Culture

Elon Musk wearing a t-shirt that says "Occupy Your Data"

Twitter Timeline (aka ‘X’): From Founding to Present

Few platforms have so profoundly shaped the 21st-century media and political landscape as Twitter. Launched in 2006 as a quirky microblogging experiment in Silicon Valley, Twitter rapidly evolved into a global public square — a real-time newswire, activism megaphone, cultural barometer, and political battleground all in one. From the Arab Spring to #BlackLivesMatter, celebrity feuds to presidential declarations, Twitter didn’t just reflect the world — it influenced it.

But in 2022, everything changed.

The takeover by Elon Musk, the billionaire tech entrepreneur and self-styled “free speech absolutist,” marked a sharp and chaotic break from Twitter’s legacy. In short order, Musk dismantled key moderation teams, reinstated accounts once banned for extremism or disinformation, and transformed the platform into a private entity under his X Corp umbrella. The iconic blue bird gave way to a stark new identity: X — signaling not just a rebrand, but a fundamental shift in mission, culture, and political alignment.

This timeline chronicles Twitter’s full arc from inception to its present incarnation as X: a detailed account of its business milestones, technological evolution, political influence, and growing alignment with right-wing ideology under Musk’s ownership. Drawing on a wide range of journalistic and academic sources, this narrative highlights how a once-fractious but largely liberal-leaning tech company became a controversial hub for “anti-woke” politics, misinformation, and culture war skirmishes — with global implications.

2006 – Birth of a New Platform

  • March 2006: In a brainstorming at Odeo (a San Francisco podcast startup founded by Noah Glass, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams — the latter of whom would go on to later found the longform writing platform Medium), Jack Dorsey and colleagues conceive a text-message status sharing service. By March 21, Dorsey sends the first-ever tweet – “just setting up my twttr”, marking Twitter’s official creation.
  • July 2006: Twitter (then styled “twttr” as was the vowel-less fashion at the time) launches to the public as a microblogging platform allowing 140-character posts. It initially operates under Odeo, but in October the founders form the Obvious Corporation and buy out Odeo’s investors, acquiring Twitter’s intellectual property.
  • August – September 2006: Early users begin to see Twitter’s potential. In August, tweets about a California earthquake demonstrate Twitter’s value for real-time news by eyewitnesses. In September, twttr is rebranded as Twitter after acquiring the domain, finally graduating into the land of vowels.

2007 – Rapid Growth and Social Buzz

  • March 2007: Twitter gains international buzz at the SXSW conference Interactive track. Usage explodes when attendees use it for real-time updates, a tipping point that greatly expands Twitter’s userbase.
  • April 2007: Spun off as its own company, Twitter, Inc. begins to operate independently from Obvious Corp, the parent company of Odeo. Twitter also closes its first venture funding round in April, raising $5 million led by Union Square Ventures and venture capitalist Fred Wilson, who would become one of Twitter’s most influential backers, at a ~$20 million valuation. Other early investors included Ron Conway, Marc Andreessen, Chris Sacca, Joi Ito, and Dick Costolo (who would later become its CEO).
  • August 2007: User-driven innovation gives rise to the hashtag. Invented by user Chris Messina to group topics, the “#” hashtag debuts and later becomes an official Twitter feature for trend tracking. This year, Twitter’s growth is so rapid that frequent server crashes occur, introducing the world to the iconic “Fail Whale” error image created by artist Yiying Lu (a symbol of its early growing pains).
Yiying Lu, artist who created Twitter's iconic Fail Whale
Continue reading Twitter Timeline: From Public Square to X, a Right-Wing Cesspool
Read more

What is RT.com? If you’ve been following international news in recent years, you’ve likely encountered content from RT — the state-owned Russian news service formerly known as Russia Today. But what exactly is this network, and why does it matter in our global information landscape?

The Birth of a Propaganda Powerhouse

RT didn’t emerge out of nowhere. Back in 2005, the Russian government launched “Russia Today” with a substantial $30 million in state funding. The official mission? To counter what the Kremlin perceived as Western media dominance and improve Russia’s global image.

What’s fascinating is how they approached this mission. Margarita Simonyan, appointed as editor-in-chief at just 25 years old, strategically recruited foreign journalists to give the network an air of international credibility. By 2009, they rebranded to the sleeker “RT” — a deliberate move to distance themselves from their obvious Russian state origins.

While RT initially focused on cultural diplomacy (showcasing Russian culture and perspectives), its mission shifted dramatically after the 2008 Russia-Georgia war. The network increasingly pivoted toward anti-Western narratives — a strategy that continues to this day.

How RT Spreads Disinformation

RT’s playbook is both sophisticated and concerning. The network regularly promotes conspiracy theories about everything from COVID-19 origins to U.S. election fraud. It strategically amplifies divisive issues in Western societies, particularly racial tensions in America.

The coverage of the Ukraine war offers a perfect case study in RT’s propaganda techniques. Their reporting consistently and erroneously:

  • Blames NATO for the conflict
  • Denies Russian war crimes (despite Hague warrant for Putin’s arrest)
  • Frames the invasion as a “special operation” to “denazify” Ukraine (led by a Jewish president)

What makes RT particularly effective is its tailored regional messaging. In Africa, they operate “African Stream,” a covert platform promoting pro-Russian sentiment. In the Balkans, RT Balkan (based in Serbia) helps circumvent EU sanctions while spreading Kremlin-aligned content. Meanwhile, their Spanish-language expansion targets Latin American audiences with anti-Western narratives.

Beyond Media: Covert Operations

Perhaps most concerning is evidence suggesting RT extends far beyond conventional media operations. U.S. officials have alleged that RT funneled $10 million to pro-Trump influencers ahead of the 2024 election, leading to Department of Justice indictments of RT staff.

The network reportedly recruits social media influencers under fake accounts to obscure Russian involvement. More alarmingly, RT-associated platforms allegedly supply equipment (including drones, radios, and body armor) to Russian forces in Ukraine, with some materials sourced from China.

According to U.S. intelligence assessments, RT hosts a clandestine unit focused on global influence operations — blurring the line between media and intelligence work.

Money and Organization

As with any major operation, following the money tells an important story. RT’s annual funding has grown exponentially — from $30 million at its founding to $400 million by 2015. For the 2022-2024 period, the Russian government allocated a staggering 82 billion rubles.

The network’s organizational structure is deliberately complex. RT operates under ANO TV-Novosti (a nonprofit founded by RIA Novosti) and Rossiya Segodnya (a state media conglomerate established in 2013). Its subsidiaries include Ruptly (a video agency), Redfish, and Maffick (digital media platforms).

Staying One Step Ahead of Sanctions

Despite being banned in the EU and U.S. following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, RT continues to expand its reach in Africa, Latin America, and Serbia. The network has proven remarkably adaptable at circumventing restrictions — using proxy outlets like “Red” in Germany and RT Balkan in Serbia to bypass sanctions.

The international response has been significant but inconsistent. The U.S. designated RT a foreign agent in 2017, the EU banned it in 2022, and Meta removed RT from its platforms in 2024. The U.S. has also launched campaigns to expose RT’s ties to Russian intelligence and limit its global operations.

Why This Matters

RT exemplifies modern hybrid warfare — blending traditional state media with covert influence operations and intelligence activities to advance Kremlin interests globally. Despite sanctions and increasing awareness of its true nature, RT’s adaptability and substantial funding ensure its continued reach.

For those of us concerned about information integrity and democratic resilience, understanding RT’s operations isn’t just academic — it’s essential for navigating our increasingly complex media landscape.

Read more

From history’s heroes to today’s cartoonish villains, it’s important to understand who is behind the events we revere or revile. Although I don’t subscribe to the Great Man Theory — the idea that only exceptional people largely shape the course of events — I do believe in celebrating (or vilifying!) the individuals who are known for doing important things in the world.

