Meta’s AI Gamble: Hype or Hubris?

 

Meta’s AI Gamble: Hype or Hubris?

Meta’s latest earnings call was a masterclass in optimism, with their leadership painting a rosy picture of an AI-driven utopia. Over 3.4 billion people use their apps daily—Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and the ascendant Threads, now at 350 million monthly users. They’re raking in cash, and they’re betting big on artificial intelligence to keep the party going. But let’s pump the brakes. Their five-pronged AI strategy—improved advertising, engaging experiences, business messaging, Meta AI, and AI devices—sounds like a sci-fi dream. The question is: can they pull it off, or is this a house of cards waiting to collapse? Here’s a skeptical take on their vision, plus a grim outline of how it could all go spectacularly wrong.

A Shaky Foundation

Meta’s user base is massive, sure, but growth doesn’t equal stability. With 3.4 billion daily users, they’re a titan, but macroeconomic uncertainty looms large. They’re pouring billions into AI, banking on it to transform their ecosystem. But what if the economy tanks or regulators crack down? Their confidence feels more like bravado when you consider the risks of over-leveraging on unproven tech. AI’s transformative potential is real, but so is the chance of catastrophic missteps.

Opportunity 1: Advertising, or Surveillance on Steroids?

Meta claims AI will revolutionize advertising by letting businesses set goals—like selling products or acquiring customers—while their algorithms do the heavy lifting. They’re already outperforming businesses at targeting audiences, with a new Reels ads model boosting conversions by 5% and 30% more advertisers using AI creative tools last quarter. Sounds efficient, right? Too bad it’s a privacy nightmare.

How it could go wrong: AI-driven advertising could amplify surveillance capitalism, mining ever-deeper user data to predict behavior with chilling accuracy. If Meta’s algorithms get too good, they risk alienating users who feel like pawns in a dystopian ad machine. A single data breach or regulatory slap—like GDPR on steroids—could cripple their ad business. And if advertisers grow dependent on Meta’s AI, smaller players might get squeezed out, stifling competition and inviting antitrust scrutiny. The dream of AI ads boosting global GDP could morph into a monopolistic stranglehold.

Opportunity 2: Engagement, or Addiction by Design?

Meta’s AI is making their platforms stickier. Recommendation system tweaks have spiked time spent on Facebook by 7%, Instagram by 6%, and Threads by a staggering 35%. They’re not just optimizing existing content; they’re cooking up interactive formats that “talk back” to users. The vision is a feed that’s less about scrolling and more about dynamic engagement. But let’s call it what it is: engineering addiction.

How it could go wrong: Hyper-engaging AI could trap users in echo chambers, amplifying misinformation and polarization. Interactive content might sound cool, but if it’s too immersive, it risks eroding attention spans and mental health—especially for younger users. Regulators are already eyeing social media’s impact on well-being; a misstep could trigger bans or restrictions. And if AI-generated content floods feeds, authentic human connection could drown in a sea of algorithmically curated noise. The “richer experiences” Meta promises might just mean richer profits at the expense of our sanity.

Opportunity 3: Business Messaging, or a Pipe Dream?

Meta sees business messaging as their next big revenue stream. WhatsApp’s 3 billion monthly users and Messenger’s billion are already commerce hubs in places like Thailand and Vietnam. AI, they claim, will make this model viable in developed markets by automating customer support and sales. Soon, every business might have an AI agent, as ubiquitous as an email address. Sounds transformative—until you dig deeper.

How it could go wrong: Scaling AI-driven messaging in wealthier markets assumes flawless execution, but AI agents are notoriously prone to errors. A botched customer interaction could tank a brand’s reputation, and businesses might balk at entrusting sales to Meta’s black box. Privacy concerns loom large—users might revolt if their chats become ad fodder. And in a crowded market, competitors like Slack or Google could outmaneuver Meta. If labor costs don’t drop as expected, this pillar could crumble, leaving Meta with a costly experiment and no payoff.

Opportunity 4: Meta AI, or a Solution Looking for a Problem?

Meta AI is a hit, with nearly a billion monthly users across their apps. They’re pushing for a personalized, voice-driven assistant that’s part entertainment, part companion. The new standalone Meta AI app, complete with a social feed, aims to make it a daily staple. But do we really need another AI buddy, especially one tied to Meta’s data-hungry empire?

How it could go wrong: Personalization sounds great until it’s creepy. If Meta AI leans too heavily on user data from Reels or chats, it could spark a backlash over privacy. Voice interactions might flop if the tech isn’t seamless—think Siri’s early days, but worse. The app’s social feed risks becoming a gimmick if users don’t bite. And when Meta shifts to monetization (ads or premium tiers), they’ll need to avoid alienating users who expect free services. If competitors like Google or Apple deliver a better AI, Meta’s billion users could jump ship, leaving this venture dead in the water.

Opportunity 5: AI Devices, or a Billion-Dollar Bet?

Meta’s banking on glasses as the next computing frontier. Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses have tripled sales, and new launches with EssilorLuxottica promise more bells and whistles. These devices let AI see, hear, and interact in real-time, blending physical and digital worlds. Quest 3S is democratizing VR, too. But glasses as the “ideal form factor”? That’s a stretch.

How it could go wrong: AI glasses sound futuristic, but adoption hinges on affordability and utility. If they’re too pricey or clunky, they’ll flop like Google Glass. Privacy is a massive hurdle—glasses that see and hear everything could freak out users and regulators alike. Technical glitches, like laggy holograms or battery drain, could kill the vibe. VR’s niche appeal might not scale, and if Meta’s ecosystem doesn’t integrate seamlessly, these devices could become expensive paperweights. A misstep here could burn billions, echoing Meta’s metaverse misadventures.

The Llama in the Room

Meta’s AI ambitions rest on their Llama 4 models, touted as top-tier in intelligence, efficiency, and multi-modality. The upcoming Llama 4 Behemoth model sounds impressive, but it’s a means, not an end. Their pursuit of “full general intelligence” is a moonshot, and moonshots often crash. Accelerating infrastructure investments to keep up with rivals like OpenAI or Google is a gamble that could strain finances if the ROI doesn’t materialize.

How it could go wrong: If Llama 4 underperforms or gets outclassed, Meta’s entire strategy falters. Infrastructure costs could spiral, especially if AI training demands keep skyrocketing. Ethical lapses—like biased models or unintended consequences—could spark public outrage and lawsuits. And if general intelligence remains elusive, Meta’s downstream opportunities (ads, messaging, devices) could stall, leaving them with a pricey tech stack and little to show for it.

The Doomsday Scenario

Meta’s AI vision is ambitious, but the risks are colossal. A perfect storm could look like this: privacy scandals erode user trust, triggering mass exodus from their platforms. Regulators, smelling blood, impose crippling fines or break up Meta’s empire. AI glitches—think rogue ad algorithms or faulty messaging bots—alienate businesses and tank revenue. Glasses and VR fail to catch on, burning cash reserves. Meanwhile, competitors outpace Meta’s models, rendering Llama obsolete. The result? A humbled giant, hemorrhaging users and relevance, with AI’s promise reduced to a cautionary tale.

