stay later (with no OT pay) and the company gets a little more productivity out of them (even if they goof off much of that time). It got so bad at EA that workers sued to reclaim OT and become hourly workers, so at least they get comped for their longer hours. So I think the egg freezing is part of that - it delays family life, which benefits the company possibly at the expense of the worker. 

Silicon Valley as a preview of America's future, for better or worse

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/FEDERAL-JUDGE-NSA-Program-Exposed-By-Snowden-5069183.php

First of all, is Snowden the runaway favorite for person of the year 2013? I can't think of anyone else who affected US society more (and likely for the better). A Federal judge ruled that the arbitrary, blanket collection of Americans' phone metadata is likely unconstitutional (unreasonable search, violation of reasonable expectations of privacy) and ineffective (no clear evidence it was critical to preventing attacks). Of course the WH and NSA disagree.

----

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/12/16/251608120/exploring-economic-inequality-from-heart-of-the-tech-boom

NPR is starting a series on Si Valley as a microcosm for the changing US economy and society. We've addressed some of these issues before regarding wealth inequality and the Bay Area housing market. Apparently some protesters recently blocked a Google bus in SF, complaining that the private buses were using MUNI stops without paying the city any fees. It's clearly part of a bigger sentiment of resentment, and part of the general debate regarding who is taking more of their fair share from society. Should those being priced out of SF "get with the program" and develop the skills needed to be able to afford living there? Or should the tech elites come down from their privileged position in society and contribute their fair share to helping the less fortunate? Or both?

As a tech employee (peon status) and longtime CA resident, I am really torn by all of this. I don't want the Bay Area to become "Facebookville" or "Elysium" where droves of poor, bitter service workers support the aloof upper class minority. But then again, we depend on disruption, competition, and innovation to win in the market, or we will suffer the same fate as Detroit. I think we can innovate and win, but also spread the benefits around so that the entire region and populace is better off. Yes, the rich should be taxed more.

Disruption is a double-edged sword. A dedicated team works like hell to address an unmet need or overcome some entrenched inefficiency, so they and their investors can be paid handsomely for it. But the industry that they just rendered obsolete is made up of people with families that depend on them. Through no fault of their own, they were disrupted out of a paycheck. A generation ago, all signs pointed to machinist or travel agent being good, stable careers with great ROI for the required education. But innovation changed the equation faster than most could adapt.

Now car services like Uber are getting rave reviews from customers, media, and generating decent financials. But what if they render thousands of low-skilled immigrant cab drivers out of a job? What if the Google self-driving car renders the Uber drivers out of a job? In some cases it is a zero-sum game, even if the metrics suggest that society overall is "better off". Does one new billionaire created compensate for 1,000 families who just got the American Dream taken from them? Everyone seems to celebrate the "winners" without considering the collateral damage. Yes, we need innovation to succeed and even survive in the world. And those who succeed should be rewarded. But what about the everyday folks who, through no fault of their own, get suddenly shifted from middle class to destitution? Do the disruptors (and the traditional companies being replaced) have a social responsibility to help those workers transition to the new reality? Does the government? If so, then I think they should fund such programs from the disruptors' stock gains.

-----

Sort of related (in that it perpetuates the massive inequalities of the Bay Area) is education. M Night Shyamalan just wrote a major book on education (hopefully he doesn't write more and his natural follow-up suck strikes!), and it makes a lot of good points.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/12/m-night-shyamalan-steps-education-wars

Basically, he suggests that our education system is actually great - if you're a a white kid. Our white kids do just as well as the Nordic white kids or other European white kids. But if you're a minority (and, typically, poor), the education system sucks and really drags down our averages. There are a number of ways to address this, but:

1) They take money $$

2) And they mean de-emphasizing putting resources into already highly performing white schools

I've come increasingly to the conclusion that American politics is all about race. I'm sure many of you have seen the research that support for redistribution increases if it is perceived by the voter as going to "someone like them" - i.e. someone of the same race. 

Most people in the Bay Area don't consider themselves racist and it's probably true - in fact, the Bay Area is one of the most diverse areas of the country. But poors in the Bay Area are still "the other" - they didn't go to good schools, they struggle to get by on bad salaries, their unemployment rate is x3 higher than well-educated whites. Basically, their experience is completely alien to most of the tech gods in the Bay Area and their presence is invisible. No surprise then that the tech gods (which have actual power) use little of their capacity to help the poors.

You can imagine the national consternation and outrage by the well-educated press and electorate if the unemployment rate was 20% and transportation and housing ate up 60-70% of the budget of native-born, well educated Americans, yet this is exactly the situation facing a plurality of Bay Area residents - the poors and the immigrants. I guess it's only a crisis for those that are rich. If you're poor and face such circumstances, given the media and elite orientation, it's a statistic and at best regrettable. And the rich wonder why resentment is on the increase...

-----

Thx, J. I agree, but why are non-whites disproportionately poor? Mostly racism. The 1% vs. 99% has also been a pervasive, ubiquitous problem for centuries, but of course the power balance has varied due to historical conditions. As you said, now more than ever gov't is serving the interests of the 1% at the expense of the 99% - and that is a big effing problem that we have to tackle if we care about democracy. But even if we returned to the economic conditions of 1960 when wealth and political power were more evenly distributed, there is the underlying racial problem that Andrew mentioned. Say we repeal Citizens United, reformed the justice system, and made a bunch of other needed changes - it will still be harder for minorities to get ahead. Addressing one problem is not a distraction from the other. Both are critical, somewhat independent, and deserve to be called out separately. There are some solutions that can mitigate both issues (namely taxation and campaign/election reforms), so we could try to prioritize those.

According to this moron, the poor and middle class are doing better than ever, because we are enjoying a "golden age of TV!" So what if I lose my job and get evicted... I can still watch the latest episode of "Duck Dynasty" at the local library's PC lab. Forget the macro indicators, our amazing selection of digital entertainment options makes life more fun!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-02/who-needs-a-raise-when-you-have-tv-.html

------
 

Oh the drama of "bus-gate": http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/12/09/google-bus-protest-most-entertaining-moment-was-staged/

Thanks, A. Good to see M. Night making a comeback of sorts, with more social value than "The Happening". Yeah it seems the path to inequality starts from grade school, and maybe even in the womb, as lower income (often minorities) generally don't have access to comparable health, nutrition, and child care as affluent whites. This could set back their development, so that even if they were lucky enough to attend America's best schools, maybe they wouldn't be fully able to take advantage of the opportunity.

It is really sad that the inequality phenomenon has such a racial component. But if a liberal dares to make that claim, you can imagine the reaction from the right (race-baiting, it's a war on white men, etc.). Roberts said that racism is over in America after all. It is especially disappointing that minorities have fallen further behind during the Obama presidency. It's not his fault and it could have been worse under a white GOP president, but Obama's heritage almost blinds America to the fact that tens of millions of minorities are not succeeding despite his meteoric, outlier success. After all, the biggest beneficiaries of US affirmative action historically have been middle class white women. The social programs that disproportionately helped the urban poor are being dismantled in the name of "budget compromise."

