THE FOUR WOMEN WHO ARE SAVING DEMOCRACY #Antitrust #Law #Fail

Lina Kahn, Dina Srinivasa, Shoshana Zuboff, Carole Cadwalla

THE FOUR WOMEN WHO ARE SAVING DEMOCRACY

#Antitrust #Law #Fail Kills Our Democracy

Antitrust law is failing to secure our freedom, our markets, our right to self-determination, our competition, and our fundamental rights.

Lina Kahn  Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, which showed how Ronald Reagan’s antitrust policies, inspired by ideological extremists at the University of Chicago’s economics department, had created a space for abusive monopolists who could crush innovation, workers’ rights, and competition without ever falling afoul of orthodox antitrust law.

The Antitrust Case Against Facebook ~ Dina Srinivasan

Can Antitrust Law Rein in Facebook’s Data-Mining Profit Machine? ~ Dina Srinivasan

The Antitrust Case Against Facebook: a turning point in the debate over Big Tech and monopoly ~  CORY DOCTOROW

Shoshana Zuboff’s Surveillance Capitalism machine learning creates devastating behavior modification tools that allow tech companies to manipulate us so thoroughly that we’re in danger of losing our free will.

Srinivasan shows how Facebook came to dominate our online discourse through activities that would have been prohibited under pre-Reagan theories of antitrust, and how, prior to these monopolistic tactics, Facebook was not able to conduct surveillance on its users, having to contend with multiple, bruising PR disasters and user revolts when it tried to do so.

Moreover, Facebook’s monopoly has enabled a series of moves that worsened its impact on our democracy and our markets: once Facebook became the dominant means by which people learned about the news, media companies were forced to use Facebook to promote their work, and to put Facebook tracking beacons (AKA “Like buttons”) on every article, giving Facebook the power to build ever widening dossiers on 2.3 billion users.

And since Facebook also became the dominant means by which users discovered many kinds of products, merchants also put Like buttons and engaged in other surveillant integrations with Facebook, allowing Facebook to monopolize intelligence about ad performance — that is, when an click on a Facebook ad yielded up a sale, Facebook often knew about it — and this allowed the company to charge more for ads, and to tighten its grip over the ad marketplace.

Handmaidens to Authoritarism,  #Mercer, #Zuckerberg, #Sandberg, #Page, #Brinn, #Dorsey

https://cyberplayground.org/2019/04/22/mercer-zuckerberg-sandberg-page-brinn-dorsey-handmaidens-to-authoritarism/

How Facebook Broke Democracy

THEY INVITED THE FOX INTO THE HEN HOUSE

THEY ALL HER SPEAK AT THE TED TALK

In an unmissable talk, journalist Carole Cadwalla  digs into one of the most perplexing events in recent times: the UK’s super-close 2016 vote to leave the European Union.

Esteemed Reporter Pulitzer finalist Carole #Cadwalla

My TED talk: how I took on the tech titans in their lair

Mercer, Zuckerberg, Sandberg, Page, Brinn, Dorsey Handmaidens to Authoritarism

WOMEN ENJOY MAKING LOVE by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.

WOMEN ENJOY MAKING LOVE

The use and concept of “consent” demeans women. It reduces them to passive humans who are only recipients of sexual activity rather than active participants.

At its best, making love is a physical sensual activity of communication and learning about an other. Both people affirm their unique identity, desire, style, pleasure, and fulfillment in its accomplishment. (The apogee may be mutual simultaneous orgasms). After the first time, relationships are changed permanently by the common intimate memory. When less than ideal, there may arise ambiguities, ambivalencies, and even regrets but such does not imply that what occurred was a mutual affirmation expressed physically.

On the other hand, what is considered “consent” may be acceptance of the unwanted.

Stormy Daniel’s story was that she did not want to have sex with Donald Trump, while noting his little penis with a mushroom top, but when he emerged naked from the bathroom she felt she had to accommodate him. Prostitutes agree (“consent”) to have their bodies used for male sexual satisfaction for money but that surely does not imply that they desire or personally accept it. Worst, of all, is when they women have been sold into slavery as part of “sex trade” so that what could be considered “consent”, from a quick glance, constitutes a violation approximating torture.

