Anti-Social Media

Social Media Now Is Anti-Social
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, April 4, 2023, p. A6
“Social media,” such as Facebook and Instagram, are increasingly perceived as “anti-social media.”

The negative impacts include collection and sale of personal data, hate speech and cyberbullying, mental illness and suicides, and the fake news (both foreign and domestic) further polarizing our democracy and politics. [Photo credit: Wikipedia]

A social media company’s income is a function of your TOD (“time on device”). The more its artificial intelligence (AI) learns of your leanings, loves and lusts, the longer it can hold you, seeing ads and bringing in dollars. The more raw meat it throws to the political wolves the more rabid and violent they will return.

The usual public policy or legal approaches to new societal challenges involve analogies and precedents – without stretching too far. Because differences of degree can easily evolve into differences of kind.

So it was with the magic of radio. A voice that could be heard for miles by thousands of individuals was different in kind from a speaker on a soapbox. As Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover said, “An obligation rests on us to see that it is devoted to real service,” and the Radio Act of 1927 was created.

That is what we confront today with social media. No radio or television station or network with an audience of thousands, or even low millions, can come close to the power of social media. Each of the top four, Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp and Instagram, have over two billion MAUs (Monthly Active Users). Facebook has three billion.

In 1926 House member Luther Johnson said of radio, “publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a Republic, and when such a weapon is placed in the hands of . . . a single selfish group . . . then woe be to those who dare to differ with them.”

Imagine what he would have said in 1926 about a communications system that could reach two billion – the entire population on Earth in 1926.

There are few precedents or analogies appropriate for thinking about social media. We examine its issues through glasses that let us see only the founders’ 1791 First Amendment command that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” and section 230 of a 1996 law drawing on concepts like defamation, obscenity and distinctions between publishers and distributors.

It's like looking to our municipal ordinances’ regulation of fireworks when planning our response to Vladimir Putin’s moving nuclear weapons into Belarus.

What’s the alternative? There are precedents.

Since 1988 the Human Genome Project has contributed to better disease prevention, diagnoses, and criminal investigations. But its director, James Watson, feared dangers as well. His first act? The creation of ELSI, the monitoring of its potential ethical, legal and social issues.

[More recently, nearly 2,000 artificial intelligence developers and labs have agreed to a six-month moratorium on additional AI advances until risks are better understood.]

When will we finally undertake a thorough ELSI of our anti-social media?

Nicholas Johnson tries to keep his social media sociable. mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

[Bracketed material was removed from submitted text by The Gazette editors for additional space.]

SOURCES The public interest. “Whose interests? Why defining the ‘public interest’ is such a challenge,” The Conversation, Jan. 22, 2019, https://theconversation.com/whose-interests-why-defining-the-public-interest-is-such-a-challenge-84278# (“The “public interest” is a political concept that’s regularly trotted out along with other democratic principles such as transparency and accountability. And, like transparency and accountability, it’s difficult to pin down exactly what it means. . . . Centuries of scholarship examine the public interest alongside the “common good”, “common interest”, and “public good”, associated with some big names in political philosophy. Common among their thinking was the idea that governments should serve the people, and the people should be the beneficiaries of governing. The public interest is such a complex and tricky concept to navigate because it has intentionally evolved as ambiguous and mutable. It has no overarching definition because it is contextually determined in scope and purpose. . . . But (despite its lack of definition) the public interest should mean more than legal compliance – it is as much about process and procedure as it is outcome. It’s also about governance and ethics.”)

Herbert Hoover and Luther Johnson quotes. See, Nicholas Johnson, “Forty Years of Wandering in the Wasteland,” Federal Communications Law Journal, May 2003, 55 F.C.L.J 521, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/masmedia/55FCL521.html Herbert Hoover, fn 1 (Todd Lappin, Déjà vu All Over Again, Wired, May 1996, at 175.) Luther Johnson, fn 31 (67 Cong. Rec. 5558 (1926)).

Social media users. “Facebook Statistics and Trends,” Datareportal, Feb. 19, 2023, https://datareportal.com/essential-facebook-stats (2.963 B; 37% of total Earth population (a higher % of those over 13)). “

Daniel Ruby, “71+ Instagram Statistics for Marketers In 2023 (Data & Trends),” DemandSage, March 6, 2023, #:~:text=There%20are%20currently%20over%202.35,world%20in%20terms%20of%20MAUs (“Instagram Monthly Active Users (MAUs),” “There are currently over 2.35 billion monthly active Instagram users. Instagram achieved the 2 billion mark in the 3rd quarter of 2021, and it is estimated to reach over 2.5 billion MAUs by the end of 2023. This number makes Instagram the 4th most popular social media in the world in terms of MAUs. 47.84% of the world’s 4.18 billion smartphone users access Instagram every month.”)

Alfred Lua, “21 Top Social Media Sites to Consider for Your Brand in 2023,” Buffer, March 15, 2023, https://buffer.com/library/social-media-sites/ (1. Facebook, 2.96 B, 2. YouTube, 2.2 B, 3. WhatsApp, 2 B, 4. Instagram, 2 B; TikTok 1 B)

Woe be to those who would dare to differ. Congressman Luther Johnson, 67 Cong. Rec. 5558 (1926). Quoted and cited in Nicholas Johnson, “Forty Years of Wandering in the Wasteland,” Federal Communications Law Journal, May 2003, fn. 31 (“American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations. For publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a Republic, and when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership and dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.”)

