soonmide

vox canis loquentes

  • he/him

i think dogs should post. i think dogs should airdash

posts from @soonmide tagged #long post

also:

Sheri
@Sheri

when i was a kid, we got $2 in the mail. we were poor, so this was a big deal at the time.

the bills were really, really crisp- at first i assumed they were counterfeit. there was a stint of counterfeit $100s on cable news at the time, or maybe i was just too into heist movies- but Nielsen didn't know any of these Viewing Statistics about me, and promised to send $5 more for telling them. so we did.

Nielsen are a media research firm in the US that's been collecting and reporting demographic data of television viewership since the 50s, but this particular data gathering method relied upon poverty: getting $2 gets your attention, and being promised future money in exchange for 'just watching TV' and writing down what you watch- who wouldn't?

who wouldn't write down more information about themselves than the fucking census requires in exchange for a couple boxes of ramen?

Nielsen survey, asking questions like "Do you have access to the Internet", "How frequently does anyone answer the landline phone in your home?" and "Which language is spoken most often in your home?"

for decades, data like this was used to decide if TV shows got to keep going.

surveys, direct interviews, and boxes they'd install in your home and plug into your TV; Nielsen would mix all of this to concoct an algorithm showing Who was watching What, Where, and When, then sell advertisers on the Why.

thus, what future Content Units and Time Slots were primed for placing advertisement on.

but we're now in the era of streaming. of ad blocking and piracy and passwords easily shared. where the best way to scrape someone's information is convincing them to give it up willingly on the internet- but those numbers aren't all that useful for television as a medium. even streaming shows that do well on computers aren't guaranteed for television numbers

times have changed!

to many right now, $2 and $5 are pretty much interchangeable amounts of 'free' money. either so little as to not matter, or not worth the extra labor of tracking your viewing habits for a week to get lunch for a day

people either don't want to bother with a box to plug into their screen, or can't afford a screen for it to be plugged into at all... wait a minute.

a demographic that's been barred systemically from what's considered "necessary" in today's society?! that's a lot of words to say 'untapped market'!

TELLY: It's a Free TV For You, Jim!

Two Screens, No Apps- It's Free!

Fast Company article from mid 2023 by Jared Newman titled "Telly's wild idea: Free TVs with inescapable ads."

i'm not carrying these ads around all day, its for YOUR house

i, like many chosters here i'm sure, was first made aware of the... dual-screen e-waste any% run known as Telly, by @atomicthumbs posting a pic the other day. the first thing i thought when i saw it was "oh it's like if the Nielsen Box was the TV itself"

looking into it, i was right on the concerningly-crisp money

a professional venture capitalist and occasional CEO of the concept of venture capital, business boy Ilya Pozin is best known for making Pluto- the Cable of internet streaming.

Screen-grab of Pluto, streaming service for live TV. Star Trek TOS is playing.

pluto reintroduced the structure of TV advertising breaks with the internet's fingerprint-tracking of customer behavior: creating a single platform that redefines itself as "media", as any shows that are broadcasting, allows for data harvesters and marketers to once again control the playing field. advertisements only make money if you, the corporation selling human attention to advertisers, can prove said people are actually responding to the ads, let alone looking at them

but pluto's got it sorted: with at least 80 million reported active users whose watch histories are recorded and searchable- could one ask for a better walled garden?

well, yes, actually: television. teevee, or telly if you're AB testing

the browser, operating system, and hardware are all user-owned products which allow for access to any website, such as pluto, to be altered. ads blocked, screens recorded- there's no way to guarantee the people on the website are behaving as the software requires when the user owns the hardware.

to follow that logic to its conclusion: the only way to ensure those 80 million active users are 80 million profitable users, whose data matches their whims and will spend on advertised product accordingly- is to trap them on hardware they cannot escape without paying. to make the very act of watching shows be, itself, data harvesting.

From Telly's website. Football happening on the top screen, with the smaller horizontal bar of a bottom screen showing statistics and an ad for a Fast & Furious video game.

now here's the founder of Telly now with more threats:

“We know where you live, what your income bracket is— obviously it’s all anonymized—but we know what car you’re driving.

We know when your lease is up.
We know where you shop.
We know what your favorite sports teams are...”

-Ilya Pozin, CEO & Founder of Telly, to Fast Company, May 15th 2023

"obviously it's all anonymized" reads like "credit to the author" or "no copyright infringement intended"

telly looked at the problem of consumers not having the up-front capital to buy 'smart'-TVs conducive to impulse purchases, and concluded that the capital they do have could be better extracted by skipping the first step.

actual media is entirely second to the business model. literally:

“Oddly enough, Telly isn’t building any actual smart TV software into the television. Instead, Telly will ship with an Android TV streaming dongle, which users can plug into any of the TV’s three HDMI inputs.”

-Jared Newman for Fast Company, May 15th 2023

essentially, they are giving you an electronic billboard to install in your living room and throwing in a chromecast as an incentive.

still, it's free, isn't it? we're all already giving up our privacy to corps every waking hour anyways, so what's a little in-home panasonic, panoramic, panopticon?

just take this personality quiz where you explain exactly who you are and what to sell to you- before we even talk about getting you a TV:

“To receive the free TV, Telly users must submit detailed demographic info (such as age, gender and address), as well as purchasing behaviors, brand preferences and viewing habits, and they must agree to let their data be used for serving targeted ads.

Telly’s TVs include a sensor that detects how many people are in front of the screen at any given moment.”

-Todd Spangler for Variety, Jul 13th 2023

now now todd, don't be so closed-minded! the 24/7 monitoring is just a sweetener, the camera and microphone are there to allow for video calling and voice control, you see:

Via Telly's website. Slides showcasing features such as Zoom, Spotify, Fitness, and Flappy Bird.

flappy bird needs to know how many observers it has, todd. he is the heartbeat of my living room, todd.

these are sacrifices we all must make to do video calls in the busiest room in our home, on the primary screen we use for watching movies.

i don't want to risk using another screen too often, after all, or i might get a $1000 fine.

“So what’s the catch? Telly users must agree to several conditions under the company’s terms of service.