A Reality Check

Meta’s leadership calls this a “pivotal moment,” but their enthusiasm feels like a sales pitch. The AI revolution is real, but so are the pitfalls. Privacy concerns, technical hurdles, and cutthroat competition could derail their grand plans. They’re betting billions on a future where AI seamlessly integrates into our lives, but the line between innovation and overreach is thin. If Meta stumbles, the fallout could be brutal—for them and the billions who rely on their platforms. For now, I’m keeping my popcorn ready and my skepticism sharper.

The Storm of Elon Musk: A Short Biography

 

Here's an interesting experiment: I put in a transcript of videos about Musk into his own AI engine, Grok, and asked it a few other questions and told it to write this post as a kind of short book.

This is what his own service says about him:

The Storm of Elon Musk: A Biography

Chapter 1: A Stormy Beginning
Elon Musk’s mind has always been a tempest, a swirling chaos of ideas and ambitions that few could comprehend. Born in the summer of 1971 in South Africa, his childhood was marked by relentless bullying for being scrawny and nerdy. The playground was no sanctuary; he was punched in the face, beaten so badly once that he landed in the hospital. The scars, both physical and emotional, were deepened by his father’s cruelty. After one brutal beating at school, Elon returned home only to face over an hour of beratement, his father calling him stupid and blaming him for the attack. These early traumas forged a resilience in Elon, but also a storm that would rage within him for decades.
Contrary to rumors, Elon’s family was not wealthy. The myth of a rich father owning emerald mines was just that—a myth. His father imported emeralds, but the family struggled financially. What Elon did possess was an extraordinary aptitude for computers. At 12, he taught himself to program, creating a video game he sold to a magazine for $500. This was his first foray into the world of technology, a spark that would ignite his lifelong obsession with pushing the boundaries of what humans could achieve.
By 18, Elon left South Africa for Canada, eventually landing in Pennsylvania to study economics and physics. His academic journey was brief; at 24, he moved to California for a PhD at Stanford but abandoned it to chase a bigger dream—building something that would change the world.

Chapter 2: The Rise of an Empire
Elon’s first venture, Zip2, was a bold step into the tech world. Founded in 1995 with his brother, it provided maps and business directories for online newspapers—a precursor to Google Maps. The company’s success was staggering; it was acquired for $307 million, with Elon pocketing $22 million. Suddenly, he was rich, but he was far from satisfied.
With his newfound wealth, Elon founded X.com, an online bank that would evolve into PayPal. In 2002, eBay acquired it for $1.5 billion, netting Elon $180 million. Now super-rich, he turned his sights to audacious ideas. He allocated half his fortune to three ventures: SpaceX, Tesla, and SolarCity. Each was a gamble with less than a 10% chance of success, but Elon thrived on risk.
SpaceX aimed to make humans a multi-planetary species, a childhood dream rooted in video games about space. Tesla sought to mainstream electric cars, while SolarCity pushed for sustainable energy. These ventures were not just businesses; they were manifestations of Elon’s belief in humanity’s potential to transcend earthly limits. Despite early failures—SpaceX’s first three launches failed, and Tesla’s manufacturing was a nightmare—Elon’s addiction to intensity drove him forward. SpaceX pioneered reusable rockets, transforming space travel. Tesla revolutionized the auto industry, becoming one of the world’s most valuable companies. By the early 2020s, Elon was the richest man alive, his empire a testament to his relentless vision.

Chapter 3: The X Factor
Elon’s success was not just about money or ideas; it was about his unique approach to leadership. He was obsessed with details, spending 90% of his time on technical problems, whiteboarding with engineers late into the night. He questioned everything, from rocket components to manufacturing processes, driving costs down through sheer interrogation. At SpaceX, he discovered inflated rocket prices and built 70% of the components in-house, saving millions. At Tesla, he made patents open-source, betting that a booming electric vehicle market would benefit his company.
But Elon’s leadership was a double-edged sword. His ruthless idealism attracted brilliant minds, but his abrasive style made working for him grueling. He’d demand six-month projects be completed in 90 days, dismissing protests as excuses. Employees described him as both inspiring and cruel, a man who cared deeply about humanity but little for individual humans. His behavior, often attributed to his undiagnosed autism spectrum traits, could cross into bullying and coercion, leaving a trail of burned-out colleagues.

Chapter 4: The Twitter Storm
In 2022, Elon made his most controversial move: buying Twitter for $44 billion. He claimed it was about free speech, arguing that Twitter, based in liberal San Francisco, was infected with left-leaning bias and censored by governments. He envisioned a platform where all voices could thrive, a bulwark against tyranny.
But the reality was messier. Elon fired half of Twitter’s staff, demanding “extremely hardcore” work from those who remained. He unbanned controversial figures like Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene, but his commitment to free speech was inconsistent. He banned Substack links, labeled “cisgender” a slur, and sued critics like the Center for Countering Digital Hate. Most shockingly, he complied with government censorship requests—such as Turkey’s demand to block critics during an election—at a higher rate than the old Twitter, despite his anti-censorship rhetoric.
Data debunked his claim of liberal bias; studies showed Twitter amplified conservative voices more than liberal ones. The Twitter Files revealed some left-leaning censorship, like the suppression of a Hunter Biden story, but Elon’s response was to wield his own megaphone, boosting extreme ideas and propaganda. His actions suggested a deeper motive: a love for crisis and attention, a need to stir the pot.

Chapter 5: The Political Pivot and DOGE Controversies (August 2024–April 2025)
From August 2024 to April 2025, Elon Musk’s influence took a dramatic turn as he plunged into U.S. politics, becoming a central figure in President Donald Trump’s second term. His role as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an advisory body created by Trump’s executive order, placed him at the forefront of a controversial mission to slash federal spending and reshape the government. This period was marked by unprecedented political engagement, legal battles, and conflicts of interest that further polarized public opinion about Musk.
Political Powerhouse
Musk emerged as the biggest donor in the 2024 U.S. election, pouring over $291 million into Republican candidates, political action committees, and conservative organizations, including $250 million to support Trump’s campaign. His America PAC spent heavily, notably injecting over $20 million into a Wisconsin Supreme Court race in March 2025, using controversial tactics like offering $100 to petition signers against “activist judges.” These moves cemented Musk’s role as a political kingmaker, but they also drew scrutiny for blurring the lines between his business interests and political influence.
DOGE: A Radical Experiment
DOGE, tasked with cutting government waste and modernizing IT systems, became a lightning rod for controversy. Musk promised to save $1 trillion, later scaling back to $150–$160 billion, but the group’s accounting was criticized for errors and inflated claims. DOGE’s actions included shuttering agencies like USAID, defunding programs, and offering buyouts to over two million federal employees, with some firings later reversed. Musk’s team, largely young tech workers with ties to his companies, accessed sensitive data across agencies, raising alarms about privacy and conflicts of interest, especially given Musk’s federal contracts with SpaceX and Tesla.
Notably, Department of Transportation employees supporting SpaceX and Starlink launches were spared from cuts, fueling accusations of favoritism. Musk’s claims of uncovering unemployment benefit fraud—such as payments to deceased or unborn claimants—were dismissed by experts as rehashed Biden-era findings, often mischaracterized as fraud. Posts on X from Musk, like one on February 10, 2025, boasted of canceling a $17 million tax policy project for Liberia, framing it as wasteful, but critics argued these cuts harmed humanitarian efforts.
Legal and Ethical Firestorms
DOGE’s aggressive tactics sparked lawsuits from federal unions and watchdog groups. A federal judge temporarily blocked some data access and buyout plans, citing violations of civil service protections. Ethics experts warned that Musk’s role as a “special government employee” risked breaching conflict-of-interest laws, given his stakes in SpaceX and Tesla. Musk’s lack of transparency—DOGE stopped sharing data on government requests by April 2023—and his public attacks on critics, including cabinet officials like Marco Rubio and Sean Duffy, further eroded trust.
Impact on Tesla and Public Perception
Musk’s political divisiveness took a toll on Tesla. By April 2025, Tesla reported a 71% profit plunge and a 13% drop in deliveries, with sales in California falling 11.6%. Consumers and investors, like New York City’s comptroller, cited Musk’s right-wing shift and DOGE role as distractions, with some Tesla owners publicly disavowing him through protest stickers. On April 22, 2025, Musk announced he would step back from DOGE to focus on Tesla, though he hinted at continued involvement through Trump’s term. Polls showed public support for cutting government waste but growing disapproval of Musk and DOGE’s chaotic approach.

