Think a Little Deeper about the Khashoggi Affair Response

Today, President Trump put out an official statement that the King of Saudi Arabia and his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) have both denied approving or being involved in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the U.S, will not sanction them or the country generally for the depraved act (although the Magninsky Act, in fact, require such sanctions and they may eventually apply). Think what you will of the public position and statement by Trump, perhaps we should think about this on a deeper level.  Instead of Trump being "loyal" or beholden to the Saudis, how about the idea that Trump got something valuable in return for not publicly concluding that MBS ordered the killing of Khashoggi?  Perhaps the Saudis will now need to tow the U.S. line on Middle East matters, including the war in Yemen and a potential Middle East peace plan between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  It's even possible that Trump authorized the release of the CIA report concluding that MBS had authorized the Khashoggi killing so that he could then extort MBS to support his Middle East plans in return for not publicly siding with the CIA.  None of this type of thing is as simple as it seems on the surface.

The Problem is the Business Model

So, for quite some time now Facebook, Google and the other FANGS and similar companies have been setting forth earnest statements that they were SHOCKED that bad actors were using their "planet-saving" online tools for evil.  It all reminds me of the regular line from the old TV show Get Smart when Maxwell Smart would proclaim "If only he used his genius for good instead of evil".  Given all of the investigations, hearings, hacking of data, scandals, etc., we are now at least seeing some public lip service and even some action to close fake accounts of Russians, etc. who have been using Facebook and other tools for evil instead of good, which they could easily do because those tools were, in fact, made to influence the opinion of the users. That is, Facebook's and others' entire business model is to use the huge amount of even the most minute data to influence its users to purchase goods and services from the companies' advertisers.  This point seems be mostly lost in the current conversation.  That is, it is not just the "bad actors" who use these websites for such purposes, it is the actual business model of all of these businesses.  So, even if Facebook and others actually do what is possible and necessary to shut down all the election meddlers, etc. (whether voluntarily or by regulatory enforcement), we are all still left with a fundamentally evil business model by which these huge companies get, keep, digest, manipulate and then use that data to control how you are thinking and what you want to purchase.  I consent that advertising's purpose is to influence users to purchase a product or a service and historically really good advertising could occasionally be extremely effective with that.  However, the increasingly optimization of massive data aggregation and manipulation takes the advertising business and the consequences to a different and unacceptable level.  Facebook and others will try to tell you that it is all for the good because they are sending only "targeted advertising" and "relevant ads" to you because your data says that you are likely to respond to such advertising, but all this is very Owellian and effectively amounts to a level of mind control over consumers and promotes excessive consumerism.  There is no doubt that the government has to get involved and pass smart and strong regulation to effectively eliminate this type of data usage and advertising generally and not just because of certain groups are using those platforms for evil.  The companies will never regulate themselves on this front, precisely because it is their entire business model.  

Just Stop Giving Away Your Data (At Least For Free)

So, everyone is now upset about the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica "data breach" "scandal".  They shouldn't be.  I put quotes around "data breach" and "scandal" because it was not a data breach and it was not really even a scandal.  To the contrary, this is exactly how Facebook is supposed to work.  Facebook doesn't charge you anything and in return for the services that they provide you give them your data and they then make money off your data - otherwise known as "your life".  I've stated many times before that Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc., are not creating net social good.  Not even close.  Zuckerberg can say as many times as he wants that he is just trying to connect the world and make it a better place.  I've never believed that has ever been his leading purpose.  If so, he would not have created the privacy-destroying monster that Facebook is.  And, even if his goal was not initially to suck up and maximally monetize everyone's data, that is what the result has been.  And, the main results are the loss of privacy, the risk to democracy and the rise of extreme consumerism.
The US government seems incapable of putting teeth into any sort of regulations that would turn the tide on this.  So, the only solution is a grass roots one.  And, the only grass roots solution is to dramatically reduce or even cease using nearly all forms of social media.  At a minimum, quit giving away all of your data.  Quit "liking" things.  Quit posting your photos with your accounts.  Quit posting where you are and when you are there.  Quit filling out surveys.  Quit following others.  Quit reading news feeds on social media (got to an actual news site).  Quit signing onto other sites through social media (or Google).  And, turn off all the push notifications, badges, etc.  When you do that, you become less addicted to the social media, apps, etc. because you are not suggested to check it every 5 minutes.  Once an hour for any of that is way more than sufficient for nearly everything that is important to you.  At a minimum, why are people giving away very valuable information for free?  I'd rather have to give away no information and pay a subscription for the usage of social media that did not track, use or sell my data.  There are some search engines like Duck Duck Go, but not enough people use it.  Someone needs to also create social media platforms with the same data privacy policies.  Until then, stop giving away your data.  Maybe just take a break from social media for a few months and see how much better your life is.