World population in 1926. “Estimates of Historical World Population,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population (chart, world population in 1925, estimates from 2.000 billion to 2.007 billion)

First Amendment. “The Bill of Rights: A Transcription,” America’s Founding Documents, National Archives, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript (“The U.S. Bill of Rights Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights." Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”)

Section 230. “47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material,” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 (“(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; . . ..”)

Putin’s nukes. David Ljunggren, “Putin says Moscow to place nuclear weapons in Belarus, US reacts cautiously,” Reuters, March 25, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-moscow-has-deal-with-belarus-station-nuclear-weapons-there-tass-2023-03-25/ (“Russia will station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, President Vladimir Putin said on Saturday, sending a warning to NATO over its military support for Ukraine and escalating a standoff with the West.”)

ELSI. “Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Research Program; The ELSI Research Program fosters basic and applied research on the ethical, legal and social implications of genetic and genomic research for individuals, families and communities,” National Human Genome Research Institute, https://www.genome.gov/Funded-Programs-Projects/ELSI-Research-Program-ethical-legal-social-implications

“Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects Research,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical,_Legal_and_Social_Aspects_research (“ELSI was conceived in 1988 when James Watson, at the press conference announcing his appointment as director of the Human Genome Project (HGP), suddenly and somewhat unexpectedly declared that the ethical and social implications of genomics warranted a special effort and should be directly funded by the National Institutes of Health.[1]”)

Louise Gaille, “10 Human Genome Project Pros and Cons,” Vittana.org, May 12, 2018, https://vittana.org/10-human-genome-project-pros-and-cons (Pros: diagnosis and prevention, medication modification, criminal investigations, plant and animal modification)

The Letter. Daniel B., “The Great AI Pause: Why Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, and Andrew Yang Urge a Moratorium on AI Development,” LinkedIn, March 29, 2023, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/great-ai-pause-why-elon-musk-steve-wozniak-andrew-yang-bron-# (lengthy, well organized, exploration of the issues) [From Bing search: “Why are some of the Artificial Intelligence leaders proposing a pause in their research?”]

Text of letter. “Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter; We call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4.,” Future of Life Institute, https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/

(“Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable. . . .

Therefore, we call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4. This pause should be public and verifiable, and include all key actors. If such a pause cannot be enacted quickly, governments should step in and institute a moratorium. . . . AI research and development should be refocused on making today's powerful, state-of-the-art systems more accurate, safe, interpretable, transparent, robust, aligned, trustworthy, and loyal.

In parallel, AI developers must work with policymakers to dramatically accelerate development of robust AI governance systems. These should at a minimum include: new and capable regulatory authorities dedicated to AI; oversight and tracking of highly capable AI systems and large pools of computational capability; provenance and watermarking systems to help distinguish real from synthetic and to track model leaks; a robust auditing and certification ecosystem; liability for AI-caused harm; robust public funding for technical AI safety research; and well-resourced institutions for coping with the dramatic economic and political disruptions (especially to democracy) that AI will cause.”)

For a science fiction example of a possible problem with further advanced AI, see the prescient 1968 film, “2001: A Space Odyssey,” in which an AI controlled computer (“HAL 9000”) refuses to carry out a command, responding “I’m sorry Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.” YouTube 2:55 minute excerpt, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARJ8cAGm6JE (And see, “2001: A Space Odyssey,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film).)

# # #

Why Trump May Win

Trump Will Lose? Don't Be So Sure
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, May 29, 2019, p. A6
(As submitted; asterisks (*) indicate The Gazette modified the text for space reasons: e.g., the previous clause or sentence was deleted, or paragraph heading was run on into previous paragraph; regular formatting was substituted for bold paragraph headings.)

“It is unthinkable Americans would reelect Trump,” a friend said the other day. I told him to think harder. Here’s why.

Trump is president. Most presidents who want a second term get it; recently Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama.*


[Photo credit: Wikimedia.org Commons/White House.]

He has experienced a win. First-timers find Presidential campaigns difficult; they make mistakes. Trump has a tested, winning playbook. [Added May 30: Moreover, he's been continuously campaigning ever since he descended that escalator into a crowd of paid extras June 16, 2015 -- four solid years next month, with 18 months to go.

The economy’s strong. Whatever the full data may show, Trump benefits from the public’s perception of a healthy economy – a major factor in presidential elections.

He’s a media master. He knows how to keep the stories and cameras on himself while diverting attention from his disasters. Worst case, he can start a war; remember “Wag the Dog”?

America’s gone red.* In 2016 Trump won 2,600 counties, 85 percent of our continental land area. Republicans control both houses in 32 states’ legislatures – the most ever.

He’s near the finish line. With his rock-solid 42 percent he only needs nine percent to win. The Democrat must cobble together 51 percent.

He has Russian support. Russia’s role in the 2016 election was no one-off. Their similar techniques throughout Europe and here will only intensify in 2020. Is it serious Russians can hack voting machines? Sure, but the least of our worries. When they can manipulate voters they don’t need to hack machines. Indeed, when they can foment our self-destructive civil war of words they can destroy our democracy from within without firing a shot.