Chapter 6: The Cost of Chaos
Elon’s Twitter and DOGE ventures were unlike his other companies. SpaceX and Tesla had clear metrics of success—rockets launched, cars drove. Twitter’s impact was intangible, tied to the fragile ecosystem of information. DOGE’s cuts, while popular with some, disrupted agencies and sparked legal chaos, costing an estimated $135 billion in firings, rehiring, and lost productivity. By amplifying divisive voices on X and pushing controversial policies, Musk was not just reshaping platforms and governments; he was undermining his own vision of advancing human civilization.
Former employees felt betrayed. They had rallied around his mission to push humanity forward, only to see him trade that idealism for controversy. His addiction to drama was now a liability, alienating allies, customers, and investors. Critics argued that his behavior validated the worst impulses in society, rewarding division over unity.
Yet Elon’s defenders insisted that only someone as unorthodox as him could change the world. His reinvention of electric cars and space travel was proof of his genius. But as he played with the levers of information and power, the stakes were higher, the consequences less predictable. The storm in Elon’s mind, once a force for innovation, was now a corrosive force, driving society further apart.

Chapter 7: The Paradox of Elon Musk
Elon Musk remains an enigma—a visionary who built an empire on the belief that humans can achieve the impossible, yet a man whose flaws threaten to unravel his legacy. His childhood scars fueled his ambition but left him addicted to conflict. His brilliance revolutionized industries, but his hypocrisy on free speech and penchant for bullying have alienated many. His political foray with DOGE, while impactful, exposed vulnerabilities in his judgment, with conflicts of interest and erratic leadership undermining his credibility.
As Twitter became X and DOGE reshaped government, Elon’s grand vision seemed to blur. Was he earnest about free speech or efficiency, or was it a pretext to feed his need for chaos? Did he truly believe in humanity’s potential, or was he simply chasing the next storm? The answers lie somewhere in the tempest of his mind, a place few can understand.
What is clear is that Elon Musk’s story is not just about one man. It’s about the delicate balance between genius and hubris, between pushing humanity forward and tearing it apart. As he continues to shape our world, the question remains: will his storm ultimately save civilization, or destroy it?

As of today, most with think the direction is the latter, not the former.

An excellent read from an ex-evangelical.

 

As you know, I once was an evangelical megachurch pastor and my pastoral career stretched over many years. Eventually, I could no longer teach Christian doctrine with a good conscience and realized this teaching was not truly changing people’s lives… and so I walked away from the whole enchilada. 

Below are 14 things that the misguided religious establishment doesn't want you to know. Speaking for myself and my personal experience, I was not able to see or admit these things to myself. I truly got into ministry initially because I wanted to make a difference and help people, and I relied upon the belief-system I learned as the proper framework to achieve this. It took a lot of post-religion reflection to see the ways this belief-system was hurting people. 

I offer the below list in hopes that you might disentangle yourself from harmful beliefs and attitudes impacting your life. 

14 things the misguided religious establishment doesn’t want you to know: 

1. Toxic religion is rooted in fear, especially fear about the afterlife. It leverages the false doctrine of hell to win converts and demand holiness. The fear of God's disapproval, rejection, abandonment and punishment is another hallmark of toxic religion. 

2. Clergy have no innate authority. Holding a church leadership position or having a theological degree does not imbue a person with special divine authority or superiority. The terms "anointed", "called", or "chosen" or titles such as "pastor", "priest", "bishop", "elder", "evangelist" or "apostle" do not confer any innate authority on an individual or group. 

3. We hold sacred what we are taught to hold sacred, which is why what is sacred to one community is not sacred to another. 

4. The stories in our sacred books aren’t history, nor were they meant to be. The authors of these books weren’t historians but writers of historical fiction: they used history (or pseudo history) as a context or pretext for their own ideas. Reading sacred texts as history may yield some nuggets of the past, but the real gold is in seeing these stories as myth and parable, and trying to unpack the possible meanings these parables and myths may hold. 

5. Prayer doesn’t work the way you think it does. You can’t bribe God, or change God’s mind through obedience, devotion, or groveling. The underlying theistic premises of prayer are untenable.

6. Anything you claim to know about God, even the notion that there is a God, is a projection of your psyche. What you say about God—who God is, what God cares about, who God rewards, and who God punishes—says nothing about God and everything about you. If you believe in an unconditionally loving God, you probably value unconditional love. If you believe in a God who divides people into chosen and not chosen, believers and infidels, saved and damned, high cast or low caste, etc. you are likely someone who divides people into in–groups and out–groups with you and your group as the quintessential in-group. God may or may not exist, but your idea of God mirrors yourself and your values. 

7. Nobody is born Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Protestant, etc. People are born human and are slowly conditioned by narratives of race, religion, gender, nationality, etc. to be less than human. 

8. Theology isn’t the free search for truth, but rather a defense of an already held position. Theology is really apologetics, explaining why a belief is true rather than seeking out the truth in and of itself. All theological reasoning is circular, inevitably “proving” the truth of its own presupposition. 

9. Becoming more religious cannot save us. Religion is a human invention reflecting the best and worst of humanity; becoming more religious will simply allow us to perpetuate compassion and cruelty in the name of religion. Because religion always carries the danger of fanaticism, becoming more religious may only heighten the risk of us becoming more fanatical. 

10. Becoming less religious cannot save us. In fact, being against religion can become it’s own fanaticism. Becoming less religious will simply force us to perpetuate compassion and cruelty in the name of something else. Secular societies that actively suppress religion have proven no more just or compassionate than religious societies that suppress secularism or free thought. This is because neither religion nor the lack of religion solely nullifies our human potential to act out of ego, greed, fear, hostility, and hatred. 