On a local level, I don't think the tech giants can fully celebrate their CSM and social impact, when East Palo Alto (10 miles away from FB and GOOG HQs) is still held back by the same problems it faced a decade ago. Richmond and the Tenderloin are a stone's throw away from Twitter and Salesforce. Sure the tech companies engage in their annual "day of caring" and donate millions to worthy causes, but those good works barely tip the scales vs. all the negative externalities they unintentially impose on the less privileged. I guess rather than facing the cognitive dissonance of the injustice/inequality all around them vs. their desire to make the world a better place (ostensibly for all), tech people would rather live insular lives and stick with their own kind (luxury, exclusive housing to the luxury, exclusive bus to the luxury, exclusive office to the luxury, exclusive bar, etc.). This of course is not exclusive to tech workers, and the other Bay Area professionals (doctors, lawyers, bankers) are just as susceptible, if not more. But that is the problem when achievement and career take up so much of our attention - there isn't much room left for people, especially those who are different than us.

I am not sure if it is a generational issue either. After the Baby Boomers exit the labor force, and the younger folks take the helm of the big companies, I really hope for a sea change. Douchebags aside, I think that many Bay Area yuppies would prefer a more diverse workforce and society. CA is great because it's not a stuck up East Coast cocktail party where your alma mater and family name come first. It's boring when you only work with clones of yourself who think the same way (also it's bad for business). The Valley has been successful in recruiting and naturalizing so much foreign talent, but many of them were elites from their native lands (and they tend to self-segregate in the US too). I just don't see black and Latino native residents get recruited in sufficient numbers any time soon.

Check out this slideshow from Business Insider about racial-economic segregation in SF-Si Valley: http://www.businessinsider.com/maps-show-racial-divide-in-silicon-valley-2013-9#

This issue kind of reminds me of the military crisis. When only poor people go off to war, society doesn't really notice, so our leaders may be more likely to abuse those soldiers. But in the case of WWII and Vietnam, when even some millionaire's kids and Ivy Leaguers were getting slaughtered in the field, then that changed the equation. As you said about Bay Area housing and transport costs, the privileged won't lift a finger until they feel similar pain as the poor. A more progressive income tax that funnels money to the working poor would be a start, or maybe higher property tax on richer, less diverse neighborhoods? But of course city leaders get elected by those neighborhoods, so it's a nonstarter. In France, they have a saying, "Vive l'impot!" Or a celebration of tax. It's not a dirty word like in the US. Taxes are a mark of honor, a patriotic duty to reinvest in the nation that you love. And those taxes should go to helping strengthen society from the bottom up, not further the social advantages of the elites or become giveaways to already rich special interests.

------

Part of the solutions that M. Night and other education scholars have recommended is longer school days, year round schooling, and early intervention programs like head start, universal Kindergarten, etc. Basically spending a lot of money to get poor/racial minorities with bad home environments and poor nutritional habits into a much healthier system. Of course, doing this takes a lot of money. However, school inequality is still a major issue so there are some resources that could be recaptured from rich white schools.

As you may remember from the George Packer/New Yorker article, even in the Bay Area, public schools such as Woodside and Paly have foundations that parents started to "adequately" fund their school - i.e. they have way more money than they need and marginal dollars there are not doing much good, while schools like East Paly are hurting pretty bad. And of course thanks to restrictive zoning regulations meaning no new housing ever (into which the poors/middle class might move), public schools in Woodside/Los Gatos/Atherton/Paly are only public in name only: effectively they are privatized for the rich white residents. But beyond that, it would take a massive infusion of resources into places like the LAUSD, New York Public Schools, etc. that voters haven't shown the will to spend.

I know you're fairly hopeful about the promise of the younger generation, but I'm more pessimistic. It's true that race will be less of an issue for our generation and some of the issues that the oldsters have with things like gay marriage will dissipate. However, I feel like our generation, while still well-intentioned, is even more clueless about the life and struggles of poor people than any previous generation. While J is right that the gap between the 1%ers and the rest has grown astronomically, I feel like the life experiences of the top 10% is becoming increasingly disconnected from the lives of the rest. Worldly, plugged in, well educated, financially comfortable kids on the Google buses have basically nothing at all in common with day laborers in the Mission. I don't mean that they actively seek to screw them but I think it's easy for many to not even people like that exist. The problems and life experiences of the bottom 90% have basically just don't show up on the radar of your average techie or higher.

And while the top 1% have arrogated for themselves increased power, the top 10% still can drive the political conversation in the media and online. If people don't see the problems of the rest of society or only are dimly aware of them in an abstract way, I'm not optimistic that much progress can be made.

I see where J is coming from on this - I think on matters of economic policy the 1% have the resources to really get whatever they want.

But I think one of the under-appreciated developments in American politics is that, in previous historical periods, when you had this unbalanced of an income, populists would rally the poorer classes to demand change. That's how they broke up the robber barons (see Teddy Roosevelt), and that's how the back was broken of European nobility.

What's happened this time is that many of the people that might have been expected to join this populist coalition against the rich and powerful are instead diverted by issues of "other" (i.e. race). How else do you explain the fact that West Virginia, one of the poorest states in the nation, voted overwhelmingly for Romney? Or Kentucky? They're afraid that moochers (of course, moochers from out groups; in group moochers are fine) and immigrants and gays are wrecking America.  These are precisely the people that Democrats ought to find common cause with (and previously did, against the Robber Barons and again during the Depression), yet our politics that are focused on race and religion and culture have them voting against their economic interests.

------

Thanks, A. It's ludicrous that there is any opposition to these youth programs, as the research indisputably shows that the ROI is huge. So the expenditures are actually cost saving measures in the long run. There should be no conservative opposition, but of course there is. Is it just a philosophical/political impasse (block ANY new gov't programs, even helpful ones), or is it the elites lashing out because they don't want poor, colored folks to succeed and compete on a more level playing field with their privileged kids? Sure the rich would rather have tax breaks now than more education spending, but as I said these programs save $ in the long run and make a stronger society, which will reduce the rich people's future tax burden and probably result in more capital gains for them, as these kids grow up on a better trajectory and become valuable consumers/workers.

The data suggests that Millennials are more tech savvy, more socially aware, and more into volunteerism than previous generations. As you said, they are worldly, and with the internet at their fingertips, they are on average much more cognizant of global social issues than their parents and grandparents at that age. So really there is no excuse for them to turn their back on social problems, even if they can't fully "relate" to the needy. But residential and workplace segregation is a terrible problem, because if you don't see diversity and the struggles of others each day, you are less likely to do anything about them. I believe that most young adults (and most of us on this email) would vote for policies and leaders who want to make our society fairer. The problem is no one is putting such debates up for a vote (probably because most of the political system is co-opted by the elites as J said). I think the youth are in the right place morally, but they just need a spark or a dynamic figure to lead them, like a modern day "Ask not what your country can do for you..." or "We hold these truths to be self evident..." We don't have that unfortunately. All our brightest young people are going into the private sector, where they can't "do good" because they are beholden to shareholders, and fighting for their lives against cutthroat competition. Only when they're super rich and semi-retired like Gates will they hopefully give back. Look at us; we have money and are well aware of the problems out there, but we don't have the time or courage to advocate for the causes (many self-imposed or social barriers stand in our way). We will vote the "right way" if the occasion arises, and maybe even give some money, but we aren't able to put in the hours (not to mention blood, sweat, and tears) to lead the populist charge as you said. I admire the few folks who do.