If someone doesn’t abide by the TOS, Telly reserves the right to demand the TV be shipped back — otherwise, it will charge up to $1,000 to the credit card associated with a given account.

Among the Telly TV requirements: You must 'use the product as the primary television in your household'; you must keep the TV connected to the internet at all times; and you are not allowed to use any ad-blocking software.”

-Todd Spangler for Variety, Jul 13th 2023

i cannot risk losing $1000 at any given time. i cannot risk going on vacation and not being seen doing my Regulated Watching Routine. i cannot risk my roommate installing some kind of traffic blocker VPN and getting an angry letter demanding the screen or 2 months rent.

the stress of that alone, to me, is disqualifying to telly as an "entertainment" medium.

crisse, what's in their terms of service, anyways?

Telly's TOS via their website, cut off abruptly at the bottom.

hrm. maybe i need a second screen down there to read the rest?

the screens require you tune into them as expected, as reported- failure to do so is seen as a failure to be a profitable investment, and thus extracts fiscal compensation directly

these are billboards where the target demographic is somehow also the collateral

the problem is: the kind of consumer who is willing to accept a lot of bullshit for a free TV is also willing to accept a lot of bullshit to not spend money elsewhere, too. so armed with two screens and a dongle, what's to stop the end user from making one a media monitor and the other run doom or whatever? well, the same thing that would stop someone from screwing the TV to their apartment wall: you're renting, not owning

“In addition, users may not make 'physical modifications to the product or attach peripheral devices to the product not expressly approved by Telly,' the company says in its terms of service. 'Any attempt to open the product’s enclosure will be deemed an unauthorized modification.' ”

-Todd Spangler for Variety, Jul 13th 2023

and yes, they count 'throwing a towel over it' as being an "attach[ed] peripheral".

we don't have to sell the user a TV that turns them into a product to be sold to advertisers- when we can just can convince the user modern televisions are a prerequisite to society, and pressure them into signing a loan with dangerous terms

telly wants you to sell your identity, but then needs you to stick to the script. inconsistent behavior results in a fine.

it feels like nielsen's model on gear mixed with payday-loan style fintech to smooth it out

Because It's Literally Nielsen Mixed With Fintech

"Telly marks Nielsen, Magnite, Microsoft partnerships as free 4K TVs start shipping" by Bevin Fletcher, July 13th 2023, via StreamTV.

oh okay.

“As Telly TVs start to hit consumers the company has also pulled in a roster of partners across product, data and advertising. Those include Nielsen, Magnite, Microsoft, Spotify, Harman Kardon, and LiveOne.

Notably, the partnership with Nielsen is a data licensing agreement whereby the measurement company plans to license Telly data to collect and interpret both viewership and ad effectiveness for advertisers and TV programmers.”

-Bevin Fletcher for StreamTV Insider, July 13th 2023

nielsen wasn't capable of adapting to the times, so the times adapted to nielsen. startup founders sucker up to these dying industries by promising to invent a product that would nullify their obsolescence.

in the same way as looking at people who can't afford TVs to be advertised on and seeing opportunity, the vulture capitalists at telly looked at nielsen and saw a cashcow

"you want users watching TV with ads and sending accurate user data? we can make a product for that, and sell you the data"

i cannot help but recall Television Delivers People by Richard Serra from the 70s (which i can only assume was written in part about nielsen). i was first introduced by @E3KHatena, but it feels like something i might've written had i been around at the time- though i doubt i'd have been as efficiently verbose:

White text on a blue screen from Richard Serra's "Television Delivers People" reading: "Propaganda for Profit. Television is the prime instrument for the management of consumer demands."

it's been decades since. corps have been allowed to control media to the point of abstracting away the concept of a display to be synonymous with advertiseable media space.

screens are seen as no different than newspaper: what percentage of the available space can we get away with making advertisements? can that percent go up by convincing viewers these things are necessary for the medium to exist?

can we get away with putting a billboard in people's living rooms if we disguise some of it as a television? can we get away with making them pay for the electricity, and for repairs if it gets damaged? how long before the bar of advertisement becomes the bar of media, as how every news publication is made unreadable by popups?

telly is what happens when Television Delivers People is read as instructions.



shel
@shel

I often get the impression that most people discussing the Israel-Palestine issue have done very little research into the history of Zionism, the history of Palestine, the history of the Jewish Diaspora, or the history of the State called Israel (henceforth called Medinat Israel). It can lead to very frustrating discussions where nobody seems to understand why the other side won't agree with them or change their mind or even empathize with the other position in the slightest.

You often encounter liberal American Jews who say things like "I am a Zionist, but I oppose the occupation, and the Likud government, and believe in separation of religion and State, and support equal rights for Palestinians, and even right of return of Palestinians... but I'm a strong Zionist like I really believe in Zionism" and it begs the question "what do you think Zionism means then?" Likewise, you sometimes encounter anti-zionists, like myself, who seem to have no idea why so many Jewish people moved to Palestine, or why these holocaust survivors keep electing fascists, and then we'll say ignorant things like "they should all move back to Europe" which basically immediately tells whoever is listening that you have no idea what you're talking about.

For a full-disclosure, I'm an anti-zionist, I do not believe in Zionism. I think Zionism is the golden calf of our day and has turned many Jews away from Judaism and towards a fascist nationalist worship of the State. I think Medinat Israel is an awful racist apartheid state and needs to be abolished and replaced with a secular bi-national state with equal rights for all and a right of return for Palestinians in diaspora, and that the funds used for Aaliyah programs should be diverted to helping any Palestinians who return to re-settle in the new state, ideally on their original lands which had been taken from them only a generation or two ago. I also believe in freedom of movement, that is unethical to displace someone from the place where they were born, and that there should be no enforced demographic proportions or attempts to affect who has the majority at any give time. I even think it's maybe possible for a one-state solution to still provide a safe refuge for Jews fleeing persecution in very hostile countries without privileging Jews over Palestinians; though right now I think it honestly makes more sense for us to encourage them to settle in like, New Jersey, which is honestly objectively safer for Jewish refugees than an active war zone like Palestine.

And that last part might confuse some people. How can you be an anti-zionist and also believe that Palestine can be a safe refuge for Jewish refugees? and that would be because most people don't understand what Zionism means.

