Some thoughts: The great paradox of 1/6 is that so much of the planning happened out in the open (both in the immediate run-up and over the past 4+ years), which actually made it less effective. There were too many disparate and undisciplined groups, effectively tourists.

This part of Trumpism will continue. To the extent the Trump family is able to operate in the open, they will become the Grateful Dead of right-wing politics, which Trump rallies already embody, and followers will go on tour, chanting "Lock Her Up" for the coming decades.
The key question is whether the Far Right will break from this. Some indications show that Trump's efforts at self-preservation by weak denunciation will fuel a break and also further a pervasive "stabbed-in-the-back" narrative that the Far Right uses everywhere.
What made 1/6 more effective was the obvious underpreparation by the Capitol police, in coordination with DOJ and DOD. Some indiv officers assented but some did their job a little too effectively--incl. by shooting the woman in the bldg as much as not shooting entrants at first.
It's clear that some people entered the Capitol with the intent to kidnap/lynch specific members of Congress (you can figure out who), and some of those people basically fantasized about doing that for the likes while live-streaming (insert analogy to Zetas/ISIS/whatevs).
Ultimately, many of the known key leaders of the Far Right were in the Capitol. There is no parallel on the Left, in part because of aversion to hierarchy means we don't have celebrity leaders in the same way (though one celeb was clearly a target on 1/6).
But these leaders also weren't quite in control of what was happening in part because they were always hedging their bets. Every action is a fundraising opportunity until the next one, and the dog catching the car problem is real for ppl w/ no political strategy.
Given all the "non-movement" arguments happening in my little corner of the too-online Left lately, it's clear that the disciplined revolutionary cadre of the Right (@kathleen_belew's subject matter) have been a victim of their own success/popularity.
They're torn b/c their politics thrive in the online environment w/ the full transformation of politics into meme-ification & trolling, but they also can't easily translate that success into anything more than endless stochastic white violence, which is where they started anyway.
The Far Right hasn't reached the status of non-movement yet, to the degree the positive valence of that term applies to the 1000s of otherwise un- or loosely organized people who filled the streets over last summer and engaged in radical and courageous tactics.
But it also doesn't need to because its minimum goal is also the baseline operation of US institutions and governance (ie, the rule of capital through racialized structural disadvantage).

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