About Techdirt.
Started in 1997 by Floor64 founder Mike Masnick and then growing into a group blogging effort, the Techdirt blog relies on a proven economic framework to analyze and offer insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies’ ability to innovate and grow. As the impact of technological innovation on society, civil liberties and consumer rights has grown, Techdirt?s coverage has expanded to include these critical topics.
The dynamic and interactive community of Techdirt readers often comment on the addictive quality of the content on the site, a feeling supported by the blog’s average of ~1 million visitors per month and more than 1.7 million comments on 73,000+ posts. Both Business Week and Forbes have awarded Techdirt Best of the Web thought leader awards.
You can also find Techdirt on Twitter and Facebook.
THIS
5G Hype Simply Didn’t Deliver
from the stop-overhyping-everything dept
We’ve noted for several years how the “race to 5G” was largely just hype by telecoms and hardware vendors eager to sell more gear and justify high U.S. mobile data prices. While 5G does provide faster, more resilient, and lower latency networks, it’s more of an evolution than a revolution.
But that’s not what telecom giants like Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T promised. Both routinely promised that 5G would change the way we live and work, usher forth the smart cities of tomorrow, and even revolutionize the way we treat cancer. None of those things wound up being true.
Two big claims by the wireless industry was that 5G was going to revolutionize self-driving vehicle automation and be a key player in the “metaverse” (Facebook’s idiotic term for all future interactive online technologies that involve virtual spaces). But again, that didn’t happen either:
Specifically, metaverse proponent Meta (formerly Facebook) lost more than $700 billion in value during 2022, with shares tumbling further this week on news that CEO Mark Zuckerberg will continue investing in metaverse services into 2023. Separately, Tesla, Ford and General Motors have all notched notable setbacks in their pursuit of autonomous cars, a concept that has received an estimated $100 billion in research and development so far. One autonomous driving pioneer recently bemoaned the fact that the technology “has delivered so little.”
Of course, the Zuckerverse and full self driving falling on their faces weren’t 5G’s fault. But again, 5G was supposed to be a driving force for these evolutions, yet simply didn’t deliver on any of the promises we were subjected to over the last half a decade. It didn’t even fully deliver (yet) on its most basic of promises: affordable next-generation connectivity.
US 5G performance was significantly worse than most overseas deployments due to a dearth of middle-band spectrum. Less talked about (because it’s a preferred outcome for the industry and the policymakers who love them) is the fact U.S. wireless data prices continue to be some of the highest in the developed world, something that only tends to increase with market consolidation.
Getting excited about innovative new technologies is one thing, but the massive chasm that continues to grow between marketing hype and reality in America is something else altogether. Unrealistic claims may drive stock valuations and Elon Musk’s ego on Twitter, but it eventually puts a bad taste in the mouth of actual consumers, and in 5G’s case associated the wireless standard with hype and bluster.
THAT
Finally: Countries Start To Rebel Against Corporate Sovereignty, But Ten Years Too Late
from the we-did-warn-you dept
Back in 2013, Techdirt wrote about “the monster lurking inside free trade agreements”. Formally, the monster is known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), but here on Techdirt we call it “corporate sovereignty“, because that is what it is: a system of secret courts that effectively places companies above a government, by allowing them to sue a nation if the latter takes actions or brings in laws that might adversely affect their profits.
In 2015, we warned that corporate sovereignty would threaten EU plans to protect the environment in the TAFTA/TTIP trade deal between the US and the EU. TAFTA/TTIP never happened, but fossil fuel companies were able to to use other treaties to demand over $18 billion as “compensation” for the potential loss of future profits as the result of increasing government action to tackle climate change. . " READ MORE
AND . . .
Are Exaggerations About Cancel Culture Actually Leading To The ‘Self-Censorship’ People Screaming About Cancel Culture Are Worried About?
from the cancel-culture-is-a-moral-panic dept
I think, by this point, I’ve made my overall views on the hype around “cancel culture” pretty clear. To me it seems to be just as much of a moral panic about free speech as most other moral panics, though couched in language that pretends it’s about supporting free speech. As with most moral panics, that’s not to say there aren’t some legitimate concerns about whatever is at the heart of the panic, but the actual concerning bits are rare and quite limited, whereas the panic assumes that it’s widespread and pervasive.
Even worse (to me) is that those running around screaming about cancel culture are, all too often, using the very rare cases of legitimate concern to effectively raise a barrier against perfectly deserved criticism and accountability for those who were previously untouchable, but who might actually deserve some criticism and accountability. That is, it often feels like the hype around “cancel culture” is, in fact, an attack on free speech, rather than in support of it (as its proponents claim). It’s the attack on those who are speaking out and criticizing the speech of others — which should be seen as quintessential free expression.
All of this came to mind as I read Eve Fairbanks recent piece in The Altantic, where she discusses her own shock that she wasn’t “canceled” for her latest book. She was concerned that, as a white writer, who wrote about race issues in South Africa — where she has lived for over a decade — she would face a screaming mob who was upset because she wrote about Black South Africans while not being Black herself. Almost all of this fear was based on people fretting to her about all they’d heard about how pervasive cancel culture had become in America.