Terminology

Here's some terminology:

B'nei/Beney Yisrael: This means "The Sons of Israel" and has referred to the Jewish people for thousands of years. In many languages, this is just what you call Jews. Yisrael/Israel, on its own, for thousands of years, just meant "All the Jewish People." In Jewish liturgy, any time "Yisrael" shows up it's not referring to the Land of Israel and certainly not the State of Israel, it just means "The People called Yisrael."

Bene Yisrael: This refers specifically to the Jewish diaspora in India and Pakistan, the many Jews who, upon being expelled from Judea by the Romans, headed east and settled in the Indian subcontinent. After the partition of India and the movement of Pakistan and India towards being states defined by being Muslim or Hindu, most Bene Yisraeli Jews feared persecution and moved to Medinat Israel, the US, or other British Commonwealth countries.

Benai Yisrael: This spelling generally refers to Samaritans, who are a different ethnoreligious group in the Levant region, mostly Ha'aretz Yisrael, who were never expelled and do not consider themselves Jewish though they do claim to also be descendants of the ancient Israelites, just a different tribe than the ones who became the Jews.

Bnei Isro'il: This refers specifically to the Jewish diaspora in a part Central Asia that is now within Uzbekistan, they are a subset of Mizrahi Jews called the Bukharan Jews. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union shit got really difficult for them and most of them moved to Medinat Israel or to the United States.

Beta Israel: This refers specifically to the Jewish diaspora in Ethiopia, who have always faced a lot of racism from other Jews and were more separate from the other diaspora groups because of it, thus their version of Judaism is more different than Ashkenazi or Sephardic Judaism (though it's still very much valid Judaism!!). This racism is, of course, because Beta Israeli Jews are Black. Ethiopia was kind of a rough place to live what with WWII and the famine and the wars, so Beta Israel actually was really interested in leaving Ethiopia more-so than most other diaspora groups. The Ethiopian government, however, for a long time, prohibited Jews from emigrating from Ethiopia. During the Ethiopian Civil War in the late 20th century, things got worse, with the Ethiopian government becoming increasingly hostile to the Jewish population in retaliation for horrible human rights abuses enacted by Medinat Israel, even though the Jews in Ethiopia had nothing to do with it what since they were living in Ethiopia and not allowed to leave the country by the same government attacking them. In response, Medinat Israel evacuated nearly the entire Beta Israel community to Palestine through an elaborate MOSSAD operation; and since then, some have moved to the United States. Once in Medinat Israel, they have faced lots of racism including coerced sterilization by the government; with many Beta Israeli women saying that they were told by immigration officials they would not be allowed to immigrate unless they agreed to being injected with a long-term contraceptive drug.

Ha'aretz Yisrael: This refers specifically to The Land of Israel, regardless of who is living there now or what the current government is. It's where the Kingdom of Israel from the TaNaKh supposedly was though the exact borders are under dispute. It's also where we all originated, albeit over 1800 years ago (and you can tell by looking at us that all of us are of mixed heritage now, no matter what anyone claims). This land traded hands between various empires constantly who all liked to change the name, so Jews just refer to it as Ha'aretz Yisrael rather than trying to keep up with what we're calling it these days according to whoever most recently conquered it. Traditionally, there is a prophecy that someday in the distant future, when there is no more war or hunger, a messiah will come who will lead all the Jews in diaspora back to Ha'aretz Yisrael and then all the dead will come back to life and everyone will be immortal and it's basically the closest thing Judaism has to an afterlife; and most Jews don't even believe this anymore. Some Jews believe that we explicitly should not preempt this and should avoid living in Ha'aretz Yisrael before the messiah comes.

Medinat Yisrael: This means "The State of Israel" and refers specifically to the government, the State, that has been established in Palestine, which named itself "Israel." It didn't ask us all if we wanted them to use the name that traditionally referred to the entire ethnic group as the name of their government but that's what they decided to do and now we're stuck with it. More abstractly, it can refer to the idea of "A Jewish State" of a non-specific location, it just so happens that the one that exists is also in Palestine.

Israelis: People who have been born in Medinat Israel, or have become Israeli Citizens through immigration, regardless of if they are Jewish or not. This includes Israeli Arabs and Israeli Palestinians.

Israelites: The ancient people of the Kingdom of Israel as featured in the TaNaKh who Jews, Samaritans, the Banu Israil Muslim community in Uttar Pradesh, the Knanaya Christians in Kerala, the Lemba people in Zimbabwe and South Africa, some Pashtuns, some British Nationalists, some French Nationalists, some Scandinavian Nationalists, some Kurds, some Japanese Nationalists, the Black Hebrew Israelites in the United States, and the Mormons in the United States all claim ancestry from. Genetic testing has shown evidence that Jews and Samaritans (discounting recent converts) probably do actually share a common ancestor that lived where the Kingdom of Israel was around that time but like, that's so long ago we really can't say anything for certain.

Sabra (pl. Sabrim): Jewish people who have been born in Medinat Israel; which is what a lot of people mean to refer to when they say Israeli.

Aliyah: When a Jewish person immigrates to Medinat Israel, they call it "making aliyah." Someone who has made aliyah becomes an Israeli but not a Sabra.

Anyway, that's all super easy to remember right? So here's the misconception: Many people believe that Zionism is the belief that B'nei Yisrael should live in Ha'aretz Yisrael but actually Zionism is the belief that B'nei Yisrael should live in Medinat Yisrael, which happens to be located in Ha'artez Yisrael but it didn't necessarily have to be. Zionists, in turn, have helped Bene Israel, Bnei Is'roil, and Beta Israel emigrate to Medinat Yisrael (among others in B'nei Yisrael). Benai Yisrael was already in Ha'aretz Yisrael before the Zionists established Medinat Yisrael in Ha'aretz Yisrael. Simple, easy to remember.

Could You Please Say That Again in English

There is a misconception that Zionism is the belief that Jews from across the diaspora should all live together in the Land of Israel, AKA where Palestine is now. They might even think it's just the belief that the country called Israel should be allowed to exist at all, and that the Jews who live there should be allowed to continue living there. But that is not what Zionism is.