11. A healthy religion is one that helps us own and integrate the shadow side of human nature for the good of person and planet, something few clergy are trained to do. Clergy are trained to promote the religion they represent. They are apologists not liberators. If you want to be more just, compassionate, and loving, you must do the personal work within yourself, and free yourself from the conditions that lock you into injustice, cruelty, and hate, and this means you have to free yourself from all your narratives, including those you call “religious.” 

12. Religious leaders claims that their particular understanding and interpretation of their sacred books should be universally accepted. Religious leaders often say, “My authority is the Bible.” It would be more accurate for them to say, “My authority is what they taught me at seminary the Bible means.” People start with flawed or false presuppositions about what the Bible is, such as: the Bible was meant to present a coherent theology about God or is a piece of doctrinal exposition; the Bible is the inerrant, infallible and sole message/"Word" of God to the world; the Bible is a blueprint for daily living. Too often religious leaders make God about having "correct theology." There are a lot of unhappy, broken, hurting, suffering, depressed, lonely people in church with church-approved theology. 

13. If your livelihood depends on the success of your church as an organization, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you will mostly define and reward Christianity as participation in church structures and programs. Christian living is mostly a decentralized reality or way of life, not a centralized or program-dependent phenomenon. Church attendance, tithing, membership, service, and devoted participation, become the hallmarks of Christian maturity. 

14. You are capable of guiding your own spiritual path from the inside out and don't need to be told what to do. You naturally have the ability, capacity, tools and skills to guide and direct your life meaningfully, ethically and effectively. Through the use of your fundamental human faculties such as critical thinking, empathy, reason, conscience and intuition, you can capably lead your life. You have the choice to cultivate a spirituality that doesn’t require you to be inadequate, powerless, weak, and lacking, but one that empowers you toward strength, vitality, wholeness, and the fulfillment of your highest potentialities and possibilities.

Jim Palmer

Jim Palmer was a former evangelical pastor who served at Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago. He also founded and served as the senior pastor at Springbrook Community Church in Nashville, Tennessee.

Palmer received his Master of Divinity degree from Trinity Divinity School in Chicago. He was also an author, speaker, artist, and spiritual director.

The Fascist Playbook

There is a playbook that fascists use to take and maintain power—think Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán (and more than two dozen plus authoritarian countries around the globe).

The playbook is always the same:

• Draw up an enemies list—either you are with us or you are against us. Govern for the party in power, not for all the people. Intimidate, bully, marginalize and crush any opposition.
• Systematically demonize the press—a free press is the enemy of the people; truth is fake news. Either delegitimize the press or control and use it as a propaganda tool. 
• Lie, lie, lie—the bigger the lie the better, because people believe that the most outrageous and improbable lie must be true, or else no one would say it in the first place. Deny truth and create alternate facts, fiction, or fantasy.  Deny science and substitute religion. Propagandize with false information and conspiracy theories.
• Weaponize religious ideology to support the regime’s agenda.
• Control the courts; bully, delegitimize and politicize the judiciary. Control judicial elections and appointments so only those loyal to the party line become judges; take control of the judicial branch and eliminate constitutional separation of powers and checks and balances.
• Destroy the Rule of Law–use laws to reward supporters and punish opponents; ignore laws not in accord with the party line; ignore court orders, disrespect civil authority. Knowingly enact unconstitutional laws; then blame “activist” judges when those laws are challenged and overturned.
• Politicize the civil service, military and domestic security.
• Involve government in surveilling the press, reporters, political opponents and those on the enemies list.
• Fearmonger and demonize minorities, LGBTQ+communities, transgender resident, the disabled, immigrants, and the powerless; make them the scapegoats for societies’ social and economic ills. Weaponize and inflame racial and social prejudices.
• Trash civil rights and liberties in favor of partisan and religious ideology. 
• Marginalize and bully women; trash their gender-specific rights and needs; empower government to control their reproductive functions; keep them submissive to the patriarchy. 
• Disenfranchise voters. Promote spurious conspiracy theories and lies claiming election fraud, stolen elections and voting irregularities. Demand recounts and audits of elections held and certified in accordance with governing laws. Sue on false claims without evidentiary support. Suppress the vote and make it harder and more inconvenient to vote. Subvert election results. Gerrymander and do everything possible to rig the system so that only the party faithful are elected. Empower the legislature to ignore the popular vote and change the results of elections. Hold on to power at all costs and with any tactics.

In short, the goal of all fascists is to control all branches and functions of government, and to make those and the minds of people conform to the party line and ideology. People do not count; the Constitution does not count. 

The Rule of Law becomes the Rule of Lie.

It has been said that “when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” And John Maynard Keynes observed that, “Perhaps it is historically true that no order of society ever perishes save by its own hand.” 

Sadly, history has shown both to be true, time and time again.

The fascist playbook ensures that democracy will die from within, not from without.

And, if you think “it can’t happen here,” you are wrong. Look where our state and our nation are headed; check off the boxes.

 It is already here.

By James C. Nelson

James C. Nelson is a retired lawyer and former Montana Supreme Court Justice. He lives in Helena.

Originally published in the Daily Montanan. Republished here under Creative Commons license 4.0

Never mind.

Never mind.

Stop the tipping

Mark this one to my 'get off my lawn' age group, but, it just pisses me off when I'm asked, at a fast casual restaurant where you order your food at a counter, pick up your food at a counter and bus your own table, to tip when you pay up front at, yea... the counter.

Or, someone at a coffee shop who makes your coffee (and isn't a 'server' so, isn't making 'server' wages of $2 an hour). Those tips? That's a way to keep wages up to market values, without paying for it, best case. More often? Those employees aren't seeing all (or even any) of those tips. The business just keeps it as profit. No one's watching the employers. No one's auditing anything.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/coffee-starbucks-require-tip-new-prompt-sparks-misplaced-outrage-rcna60952

It's a rip off of both consumers and employees by business owners.

So, I looked into tipping a little deeper and, man, it's dark. This is not a good thing and we should all start working for required living wages vs. this bullshit we call tipping.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/22/980047710/the-land-of-the-fee

Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Fraud and Late Stage Capitalism at work

 The more I look at todays medical system, the more disgusted I get.

I'll be 65 next year, and going on Medicare.

Want to see what massive corporate fraud looks like? Look no further than private 'Medicare Advantage' plans.

‘The Cash Monster Was Insatiable’: How Insurers Exploited Medicare for Billions

By next year, half of Medicare beneficiaries will have a private Medicare Advantage plan. Most large insurers in the program have been accused in court of fraud.

I used to be a dyed in the wool capitalist and believed a free and open market was the most efficient way to provide the best services and products at the best cost.

I was wrong.

Todays late stage and predatory capitalism isn't efficient, it's coordinated and driven by greed and profit. There's nothing balanced about America's market economy today. Nothing.

We need to look at real Universal Health Care in this country. We're one of the few 1st world countries that doesn't have it and it makes no sense. It's more efficient (yea, it really is, the 'market gurus' are lying to you and it's easy to prove) it's cheaper and doesn't make billionaire health care company owners and executives even richer.

You can bet the exact same thing is going on with your regular health care insurance as well. It's about corporations profit off their product.

Their product? 

You.