Try Not To Be A Bllionaire

Silicon Valley has obviously been a highly successful center of innovation, technology and wealth creation.  In general, most Americans like the many of the products, like the entrepreneurial energy that has spread from Silicon Valley to the rest of the country and generally support people getting incredibly rich by creating incredibly successful businesses.  In earlier years, I'm sure many of those innovators thought that were improving the world while they also wanted to make money.  More recently, it seems pretty obvious that the initial goal is to become a billionaire.  And, the only way one can do that optimally is to provide free services and products, that attract huge amounts of users who provide huge amounts of their own data so that the company can then sell that data to advertisers who want to target the users in very sophisticated and narrow ways.  A company like Facebook has nearly perfected the process of extracting, analyzing and selling the users' data.  Advertisers pay top dollar for access to that data and to target Facebook users based on that data.  At some level, we congratulate Facebook and marvel at what a great business model that they have created.  Obviously, that business model is what attracts investors, who look for the businesses who can maximize profits.  Again, that's how capitalism works we generally like that.
However, we need to consider whether these technology companies, especially the social media companies are special cases due to their technology-business models that allow them to scale up so quickly and often take most or all of their markets.  That is, are they really akin to monopolies and are their activities essentially abuses of dominant market positions?  Typically, mainstream economics and government policy would then state that such businesses need to be highly regulated and, on occasion, broken into pieces in order to avoid negative consequences to innovation or user choices.  It seems obvious tha this should be under serious consideration.
My view is that the Facebooks, Googles, etc. of the world do need to be regulated and very likely broken up.  But, my bigger concern is the nature of the business models that drive these businesses and create these consequences. One of them is that the nature of technology businesses (like software or media) allows for incredible value creation once scale has been reached.  This is largely a question of when variable revenue starts to exceed variable costs - in economics, this is called "contribution margin".  In businesses based on intangibles, this is how incredible wealth is made.  But, I don't think we want to or can outlaw a highly favorable business model (although we could inordinately tax profits derived from very high contribution margin).  My bigger issue is the "free" nature of these business models to the users.  The most profitable, scalable and dominant of these companies do not cost money for most of the users (aside from "premium" accounts, etc.).  That is because the data that users give to the company is way more valuable than any subscription fees that users might otherwise pay.  So, those business models cause those companies to relentlessly pursue more users and more usage, so that they can get more data and sell more data to advertisers.  Because these companies have investors who know that such persistent scaling creates more profits, those investors push management to drive more and more growth (and management is generally legally required to do that on behalf of shareholders).  That's entirely logical, but it is very negative for users, society and the economy for several reasons, including that the incredibly sophisticated micro targeting of users allows the advertisers to have an incredible degree of control and persuasion over the users and their economic activity.  From a privacy and policy perspective, we should want to avoid this.  It also leads to extreme over-consumption by users, which is not good for society and certainly not good for the financial well-being of the users.  Again, we should want to avoid this.  All this could addressed through smarter and more aggressive policy and regulation.
Social-minded entrepreneurs could also avoid these business-model consequences.  That is, if an entrepreneur desires to develop a technology business that can bring great good to the world, but avoid the negative consequences of the current business models, then a subscription-based approach is much more socially responsible.  For example, if Facebook charged a monthly fee instead of using a non-fee model, then it would not need to monetize every data point of its users' lives.  It also would not then be selling micro-targeting advertising.  It also would not induce extreme and wasteful consumption.  The users would also get a service that it actually wanted (because a user would only pay for what it wanted) and not a push-model of exploitative services that don't bring value to the users.
Sure, such a model would possibly not make the entrepreneurs billionaires, but if they provide a great service that users are willing to pay for (in exchange for not having their data and lives manipulated in ways inconceivable to them), they will still be very rich - and will actually be contributing to society instead of only extracting value from society.  In fact, my guess is that there is a huge segment of the population who would very much pay a monthly fee if they could be confident that their data would not be exploited and they would not have to put up with non-stop advertising pushing unwanted and unneeded consumption. So, maybe entrepreneurs should really think about the social impacts when developing their business models.  Maybe, they should Try Not To Be A Billionaire by refraining from socially negative business models and instead just try to be very rich by using socially responsible business models.