Zionism is the belief that Jews should live in a Jewish State, which is to say, a nation-state that is majority Jewish and controlled by Jews and only or primarily Jews1. It is explicitly and openly a colonialist venture. The Zionist movement originally didn't even care if the proposed Jewish State was in Palestine, although it was definitely always their top choice.

Theodor Herzl was the father of modern Zionism as we know it. In his manifesto, Der Judenstaat, Herzl talks about how establishing a Jewish state would be this magnificent replication of European colonialism and would elevate the Jewish people to the level of the Western Civilizations. He proposed that the Jewish state be established in.... Argentina! Well, he also proposed Palestine, but he thought Argentina might be more practical.

In fact, here's all the locations that Zionists proposed might be good places for The Jewish State to be established:

  • Grand Island, Erie county, New York
  • Uganda
  • Palestine
  • Argentina
  • Siberia
  • Crimea
  • Cyprus
  • Kenya
  • Manchuria
  • Madagascar
  • British Guiana
  • Ohio
  • Ethiopia
  • Tasmania
  • The Polish provinces that had previously been annexed by Russia
  • Jordan ("Eh, close enough to Palestine?")
  • Saudi Arabia
  • The Dominican Republic
  • Greece
  • Albania
  • Australia
  • Eastern Prussia/AKA what is now that weird exclave of Russia.
  • Kiryas Joel, New York
  • Quebec
  • Alaska
  • Vietnam, which was actually offered to David Ben-Gurion by Ho Chi Minh himself, which supposedly David Ben-Gurion dismissed by just saying "for obvious reasons, this was unacceptable."
  • G... Germany... Just... right in Germany... which I'm sure all the Jews would feel very safe doing.

There are many flavors of Zionism, certainly. Liberal Zionists believe in having a liberal democratic capitalism state. Religious Zionists who basically believe David Ben-Gurion was the aforementioned messiah. Labor Zionists who believe that the Judenstaadt should have socialist collective farming or something. The current flavor of Zionism that dominates Israeli politics and is the ideology of the ruling Likud party is Revisionist Zionism which believes first and foremost in having a strong military to defend the Jewish State, that "the ability to shoot" is the most important thing, and that the Jewish majority in the Jewish state must be maintained through violence in order to keep Jews safe. They are also territorial expansionists and believe that Medinat Israel and Ha'Aretz Yisrael should map 1:1 to the fullest extent, which is to say, they believe in annexing Palestine, and chunks of other neighboring countries as well. Likud also came into power by assassinating a sitting prime minister, which is cool. They'll claim that they're not responsible but the assassin was a member of the Likud party, so, like, take that as you will.

Let me be clear, all flavors of Zionism are colonialist ideologies, but the Revisionist Zionists are downright fascists. The Irgun, the armed militia that the Likud party grew out of, openly praised Adolf Hitler and said that they would only fight the Nazis because they are antisemitic and a threat to Jewish people, not because they disagreed with anything else that the Nazis were doing. They said that the anti-semitism of Nazism was the "shell" that they would discard, but they would keep the "Anti-Marxist Kernel" which they admired in Nazism. Here is a citation for this because I know many people might struggle to believe this, but it's in like the first thirty pages of this book.

I do not believe that all the Jews currently living in Medinat Israel should be deported, especially not the sabrim or the refugees whose entire communities moved there looking for a place where they wouldn't be persecuted. I think it's always wrong to displace people from where they were born, whether they be Jewish or Palestinian, and that it's important for people to accept refugees and immigrants. But I don't believe in Zionism, because I do not believe in a Jewish State. I do not believe in maintaining a Jewish majority. I do not believe in ethno-states or theocracy or ethnotheocracy. I do not believe Jews are entitled to owning all or any of Ha'aretz Yisrael and I do not believe Jews should be aspiring to replicate Western Colonialism. In fact, I believe that colonizing and displacing the Palestinian people from their land is morally wrong and contrary to the ethics of Judaism. Thus, I am anti-zionist.

Zionism is not believing it's OK for Jews to live in the State of Israel; or that it would be cool for Jews to live together in our ancestral homeland; it's believing that Jews should control a State of Israel as a privileged class with a unnaturally maintained majority. Zionists believe Jews will never be safe unless we control the government to exclusions of everyone else. I disagree. I think diversity is good and it's possible to live in harmony with other peoples. The Zionists disagree with me. I think they're racists and, these days? mostly fascists.

OK so, wait, how the hell do so many Jews believe in Zionism then? Most Jews are pretty anti-fascist given the whole holocaust thing, right?

Here's the thing that I think a lot of people miss. Most Jews living in Medinat Israel didn't really have a choice, and they have nowhere to go back to either. Before WWII, Zionism was not very popular. You can find so many historical documents of Jews making fun of Zionists as "wanting us to waste a lot of money and go die in the desert." Jews across the diaspora weren't exactly doing stellar but for most of them, they were living in society and the way the Zionist framed things (whether or not it was true) was that settling Ha'Aretz Yisrael was gonna be this whole colonial venture of building up new cities from scratch and working the land and farming and being survivalists and shit. When everything is already so precarious, why risk what you do have for a hypothetical thing that sounds exhausting and risky?

But in the mid-20th century, well, their hands were forced. The holocaust happened, and entire communities were wiped out. The Lithuanian village my great grandmother's family was from? After they left, the holocaust killed 100% of the Jews living there, and then the Soviet Union displaced all the Lithuanians, demolished all of the buildings, and just built an entirely new settlement with new people living there. In fact, they did this to the entire Marijampole metropolitan region. The Marijampole region as my great grandparents knew it is just gone. Lithuania once had some of the most Jews in the entire world, with some parts like Majiampole being super-majority Jewish. Of course the Jews in Marijampole didn't find Zionism particularly appealing, they already had their majority Jewish city, why build another one? In the year 2000, there were only 3600 Jews left in all of Lithuania. The city of Minsk in Belarus? It was once 55% Jewish, and no, Zionism wasn't very popular. The Nazis killed 90% of the Jews living in Minsk. The rest of the Jews all emigrated to Medinat Israel or the United States. Minsk is now less than 1% Jewish. Minsk is where my grandmother's parents had been born, but the Minsk they knew is gone entirely. After the Nazis killed all the Jews, and WWII destroyed most of the city, the Soviet Union basically just built an entirely new city and settled new people there who weren't Jewish.

