Has America Decided It’s Finally Had Enough?

October 2, 2025 By David Griesing Leave a Comment

In a short exchange with a reader about the incitement-to-violence standard, I got to talking about our jury system. I told him I’d witnessed it in action dozens of times (as a law clerk for a trial judge, as an occasional trial attorney, and finally as a member of 3 or 4 Philadelphia juries).

The vast majority of times, I watched in fascination as an assemblage of 8 or 12 people got both the “facts” and the “law” almost exactly right by bringing their randomly-chosen perspectives along with their common-sense and community-based morality (what we can tolerate as a group, and what we can’t) to the matter of guilt or innocence. These men and women would disagree, even argue or pout at one another, but after one day or several would reach consensus and a result that invariably felt right under the circumstances..

Then I realized: the vast American public determines what is acceptable and unacceptable in our poliics much like the jury system.

It’s not always paying attention to our leaders or “the state of our nation” because it’s busy raising families, going to work, shopping, being entertained or just distracted. But when the American public starts to focus on its job of giving or withholding its consent from its representatives—because it simply can’t ignore what’s happening any longer—it can be both quick and true in its judgments. As in: Maybe I can tolerate this, but I won’t tolerate that.

After hearing the sucking sound of consent being withdrawn, the exhale of opposition can often be heard next. When tens or hundreds or millions of Americans raise their voices to say, “Hey, wait a minute,” the political consequences can be swift, harsh & certain, saying in effect: “This is the America that I’m a part of, but where we’re headed is not.”

The causes of shifts like this and when have they happened before are not just for historians to consider.

Was the moment Americans turned against the Vietnam War when we saw (and absorbed the impact of) that photograph of the naked, crying girl with napalm burns in June, 1972, or did the change of heart come somewhat earlier? When did our nation go from being against same-sex marriage to being for it? (Was it one big thing that changed our minds or a build-up of several smaller ones?) Didn’t the American public turn-as-one against Joe Biden on June 28, 2024, the day after his fateful, pre-election debate with Trump? Sometimes we know exactly when the shift occurred. Other times, our acceptance or rejection just seemed to materialize out of the ether.

I have never watched Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show, but know that his stand-up routines have skewered both Trump and our politics over the years, and how broad & deep “the comedic bond” with the American audience can be—because all of us want to be free to laugh at our leaders when they deserve it. So Trump’s and FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s ham-handed attempt to cancel Kimmel’s comedy a little over a week ago FELT (at least to me) like a turning point. As in, it feels like the American tide is turning against Donald Trump in real time. I could almost hear the whoosh of it.

But then I remembered that I’d had dreams like this before, such as after the Washington Post’s release of that infamous grabbing-women-by-their-privates tape in October 2016; while the J6 insurrection was unfolding at the Capitol in 2021; after Trump’s felony conviction in a New York Court in May of 2024. None had individually (or even as they compounded) changed our collective mind, so why would his attempt to cancel Kimmel be any different?

It’s because a week or so ago, Trump messed with American’s funny bones (and their First Amendment/free speech backstory) at a time where “cancel-culture” may be our worst damnation—due in-no-small-part to Trump himself. But despite the hypocrisy, he used the government’s coercive power to pull Kimmel off-the-air because he couldn’t take this (or maybe any) comic’s point of view. Was censoring political comedy, at long last, Trump’s “bridge too far” in the public’s mind?

Well a couple of prominent observer/commentators thought the public finally changed its mind too. Moreover, the same shift in the American mood seems to have registered as more than a blip in national polls. Is it all just wishful thinking? Here’s what they’ve been saying over the past week.

Robert Reich worked in Washington for the Ford, Carter and Clinton administrations (in other words, he’s experienced a lot of government over the years.) After leaving public service, he’s been a professor, author and commentator on American politics. Reich is also very smart in my opinion, an intelligence that’s leavened by a marvelous sense of humor. For example, being short of stature (4’ 11”) due to a genetic disorder, he called his most recent book, “Coming Up Short: A Memoir of My America.”

Well Reich was at it again this week in a Substack that he sent out on Tuesday called “The Sleeping Giant is Awakening: after a week of authoritarian excess, the nation is turning on Trump.” This is how he begins his post:

Friends,

I can’t tell you exactly how I know, but after 60 years in and around politics I’ve developed a sixth sense, and my sixth sense tells me the tide is now turning on Trump.