Trump knows social media. He has already spent about as much on it as the top five Democratic candidates combined. (Are you unaware of how Facebook swings elections worldwide by increasing anger, divisiveness and manipulating voters?* We’ll talk about that after you’ve first read Roger McNamee’s book, Zucked (2019) and watched Carole Cadwalladr’s TED Talk, “Facebook’s Role in Brexit – and the Threat to Democracy” (2019), https://tinyurl.com/y4q8mcre.*)

Trump is unrestrained. His willingness to violate our Constitution, laws, social and political norms of behavior gives him a competitive advantage.

He studies and befriends authoritarian leaders. He uses their techniques. Want examples? He turns immigrants, Muslims, asylum-seekers and Democrats into “the enemy.” To expand presidential power he encourages citizens’ distrust in professional journalism, the judiciary and Congress’ constitutional powers. He transforms the Justice Department into his personal defense team.

Trump feeds his base raw meat. Democrats have ignored their base. President Franklin Roosevelt gave Democrats a coalition of the poor, working poor, working class, farmers and trade unionists. Had Democrats served and maintained that base they would win every election from school boards to the White House. Shoe leather and door knocking have given way to some Democrats’ belief that money from the East coast and voters from the West coast are enough to maintain a winning national party.*

He can avoid primaries. The Democratic Party’s primary candidates can’t. They must first raise and spend money on name identification and primary contests. Some will suffer bruises to their reputations. Party activists and voters are splintered. Those supporting unsuccessful candidates may end up with less enthusiasm for the ultimate winner.

Voter suppression benefits Trump. Many Democrats who want to vote won’t be able to.

Is it hopeless for the Democratic Party’s nominee? Of course not. We have an outstanding couple dozen candidates, any one of whom I’d welcome as a next-door neighbor. But to win Democrats must start with a realistic assessment of Trump’s strengths.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson is a native Iowan and three-time presidential appointee; his latest book is Columns of Democracy. Website: NicholasJohnson.org* Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org.*

# # #

Cyber, Cyber Everywhere and Not the Time to Think

May 13, 2010, 8:40 a.m.

The IEDs Among Us: Copy Machines
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
The latest assault on our privacy turns out to be that seemingly benign office copy machine.

At a warehouse in New Jersey, 6,000 used copy machines sit ready to be sold. CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian reports almost every one of them holds a secret.

Nearly every digital copier built since 2002 contains a hard drive - like the one on your personal computer - storing an image of every document copied, scanned, or emailed by the machine.

In the process, it's turned an office staple into a digital time-bomb packed with highly-personal or sensitive data.

If you're in the identity theft business it seems this would be a pot of gold.

"The type of information we see on these machines with the social security numbers, birth certificates, bank records, income tax forms," John Juntunen [of the Sacramento-based company Digital Copier Security] said, "that information would be very valuable."

Armen Keteyian, "Digital Photocopiers Loaded With Secrets; Your Office Copy Machine Might Digitally Store Thousands of Documents That Get Passed on at Resale," CBS Evening News, April 15, 2010 (the transcript and the video); Cecilia Kang, "Rep. Markey calls for FTC to investigate copy machines' retention of user data," Washington Post, April 29, 2010 ("The copy machine has a better memory than most may think. And that's got Rep. Edward J. Markey concerned. The Democratic congressman from Massachusetts asked the Federal Trade Commission on Thursday to investigate the retention of documents on hard drives of digital copy machines. . . . 'I am very concerned that these copy machines can be a treasure trove for identity thieves, allowing criminals to easily access highly sensitive personal information,' Markey said in a release.").

Desktop and laptop computers are, for the most part, recognizable as such -- notwithstanding Apple's creative efforts. But the other devices in our lives that function as computers, or are at least controlled in some measure by computer chips, are less so. They may look like automobiles, microwaves, refrigerators, cell phones -- or copy machines.

When it comes to our privacy, our ability to prevent identity theft, these "computers" are the improvised explosive devices (IEDs) buried along the digital road.

The Internet is a wondrous thing to which I am connected, or potentially so, during most of my waking hours. But the networking of computers that it represents is creating cyber challenges for most sectors of our society.

For the military it is cyber-warfare -- what others can do to us, and what we can do to them. It is between 250,000 and a million attempted hacks a day into DOD computers. And the threats are not limited to the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the possibility of another nation, or more likely non-nation terrorists, closing down our electric grid, air traffic control, natural gas pipelines, communications satellites, and the financial networks that move trillions of dollars a day around the planet electronically -- and that's just for starters.

For law enforcement it is cyber-crime -- law breaking opportunities limited only by the human imagination.

For each of us individually it is the risk of identity theft. It is the sensation of being stripped naked electronically, as our every credit card purchase, the location and content of our every cell phone call, the content of our emails and text messages, the trail of our Web site hits, are being recorded -- along with the video tapes of our public movements. (Sylvia Hui, "New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in London to view subway system CCTV network," Associated Press/Minneapolis Star-Tribune, May 11, 2010: "Bloomberg wants to ramp up the security camera network in New York City's subways to mimic that in London's underground train system . . . one of the largest in the world.")

See generally, "Times Topics: Privacy," New York Times.