And the sicker you are (or they can make you appear to be), the more profit they make off you. They don't sell health care. They sell 'what's the least amount of care' so they can keep more money.

Cryptocurrency, blockchain and the potential future authoritarian world it could create.

Cryptocurrency Might be a Path to Authoritarianism

Extreme libertarians built blockchain to decentralize government and corporate power. It could consolidate their control instead.

By Ian Bogost

I remember reading this Atlantic article when it first came out almost 5 years ago and thinking "this sounds about right" It, and other examinations of what was going on, kept me from getting involved in the whole crypto world.

Now here we are, half a decade later, and I would say that it was a little bit wrong, but a lot more right.

The only thing missing (or is it?) is far right-wing, or far left-wing, governments of the world, to start enacting just some of the imagined uses of an authoritarian state this article lays out. I can see China already starting, and I'm pretty sure Georgia, Florida, or Texas wouldn't hesitate to use this kind of tech to control voter roles, once it decides it can get away with it.

And there are many many more scenarios that have been made possible with the continued advancement of the tech in the crypto/blockchain world.

I've got some very dear friends who've bought in wholeheartedly to this world. I hope they understand what they're really supporting and Web3 (which is what they're calling it) doesn't take the path of the Internet that I was deeply involved in ('web 2.0).

We really believed we were creating something that democratized information for individuals and society as a whole. What we really did, mostly, was create tools for corporations to massively centralize information and turn even tiny bits of it into financial transaction devices, also known as the securitization of information.

NFT's are the current manifestation of that. Laugh at them if you want, but, fiat money (i.e the US Dollar) is no less ethereal (pun intended Ethereum fans) than crypto-currencies and NFT's.

Massively distributed systems may be 'the democratization of X', but, they can be used for the opposite as well. 

The article above sums it up nicely:

"blockchain’s future seems tied to the short-term vision of investors and entrepreneurs willing to speculate on a hypothetical, distributed utopia without hedging against the consolidated autocracy it seems equally likely to realize. “This is what happens,” Greenfield says, “when very bright people outsmart themselves.”

I'm no longer the young idealist that went to silicon valley in the 80's to work for Apple. I've seen some shit. Especially in the last 5 years, I've come to conclude that humans will not, always, pick the best path for all of us collectively, or even, themselves individually. Some days, being a misanthrope is just easier.

I know this sounds like a 'get off my lawn' post, but, every so often, the old geezer yelling that old anachronistic stereotypical trope, is right.

Small Town Politics in 2021

Watching the latest small-scale municipal election unfold here in my hometown of Longmont, Colorado, I'm struck by how things have changed in a relatively short time, effectively, the last two years.

Our town is very blue (Democrat). It was once a Republican stronghold, but no more. Much of liberal Boulder has moved to lower cost and more family-friendly Longmont over the last few years making it as, or more, liberal than the famously liberal "People's Republic of Boulder" town twelve miles to the Southwest.

But you wouldn't think that looking at our latest City Council race and School Board elections.

We had nine candidates for City Council this year. Three for mayor, and six for two open at-large seats.

Of these nine candidates, five were, effectively, Republicans. We're supposed to have non-partisan races, but, it's clear, there's a left and right in Longmont and they're organized. But one is more organized and coordinated, than the other.

Of the six City Council candidates, four were GOP funded and supported. They attended meetings together and strategized with their local GOP supporters at various get-togethers. They even endorsed each other, openly, in debates. The GOP mayoral candidate in our town called out the four GOP-supported candidates running for council in a recent debate, calling for the city to elect them, along with himself, 'to bring balance' back to the City Council.

How do I know the GOP was so organized and funded? Mostly by one obvious example and a few hints. The obvious one is the candidate for mayor in our town is a local handyman. Nice guy. Quite likable, but, he had a 'handler' that's with him at all times. The handler is a lawyer from New York. This handler was writing his scripts and his debate answers as well as coaching him through interviews and video productions. Several of the candidates have also talked about 'a meeting on Sunday (and many other days)' with names of all the conservative candidates, only. It's coordinated.

The Democrats, by contrast, were eating their own in a scene that's eerily similar to the Democrats at a national level in 2021. There are center-left and progressive Democrats running for office here, and they dislike each other more than they, it seems, dislike their GOP opponents.

As noted above, it also is interesting to see the contrast of how well organized and funded, the conservative GOP-supported candidates are in comparison. They meet regularly with each other and their handlers/funders. They're focused, energized, and on message.

They also used tried and true ratf*cker methodology, a GOP-developed strategy for winning that can be mild (as it is in our case) to extreme (mostly used at a national level and exhibited by people like Roger Stone, Lauren Boebert, and, of course, trump).

Our local example has one of the GOP candidates who was allegedly unvaccinated and refused to wear masks in Boulder County, where mask mandates are in place for all indoor activities, running a largely single-issue campaign focused on a 'hyperloop' transportation system that is, at best, 50 years out. It's one of those things that everyone thinks is cool and likes, but, is used primarily as a diversionary topic to keep people off of her position on issues this particular candidate doesn't want to talk about. What are her positions here? No idea, although hints of a Lauren Boebert like mindset did appear. Whenever asked about specifics this candidate would divert back to the 'hyperloop'. That's the point of the strategy. 

Although to be fair, the other side may not be immune to this kind of behavior. I heard from an, at the time, sitting council person, that they had 'suggested he run' to the GOP Mayoral candidate. Apparently, he was this person's handyman. They seemed slightly surprised he actually ran though. Did they really encourage him to run? Was it with the intent to counter the 'not liberal enough' liberal candidate? It's hard to tell. If true, that's a 'clever' way to take out an opponent. As our city's recent ex-mayor likes to say: "Politics in Longmont is a bloodsport", so who knows.

Another big sign was this year's School Board race. The fact that there even was a race is really unusual. There is almost never an election in this town for a school board seat. They have a hard time finding people to run and there's almost always just one person for each seat on the ballot.

Not this year. Several seats were contested, and the 'new' folks are all GOP-controlled conservatives.

The aftermath of the elections was predictable. The conservatives lost, however, they had an effect. 

The Center-left mayoral candidate, who was a likely shoo-in for the job, lost to the more progressive left-wing candidate because of the GOP candidate. How? The GOP candidate took 20% of the vote, including the centrists and slightly center-right folks that would have voted for a center-left candidate over a farther to the left candidate.

The City Council candidates that won were the incumbent everyone already knew and the first black women to ever be elected to a Longmont City Council seat. Both are on the left side of the spectrum. The left-leaning candidate also won the School Board election.

The GOP, this time, actually created a more liberal government by coming out in force to try and take the City Council and School Board over. I'm sure that wasn't the intent, but, that was the end result.

Did they learn from this? I'm very sure they did. 

Boulder County is 80%+ blue so the GOP losing isn't a surprise. However, if we were a 55% or 60% blue county, which it was not that long ago, the results may well have been very different.

There is a national, coordinated, and well-funded effort on the part of the Republican Party to take over local governments. Grinding it out. Learning the lessons. Year after year after year. 

Election Commissioners, County Commissioners. City Councils. School Boards. Municipal Boards and Commissions. 

All of it.

Everywhere.