This past week did it.

He then proceeds to list an example-a-day for the week of September 15, including Trump’s: suing the Times in a lawsuit that included “page after page of gushing praise for the president;” accusing a national reporter of “hate speech” and threatening him with consequences from Pam Bondi; having the FCC pressure broadcasters to cancel Jimmy Kimmel now, and other comic late show hosts, Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers, later; threatening to prosecute political rivals (James Comey, Letia James and Adam Schiff) “even though grand juries and federal prosecutors couldn’t find any evidence of wrongdoing;” and saying at Charlie Kirk’s memorial service that he “hates his opponents” and doesn’t “want what’s best for them.”

Reich wrote: “You could almost feel the great sleeping giant of America open an eye and frown, then blink both eyes and sit up and stretch, and then roar, ‘What the hell is going on here?’”

He went on to note protests and “boycotts” by Kimmel viewers and Disney customers, how Republican Ted Cruz spoke out against the censorship, and Disney’s bowing to the public outcry by returning Kimmel to the air. Reich recalled how the American public turned on Communist-witch-hunter Joe McCarthy’s cruelty in the 1950s, on the “white supremacists” who clobbered civil rights marchers in the 1960s, and on Richard Nixon’s mendacity during the Watergate scandal of the 1970s.

[The sleeping giant that’s the American public] is starting to roar again now — at the sociopathic occupant of the Oval Office who won’t tolerate criticism, who in one wild week revealed his utter contempt for the freedom of Americans to criticize him, to write or speak negatively about him, even to joke about him.

Maybe I’m being too optimistic, but I’ve seen a lot. I know the signs. The sleeping giant always remains asleep until some venality becomes so noxious, some action so disrespectful of the common good, some brutality so noisy, that he has no choice but to awaken.

And when he does, the good sense of the American people causes [the giant] to put an end to whatever it was that awakened him.

Ann Cox Richardson, an American historian with a pod-cast and Substack that’s followed by millions, said on YouTube in a posting called “The Tide Turned this Week” that she feels the same as Reich, while providing additional reasons. For example, she says more Americans have begun to realize: that it’s not just “the worst of the worst” who are being targeted by ICE but also valued community members; that RFK Jr. is threatening our health with this attacks on science and the medical community; that there may be more to the Epstein files as his victims begin to speak out; that the American farmers who have long supported Trump are being devastated by tariffs and the loss of both documented and undocumented workers; and that the claw-back of federal funds has disproportionately affected rural districts making its largely Republican legislators reluctant to face their voters in town meetings.

Cox believes that more Republicans as well as business owners are realizing that the best way to retain power or remain profitable is to stop siding with Trump’s MAGA agenda and that further cracks in his coalition will begin to show during the impeding government shut-down. But this is still a fairly small group; is enough of the American public really starting to rebel?

This is where Nate Silver steps in. Silver has made a name for himself by “averaging” new national polls that (among other things) attempt to assess Trump’s public approval and disapproval. After the Kimmel brouhaha, Silver’s Trump approval averages dipped down fairly sharply, while his disapproval rating ticked up in the same degree.

So have we finally reached that moment where our views of everything-Trump have changed?

Reich argues that authoritarian over-reach has brought Trump to the point of no return.

Richardson piles health, economic and community concerns onto this conclusion.

Silver’s polling data suggests that some or all of these factors have begun to move the dispproval needle.

From where I sit, I’d argue that more than any other thing it’s Trump’s failed attempt to cancel political comedy (and its free speech implications) that’s finally changed the public’s mind.

It’s been commonly argued that Social Security is the third rail for the American public, placing in jeopardy anyone who dares to touch it.

Well I think messing with political comedy is even more consequential in our snarky and cynical age.

Because Trump can make fun of others but not himself, his long slide into powerlessness his finally begun–and it will only be hastened by the return of South Park–which provided a 20-minute capstone in these fateful days-after.

_{As in: “Will Kyle [Broflovski’s Jewish] Mom Strike Gaza and Destroy a Palestinian Hospital?”}

As I’ve tried to demonstrate above, the comedy that’s aimed at our politics today is off-limits to government censorship.