Friends and colleagues told me that one of my biggest jobs ahead of publishing my book would be to take careful steps to avoid cancellation for writing about race. (I am white.) My book, The Inheritors, follows several South Africans as they grapple with their white-supremacist country’s rapid transfiguration into a Black-led democracy. It begins with a young Black woman’s memory of preparing to go to school—she was one of the first Black students at an elementary school that for a century accepted only white kids—and ends on her mother’s reflections. Ninety percent of South Africans are Black, and I’d felt frustrated reading decades’ worth of writing, even by Nobel-winning progressives, that envisioned South Africa through anxious white families’ eyes. Two editors, though, told me in private conversations to evade criticism by cutting the manuscript so it focused exclusively on white people.
She goes on to give numerous other examples of people warning her about how much trouble she was going to get in for her book. And… then none of it happened.
Indeed, she notes that she ended up “self-censoring” herself not (as the cancel culture proponents would have you believe) out of fear that the cancel culture folks were coming for her, but because of how often everyone told her the cancel culture mob would definitely be coming for her.
I hid the book a little, in other words. I self-censored, not—it seemed to me afterward—because of a direct fear of censorious mobs, but because of the way the threats to free speech are now depicted in innumerable essays and whispered rumors from elders in the world of letters.
But, nothing at all happened. No one was pissed off. No one freaked out. She wasn’t canceled. And so now she’s coming around to what many of us have been saying all along. The whole narrative about cancel culture is itself a kind of moral panic:
The experience made me wonder: Why do we assume that cancel culture is a pervasive reality, and what’s the impact of that assumption? When the Times wrote in its editorial that Americans “know [cancel culture] exists and feel its burden,” the paper was referring to a poll it commissioned in which 84 percent of respondents said they believed “retaliation” and “harsh criticism” against opinions now constitute a “serious” problem. But substantial numbers of Americans also believe the 2020 election was fraudulent without that being the truth. I began to think that the way pro-free-speech advocates now talk about speech suppression constitutes a driver of the perception of it. And that, paradoxically, concern about cancel culture has itself become a threat to free speech.
It’s that last line that struck me as the most interesting, and telling, piece in the whole thing. As with lots of moral panics, the panic itself, based on little but overhyped and exaggerated anecdotes and stories, ends up becoming a weird sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, in that it causes people to act as if it is true, even if it’s not.
Fairbanks then compares it to all the nonsense being pushed in the media these days about crime rising. The media and politicians keep pushing this nonsense narrative that crime is rising, even as the data shows it really is not. But, the data is less important. The narrative lives on, and because people believe that crime (and cancel culture) is a problem, they act as if they are really happening, and the end result is, in some ways, effectively the same:
It might sound strange, or even offensive, to suggest that writing about threats to free speech could make people afraid of speaking. The thing is, we know this is how behavior works in other domains. When writers emphasize adverse reactions to vaccines, people shy away from taking them. People clean supermarket shelves out of toilet paper, creating a shortage, just on the warning that a shortage might happen. Americans consistently believe crime is rising nationwide even when it’s falling. In studies on crime and public behavior, researchers reliably find that increased worry in the press, on social media, and in public opinion—the same outlets on which journalists rely to describe cancel culture’s reality—do not correlate well with changes in crime rates. They also find, as one analysis put it, that “ironically, fear of crime” can “lead to other behaviors” that drive crime up: installing ostentatious security features, fleeing “bad” neighborhoods, voting for heavy policing that aggravates conflict between people and law enforcement.
This is one of the many reasons why I keep calling out exaggerations around cancel culture. Because those exaggerations, and the associated moral panic, are actually causing much of what those pushing that narrative fear is happening… to actually happen.
It remains perfectly reasonable to call out specific situations where you can talk about why that specific scenario is egregious or problematic, and let people discuss those specifics. But by continuing to promote the myth of pervasive cancel culture, you’re actually doing more to create the kinds of “self-censorship” that people are whining about. Of course, for those who have built up a reputation as being the voices decrying cancel culture, they actually benefit from the self-fulfilling prophecy part of it all, but that doesn’t meant that the people who are actually working for free expression need to help them just to assuage their own insecurities.
Filed Under: cancel culture, eve fairbanks, free speech, overhype
Techdirt Podcast Episode 336: The DSA Is A Mess, But Will Now Rule The Internet
from the big-regulation dept
There are big internet regulatory changes coming in the EU, with the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act. Each is a huge bundle of new rules that could drastically change the future of the entire internet, and today we’re focusing on the DSA, which is set to come into force in 2024. Emma Llansó from the Center for Democracy & Technology and Daphne Keller from Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center join us on this week’s episode to dig into the DSA and its many, many implications.
Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.
Filed Under: daphne keller, digital services act, dsa, emma llanso, eu, intermediary liability, podcast, regulation
No comments:
Post a Comment