George Orwell warned of the dangers of government intrusion into our lives. The ease with which search warrants can be obtained (or searches conducted without them), the ability of NSA, CIA and FBI to track our electronic lives, and the willingness of phone companies, credit card companies, Internet service providers,banks and others to give them information about us -- sometimes in violation of law, for which Congress granted the phone companies immunity after the fact, so we couldn't sue them -- is relatively well known.

What's less well known, perhaps, and in many ways more invidious than government snooping, is the extent to which commercial firms are gathering and selling information about our every electronic move -- with neither our permission nor knowledge. Of course, in the workplace nothing is protected: phone calls, email and Web visits can be, and are, monitored.

The revelations about copy machines maintaining a full record of every document we run through the office copy machine is just the latest. And this affects us primarily not from the copies we make and can be traced back to us, but the copies that may be made within other institutions. These documents may contain personal information about us: medical and student records, Social Security numbers, address and phone, criminal records, and so forth, as the CBS investigation, above, lays out.

In fairness to those who are snooping on us, a good deal of what they know is what we have voluntarily and knowingly chosen to reveal. Most of us find the convenience of a driver's license, bank checking account, ATM and credit card, cell phone, airline miles and other reward systems well worth whatever loss of privacy is involved. They are considered by many to be useful, if not essential services in our time.

Passwords to our computers don't have to be hacked by some 14-year-old geek genius if we've left them on a post-it note on our computer screen. Credit card numbers don't need to be hacked out of the credit card company if we leave the carbon copies with the merchant, ultimately to be deposited in a dumpster.

And currently on everyone's radar are the privacy abuses by Facebook of its 400 million users. But this is different from credit cards and cell phones. Those companies may keep more data, for a longer period of time, than is necessary for our business relationship. But if a credit card company is going to bill us accurately there needs to be some record keeping, for our sake as well as theirs.

Facebook, by contrast, is neither a necessary service nor one that requires any particular information about us to function. Our decision to "join" is voluntary. If college students post pictures of themselves at their binge-drinking worst it's not really Facebook's fault when a future potential employer sees them and decides to hire someone else. If a Facebook user includes their birthday as a part of their public profile it's not Facebook's fault if a thief makes use of it when emptying that user's bank account.

Of course, it is Facebook's fault when it makes it nearly impossible for users to limit public access to their private data (it's "opt out" not "opt in," the manual is longer than the Constitution, and the FAQ explanations run 45,000 words), when it changes the rules without notice, or when it keeps, utilizes and sells this private data to others long after the user has come to their senses and "deleted" their information. These concerns, and others, are coming to be larger and clearer to the public. Nick Bilton, "Price of Facebook Privacy? Start Clicking," New York Times, May 13, 2010, p. B8; "Facebook Privacy: A Bewildering Tangle of Options" (interactive), New York Times, May 12, 2010; Erica Naone, "The Changing Nature of Privacy on Facebook; Microsoft's Danah Boyd on social networking," MIT Technology Review, May 3, 2010.

The terms of the bargain people make with social networks — you swap personal information for convenient access to their sites — have been shifting, with the companies that operate the networks collecting ever more information about their users. That information can be sold to marketers. Some younger people are becoming more cautious about what they post. “When you give up that data, you’re giving it up forever,” [one of the Diaspora creators, Max] Salzberg said. “The value they give us is negligible in the scale of what they are doing, and what we are giving up is all of our privacy.”

Jim Dwyer, "Four Nerds and a Cry to Arms Against Facebook," New York Times, May 12, 2010, p. A19.

But copy machines spying on us, and employers disposing of the old machines without removing or cleaning the copy machines' hard drives?! That's a new one. That's the latest. Unfortunately, it won't be the last.
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

Free Speech: US Army vs UIHC

February 27, 2010, 6:40 a.m. [as updated March 1, 2010]

Hierarchical Organizations and Strategic Communications
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
[Note: And don't miss the comments at the bottom of this blog entry which I am quite willing to concede are, if anything, more incisive, informed, critical, amusing and well written than my blog entry itself.]

Occasionally a news day comes along with a juxtaposition of stories that together are more dramatic than the sum of the parts. Today is such a day.

Among the qualities of hierarchical, top-down organizations can be rigidity, a uniformity (sometimes literally involving uniforms), that sometimes oozes over into attempts not only at censorship of speech but thought control.

[The Supreme Court has often interpreted "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech," the First Amendment -- which is applicable to the State, and University of, Iowa and the UIHC -- to include the "right to receive" the speech of others as well as the right to distribute one's own speech. See, seven opinions cited in "Speech: First Amendment; Right to Receive Information and Ideas," Internet Law Treatise. It is in that sense that I am using the words "censorship" and "thought control." Although I am not stating as a clear conclusion that a court would find the UIHC to have violated the Constitution in this instance, First Amendment values do have a role to play here, even if ultimately rejected.]

And what has been, until today, the classic case study of a hierarchical organization, the institution that would first come to mind? That's right, the military. It's a command and control organization, one that requires its members to be focused on the job at hand, one with real national security secrets, one with an understandable desire to control its members speech and thoughts.

Well, think again. It has today relinquished this position. The U.S. military has just announced its recognition of the value of soldiers being connected to the Internet, keeping in touch with each other with Twitter and Facebook.

Here's today's first of two stories: "Twitter permission for US troops," BBC News, February 27, 2010.

The BBC is talking about our U.S. Army! Here are some excerpts from its story this morning (complete with British spelling).