Right-Wing Players

I also have a growing body of research on the interconnections and networks amongst key figures in the right-wing ecosystem, but in present day and decades past. Explore the people and connections in my Kumu mind map.

my Kumu mind map of right-wing people and connections
Read more

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that occur when arguments are constructed or evaluated. They are deceptive and misleading, often leading to false or weak conclusions. Recognizing and avoiding logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking and effective communication.

These flaws in rhetorical logic can be observed aplenty in modern political and civil discourse. They are among the easiest types of argument to dispel, because their basic type has been discredited and compiled together with other discarded forms of rational persuasion, to make sure that ensuing generations don’t fall for the same tired old unethical ideas.

By understanding and identifying these common logical fallacies, individuals can sharpen their critical thinking skills and engage in more productive, rational discussions. Recognizing fallacies also helps avoid being swayed by deceptive or unsound arguments — which abound in increasing volume thanks to the prevalence of misinformation, disinformation, and disingenuous forms of motivated reasoning.

In an age of information overload, critical thinking has never been more essential. Whether you’re analyzing a news story, debating with friends, or writing a persuasive essay, your ability to recognize and avoid faulty reasoning can be the difference between clarity and confusion, persuasion and propaganda. At the heart of this effort lies this powerful concept of logical fallacies.

Types of logical fallacies

Logical fallacies fall into one of two main clusters:

Formal Fallacies

Formal fallacies occur when there’s a flaw in the logical structure of an argument, rendering the conclusion invalid—even if the premises are true. Think of formal fallacies as broken logic circuits: they don’t connect, even if the parts look sound.

Example:

If it’s raining, the ground is wet. The ground is wet, therefore it must be raining.
(This is a classic fallacy known as affirming the consequent.)

Informal Fallacies

Informal fallacies, on the other hand, relate to the content of the argument rather than its structure. These occur when the premises don’t adequately support the conclusion, even if the structure appears valid.

These informal logical fallacies are more common in everyday conversation and rhetoric. Informal fallacies usually stem from misused language, assumptions, or appeals to emotion rather than flawed logic alone. They’re trickier to spot because they often feel intuitive or persuasive.

Example:

  • Everyone’s doing it, so it must be right.
    (This is the bandwagon fallacy—popular doesn’t mean correct.)

Within each of these two clusters is a number of different logical fallacies, each with its own pitfalls. Here are a few examples:

The Straw Man argument, illustrated
  1. Ad Hominem: This fallacy attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. For instance, dismissing someone’s opinion on climate change because they’re not a scientist is an ad hominem fallacy.
  2. Straw Man: This involves misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. If someone argues for better healthcare and is accused of wanting “socialized medicine,” that’s a straw man.
  3. Appeal to Authority: This fallacy relies on the opinion of an “expert” who may not actually be qualified in the relevant field. Just because a celebrity endorses a product doesn’t mean it’s effective.
  4. False Dichotomy: This fallacy presents only two options when, in fact, more exist. For example, stating that “you’re either with us or against us” oversimplifies complex issues.
  5. Slippery Slope: This fallacy argues that a single action will inevitably lead to a series of negative events, without providing evidence for such a chain reaction.
  6. Circular Reasoning: In this fallacy, the conclusion is used as a premise, creating a loop that lacks substantive proof. Saying “I’m trustworthy because I say I am” is an example.
  7. Hasty Generalization: This involves making a broad claim based on insufficient evidence. For instance, meeting two rude people from a city and concluding that everyone from that city is rude is a hasty generalization.

Understanding logical fallacies equips you to dissect arguments critically, making you a more informed participant in discussions. It’s a skill that’s invaluable in both professional and personal settings. Arm yourself with knowledge about this list of logical fallacies:

FallacyDefinitionExample
Ad HominemAttacking the person instead of addressing their argument“You can’t trust his economic policy ideas. He’s been divorced three times!”
Appeal to AuthorityUsing an authority’s opinion as definitive proof without addressing the argument itself“Dr. Smith has a PhD, so her view on climate change must be correct.”
Appeal to EmotionManipulating emotions instead of using valid reasoning“Think of the children who will suffer if you don’t support this policy!”
Appeal to NatureArguing that because something is natural, it is good, valid, or justified“Herbal supplements are better than medication because they’re natural.”
Appeal to TraditionArguing that something is right because it’s been done that way for a long time“We’ve always had this company policy, so we shouldn’t change it.”
Bandwagon FallacyAppealing to popularity as evidence of truth“Everyone is buying this product, so it must be good.”
Begging the QuestionCircular reasoning where the conclusion is included in the premise“The Bible is true because it’s the word of God, and we know it’s the word of God because the Bible says so.”
Black-and-White FallacyPresenting only two options when more exist“Either we cut the entire program, or we’ll go bankrupt.”
Cherry PickingSelectively using data that supports your position while ignoring contradictory evidence“Global warming can’t be real because it snowed last winter.”
Correlation vs. CausationAssuming that because two events occur together, one caused the other“Ice cream sales and drowning deaths both increase in summer, so ice cream causes drowning.”
EquivocationUsing a word with more than one meaning in a misleading way“Evolution is just a theory, so it shouldn’t be taught as fact.” (Equivocating between scientific theory and casual speculation)
Fallacy of CompositionInferring that something is true of the whole because it’s true of a part“This cell is invisible to the naked eye, so the whole animal must be invisible too.”
Fallacy of DivisionInferring that something is true of the parts because it’s true of the whole“The university has an excellent reputation, so every professor there must be excellent.”
Genetic FallacyEvaluating an argument based on its origins rather than its merits“That idea came from a socialist country, so it must be bad.”
Hasty GeneralizationDrawing a general conclusion from a sample that is too small or biased“I had two bad meals at restaurants in Italy, so Italian cuisine is terrible.”
Middle Ground FallacyAssuming that a compromise between two extremes must be correct“Some people say the Earth is flat, others say it’s round. The truth must be that it’s somewhat flat and somewhat round.”
No True ScotsmanRedefining terms to exclude counterexamples“No true environmentalist would drive an SUV.” When shown an environmentalist who drives an SUV: “Well, they’re not a true environmentalist then.”
Post Hoc Ergo Propter HocAssuming that because B followed A, A caused B“I wore my lucky socks and we won the game, so my socks caused our victory.”
Red HerringIntroducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue“Why worry about environmental problems when there are so many people who can’t find jobs?”
Slippery SlopeArguing that a small first step will inevitably lead to extreme consequences“If we allow same-sex marriage, next people will want to marry their pets!”
Straw ManMisrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack“Vegetarians say we should eat no meat at all and let farmers go out of business.” (When they actually argue for reduced meat consumption)
Texas SharpshooterCherry-picking data clusters to fit a pattern“Look at these cancer cases clustered in this neighborhood – it must be caused by the power lines!” (While ignoring similar neighborhoods with power lines but no cancer clusters)
Tu QuoqueAvoiding criticism by turning it back on the accuser“You say I should quit smoking, but you used to smoke too!”
Burden of ProofClaiming something is true while putting the burden to disprove it on others“I believe in ghosts. Prove to me that they don’t exist.”

How to identify logical fallacies

Spotting fallacies takes practice, but these tips can help sharpen your skills:

  • Slow down and dissect the argument. Look at the premises and conclusion—do they logically connect?
  • Watch for emotional appeals. If an argument relies more on stirring feelings than presenting evidence, be cautious.
  • Ask: what’s being left out? Many fallacies omit key context or alternate explanations.
  • Compare to real-world examples. Would the logic hold up elsewhere?

Everyday example:
“If we allow students to redo assignments, next they’ll expect to retake tests, and eventually no deadlines will matter at all.”
— This is a slippery slope fallacy. One action doesn’t necessarily lead to an extreme outcome.

