The California Sunday Magazine: The Political Awakening of Silicon Valley

Silicon Valley’s leaders were experiencing a rare and remarkable paroxysm of self-doubt. It wasn’t just their sense that they’d poorly deployed their wealth or that, cloistered on the West Coast, they’d misjudged the electorate. They were also coming to wonder if they’d helped create the circumstances that led to Trump’s rise. After the election, Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged Facebook’s role in polarizing citizens by surfacing articles that reinforced their worldviews. Faced with accusations that Twitter had helped Trump set up a one-man propaganda machine, Ev Williams, the company’s co-founder, told The New York Times, “If it’s true that he wouldn’t be president if it weren’t for Twitter, then yeah, I’m sorry.” As it became clearer that Silicon Valley’s incessant disruption of older industries contributed to the numbers of underemployed, underpaid Rust Belters who’d helped put Trump in office, Altman posted on Facebook, asking his friends for introductions to Trump supporters who might help him understand what had happened. He then interviewed a hundred of them. On his blog, he offered a pithy Altmanism to summarize their perspectives: “You all can defeat Trump next time, but not if you keep mocking us, refusing to listen to us, and cutting us out. It’s Republicans, not Democrats, who will take Trump down.”

In the past, there’d been a dutiful bent to Silicon Valley’s involvement in politics. Those with means had given to the Clinton and Obama campaigns and had even lent some strategic advice — enough to make Silicon Valley a crucial fundraising stop. But besides supporting a liberal (and in some cases, libertarian) agenda, they’d left the policy details to the politicians. They lobbied for their corporate interests, of course, which sometimes intersected with mainstream issues like immigration reform. But for the most part, they thought they could fix the world’s problems better, faster outside the messy, internecine fighting of Washington, D.C. By early summer, that had changed. The CEOs of the biggest tech companies, including Apple and Google, censured Trump for his policies on immigration and climate change. Musk and Travis Kalanick, then the CEO of Uber, quit a Trump advisory council; later in the summer, after Trump’s controversial comments about violence between white nationalists and counter-protesters in Charlottesville, other high-profile CEOs would do the same. Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, brought on several high-profile political operators, including Obama strategist David Plouffe, George W. Bush adviser Ken Mehlman, and the research firm of Democratic pollster Joel Benenson. Zuckerberg also embarked on his own listening tour covering all 50 states. (This inspired speculation that he was eyeing a run for office, which he denied.) Zynga’s Mark Pincus announced that he and Reid Hoffman, a co-founder of LinkedIn, had committed to invest in a project called Win the Future, for which they hoped to crowdsource an agenda through the internet, and Hoffman told the audience at a tech conference that, over time, his political spending could reach into the hundreds of millions. [...]

To Altman’s mind, the most urgent problem we’re facing — one that Trump exploited to become president — is a widening gap between the rich and the poor and, by extension, a profound feeling of disenfranchisement. He believes we should extend Medicare to people of all ages. We should make college free in exchange for civic service. He also predicts that in the future, artificial intelligence will make blue-collar jobs even scarcer and worsen inequality, at which point he thinks the government could enact a universal basic income — a regular, no-strings-attached payment to every American. The concept has become popular in Silicon Valley, both in progressive and libertarian circles, and YC Research is in the middle of a secretive pilot project in Oakland to test its potential. Altman believes that a universal basic income might be the most equitable, efficient method of expanding the social safety net “when the AI comes.” [...]

“The thing a lot of people forget is that we’ve been losing jobs at the same rate for, like, 300 years,” Altman said. He didn’t expect that rate to accelerate, at least not anytime soon, and when AI does replace some jobs, he said, people will invent new ones. But then he equivocated: Another case, he acknowledged, could be made. People used horses to transport us from place to place until cars came along. “For a while, horses found slightly different jobs,” he said, “and today there are no more jobs for horses.” For a moment, he and the entrepreneurs considered this in gloomy silence. Then he moved on. “All right,” he said. “How can I help?”

read the article

The Conversation: German election: Merkel safe but don’t underestimate the right-wing populists

When it comes to junior coalition partners, there is plenty of choice. The leftist party Die Linke, the Greens, the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP), and the right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany (AfD) are all expected to secure the 5% of votes needed to enter parliament. Merkel has ruled out working with Die Linke and the AfD but has kept all other options open. [...]

A growing part of the German population feels left behind and disillusioned with mainstream politics. In this context, a vote for a party with a populist anti-establishment and anti-immigration stance is a small but powerful sign of political protest. One of the last polls before the election predicts that the AfD results will be in the low double-digit range. I think we must brace ourselves for the possibility that the AfD will be the third strongest party in the German Bundestag. [...]

Behind the scenes, though, she has made a number of concessions. While she continues to insist that Germany has to welcome refugees, she is now keen to add that asylum seekers from so-called “safe countries of origin” have to be deported as fast as possible , and she wants to prevent further refugee flows. [...]