But maybe all is not lost and there are some leaders with potential. Here's a Fresh Air interview about Pope Francis, and of course the main theme of his papacy so far is social justice and critique of global wealth inequality (and the institutions that perpetuate it). Europe is a powder keg of discontent regarding gov't corruption, voiding the social contract, and widespread unemployment. I will give Obama credit too that he has raised the issues of race and inequality (maybe not by choice) more than any other president since LBJ. Maybe he hasn't moved the needle on the debate in America, but he isn't letting us sweep it under the rug. So we are seeing some top-down emphasis of the race and wealth issues, but unfortunately that hasn't manifested itself into new laws and reforms (the plutocrats can control lawmaking bodies a lot more than individual executives).

Re: the US history of populism, you are right that conditions were a lot different when labor was stronger and the working white poor were a major Dem constituency. But the party made a decision in the '60s to fight one injustice at the expense of the other. They fought against racial discrimination, which lost them the Southern white vote. And in order to make up for it, they had to go more corporate and turn their back on labor too. So the Dems are more elite than ever, even if the GOP is really struggling with key demos like single women and non-whites. But I don't think that racist whites in the US hate colored folks just because they bought into the economic propaganda of the elites. They had those prejudices already, and the elites just fueled the fire with scare tactics relating to black uprising/crime and immigrants taking jobs/services. We also have to address the non-economic drivers of modern racism (I am not quite sure what they are but I could speculate). I agree that the GOP is using religion as a wedge issue to keep its base from turning populist, which is of course ironic because Christian values are clearly misaligned with the modern GOP.

--------

As A pointed out, "But I think one of the under-appreciated developments in American politics is that, in previous historical periods, when you had this unbalanced of an income, populists would rally the poorer classes to demand change. ", I find it interesting that at that time, communication between groups was limited by lack of technology.  Now we have instant communication with anyone in the world.  You would think that it would be easy to put all of the pieces together for the oppressed to rise up.  But, these same lines of instant communication are also used to manipulate us in ways we'd never seen before, essentially keeping us divided, blaming one another for our lot in life instead of seeing the real picture.

-----------

http://www.insidepolitics.org/ps111/riseofinternet.html
http://gnovisjournal.org/2010/04/25/media-fragmentation-and-political-polarization-how-high-choice-media-environment-leads-great/

Thanks, L. Yeah media fragmentation in the US can be a big problem. Families don't tune into the same 3 info sources around the radio or TV set anymore. So of course FNC says that everything MSNBC says are lies, and vice versa (and CNN just talks about the Kardashians) - adding to distrust, misinformation, and most harmful... polarization. Plus we are blitzed with too much info now on our multiple devices (especially entertainment/time-wasting content), which distracts us from thinking, collaborating, and rising up together.

Twitter and Facebook helped the Arab Spring gain momentum, but sadly it can't really do the same for us (even though we invented those services). Well, when commercial crap like Bieber and Coke are the most liked/followed entities on social media, you know we have a problem. It seems US social media is (deliberately or not) functioning to prevent us from mass political debate and assembly, whereas it has the opposite effect in repressive/dysfunctional foreign countries (which is why their state security services try to block/monitor it)?

George Packer on the socioeconomic contradictions of Silicon Valley

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201306061000
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/27/130527fa_fact_packer?currentPage=all
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2013/05/silicon-valley-taxes-and-libertarianism.html

"Move fast and break things."

- Zuck

"The Valley is a little bit at risk of moving in the direction that Wall Street went in... Losing sight of the real purpose of technology, just as Wall Street lost sight of the real purpose of finance. And instead looking at that little narrow way to a big payoff. But that can be very short-term and not particularly productive."

- G Packer

When financiers say that they’re doing God’s work by providing cheap credit, and oilmen claim to be patriots who are making the country energy-independent, no one takes them too seriously—it’s a given that their motivation is profit. But when technology entrepreneurs describe their lofty goals there’s no smirk or wink. “Many see their social responsibility fulfilled by their businesses, not by social or political action,” one young entrepreneur said of his colleagues. “It’s remarkably convenient that they can achieve all their goals just by doing their start-up.” He added, “They actually think that Facebook is going to be the panacea for many of the world’s problems. It isn’t cynicism—it’s arrogance and ignorance.”

- G Packer, New Yorker

Joshua Cohen, a Stanford political philosopher who also edits Boston Review, described a conversation he had with John Hennessy, the president of Stanford, who has extensive financial and professional ties to Silicon Valley. “He was talking about the incompetent people who are in government,” Cohen recalled. “I said, ‘If you think they’re so incompetent, why don’t you include in a speech you’re making some urging of Stanford students to go into government?’ He thought this was a ridiculous idea.”
- G Packer, New Yorker

In New Yorker style, a very long but detailed and thoughtful presentation of Packer's argument that the "Siliconization" of the US economy/culture is not necessarily good for everyone. The interview on his book The Unwinding is interesting too. I was surprised that he didn't get more rebuttal call-ins, since KQED is a Bay Area station after all.

I am too tired to properly summarize the story, but basically Packer is saying that the features that make Si. Valley great are also leading to some negative social effects. Innovation requires boldness, unorthodox thinking, and almost a "F it" attitude about consequences. Si. Valley embodies that paradox of socialist-Utopian desire to make the world more connected and better vs. the cutthroat, libertarian pursuit of riches unfettered by any regs or CSR (VC culture, Foxconn, avoiding taxes, FB IPO scam, you name it).

You can't be great and rise above the pack by playing it safe and by the rules. But that's the big difference between the Great Expansion of the '50s and '60s (blossoming of the US middle class), and the Great Divergence of today (the widening wealth gap and shrinking middle class). In the past, a WASP with a HS education and decent intellect/work ethic could have a job for as long as he wanted it, and earn enough to be middle class, provide for his nuclear family, retire in comfort, and set his kids on a path for the upper middle class. That hasn't happened too often in human history. But that was probably an outlier era, as Reaganomics/globalization put an end to that.

For Gen X and the Millennials, we get the sense that only schmucks and working stiffs believe in that old system of playing by the rules, working hard, and making a decent living. Now it's all about getting that mad loot ASAP, and stepping on whatever is in our path. Packer uses the example of Jay-Z to describe this attitude: he came from nothing and with little hope of achieving the American Dream. So he unabashedly sold drugs to finance his music career, and he used his music riches to build a corporate empire. Of course he needed a lot of hard work and luck too, but Jay-Z "skipped the line" to the upper crust. In interviews, he is surprised that more people don't hate him. But instead, we cheer for him, because his story makes us believe that we can be him too. He is both hero and villain, and 100% modern American. So for the rest of us who aren't blessed with entertainment, athletic, or drug-selling skills, basically we have to find a way to succeed in finance, tech, or medicine... or be just another chump.