I've seen it up close and personal right here at home. You might want to take a look at what's going on in your town, too. If you don't like what you see, get involved. And for gods sake, vote! 

Everyone, please, vote.

On predicting the future...

An old colleague of mine, Richard Gingras, from my days at Apple Computer wrote an article last year about the dangers of predicting the future. It's very much worth the four minutes it'll take to read

Why predicting the future can be so dangerous

I wouldn't have agreed with this 10 years ago, however, looking back, I have to say he's right.

I would go even farther in my analysis than he does: We honestly thought we were doing great stuff for humanity and the planet back in the early days of online systems and the internet. We believed we would be 'democratizing information' and giving everyone a platform to have a voice.

And, to a degree, we succeeded. Clearly, we didn't think through the ramifications of that and we're experiencing the results now.

For that, I, personally, am deeply sorry.

Sometimes old technology is the best solution to the problem

This is an interesting use of old technology to circumvent new technology restrictions by an oppressive government: the military in Myanmar. In this case, when the government shut down all internet, the people turned to Pirate Radio.

These are the messages of a psy-ops campaign called Operation Hanoi Hannah, one of many digital fronts opening against the military in Myanmar, whose creators said would be broadcast over pirate radio in hope of persuading soldiers and police to side with the people – and to not rely on the internet, which the authorities ordered shut down yesterday.

For the full story Click Here.

For an actual pirate radio guy in the US's blog click here.

For a pirate radio community on reddit, click here.

A great argument for having a public service broadcast company like the BBC in the US

On Public Service Broadcasting:

Public service broadcasting.

The BBCs remit is to serve the public. There have been several commissions over the years to define what "public service broadcasting" actually means. The most recent one reiterated some of the old definitions but added that part of it was to serve the needs of people who are not normally served content. This is why they show niche content. It's their purpose.

(If you want to know more about the benefits of public service broadcasting keep reading. It's all half remembered knowledge so sorry if I fuck anything up.)

This was part of the reason Channel 4 was created. The goal was that small cultures and subcultures within the UK would be served. Afro-Caribbean, Irish, Asian, Grime, Garage etc. That's why Father Ted (Irish) The Big Narstie Show (grime) The Kumars at no. 42 (Asian) and other shows were commissioned.

And guess what happened? They were successful! The prevailing wisdom was that you aim everything at the largest possible market. And more specifically with commercial television the richest, youngest market. But these shows could be huge.

What happened was they would capture a huge portion of these target markets and that was enough people to drive the other markets that the show wasn't aimed at to embrace it. 2 Irish lads in the office talking about how funny Fr. Ted is and soon enough it's one of the biggest shows in the country.

So what happened next? Commercial channels noticed. Moone Boy (irish) The Kumars(asian) on sky and other commercial channels and other shows tried to capture that success for monetary gain. Not to mention stuff that wasn't designed for minorities necessarily like natural history programmes and good quality current affairs content. Sky and Netflix now do great natural history series. It never would have made financial sense until Planet Earth was one of the most successful BBC series ever.

A good public service broadcasting system raised the quality of ALL broadcasting. It's a quantifiable and repeatable phenomenon. You could argue that the success of stuff like Black Panther and other content that would never have been made a few years previously has shown this phenomenon can absolutely work in America too.

I'm Irish, we have a relatively shitty public service broadcasting system compared to the UK but it has still had an unbelievable impact on our general broadcasting landscape.

I see so many people asking how you solve the huge issues in US media and I think the answer is a robust, independent and well funded public broadcasting service.

A rising tide raises all ships. One of the purposes of the government funding stuff is to try to show private enterprise that these things can be worthwhile. And even without the private sector you get amazing results from a service that is meant to serve the people. Even if only a few thousand people watch something the service has been successful and every so often the service can show commercial entities how to do it properly.

Anyways rant over. Sorry but believe it or not I'm quite passionate about public service broadcasting. PBS should be heavily funded by the US government and possibly exclusively. Of course the issue is independence. Even the mighty BBC is feeling the pinch of government interference (please fight this people of the UK). But with some safeguards you can prevent this from happening.

-Hyippy An Irish Reddit user

As an aside for those of you who say PBS is the same. No, it's not. It's a private corporation. It's funded almost entirely by donations that work a lot like advertising in the for profit world, which means big donors get to help decide what the programming is. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of PBS.

But it's biased by the same issues for profit broadcasting and media is.

US and allies to build 'China-free' tech supply chain- We're heading into a very different phase of world history

US and allies to build 'China-free' tech supply chain

 https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/US-and-allies-to-build-China-free-tech-supply-chain

And so it begins.

You're watching the beginning of the splitting of the world into two major power centers that aren't that different than what we had before the 1990's with 'communist' Russia, China and their vassal states.

The difference is that it's fascism that's in charge now. China may call itself communist, but it operates just like Stalin's fascist-like extreme version of communism.

And Russia, well, Putin IS Stalin all over again. He's running a mafia state (i.e. fascist state) and has been for over a decade.

The only difference between Hitler's fascist/Nazi Germany and todays fascist states is they're better at handling information in general and the media in particular both inside and outside of their respective spheres of influence. Especially China.

This is going to completely disrupt commerce, politics, education and pretty much everything that's been developed the last 30 years or so that's global in nature. Late stage capitalism is showing it's cracks more and more.

It's also going to fuel a re-charging of the military industrial complex like we haven't seen in decades.

All that's old is new again.

Funding Local News

I recently wrote an email to a few colleagues (one an executive at Google, one an executive at McClatchy Newspapers and one to a fellow I've worked on and off with in various media entities over the years). This post is based on that email.

Just for fun, I worked out a 'thing' that's been running through my head for a few months now. Particularly the last few weeks with the insanity happening with our government.

It's also obvious that the consolidation of the existing private news infrastructure is more than a little problematic. It's become dangerous to our democracy. The far left publication Jacobin actually did a pretty well reasoned and not too far left in it's analysis of the situation in an article published this week titled "Capitalist Finance Is Incompatible With A Free Press'. 

With the Chicago Tribune's publishing company on the verge of being swallowed up by the hedge fund industry, capitalism’s ongoing destruction of the free press through downsizing and asset-stripping has become the number one threat to American democracy.

I believe one of the base issues with the threats to our democracy we see now is a lack of common understanding of what's happening, particularly at a local level, and one of the primary reasons for this is a lack of local news that provides local news, opinion, commentary and investigative reporting as well as connecting local businesses with local consumers.

But you know all this. My guess is you've already had these thoughts and, like I just did, run some numbers.

When I look at what it would take to create a national network of local news entities, it's not cheap, but, it's not THAT expensive either. Not in todays world where Airb-n-b hit's a $100B valuation on day one.

I came up with a cost of around $6.7B a year using a really simple model (simple can be good: occams razor solutions tend to work best).

With that money you could put a local virtual newsroom (no office, all online), like the compass experiment, with real staff in each town, focused on that town and building trust in the system in that town.

I'll bet that either a private consortium of billionaires with a social conscience, large companies with a guilt complex and government, if we positioned it as a key to how you fix our broken social and political system and was essential to saving our democracy (because it damn well is), could put together that kind of money reasonably easily. Either through commitments they make to support it, or funding an endowment ($115B earning 6% would throw off that much each year).