Why avoiding logical fallacies matters

Logical fallacies don’t just weaken arguments—they erode trust, obscure truth, and inflame discourse. Here’s why learning to avoid them is critical:

  • In personal arguments: Fallacies can escalate tension and derail meaningful conversation.
  • In academic writing: Sound reasoning is the backbone of scholarship; fallacies undermine credibility.
  • In public discourse and media: Propaganda and misinformation often rely on fallacious reasoning to manipulate opinion. Recognizing these tactics is key to resisting them.

In a world where bad actors exploit fallacies for influence and profit, being fallacy-literate is a form of intellectual self-defense.

Logical fallacies quiz

Want to see if you know your logical fallacies? Just take our handy quiz and get them on lock as part of your foundational knowledge and model thinking library.

Logical Fallacies Quiz
Logical Fallacies Quiz

Test your knowledge of logical fallacies! Choose a quiz mode:

Score: 0/0
Definitions Mode
Return to Menu
Definition:
Which logical fallacy is this?
(Currently showing: Definition)
Example:
Which logical fallacy is demonstrated in this example?
(Currently showing: Example)

Read more related to logical fallacies:

30 Common Psychological Biases ↗

These systematic errors in our thinking and logic affect our everyday choices, behaviors, and evaluations of others.

28 Cognitive Distortions ↗

Cognitive distortions are bad mental habits. They’re patterns of thinking that tend to be negatively slanted, inaccurate, and often repetitive.

Think Better with Mental Models ↗

Mental models are a kind of strategic building blocks we can use to make sense of the world around us.

Read more

Fake News, illustrated to accompany Neil Postman's book Amusing Ourselves to Death

Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

A Summary and Review of Neil Postman’s Prophetic Analysis

Neil Postman’s 1985 masterpiece, “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” stands as one of the most prescient cultural critiques of our time. Though written specifically about television’s impact on American public discourse, its insights have only gained relevance in today’s internet-dominated world. This book offers an essential framework for understanding how entertainment values have infiltrated and transformed our political landscape.

Book Summary

Postman’s Central Argument

At its core, Postman’s thesis is elegantly simple yet profound: the medium through which we communicate fundamentally shapes what we communicate. The form of our discourse defines its content and limits what ideas can be effectively expressed. In Postman’s analysis, television—with its emphasis on visual stimulation, fragmentation, and entertainment—inevitably transforms all content into entertainment, regardless of its significance or purpose.

Postman begins by establishing a crucial distinction between two dystopian visions: George Orwell’s 1984 with its authoritarian Newspeak and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Where Orwell feared those who would ban books and restrict information, Huxley feared that we would become a trivial culture, where there would be no reason to ban books because no one would want to read them. Postman argues that Huxley’s fear, not Orwell’s, was prophetic—we are being undone not by oppression but by our appetite for distraction.

The Transition from Typography to Television

A significant portion of the book is devoted to contrasting America’s earlier print-based culture with its television-dominated present. Postman characterizes the 18th and 19th centuries as the “Age of Exposition,” where rational, linear, complex arguments could flourish. By contrast, the late 20th century represented the “Age of Show Business,” where entertainment values reign supreme.

In the typographic age, Postman argues, public discourse was coherent, serious, and rational. He points to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, where audiences would listen attentively to hours of complex argumentation, as emblematic of this era. The written word, by its nature, encourages abstract and critical thinking, logical organization, and sustained attention.

Television, by contrast, communicates primarily through images that appeal to emotions rather than reason. Its content is necessarily fragmented, decontextualized, and designed to entertain rather than inform. Postman coins the phrase “peek-a-boo world” to describe how television presents disconnected snippets of information without context or coherence. The medium’s “Now…This” approach to news presentation—where a serious story about war might be followed immediately by a commercial or light-hearted feature—creates a world where everything is presented with equal weight and significance.

The Consequences for Public Discourse

According to Postman, television’s transformation of discourse into entertainment has profound consequences for how we understand and engage with politics, religion, education, and other serious domains of public life.

In politics, substance gives way to image; complex policy discussions are replaced by personality contests and emotional appeals. Campaigns become marketing exercises rather than forums for substantive debate. Politicians are judged not by their ideas but by their ability to entertain and create compelling visual narratives.

In education, the emphasis shifts from developing critical thinking to making learning “fun” and visually stimulating. Serious engagement with ideas becomes secondary to keeping students entertained and engaged through spectacle.

Even religion, when adapted to television, becomes a form of entertainment—with telegenic preachers, emotional music, and simplified messaging replacing theological depth and contemplative practice.

Amusing Ourselves to Death looks at how TV turns even serious news into sheer entertainment

Relevance to the Internet Age

Though written before the rise of the internet, social media, and smartphones, Postman’s analysis has proven remarkably applicable to our current media landscape. If anything, the trends he identified have accelerated and intensified in the digital age.

Amplification of Television’s Effects

The internet has magnified many of television’s problematic aspects. Information is even more fragmented, attention spans shorter, and the line between news and entertainment increasingly blurred. Social media platforms like TikTok, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook prioritize emotional engagement and entertainment value over informational substance or accuracy.

The smartphone has brought this entertainment-centered approach to communication into every moment of our lives. We now carry the means of constant distraction in our pockets, available at any moment when serious thought or engagement becomes uncomfortable.

New Challenges in the Digital Era

The internet age has also introduced new dimensions that Postman couldn’t have fully anticipated. Unlike television, which created passive consumers of content, social media has transformed us into active “prosumers” who both consume and produce content. This has democratized media creation but also accelerated the spread of disinformation and misinformation and further blurred the line between fact and fiction.

The algorithmic nature of content delivery has created filter bubbles where users primarily encounter information that confirms their existing beliefs. This has contributed to political polarization and the fragmentation of shared reality that Postman warned about.

The constant stream of notifications, updates, and new content has further diminished our capacity for sustained attention and deep engagement with complex ideas. We increasingly consume information in bite-sized chunks optimized for maximum emotional impact rather than intellectual substance.

Political Implications

Nowhere are Postman’s insights more relevant than in the realm of politics. The rise of political figures who excel at entertainment but lack substantive policy knowledge illustrates his core thesis. Political discourse increasingly resembles reality television, with emphasis on conflict, personality, and emotional appeals rather than thoughtful policy debate.

The proliferation of conspiracy theories and misinformation highlights another consequence of entertainment-driven discourse: when emotional resonance matters more than factual accuracy, truth itself becomes relative and subject to entertainment value. We can no longer tell fact from fiction or truth from lying — which is incredibly problematic for a democracy fueled by good decision-making.

Critical Analysis

Strengths of Postman’s Arguments

Postman’s greatest strength lies in his ability to connect the structural properties of media with their cultural effects. Rather than simply lamenting the content of television programming, he demonstrates how the medium itself shapes what can be communicated through it. This media ecology approach provides a powerful framework for understanding not just television but all forms of communication technology.

His recognition that we face a Huxleyan rather than Orwellian threat has proven extraordinarily prescient. The greatest danger to democracy is not censorship but the voluntary surrender of our capacity for critical thinking in exchange for endless entertainment.

Postman’s clear, engaging prose makes complex media theory accessible without sacrificing intellectual rigor. He practices what he preaches by presenting his arguments in a linear, logical fashion that demands and rewards careful reading.

Limitations and Counterarguments

Despite his prescience, Postman occasionally romanticizes the age of print, overlooking the ways in which books and newspapers could also distort or trivialize important issues. The “golden age” of rational discourse he describes had significant limitations in terms of who could participate and what perspectives were represented.

Some critics argue that Postman underestimates people’s ability to engage critically with visual media. Television and internet content are not inherently incapable of conveying complex ideas, though they may make it more difficult.

Postman’s focus on the negative aspects of electronic media also leads him to downplay potential benefits, such as increased access to information, the ability to witness distant events firsthand, and new forms of community building. The digital age has enabled important social movements and given voice to previously marginalized perspectives in ways that merit acknowledgment.