But getting back to the Si. Valley paradox, it should be telling that Gates didn't engage in philanthropy until he was the richest man on the planet, and Zuck didn't either until "The Social Network" came out and his company went public (but to his credit, Zuck has now become one of the most socially-conscious CEOs in the Valley). For tech guys who are obsessed with efficiency and creative problem solving, it's awful convenient to believe that you are saving the world while you're getting rich and helping yourself. But we know what the order of priorities is.  Though if Si. Valley was so public serving, then why are some of the most economically depressed and violent zones in the Western US (Richmond, Oakland, East PA) located just short drives from the Google and Apple HQs? Their geniuses can figure out how to put the Internet on eyeglasses and revolutionize what a mobile phone is, but they can't reduce crime and poverty in the Bay Area?

Let's be honest, tech companies make the world better for rich people - they are invested in solving rich people problems (and they do it really well), because obviously there is a market for that. There is nothing inherently wrong with that - the business of America is business. But then don't act so superior. Remember those older Apple commercials showing images of Gandhi and MLK with the slogan "Think Different"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpzvwkR1RYU

Despite their marketing intentions, such a commercial is basically comparing a for-profit company to heroes who devoted their lives to fight injustice, and died poor. That is frankly outrageous. As Packer said, the hypocrisy is evident in Apple's calls for immigration reform, so they can get more visas to hire cheaper Asian engineers. They say they can't find enough qualified candidates domestically, yet their tax-evasion tactics have served to starve our public education. Don't complain about the quality of workers here when you aren't investing in them. And of course it's not just Apple.

----------

The buses—whose schedules are withheld from the public—have become a vivid emblem of the tech boom’s stratifying effect in the Bay Area. Rebecca Solnit, who has lived in San Francisco for thirty years, recently wrote in The London Review of Books, “Sometimes the Google Bus just seems like one face of Janus-headed capitalism; it contains the people too valuable even to use public transport or drive themselves. Right by the Google bus stop on Cesar Chavez Street immigrant men from Latin America stand waiting for employers in the building trade to scoop them up, or to be arrested and deported by the government.”

One question for technology boosters—maybe the crucial one—is why, during the decades of the personal computer and the Internet, the American economy has grown so slowly, average wages have stagnated, the middle class has been hollowed out, and inequality, has surged. Why has a revolution that is supposed to be as historically important as the industrial revolution coincided with a period of broader economic decline?

I honestly despise living [in the Valley], in many ways. I detest the "Silicon Valley Masters of the Universe" narrative and all the fuckers in BMWs who tailgate me on my way to the grocery store. I hate the fact that people around here go on and on about "innovation" yet spend their lives on yet-another-bullshit-useless-copycat-web-startup, instead of actually working on solving real, hard problems (many of which, as you point out, A, can't really be solved with software, or even hardware). I hate the fact that said bullshit web startup can get millions of dollars in funding with comparatively little effort, while people working on actual hard problems have to beg or fight tooth & nail for fractions of that amount from governments or foundations. I hate the cognitive dissonance of the inequality experienced by the line cooks, baristas, waiters, and janitors who serve all of the self-important pricks around here; some of them have even been forced into homelessness, as reported on Bill Moyers' show not long ago.

The Valley desperately needs this kind of takedown, repeatedly. Bring it on.

----------

This stuff is so spot-on and poignant that I have to stop thinking about it or I'm going to start destroying work equipment in rebellion. But I think the Millennials are in general more conscientious, so I hope enough of them will see things for what they are and try to fix them. Of course some will become selfish pricks like their parents, but I have hope. It's great to see that fast riches are not a major priority for a lot of young people (despite their possibly spoiled upbringings). They want to be happy, better themselves, and help others - which we need very desperately today.

The FB thread brought up a good point - since the PC/internet revolution, why hasn't the average worker gotten richer? If anything they have gotten poorer due to job insecurity and rising prices as you said. The only sector that has consistently profited is the 1% and corporations (or those who had the disposable income to invest prudently). So the promise of tech making our lives better/easier may be anecdotally and superficially true, but actually empty. As you also said, tech gets co-opted by business interests anyway, so the "good potential" is often diminished. 

I wonder if the Masters of the Universe were born during a previous era, what would they be doing? Guys like Jobs, Zuck, Gates... would they have been as great as Edison or Ford, or at best a middle-manager chump? Clearly Zuck and Jobs don't have what it takes to be anything but the boss. But people change with the environment, and maybe they would be a lot different without such great opportunities available to them (especially as a Jew and a half-Lebanese orphan). 

Guarding and Post break story of the NSA's PRISM domestic spying

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

We know that some quasi-legal, mostly-secret spying programs were launched post-9/11 by the Bushies, and were continued/reauthorized by Obama. The Senate Intel. Cmte. has sent a letter to AG Holder expressing concern for the magnitude of domestic surveillance that our intel. infrastructure wants legal authority to conduct. They think that there is a major gulf between what Americans think the gov't is entitled to do, and what the gov't actually interprets their authority to allow.

The FISA (Foreign Intel. Surveil. Act) was recently reauthorized and grants the gov't the power to monitor int'l and non-American comm. But recently the Guardian and WP broke the story that the NSA has had a program called PRISM since 2007 that would basically grant them direct access to the data on the servers of major internet comm. companies like Microsoft, Skype, Google, Yahoo, and most recently Apple - for the purpose of domestic spying that FISA doesn't allow (they were tired of FISA's legal red tape too). And the program was conducted with basically zero oversight. This is all described in a PowerPoint training deck that was leaked (BTW the NSA makes really crappy slides). So far the NSA has not denied the legitimacy of that source.

The Director of Nat. Intel., James Clapper, has also not denied the existence of PRISM (and its $200M/year budget). In line with the Obama admin's "war on whistle-blowers", he lashed out that leaking the story would harm national security. Right, like how Jane Fonda helped the Viet Cong. By Clapper's own words, secret surveillance has foiled one (= 1, uno) domestic terror plot on record since the program started (target unknown, potential losses averted unknown). Democrats on the Senate Intel. Cmte. say they have no evidence that surveil. stopped any plots. So the benefit of the program is 0-1 plots stopped over 12 years. I don't think exposing the program is going to matter at all, except maybe compromise their surveil. budgets and autonomy. Also, what terrorist worth his weight in salt doesn't already know to "stay off their airwaves"?

Interestingly, the tech companies issued statements saying that they have no knowledge of PRISM, and do not give the gov't a backdoor to their servers. So either they are lying and actively colluded with the gov't, or the gov't broke a ton of laws and hacked into those companies totally discreetly (eat your heart out, China). I have no data to back this up, but my suspicion is the cyber security folks at those prestigious companies are a lot better than the hackers at the NSA. So the likelihood that Google would get caught with their pants down is low. But maybe those were the terms of the agreement: they would let the gov't snoop, but in return they get full denial and release of liability, so their users don't revolt and sue.

