Links is a round-up of things on the internet that caught my eye.
Russia being Russia as usual
The Times reports that Russia has been castrating captured Ukrainian soldiers to prevent Ukrainian children from being born:
Russia is pure evil, and will continue to be so for as long as Putin or people like him are in charge. When looking at Russian society it is characterised by:
brutality, especially over-the-top self-defeating brutality
incompetence
a culture of systemic dishonesty; the whole country is a gigantic Potemkin village
a culture of systemic corruption
the above all leads to a culture of cynicism and a lack of asabiyyah where everyone just looks out for themself and no-one cares about the interests of wider society
an inability to do simple things, such as change the oil on expensive military vehicles, rendering them useless
It seems to me that there is no political philosophy, either on the left or on the right, that supports the things Russia is. Which is why I'm surprised that within the EU there are people both on the left (e.g. Mick Wallace) and on the right (e.g. Viktor Orbán) who support Putin. They should be forced to live in Russia or at the very least be prevented from living in any civilised country.
Why movies are crap
Richard Hanania thinks movies are getting crap:
In recent years, cultural critics have been getting depressed while looking at which movies are performing best at the box office. Instead of telling new stories, studios are increasingly relying on established franchises like Disney, Star Wars, and the Marvel Universe. [...] Throughout the media, the death of original storytelling has become something of a trope
Why? Because of woke. Hanania's argument is that wokism rejects parts of human nature (specifically that men and women are different psychologically) and that consequently, stories written to comply with wokism will come across as fake to many people, but that by using old stories, movies scripts can get away with being unwoke:
New stories need to avoid what are now seen as sexist tropes. Old ones, however, get grandfathered in. You don’t have to explain why The Lion King isn’t The Lion Queen. You can still make Spiderman movies, and you don’t have to justify why the lead is not a black lesbian. Or why a movie is called “X-Men” instead of “X-Persons.” There’s a subtle difference between the two titles. Think about what it means to say someone is a “good man” versus a “good person.” In the 1960s, you were free to choose either title, while today you would not only need new X-Men characters, but the name of the universe itself would have to pass a PC litmus test.
Hanania makes the intriguing proposal that Republicans get behind reforming copyright law. It would make sense for them to favour legalising internet file sharing as this would be popular with voters, and the industries that would suffer from it (Holywood and the media generally) are against them, so hurting them finanacially would be a bonus.
YouTube tells Invidious to cease and desist
YouTube has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Invidious, an open-source “alternative front-end” to the website which allows users to watch videos without having their data tracked, claiming it violates YouTube’s API policy and demanding that it be shut down within seven days.
The problem is that today social media is controlled by a small number of big companies. it shouldn't be. To facilitate this some thin like the following needs to be done:
require that all social media be interoperable using protocols such as RSS, ActivityPub, etc.
Make it illegal for large social media companies to use legal or technical means to prevent people from scraping user-generated data on their sites.
Where social media uses algorithms to prioritise certain content, make it illegal for them to put their fingers on the scales (i.e. to prioritise content they like or deprioritise content they don't like). Algorithms should only be allowed to go on what users like, not what site thinks their users ought to like.
for sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc, the default order of presenting content would be most-recent-first list of content from people/channels a user follows.
The intention would be that anyone would be able to set up their own social media site using open source software on a Raspberry Pi or equivalent, and that doing so would provide one's content with as much visibility as using one for more of the big sites. The big sites would be required by law to not do anything that impedes this from happening.
Google's Web Environment Integrity
Google's Web Environment Integrity (WEI) is their latest scam to turn the internet into a big surveillance machine:
WEI is a technical proposal to let servers request remote attestations from devices, with those requests being relayed to the device's secure enclave or TPM, which will respond with a cryptographically signed, highly reliable description of your device. You can choose not to send this to the remote server, but you lose the ability to send an altered or randomized description of your device and its software if you think that's best for you.
A handful of companies have established chokepoints between buyers and sellers, performers and audiences, workers and employers, as well as families and communities. When those companies refuse to deal with you, your digital life grinds to a halt.
The web is the last major open platform left on the internet - the last platform where anyone can make a browser or a website and participate, without having to ask permission or meet someone else’s specifications.
You are the boss of your computer. If a website sets up a virtual checkpoint that says, “only approved technology beyond this point,” you should have the right to tell it, “I’m no piece of string, I’m a frayed knot.” That is, you should be able to tell a site what it wants to hear, even if the site would refuse to serve you if it knew the truth about you.
The endgame for Google is to turn the internet into a jackboot stamping on a human face forever: a place where the only rights you have are to do whatever benefits big companies, by which they mean Google and which ever little player they allow to sharecrop on their platform.
As with the Invidious piece (see above), Google needs to be fought on this. When Scotland becomes independent we'll be free from Westminster domination but if we just swap it for domination by big business we'll have gained nothing.
Labour backs down on taxing Big Tech
Labour have shelved their plans to tax Big Tech, after the USA threatened a trade war (archived):
Labour has abandoned plans for a £3 billion tax raid on tech companies such as Amazon and Facebook after being warned that the policy could result in a trade war with the United States.
