Politics

I am voting for Harris/Walz

Matthew KindzerskeLeave a comment

I’m most concerned about government debt, and continued deficit spending.  Debt per citizen is now $106k.  I am against Modern Monetary Theory, and I think there is a coming shock where US Treasuries will not be seen as ‘safe’ (it takes 17% of federal spending to service the existing debt).  I am very worried about more inflation coming (housing, healthcare, food).  (Houses are not worth more, it’s your dollar that is worth less.)  I don’t feel that either candidate is strongly campaigning to effectively address these issues (debt seems like it will go up under either candidate).  There is an unfortunate mode to continue spending increases, and also for contributions to market distortions like tariffs.

As a centrist-Democratic I’m always on the lookout for a candidate with a fiscal conservative and socially liberal stance, even if it’s a Republican.  I am not a ‘never Trumper’.  I looked for but did not see any signs of Trump moderating or adjusting his fear-mongering, bombast, or populist speech.  And his behavior surrounding January 6 is a giant hill to overcome.  That and the growing list of Republicans who oppose Trump (VPs, Senators, military, Cabinet) makes it clear to me that a second Trump term would be very tumultuous.  I cannot vote for Trump.

Harris did not go through an election primary cycle, to me she is an unknown quantity.  I appreciate her demeanor and professionalism.  I am hopeful that her administration takes a moderating tact once in office.  The business climate and direction of the country are better off with stability than the chance to save a few % points on the corporate tax rate.

But if I were to place a bet, I do think Trump will be elected next week. (Back to my point of watching for his moderation, I think he could have easily grabbed 4% points from the middle by moderating just a little but that’s not who he is.)  I desperately hope that the electoral college voting is a clear cut outcome.  My silver lining is for RFK Jr. to be an active participant in the administration to fight chronic diseases/obesity, and cheer for the environment.  This is the kind of long term investment that our country needs and I’m glad to see RFK Jr. championing for such explicit policies.  If it bothers you that I see RFK as a favorable presence in a second Trump presidency, well that’s just how I see democracy working that the country needs to come together on January 21st, to get stuff done.

Speaking of getting stuff done, I want more Infrastructure.  I believe the federal government has a place to take on large and inspiring projects (the likes of the Apollo Program, Interstate Highways, scientific advancement, and improving air quality). For example, two new rail tunnels under the Hudson to be opened by 2035! Very cool.

Please vote!

US Senate Commerce Hearing: Section 230

Matthew KindzerskeLeave a comment

On October 28th, the US Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing to discuss Section 230. (Here’s a descriptive page on 230 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.) In short, online entities that host content provided by other providers (e.g. users or publishers) are shielded from certain laws which might otherwise hold the online entity legally responsible. This is the very basic gist of Section 230 when it was included in a bill signed into law in 1996.

Unfortunately, the title of the hearing was “Does Section 230’s Sweeping Immunity Enable Big Tech Bad Behavior?”, and it was held only six days before the US Presidential election. In the context of President Donald Trump’s numerous labeled tweets on Twitter, and Twitter also blocking the sharing of a New York Post article about Joe Biden’s son, the hearing had very political overtones.

I’m not writing this post to delve and squabble over the partisan aspects of the hearing. In fact I’m glad it brought ‘230’ to the public’s attention and made headlines. It’s very pertinent legislation signed almost a quarter century ago which continues to shape the behavior, products, and policy of the internet giants and the products to which we’re addicted. As expert witnesses (voluntarily, not by subpoena) the committee hearing included Mr. Jack Dorsey (Twitter), Mr Sundar Pichai (Alphabet / Google), and Mr. Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook).

The actual webcast is 4h12m long, below are some notables from the hearing’s website. Each committee member was allotted seven minutes for questions to the witnesses, so you can jump around as desired. But I found it really worthwhile to listen to the hearing for the sake of removing news/media filters before it gets to your ears:

  • (The webcast displays the title page through 28:35, skip it.)
  • Mr. Dorsey’s PDF testimony; specifically section III titled “Empowering Algorithmic Choice.” Twitter has arduously honed its algorithms to best float to your feed the tweets you would like to read (i.e. maximizing eye-ball time). Mr. Dorsey’s remarks here are acquiescing to industry experts’ recommendations that might help tamper the echo chamber.
  • Political slant: conservatives tend to want these companies to be more hands-off on content, while liberals would like to see more moderation for specific causes:
    • 30:55 (Senator Roger Wicker – R) “This liability shield has been pivotal in online platforms from endless and potentially ruinous lawsuits. But it has also given these internet platforms the ability to control, stifle, and even censor content in whatever manner meets their respective standards. The time has come for that free pass to end.”
    • 42:50 (Senator Maria Cantwell – D) “I hope today, we will get a report from the witnesses on exactly what they have been doing to clamp down on election interference.”
  • Mr. Pichai’s opening remarks at 52:40. Google is clearly the secondary invite to this hearing, and listening to Mr. Pichai’s sidestepping of the direct aim of the meeting by describing how “the internet has been a powerful force for good”, or how Google helps mothers answer “how can I get my baby to sleep through the night” is politically savvy.
  • Twitter’s terms of service insight at 1:11:00 through 1:14:00, Mr. Dorsey explains how radical (jihad, annihilation of Zion) tweets by foreign leaders are considered “sabre rattling” and thus not tagged.
  • Misinformation, at 1:24:05 Mr. Dorsey goes one level more in detail on what Twitter’s misinformation policy includes: “manipulated media, public health (specifically Covid), and civic integrity, election interference and voter suppression.” Senator Cory Gardner (R) notes that this misinformation policy would not tag Holocaust denial tweets.
  • Senator Amy Klobuchar (D) at 1:31:00 through 1:33:00, questioning Mr. Zuckerberg on the political ads on Facebook including aspects of volume, revenue, profits, and automatic placement versus (apparently) scant review (by algorithm or by human).
  • Senator Ted Cruz (R) starts at 1:54:20 with pointed remarks of “the three witnesses we have before this committee today collectively pose, I believe, the single greatest threat to free speech in America and the greatest threat we have to free and fair elections”, and continues with very sharp questioning of Mr. Dorsey. Lots of great sound-bites and headline worthy quotes from this segment. Battle of the beards!