So thank God the South Park guys took all the time they needed—when many feared they’d been cancelled too—to create another, near-perfect episode in what’s become this season’s favorite opera-buffa.

The episode’s themes included (but were not limited to):

1. turning nearly everything in our play-oriented society into a gambling bet;

2. throwing “anti-semitism” around in an irresponsible manner to juice the gamblers’ emotions (all while the Jewish holidays are on-going, no less);

3. Trump’s attempts to abort his “butt-baby” with Satan because (as JD Vance reminds him) having a baby around will be an intrusion on fun times at Mar-A-Lago, MAGA rallies, and sporting events;

4. how the FCC’s chair (and Kimmel nemesis) Brendan Carr comes to suffer his own form of intestinal vengeance; and last but hardly least:

5. how the wily J.D. is methodically scheming to keep his place in The Grand MAGA Succession.

It was a lot of comic ground to cover in what was, after all, just a third of an hour. But man-o-man, was I grateful to see it in a week that seemed to have more than the usual cavalcade of horrors from Trump world.

In this week’s Carr-Vance storyline, here is the innocent-seeming JD entering Carr’s hospital room after Carr is mistakenly stricken with a cat-borne, brain-eating disease called “Toxoplasmosis”—funny in its own right given the way the administration treats health risks—after Carr gets caught up in one of Trump’s failed attempts to induce the abortion of his misbegotten child.

This is FCC Chairman Carr siting in his own revenge while giving a frozen “Heil” as his little visitor approaches.

And finally this is JD, his expression transformed as he mutters to Carr the now infamous words that were also spoken to Kimmel’s broadcasters Disney, Nextar & Sinclair:

Mr Carr, why do you keep melding in my plans? I have been trying to convince the boss to get rid of this baby. I am next in line to be president. This baby cannot be born. If you continue to interfere, I will make things very difficult for you.

We can do this the easy way, or the hard way.

JD probably won’t be bragging about the pro-Choice stance he takes here, unlike like his lame attempt to neutralize his first appearance on South Park a few weeks ago. For that matter, it’s unlikely that Carr, Trump, “special advisor” Don Jr., or Benjamin Netanyahu will be bragging about their well-deserved man-handlings either.

And last but hardly least: thank you South Park for your powerful & long-overdue shout-out to Jewish mothers everywhere as Kyle’s mom confronts Israel’s leader about his mishigas and the impacts it’s had on her.

More evidence (if we needed it) that things actually are taking a turn for the better.

This post was adapted from my September 28, 2025 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning, and sometimes I post the content from one of them here, in lightly edited form. You can subscribe by leaving your email address in the column to the right.

Will Our Comics Get the Last Laugh?

September 23, 2025 By David Griesing Leave a Comment

The killing of Charlie Kirk—the MAGA Right’s golden boy & recruitment engine—continues to reverberate on the citizen-side of my brain.

It’s first echo was the sidelining of comic Jimmy Kimmel, but we probably share the worry that the next repercussion will be a death for a death. Kirk wouldn’t have wanted that, but it seems that there are too many disaffected boys waiting in their basements to be “called-into-action” for it to be otherwise.

I tried to react to Kirk’s murder in the ways that I needed to in last week’s We’ve Entered the Arsonist’s Age but I didn’t go far enough in capturing what Kirk embodied or in describing the brakes on political violence that exist today. It feels necessary to do both before more dominoes start to fall.

So that’s where I’ll begin this morning, before getting to comedy’s ability to mobilize an opposition and inhibit those with Strongman tendencies.

Hanging over all of these themes is a sense of foreboding and menace, like in the photo above by Dane Manary. While part of America may still be at the beach, even more of the President’s warriors have started to engage.

+ + +

As with most consequential politicians, Charlie Kirk’s outreach defied easy judgment. His cheerfully engaging young people in conversation was admirably effective. Still, he dominated nearly every exchange with talking points he’d honed hundreds if not thousands of times before while his interlocutors often sounded like they were defending their views for the very first time. The Charlie Kirk show was often more respectful than cruel in part because those who’d brought him their questions would often make fools of themselves long before he fully engaged them. Nevertheless, his patience, resolve and “willingness to put himself out there time and time again” could be a marvel to behold.