Under proposals previously outlined by Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, the party had pledged to impose a 10 per cent digital services tax on the revenues of predominantly American search engines, social media companies and online marketplaces.
The idea has been ditched after warnings that it might provoke retaliatory trade sanctions from the Biden administration.
Because Britain has a smaller economy than the USA, their threat of a trade war is a credible one, as the USA could harm the UK economy without the UK being able to retaliate effectively. But if Britain was still in the EU, this would not be the case: the EU's economy is roughly the same size as the USA's so the EU would be able to effectively retaliate against any US sanction, thus the USA would have nothing to gain from imposing them. This is a good example of how in geopolitics size matters.
Brexit has resulted in Britain having less real sovereignty than when we were in the EU. Brexit is a stupid policy which is perhaps why Labour want to stick with it.
No bank account for Farage
Nigel Farage says that his bank has closed his accounts and none of the other banks will allow him to open an account:
While I am very much not a fan of Farage, this is an outrage, a very serious abuse of power.
I have covered this sort of situation before, where Visa and Mastercard threatened to shut down OnlyFans (they later relented). I said then:
OnlyFans is a British company and the only people who should have the right to shut it down are a democratically elected British government. The most important issue is simply: should Britain be ruled by the British people, or should Britain be ruled by the secretive and unaccountable international financial services industry acting in the shadows?
Big corporations have too much power and it is necessary that they be brought down to size. This applies to banks. It also applies to social media companies.
Update: Nat West have apologized to Farage and both Coutts' and Nat West's bosses have resigned. So I guess that's a win for Farage.
Trans activists hate truth and love lies
Michael Bailey reports that trans activists have forced the retaction of his scientific paper:
On March 29, I published an article in the prestigious academic journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. Less than three months later, on June 14, it was retracted by Springer Nature Group, the giant academic publisher of Archives, for an alleged violation of its editorial policies.
Retraction of scientific articles is associated with well-deserved shame: plagiarism, making up data, or grave concerns about the scientific integrity of a study. But my article was not retracted for any shameful reason. It was retracted because it provided evidence for an idea that activists hate.
The retracted article, “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” was coauthored with Suzanna Diaz, who I met in 2018 at a small meeting of scientists, journalists, and parents of children they believed had Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD).
ROGD was first described in the literature in 2018 by the physician and researcher Lisa Littman. It is an explanation of the new phenomenon of adolescents, largely girls, with no history of gender dysphoria, suddenly declaring they want to transition to the opposite sex. It has been a highly contentious diagnosis, with some—and I am one—thinking it’s an important avenue for scientific inquiry, and others declaring it’s a false idea advocated by parents unable to accept they have a transgender child.
It's amusing and ironic that the Blue Tribe use the slogan "follow the science" (which they don't mean, of course. Indeed many of them are not able to mean it since they are incapable of understanding what science is.)
Thousands admitted to hospital with malnutrition
In another win for Tory policy it appears that Thousands of people are being admitted to hospital suffering from malnutrition (archive):
Almost 11,000 people in England were hospitalised with malnutrition last year, as doctors warned that the cost of living crisis has also led to a rise in “Victorian” illnesses such as scurvy and rickets.
Provisional data newly obtained by The Times Health Commission under freedom of information laws reveal that cases of malnutrition have more than doubled in a decade and have quadrupled since 2007/8.
The whole point of the Conservative Party is to only care about the rich, so it is not the least bit surprising this is happening.
Whose side is Biden on?
Robert Reich wants to know whose side Biden is on:
Let me begin today’s letter with a question: Why isn’t Joe Biden calling out Starbucks, along with its billionaire founder and recent CEO Howard Schultz, for its fierce union-busting campaign?
If “Bidenomics” is to be understood as more than a bunch of technocratic policies, Biden has got to be seen to be on the side of workers — including young baristas trying to organize their workplaces — and squarely against people like Schultz, a billionaire Democratic fundraiser who supported Biden in 2020 but detests unions.
I can answer Reich's question.
Biden is on the side of Howard Schultz, on the side of the oligarchs, and in particular those oligarchs who give him bribes donations.
If he really cares about ordinary people, he would:
(1) Institute Universal Basic Income; this would give workers a better bargaining position in negotiations with employers
(2) Institute affordable housing for all; this means the enhanced income from UBI doesn't just co on raised rents, and also means that people can more effectively live on a low budget, again giving workers a better bargaining position in negotiations with employers
(3) Institute universal basic healthcare for all. Again this gives workers a better bargaining position as their (and their family's) health care isn't tied to their job.
(4) Institute fair elections using proportional representation of all elections, ideally using a system like STV with top-up for more proportionality. This would mean the voters get more effective choice over who gets elected, and it is a necessary first step to implementing 1-3 above.
Biden has of course done none of these things nor will he ever. He's a fully paid-up member of the ruling class and he only cares about the ruling class -- such as his contemptible worthless son, the princeling Hunter Biden.
