I love ForwardJS and the opportunity it gives me to explore something different and significant. This year I teamed up with my Mozilla colleague Chris Riley, interviewing him on the future of Internet policy (which he heads up for us).
I am a mass media hater as much as anyone. I hate how it manipulates people through fear and soundbites. I hate how it dumbs down issues requiring thought and analysis to the detriment of accuracy. I hate how it proliferates through the enhanced sharing capacities we have today. And I hate how it leaves victims in the dust with no recourse or accountability.
The good news is that I am not alone. People are tired of being played to generate more clicks and ad revenues for an Estate that absolved its responsibility to maintain a healthy Democracy through an informed populace.
The sad news is that because of its legacy of negligence, the media has created a real problem. We’re numb to real crises. And the consequences could be significant.
The latest chapter in this is Ebola. A shock-weary society is fighting back against the hype, saying that we are unduly concerned. “More people die from flu and cancer than Ebola. Focus there.”
I joined this chorus. “Stop the hype” I told my mother, who routinely forces me to consult Snopes.com. My sister (a nurse) joined arms with me in trying to stem the tide of what was (certainly in my mother’s case) media-induced paranoia.
Then – ironically via clickbait outlet BusinessInsider – my sanity was restored by (my) new favorite author, Nassim Taleb. Best known for Black Swan, Taleb is known for establishing pragmatic (though perhaps not intuitive) ways to think around risk, unpredictability and uncertainty.
Here’s a rare moment of me appreciating the conciseness of an ad-driven pub, allowing me to call out the salient bit:
The argument that the US should be more worried about a disease like cancer — which has more stable rates of infection than Ebola does currently — is a logic that Taleb calls “the empiricism of the idiots.”
The basic idea: The growth of Ebola infection is nonlinear, so the number of people catching it doubles every 20 days. Because of this, you have to act quickly at the source of infections, he says. “The closer you are to the source, the more effective you are at slowing it down … it is much more rational to prevent it now than later.”
The problem Taleb sees is that if there is not more urgent action in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea — to the point of restricting travel and other measures that may now seem like an overreaction — then there will be consequences here.
In short, it’s not unfounded paranoia, despite the media’s self-interested position to generate it. And it’s not an issue of looking at gross numbers. It’s an issue of risk. I’m ready to put my media hate away if it means we can think and – better yet – act rationally. There are high stakes.
“Uber can’t be killed by Lyft given its far superior resources. And it makes no sense for Uber to actually try to finish off its smaller competitor”
…due to the regulatory battle which they share an interest in fighting together.
I am sure the Travis worshippers credit some insanely brilliant strategic design to this behavior and I look forward to learning what it is if it can help us see a picture more noble than the sleaze that has been exposed thus far. Barring that, I’ll defer to what many say is the source of such conscienceless, greed-absolving behavior: yes, that scourge known as “Objectivism.”
The irony is that for as much as this ideology professes rationality, it is basically a pretense to cloak and justify the basest of human selfishness. Even Rand herself inadvertently exposed how conflicted this pure-rationality paradigm is (when a lover rebuffed her advances – what, love in the realm of the rational? – she later dismissed his “ugly actions and irrational behavior in his private life”).
In today’s iteration of this immature, unsophisticated world view, greed and hubris appear to be compelling a CEO to behaviors that (ironically) just aren’t rational. This is all in the name of ‘winning’ and encouraged at any cost when there is a one-dimensional focus on monetary returns that ignores the complexities of legal and human frameworks that underpin any economic activity.
If this were merely a warped personal philosophy, I could move on. But it’s had (and sadly as we’ve seen this week, continues to have) too much impact for me to ignore.