Linkage

The great irony of the platformization of the internet is that platforms are intermediaries, and the original promise of the internet that got so many of us excited about it was disintermediation – getting rid of the middlemen that act as gatekeepers between community members, creators and audiences, buyers and sellers, etc.

The platformized internet is ripe for rent seeking: where the platform captures an ever-larger share of the value generated by its users, making the service worse for both, while lock-in stops people from looking elsewhere. Every sector of the modern economy is less competitive, thanks to monopolistic tactics like mergers and acquisitions and predatory pricing. But with tech, the options for making things worse are infinitely divisible, thanks to the flexibility of digital systems, which means that product managers can keep subdividing the Jenga blocks they are pulling out of the services we rely on.

The web is the means by which the acts of revisiting and recall of our collections, our programming and our institutional histories have become technically feasible, economically viable and with a reach and on a schedule that has literally never before been possible.

We would do well to recognize that. We would do well to understand the web not just as a notch in the linear progression of technological advancement but, in historical terms, as an unexpected gift with the ability to change the order of things; a gift that merits being protected, preserved and promoted both internally and externally.

The point is not that our relationship with technology should end with the web. The point is the web allows us to reframe our relationship with technology. Importantly, it enables – it does not guarantee, but it enables – us to reframe our relationship and dependence on the providers of those technologies.

The challenge of that relationship lies in the fact that as often as not the motivations of those providers and their platforms are not our own. Yet we continue to make an increasingly Faustian bargain to engage with them because we believe that these places are where our audiences have gone. Sooner or later that debt will come due so we would do well to recognize that the alternative, and a good alternative at that, is within our grasp.

If demand for storefronts is down, why don't landlords just lower the rent and get a tenant in there? That's supposed to be the magic of capitalism — its ability to auto-adjust to anything the world throws at it. But that's not what is happening with vacant shops. Even before the pandemic, one study found, street-level retail spaces in Manhattan were remaining vacant for an average of 16 months.

So if COVID isn't to blame for all the shuttered stores, what is? Well, when a landlord doesn't lower the rent to get a new retail tenant, it's because that landlord can't. The market that sets retail rents isn't only between tenants and landlords. It's also between landlords and the banks that finance the buildings. And the banks, in many cases, won't let property owners lower their rents enough to fill their properties. The pandemic may have emptied out America's storefronts, but it's banks that are keeping them that way.

An address from the should-be-prime-minister:

I deplore the targeting of all civilians. That includes Hamas’ attack on 7 October, which I have repeatedly condemned in in Parliament, in print and and at every demonstration that I have attended. And that includes that Israeli response; there is no meaningful sense that the Israeli army is avoiding civilian casualties when it drops 25,000 tonnes of bombs onto a tiny strip of land populated by 2.2 million people. If we understand terrorism to describe the indiscriminate killing of civilians, in breach of international law, then of course Hamas is a terrorist group. The targeting of hospitals, refugee camps and so-called safe zones by the Israeli army are acts of terror too; and the killing of more than 11,000 people, half of whom are children, cannot possibly be understood as acts of self-defence.

We should not entertain questions from those who have no interest in applying this basic consistency. We should stand up to those who insist on seeing some people as innocent civilians and others as collateral damage. And we should reject hectoring from those whose questions serve to justify the horror unfolding before our very eyes. Ultimately, we do not just have a responsibility to end the bloodshed. We have a responsibility to stop bloodthirsty voices from dictating the terms of debate, and to push back against cynical attempts to distract us from our urgent goal: bringing about an immediate ceasefire. 

More than a fifth of "brand safe" ad placements end up on "made for advertising" sites, which 404 Media describe as "trash websites that plagiarize content, are literally spam, pay for fake traffic, or are autogenerated websites that serve no other purpose than capturing ad dollars" […]

Despite all this, many progressives have become cheerleaders for "brand safety," as a countervailing force to the drawdown of trust and safety at online platforms, which led to the re-platforming of Nazis, QAnon conspiratorialists, TERFs, and other overt elements of the reactionary movement's vanguard on Twitter and Facebook. Articles about ads for major brands showing up alongside Nazi content on Twitter are now a staple of progressive reporting, presented as evidence of Elon Musk's lack of business acumen. The message of these stories is "Musk is bad at business because he's allowing Nazis on his platform, which will send advertisers bolting for the exits to avoid brand-safety crises."