Another revelation is that the gov't got access to the "metadata" on Verizon's telco network. So they weren't actually eavesdropping without a warrant on calls, but instead knew which #s were talking to each other, when the calls were made, and what was the closest cell tower. Tracking and call patterns in other words. While that was probably clever by "Zero Dark Thirty" standards, I am not sure if it is legal to do it indiscriminately without probable cause.

This leak comes at a horrible time for Obama, who is about to sit down with Chinese leaders to chastise them for hacking US companies (we previously blogged about this). It kind of undermines his credibility and moral high ground when our gov't is caught hacking its own people and companies too.

What I don't understand is why Greenwald was permitted to publish these articles. I saw "Bourne"... isn't he supposed to get whacked in a London train station?

--------

He was on DN this morning.  Amy Goodman asked him, 'Are you concerned that you will be attacked for publishing such things?'  His response was basically, 'I'm emboldened by the attacks.  Let them attack me.'  Basically, he can't be silenced.  What are they going to do?  Out him?  Um, too late.  If i was boarding a plane and saw GG and Jeremy Scahill boarding, I would take a different plane....those two will very soon NOT be seen on MSM, is my guess.  GG will never be on Bill Maher after his calling Maher out for being an Islamophobe(and, he is).   These two are the heroes of our time.  Oh, add Bradley Manning and you got the makings of a superhero cartoon!

---------

Yeah the Manning case is interesting. He has already pleaded guilty to some major crimes, but the gov't wants to convict him for "aiding the enemy" (presumably his leaks helped Al Qaeda? Impossible to prove unless we have a smoking gun - which we don't). And they won't even accept all his prison time up to this point as time served, to reduce his remaining sentence (not to mention the torture).

But I think what makes him ineligible for hero status is his indiscriminate data dump to Wikileaks. At least with the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg "edited" them and only leaked snippets of the docs that would tell the story with minimal exposure of gov't sources/processes (apart from the guilty parties). In Manning's case, he didn't even know all the stuff he was leaking, and just trusted Wikileaks to decide what was fit to print. I am glad that he exposed some horrible war crimes from Iraq that the gov't was trying to bury. But I think he also set back our peaceful State Dept. diplomatic efforts in other parts of the world. Clearly people like Rummy and Cheney have hurt this nation a lot worse than Manning ever could.

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201306030900




--------

I don't know if it helps the moral high ground but the verizon thing was signed by a judge.

I just have a hard time understanding who, anywhere in the us, thinks this should be an ok thing to do.  Who thinks it makes sense to have a secret court issue secret orders unreviewable and unchallengeable by those it affects?  And it always begs the question what are they doing we DON'T know about?

Extra embarrassing with a nominally dem president in charge.

--------

Yeah, though a judge also approved Bush's harsh interrogation and rendition policies too. Heck a judge ruled that Bush won the election. :)

As you said, lord knows WTF is going on that we don't know about. Makes those conspiracy guys a little more credible at times. It was embarrassing to see Obama in Si Valley today defending the programs like a stooge. Same argument with the drone kills: TRUST us that we are making these decisions carefully (in secret) and we are protecting you from the bad men. Either Obama doesn't truly believe that and is just delivering lines that will please the defense establishment (which makes him a coward, appeaser, and poor leader), or he really believes it (which makes him dumber and less moral that I previously gave him credit for). Nixon would have loved the 21st Century.

M sent me this which was thought-provoking: http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/just-asking/306288/?mrefid=twitter

Thanks, I haven't seen this before. I think the author has a point. 9/11 was a freaking OUTLIER. Yes the stakes are higher now with WMDs and the borderless global world, but even an event as horrific as 9/11 was not a society-ender (we'll it was... for Iraq). "Sacrifices for freedom" are often much smaller than that, and would be even smaller if our brash and unjust foreign and economic policies didn't piss off so many. Even today, Obama said "We can't have 100% security and 100% freedom." It is a false choice as many have said (http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201306070900). But we're NEVER going to have 100% security, even if we have 0% freedom. Random violence and tragic accidents are part of the human condition, even in the Utopia of Scandinavia (Brevik shooting, car accidents with reindeer, suicides inspired by 6 months of darkness). Americans are hysterical and selfish, and they don't want to fear that one day they may be the victim of a crazy bomber. So they endorse all these stupid policies to just "feel safer". The soccer mom philosophy of "I'll do anything to protect my kids", even if that means ironically supporting policies that put many other no-less-worthy people's kids in danger. And we wonder why they hate us.

Strangely this line of thinking doesn't apply to the gun debate, where the opposite psychology reigns: freedom is the precious thing worth dying for (or letting children die for), where thousands more brown-skinned youth have to be sacrificed each year just so said soccer mom's husband can dream about stopping a home invasion (perpetrated by Mookie Hernandez) with his Bushmaster. And in the gun debate, there can be no gray area; limitless magazines and no paper trails of gun purchases. Any encroachment on that is fascist tyranny. It's not like the constant pushing-of-the-envelope with the privacy-security debate as the tech evolves (that has gone on since the times of J. Edgar), where it's "OK" to secretly gather metadata, but not actual telephony content. And we promise to not cross that line. It's OK to kill Americans without trial, as long as they're overseas and saying hateful things. But we won't go past that, trust us.

Should we find new ways to use technology in uncontroversial ways to make our society safer (not just from terrorism, but from car accidents, sickness, etc.)? Certainly. Should we have a debate on when other priorities need to trump privacy? Sure. So let's talk it out in public rather than let a few scheming powerful men make all the decisions in secret, because we're too scared to live up to our civic duty.

"The price of incivility [at work]"

http://hbr.org/2013/01/the-price-of-incivility/ar/1

This builds on our past discussion on stress and health. These authors suggest that a disrespectful culture at work (often promulgated by a manager, who learned it from his boss, and so on and so forth...) can infect an entire dept of previously nice people, and cause health issues. We follow our leaders, right?

And here are the costs to employers and the economy: intentionally lower effort/output/creativity, reduced productivity worrying about the issue, complaining, and avoiding the culprit, HR costs of turnover (firings, recruiting costs, etc. can be $10K's per head), taking frustrations out on customers/clients, and of course the intangible reduction in team spirit and camaraderie. The effects of bad behavior may eat up 13% of a manager's time, which is also $10K's of costs per head. Cisco (generally regarded as a good place to work) did a conservative analysis and the total ran up to $12M/year. This led them to start a global workplace civility program. But of course many employers don't, and even pretend the issue isn't there. Maybe they will send out some BS employee satisfaction survey, but not act on the responses. That is even more demoralizing.

Simple fixes for bosses (though problem bosses are unlikely to try): walk the talk, show appreciation (so feedback is not always negative), ASK for feedback in a way that the worker is protected and comfortable to be honest, and change hiring/training practices to encourage civil behavior and keep out jerks (but of course asshole bosses may hire assholes who are like them). Also everyone is responsible to speak out when they see bad behavior, but often we keep our heads down for fear of retaliation. Changing culture takes time (if it ever happens), but when people see the "right way" to behave and people getting rewarded for it, they may follow. And similarly, bad apples have to be called out just like any other form of underperformance - even if the culprits are your rainmakers. In this sense, a jerk can be even more costly to your org than an underperformer, because at least others can cover for a slacker. A jerk often affects everyone, and in hard-to-measure ways.