US troops are to be allowed to use social networking websites such as Twitter and Facebook following a review of internet use and security.

Defence department officials say the benefits of using social media now outweigh the risks to security.

The ruling means that a number of sites blocked by the Pentagon in 2007 - including YouTube - will be unblocked. . . .

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said that social networking can help the Pentagon interact with US military employees, many of whom are in their early 20s and regular users of online services.

Chief of tweets

Among the military's higher ranks, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has a Twitter feed with more than 16,000 followers. . . .

"We need to take advantage of these capabilities that are out there - this Web 2.0 phenomena," said David Wennergren, deputy assistant secretary of defence for information technology. . . .

Meanwhile, taking over the distinction as the number one hierarchical organization suppressing Internet access is none other than our own UIHC.

That's right, this morning's Press-Citizen headlines on page one, "UIHC to Block Twitter, Facebook." B.A. Morelli, "UIHC to block Twitter, Facebook; Hospital says Web sites are 'inappropriate,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 27, 2010, pA1. [And see, this morning's (March 1) Press-Citizen comment, Editorial, "Social Networking May Hold Some Benefits for UIHC," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 1, 2010 ("Many people in the corporate world have recognized the advantages to be gained by participating in online social networking through Facebook and Twitter. Businesspeople can reach out to their customers sometimes more efficiently than through telephone calls and e-mails. Journalists can get tips and crowd sourcing for some of their stories. Teachers can keep in touch with students over assignments and questions. And perhaps even health care providers can contact their hard to reach patients more quickly and consistently."]

I have reproduced the full text of Ken Kates' email at the bottom of this blog entry. Meanwhile, here are some excerpts from the story:

University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics is blocking social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, and other Web sites in clinical workstations, according to a letter to staff Friday.

On Monday, UIHC will implement technology that blocks access . . . Ken Kates, UIHC chief executive officer, said in a hospital-wide e-mail. . . .

"[V]iewing inappropriate Web sites . . . consumes employee time and organizational resources," Kates said. . . .

Online social networking sites . . . would be blocked, Kates said.

Login screens on clinical workstations will carry a message noting that access to selected Web sites has been blocked, he said. In addition, if access to blocked sites is attempted, a message also will appear, he said.

Patient safety, fostering a positive work environment and assuring appropriate use of resources were factors in the decision, Kates said. . . .

Filtering is common in many large health care organizations and other industries, Kates said.

(And see, Diane Heldt, "UI Hospitals and Clinics to Filter Web Sites," The Gazette, February 27, 2010, p. A1.) "Filtering is common," that is, in large organizations other than the U.S. military.

Now I don't deny that the UIHC has limited legal rights to control its employees' speech, or that there may be some inappropriate computer use by some employees. How could I know? There certainly are other institutions that also take a very ham-handed approach to controlling employees' computer use. And I am in no sense suggesting that it should be OK for employees in any organization to shirk their responsibilities -- especially those who have responsibility for maintaining the highest standards of patient care -- as a result of their personal computer use "on company time."

I just find the juxtaposition of the two stories this morning striking, and worthy of comment.

And note the timing. The policy is unilaterally announced on a Friday and implemented on a Monday! ("Anne Gentile-Archer, a nurse at University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and president of the hospital’s SEIU chapter, says there was no discussion between labor and management about the new policy." From Diane Heldt's Gazette story, immediately above.)

(I'll bet the Iowa City Community School District superintendent and school board members would sure like to learn how to do that. They're still patiently getting "community input" about boundary changes months after beginning the process. See, e.g., this morning's B.A. Morelli, "Feelings mixed on new scenarios; High school boundaries a concern," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 27, 2010, p. A1.)

On a more serious note, here are my thoughts regarding what was wrong with this action:

(1) If there is no widespread endemic problem involving large numbers of UIHC employees' computer use, it might better have been dealt with by supervisors' one-on-one conferences with the offending employees.

(2) At a minimum, the procedure for the creation and implementation of such a policy should not have involved an announcement on Friday and implementation on the following Monday.

(3) There may have been a series of prior meetings between administrators, supervisors, and employees; I'm not in a position to know. But, if not, there should have been -- because it's the decent thing to do, because the policy needs employee buy-in to be effective, and because an ex cathedra announcement of this kind will not be well received.

(4) Doing it this way, with an APB email impliedly critical of employees, that was certain to leak, was bound to create the dual public relations problem that it has fomented. It is a self-inflicted black eye to tell the public the UIHC has problems of this kind; and it is predictable there will be at least some adverse reaction to both its content and the procedure used in creating and announcing it.

(5) If large numbers of employees are involved, and their behavior is seriously interfering with patient care (both of which I doubt), it raises questions as to (a) why persons so lacking in common sense and standards of professionalism were hired in the first place, and (b) once there, why their behavior was not known and dealt with by hospital administrators long ago. For example, if a part of the problem involves the online computer screen public display of pornographic images (which is not clear from the Kates email), that could well qualify as "sexual harassment" under UI policy. If there have been numerous, regular instances in which employees are so distracted or delayed in treating patients as a result of their computer usage that an unacceptably low (or negligent) level of health care and treatment results, that is obviously a much more serious matter than what they do during break time.

(6) Scenarios (1) through (5) necessarily raise questions regarding the quality and effectiveness of UIHC administration.