Less marvelous were Kirk’s “enemy lists” of woke professors (some who had done no more than proclaim their solidarity with Palestinian suffering or complained about concealed weapons laws on campus). They operated as rallying cries to his more ardent followers to harass and intimidate these academics, sometimes causing personal damage that far exceeded the parameters of any fair debate. Moreover, his tarring of whole groups also seemed more injurious than necessary to make his points about, say, immigrants, abortion or Black Lives Matter.

I also want to say a bit more about “hate speech” in general, and incitement to violence in particular.

Under the First Amendment, even the most hateful speech—like some of the words that danced on Kirk’s grave last week—are protected, because in and of themselves, they do not constitute violence however badly they make some listeners feel. Decades of Supreme Court decisions say so, and whatever your view of the Court today, they are likely to stand.

Among other things, that means it’s likely illegal for employers to fire employees who took to their private social media accounts to say hateful things about Charlie Kirk (because Kirk’s supporters discovered where they worked and “doxed them” to their employers). Still, it can be a somewhat hollow victory because fired employees, like those “woke” professors before them, usually suffer their harms long before their First Amendment rights can be vindicated.

In other words, just because you have a right doesn’t mean it protects you in a timely manner. You may need to fight for many expensive years before some tribunal finds that its protection “applies to you”—a time lag and personal burden that menaces our current politics. That’s because: if a big enough minority of Americans and our most powerful leaders wish to exploit these realities, Constitutionally-guraranteed free speech will increasingly be “chilled” by threats causing harms long before the necessary debates can occur.

Moreover, when Kirk invited students to target their “woke” professors or Trump invited his angriest supporters to seek his preferred justice at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, it’s been argued that they were illegally inciting their foot-soldiers to violence. So what would it take for that charge to stick?

Last week, when I quoted Trump’s calling for “all of those” who were “responsible” for Kirk’s murder to be held accountable, he could only be found guilty of incitement if a court could infer “the intent to harm others” from his words, and some unhinged follower actually heeded his call and exacted some violent retribution in response.

The leading Supreme Court case here is Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 44 (1969), and we all need to become more familiar with its two-part standard for liability given the confusing political noise around it today. For speech to constitute “incitement,” Brandenburg requires it to be (1) directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and (2) likely to incite or produce such action. That means “inciting speech” loses First Amendment protection when the speaker intends to cause immediate violence and is, under the circumstances, likely to succeed in provoking it.

From where I sit as a lawyer, Trump’s speech to a mob of angry supporters he had called to Washington on January 6th met the legal definition of incitement to violence and should have been, but never was punished. Since he effectively “got away with it once,” he and his least temperate proxies are continuing to poke the tinderbox of Right-wing incitement to every grievance he expresses—because that’s the end of the political spectrum in America that’s bred the most violence in recent memory according to a study by the Cato Institute, a respected libertarian think tank.

Which brings us to the fate of political comedy these days.

Nothing bites “the man who would be king” like ridicule. Luckily, some of our democratic institutions (like stand-up comedy) are still alive and kicking–at least for now.

Comedian, and Jimmy Kimmel’s fellow talk show host, Stephen Colbert gave what was likely the most effective comic response to Kimmel’s suspension from ABC in a brilliantly modified version of the “Be Our Guest” song and dance number from Disney’s “Beauty & the Beast” a few days ago. Not only did it skewer Trump’s vanity and vindictiveness, it also effectively pilloried Disney (as ABC’s owner) and its boss Bob Iger for allowing Kimmel’s censorship.

In addition, Trump undoubtedly noticed how some British “comedians” heralded his visit to the royals this week by projecting images of him with Jeffrey Epstein onto the walls of Windsor Palace while he was about to be indulged there.

On the other hand, South Park’s “postponement” of the episode that was expected to run this week seemed more ominous. Even Colbert’s parody failed to bite as deeply into Trump’s image of himself as Trey Parker and Matt Stone have been managing, but the South Park franchise is also owned by a media conglomerate that’s run by the son of Trump buddy Larry Ellison, so some feared interference.