Personal Reflection: The Allure of Political Entertainment

What makes Postman’s analysis so valuable today is its ability to explain the phenomenon of political entertainment. The transformation of politics into a branch of the entertainment industry has profoundly altered how we select and evaluate our leaders.

Political campaigns increasingly resemble reality television competitions, complete with dramatic confrontations, personality-based narratives, and emotionally charged moments designed to go viral. Policy discussions, when they occur at all, are simplified to sound bites and slogans rather than substantive analysis.

The result is a political culture where entertainment value often trumps competence, where the ability to capture attention matters more than the ability to govern effectively. This helps explain why political figures with backgrounds in entertainment have gained prominence, and why traditional politicians increasingly adopt the tactics of entertainers.

Perhaps most concerning is how this entertainment-driven approach to politics has eroded our shared foundation of facts. When politics becomes primarily about emotional engagement rather than problem-solving, truth becomes secondary to narrative appeal. We increasingly select our facts based on their compatibility with our preferred political story rather than evaluating political stories based on their compatibility with facts.

Postman’s analysis helps us recognize these trends not as random developments but as the logical consequences of our media environment. Understanding this connection is the first step toward reclaiming a more substantive approach to political discourse.

Conclusion

“Amusing Ourselves to Death” remains essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the transformation of public discourse in the digital age. Postman’s insights help us recognize how our media shape not just what we think about, but how we think.

The challenge Postman presents is not to abandon new media forms but to approach them with awareness of their biases and limitations. We must develop the media literacy to recognize when we are being entertained rather than informed, and the discipline to seek out forms of communication that encourage deeper engagement with ideas.

In an age where entertainment values increasingly dominate every aspect of public life, Postman’s warning remains urgent: a society that allows its capacity for serious discourse to atrophy may indeed amuse itself to death. The greatest tribute we can pay to Postman’s work is to heed this warning by cultivating forms of communication that nurture our capacity for reason, empathy, and thoughtful civic engagement.

Read more

Meme Wars: How Digital Culture Became a Weapon Against Democracy

In their groundbreaking book “Meme Wars: The Untold Story of the Online Battles Upending Democracy in America,” researchers Joan Donovan, Emily Dreyfuss, and Brian Friedberg offer a chilling examination of how internet culture has been weaponized to undermine democratic institutions. Far from being a distant academic analysis, this book serves as an urgent warning about the very real dangers facing our democracy in the digital age.

When Internet Jokes Become Political Weapons

Remember when memes were just harmless internet jokes? Those days are long gone. “Meme Wars” meticulously documents how these seemingly innocent cultural artifacts have evolved into powerful weapons in a coordinated assault on American democracy — a form of information warfare that tears at our very ability to detect fantasy from reality at all, something that Hannah Arendt once warned of as a key tool of authoritarian regimes.

What makes this transformation particularly insidious is how easy it is to dismiss. After all, how could crudely drawn frogs and joke images possibly be a threat to democracy? Yet the authors convincingly demonstrate that this dismissive attitude is precisely what has allowed far-right operatives to wield memes so effectively.

The book reveals how figures like Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Nick Fuentes, and Roger Stone have mastered the art of meme warfare. These digital provocateurs understand something that traditional political institutions have been slow to grasp: in today’s media environment, viral content can bypass established gatekeepers and directly shape public opinion at scale.

Meme Wars by Joan Donovan et al

The Digital Radicalization Pipeline

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of “Meme Wars” is its detailed examination of what the authors call the “redpill right” and their techniques for radicalizing ordinary Americans. The process begins innocuously enough—a provocative meme shared by a friend, a YouTube video recommended by an algorithm—but can quickly lead vulnerable individuals down increasingly extreme ideological paths.

This digital radicalization operates through sophisticated emotional manipulation. Content is carefully crafted to trigger outrage, fear, or a sense of belonging to an in-group that possesses hidden truths. Over time, these digital breadcrumbs lead users into alternative information ecosystems that gradually reshape their perception of political reality.

From Online Conspiracy to Capitol Insurrection

“Meme Wars” provides what may be the most comprehensive account to date of how online conspiracy theories materialized into physical violence on January 6th, 2021. The authors trace the evolution of the “Stop the Steal” movement from fringe online forums to mainstream platforms, showing how digital organizing translated into real-world action.

The book presents the Capitol insurrection as the logical culmination of years of digital warfare. Participants like “Elizabeth from Knoxville” exemplify this new reality—simultaneously acting as insurrectionists and content creators, live-streaming their participation for online audiences even as they engaged in an attempt to overthrow democratic processes.

This fusion of digital performance and physical violence represents something genuinely new and dangerous in American politics. The insurrectionists weren’t just attacking the Capitol; they were creating content designed to inspire others to join their cause.

Inside the Digital War Rooms

What sets “Meme Wars” apart from other analyses of digital extremism is the unprecedented access the authors gained to the online spaces where anti-establishment actors develop their strategies. These digital war rooms function as laboratories where messaging is crafted, tested, and refined before being deployed more broadly.

The authors document how these spaces identify potential recruits, gradually expose them to increasingly extreme content, and eventually mobilize them toward political action. This sophisticated recruitment pipeline has proven remarkably effective at growing extremist movements and providing them with dedicated foot soldiers.

The Existential Threat to Democracy

At its core, “Meme Wars” is a book about the fundamental challenge digital manipulation poses to democratic governance. By deliberately stirring strong emotions and deepening partisan divides, meme warfare undermines the rational discourse and shared reality necessary for democratic deliberation.

The authors make a compelling case that these tactics represent an existential threat to American democracy. What’s more, the digital warfare techniques developed in American contexts are already being exported globally, representing a worldwide challenge to democratic institutions.

Confronting the Challenge

Perhaps the most important contribution of “Meme Wars” is its insistence that we recognize digital threats as real-world dangers. For too long, online extremism has been dismissed as merely virtual—something separate from “real” politics. The events of January 6th definitively shattered that illusion.

While the book doesn’t offer easy solutions, it makes clear that protecting democracy in the digital age will require new approaches from institutions, platforms, and citizens alike. We need digital literacy that goes beyond spotting fake news to understanding how emotional manipulation operates online. We need platforms that prioritize democratic values over engagement metrics. And we need institutions that can effectively counter extremist narratives without amplifying them.

A Must-Read for Democracy’s Defenders

“Meme Wars” is not just a political thriller, though it certainly reads like one at times. It is a rigorously researched warning about how extremist movements are reshaping American culture and politics through digital means. For anyone concerned with the preservation of democratic institutions, it should be considered essential reading.

The authors — including Joan Donovan, widely known and respected as a foremost scholar on disinformation — have performed a valuable service by illuminating the hidden mechanics of digital manipulation. Now it’s up to all of us to heed their warning and work to build democratic resilience in the digital age. The future of our democracy may depend on it.

Read more

Larry Ellison tech billionaire

Larry Ellison’s Tech Empire and Right-Wing Influence

In the pantheon of tech billionaires who have shaped our digital landscape, Larry Ellison stands as one of the most influential yet enigmatic and controversial figures. While his technological innovations have transformed industries, his growing political influence—particularly within right-wing circles—has increasingly become a focal point of public interest.

From Humble Beginnings to Tech Power Broker

Born in New York City and adopted as an infant, Larry Ellison’s early life gave little indication of the empire he would eventually build. After dropping out of college and working various jobs, Ellison found his calling in the nascent field of database technology. In 1977, he co-founded Software Development Laboratories, which would later become Oracle Corporation—a name now synonymous with enterprise software.

Ellison’s company went on to develop the first commercial SQL database system, positioning Oracle at the forefront of the database revolution. Under his leadership, Oracle expanded aggressively through both innovation and strategic acquisitions, eventually becoming a dominant force in enterprise software. The company’s successful IPO and subsequent growth catapulted Ellison into the ranks of the world’s wealthiest individuals.