(7) The policy is going to be hard to rigorously enforce.

(8) The policy is of questionable validity when applied to breaks, and when different standards of conduct are to be applied to different areas of the hospital.

(9) The policy will not resolve the asserted problem. Today's technology is such that person-to-person electronic communication, and Internet access, is not limited to desktop and laptop computers. Cell phone voice calls and voice mail, texting, tweets, and smart phone Internet access can easily substitue for the use of more conventional computers.

(10) Who will decide which are to be the acceptable and unacceptable sites for employees to view, and what are the standards they will use in coming to their decisions? A year ago there were 232 million Web sites on the Internet. By now there are far more. Picking and choosing will not be an quick or easy task.

(11) Blocking sites can be a tricky and imprecise business, as many a high school principal and public librarian have discovered. Researchers have often found themselves unable to do breast cancer research on the Internet as a result of filters and blocked sites. What are the other potential downsides of this decision in the UIHC context?

"One hospital employee who did not want to be identified . . . said he doesn’t see Internet abuse as a rampant problem at the hospital. He also wondered if YouTube will be filtered. Some medical students use the site to watch videos when they’re learning about procedures, he said. 'Something like that online might actually be really valuable. . . . That’s the whole chilling effect — is this going to push out use­ful sites?'” Diane Heldt, "UI Hospitals and Clinics to Filter Web Sites," The Gazette, February 27, 2010, p. A1.

Hopefully, our medical students will be able to find some Army friends on the front lines in Afghanistan who can access YouTube for them, a place where the Army now finds the online site even useful, and certainly less harmful than UIHC administrators believe it to be when available to hospital workers in the U.S.

I can't believe the UI's new Vice President for Strategic Communications would have recommended this decision, wording of the email, or procedure. [Apparently my belief was correct; see the first comment added to this blog, below.] His is, after all, a position created, at least in part, to avoid the public relations disasters created by UIHC decisions such as asking patients for contributions to the UI Foundation before checking them into the clinics, deciding to refuse to pay patients' mounting parking fees that result from their having to wait hours beyond their appointment times, and then, befuddled by how "customer satisfaction" might be improved, deciding the remedy was for top administrators to take a few days off at Disney World in Florida.

I do wish VP Tysen Kendig well. I really do. I want him, and the university he serves, to succeed in the quest to find "strategic communications." But as this latest episode indicates, he may find he has been handed what is literally an impossible job.

One more coincidental juxtaposition. The BBC also began this morning a new subject in its "Monday Documentary" series: "The Virtual Revolution; The Great Leveling: has the internet lived up to the ideals of its founders?" Well, I guess it has in the U.S. military.

The text of the Kates email follows:

This message is sent on behalf of Ken Kates, Chief Executive Officer, UI Hospitals and Clinics, and Associate Vice President, UI Health Care.

In the interest of patient safety, fostering a positive work environment, and assuring appropriate use of resources, UI Hospitals and Clinics on Monday, March 1, will implement technology that blocks access from all clinical workstations to Web sites that are inappropriate in the health care workplace. These include online social networking sites, gaming sites, and “malicious” sites that attempt to infect computer workstations.

Such filtering of inappropriate sites—which is common in many large health care organizations and other industries—is in response to concerns voiced by patients, visitors, staff members, and supervisors. While filtering currently applies only to clinical workstations (computers on nursing units, in outpatient clinics, and other clinical/procedural areas, etc.), evaluation is under way for application in other areas of UI Hospitals and Clinics.

UI Health Care continues to support an open work environment. However, viewing inappropriate Web sites for non-work-related purposes consumes employee time and organizational resources. Moreover, access to inappropriate sites creates the potential for a negative experience for patients, visitors, employees, and students.

Login screens on clinical workstations will carry a message noting that access to selected Web sites has been blocked. In addition, if access to blocked sites is attempted, a message will also appear.

Questions or concerns should be directed to department administrators and/or managers.

_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

Gangs and Gambling

August 25, 2007, 10:30, 11:30 a.m.; August 26, 2007, 6:45 a.m.

Cribbing from the Crips? -- Facebook and Gang Signs

Thursday (August 23) I commented about the UI athletes' Facebook saga. Nicholas Johnson, "What Do Abu Ghraib and Athletes' Facebooks Have in Common?" in "Abu Ghraib, Rumsfeld, and Athletes' Facebook Photos," August 23, 2007.

Not only do athletes' Facebook entries include pictures with cash and alcohol, they also display their passion for good literature by presenting "favorite quotes," such as, "She can't say no if her mouth is taped shut."

But hand signs?

I'm pretty compulsive about reading the comments attached to these blog entries. They help to keep me honest, provide advice, and offer useful data and alternative points of view. From time to time I remind blog readers that some of the best stuff here is in the comments rather than the blog entries.

And this really turned out to be the case with that Facebook blog entry of mine -- though I didn't catch it myself. The comment read in its entirety,

Anonymous said...

Yeah, many of the college students drink. However, you have to examine the photos carefully to see what's going on.

Look at what the hands are doing. Look at the colors worn. You tell me if you see the same thing I see.

If the hand gestures and colors worn mean something, then this isn't normal student activity.
8/23/2007 03:58:00 PM

So, "colors"? "Hand gestures"? I was late with other obligations. I didn't follow up.