Lastly, monitor that things are getting better (or if not, why?). Google does this fairly successfully with its manager metrics program where they have gotten horrible bosses to improve, but of course they are more data-driven and cutting-edge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/business/13hire.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Middle East protests over video

What do you think of the Muhammad video causing an uproar? I know we've discussed this issue after the South Park episode and the Danish cartoons. I guess some Westerners can't get enough of provoking crazy Muslims, and some Muslims can't stop themselves from overreacting to a few Western a-holes.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-rejects-white-house-request-pull-mohammad-film-015300781--sector.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/search?q=muhammad+cartoons

Apparently Google/YouTube refuses to censor it unless it violates local laws. I find it interesting, because when copyrighted material appears on YouTube, and Viacom, HBO, or other big corporate entities protest (or threaten to sue), of course Google blocks the video. But now when "free speech" is causing violence and anti-Americanism, then they tolerate it and even defend it. I know it's part of their terms of use, company vision, and all. Money over lives again I guess.

I am not a fan of censorship, but I find it so stupid when people produce hate or slander speech designed just to offend others. It's not political, educational, or meant to sway opinions - it's just to provoke irrational people who are already overly-sensitive about their religion. And they don't care about the blowback to innocents (in fact they may have even anticipated this outcome and were apparently OK with it). Do I approve of the violent protests? Of course not, and you'd think that someone in those nations would stand up and remind the protesters that most Americans do not disrespect Islam, and burning a KFC won't make it better. In fact those retaliations make Muslims look even worse to the world, which sullies the reputation of their prophet whom they claim to defend.

We don't celebrate free speech if we use that freedom to disseminate the lowest, most vile, most worthless forms of speech. So when people don't treat their freedoms responsibly, we could consider taking them away (as we do with bad drivers, criminals, etc.).

And of course Romney has to put his foot in his mouth yet again over this. While Stevens' corpse was still warm he just had to take a cheap shot at Obama. No one on the right but the talk radio jerks are supporting Romney on this, so you know he went too far. Everything Obama does hurts America's standing abroad apparently. No one is "siding" with the protesters or condoning the killing of Americans who had nothing to do with the video. Shut the F up you moron. I wouldn't cry over taking away Romney's free speech rights. We should denounce the makers of that video, as well as those who committed violence in response to it. Romney and the Reps think that Obama just wants to take every opportunity possible to make America look weaker and "embolden" our enemies. For the first time in decades, the Dems are slightly stronger than the GOP in terms of voter perceptions on defense and foreign policy, so Romney is really grasping at straws to try to level the game. He claims that he will never apologize for America. Well Reagan apologized for Japanese internment, LBJ apologized for Vietnam, and W Bush apologized for Abu Ghraib and slavery (I guess better late than never). It's not just weak appeasers who apologize. Humble people who are in touch with REALITY apologize when it's warranted. Arrogant, delusional pricks don't.

--------

True (so far), but what is the value/point of such an image (apart from raunchy humor)? :) Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. And by restraining ourselves from doing stupid (but legal) stuff, does that really make our lives worse? In fact it often makes us better. We could exercise "free speech" and tell off our boss, hit on hot girls (with unstable muscular BFs), and act offensively in public, but probably we will suffer for it. That is why we SELF-CENSOR about 60% of our speech (or 10% if you're lucky enough to be a comedian - these aren't official stats, just for argument's sake). But when we don't directly suffer for our speech (and others do), well that is the classic moral hazard, negative externalities problem. And we all know that causes dysfunction and makes some extremists embrace even riskier speech. So if only the perpetrators suffer, then by all means make speech universally free. But the perpetrators are cowards who hide behind their money, status, insanity, or human shields.

So most of us can handle our speech responsibilities, but for the few degenerates who don't have the ability to self-censor, how does society step in? There are some laws, like those banning hate speech. Does this video qualify? It's debatable. Hate speech laws are even stronger in Germany, and I don't think many Germans are complaining that they feel so restricted. And I guess the law may not even be necessary for most Germans because they don't see any value in denying the Holocaust or other crap.

Below are some comments from a Lebanese friend of mine who has seen a lot of stuff in the Middle East. He makes a very good point: now with instant viral info dissemination, what about speech that directly endangers the interests and people of the US (like when Ahmadinejad blurts out stupid stuff about Israel, it hurts Iranians)? Freedoms are supposed to make us stronger, not hurt us right? If people are exercising their freedoms too selfishly and detrimentally, then how do we deal with that? Again, the violent retaliations are clearly the bigger crime here. But if you knowingly provoke someone into committing a crime (and from history and common sense you know there is a high probability of them doing so), I think you bear some responsibility there. I'm fairly sure there are laws about that stuff. We should "fix" violent, fundamentalist Islam too, but for now the "easier" fix is censoring some rare, especially dangerous hate speech before it does harm.

The Arab Spring is sputtering out (and the most critical nations are still under tyrants, apart from Egypt). People living under dictators for decades are traumatized and unsure what to do now. Their economies are broken. There is a battle for the hearts and minds between Islamists, former regime elements, and democratic reformists. Islamists thrive at filling the chaotic vacuum, especially fueled by anti-Western sentiment to exploit as a scapegoat. When Westerners pull this stuff, it just makes it easier for the Islamists to win. The people who made that video are supposedly anti-Islam, yet their actions make the Islamists politically and socially stronger in those affected nations. What folly. Meanwhile, the US is trying to help rebuild and promote good governance over there at some risk (taking off my cynic hat for a moment). It's hard, delicate, slow work. Now all their efforts since 2011 are set back a lot, if not ruined. All so a few morons can exercise "free speech"? Unacceptable. There's a lot more going on here, but the ignorants and ideologues don't see beyond their narrow agendas (not calling anyone here ignorant of course).

-----

I find it ironic that the man behind it is an Egyptian American who just sent his home country back into chaos.

I thought Google and YouTube do not tolerate hate speech, and I would think this video falls under that. 

http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines

"We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity)."

"Hate speech" refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a protected group. For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech. Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting generalizations about people of a particular nationality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/world/middleeast/google-wont-rethink-anti-islam-videos-status.html

"Google said it had already determined that the video did not violate its terms of service regarding hate speech, because it was against the Muslim religion but not Muslim people."

So the video was not against a group of people, but against the religion, which happens to have many groups of people following? Nice lawyering work. Regardless, I don't think Google and YouTube censoring or not censoring the video at this point will do anything, and blocking it from countries as the violence spreads is stupid, the people are and will still be able to view the video.I think it is time the government steps in and tries to find a way to punish the parties involved with making the video because it is hurting its foreign policy. 

I also assumed this would be contained in those countries that are not as well off. I wanted to rank muslim countries by GDP and see if the violence correlates with low GDP, but there are riots in richer nations too.
 
--------

I won't try to defend the onion since it is a known satire publication  but that picture is EXTREMELY graphic.  Has anyone seen the video in quesiton?  It is comically stupid.  I had a hard time understanding where the offense came from.  Did the middle east riot when indiana jones came out and made the middle east look bad?