There's about $20 trillion (with a T) sitting, uninvested, right now. $42 trillion in the stock market. All just in the US.

Harvard and Yale, between them, have over $70B in endowment funds, for instance. That's just two institutions.

I know R-------'s doing a lot along these lines with Google, but, I'm not sure just one company can do something like this and have it be trusted by people. Not in todays 'Big Tech is scary' world. I also think the Compass Experiment* is thinking along these lines, but, I don't think a hedge fund owner with it's tendency toward predatory capitalism will have much interest (or capacity) either.

Alternatively, I also think you could fund it by creating a national tax of some sort that we all paid into. It would work out to about $3.58 a month per US worker in the country ($43 a year), assuming about 156M working people (2018 number). That's about what we each pay now for our local public libraries (usually via a tax as well; sales tax in our town. Property tax in many others).

Anyway, I know it's a little nuts. I just wanted to get my thoughts down and see if it even made sense to anyone else. Feel free to ignore this if you think it's too out there.

A quick spreadsheet on what the economics might look like.

Note: everyone did respond and the conversation is ongoing.

I also, still, think the idea of creating a Library Information District that includes a newsroom built into the new 21st century Public Library, is more than a little viable. 

It's titled We Need A New Kind Of Local Community Funded Newspaper - At The Public Library

*Shortly after writing this to them, the Compass Experiment (a collaboration between McClatchy and Google) was disbanded. Apparently, the new hedge fund owners of McClatchy don't like Google and killed off the partnership.

Stepping down at Longmont Public Media

 

I'm the co-founder and have been the general manager at Longmont Public Media for the last year and, even though we had some bumps at the beginning, have deeply enjoyed the experience. 

It was a hell of a year to try and launch a new public access TV and Media makerspace (a global pandemic and all), but, we got it started up, we've got it running with a much better and more flexible technical infrastructure with far more reach (live web streaming, Facebook, YouTube and a ROKU app for smart TV's) and much more community content than was available before. Most importantly though is we have the basics required for long term success in place.

Why leave now? Because, this world of day to day media creation belongs to the next generation, not an old guy like me, so I'm handing off to my co-founder, Sergio Angeles. He'll be taking on the GM role as of Jan 1st, 2021.

He'll do great. Here's a link to the annoucement.

I'm going to call myself retired for awhile. I just had my 63rd birthday and taking some actual time off sounds like a good idea to me.

Scott Converse. Late 2020

The Birth of Longmont Public Media

So, what have I been up to the last few months?

I didn't really write about it here because of all the red tape, NDA's, people involved and, frankly, drama, but our little group of media jammers bid on an RFP to take over our cities public access TV station in mid 2019 and we won.

We took over the Carnegie Library building, where our cities Public Access TV station lives, on Jan 1st, 2020.

Now, after being in existence for nine weeks and starting, pretty much, from scratch, we're making good progress at Longmont Public Media in creating a new kind of public access, educational, government coverage and local news/information media entity here in my hometown.

We've got the cable TV channels at CH8 and Ch880 working nicely as well as live streaming and archiving to our website, we've figured out mobile and remote broadcasting with modern tech, we're now covering all of the various government meetings that affect our civic life here (about 20 councils, boards and commissions each month with video/audio and full transcription services) as well as creating new regular and one-off shows about the community and we're building new membership for a media makerspace model that'll create an 'owned by the community and open to the community' media center for everyone.

This last part is essential. Having a deeply and widely involved community of engaged members is going to be essential to keeping public access media alive and well (funded) into the future.

If you're in the area, drop by and say hello. Our video, podcasting, internet streaming radio and recording studios as well as all our regular open to the public meetings and broadcast operations are at the Carnegie Library Building at 457 4th Ave. in Longmont CO.

We're open during regular hours of M-F 9 am to 5 pm, we have tours every Sat from Noon to 2pm and the space is generally open to the public whenever a supporting member is in the space.

Website:
https://longmontpublicmedia.org/

Watch live:
https://longmontpublicmedia.org/watch/

Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/longmontpublicmedia

Become an LPM member:
https://longmontpublicmedia.org/membership/

We still operate the Longmont Observer as well, however, there are some changes coming in the near future. As things develop with the Observer, I'll update what's happening there in a future post.

Longer version of this post:  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/media-makerspace-model-public-access-news-information-scott-converse/

Just for the record...

This is just one of those housekeeping things.

I've heard several people take ownership (as in 'I made this') recently of things they may have been involved in but didn't start and in some cases didn't have much involvement with other than being present and watching the action.

If you're interested in who actually started something, look at the state it started in, and go to the Secretary of State website to find out who, actually, created the entity.  Here in Colorado you just go to the SoS website, click on the Business tab, click on 'search business database (under search and file, first bullet), enter the name of the entity, click on Articles of Incorporation, click on Filing history and documents and then click on the actual Articles of Incorporation (the first clickable link at the top). The name of the person who founded the entity is on that document. Often there are additional attached documents that have additional founder's names on them. Check for those as well. These are government records that can't be altered, only added to and amended (which is closely tracked by the Secretary of State agency with each change and amendment listed on the website)

.Here are three examples:

TinkerMill (Longmont's Makerspace).

Startup Longmont (the original startup focused entity in Longmont).

Longmont Startup Week (the first one that started it, done in 2015).

I don't really care much about this, but, I (obviously) care enough to write this post.  It's a bit irritating when you regularly hear from people how someone is taking credit for something they didn't do.

We Can't Let Thousands of Local Newspapers Disappear ... Yang

I haven't really followed this guys campaign, but, I love the message he's got here.

This is less than 5 minutes and it's deeply important to our communities.

If a presidential candidate thinks this is important, it's closer to the public's awareness than I thought and that's a very good thing.

We Need A New Kind Of Local Community Funded Newspaper- At The Public Library

A story on this our local NPR station did: "As News Deserts Encroach, One City Looks At A new Way To Fund Local Journalism"

=====================================================================

Let's put unbiased local newsrooms into a place that's not obvious, but when you think of it, makes more sense than anywhere else: The local public library.

It's clear that libraries have become the center of unbiased non-profit information dissemination in America. It's where you go for guidance on how to find information on things you're interested in. It's also one of the few places in your city you can go to today and not be expected to buy something.

In a recent New York Times opinion piece by Eric Klinenberg, he makes the argument that we need to support our libraries more, not less.

Why not really focus on making them an integral component of our communities though?  Libraries all across America are moving toward this idea of being the primary information center for the community, regardless of information type.

Boulder, Colorado has a full-blown makerspace with tools and printers and laser cutters that are packed with patrons from the moment it opens to the moment it closes every day.

There are libraries where you can check out a laptop from a vending machine, or a drone, just like you can check out a book.

There are even libraries that provide 'newsletters on the happenings in the community' that turn into actual weekly's and online publications, fulfilling an essential need where towns have lost their local newspapers to the insatiable appetite of Google and Facebook pulling out almost all of the local advertising revenue, leaving little to nothing for real local newsrooms to operate on.