The Billionaire Lifestyle

With a net worth consistently placing him among the top ten richest people globally, Ellison has become known for his lavish lifestyle. His purchases include a Hawaiian island (Lanai), multiple mansions, and record-breaking yachts. Beyond material extravagance, he has also engaged in philanthropy, though often with less public fanfare than contemporaries like Bill Gates.

Ellison’s leadership style—characterized by boldness, competitiveness, and occasional ruthlessness—has been both criticized and admired. These same qualities would eventually manifest in his approach to political involvement.

Oracle data center, as envisioned by Ideogram

Larry Ellison’s Evolution of Political Involvement

Early Political Activities: A Bipartisan Approach

Ellison’s initial forays into politics were relatively balanced. Like many business leaders, he made donations to candidates across the political spectrum, seemingly prioritizing business interests over partisan ideology. During this period, both Democratic and Republican candidates received support from the Oracle founder.

Shifting Right: The Conservative Turn

Over time, Ellison’s political leanings began to tilt increasingly rightward. His financial support for Republican candidates and PACs grew substantially, marking a clear shift in his political alignment. By the 2016 presidential election cycle, Ellison had emerged as a significant backer of Marco Rubio’s campaign, signaling his preference for establishment conservative politics.

The 2020 Election Controversy

Perhaps the most controversial chapter in Ellison’s political involvement came after the 2020 presidential election. According to reports, Ellison participated in a post-election strategy call with Trump allies discussing how to challenge the election results — conspiring with right-wing leaders to pretend to believe in election denial. His connections to the organization True the Vote—a group that has promoted unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud—further cemented his alignment with efforts questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election outcome and participation in the Big Lie.

The Tim Scott Connection

Ellison’s political investments reached new heights with his massive $35 million donation to the Opportunity Matters Fund, a super PAC supporting Senator Tim Scott. This relationship transcended mere financial backing—Ellison reportedly served as a mentor to Scott and was preparing to make an even larger eight-figure contribution to Scott’s 2024 presidential campaign before Scott withdrew from the race.

Trump and Beyond

Despite initially backing other candidates, Ellison hasn’t shied away from the Trump orbit. He hosted a fundraiser for Donald Trump and has positioned himself as a significant player in Republican politics. His criticism of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden aligned with conservative national security positions, further illustrating his rightward evolution.

Expanding Influence: Media, Technology, and Politics

Ellison’s political influence extends beyond direct campaign contributions. His investment in Elon Musk‘s acquisition of Twitter (now X) placed him adjacent to one of the most consequential media platform changes in recent years. More directly, his potential control of CBS News through a Paramount Global merger has raised concerns about the independence of mainstream media.

Additionally, Ellison’s involvement in The Stargate Project alongside tech luminaries Sam Altman and Masayoshi Son demonstrates how his technological and political interests increasingly intersect, particularly around data and national security.

The Democratic Process and Billionaire Influence

Ellison’s political activities raise broader questions about the role of billionaire donors in democratic processes. His substantial financial backing of candidates and causes—particularly those aligned with election denial efforts—has drawn criticism from democracy advocates concerned about outsized influence from the ultra-wealthy.

The scale of Ellison’s political giving is remarkable even by billionaire standards. Reports indicate that he has made some of his largest political donations on record in recent election cycles, including substantial funding for election deniers in the midterms. This pattern of increased political investment suggests Ellison sees his financial resources as a means to shape politics beyond just supporting individual candidates.

Legacy and Continuing Influence

As Ellison enters his eighties, his political influence shows no signs of waning. His unexpected “comeback” in the Trump era, focusing on Oracle’s positioning around TikTok, AI, and data centers, demonstrates his continued relevance in both technology and politics.

What distinguishes Ellison from many other tech billionaires is how seamlessly he navigates between technological innovation and political influence. While figures like Musk are more publicly vocal about their political views, Ellison has often exercised his influence more quietly but no less effectively.

Larry Ellison’s Political Future

Larry Ellison’s journey from database pioneer to right-wing political financier represents a fascinating case study in how wealth, power, and ideology intersect in modern America. As his political activity has increased, so too has scrutiny of his role in shaping the political landscape.

Whether funding candidates, backing media acquisitions, or promoting certain technological approaches to national challenges, Ellison has positioned himself as a significant force in right-wing politics. As with his business ventures, his political investments appear strategic, long-term, and designed to maximize impact.

As America navigates increasingly polarized political terrain, figures like Ellison—with virtually unlimited resources and expanding spheres of influence—will likely continue to play outsized roles in shaping the country’s political future, for better or — most likely — for worse.

Read more

George Orwell’s 1984 lexicon is a lingua franca of authoritarianism, fascism, and totalitarianism. Newspeak words have the stamp of boots on pavement, the stench of disinformation, and are most likely to be found in the mouths of Trumpians and the chryons of the OAN Network.

The terse portmanteus are blunt and blocky, like a brutalist architecture vocabulary. Their simplicity indicates appeal to the small-minded masses for easily digested pablum.

What is Newspeak?

Newspeak is a fictional language created by George Orwell for his dystopian novel 1984, published in 1949. The language serves as an essential tool for the oppressive regime, known as The Party, to control and manipulate the population of Oceania. Newspeak is intentionally designed to restrict the range of thought, eliminate words that convey dissent or rebellion, and enforce political orthodoxy. The language accomplishes this by reducing the complexity of Newspeak vocabulary and grammar, condensing words into simplified forms, and eliminating synonyms and antonyms. The Party aims to eliminate the potential for subversive thoughts by ensuring that the language itself lacks the necessary words and expressions to articulate them.

In Orwell’s world, Newspeak works hand in hand with the concept of “doublethink,” which requires individuals to accept contradictory beliefs simultaneously. This manipulation of language and thought is central to maintaining the Party’s power and control over the populace. Newspeak translation is often the exact opposite of the meaning of the words said.

Newspeak’s ultimate goal is to render dissent and rebellion impossible by making the very thoughts of these actions linguistically unexpressable. As a result, Newspeak serves as a chilling representation of how language can be weaponized to restrict personal freedoms, suppress independent thought, and perpetuate an authoritarian regime.

Newspeak Rises Again

Those boots ring out again, from Belarus to Hungary to the United States. There are book burnings and the defunding of libraries in multiple states. From Ron DeSantis to Trumpian anti-intellectualism to the rampant proliferation of conspiracy theories, It’s a good time to brush up on the brutalism still actively struggling to take hold.

The following is a list of all Newspeak words from 1984.