But a friend did, and here's what she referred me to:

New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, Juvenile Justice Commission, Gang Management Unit, Gang Awareness Guide: Recognize the Signs

Ask Images, "Crip Gang Hand Signs"

Harald Otto Schweizer, CSU-Fresno, Global Criminal Justice Links, "Gang Signs"

We're talking about what may be athletes' use of hand signals from the "Crips" gang. If you're not familiar with it, and its long-running battles with the "Bloods," here's what the New Jersey Attorney General's manual has to say:

Originally from Los Angeles, the Crips are an organization of aggressive and brutal gang members who are heavily involved in the drug trade. Throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s the Crips developed intricate networks and a respected reputation with other gangs across America. Crip gangs are well established across the United States.

Acknowledging that I know little to nothing about gangs, let alone their signs, let me reveal at the outset my uninformed guess that probably the UI football team does not have card-carrying members of the Crips gang on its roster. On the other hand, I am no more capable of proving that to be true than I am of proving the opposite; nor do I have the responsibility of a coach or athletic director for knowing it to be true.

Because I am personally aware of the consequences of the human capacity for rushing to, and expressing, defamatory conclusions on the basis of inadequate information, let me make sure to put the qualifiers on all this.

1. Gangs borrow colors and signs from other institutions. One gang, the Latin Kings, has black and gold as its colors, after all. If wearing black and gold was enough to make you a member of the Latin Kings there would be an awful lot of Iowa members on some Saturday fall afternoons in Iowa City. (Could that be why the Hawkeye athletic program is so popular in some quarters?) Another (not believed to have religious origins) uses a variation on the Star of David. One of the Crips' signs used by one of the athletes in a Facebook photo is a hand position also used in yoga. (Hey, how many friends do you have, like my source, who are experts in both gang signs and yoga postures?) Maybe our football coach is one of those coaches who are using yoga these days with various athletes, and that's where our football players got it.

2. Gangs change their signs from time to time -- usually just after adults have figured out what they are. This is, after all, a communications system designed to exclude us. Who knows if the Internet sources are accurate and up to date?

3. Non-gang members sometimes use gang signs to be cool, or funny. It's a matter of posing. Rappers use gang signs. The football players were probably just joking.

Following the uploading of this blog entry, there was another comment from Anonymous (my guess: probably the same Anonymous who put me on to this hand sign business in the first place) with sufficient additional detail -- and consistent with the online references linked above -- that I believe it warrants reproducing here:

Anonymous said...

Great of you to follow up the comments.

In those Hawkeye football pics, there are several gang signs.

The wrist watch may be gang related. The triangle on the face is a blood sign (dog).

The hand signs included 'E' (East Coast Bloods), the sign for Brim (a Blood gang), and and in the photo with all 3 players, Douglas is giving an obvious 'BL' (Bloods for Life).

The colors are significant too. Bowman wears red (not for NASCAR but for Blood). He wears a red bandana too.

Note the 'B' (Boston hat) B for Blood.

Further, the group called themselves the City Boys Inc. A drug dealing Detroit gang was called the Young Boys Inc. The Hawk players are from Detroit, probably a link there too.

Obviously these guys are not Bloods, but it is a bit disturbing.
8/25/2007 07:18:00 PM

My thanks to Anonymous for bringing all of this to my attention, that of other blog readers -- and any University administrators who might like to pursue this matter before a possible worst case scenario actually hits the mainstream media.

Betting on the Hawkeyes

When yesterday's Press-Citizen arrived it had stuck to the front of it one of those irritating advertising stickers. Why irritating? (1) Because page one ought to be reserved for news. There's no shortage of space for advertising inside. (2) Because it's not only a distraction, it also covers up whatever happens to be under the place it's arbitrarily affixed. (3) Once you remove it, with the underlying print stuck to its back it is, like a wad of chewing gum or pitch from a pine tree in the hand, not easy to dispose of.

Anyhow, yesterday's advertising sticker carried with it a bit of news. It read, in its entirety:

Park and Ride
Stop driving yourself crazy
with gameday parking!
Riverside Casino & Golf Resort to Kinnick Stadium!
Park & Ride starts the first home game of the season.
Round trip $10 for hotel guests, $20 for all others.
Call for time of departure - Toll Free 877.677.3456
RIVERSIDE
CASINO & GOLF RESORT

So, the partnership -- between the UI athletic program and the organized gambling industry -- continues.

Last year it involved advertising the gambling casino on the scoreboard, and a real deal for high rollers: flying them to the casino, putting them up in the hotel, transportation to and from the games, football tickets, seats in the skybox the casino bought from the UI -- where, of course, alcohol can be served -- and a return trip to gamble away whatever money they have left after, presumably, gambling on the outcome of the game. Never mind that what they are expected to leave behind at the casino is multiples of the cost of any services they receive.

This year's offer is, apparently, a joint marketing effort to increase ticket sales while extending gambling's allure to those failing to qualify as high rollers -- so long as they'll pay for the bus ride. (Though why anyone who could park within a couple blocks of the stadium for $20 or less would think it a bargain to drive, and be driven, some 60 miles or more of round trips for the same price is not immediately apparent.)