Personally, I'd like to see my local library take on the role of a local newsroom, producing information about what's going on in our community, just like local newspapers used to. Why a library? Because it's our communities long term memory. It stores the newspapers from 100 years ago. It keeps a record of our town's history and it provides guided access to information that's about facts, first and foremost.

To remove a book from a library because you don't like it requires you, almost, have to kill a librarian. They are badasses when it comes to unbiased access to information.

Can you think of a better place for a newsroom that's focused on local community information to existing? I can't.  Personal privacy, freedom of information and freedom of the press are key components of our society and all of those are enshrined in practice and law at American libraries.

Even what's left of our local newspapers are under attack by monied interests determined to squeeze out the last few cents of profit possible. Our community has a Digital First owned newspaper.  That, in turn, is owned by a hedge fund in NYC that could give two craps about news in my (or your) hometown.  They're sucking the final profits out of a dying business (local for-profit news). They shut down their office and not a single reporter from this shell of a newspaper has even a co-working space desk to operate from in our town now.  100,000 people. They work out of another city. The few reporters left cover multiple 'beats'. For us, the 5 or so reporters in the area cover 7 cities and 3 counties. A far cry from the dozens of professional journalists that used to cover Longmont.



Local news is essential and vital to the civic health of a town or city. Citie's that lose their newspapers and become news deserts (almost 2000 cities in America over the last 10 years have had this happen) see many costs to their communities from higher crime rates, more local political corruption, lower school scores, more opioid deaths and even higher borrowing costs for municipal bonds.

What better place than the local library to base a non-profit newsroom?

Libraries of the 21st century are becoming far more than places for just books. They are building out maker-spaces in their buildings now.  Some have community museums, high schools and senior centers in them. They're about community services, not just books, but what they're really about is knowledge sharing and learning. Newspapers are on that same continuum of knowledge sharing and learning that libraries have been brilliant at for centuries.

Just like a library, local news can help bind a community together.  It can inform and enlighten.  It should be accurate and honest and it should give us insight into our government, our schools, our businesses, our neighborhoods, and our town.  It can embody where we live and be the heartbeat and memory of what happened last week, a century ago, and everything in between.

Today's news organizations are under attack.  By the ruthless cold AI driven profit engines of social media like Facebook, Nextdoor and Twitter where opinion and gossip have taken the place of actual vetted unbiased news, search engines and Amazon's desire to make all things publishing oriented available only through them and by government officials who cry 'fake news' and focus on large centralized for-profit news entities that are vulnerable to the whims of these politicians and advertisers.

Imagine 10,000 local distributed non-profit independent newsrooms focused on their community, housed in the local library, reporting on our day to day lives, for us.  No desire to sell you something.  No need to try and influence or convince.  Just news. Locally focused news on the mundane but essential components of our schools, our government, our businesses, our families and our friend's lives. These newsrooms would be untouchable by politicians or the advertising-driven for profit needs of today's news business model.

But how to fund it?  There is a way that could work in any town in America.  All they would need is a library, or the desire to have a library.

The germ of this idea came from a fellow named Simon Galperin who wrote an article in the Columbia Journalism Review titled "Journalism is a public service. Why don't we fund it like one?"

Why not indeed?  But convincing a local community to create a 'Communication Information District', as Galperin proposes, is currently a hard sell.  Not because it's a bad idea, but, because it's a new idea.  New ideas are hard to grasp by large groups of people and can often take a very long time to be accepted by the general public.

But libraries don't have this problem.

Why not put every library in America into its own special tax district (as many libraries already are) to fund that library.  As part of that library create a local newsroom with a staff of reporters and editors with a video and audio editing capability (also accessible to everyone in the community to use) to cover the day to day happenings in that town?  Covering the local government, schools, businesses, social life, and entertainment. Acting as a place that holds together the community.

This 'newsroom' entity could also replace the aging network of underused public access TV studios that were funded decades ago by the Cable Communication Act of 1984.  Part of that act was to create PEG (public education and government access) stations.  Although these stations/studios once were an important part of local media in communities across the country, they, along with the rapidly accelerating 'cutting the cord' activities of people nationwide have made cable TV, and by extension, local cable franchise fee supported public tv studios, far less relevant in day to day society.

Today, video on the internet has replaced the old TV model.  Just as podcasts have taken a larger and larger roll in place of traditional analog radio stations.


A video and audio production studio in a library isn't just a good idea, it's something that's already happening across the country. Just look at White Plains NY's library who moved their cable access studios into the local library.

Libraries are already repositories of newspapers (if they can find them nowadays... often, they aren't even available anymore, or the hedge funds want to charge 10's of thousands of dollars for the right to access them), why not make them the home of non-partisan, locally focused news, as well as the archiver of it.

You could set this up as part of the Library Special Tax district (well established laws in all states) and protect it's independence with a set percentage of the tax districts money that can't be taken away by the libraries board (creating journalist integrity and the essential ability to not be influenced by anything other than the needs of the community) and writing into the library tax district bylaws protections for the integrity and independence of the newsroom to ensure the newsrooms focuses on the needs of the community and not any special interests.

For those who wonder if tax dollars can effectively be used to create quality balanced news, you don't need to look any further than what many believe is the best news organization in the world: The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), which is funded mostly by taxes on the countries citizens and the selling of it's content (produced by the tax-funded divisions) internationally.

Communities that lose their local newspapers all suffer.  A recent study done by the University of Notre Dame and the Universtiy of Illinois found that cities without locally active newspapers shouldered higher costs across the board.  From lower test scores in local schools to higher crime rates and even higher borrowing rates for things like city bonds to fund public works projects. They even see substantially less civic engagement as outlined in an article titled "When local newspapers shrink fewer people bother to run for mayor"

As Jacob Passy writes in MarketWatch: "Higher taxpayer costs can come about in other ways. The closure of a local newspaper was also shown to lead to high government wages, more government employees and higher taxes per capita. “Local newspapers hold their governments accountable,” the researchers wrote. “The loss of monitoring that results from newspaper closures is associated with increased government inefficiencies.”

It's likely that it would even save money for local government.  Today, our city spends at least 10's of thousands of dollars on advertising and subscriptions in the for-profit hedge fund owned newspaper as well as money paying for 'public notices' that are required by law be published in a local newspaper. All of that money is currently taken out of the city of Longmont and sent back to billionaire hedge fund owners in NYC.  Why not spend that money with this newsroom?  A paper version could easily be created that contained these public notices, available at the library, through USPS subscriptions and, of course, online (available to the entire population of the city from their phones).

And all that money spent by the city would stay in the city.

Public notices are a requirement for all cities in America and make it even easier to justify the creation of local newsroom and publication housed at your local library.

The level of civic engagement and transparency in communities with this kind of hybrid local non-profit newsroom and library institution could both replace the dying newspaper business of yesteryear and provide a new vibrant way for cities and towns across America to better take care of both themselves and their residents.



I don't know if this is something that will come about, but, I do think that this may be one of the best solutions to fixing a problem that's fast approaching our community and other communities across the country.

Update 5/10/19: An article published on this and what's happening in our community in the Columbia Journalism Review: https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/longmont-information-district-library.php