Opinion | Tom Hanks: The Tulsa Race Massacre Is Every American's History - The New York Times
'Canada, you need to learn the truth': An open letter from AFN Yukon Regional Chief Kluane Adamek | CBC News
The Gospel of Consumption
Angelina Jolie: ‘I just want my family to heal’ | Angelina Jolie | The Guardian
A Welcome Unfreedom | The New Yorker
It's happening.
Back to the Future of Twitter – Stratechery by Ben Thompson
This is all build-up to my proposal for what Musk — or any other bidder for Twitter, for that matter — ought to do with a newly private Twitter.
First, Twitter’s current fully integrated model is a financial failure.
Second, Twitter’s social graph is extremely valuable.
Third, Twitter’s cultural impact is very large, and very controversial.
Given this, Musk (who I will use as a stand-in for any future CEO of Twitter) should start by splitting Twitter into two companies.
One company would be the core Twitter service, including the social graph.
The other company would be all of the Twitter apps and the advertising business.
TwitterServiceCo would open up its API to any other company that might be interested in building their own client experience; each company would:
Pay for the right to get access to the Twitter service and social graph.
Monetize in whatever way they see fit (i.e. they could pursue a subscription model).
Implement their own moderation policy.
This last point would cut a whole host of Gordian Knots:
A truly open TwitterServiceCo has the potential to be a new protocol for the Internet — the notifications and identity protocol; unlike every other protocol, though, this one would be owned by a private company. That would be insanely valuable, but it is a value that will never be realized as long as Twitter is a public company led by a weak CEO and ineffective board driving an integrated business predicated on a business model that doesn’t work.
Twitter’s Reluctance
Trump versus the rule of law in 2024
Kevin Kelly on Why Technology Has a Will
The game is that every time we create a new technology, we’re creating new possibilities, new choices that didn’t exist before. Those choices themselves—even the choice to do harm—are a good, they’re a plus.
We want an economy that’s growing in the second sense: unlimited betterment, unlimited increase in wisdom, and complexity, and choices. I don’t see any limit there. We don’t want an economy that’s just getting fatter and fatter, and bigger and bigger, in terms of its size. Can we imagine such a system? That’s hard, but I don’t think it’s impossible.
‘Everything Is Terrible, but I’m Fine’
With greater access to news on social media and the internet, Americans are more deluged than they used to be by depressing stories. (And the news cycle really can be pretty depressing!) This is leading to a kind of perma-gloom about the state of the world, even as we maintain a certain resilience about the things that we have the most control over. Beyond the diverse array of daily challenges that Americans face, many of us seem to be suffering from something related to the German concept of weltschmerz, or world-sadness. It’s mediaschmerz—a sadness about the news cycle and news media, which is distinct from the experience of our everyday life. I’m not entirely sure if I think this is good or bad. It simply is. Individual hope and national despair are not contradictions. For now, they form the double helix of the American spirit.
What It's Like Here | Defector
Cheney select committee opening statement