Do you really think these riots have ANYTHING to do with this video?  I mean, at all.  The video is a scapegoat at best.  These are organized demonstrations.  Thousands of people.  The number of people showing up to these rallies and the demographic makes it near impossible for a significant number of them to even have seen the video let alone translated from English to their native language.  There is some central authority figure fomenting the masses.  Plain and simple.  

You could argue "why would he make the video, why don't we all go and turn off the internal filters" but we do not self censor out of fear for our lives.  We self censor to avoid social awkwardness, potential relationship damage, etc.  And the real reason I believe you argue to stop the film (or cartoon or fill in the blank) is because it is so simple to do so.  Would we make those arguments if people rioted and killed every time someone said the word Muhammad regardless of context?  Would you then suggest that we should avoid using it at all?  Why is it ok to censor something that is easier to avoid?  It isn't hard to say "the prophet" or whatever instead of Muhammad, is it still ok?  It feels a little like blaming the rape victim.  What was she wearing?  What was she doing alone at night in that area?  All of those things are valid in the sense they could have helped avoid the final outcome, but it is still completely and totally NOT the victims fault. 

--------

I think it's pretty unassailable that the video (or news of it) triggered the riots, and you don't need to see it to be offended by it. I think it has to do with the act of audacity to make such a film rather than the actual film content. And sure, like with Occupy, it started on a narrow, justifiable premise, but then when it got popular other wackos came out of the woodwork and polluted the movement. Supposedly in Egypt on the 2nd day of riots, the people didn't even care about the video anymore, but were protesting the police, economy, and government. But that's my point - those nations are barely hanging onto order as it is, why do we push them over the cliff for a frivolous reason? It's against reason. I doubt there is some "Islamic-industrial complex" pulling all the strings here. There is no authority figure in Libya or Egypt anymore, the dictators are gone. It's unclear who holds stable power, apart from the military. I mean, extremist Islam is organized, pervasive, and shouldn't be underestimated, but it's not like they were waiting for this trigger to strike like with 9/11. We saw from the Arab Spring that mobile phones and social media can mobilize people really effectively. I surmise the same happened here. It's "grassroots", but I'm sure the Islamists and other special interests are trying to fan the flames where it benefits them.

Well, we are lucky to live in a nation where it's highly unlikely to be murdered based on what you say. But in other placed, people definitely self-censor out of fear of their lives (in Iraq and Afghan. I'm sure some people didn't vote because of the threats). Sometime innocent speech can get you killed, but ill-advised speech can too - like in Northern Ireland in the '90s if a Protestant went into the wrong neighborhood and started talking crap. Yes, part of my argument is that if it's so easy to avoid these problems by censorship (that causes little pain to us), then we should. If a girl doesn't want to be raped, it's easier for her to dress conservatively and avoid bad neighborhoods than reform all the potential rapists. It's not fair, but I think most people would find that reasonable. And sure, if the Islamists and people offended by insults to Islam go too far (like Americans can't even say "prophet" without riots as you said), then of course we put our foot down. But so far and for the foreseeable future, the Islamic side hasn't become that intolerant, so I am not really worried about that possibility. They drew a pretty clear line in the sand: don't mock (or depict) their prophet, and it's all good. But some people keep trying to push it for no constructive reason.

My main argument is what to do about free speech that harms your country's interests and millions of people? America is TRYING to "reform the rapist". We're trying to spread democratic values, education, and other reforms so that people don't just let religious dogma (or phony religious zealots) dictate their beliefs and actions. We're trying to improve the rule of law and good governance so that people have peaceful, civil means of redress. We're trying to build economies so that people have a lot to live for and don't feel the need to riot desperately. If we do all those things, then no one will die when some wacko makes offensive media. Problem solved! It will be like the US then (no Muslims are rioting about the video here as far as I know, but my friend says it did happen in AUS which is wealthy and Western). But for now, when things are still volatile and it's a work in progress, offensive speech is setting all that back. 

In your rape analogy, I am not sure who the "victim" is here. The makers of the video? They got what they wanted and no harm has come to them (unlike Theo Van Gogh, who at least made a political movie to protest the mistreatment of Muslim women). Were the victims the consulate workers who died in Libya? Those people respected Islam and would condemn the video, so they did nothing to provoke the attackers except for being American. Is free speech the victim? It's not in any more danger today than a week ago. I really think the victims are everyone who practice free speech respectfully and responsibly, and the people who are working tirelessly to build a better Middle East (and US for that matter). The rest of us suffer and feel shame/sorrow because of the excesses of a few, and their violent, crazy "accomplices" overseas.

--------

I think it's pretty unassailable that the video (or news of it) triggered the riots, and you don't need to see it to be offended by it. I think it has to do with the act of audacity to make such a film rather than the actual film content. And sure, like with Occupy, it started on a narrow, justifiable premise, but then when it got popular other wackos came out of the woodwork and polluted the movement. Supposedly in Egypt on the 2nd day of riots, the people didn't even care about the video anymore, but were protesting the police, economy, and government. But that's my point - those nations are barely hanging onto order as it is, why do we push them over the cliff for a frivolous reason? It's against reason. I doubt there is some "Islamic-industrial complex" pulling all the strings here. There is no authority figure in Libya or Egypt anymore, the dictators are gone. It's unclear who holds stable power, apart from the military. I mean, extremist Islam is organized, pervasive, and shouldn't be underestimated, but it's not like they were waiting for this trigger to strike like with 9/11. We saw from the Arab Spring that mobile phones and social media can mobilize people really effectively. I surmise the same happened here. It's "grassroots", but I'm sure the Islamists and other special interests are trying to fan the flames where it benefits them.

Well, we are lucky to live in a nation where it's highly unlikely to be murdered based on what you say. But in other placed, people definitely self-censor out of fear of their lives (in Iraq and Afghan. I'm sure some people didn't vote because of the threats). Sometime innocent speech can get you killed, but ill-advised speech can too - like in Northern Ireland in the '90s if a Protestant went into the wrong neighborhood and started talking crap. Yes, part of my argument is that if it's so easy to avoid these problems by censorship (that causes little pain to us), then we should. If a girl doesn't want to be raped, it's easier for her to dress conservatively and avoid bad neighborhoods than reform all the potential rapists. It's not fair, but I think most people would find that reasonable. And sure, if the Islamists and people offended by insults to Islam go too far (like Americans can't even say "prophet" without riots as you said), then of course we put our foot down. But so far and for the foreseeable future, the Islamic side hasn't become that intolerant, so I am not really worried about that possibility. They drew a pretty clear line in the sand: don't mock (or depict) their prophet, and it's all good. But some people keep trying to push it for no constructive reason.

My main argument is what to do about free speech that harms your country's interests and millions of people? America is TRYING to "reform the rapist". We're trying to spread democratic values, education, and other reforms so that people don't just let religious dogma (or phony religious zealots) dictate their beliefs and actions. We're trying to improve the rule of law and good governance so that people have peaceful, civil means of redress. We're trying to build economies so that people have a lot to live for and don't feel the need to riot desperately. If we do all those things, then no one will die when some wacko makes offensive media. Problem solved! It will be like the US then (no Muslims are rioting about the video here as far as I know, but my friend says it did happen in AUS which is wealthy and Western). But for now, when things are still volatile and it's a work in progress, offensive speech is setting all that back. 