And what were the Zionists doing at this time? They were evacuating refugees. When the Nazis are on your trail, you don't really ask where you're going. The Zionists said "Hey, looks like living in Europe isn't going so well for you, wanna come settle Palestine with us?" and the Jews of Europe said "SURE, FINE, GET ME THE FUCK OUT OF HERE, ASAP." Remember, the argument of the Zionists was "Jews will never be safe if they don't control the State" and now were extending their hand presenting themselves as the only way to escape the holocaust. Remember, also, that a lot of countries were refusing to take holocaust refugees, or setting very limited caps on how many they would take. The Zionists said "come here, all of you, no matter what."

A lot of the state-building the Zionists were doing was before the holocaust, and they were certainly building popularity the further they got along, but the holocaust was when their huge population boom happened, it was when they hit critical mass, it was when the majority of Jews came to sympathize with the Zionist project. The holocaust became the perfect example for the Zionists to use to argue that the Judenstaadt is necessary. This was a rhetorical trick. If you read Der Judenstaadt this was never the original concern of Herzl. Herzl believed that the Jewish State should be a technocracy run by corporations using Jewish immigrants as cheap loyal workers to turn a profit. But, hey, Herzl didn't foresee WWII.

Now, all that? That's just the Ashkenazi Jews and some Sephardic Jews. But let's talk about the Mizrahi Jews. The Mizrahim are the Jews who didn't travel too far from Jerusalem after the Romans expelled us. They lived in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, Egypt, even Palestine (it's not like the Romans were still keeping us out forever.) Under most Muslim governments, Mizrahim were given the status "people of the book" and considered a sort of protected second-class citizen. While not as privileged as Muslim citizens, they were still able to attain a pretty comfortable and stable middle-class life. Again, why would Zionism appeal to you? Sure, you weren't top of the food chain, but life was fine enough.

But when Medinat Israel declared independence and started pushing out all the Palestinians, all the neighboring Muslim nations were outraged (and rightfully so!) Unfortunately, they retaliated against the Mizrahim who lived within their borders, who had nothing to do with Medinat Israel but were blamed for it anyway. Many Jews were downright expelled from these countries, or were forced to move to Medinat Israel through negotiated "population exchanges" where Medinat Israel deported thousands of Palestinians to neighboring countries who in turn deported an equal number of Jews to Medinat Israel. This is a violation of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

This same story is repeated throughout the world. Once the State of Israel was established, people could finally tell the Jews to "go back where you came from." Entire communities emigrated, whether to flee existing persecution, new persecution that is arguably the fault of the Zionists, or were just absolutely terrified of being next, after seeing what was happening in the rest of the world.

If you tell most Israeli Jews to "go back where they came from" the question they'll ask back is "and where exactly is that? Is that not here? Because those other people told me to go back where I came from and sent me here." They'll say "you're insane, why would I do that, did you see what happened to us there?" They'll say "The place I'm from doesn't exist anymore. It was destroyed. Everybody left. It's gone." They'll maybe even say "I'd love to, but I'm not allowed to."

Here's another way to think of it: The Israeli Jews are like a child who was beaten growing up and grows up to be violent and angry and to believe that being strong and intimidating is the only way to protect themselves. They are fiercely loyal to Medinat Israel because it took them in when they lost everything. They believe the fascist Likud narrative because to many of them, it is their own lived experience. They thought they would be safe, then they faced violence, and then they were forced to flee. Medinat Israel was the only guaranteed safe place to go. Perhaps you could try to emigrate to Canada or the United States but passage wasn't guaranteed and that would still be colonizing someone else's land. Medinat Israel guaranteed they would be brought in and even given help to settle. It was a deal they couldn't refuse. And besides, haven't the Jews always lived on someone else's land? Weren't they always unwanted wherever we went? What was different this time in that sense? How were Palestinians different from Germans or Ethiopians or Moroccans? The Zionists would say: "The difference is this time we are stronger than they are. This time we will be in charge."

And it is sad. It is horrible. It is tragic. It is miserable that so many people who have been the persecuted minority themselves would turn to becoming the oppressor. That victims of genocide and displacement would turn to genocide and displacement as what they believe is the way to protect themselves. And they are wrong, too. This is not necessary. The violence is not necessary and is evil. Palestinians and Jews have so much in common culturally, spiritually, even genetically. We could have lived together in peace and become the best of friends. If only the Zionists had been willing to live together in peace. But peace is not possible within their ideology. The Zionist ideology is inherently one of state violence. There is no way for one ethnic or religious group to control a state without persecuting a minority, and forcing them to remain a minority through violence. Zionism is the belief that Jews cannot be safe unless Jews have a monopoly on violence within a given region.

And what of the Jews in diaspora who support Zionism? The Americans and Canadians and Argentinians and Brits who do not wish to move to Medinat Israel but support it in everything it does uncritically? The younger Jews, the fourth or fifth generation immigrants, we don't have much attachment to whatever shtetl or city our families came from, it's easier for us to see the horrors and evils of Zionism for what it is. But for our grandparents and great grandparents, they remembered those shtetls and cities, they had family and relatives there, and they listened on the radio as all of those people died, as their old world was destroyed completely. Nobody wanted to talk about Marijampole or Minsk to me. They are gone. It's best not to ruminate on them. Jews have been displaced every generation with no attachment to where we were, I was told, so why does it matter.

To these Jews, Medinat Israel represents having one place in the entire world where the Jews are safe. One place that will always accept them as refugees if America or Canada or Argentina doesn't work out.

It is an unfortunate and tragic reality that most people will put their own safety and needs over the safety and needs of others when they feel that they are under threat. The place of empathetic breakdown is that at some point you say to the true Zionist "Don't you see that what you're doing to the Palestinians is wrong?" and the true Zionist says "Yes, it is wrong, and it is also necessary for us to survive and that is more important."