Morality, Money and Enthusiasm for the "Gambling Tax"

Both The Gazette and the Press-Citizen have had major stories about the gambling casino's first year. Gregg Hennigan, "The House is Winning; Riverside Casino Exceeds Expectations in its First Year," The Gazette, August 24, 2007, p. A1; Rachel Gallegos, "Riverside Casino: One Year Later; Win, Loss or Draw?; Residents Undecided About Casino's Effect on Area," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 25, 2007, p. A1.

As regular readers of this blog have long since figured out, I'm not a big fan of gambling. Indeed, while I've often spent time observing the behavior of those in casinos (I was at Riverside last week) I've never left a nickel of my own behind.

My position would emphasize such things as that gambling (except, of course, for bingo) is opposed by most major religions. It was for years a federal crime, and outlawed in most of the 50 states including Iowa. Its externalities impose enormous social negatives on the communities where it is found. They include increases in domestic disturbances, alcoholism, crime, suicide, and bankruptcies. There are correlations between the number of casinos (how far a gambler needs to drive) and the numbers of problem, and addicted, gamblers; there's been a significant increase in gamblers seeking counseling since the Riverside Gambling Casino opened. There are also the direct economic costs of providing roads, water and sewer systems, and additional police (as in Riverside). I believe that position to be logically, internally consistent.

However, I will concede that the opposite is also logically, internally consistent. It would go something like this: archaeologists have demonstrated that humans have been gambling for thousands of years. While once illegal, it is no longer -- at least not for licensed casinos in Iowa. The law was changed by democratically elected representatives of a majority of the citizens who were no more subjected to campaign contributions and bribes than they are for any other legislation involving enormous economic stakes. While there are gambling addicts, they have treatment programs available. No one is compelled to enter a casino. Gambling, when engaged in for fun, with money one can afford to lose, is an individual citizen's voluntary marketplace decision regarding the expenditure of discretionary income spent for a form of entertainment. That kind of gambling does no (direct) harm to anyone. Why not permit it? (I may not hold this view, but it is at least internally logically consistent.)

Another often-overlooked advantage of gambling is its relation to prayer. As has been observed, "As long as there are algebra tests there will always be prayer in schools." It turns out that as the Powerball drawing for this evening has now reached $300 million, more and more potential players are turning to prayer as well as Powerball to assure their future. Adam Belz, "Millions of Reasons to Play -- and Pray," The Gazette, August 25, 2007, p. B1. I am sure that selecting the proper winner is a matter of great interest to God, whoever she may be, and that -- now that Mother Teresa has been revealed to have questioned her faith -- this will be the Lord's way of picking up a replacement adherent.

It is the third position that I find internally illogical and questionable. It is, "I am opposed to gambling because of all the harm it does to society and the costs it imposes. But because the casino makes little grants to various local projects and organizations I guess it's OK."

That's like saying, "Yes, I know that the sugared soft drinks in our high schools' vending machines contribute to our students obesity, diabetes, teeth and gum disease, but, gee, how else would we have been able to get the money to buy that wonderful scoreboard for the football field?" Or, "It would be disgraceful, and detract from the credibility of our professors' research, to name a college after a corporation. On the other hand, if the corporation would pay enough money, well, that would be different because, after all, 'revenue is needed.'"

In a society in which everything is for sale I guess I find it disturbing that ethics and morality are also on the auction block.

Another inconsistency I find is with those who fight "tax increases" tooth and nail and yet are even enthusiastic about what I call the "gambling tax." Why the "gambling tax"? Because citizens are bringing billions of dollars into Iowa's casinos, much of which stays there, and the community is getting back less than 10% of their losses in the form of these little community grants -- grants that contribute to the kinds of projects our tax dollars normally go to fund.

Whatever you may say about income, property, sales and FICA taxes, all of them (aside from what's paid out in corporate welfare and forfeited in TIFs) goes to government, its projects, and the employees necessary to carry them out. Most of the "gambling" tax goes to the organized gambling industry; only a little trickles down to the community.

It's kind of like "public financing of campaigns." We already have it. The public buys products at prices sufficiently inflated to cover the manufacturers' multi-million-dollar campaign "contributions," and then the corporation gets the credit for the money paid to the elected official. The pay back? Between 1000-to-one and 2000-to-one. Contribute a million dollars, you'll get back a billion dollars in the form of tax breaks, failure to enforce the antitrust laws, price supports, defense contracts, subsidies, access to public lands for oil or timber, earmarks, and in any other form the imagination of lobbyists can devise. Bottom line: We could have "public financing" because each of us contributes $2 into a campaign fund, or we could have "public financing" because each of us contributes an extra $2000 to the corporations we buy from -- following which they will pass along the $2 of our money and keep the rest. In either case it's "public financed campaigns."

Here again, there is another view about the "gambling tax" which I only came upon after writing this blog entry. I found it as a comment following the Press-Citizen's story about the Riverside casino this morning:

"Lotteries are how the poor people pay their share of the taxes." . . . At least you have a choice of paying a "volunteer tax." I have no choice in paying property tax, income tax, all the taxes on utilities and phone bills, and a host of other taxes imposed on citizens every day. . . . [A]t least when you gamble, you eventually see where some of that tax money is being spent, (Riverside) and you have fun while gambling.

So there you have it, as another blogger -- a very, very wealthy blogger -- puts it: "Fair and balanced. You decide."

# # #