Mental Health Check for Gun Ownership is the Right Solution

In the aftermath of the school shootings in Parkland, Florida, the defender of gun manufacturers (i.e., the NRA and the Republican Party) have made their usual remarks about now not being the time to discuss gun laws (even Secretary of State Rex Tillerson parroted this line during a press conference in Lebanon).  And, they have brought up the increasingly discussed issue that persons with mental health issues should not have access to guns.  For the NRA and Republicans, the reference to mental health issues is a way for them to deflect any discussion about gun laws directly.  They typically discuss how everyone should inform the authorities when they see social media or other signs of mental instability or a propensity toward gun violence.  That's certainly a good idea, but that doesn't stop a person with mental issues from getting a gun.  And, it does not touch how to deal with a person whose mental illness has developed after he has legally purchased a gun.  But, since the Republicans and the NRA are using mental illness as their main talking point now, those who actually want to do something about limiting such persons from possessing guns should take the issue and run with it. That is, federal legislation should be proposed that required mental illness evaluations for anyone seeking to purchase a gun, ammunition or accessories (in any venue, whether privately, at a gun show or in a store), the gun should then be registered and a mental illness re-evaluation should be required every 5 years in order to allow that person to continue to own and possess such items.  Of course, a process and a system would be required to implement these rules (authorized psychiatrists would need to be qualified, the mental illness evaluation would need to be incorporated into the background check system, etc.).  Of course, mental illness checks would delay the purchase of a gun, but almost no one needs to purchase a gun immediately - to say otherwise is disingenuous and really just an attempt to limit regulation.  The NRA and the Republicans will come up with all kinds of arguments of why such mental illness evaluations would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment, etc., but if supporters of decreased gun violence are looking for an opening for some Republicans and their supporters find a justification for how they can help reduce gun violence, legislation proposing mental illness evaluations made be an opportunity.

Now Is The Time

Another mass shooting at another school in the U.S.  I expect the same round of actions and discussions:  A pile of flowers and candles will start to appear at the school; local leaders and parents (especially parents who lost their children) will speak; most will speak about the children that they loved; some will speak out against the lack of gun laws or the lack of enforcement of the gun laws; a few politicians will get press coverage for proposing some change (even a little change) to our laws relating to access to certain types of guns, background checks, etc; others, including the National Rifle Association, will say it is disrespectful and too soon to talk about changes to the law and enforcement while people are mourning; a bill will eventually appear in Congress; that bill will sit and then die; another shooting will happen and the cycle will start again.

Although candle-lit vigils, piles of flowers and speeches may express grief and get a lot of coverage, that's exactly what the NRA wants to happen.  They don't want protests, discussion in legislatures, etc. because they know over time that they can manage the situation to make changes go away.  To the contrary, they can exploit the situation to put more fear into the NRA followers that stronger gun laws may come into being, get those followers to give more money to the NRA and then the NRA and their followers will put more pressure on the legislatures to defend the status quo.  They have even become good at exploiting such events by arguing that every teacher should carry a gun and that students should be able to carry guns.

A few things could happen to change this cycle.  First, someone or some credible organization could start to explain to the followers of the NRA that the NRA is lying to them; the NRA does not care about them and the 2nd Amendment, except to the extent that those followers empower the NRA act on behalf of the gun industry (not gun owners) to sell more guns.  That is, the followers of the NRA are being lied to and being duped by the NRA, not being supported by the NRA.  Second, call out legislators and others who call these events "tragedies" or, as Florida Governor Rick Scott said yesterday, that the shooter was "pure evil".  This type of language is intentionally describing these events in unknowable, unstoppable and even religious tones.  But, these events are not tragedies, they are direct results of ignorance, politics and culture that lead to these outcomes.  The shooter is not "evil", he is almost always mentally ill and yet has had access to powerful weapons.  Finally, and I think this is the most important thing that can be done, do not conduct vigils and speeches of rememberance.  Instead, do protests and don't stop until changes are made.  Imagine the press coverage and the pressure on legislatures if all the surviving children at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School refused to go back to school until actual changes were made; if they had sit-ins, speeches and protests on the school grounds for as long as it takes; if the parents and children in those protests refused to allow NRA apologists like Governor Scott and Senator Marco Rubio from participating or attending and to shout back whenever they or others make the well-tested excuses for the NRA and the lack of action.

One thing is clear, as it should be clear immediately after every other such event, Now Is The Time!  Now Is The Time to stop accepting the NRA's lies. Now Is The Time to reject the fatalist language of our legislatures that these events are unstoppable.  Now Is The Time to stop playing into the hands of the NRA by having vigils and speeches.  Now Is The Time to have massive and long-standing protests after each event.  Students, parents and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Now Is The Time to change the entire direction of these issues.  Go on strike. Student and teachers should not go back in the school, but go to the school and yell like hell until you are heard and changes are made.  Now Is The Time. 

Back Blogging

To the 1 or 2 people who may be watching this space, my good friend Jorge Costales pointed out to me that I have not posted in over a year.  That's partly because this last year was a complicated year with lots of transitions.  But, that's all in place now.  Hopefully, I can live up to Jorge's standards going forward.