While South Park said they’d “run out of time” to wrap the episode, and it’s been reported that the guys wanted “to find the right tone and approach to addressing current events,” it was hard to escape the specter of more censorship, particularly in light of the show’s most recent storyline about Trump’s amorous relationship with Satan. It should also be noted that South Park parodied Charlie Kirk in an August episode (“Clyde Donovan destroys woke liberal students” etc.), though Kirk himself (almost alone among his post-mortem defenders) admirably said that he found his portrayal in the parody to be both “awesome” & “hilarious.”

Perhaps the last word this week about comedy’s impact on would-be authoritarians came from one of the guests on this week’s Colbert show, New Yorker editor David Remnick. Before leading the magazine, Remnick had been a reporter in the Soviet Union in the years when it was transitioning from Gorbachev’s glasnost to Putin’s rise. Tellingly, Remnick reminded us that Putin’s very first act upon becoming Russia’s new leader was to censor one of the country’s leading parodies, and eventually the entire network that had run this troublesome puppet show. Here’s a clip of Remnick’s timely comments.

Among other things, this parallel between Putin and Trump 2.0 also is a reminder that it’s not just the comedian but also the broadcasting network (or conglomerate with its billionaire investors) that also play a key role in crackdowns on political comedy, especially when it’s hitting its marks most effectively.

It was the possibility of reprisal by Trump’s Federal Trade Commission (FCC) that cowed Disney/ABC and is local affiliate conglomerates (Nextar and Sinclair) to pull Jimmy Kimmel off the air despite the non-existent First Amendment grounds for doing so. All of these companies have upcoming mergers that need FCC approval, and both Nextar and Sinclair need FCC authorization to buy more than the currently mandated maximum of affiliate television stations so they don’t “unfairly dominate” their particular markets. By kowtowing to Trump’s wishes in July (“Kimmel should be the next to go”), all three corportations hope to curry favor with the FCC and get any “problems” waived.

Moreover, media conglomerates and their billionaire investors will continue to play an outsized role in the censorship of comics in particular as well as in the reporting of “the news” more generally. Because while his ultimate aims may never be realized, the aforementioned Larry Ellison—who already is a major stakeholder (through his son) in CBS/Paramount, the company that recently cancelled Colbert’s contract for another year—is also looking to acquire CNN, HBO and a major stake in TikTok. As an essayist in the Times noted on Thursday:

If all goes as anticipated, this tech billionaire, already one of the richest men in the world and a founder of Oracle, is poised, at 81, to become one of the most powerful media and entertainment moguls America has ever seen….

Along with his son, David, he could soon end up controlling a powerful social media platform, an iconic Hollywood movie studio and one of the largest content streaming services, as well as two of the country’s largest news organizations. Given Mr. Ellison’s friendship with, and affinity for, Donald Trump, an increasingly emboldened president could be getting an extraordinarily powerful media ally — in other words, the very last thing our country needs right now.

Once again, Ellison’s ambitions may never be realized, but the trend lines are clear. Almost all of our channels of information are controlled by billionaires who seem eager to do Trump’s bidding, either because they share his grievances or are willing to do whatever’s required to secure government backing for their business objectives. This also goes for Elon Musk and Twitter/X, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook/ Instagram, and Jeff Bezos with the Washington Post. Of these, Musk seems most aligned with Trump’s desire to crack down on speech that’s critical of his governance, though all have enormous incentives “to go along to get along” because they (along with their investors) want profits instead of battles over the First Amendment.

So will our American comics have the last laugh?

If we follow the Putin analogy, the only places where you can find Russian comics (or a free press) these days are in places like the Baltic states and the Netherlands. And whether you call them oligarchs or billionaires, both Putin and Trump prefer to surround themselves with men who manage large segments of their respective economies in the ways that they want them to be managed.

For America, that means getting the information (including the comedy) we both want and need may increasingly depend on whether folks like the Ellisons believe in a free press and appreciate the liberating qualities of political humor.

This post was adapted from my September 21, 2025 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning, and sometimes I post the content from one of them here, in lightly edited form. You can subscribe by leaving your email address in the column to the right.

Who’s Winning Our Tugs-of-War Over On-Line Privacy & Autonomy?

February 1, 2021 By David Griesing Leave a Comment

We know that our on-line privacy and autonomy (or freedom from outside control) are threatened in two, particularly alarming ways today. There are the undisclosed privacy invasions that occur from our on-line activities and the loss of opportunities where we can speak our minds without censorship.

