Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

where is your will to power, soystat?

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

📌

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

if we think of Musk/Trump as PE-style takeover artists, won’t they sacrifice long-term value embedded in tacit competences and relationships in favor of extracting short-term cash? asks @csissoko.bsky.social (Musk’s approach to expenditures sure seems to rhyme with how PE raiders squeeze prey.)

Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

blame Trump for the collapse in US NIIP!

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

without comment. www.thetimes.com/world/europe...

Link Preview: 
Russia asks Elon Musk to hand over names of dissidents: MPs in Moscow wants a list of Russians funded by USAid, the American aid scheme shut down by Donald Trump, to be given to the security services

Russia asks Elon Musk to hand over names of dissidents

Link Preview: Russia asks Elon Musk to hand over names of dissidents: MPs in Moscow wants a list of Russians funded by USAid, the American aid scheme shut down by Donald Trump, to be given to the security services
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

(according to this piece, the bottom falls out a bit before US rates increase, around 2017. dark anitmatter.)

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

i think US NIIP has deteriorated lately? www.rabobank.com/knowledge/d0...

untitled link

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

i wonder when Musk reads a story like this, does he feel anything? does he have any regrets about how he went about things? “There’s nothing wrong with a review of aid spending – this happens regularly. But existing programming should have been allowed to continue while the review is carried out.”

Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

DOGE is a rootkit.

Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

they say life imitates art, but this is too stupid for a screenplay.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

someone needs to write a novel, speculative fiction, describing how it all goes down from the perspective of a young man overcoming trauma, unwinding to his therapist what it was like observing it all from the shoulders of the special government employee who exuberantly provoked the cataclysm.

Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

Yes. I get that. But perhaps that’s only because they don’t have to. It seems to me a pretty big deal that they have rigged the drawing of jurisdictional lines, rigged the Courts to eliminate any possibility of remedy… 1/

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

to ensure Congress is a safe job program for those Congressional leadership wants it to be. 2/

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

If Orban didn’t need to control the media or weaponize prosecution to secure his continued position, perhaps he too would not have bothered. 3/

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

Indeed Eastern European democracies (Romania is what I know) enjoy an extraordinary free, circus-like, tabloid press that engenders cynicism rather than deliberation. 4/

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

Does that make them healthy democracies, or is the media just captured in a different way than it has been in Hungary? 5/

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

I agree that it’s not the same, it’s importantly better. It’s important per se that people don’t feel persecution for their political activity, regardless of whether that political activity is likely to be effective. 6/

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

And in the United States, there have been meaningful shifts of party control despite the absurd degree of incumbency bias. In Romania as well. The US and Romania have been importantly “more democratic” than Hungary. 7/

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

But they do bear some pretty uncomfortable similarities. The health of a democracy is its legislature, full stop. Elections of kings are never meaningful democracy. 8/

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

If its sufficient to soft-capture legal norms surrounding elections, to capture the courts in “just” that domain, to eviscerate legislative democracy, does the fact that the icier tools that entrenched “elected kings” require remain sheathed say much good about the health of the democracy? 9/

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

Or is “competitive authoritarianism” at the legislative level just a more pleasant form of eviscerated democracy than what a head-of-state requires to ensure job security, so in neither case is there much democracy, but when it’s through a frozen legislature, there are fewer dark side effects? /fin

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

i think the heart of our problem is the dysfunction of Congress. fundamentally Americans realize that our government has grown sclerotic, incapable, and they want that remedied. i think the marginal Trump vote is, well, at least he might. 1/

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

but the only thing that can restore vigorous government capability that is consistent with democracy is an active, deliberative, capable Congress. but Congress has been rigged to become a safe jobs program, by mechanisms that prevent the risk-taking inherent to accountably acting. 2/

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

if we somehow get through Trump 2.0 without permanently entrenched autocracy, but we don't remedy that, it'll just happen again and again. contra Republican ideology, modern nations need big, active, capable, adaptable governments. 3/

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

a functioning democracy requires a vigorous, deliberative legislature. (from a loose distance, probably missing much, i think you have a similar issue: your labor party acts performatively, avoids risk, parliament does not meaningfully deliberate, bc all of that would put positions at risk). /fin

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

😜

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

Yes. Excellent.

Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

you saw that?!?