Newspeak Orwell

Newspeak 1984 Dictionary

Newspeak termDefinition
anteThe prefix that replaces before
artsemArtificial insemination
bbBig Brother
bellyfeelThe blind, enthusiastic acceptance of an idea
blackwhiteTo accept whatever one is told, regardless of the facts. In the novel, it is described as “…to say that black is white when [the Party says so]” and “…to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary”.
crimestopTo rid oneself of unorthodox thoughts that go against Ingsoc’s ideology
crimethinkThoughts and concepts that go against Ingsoc, frequently referred to by the standard English “thoughtcrime”, such as liberty, equality, and privacy, and also the criminal act of holding such thoughts
dayorderOrder of the day
depDepartment
doubleplusgoodThe word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “superlatively good”, such as excellent, fabulous, and fantastic
doubleplusungoodThe word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “superlatively bad”, such as terrible and horrible
doublethinkThe act of simultaneously believing two, mutually contradictory ideas
duckspeakAutomatic, vocal support of political orthodoxies
facecrimeA facial expression which reveals that one has committed thoughtcrime
FicdepThe Ministry of Truth’s Fiction Department
freeThe absence and the lack of something. “Intellectually free” and “politically free” have been replaced by crimethinkful.
–fulThe suffix for forming an adjective
fullwiseThe word that replaces words such as fully, completely, and totally
goodthinkA synonym for “political orthodoxy” and “a politically orthodox thought” as defined by the Party
goodsexSexual intercourse only for procreation, without any physical pleasure on the part of the woman, and strictly within marriage
goodwiseThe word that replaced well as an adverb
IngsocThe English Socialist Party (i.e. The Party)
joycampLabour camp
malquotedInaccurate representations of the words of Big Brother and of the Party
MiniluvThe Ministry of Love, where the secret police interrogate and torture the enemies of Oceania (torture and brainwashing)
MinipaxThe Ministry of Peace, who wage war for Oceania
MinitrueThe Ministry of Truth, who manufacture consent by way of lies, propaganda, and distorted historical records, while supplying the proles (proletariat) with synthetic culture and entertainment
MiniplentyThe Ministry of Plenty, who keep the population in continual economic hardship (starvation and rationing)
OldspeakStandard English
oldthinkIdeas from the time before the Party’s revolution, such as objectivity and rationalism
ownlifeA person’s anti-social tendency to enjoy solitude and individualism
plusgoodThe word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “very good”, such as great
plusungoodThe word that replaced “very bad”
PornosecThe pornography production section (Porno sector) of the Ministry of Truth’s Fiction Department
prolefeedPopular culture for entertaining Oceania’s working class
RecdepThe Ministry of Truth’s Records Department, where Winston Smith rewrites historical records so they conform to the Party’s agenda
rectifyThe Ministry of Truth’s euphemism for manipulating a historical record
refTo refer (to someone or something)
secSector
sexcrimeA sexual immorality, such as fornication, adultery, oral sex, and homosexuality; any sex act that deviates from Party directives to use sex only for procreation
speakwriteA machine that transcribes speech into text
TeledepThe Ministry of Truth’s Telecommunications Department
telescreenA two-way television set with which the Party spy upon Oceania’s population
thinkpolThe Thought Police, the secret police force of Oceania’s government
unpersonAn executed person whose existence is erased from history and memory
upsubAn upwards submission to higher authority
–wiseThe only suffix for forming an adverb

Newspeak Dictionary Quiz

Claude Artifacts made this in one prompt. Imagine this power to generate study aids for a wide variety of students at all levels. If I had had this as a kid…

Newspeak Quiz: Test Your Ingsoc Vocabulary

Welcome to the interactive Newspeak quiz! This quiz will help you learn the terminology of Oceania’s official language through fun repetition. Demonstrate your goodthink by mastering these terms – your commitment to linguistic purity will surely be recognized by the Party.

Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Term → Definition
Definition → Term
Score: 0/0

Review Your Answers

Creation of New Words in Newspeak

One of the most fascinating and insidious aspects of Newspeak is the methodical creation of new words. This process is not only about inventing new terms but also about streamlining and simplifying the language to ensure it serves the purposes of the Party. Here’s how this process works:

1. Compounding Words

In Newspeak, many new words are created by combining existing ones. This technique, known as compounding, helps to streamline communication by reducing longer phrases into single, concise terms. For example:

  • Goodthink: A compound of “good” and “think,” meaning orthodox thought, or thoughts that align with Party doctrine.
  • Oldthink: A combination of “old” and “think,” referring to thoughts that are based on outdated, pre-revolutionary beliefs and values.

By merging words in this manner, Newspeak eliminates the need for descriptive phrases, thereby simplifying language and controlling thought.

2. Prefixes and Suffixes

Newspeak employs prefixes and suffixes to create new words and alter the meanings of existing ones. This method ensures that language remains efficient and devoid of any unnecessary complexity. Some common prefixes and suffixes include:

  • Un-: This prefix is used to form the negative of any word, thereby eliminating the need for antonyms. For example, “unhappy” replaces “sad.”
  • Plus- and Doubleplus-: These prefixes intensify the meaning of words. “Plusgood” means very good, while “doubleplusgood” means excellent or extremely good.
  • -wise: This suffix is used to form adverbs. For instance, “speedwise” means quickly.

Through these prefixes and suffixes, Newspeak ensures that language remains consistent and simplified, reinforcing the Party’s control over thought.

3. Simplification of Grammar

The creation of new words in Newspeak is also characterized by the simplification of grammar. Irregular verbs and noun forms are abolished, making all words conform to a delimited list of regular patterns. For example:

  • Think: In Newspeak, the past tense of “think” would simply be “thinked,” and the past participle would also be “thinked,” eliminating irregular forms like “thought.”
  • Knife: Plural forms are regularized, so “knife” becomes “knifes” instead of “knives.”

This grammatical regularization reduces the cognitive load required to learn and use the language, further limiting the scope for complex or critical thought.

4. Abolition of Synonyms and Antonyms

Newspeak systematically removes synonyms and antonyms to narrow the range of meaning, engendering black and white thinking. Each concept is reduced to a single, unambiguous word, eliminating nuances and shades of meaning:

  • Good: The word “good” stands alone without synonyms like “excellent,” “great,” or “superb.” Intensifiers like “plus-” and “doubleplus-” are used instead.
  • Bad: Instead of having a separate word like “bad,” Newspeak uses “ungood.” This not only simplifies vocabulary but also imposes a binary way of thinking.

By removing synonyms and antonyms, Newspeak reduces the complexity of language, ensuring that only Party-approved ideas can be easily communicated.

5. Creation of Euphemisms

In Newspeak, euphemisms are crafted to mask the true nature of unpleasant or controversial realities, aligning language with Party propaganda. For instance:

  • Joycamp: A euphemism for forced labor camps, designed to make the concept seem more palatable and less threatening.
  • Minipax: Short for the Ministry of Peace, which actually oversees war. The euphemistic name helps to disguise its true function.

These euphemisms help to distort reality, making it easier for the Party to maintain control over the population’s perceptions and beliefs.

Disinformation Dictionary ↗

Disinformation is a practice with a unique Orwellian lexicon all its own, collated in this disinformation dictionary.

disinformation

Essential thinkers on authoritarian personality theory ↗

The authoritarian personality is characterized by excessive strictness and a propensity to exhibit oppressive behavior towards perceived subordinates.

How did they get this way? Are people born with authoritarian personalities, or is the authoritarian “made” predominately by circumstance?

authoritarians gather for a witch hunt

Pathocracy Definition: Are we in one? ↗

Pathocracy is a relatively lesser-known concept in political science and psychology, which refers to a system of government in which individuals with personality disorders, particularly those who exhibit psychopathic, narcissistic, and similar traits (i.e. the “evil of Cluster B“), hold significant power.

Donald Trump pathocracy, by Midjourney
Read more

totalitarianism as a mindless form of hero worship

What Is Totalitarianism? A Comprehensive Guide

In today’s complex geopolitical landscape, understanding different systems of governance is crucial for making sense of world events. Among these systems, totalitarianism stands out as one of the most extreme forms of government control. What exactly is totalitarianism, how does it function, and what can history teach us about its impacts — and how to fight back against its oppressive aims?

Defining Totalitarianism

Totalitarianism is a form of government and political system that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It shares similarities with both fascism and authoritarianism, but unlike other authoritarian regimes, totalitarian states seek to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state. The term itself suggests the extreme “total” nature of this control—extending beyond purely political spheres into social, economic, cultural, and even private dimensions of human existence.

What distinguishes totalitarianism from other forms of authoritarianism is its ambition to erase the line between government and society entirely. Under totalitarianism, there is no concept of a private life outside the reach of state authority.