These alarm bells ring because of the dominance of on-line social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter and text-based exchanges like What’s App and the other instant messaging services—most of which barely existed a decade ago. With unprecedented speed, they’ve become the town squares of modern life where we meet, talk, shop, learn, voice opinions and engage politically. But as ubiquitous and essential as they’ve become, their costs to vital zones of personal privacy and autonomy have caused a significant backlash, and this past week we got an important preview of where this backlash is likely to take us.

Privacy advocates worry about the harmful consequences when personal data is extracted from users of these platforms and services. They say our own data is being used “against us” to influence what we buy (the targeted ads that we see and don’t see), manipulate our politics (increasing our emotional engagement by showing us increasingly polarizing content), and exert control over our social behavior (by enabling data-gathering agencies like the police, FBI or NSA). Privacy advocates are also offended that third parties are monetizing personal data “that belongs to us” in ways that we never agreed to, amounting to a kind of theft of our personal property by unauthorized strangers.

For their part, censorship opponents decry content monitors who can bar particular statements or even participation on dominant platforms altogether for arbitrary and biased reasons. When deprived of the full use of our most powerful channels of mass communication, they argue that their right to peaceably assemble is being eviscerated by what they experience as “a culture war” against them.

Both groups say they have a privacy right to be left alone and act autonomously on-line: to make choices and decisions for themselves without undue influence from outsiders; to be free from ceaseless monitoring, profiling and surveillance; to be able to speak their minds without the threat of “silencing;” and, “to gather” for any lawful purpose without harassment.

So how are these tugs-or-war over two of our most basic rights going?

This past week provided some important indications.

This week’s contest over on-line privacy pit tech giant Apple against rivals with business models that depend upon selling their users’ data to advertisers and other third parties—most prominently, Facebook and Google.

Apple announced this week that it would immediately start offering its leading smartphone users additional privacy protections. One relates to its dominant App Store and developers like Facebook, Google and the thousands of other companies that sell their apps (or platform interfaces) to iPhone users.

Going forward—on what Apple chief Tim Cook calls “a privacy nutrition label”—every app that the company offers for installation on its phones will need to share its data collection and privacy practices before purchase in ways that Apple will ensure “every user can understand and act on.” Instead of reading (and then ignoring) multiple pages of legalese, for the first time every new Twitter or YouTube user for example, will be able through their iPhones to either “opt-in” or refuse an app’s data collection practices after reading plain language that describes the personal data that will be collected and what will be done with it. In a similar vein, iPhone users will gain a second advantage over apps that have already been installed on their phones. With new App Tracking Transparency, iPhone users will be able to control how each app is gathering and sharing their personal data. For every application on your iPhone, you can now choose whether a Facebook or Google has access to your personal data or not.

While teeing up these new privacy initiatives at an industry conference this week, Apple chief Tim Cook was sharply critical of companies that take our personal data for profit, citing several of the real world consequences when they do so. I quote at length from his remarks last Thursday because I enjoyed hearing someone of Cook’s stature speaking to these issues so pointedly, and thought you might too:

A little more than two years ago…I spoke in Brussels about the emergence of a data-industrial complex… At that gathering we asked ourselves: “what kind of world do we want to live in?” Two years later, we should now take a hard look at how we’ve answered that question.

The fact is that an interconnected ecosystem of companies and data brokers, of purveyors of fake news and peddlers of division, of trackers and hucksters just looking to make a quick buck, is more present in our lives than it has ever been.

And it has never been so clear how it degrades our fundamental right to privacy first, and our social fabric by consequence.

As I’ve said before, ‘if we accept as normal and unavoidable that everything in our lives can be aggregated and sold, then we lose so much more than data. We lose the freedom to be human.’….

Together, we must send a universal, humanistic response to those who claim a right to users’ private information about what should not and will not be tolerated….

At Apple…, [w]e have worked to not only deepen our own core privacy principles, but to create ripples of positive change across the industry as a whole.

We’ve spoken out, time and again, for strong encryption without backdoors, recognizing that security is the foundation of privacy.

We’ve set new industry standards for data minimization, user control and on-device processing for everything from location data to your contacts and photos.