And they are wrong. Had the Jews fleeing to Palestine just treated the Palestinians with respect and dignity, as equals who deserved this land, as the owners of this land who had a right to it, then Jews would actually have been safer. Solidarity is safer than animosity. Palestine was a former British colony achieving independence for the first time in centuries. The Jews and Palestinians could have worked together to rebuild a new country based on mutual respect and dignity and solidarity.

But, alas, that is not their mentality. Their mentality is one of a beaten child. And so seventy years pass and you ask the American Jew living in the suburbs of New York "do you support the State of Israel? Are you a Zionist?" and they say "Uhh... I guess I'm a Zionist. I don't really know the history. But I want the Jews there to be safe, that's important to me. They shouldn't have to leave."

Zionism isn't just colonialism, it's worse, it's millions of historically persecuted people turning to fascism because of generational trauma. It demonstrates that just because someone is from persecuted minority, doesn't meant that violence and power can't corrupt them just the same.

Because the Zionists have convinced us that those are the only options, that co-existing is impossible, that friendship and solidarity across differences is impossible. Zionists created a narrative that if the Jews do not hold absolute power, then they'll have to leave. But it's not true. They are wrong. Peace is possible, if we can just believe in it, if we can loosen our grip on power, if we can be willing to pay reparations. I truly believe that that is possible.


  1. In-turn, anti-zionism is not the belief that Jews shouldn't live in the Land of Israel. It's the belief that Jewish people shouldn't be trying to establish an ethno-state or replicate colonialism.


@soonmide shared with:


Hapaxlegoman
@Hapaxlegoman

You’ve probably never heard of Edmund Cartwright, but if you’ve heard of the machine he’s credited with inventing, the power loom, it’s thanks to a recent surge of interest in the Luddites, a people’s movement in England in the early c19 that protested, and physically attacked, the mechanization of the weaving industry and the way that human life and labor was reconfigured and exploited to serve machines and the capital that owned them. Maybe you’ve encountered Gavin Mueller’s Breaking Things at Work or Brian Merchant’s Blood in the Machine or this great comic that ran on the Nib (RIP). When the Luddite movement was finally crushed, their name was quickly redefined by the state and capital to describe someone backwards, opposed to technology out of ignorance or fear.

There’s a greater chance you’ve heard of the Mechanical Turk (the late c18 automaton), or of Mechanical Turk (the Amazon service). The latter provides data processing and other digital piecework services to clients who want the convenience (and cost) of automation for tasks that can’t actually be automated yet, by sourcing digital gig workers to do things like tag data for AI training, clean up messy datasets, or test interfaces. The service is named, with a cynicism that nearly parallels that of Palantir, for a famous mechanical hoax of late c19 Europe, a humanoid machine that purported to play chess.

The Mechanical Turk was the top half of a human figure that emerged from a box which appeared to only contain conventional clockwork. The articulated limbs of the Turk would, when the machine was wound up, play games of chess against a human opponent, apparently pretty well. It was styled as a “Turk” because Europeans at this time thought the game of chess came from Turkey (it probably came from India by way of Turkey), and because such extravagantly complex automata that served only to entertain and amaze were associated with the supposed decadence and wealth of “the east”.

The Turk was a fraud. There was a guy in there. The opening of the box to reveal clockwork was a magic trick, an optical illusion. There was just a guy in there, playing chess using the robot’s arm. This is, needless, to say, a painfully obvious allegory for the modern craze for “AI”-powered digital services, which are all one of two things: either directly powered by human labor, but sold as AI, or powered by machine learning tools that have been trained on and by human output and labor. There’s always just a guy in there. Just a lot of little guys in there.

The Turk and Cartwright’s power loom sit on either sides of a peculiar interface — that between automata and machines as devices of demonstration, entertainment, and wonder, and as tools of reconfiguring human labor, the processes we call mechanization and, in social historical terms, industrialization.

In the wikipedia article on the Turk, you will find the following claim:

The Turk was visited in London by Rev. Edmund Cartwright in 1784. He was so intrigued by the Turk that he would later question whether "it is more difficult to construct a machine that shall weave than one which shall make all the variety of moves required in that complicated game".

The Turk was touring in London in 1783-1784, but there is no evidence that Cartwright saw it in action. An 1824 Supplementum to the Encyclopedia Britannica quotes a letter from Cartwright narrating a conversation he had in 1784. The patent on a spinning machine was due to expire, which would mean an explosion in spinning mills, and Cartwright was of the opinion that the next step of textile work in need of automation was that of weaving. His interlocutors thought it would be impossible to automate weaving, but Cartwright had been working on this for some time.

I controverted, however, the impracticability of the thing, by remarking that there had lately been exhibited in London an automaton figure which played at chess. Now, you will not assert, gentlemen, said, I, that it is more difficult to construct a machine that shall weave, than one which shall make all the variety of moves which are required in that complicated game.

In a 2018 podcast discussion of the Turk, the writer Tom Standage argues that Cartwright’s inspiration by the Turk was a “good thing”, and therefore that the deception or trickery of the Turk was a good thing, because it spurred “progress” and technological development. When I first listened to this discussion the other day, I was so startled by Standage’s assertion that I googled for confirmation of the connection and found the wikipedia quote above. I was quite sure Standage had claimed that Cartwright saw the Turk, as wikipedia does, and I even posted about it on Bluesky, in my startlement. It was simply too good to be true - that these two technological moments on either side of the industrial revolution could be so intimately and personally linked.

But really — it’s too good to be true and bore a closer look. Did Cartwright see the Turk play chess, or did he simply hear about it? I went back and listened again, and found Standage only said Cartwright heard about the Turk. I tracked down what little recent scholarship there is on the Turk. The historian Simon Schaffer (who helped me access the primary sources quoted here) has argued that the connection between the loom’s invention and the Turk, and particularly the story that Cartwright was inspired by the Turk, is not only apocryphal, but an ex post facto attempt to explain how the age of the wondrous automaton gave way to the age of the mill (and the Luddites). The story of the connection does not enter circulation until 1820, decades after Cartwright’s patent, when the forces unleashed by the power loom and similar tools were in full swing.