It’s hard not to think that Schulz and his party colleagues attack Merkel to divert attention away from their own problems. Like other social democratic parties in Europe, the SPD is experiencing an existential crisis. In 2003, the SPD introduced a series of austerity measures that have contributed to the social and economic marginalisation of millions of people. Although Schulz promised to rescind some of these reforms, many people feel that the proposed changes do not go far enough to justify Schulz’s claim that he stands for social justice.

read the article

Haaretz: How an Extremist Party's Election Campaign Has Shifted Germany to the Right

“These AfD supporters were middle-class, educated Germans in suits,” he says. “It made me speechless that they felt comfortable enough to yell out their aversion to Muslims and foreigners in the middle of the afternoon in Munich’s city center. They merely smiled when I called them neo-Nazis.” [...]

Indeed, with the AfD expected to enter the lower house of parliament after the election, many of its legislators will bring a mindset far to the right of even the most conservative voices in Merkel’s party.

All the parties in the running have vowed to shun the AfD in negotiations to form a new coalition government. The extreme far right within the AfD is large, so this strong presence in the next parliament will be a power base to broaden its influence and media presence. [...]

Another potential AfD parliamentarian, Dubravko Mandic, 37, considers helping refugees a “modern Reichsarbeitsdienst” – the Nazis’ state labor service. He calls "traitors" people who reject the slogan “Germany only belongs to Germans,” and he has repeatedly called Barack Obama a “token black” president. Thomas Seitz, 50, a public prosecutor in southern Germany, where the AfD is particularly strong, calls refugees “migrassors” on Facebook – a play on migrants and aggressors. [...]

But even Petry distanced herself from her own party this week, and in an interview with the daily Leipziger Volkszeitung she said she was shocked at the headlines her party was producing. She said these were headlines “that make me ask myself every time, ‘can this be true?’ and then, if it’s really true, this is a scandal.”

read the article

Haaretz: Germany's Real Problem Is That It Has No Real Problems

Yet now, just months later, the panic appears to have been premature. The German public displayed responsibility and, if the polls are correct, its pro-European consciousness has surged in light of threats from both East and West. According to the latest surveys, the far-right party will, after all, enter the Bundestag for the first time, and may even be the third-largest party, but it’s not expected to pose a threat to Frau Merkel. [...]

When President Barack Obama left the stage, Chancellor Angela Merkel looked isolated, almost fragile, but at home and on the international stage. But with sangfroid, she succeeded in taking back the reins. During her 12 years in power, Merkel has succeeded in adopting in succession the approaches of the political movements and trends that threatened her, thus neutralizing them. She coopted elements from the left’s social policy, the liberals’ privatization plans and the clean energy of the Greens, along with the law-and-order of the extreme right. [...]

Europe is surrounding itself with walls, disconnecting both from the refugee influx and from the vicissitudes of American political life. Trump is like King Kong, an American hulk who’s fortunately stuck on the other side of the pond, fighting with bare hands against hurricanes and weird rulers in Asia, while Europe screws up its face. In the end, Trump has actually strengthened Europe, brought it back to its senses and united it around liberalism and a common identity.

read the article

Politico: Where Marine Le Pen goes from here

She also needs to find a new formula that will help the Front avoid extinction in its next two major political battles: municipal and European Parliament elections in 2019, which party troops now see as a historic showdown with Macron’s pro-European form of liberalism. As far as they are concerned, 2019 should be payback time for Le Pen’s heavy loss to Emmanuel Macron in the presidential election this year.

What to expect? Most likely, an abrupt lurch back to traditional National Front messages: anti-immigration, hardline on law and order, and strong on French cultural identity — with much less emphasis on EU-bashing. [...]

First things first: banish Philippot’s name, airbrush his likeness from official portraits, smash any statues devoted to him. In the tradition of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party, the National Front immediately got to work dismantling Philippot’s legacy after he left. “He’s a conceptual guy. He doesn’t go into the field. He lacks human empathy, and that crucial political substance: a feeling for people,” said Jean Messiha, a senior party member and campaign strategist. “He had a fixation on the economic question. He considered that everything had to start with an exit from the eurozone.” [...]

Edouard Ferrand, an MEP, went further on the EU. “We are not an anti-EU party. There are a lot of things to keep about the EU. So we will propose an alternative relationship with the European Union,” he said. Meanwhile, the Front will drill down on the two topics it sees Macron as neglecting: immigration and identity. “We’ll have a political line that’s adapted to the situation of France today. We need to adapt to the circumstances today. If you ask the French what are the main challenges facing the country, they tell you: immigration, Islamism, burkinis. You can make a program out of this question,” said Messiha.

read the article

Politico: Theresa May: UK to follow EU rules for 2 years after Brexit

Her position means the U.K. will stay inside the single market in all but name during a transition period, though without any say over its rules. Such an interim arrangement could last two years, May said, but she did not rule out a longer transition if one was needed. A two-year transition would mean few tangible changes as a result of Brexit until 2021 — five years after the referendum.

While the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator and other senior officials welcomed May’s speech as a signal of her willingness to move forward in a constructive fashion, they strongly criticized her for not providing sufficient clarity on the three main divorce issues: citizens’ rights, the financial settlement and Ireland. [...]