At the same time that we’ve led the way in features that keep you healthy and well, we’ve made sure that technologies like a blood-oxygen sensor and an ECG come with peace of mind that your health data stays yours.

And, last but not least, we are deploying powerful, new requirements to advance user privacy throughout the App Store ecosystem….

Technology does not need vast troves of personal data, stitched together across dozens of websites and apps, in order to succeed. Advertising existed and thrived for decades without it. And we’re here today because the path of least resistance is rarely the path of wisdom.

If a business is built on misleading users, on data exploitation, on choices that are no choices at all, then it does not deserve our praise. It deserves reform….

At a moment of rampant disinformation and conspiracy theories juiced by algorithms, we can no longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology that says all engagement is good engagement — the longer the better — and all with the goal of collecting as much data as possible.

Too many are still asking the question, “how much can we get away with?,” when they need to be asking, “what are the consequences?” What are the consequences of prioritizing conspiracy theories and violent incitement simply because of their high rates of engagement? What are the consequences of not just tolerating, but rewarding content that undermines public trust in life-saving vaccinations? What are the consequences of seeing thousands of users join extremist groups, and then perpetuating an algorithm that recommends even more?….

[N]o one needs to trade away the rights of their users to deliver a great product.

With its new “data nutrition labels” and “app tracking transparency,” many (if not most) of Apple’s iPhone users are likely to reject other companies’ data collection and sharing practices once they understand the magnitude of what’s being taken from them. Moreover, these votes for greater data privacy could be a major financial blow to the companies extracting our data because Apple sold more smartphones globally than any other vendor in the last quarter of 2020, almost half of Americans use iPhones (45.3% of the market according to one analyst), more people access social media and messaging platforms from their phones than from other devices, and the personal data pipelines these data extracting companies rely upon could start constricting immediately.

In this tug-of-war between competing business models, the outcry this week was particularly fierce from Facebook, which one analyst predicts could start to take “a 7% revenue hit” (that’s real cash at $6 billion) as early as the second quarter of this year. (Facebook’s revenue take in 2020 was $86 billion, much of it from ad sales fueled by user data.) Mark Zuckerberg charged that Apple’s move tracks its competitive interests, saying its rival “has every incentive to use their dominant platform position to interfere with how our apps and other apps work,” among other things, a dig at on-going antitrust investigations involving Apple’s App Store. In a rare expression of solidarity with the little guy, Zuckerberg also argued that small businesses which access customers through Facebook would suffer disproportionately from Apple’s move because of their reliance on targeted advertising.

There’s no question that Apple was flaunting its righteousness on data privacy this week and that Facebook’s “ouches” were the most audible reactions. But there is also no question that a business model fueled by the extraction of personal data has finally been challenged by another dominant market player. In coming weeks and months we’ll find out how interested Apple users are about protecting their privacy on their iPhones and whether their eagerness prompts other tech companies to offer similar safeguards. We’ll get signals from how advertising dollars are being spent as the “underlying profile data” becomes more limited and less reliable. We may also begin to see the gradual evolution of an on-line public space that’s somewhat more respectful of our personal privacy and autonomy.

What’s clearer today is that tech users concerned about the privacy of their data and freedom from data-driven manipulation on-line can now limit at least some of the flow of that information to unwelcome strangers in ways that they never had at their disposal before.

All of us should be worried about censorship of our views by content moderators at private companies (whether in journalism or social media) and by governmental authorities that wish to stifle dissenting opinions. But many of the strongest voices behind regulating the tech giants’ penchant “to moderate content” today come from those who are convinced that press, media and social networking channels both limit access to and censor content from those who differ with “their liberal or progressive points of view.” Their opposition speaks not only to the extraordinary dominance of these tech giants in the public square today but also to the air of grievance that colors the political debates that we’ve been having there.

Particularly after President Trump’s removal from Facebook and Twitter earlier this month and the temporary shutdown of social media upstart Parler after Amazon cut off its cloud computing services, there has been a concerted drive to find new ways for individuals and groups to communicate with one another on-line in ways that cannot be censored or “de-platformed” altogether. Like the tug-of-war over personal data privacy, a new polarity over on-line censorship and the ways to get around it could fundamentally alter the character of our on-line public squares.