[…]

But progressives are out of their minds if they think the primary effect of the brand safety industry is punishing Elon Musk for secretly loving Nazis. The primary effect of brand safety is killing reality-based coverage of the news of the day, and since reality has a well-known anti-conservative bias, anything that works against the reality-based community is ultimately good for oligarchy.

Some of the first protests against lockdowns were outside of gyms. And I was trying to understand what was going on with that. Why were these super buff folks having these protests, doing push-ups outside of their gyms?

And I came to the conclusion that there was something similar to the way in which some ultra-religious people were reacting, where they were insisting no matter what this was, they had to go pray. They had to be in these collective spaces, because that was their force field. Prayer was their protection against death or what happens after death.

I vividly remember watching the news one night, and there was a story about a megachurch that had broken lockdown. Journalists were interviewing people as they were streaming out of the megachurch. And they said: “Aren’t you afraid of Covid? You’ve just been in a room with thousands of unmasked people singing.” And the answer from one worshipper was: “No way! I’m bathed in the blood of the Lord.”

I saw these gym protests as a similar idea: my body is my temple. What I’m doing here is my protection; I’m keeping myself strong. I’m building up my immune system, my body is my force field against whatever is coming.

The proposed development will include 129 studio apartments for low-income people and those experiencing homelessness. A minimum of 50 per cent of units will be held for people who are currently homeless and on income assistance, with the other half for people earning earning between $15,000 and $30,000 per year.

More than 200 people signed up to speak to the city’s public hearing, with emotions high on both sides. Opponents argued the project was a “failed model of housing,” that would “warehouse” a high-proportion of proposed residents with complex issues. Opponents also raised concern about nearby schools.

Thursday’s ruling un-pauses the original judicial review application against the city, which was suspended in September pending the outcome of the MEVA 5 challenge.

October 7 was a response to decades of oppression and abuse by the Israeli regime. Israel created that violence, in the same way it created the violence that will with absolute certainty come its way in retaliation for its actions in Gaza today. The official narrative makers always try to restart history at the moment of the last act of violence from Palestinians, because it is only by framing such violence as unprovoked that they can legitimize the idea that it’s possible to bomb a population into submission and obedience.

But of course, it is not possible to bomb a population into submission and obedience. Every atrocity you inflict upon them will only increase their desire for revenge — a desire Israelis should sympathize with since it has consumed them and turned them into crazed genocide cheerleaders since October 7. But their desire for vengeance is only made possible by the false mainstream narrative that the attack came from nowhere, completely unprovoked.

In fact actual anti-semites are some of Israel’s strongest allies. The lion’s share of forceful support for Israel in the United States comes not from Jews but from Christian Zionists who support Israel because they believe it will bring Jesus back so he can damn all non-Christians to eternal hellfire. Televangelist John Hagee, who believes Hitler was sent by God to help create Israel, had a prominent speaking spot at Tuesday’s “March for Israel” in Washington DC.

While people who hate Jews so much they want them to writhe in eternal hellfire are warmly embraced as allies of convenience by Israel and its supporters, healthy leftists who oppose racism in all its forms are attacked by Israel apologists as Nazis and Jew-haters. This is because their actions are not designed to protect Jews or reduce anti-semitism — their actions are to facilitate the strategic objectives of the Israeli government and its allies.

Really what’s happening in Gaza right now isn’t about Jews or Judaism at all; it’s about using violent force to take land and resources away from an indigenous population, as history has seen happen time and time again in situations that had nothing to do with Jews. It’s a profoundly unhealthy impulse that’s been causing immense human suffering for centuries, and people who’ve noticed the same patterns in Israel that they’ve seen in all the other settler-colonial projects over the last 500 years are being shouted down and bullied into staying silent using some of the most unethical manipulations ever devised.

Now, if you read your contract and EULA closely, you might have noticed, as Office Watch did, that Microsoft promised Office 2019 and Office 2016 would have support for another two years. Now, they find "that they have no guarantee that they can connect to Microsoft’s own services for two years less than what they paid for."

Oh, and by the way, there will be no Extended Security Update (ESU) program. Your Office 2016 and 2019's lifespan is now up in the air.

Instead, Microsoft recommends…, well, go ahead and guess what it recommends.

Yes, that's right, Microsoft suggests you "upgrade" to Microsoft 365 E3. For a mere $36 a month, you can still have a Microsoft 365 app for your desktop. If you can live with a pure web-play take on Office, you can subscribe to Office 365 E3 for $23 a month.