The Turk was touring in London in 1783-1784. It seems Cartwright might have learned about it by reading a newspaper. A notice in the Morning Chronicle of Oct 21, 1783, explains the way the machine plays chess, including indicating check and refusing incorrect moves, then performs a kind of parlor trick with a knight, and then — and this really gets me —

Finally, this Automaton gives answers to questions proposed by the spectators. This is accomplished by shewing with its fingers on an alphabet-table the letters, which compose the words necessary for that purpose.

That’s right, the Turk had a chat interface, using a ouija board. Gilding the lily imo, and pushing your luck to boot.

Indeed, there’s another way of understanding the story of the Turk, and that’s through the copious and voluminous attempts, throughout its touring life, to debunk and explain it. Some people tried to identify hidden means of controlling it from offstage, or hypothesized a small person inside. These accounts were published in newspapers and as standalone pamphlets. No published account seems to have quite gotten it right (just a normal guy in there), but in another sense every attempted debunking was right: there was simply no way for a mechanical automaton to be doing the things the Turk apparently did.

One story about the Turk is about the intricacy and efficacy of its fraud. A related story is that of Cartwright and the power loom, that the invented capabilities of the Turk inspired inventors to dream bigger about what a new machine might be capable of. But I’d like to see another story written about it, one about all the people who correctly observed that it had to be a fraud — they might not have sussed out the exact trick, but anyone who knew anything about mechanisms had to have known that it was a trick. Automata in 1783 simply did have the capacity to see or listen as the Turk purported to do, never mind the question of automating the process of playing chess.

Sometimes things are too good to be true and sometimes skeptics are right. Sometimes, a little common sense reflection about how technology actually does work can immediately make it clear when someone is lying to you about what it is doing or can do. The more I think about the story that Cartwright was inspired by the Turk, or reread his account of citing the Turk as evidence that machinery could achieve greater levels of sophistication, the harder it is for me to escape an impression of him as the Turk’s most famous mark. In fact, I’m not entirely convinced that Cartwright was not being tongue-in-cheek when he challenged his friends naysaying the power loom with the example of the Turk.

Unless I miss something, the stakes of the original fraud of the Turk were essentially nil — except for the price of admission, no one was selling anything with the Turk, or making any greater claims on the basis of its feats. For the skeptics who sought to debunk it, automata like this were a kind of entertainment, a puzzle to be solved on the stage of public opinion (recall that Turing’s test has its origins in a parlor game). Indeed without the story of Cartwright and the Turk, the story might be one of wonder and magic. But the stakes of the fraud are applied retroactively by the claim that the Turk “inspired” Cartwright. For Standage (quoted above) those stakes are nothing less than the Industrial Revolution. I don’t see why they shouldn’t be essentially the opposite: that Cartwright was so foolish as to not realize there had to be a guy in there, and as a result invented a new mechanical technology that would be applied with little concern for its human cost. The lack of necessary skepticism and common sense required to be taken in by the Turk is transmuted, in this tale, into the myopia necessary to build capital the tools it needed to advance the march of immiseration and extraction.

But — at the risk of being too pat — the story of Cartwright and the Turk is itself something of a Turk. The passing of the torch from the era of the clockwork marvel to the era of the mill was never so near and tidy; history is not a parlor trick. They’ll open the door and show you the gears and close it again, but it’s always worth checking again, because there’s probably just a guy in there.


@soonmide shared with:


mononcqc
@mononcqc

It is time to cover a very good paper by Crista Vesel, a shorter version of her thesis, titled Agentive Language in Accident Investigation: Why Language Matters in Learning from Events.

In short, the paper states that inadvertent ways to structure your sentences in a text or a report may carry implications of blame and convey more deliberate actions from participants than they actually intended, and harm your ability to learn from events:

Humans naturally want to know who or what was responsible for an action, especially if it led to an undesirable event. This assignment of action is called agency. An agent is “A person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect”. In the example, “Bob spilled the chemical”, Bob is the agent of the action. However, the simplicity of this sentence does not tell us whether Bob spilled the chemical intentionally, by accident, or was just near the chemical when the event occurred. We likely assume that the agent of the action acted independently and made a free will choice to act. This assumption can make all the difference when we are attempting to learn from the event and influence how we create safety in our work environment.

She starts by describing three biases, which are likely more frequent in Western societies with an individualistic slant than others with a more collective view:

  • fundamental attribution error: people tend to overestimate the impact of someone's disposition and personality, and underestimate the contributions of contextual or situational factors—bad acts are more easily seen as intentional
  • self-serving attribution bias: we associate success to our own acts, and distance ourselves from being responsible for failures
  • defensive attribution bias: by framing victims as responsible for their misfortunes, we reassure ourselves that it wouldn't happen to us that way and consequently feel more protected

Put another way, these tend to make it very damn intuitive to assign blame to people during accidents. Subtleties in the language chosen can cater to these tendencies, unintentionally.

Research points out that small changes in language can have an impact on how we assign agency. For example, the author mentions how we use the word "accident" interchangeably for both acts that were intentional and unintentional, despite most people thinking there is a serious difference between both. In a culture where agentive language is the norm, mentioning the term "car accident" brings up images of a driver who is at fault, even before any detail is given and if the driver were actually not to blame.

A rich context and description is required to properly convey the nature of events. An author assuming that the audience will ascribe the same meaning to words as the one they intended can be enough to leave room for interpretation with unintended consequences. The fewer words you use, the more room you may leave for interpretation, and the greater the risk.

The use of agentive language tends to be more present in English than many other languages:

In one study, English and Spanish speaking participants viewed videos of actors in an event that could be interpreted as either nonintentional or intentional and then provided verbal descriptions of the events. For example, an actor would pop a balloon using a tack (intentional). Alternatively, the actor would reach to put a tack in a container and the balloon would pop during the reach (nonintentional). The participant descriptions were coded as being either agentive or nonagentive. An agentive description would be something like, “He popped the balloon.” A nonagentive description could be, “The balloon popped.” The study concluded that English, Spanish, and bilingual speakers described intentional events agentively, but English speakers were more likely than the other groups to use agentive descriptions for nonintentional events. Another study showed similar results between English and Japanese speakers.