Instead of birthing a gaggle of new “Right-leaning” social media companies with managers who might still be tempted to interfere with irritating content, blockchain software technology is now being utilized to create what amount to “moderation-proof” communication networks.

To help with basic blockchain mechanics, this is how I described it here in 2018.

A blockchain is a web-based chain of connections, most often with no central monitor, regulator or editor. Its software applications enable every node in its web of connections to record data which can then be seen and reviewed by every other connection. It maintains its accuracy through this transparency. Everyone with access can see what every other connection has recorded in what amounts to a digital ledger…
Blockchain-based software can be launched by individuals, organizations or even governments. Software access can be limited to a closed network of participants or open to everyone. A blockchain is usually established to overcome the need for and cost of a “middleman” (like a bank) or some other impediment (like currency regulations, tariffs or burdensome bureaucracy). It promotes “the freer flow” of legal as well as illegal goods, services and information. Blockchain is already driving both modernization and globalization. Over the next several years, it will also have profound impacts on us as individuals.

If you’d gain from a visual description, this short video from The MIT Technology Review will also show you the basics about this software innovation.

I’ve written several times before about the promise of blockchain-driven systems. For example, Your Work is About to Change Forever (about a bit-coin-type financial future without banks or traditional currencies); Innovation Driving Values (how secure and transparent recording of property rights like land deeds can drive economic progress in the developing world); Blockchain Goes to Work (how this software can enable gig economy workers to monetize their work time in a global marketplace); Data Privacy & Accuracy During the Coronavirus (how a widely accessible global ledger that records accurate virus-related information can reduce misinformation); and, with some interesting echoes today, a 2017 post called Wish Fulfillment (about why a small social media platform called Steem-It was built on blockchain software).

Last Tuesday, the New York Times ran an article titled: They Found a Way to Limit Big Tech’s Power: Using the Design of Bitcoin. That “Design” in the title was blockchain software. The piece highlighted:

a growing movement by technologists, investors and everyday users to replace some of the internet’s basic building blocks in ways that would be harder for tech giants like Facebook or Google [or, indeed, anyone outside of these self-contained platforms] to control.

Among other things, the article described how those “old” internet building blocks would be replaced by blockchain-driven software, enabling social media platforms that would be the successors to the one that Steem-It built several years ago. However, while Steem-It wanted to provide a safe and reliable way to pay contributors for their social media content, in this instance the over-riding drive is “to make it much harder for any government or company to ban accounts or delete content.”

It’s both an intoxicating and a chilling possibility.

While the Times reporter hinted about the risks with ominous quotes and references to the creation of “a decentratlized web of hate,” it’s worth noting that nothing like it has materialized, yet. Also implied but never discussed was the urgency that many feel to avoid censorship of their minority viewpoints by people like Twitter’s Jack Dorsey or even the New York Times editors who effectively decide what to report on and what to ignore. So what’s the bottom line in this tech-enabled tug-of-war between political forces?

The public square that we occupy daily—for communication and commerce, family connection and dissent—a public square that the dominant social media platforms largely provide, cannot (and must not) be governed by @Jack, the sensibilities of mainstream media, or any group of esteemed private citizens like Facebook’s recently appointed Oversight Board. One of the most essential roles of government is to maintain safety and order in, and to set forth the rules of the road for, our public square. Because blockchain-enabled social networks will likely be claiming more of that public space in the near future—even as they strive to evade its common obligations through encryption and otherwise—government can and should enforce the rules for this brave new world.

Until now, our government has failed to confront either on-line censorship or its foreseeable consequences. Because our on-line public square has become (in a few short years) as essential to our way of life as our electricity or water, its social media and similar platforms should be licensed and regulated like those basic services, that is, like utilities—not only for our physical safety but also for the sake of our democratic institutions, which survived their most recent tests but may not survive their next ones if we fail to govern ourselves and our awesome technologies more responsibly.

In this second tug-of-war, we don’t have a moment to lose.

This post was adapted from my January 31, 2021 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning. You can sign up by leaving your email address in the column to the right.

Has America Decided It’s Finally Had Enough?

Will Our Comics Get the Last Laugh?

Search this Site

Recent Posts

Follow Me