This will see the U.K. allow the continuation of freedom of movement during a transition — something that had previously been a red line for May. The U.K. will require EU citizens coming to work in the U.K. during the transition to register with British authorities, but officials characterized this as within EU rules and similar to measures already taken by other countries such as Belgium. [...]

The speech was received warmly by the British business lobby who said their voice had been heard. When in July the Confederation of British Industry called for the U.K. to stay in the single market and the customs union for as long as it took to agree a new U.K.-EU relationship, it seemed like an unlikely scenario. [...]

After weeks of clashes within her cabinet over the nature of the future relationship, May ruled out two opposing “off the shelf” models — European Economic Area membership, and a trade deal along the lines the EU has agreed with Canada. She said long-term EEA membership — the Norway model, under which the U.K would be in the single market but with no say over EU rules — would represent a “loss of democratic control” that “could not work for the British people.” On the Canada model, she said the U.K.’s existing regulatory harmony with the EU meant that the two sides could “do so much better” with a deeper, more comprehensive free trade agreement.

read the article

The Intercept: Islamophobic U.S. Mega-Donor Fuels German Far-Right Party With Viral Fake News

Election-watchers expected a flood of fake news and inflammatory social media aiding Alternative for Germany, known by its German initials, AfD, to come from Russia. But one of the major publishers of online content friendly to the far-right party is an American website financed in large part and lead by Jewish philanthropist Nina Rosenwald.

Rosenwald’s site, the Gatestone Institute, publishes a steady flow of inflammatory content about the German election, focused on stoking fears about immigrants and Muslims. In one of the most recent posts, the website warns of the construction of mosques in Germany and claims that Christianity is becoming “extinct.” [...]

Gatestone articles are also regularly reprinted by far-right German blogs and web forums that are popular among AfD’s grassroots base. Philosophia Perennis and Politically Incorrect News, two popular sites that specialize in German nationalist content, routinely syndicate Gatestone’s articles. Gatestone content can also be found on Krautchan, a German knockoff of 4chan, the online forum frequented by the far right. [...]

As The Intercept previously reported, Rosenwald’s foundation not only finances Gatestone, but also funds leading Islamophobic pundits, including Robert Spencer, Frank Gaffney, and David Horowitz. Horowitz is the conservative activist who mentored Stephen Miller, a White House aide who was closely involved in President Donald Trump’s executive order temporary banning individuals from several Muslim-majority countries. As journalist Max Blumenthal reported in 2012, Rosenwald is an active supporter of hardline pro-Israel groups, and a former board member at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

read the article

Al Jazeera: Taking a step against US impunity in Guantanamo

Djamel Ameziane was detained without charges for eleven years at Guantanamo. During this time, he faced prolonged incommunicado detention, multiple forms of torture, and never received a judicial determination regarding the legality of his detention. Although the government first approved him for transfer from Guantanamo in 2008, he was detained for another five years before ultimately being repatriated to Algeria, where he feared persecution. Since then, he has worked to rebuild his life while facing health problems, financial difficulties, and the stigma of Guantanamo. [...]

During the course of his campaign, the current United States President Donald Trump repeatedly stated his desire to not only keep Guantanamo open, but expand it. Since his inauguration, there have been numerous worrying developments. In January, a leaked draft of an executive order outlined plans to revive CIA black sites, halt transfers from Guantanamo, and send new detainees to the facility. In March, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions characterised the facility as "a perfectly acceptable place". He later visited Guantanamo in July, in what was widely perceived as a gesture of support. Lastly, reports have emerged of planned new construction at the military base that would increase its detention capacity.

Adding to these concerning political developments, the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act provide broad civil and criminal immunity to those responsible for the human rights violations at Guantanamo. In the face of these legal and political impediments to recourse at the national level, Djamel and his representatives hope the Commission will act.

read the article

Quartz: Scientists finally discovered why languages don’t have the same number of terms for colors

Interestingly, the ways that languages categorize color vary widely. Non-industrialized cultures typically have far fewer words for colors than industrialized cultures. So while English has 11 words that everyone knows, the Papua-New Guinean language Berinmo has only five, and the Bolivian Amazonian language Tsimané has only three words that everyone knows, corresponding to black, white, and red. [...]

The most widely accepted explanation for the differences goes back to two linguists, Brent Berlin and Paul Kay. In their early work in the 1960s, they gathered color-naming data from 20 languages. They observed some commonalities among sets of color terms across languages: If a language had only two terms, they were always black and white; if there was a third, it was red; the fourth and fifth were always green and yellow (in either order); the sixth was blue; the seventh was brown; and so on. [...]

What’s more, this nativist theory doesn’t address why industrialization, which introduced reliable, stable, and standardized colors on a large scale, causes more color words to be introduced. The visual systems of people across cultures are the same: in this model, industrialization should make no difference on color categorization, which was clearly not the case. [...]

So contrary to the earlier nativist visual salience hypothesis, the communication hypothesis helped identify a true cross-linguistic universal—warm colors are easier to communicate than cool ones—and it easily explains the cross-cultural differences in color terms. It also explains why color words often come into a language not as color words but as object or substance labels. For instance, “orange” comes from the fruit; “red” comes from Sanskrit for blood. In short, we label things that we want to talk about.

read the article