“‘No’ means ‘no’”. Not so. The mating dance is subtle and nuanced. An effective and clear way of rejection often is evidenced physically when a woman grabs and restrains. What is said, however, often has many meanings, sometimes simultaneously when ambivalence is involved with minds not completely made up, capable of changing at a crucial juncture. Women seem rarely to affirm their desire and enjoyment verbally (although at certain points it may be expressed audibly). There are no formulas but a real need for sensitivity to the feelings of the other.

Our focus is on affirming heterosexual adult actors in ‘normal’ intercourse. Many of the same considerations, of course, apply to most homosexual acts. Pedophilia and pederasty, however, are not included as both do not have the same ability to affirm. There are many acts which are viewed by some as “deviant” or “perverted” (including fetishes). Many of the same considerations apply with particular attention to lasting harm. Incest not only violates social taboos, but, with parents and children, also occurs without mutual affirmation and may, in general, induce lasting psychological damage. In the area of heterosexual abuse, we may distinguish rape, harassment, and discrimination.

Rape is a horrific assault. It usually leaves lasting deep trauma more than other assaults. As such a terrible assault, it carries (and should carry) more sanctions (longer sentences) than other assaults – with the connected increased need to protect women in the future by confining those who commit it. Such increased sanctions might imply a higher burden of proof than other condemnable assaults. But, it does not. Indeed a misunderstanding of the meaning of “corroboration” has lessened the proof needed. Corroboration need not be a witness but just some proof beyond individual testimony, including but not limited to such as injury incurred, clothing clearly torn by someone else than the possessor, (both demonstrated) etc. The widespread presence of TV cameras is helpful. Understandable and justifiable as the rage and desire for action may be, justice requires more than claims no matter how well expressed.

A particular problem arises when there are regrets by the woman immediately or subsequently after the end of the act. (In the rare case, of regrets arising during the act, achieving or accepting an interruption may impose quite a burden, suffusing the whole act with ambiguity and ambivalence, impossible for a third party to evaluate). Although most times, one hopes, the mutual affirmation leaves a glow, sometimes – often because the context involves the ingestion of “mind altering” substances, such as alcohol, there is real unhappiness. Yet, this does not imply a rape. But it may be claimed.

Rather the situation is be reduced to a “he says, she says.” Given the complicated nature of the interaction, and the gravity of the penal consequences, it seems that uncorroborated testimony should not be the basis of a rape conviction. No satisfactory objective evaluation of credibility is certain enough to sustain the proper “burden” of proof.

There are non-criminal evaluations of “rape” claims. A current controversy swirls around college campuses where some believe it is a prevalent outrage. A problem is protection of the innocent accused. Even if criminal process protections are not to be the standard (although expulsion is a serious and social consequence) certainly “due process” should apply as it does in most governmental administrative hearings and include not relying exclusively on one person’s testimony.

Sexual harassment is both ugly and damaging. Cat calls are humiliating. Unwanted touching (let alone caressing or kissing) is upsetting and even sometimes degrading. A gray cultural area involves “invading space”. Hugging, kissing and touching occur often in the entertainment world; they are often means of greeting in various societies (The Dutch kiss three times alternating cheeks.) What is dismaying potentially for some may be culturally or customary proximity and tactility approved for those who “invade space”. Of course, sensitivity to have affectionate and supportive gestures may be received is important but usually the acts do not arise to sexual harassment. Comments may be offensive; requirements and requests for certain physical acts, such as bending over, are often wrongly motivated. It should also be noted that in certain contexts, women in power sexually harass subordinated.

The basic response, if desirable, must be to reform the general culture and the specific contextual traditions. The particular practical questions revolve around specific acts or patterns of them. It appears that many corporations create an atmosphere encouraging rather than discouraging these degrading acts. The best abstract answer is to provide a secure secret means of complaints being lodged; a sensible investigation (recognizing spontaneity, appreciation, and affection), evaluations by “human resources” and disciplinary action, including firing resulting where there is either an egregious act or pattern of these demeaning acts. Whether “sensitivity training” does anybody any good is not yet clear but consequences would inform.

Sex discrimination is both evil and pervasive. The admirable Red Stockings as the named group, who created the slogans “Sisterhood is powerful” and “consciousness raising” have pointed out in many publications that it is part of the woop and warf of societal, class, and corporate oppression. (Disclosure: I am their General Counsel. As a group or individuals, they may not agree with some or all of the views I have expressed.) The public figures on lower pay and limited presence in leadership job is well documented.