(Personal note: I've seen this happen a lot through the pervasive "avoid passive voice" writers' tips, which I've never found to have such universal support in my native French. That tip is everywhere in English as far as I can tell, and always felt weird specifically because it added intention where I didn't want it! The one place I noticed passive voice winning consistently in English is news articles about people dying in the presence of police officers...)

Another concept is language priming, which was studied by exposing participants to agentive language (“He crashed the car”) or nonagentive language (“The car crashed”). They found out that English speakers in this experiment remembered people involved better with agentive language, but may have compromised their ability to focus or remember other details of the situation. These influences are everywhere, subtle, and encoded in all sorts of cultural artifacts.

The author then circles back to incidents, tying language more directly to blame. In the context of incidents, the earliest models (see previous post on incident models) were focused on human actions as principal causes. Despite decades and many newer models trying to break away from this, human error still has a prominent role in investigations to this day.

Simplistic reductions from a rich spectrum of acts into "success" and "failure", matching these categories, limit possibilities and distort problems into having equally simple solutions:

Humans are different and inherently complex, with dynamic and emergent cognition and a unique ability to learn. The social nature of human interaction also leads to uncertainty and unpredictability. We can really only say that a human “failed” or “succeeded” in hindsight, once the outcome of the action is known. However, the agentive language that we use for machines is often used to describe human action.

This point about outcome (success, failure) only being available after the events (in hindsight) is critical: at the time the acts took place, when the decisions were made, the outcome were not necessarily predictable. The mechanisms behind successes and failures tend to be the same, with only the result (which was unknown at the time) changing the classification. Forcing this classification forces the investigator into taking a judgmental position.

Many guides for incident investigators (the author cites the older version of USDA's guide) take a normative stance that presuppose humans failing as a cause for incidents:

The first paragraph in the Serious Accident Investigation Guide states, “The causes of most accidents or incidents are a result of failures to observe established policies, procedures, and controls.” This language presupposes that the cause of accidents is human failure. Though the guide goes on to develop three categories of “significant findings”, human, environmental, and material, only humans can meet the condition of failures to observe. The SAIG repeats the word “failure” 91 times in its guidance for investigators, particularly in regard to humans. It is not surprising that the word “failure” also appears multiple times in resulting accident reports to blame human action.

She mentions that such guidelines are priming investigators to look for and find failure. If investigators are trained to find agency, they're likely to overlook situational factors, and in turn lead to suggestions that are less effective since they work from a less complete picture.

A common way to work around this is to try and make the investigation report as factual as possible. The reality is that the choice of words in a factual re-telling still has an impact. She gives the example of a study done around the wardrobe malfunction in Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson's half-time show in 2004. People were shown the video and then read a description of the event with distinct degrees of agentiveness:

  • “In this final dance move, he unfastened a snap and tore part of the bodice!”
  • “In this final dance move, a snap unfastened and part of the bodice tore!”

Depending on which one was read, "an agentive report led people to think that Justin Timberlake owed more than $30,000 more (an extra 53%) in fines compared with a nonagentive report"—despite having access to the same facts and seeing it on video.

The author adds:

Small differences in language can have a large impact on causal attribution, with the sentence structure influencing how a reader perceives causality of the event. The active verb voice is one impactful linguistic technique that can lead to the assignment of agency. When a verb is presented in the active voice, the subject is seen to be doing the action, as in “Sara hit the ball.” Here, Sara is the subject of the sentence in relation to the ball. The passive verb voice would structure the sentence more like this, “The ball was hit.” Research has shown that attributions of control, causation, and dominance are all affected by the verb voice, even if an agent’s actions are presented as nonintentional. “Active voice apparently conveys a sense of control and causation that is lacking in the passive voice.”

When writers advice is then added to guides, such as the SAIG stating “Write causal factors in the active voice, clearly identifying the actor(s) and causal action, along with any necessary explanation,” they are inadvertently recommending that investigators write reports that prime the readers towards blame.

She points out that in fact, there were many reports where people were found as a causal source of incidents even when "humans were not acting on the environment, such as when wildland firefighters were simply walking through the forest and were struck by falling tree branches." The guide also recommended that reports be economical with their words, often removing nuance and directing people towards binary choices (safe, unsafe, and all unsafe acts in turn being either errors or violations).

By laying most of the blame to the proximate actors, those at the sharp end, it becomes easy to ignore and paper over the influence that can be had at the blunt end, far from the field of action. These reports can also end up used in criminal and civil prosecution, and the language used in turn can impact the type of penalties that result.

In fact, the directives about which language is acceptable to use can shift how the investigation unfolds:

Searching for causes restricted our teams from exploring some very critical aspects of our organizational culture and prevented us from asking hard questions regarding the perverse nature of some of the influences we discovered. For example, we had trouble making the case for the influence of overtime pay on the behavior of our crews. We had recorded admissions of workers indicating that overtime played a role in decision-making and risk acceptance, but we could not prove a causal link. Simply shifting the conversation to “influence” was enough of a softening of language to allow a dialogue to begin that could explore the possible ways that overtime nudged decisions.

Changing the language in the organization opened doors and oriented investigators towards asking better questions, and supported valuing learning from events above attribution of blame.

The author concludes:

Though most linguistic cultures use agentive language to describe intentional events, English speakers have been shown to exhibit a preference of assigning human agency to nonintentional events (accidents). English speakers are more affected by agentive priming language, like that found in certain investigation guides, which may lead them to assign more blame and punishment to people involved in events. All of these factors may lead to an agentive bias, where details of a situation are ignored or not recognized, and a simplistic causal attribution is applied to the human agent closest to the event.

[...]

Use of the active verb voice, where the subject of the sentence is “doing” the action, implies a sense of agent control and causation, even if the accident was truly a nonintentional event or the implied agent had no direct role in the action.

[...]

Agentive language can reduce inquiry into the conditions surrounding an event and lead to biased conclusions of causality. Changing agentive language to a language of inquiry can result in organizational changes that positively impact safety culture.


soonmide
@soonmide

really interesting stuff! given the conclusions about english speakers in this paper, i kinda wonder what difference (if any) it would make if they researched people like me who are ESL but fluent.