Key Characteristics of Totalitarian Regimes

1. Complete State Control of Society

Totalitarian states attempt to control virtually every aspect of social life:

  • Business and Economy: State-directed economic policies, often involving nationalization or collectivization of industries and resources
  • Labor: Control over labor unions, work assignments, and employment opportunities
  • Housing: Allocation and control of housing and living arrangements
  • Education: Strict control of curriculum and educational institutions to indoctrinate youth
  • Religion: Suppression or co-option of religious institutions
  • The Arts: Censorship and direction of artistic expression to serve state purposes
  • Personal Life: Intrusion into family relationships, leisure activities, and personal decisions
  • Youth Organizations: Creation of state-sponsored youth groups to foster loyalty from an early age

2. Dynamic Leader

Totalitarian systems typically center around a charismatic, authoritarian leader who:

  • Serves as the unifying symbol of the government
  • Builds a personality cult around themselves
  • Claims to embody the will of the people or nation
  • Encourages popular support through a combination of charisma and coercion
  • Is often portrayed as infallible or possessing extraordinary abilities
Continue reading What is totalitarianism?
Read more

Hannah Arendt, author of "On Lying and Politics"

Hannah Arendt’s “On Lying and Politics” is a collection of two seminal essays that explore the complex relationship between truth, lies, and political power. The book, published in 2022, includes “Truth and Politics” (1967) and “Lying in Politics” (1971), along with a new introduction by David Bromwich.

Key Themes of “On Lying and Politics”

The nature of political lies

Arendt argues that the phenomenon of lying in politics is not new, and that truthfulness has never been considered a political virtue. She posits that lies have long been regarded as justifiable tools in political dealings, reflecting a deep-seated tension between truth and politics. However, Arendt also warns that excessive lying by political classes can lead to totalitarianism, where reality becomes entirely fictional.

Types of truth

Arendt distinguishes between two types of truth: factual and rational. She argues that factual truth is more vulnerable to political manipulation, as it is not self-evident and can be challenged like opinions. Rational truth, on the other hand, is more resilient as it can be reproduced through logical reasoning. Others can more easily verify on their own whether a rational truth checks out, whereas they cannot as easily go fact-finding — particularly about far-flung things that happen well outside their ken.

The impact of lies on democracy

Arendt explores how organized lying can tear apart our shared sense of reality, replacing it with a fantasy world of manipulated evidence and doctored documents. She argues that in a democracy, honest disclosure is crucial as it is the self-understanding of the people that sustains the government. This aligns with the idea that totalitarian governments can warp even the language itself, a la George Orwell’s Newspeak language in the classic novel 1984.

a scary world of disinformation, analyzed by the great Hannah Arendt

A Tale of Two Essays

“Truth and Politics” (1967)

In this essay, Arendt examines the affinity between lying and politics. She emphasizes that the survival of factual truth depends on credible witnesses and an informed citizenry. The essay explores how organized lying can degrade facts into mere opinions, potentially leading liars to believe their own fabrications in a self-deluding system of circular logic.

“Lying in Politics” (1971)

Written in response to the release of the Pentagon Papers, this essay applies Arendt’s insights to American policy in Southeast Asia. She argues that the Vietnam War and the official lies used to justify it were primarily exercises in image-making, more concerned with displaying American power than achieving strategic objectives.

Arendt’s perspective on political lying

Arendt views lying as a deliberate denial of factual truth, interconnected with the ability to act and rooted in imagination. She argues that while individual lies might succeed, lying on principle ultimately becomes counterproductive as it forces the audience to disregard the distinction between truth and falsehood.

Contemporary relevance

Arendt’s work remains highly relevant today, perhaps even more so than when it was written. Her analysis of how lies can undermine the public’s sense of reality and the dangers of political self-deception resonates strongly in our current political climate of disinformation, manipulation, and radicalization.

Today, even natural disasters are politicized — spawning dangerous conspiracy theories that do actual harm by discouraging people from getting help, among other tragedies of ignorance. And the right-wing is almost zealous about retconning the history trail and shoving things down the memory hole, including “rebranding” the J6 insurrection as a “day of love” and imagining away Donald Trump’s 34 felony counts.

Not to mention, the incredible contribution from Big Tech — whose tech bros have seen to it that political technology, and the study of professional manipulation, is alive and well. It’s been in the zeitgeist for a couple of decades now, and is now being accelerated — by the ascendancy of AI, Elon Musk, and the Silicon Valley branch of the right-wing wealth cult (Biden called it the tech-industrial complex).

“On Lying and Politics” feels fresh today

Arendt’s “On Lying and Politics” provides a nuanced exploration — and a long-term view — of the role of truth and lies in political life. While acknowledging that lying has always been part of politics, Arendt warns of the dangers of excessive and systematic lying, particularly in democratic societies.

Her work continues to offer valuable insights into the nature of political deception and its impact on public life and democratic institutions. We would be wise to hear her warnings and reflect deeply on her insights, as someone who lived through the Nazi regime and devoted the remainder of her life’s work to analyzing what had happened and warning others. The similarities to our current times are disturbing and alarming — arm yourself with as much information as you can.

Read more

Airbnb co-founder Joe Gebbia turns right-wing after decades of Democratic support

Joe Gebbia: A Silicon Valley Success Story’s Troubling Turn

Joe Gebbia’s journey from innovative designer to billionaire entrepreneur, and his subsequent embrace of authoritarian politics, illustrates how wealth and power can fundamentally reshape values and allegiances.

Origins in Innovation

Born in 1981, Gebbia’s early career showed genuine promise in merging design thinking with social good. His education at the Rhode Island School of Design, combined with business studies at Brown University and MIT, suggested someone who might bridge the gap between creativity and commerce for positive change.

The origin story of Airbnb – born from Gebbia and Brian Chesky’s inability to afford rising rent – once seemed to exemplify Silicon Valley‘s democratic potential. Their solution of renting air mattresses to conference attendees appeared to embody the sharing economy’s promise of democratizing access to travel and income. With technical co-founder Nathan Blecharczyk, they built Airbnb into a platform that transformed travel — though critics would later note its role in driving up housing costs in many cities, and the many regulatory battles that have ensued.

The Price of Success

Their bootstrapping story of selling custom cereal boxes during the 2008 election to raise funds became startup lore. Yet ironically, the economic desperation that inspired Airbnb’s creation stands in stark contrast to Gebbia’s current alignment with policies that often exacerbate income inequality and wealth inequality.

While Gebbia’s commitment to philanthropy through the Giving Pledge appeared commendable, his recent political evolution raises questions about the coherence between his charitable giving and his support for policies that often undermine social safety nets.

A Troubling Political Transformation

Gebbia’s political journey from Democratic donor to Trump supporter represents more than just a change in voting patterns – it reflects a broader pattern of tech billionaires embracing authoritarian politics. After contributing over $200,000 to Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden’s campaigns, Gebbia’s sudden shift rightward in the 2024 election coincided with his increasing proximity to power in the form of Elon Musk and the Trump administration.

His public support for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and defense of various right-wing positions on social media marked a dramatic departure from his previous support for progressive causes. This transformation mirrors a troubling trend among tech elites who, after accumulating vast wealth, appear to abandon democratic principles in favor of authoritarian solutions.

DOGE: The Final Step

Continue reading Who is Joe Gebbia?
Read more

AI accelerationism Dictionary illustration

Accelerationism Dictionary: A Complete Terminology and Lexicon

AI accelerationism, or “e/acc,” is one of the most radical and controversial ideologies emerging from Silicon Valley today. At its core, it champions the rapid and unrestricted development of artificial intelligence, rejecting calls for regulation and safety measures in favor of unchecked innovation. Proponents argue that AI holds the key to solving humanity’s greatest challenges—climate change, poverty, disease—and even envision a post-human future where intelligence transcends biological limits.

With strong libertarian leanings, the movement prioritizes market-driven progress, believing that government intervention would stifle AI’s transformative potential. Tech billionaires like legendary venture capitalist Marc Andreessen have embraced these ideas, elevating what was once a fringe philosophy into a driving force in the AI industry.

However, AI accelerationism faces fierce criticism for its disregard of ethical considerations, social consequences, and potential existential risks. Detractors warn that unregulated AI development could exacerbate inequality, destabilize economies, and lead to dangerous technological outcomes without proper safeguards.