In your rape analogy, I am not sure who the "victim" is here. The makers of the video? They got what they wanted and no harm has come to them (unlike Theo Van Gogh, who at least made a political movie to protest the mistreatment of Muslim women). Were the victims the consulate workers who died in Libya? Those people respected Islam and would condemn the video, so they did nothing to provoke the attackers except for being American. Is free speech the victim? It's not in any more danger today than a week ago. I really think the victims are everyone who practice free speech respectfully and responsibly, and the people who are working tirelessly to build a better Middle East (and US for that matter). The rest of us suffer and feel shame/sorrow because of the excesses of a few, and their violent, crazy "accomplices" overseas.

--------

The victim in my analogy was the exercise of free speech.  Because the speech was unpopular and easy to avoid it is their fault.  No, it isn't.  And you say yourself that the riots became about something else and that and are barely hanging on to order.  When the straw breaks the camels back how do you blame the straw?  Why is it ok to go 1984 on free speech when it is a small loss or it is easy.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Small compromises all the way to the police state.  I don't understand why your slippery slope arguments don't go for both sides.

Intelligence, as reported in the media, shows the deaths of the Benghazi riots were caused either by pre-planned units (in which case the video is completely unrelated) or opportunistic based on the riots.  Now i'm not saying riots are good but they are a whole different thing than killing.  And it appears, from what we know from the media reporting, that the deaths are NOT a direct result of the video but either an opportunistic response or a pre-planned attack.  

And do you honestly believe that if this video was never made nothing else would exist in the world to set these people off?  I mean seriously, watch the video.  There are things spoken on fox news regularly that are as offensive.  Additionally the anger is based on an incorrect premise that the US is backing the video in some way.  I just really really struggle to  blame the film for this.  

Back to your main point, where do we draw the line on free speech.  We will always struggle.  Fact of life.  But just because something is easy to avoid doesn't mean one SHOULD avoid it.  Should's are important and I try to be careful when discussing them.  And I haven't heard from you (or anyone) a reason that someone SHOULD limit their free speech because of an irrational and likely unrelated response.  If the response was rational, if it could  be predicted, there might be an argument.  But what about all the other anti-Mohammad material in between this video and 5 years ago?  What about the hateful videos in response to the Benghazi killings?  How many died from southpark?  There just isn't a causal link that one can draw.  

--------

Thx for your thoughts, and I can't find fault in anything you wrote. In a perfect world I wish we could all say whatever we wanted, and the worst that could happen is a few feelings hurt. There are forces out of our control that weakened the camel's back, but we actually control the straw. So yes, I do blame the straw because it is preventable. We can't turn back time and make these nations more functional. Maybe if we showed restraint here, another straw would have come along and broke it eventually, but at least by refraining this time, we bought the camel more time to hopefully heal. Wow I really milked that analogy to death.

I don't think censoring the video would ultimately lead to a police state, but I get your point. Remember that a lot more censorship takes place behind the scenes and society generally condones it (all the problems with for-profit news, special interests dictating what politicians say, PATRIOT Act stuff, etc.). I think we should fight those battles first as bigger challenges to democracy and freedom. The video arguably violates Google's terms of service as hate speech, so they have somewhat of a case to pull it. But maybe they figure if they relent now, the ACLU and free speech camp will raise even more hell (and those people are actually tied to customers than Google cares about, whereas angry poor Muslims don't buy ads with them).

Elements of violent Islam have infiltrated Arab Spring nations (again, Jihadists thrive in a power vacuum and chaos). To what extent I don't know. Maybe they were planning a hit on the US staff in Benghazi for a while. It's possible that they would have tried irrespective of the video. But now the video gave them cover, so they can say they're not the bad guys, the infidels are. And now maybe the locals tend to sympathize with them, while without the video they would have rejected their violent acts. You are right that other things may set the people off, and maybe they deserve to be mad given their situations. There could be riots, but at least they wouldn't be so anti-American. All those riots make the US more fearful and hostile to Muslims too, which erodes relations and leads to a downward spiral (revenge actions we may take in response to the US dead could lead to escalation). I wish Obama would make a statement saying that America rejects the video and respects the practitioners of Islam, but also condemns violence against Americans and the killers should be punished. There are wackos on both sides who love this and want a clash of cultures, but they do not represent the vast majority who just want to live in peace. They are the real enemy for the rest of us. I guess he could be concerned that the GOP would label him as a weak appeaser, when they want him to settle the score.

It's true that the right wing media say truly racist, prejudiced, anti-Islamic things almost every day. And mostly that goes unnoticed in Muslim nations - maybe either due to unfamiliarity or dismissal of the sources, or they're just used to it by now. But apart from free speech activities, Muslims have rioted after they learned US personnel (1) tortured-humiliated people at Abu Ghraib, (2) desecrated or did something bad to the Korans at Gitmo and elsewhere, (3) urinated on dead insurgents, (4) killed civilians in Pakistan, and other stuff. They don't take to the streets because they're bored - we've given them plenty of fodder over the years.

Yes I suppose censorship is a slippery slope. It's a matter of tolerance. Some feel we need to make a stand now, others are OK with letting their rights take a back seat to other priorities in this case. There's no way to know which path leads to a better net outcome, and better outcome for whom? You are right though, I should watch how I use the world should. I don't mean to be presumptuous. But my goal is to minimize suffering here. I am OK to sacrifice the rights of a few (who don't seem to be wielding those rights very responsibly) in order to preserve life and diplomacy for many. I don't mean I would throw them in the slammer, but if there has to be a victim, I guess I would choose their rights. But it's not my call, just an opinion. You would probably prefer to preserve their rights at the risk of some potential international hostility (and the size of the risk being unknown, but possibly nil as you argue). Though there is a track record of Muslim violence directly in response to certain Western "insults" to Islam, so it's not inconceivable. Yes not every offensive-to-Islam event has caused violence, but enough high-profile cases have occurred to warrant some belief in a causal relationship. But you may disagree, and it's hard to prove either way.

The future of digital privacy and Constitutional rights

Doesn't look good: http://www.npr.org/2011/11/30/142714568/interpreting-the-constitution-in-the-digital-era

And clearly this professor isn't a paranoid and alarmist Chicken Little, when major mobile companies are not only monitoring your location 24/7, but recording ALL YOUR KEYSTROKES ALL THE TIME:

http://news.yahoo.com/smartphone-spying-204933867.html

When an external party tries to do this to us on our PCs, they call it malware (possibly illegal). When our mobile providers do it without our knowledge, they call it "enhancing the user experience."  I'm tired of these big data firms just telling us to "trust them" that they'll use all this info responsibly. And of course we can't expect the gov't to look after our interests on this issue, because they are way behind the tech curve, and the courts tend to side with the corporations and free speech argument. With data mining methods and tech tools only getting smarter and more ubiquitous, where are we headed?