There are relevant laws on the books. The problem has been not only in powerful decisions maker’s indifference but failure to enforce in Courts and agencies, particularly in the current Federal administration. The hope here is that the increase, visibility, and activity of legal and advocacy groups to educate, reach out to victims, and prosecute these cases will have the impact the laws should and will. (There is room for reform in the laws such as eliminating any requirements for “mitigation” which decreases damages, limits on recovery, and attorney fees, etc.)

Gender discrimination must be on the forefront of legal, political, and social movements.

Having surveyed summarily this area, we should not lose sight of what novelists have featured – the complexity of all human relations, and particularly those between members of the opposite sex.

We must recognize all the ambiguities in courtship rituals as well as the terrible acts some have committed.

Celebrating human equality, we should view proper sexual conduct as mutual affirmation, and, in particular, that women do not “consent” but enjoy and are fulfilled in and by “making love.”

More

Reparations by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.

Repeal and Replace the War on Drugs by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.

9/11 Criminals by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.

Trump Goes Beyond Cronyism—To Something Far Worse

William Barr Accidentally Concedes His Reason for Withholding the Mueller Report Is Baloney

Barr showed how hollow his position of withholding the full report from Congress is.

Trump has Barr and his Daddy had Roy Cohn and see Once a long time ago we  had Leon Jaworski.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/william-barr-testimony-mueller-report-baloney-watergate.html

Barr: I don’t know if it would be unprecedented since I’m not really sure what happened in the Watergate situation. I know the report came out 50 years later, I think. – what a smart mouth answer!! who wants to tolerate that!!

And Barr, noted the perfect precedent:
Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski’s cooperation and sharing of confidential grand jury materials with the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate inquiry.

In that case, which Barr brought up, a “Road Map” for impeachment from the Watergate grand jury itself was released publicly last October after 44 years of being sealed by the court.

However, that Road Map—with all of the secret grand jury material that it included—was sent at the time of the Watergate investigation directly to Congress for consideration.

How we got the Imperial Presidency

By naming people such as Herman Cain and Stephen Moore to top jobs, Trump converts the machinery of government to his personal use.

Donald Trump’s administration, however, has transcended cronyism and declared a war on expertise, in which unbiased knowledge is itself somehow politically suspect if it does not accord with President Trump’s beliefs and assertions—and especially if it conflicts with his personal interests. In this administration, complicated issues are not problems to be solved or tasks to be administered for the public good, but threats to be hammered down by alert sycophants. As the Trump economic adviser Peter Navarro once put it: “My function, really, as an economist is to try to provide the underlying analytics that confirm his intuition. And his intuition is always right in these matters.”

<snip>

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/moore-and-cain-nominations-reach-new-level-cronyism/586831/

Former top prosecutor: Trump ‘effectively’ named co-conspirator

The previous US lawyer in control of the Southern District of New York federal prosecutor’s administrative center has instructed Sky Information, in his view, that the administrative center has “successfully” named Donald Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal offense.

Preet Bharara used to be regarding a sentencing memo written by way of prosecutors about Michael Cohen, the president’s former non-public legal professional.

“In testy exchange, Rep. Maxine Waters tells Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, “no other secretary has ever told us the day before that they were going to limit their time.” “You’re ordering me to stay here …. that’s not what I want to do,” Mnuchin says 

The Man Who Saw Trump Coming a Century Ago

Thorstein Veblen, the greatest American thinker you probably never heard of, predicted the rise of a Gilded Business Man and the demolition of democracy.

The Man Who Saw Trump Coming a Century Ago

Veblen got his initial job, teaching political economy at a salary of $520 a year, in 1890 when the University of Chicago first opened its doors. Back in the days before SATs and admissions scandals, that school was founded and funded by John D. Rockefeller, the classic robber baron of Standard Oil. (Think of him as the Mark Zuckerberg of his day.)

from the beginning, Thorstein Veblen was there, prepared to focus his mind on Rockefeller and his cronies, the cream of the upper class and the most ruthless profiteers behind that Gilded Age. He was already asking questions that deserve to be raised again in the 1% world of 2019. How had such a conspicuous lordly class developed in America? What purpose did it serve? What did the members of the leisure class actually do with their time and money? And why did so many of the ruthlessly over-worked, under-paid lower classes tolerate such a peculiar, lopsided social arrangement in which they were so clearly the losers?