The movement stands in stark opposition to cautious, ethical AI development advocated by groups like the effective altruism community, setting up a high-stakes ideological battle over the future of artificial intelligence. Whether one sees AI accelerationism as a path to utopia or a reckless gamble, its growing influence makes it a defining force in the ongoing debate over technology’s role in shaping humanity’s future.

This accelerationism dictionary should help get anyone up to speed on this emerging and dangerous ideology. We’ll keep adding to it over time as the field continues to evolve at breakneck pace.

A dystopian AI hellscape -- one of many potential outcomes of AI accelerationism ideology

Accelerationism Dictionary

A

Accelerate or die: A common slogan in the e/acc movement expressing the belief that technological acceleration is necessary for survival.

Accelerationism: A philosophical and political movement advocating for the acceleration of technological, social, and economic progress. Can exist in left-wing, right-wing, and politically neutral forms.

AGI (Artificial General Intelligence): An artificial intelligence system capable of performing any intellectual task that a human can do.

AI supremacy: The belief or fear that artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence and capabilities, potentially dominating society, economies, and geopolitical power structures. It is often discussed in the context of global competition for technological dominance.

Continue reading Accelerationism Dictionary
Read more

Tech bros at Trump's inauguration

Dave Karpf absolutely shreds Balaji Srinivasan’s book “The Network State” as the ravings of a rich delusional megalomaniac preening to his Silicon Valley peers who fancy themselves in Galt’s Gulch. These guys appear almost completely ignorant about the actual functions of a nation-state. If they want to declare themselves sovereign and secede from the United States, we ought to cut their sewage, water, and electric supply to give them a dose of the factual reality they so disdain.

What happens to these guys’ nerdy little crypto-enclaves when a much larger power (say, Russia…) decides to invade them and take their enormous stores of value they’ve bragged about removing from state protection? Especially after they’ve just ushered in the destruction of the post-WWII global order in which it was generally frowned upon for giant nations to gobble up their neighbors just because they could? 🤔

Moreover, what if that invader nation is simply the United States itself, once an administration comes to power that decides it is tired of dealing with its collection of ornery Confederate enclaves? Some might knuckle under peacefully, but there might also be some Waco events — except this time, with a lethal military strike justified by a president completely immune from prosecution and beyond the power of legislative or judicial oversight.

Please go away

What is stopping these guys from starting their start-up utopias right now? They are squintillionaires and could certainly buy land and start a community organized around whatever value system they want to run up the flagpole (arguably that seems to be the idea behind California Forever). Why isn’t Peter Thiel seasteading already and leaving us the fuck alone? Why does California Forever take Forever to operationalize when the entire premise of these techbro elites for decades has been that government (and specifically democracy) is too slow and they could totally build everything much faster and better if only given the chance?

Continue reading The tech bros have no clothes
Read more

AI woman with superintelligence

Understanding AI Accelerationism: Silicon Valley’s Radical Vision for the Future

What is AI accelerationism? AI accelerationism, or “e/acc” as it’s known in tech circles, has emerged as one of Silicon Valley‘s most influential and controversial ideological movements. At its core, it represents a radical optimism about artificial intelligence and its potential to reshape human civilization as we know it.

What is AI Accelerationism?

At its most basic, AI accelerationism advocates for the rapid and unrestricted development of artificial intelligence. Unlike those who call for careful regulation and safety measures, accelerationists believe that faster AI development is not just beneficial but crucial for humanity’s future. They reject what they see as excessive caution, often dismissing AI safety advocates as “doomers.”

The Core Beliefs

Technological Solutions to Global Problems

Accelerationists believe that unrestricted technological progress, particularly in AI, holds the key to solving humanity’s greatest challenges. From their perspective, issues like climate change, poverty, and disease are problems that advanced AI could potentially solve if we develop it quickly enough.

Post-Human Future

Perhaps most ambitiously, many e/acc proponents envision a future where the line between human and machine blurs. They embrace the possibility of human-AI integration and the emergence of new forms of consciousness and intelligence.

an AI accelerationism vision of the future

Market-Driven Innovation

The movement has strong libertarian leanings, advocating for minimal government intervention in AI development. They believe that market forces, not regulation, should guide technological progress.

Continue reading What is AI accelerationism?
Read more

illustrated animal taxonomy

It feels odd to have to make these arguments for diversity, again, some centuries after the Enlightenment. And centuries after Darwin, in whose name many fallacious opposite “interpretations” are levied. But apparently we must say it: diversity is good, actually.

The evidence is there for us as it has always been. Diversity isn’t a bad thing — it’s almost universally a good thing. For populations, for economies, for problem solving — for all of us. The more options there are, the higher probability that one of them might be the right match, or the thing that solves the problem, or the best selection for the job at hand.

In economics, Modern Portfolio Theory is based on the formal proof that diverse portfolios are stronger and more resilient to risk without sacrificing returns. So there’s a strict mathematical component to the arguments for diversity, but beyond that many other fields have also weighed in on the utility and pragmatic value of diversity. This assortment is a work in progress I’ll continue to add to over time:

a diverse menagerie of animals
  • In biology, more diverse populations are more responsive and resilient to a wider variety of changes. This resilience is one of the best arguments for diversity of all.
  • The best investment portfolio is the one that is most diversified. Harry Markowitz developed a mathematical proof to discover this now near-universal paradigmatic approach (MPT) in the 1950s.
  • In business, a diversity of new ideas leads to better decision-making and increased innovation; studies show a diverse workforce, as well as a diverse board, nets better results and outperforms their more conformist cousins. Conversely, too much groupthink and stale ideas lead to worse outcomes and less resilient firms.
  • Cross-pollination is generative, and the blending of ideas creates new concepts, new opportunities, new industries, and new trends — to name a few.
  • Range adds resilience — developing a broad range of skills and experiences help you adapt to constant change and grow in your career
  • Condorcet jury theorem: the more informed people there are making a decision, the more right it will be. Plurality makes better decisions. See also: wisdom of crowds
  • Law of large numbers: the more data points you have, the more accurate your distribution will be.
  • A large number of independent transactions helps economies function properly and grow. We speak of the economy “moving” and finding many touchpoints to do business on.
  • A lack of diversity can lead to poor outcomes, such as in echo chambers where people are not exposed to different points of view, and develop insular views that are self-reinforcing but usually divorced from reality.
  • Freedom produces diversity, by its very nature — and we do love our freedoms now, don’t we?

Diversity unhinges us because it unmasks our hidden assumption that if we all look the same, we will think the same and thereby avoid conflict.

Deep down, we still secretly hope that we can avoid having to deal with our differences by magically generating conformity.

Our unspoken wish is that, by being identical, we achieve the harmony and collective togetherness we so deeply crave — the collective harmony we mistake for God. In our zeal to commune with god, we instead are far more likely to fall victim to the pitfalls of collective narcissism and all the destructions it wreaks.

Diversity outcompetes monoculture

The opposite of diversity is monoculture… and inbreeding. Monoculture represents sameness, stasis, and stagnation — the system or culture feels fairly dull and stale.

Most people like a certain level of variety in their lives. Some though, have great aversion to difference, change, or both. Authoritarian personalities tend to dislike difference, while individuals with traditional conservative ideology tend to dislike change.

food from around the world

One of the more relatable arguments for diversity stems from the fact that a majority of people enjoy and benefit from diverse points of view, experiences, community members, and beyond. We love to eat different foods, travel to different places, and engage in different pasttimes. And our lives are enriched because of it.

Diversity ought to be celebrated, not denigrated. In many ways it is the very stuff of life — something that helps make life precious and meaningful.

Related to diversity

Condorcet Jury Theorem
Bigotry is Poor Thinking

In opposition to diversity

Black and White Thinking
White Nationalism
Global Right-Wing Authoritarianism
Christian Nationalist Organizations and Groups
Christian Nationalism Dictionary
Christian Nationalism Books
Dominionism
Authoritarianism Dictionary
American Fascists & the Global Right 😈
Read more