Carrying on with the story:
Starbucks Workers United has won union elections in more than 300 Starbucks stores since December 2021, covering more than 8,000 workers — and won most by overwhelming margins — gaining between 70 and 80 percent of the total votes cast so far, and in parts of the country where private sector unions rarely win.
Its campaign against Starbucks has inspired young workers across the country and breathed life into a labor movement whose official leadership has sometimes appeared out of touch with a new generation of labor activists.
But Starbucks has refused even to bargain a first union contract. And to discourage further unionization, Starbucks has fired scores of pro-union workers, closed stores that have unionized, threatened to withhold wage and benefit improvements from stores considering unionizing, and packed them with new workers and outside managers.
The response to this should be to nationalise Starbucks without compensation and run it as a workers' co-operative. That's another thing Biden, who loves the billionaires and hates workers, will never ever do.
Harvard and privilege laundering
Scott Alexander explains:
elite colleges are machines for laundering privilege.
That is: Harvard accepts (let’s say) 75% smart/talented people, and 25% rich/powerful people. This is a good deal for both sides. The smart people get to network with elites, which is the first step to becoming elite themselves. And the rich people get mixed in so thoroughly with a pool of smart/talented people that everyone assumes they must be smart/talented themselves. After all, they have a degree from Harvard!
The most blatant form of this obfuscation: suppose you own a very successful family business. You can leave your son your fortune, you can leave him the business, you can leave him your mansion, but you can’t (directly) leave him an aura of having deserved all these things. What you can do is make a $10 million donation to Harvard in exchange for them accepting your son. Your son gets a Harvard degree, a universally-recognized sign of being a highly meritorious person. Then when you leave him the business, everyone will agree he deserves it. Who said anything about nepotism? Leaving a Harvard graduate in control of your business is an excellent decision!
Schools against maths
Noah Smith notes that schools in California and Massachusetts are banning maths:
A couple of weeks ago, Armand Domalewski wrote a guest post for Noahpinion about how the new California Math Framework threatened to dumb down math education in the state — for example, by forbidding kids from taking algebra before high school
And meanwhile, the idea that teaching kids less math will create “equity” has spread far beyond the Golden State. The city of Cambridge, Massachusetts recently removed algebra and all advanced math from its junior high schools, on similar “equity” grounds.
The idea is that because people from some backgrounds -- blacks and Hispanics -- on average do less well than others -- Asians and whites -- then no-one will get to be taught calculus (or even algebra, for fuck's sake) so that everyone will be equally bad at maths. Except they won't be as kids whose parents can afford private tuition will still be taught maths, so it is creating a class barrier to access to education.
Smith adds:
the only way to create equity in society would be to handicap the kids who were born with the ability to learn algebra. Like the Handicapper General in Kurt Vonnegut’s satirical sci-fi short story “Harrison Bergeron”, you might try to kneecap the opportunities of the kids you believed to be the genetic elite. In doing so, you would then become a living, breathing embodiment of this meme that opponents of equity created in order to ridicule the whole idea:
Smith uses this cartoon which sums the situation up:
x
People in the USA who would deny education to kids on class grounds are no better than the Taliban in Afghanistan who deny education to girls on sex grounds. In both cases they should be put in a concentration camp and processed through the gas chamber and crematorium. And that would be the end of them.
Just Stop Just Stop Oil
So there's a protest group, Just Stop Oil, who walk slowly in front of traffic, preventing it from going places, in order to protest about climate change.
And now there's a counter-protest group, Just Stop Pissing Everyone Off who use a similar tactic: physically surrounding Just Stop Oil protestors to prevent them from obstructing traffic:
Is this the most British thing ever?
USA can't build weapons fast enough
Matt Stoller writes that the US military-industrial complex can't build weapons fast enough:
One of the more important side stories to the recent wars in Ukraine and Israel, and competition with China over Taiwan, is that the U.S. defense industrial base, composed of 200k plus corporations, is being forced to actually build weapons again. Defense is big business, and since the end of the Cold War, the government has allowed Wall Street to determine who owns, builds, and profits from defense spending.
The signs are unmistakable. In Ukraine, fighters are rationing shells. Taiwan can’t get weapons it ordered years ago. The Pentagon has put together a secret team to scour stockpiles to find high-precision armaments in demand on every battlefield and potential battlefield. But the problem goes beyond national defense. In Lake City, Missouri, the largest small arms ammunition plant in the world has decided all ammo production is going to the military, meaning that there is going to be a domestic shortage for hunters, sportsmen, and maybe even police. This shortage may look like a story of a sudden surge in demand, but it’s actually, as Elle Ekman wrote in the Prospect in 2021, a story of consolidation and de-industrialization.
Surges due to wars aren’t new, and there’s always some time lag between the build-up and the delivery. But today, the lengths of time are weirdly long. For instance, the Army is awarding contracts to RTX and Lockheed Martin to build new Stinger missiles, which makes sense. But the process will take.. five years. Why? What is new is Wall Street’s role in weaponry. We used to have slack, and productive capacity, but then came private equity and mergers. And now we don’t. The government can’t actually solicit bids from multiple players for most major weapons systems, because there’s just one or two possible bidders.
It's not just Russia that has hollowed out its industrial base