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

under this definition, hasn't Congress — the most important branch of the Federal government — been under "competitive authoritarianism" for decades? from Steven Levitsky, @lucanway.bsky.social www.foreignaffairs.com/united-state... ht @williamcb.bsky.social @casmudde.bsky.social

Text:

But authoritarianism does not require the destruction of the constitutional order. What lies ahead is not fascist or single-party dictatorship but competitive authoritarianism—a system in which parties compete in elections but the incumbent’s abuse of power tilts the playing field against the opposition. Most autocracies that have emerged since the end of the Cold War fall into this category, including Alberto Fujimori’s Peru, Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela, and contemporary El Salvador, Hungary, India, Tunisia, and Turkey. Under competitive authoritarianism, the formal architecture of democracy, including multiparty elections, remains intact. Opposition forces are legal and aboveground, and they contest seriously for power. Elections are often fiercely contested battles in which incumbents have to sweat it out. And once in a while, incumbents lose, as they did in Malaysia in 2018 and in Poland in 2023. But the system is not democratic, because incumbents rig the game by deploying the machinery of government to attack opponents and co-opt critics. Competition is real but unfair. Text: But authoritarianism does not require the destruction of the constitutional order. What lies ahead is not fascist or single-party dictatorship but competitive authoritarianism—a system in which parties compete in elections but the incumbent’s abuse of power tilts the playing field against the opposition. Most autocracies that have emerged since the end of the Cold War fall into this category, including Alberto Fujimori’s Peru, Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela, and contemporary El Salvador, Hungary, India, Tunisia, and Turkey. Under competitive authoritarianism, the formal architecture of democracy, including multiparty elections, remains intact. Opposition forces are legal and aboveground, and they contest seriously for power. Elections are often fiercely contested battles in which incumbents have to sweat it out. And once in a while, incumbents lose, as they did in Malaysia in 2018 and in Poland in 2023. But the system is not democratic, because incumbents rig the game by deploying the machinery of government to attack opponents and co-opt critics. Competition is real but unfair.
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

See e.g. www.opensecrets.org/elections-ov...

Reelection Rates Over the Years

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

from @chronotope.aramzs.xyz aramzs.xyz/thoughts/roo...

Text:

It is reasonable to ask if this is the right approach at all. Should we be building tools to try and moderate at huge scale, even though moderating at scale has generally proven to be an impossible task to get fully right, and the training of models is expensive and bad for the climate? Hasn't the last decade proven to us that moderating at massive scale isn't just a technical problem but a market capture one? Once we have big scale and standard tools these platforms no longer are reliably on the side of the people subject to them. The incentives for both the users and the owners no longer align with good moderation.

I suspect that others, like myself, can't help but imagine a better use for the money standing up Roost. Especially when money for media and community is tighter than it has ever been and getting more sparse with each executive order. Would it be a better use of this money to support and fund smaller online communities? Ones who might not even need these types of tools? Text: It is reasonable to ask if this is the right approach at all. Should we be building tools to try and moderate at huge scale, even though moderating at scale has generally proven to be an impossible task to get fully right, and the training of models is expensive and bad for the climate? Hasn't the last decade proven to us that moderating at massive scale isn't just a technical problem but a market capture one? Once we have big scale and standard tools these platforms no longer are reliably on the side of the people subject to them. The incentives for both the users and the owners no longer align with good moderation. I suspect that others, like myself, can't help but imagine a better use for the money standing up Roost. Especially when money for media and community is tighter than it has ever been and getting more sparse with each executive order. Would it be a better use of this money to support and fund smaller online communities? Ones who might not even need these types of tools?
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

honestly at this point what i wouldn't do to live in graceland.

Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

if you wanna know why current US authorities may come after Internet Archive, here's an example of the kind of history they might like erased www.muskwatch.com/p/doge-teen-...

Link Preview: 
DOGE Teen Ran Image-Sharing Site Linked to URLs Referencing Pedophilia and the KKK: The site launched by Edward Coristine in 2021 promised to protect the privacy of its users, stating, “All your images are encrypted. We do not log IP addresses, device agents or anything else.”

DOGE Teen Ran Image-Sharing Site Linked to URLs Referencing Pedophilia and the KKK

Link Preview: DOGE Teen Ran Image-Sharing Site Linked to URLs Referencing Pedophilia and the KKK: The site launched by Edward Coristine in 2021 promised to protect the privacy of its users, stating, “All your images are encrypted. We do not log IP addresses, device agents or anything else.”