My DMs tell me that I look like I'm not ok from this thread. ⤵️

I am not ok.

This is not ok.

But it isn't just this series of events...it's that this series of events comes from years of escalation and lack of enforcement, and by all appearances will be followed by the same.

We are at a point where our governance is run by elected officials that increasingly are caricatures of positions, not legislators doing the work.

Getting into office is a measure of fundraising, favors, and platitudes - being in office is increasingly extended campaigning.
The percent of legislators who act like reality show contestants is not insignificant; the amount of legislators we have that will vote for a bill they haven't read is approximately 100%.

Our legislators are in the same club, divided in two distinctly different screwed up clubs.
One club has put the acquisition of power above any attempts at sane governance. They will do whatever is necessary to acquire, hold, and execute their power because the ends ALWAYS justify the means.

Always.

No matter what has to be said or done.

Coup? No problem!
The other club wants to govern, I think?, but they still go all in on governance they KNOW is bad. (No one should be able to justify legislation that is 5,593 pages long) There is lots of complaining, but not so much doing - they'll have all 3 chambers...let's see if they use it.
If you aren't in a club, you are totally invisible, insignificant, not worthy of opinions or political participation.
Today we know that both chambers of Congress have adjourned and peaced out, leaving us with a man who staged a so-far-unsuccessful coup with nuclear codes and the hope that yesterday's kinda scolding might restrain him for a couple of weeks.

Sure.
I appreciate the calls for him to be removed by some members of Congress...but it shouldn't even be a question at this point.

And anyone who enabled this should also be removed.
One of our clubs weaponizes any perceived malfeasance from the other club, wasting our resources.

The other simply appears to not have the stomach for it, failing to serve up functional consequences for decades in the name of collegial relationships.
At the end of this all - the ones who are the problem, the ones who enabled this will mostly have absolutely no consequences, and nothing other than compelling evidence that they should to do it again - perhaps in a slightly more subtle or clever way.
That's what happens when one group finds the other politically invalid and they other party accepts that framework.

It's compounded by mostly powerless individuals, willing to thrust themselves into this farce to demand anyone help or see them, even if their reason is bad.
We have people in jail for life for stealing a few dollars, we have people in Congress causing insurrection and subjecting our nation to legislative neglect for votes, profit, and giggles without a whiff of comeuppance.

Prove me wrong Congress.

Please.
Oh - and that we judge legislators and politicians on each decision or wrong individually, while judging every other criminal on the totality of their sins, is complete and total bullshit.

More from For later read

This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.

@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.

Some counterpoints 👇


1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.

This does not seem self-evident to me


Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇

If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted

2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.

But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.

Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.

3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:

"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."

To

"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."

IMO the latter statement is incorrect.

You May Also Like