Superbly written. The values embedded in our institutions should serve as checks on the ambitions of the powerful. Most concerning, the preeminent institution of our time, and perhaps the most powerful of all time, is social media. This is the main way that a majority of young people experience the world! And, as you pointed out, it is truly value neutral (maybe X excluded, though not in a positive way). That feels extremely dangerous.
I do not understand how you could argue that social media, or the companies that own social media, are "value neutral." The term reminds me of the never-ending debate in previous eras of "objectivity" as the gold standard for journalism. As the great Jim Hightower once observed, "There's nothing in the middle of the road but a yellow stripe and dead armadillos." Having values is not bad per se; every person has their own of values--as do all nonprofits and for-profits. Our goal should not be looking for "value free" media; what we need is to bring a critical understanding to all of the media we consume.
Kyla, my kids are fans, and I respect much of the work you’ve done, but sometimes we have to “call a spade a spade”. So just two comments, both related to propaganda:
1) the Fed has not truly demonstrated independence since the Volcker years. It’s long bern a captured institution and lies at the heart of the inequality we face in this country today. They have consistently made the rich richer and everyone else poorer, while enabling fiscal malfeasance by the government like a crack dealer giving away its wares to their customer base.
2) the left, now dominated by the far left it seems, has paid little attention to its own hijacking by radical elements. I simply cannot believe this is organic, but only sponsored propaganda. And I say this as one who agreed with everything thr Democrats were in the 80’s, and am now appalled by what they have become now. For far too long violence by the hard left, BLM, antifa, trantifa, etc has been ignored or treated with kid gloves. It’s time to end this. And it’s time to find the money that pushes this violence and shut it off. What’s been happening on the radical left is the same as the color revolutions this nation sponsors elsewhere. It’s now on our shores. We went through a period of this in the 60’s )yes I’m that old) when the radical leftists were active in bombings no less (look it up). I don’t want to see those days again. There is a live between free speech and violence, protest & destruction, that’s been crossed too often. That line needs to be held again.
(1) I agree that they appease markets (hello taper tantrum) but now they are under direct coercion which deserves further analysis
(2) It is both sides, yes, but this letter again is acknowledging the present moment through the lens of the past. I wish I had enough time to acknowledge all of history!
Two attempted assasinations on Trump, a trantifa going after Justice Roberts, the attack on Republican ball players, the burning of cities by BLM/Antifa (approx $2B in damages) & at least 9 deaths in same, the constant attacks by Antifa in Portland OR, attacks on ICE & ICE facilities, assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Hi Kyla, while this is not the point of the post, I had a question for you. You wrote,
"Jimmy Kimmel said something (false) around Charlie Kirk’s death..."
While I did not watch it live, I believe this is what Kimmel said,
"We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.
In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving. On Friday, the White House flew the flags at half-staff, which got some criticism, but on a human level, you can see how hard the president is taking this."
While there are certainly matters of opinion in Kimmel's statement, I am missing what is false in the statement. Am I misreading your commentary? or am I missing something in Kimmel's statements that are clearly false?
Exactly. He did not say anything that was literally false. MAGA fanatics have interpreted the "anything other than one of them" comment as implying that Kirk was one of them -- which, again, just looking at the words themselves, is not what he said. It's an interpretation of an implication. It shouldn't be used to guide policy, and we should not reflexively adopt that framing.
This, kids, is why you read old books. Kyla, you're clearly fond of C.S. Lewis so I'll quote him here: "Every age has its own outlook. It is especially good at seeing certain truths and especially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need books that will correct characteristic mistakes of our own period." In other words, old books contain forgotten wisdom. Your willingness to reach back and rediscover that wisdom and then use it to better understand our times makes you one of the most compelling writers on Substack today.
You’ve quickly become one of my favorite writers. The explanations for the why of it in this one, are exceptional and complex. Thanks from old boomer here.
So insightful. I particularly like the analogies you use to describe our modern age: the suburbanization of the internet and attention as a currency are very powerful.
Drawing out the attention as currency analogy a bit further is particularly interesting. Many people today are too "attention poor" to "afford" nuance and long term trend recognition. And it is not their fault, the infrastructure we have built (social media) and continue to build (AI) make it more difficult to build up the muscle of attention. Those stoking these flames also have a financial incentive to do so and their business model of jumping from issue to issue works all too well.
The free marketplace of ideas seems to have led us to a scary place.
I wish we lived in a world in which there was a "free market of ideas." Take a look at who owns the world's major media companies. Look at how readily the managers of some of these enormous companies "bent the knee" to curry favour with Trump to allow their proposed mergers to go through. One of the reasons that the world is the mess that it is now is because the world's media are owned by wealthy individuals who use their control over content to enhance their wealth at the expense of the common good. On of the greatest tragedies of the last 100 years was the failure of the cohort of people who invented and built out the Internet not to put it in the hands of a democratically controlled cooperative, instead of letting it fall into the private hands of the Bezos/Zuckerbergs/etc.
I’ve always enjoyed your takes—they’re consistently a great read. I first came across you on Twitter back when you were posting goofy TikTok videos about Dogecoin, and I just finished reading your book. It’s amazing to see how far you’ve come!
Okay, that's what I thought someone would say. For what it's worth, here is what I would say:
The shooter was very clearly raised in a Republican/MAGA household, and in a household that encouraged him to use guns, firearms, and weapons very early on. From there, all I have seen to suggest he is to the left of MAGA is that he had become extremely turned off with Charlie Kirk's anti-gay and anti-trans rhetoric (correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe I am).
Now, 8 years ago, we would have seen that this does not a "leftist" or a Democrat make. After all, Caitlyn Jenner was (and maybe, still is) a member of the REPUBLICAN PARTY. I would be curious to see what Caitlyn Jenner's opinions on some of the stuff Charlie Kirk said would be. I doubt Caitlyn would like any of it.
My point is that getting angry at what Charlie Kirk said about trans people and gay people does not make someone a Democrat. In fact, what makes the shooter truly a "radical" IN ANY WAY were his methods, or his ways of expressing his anger. If he had expressed his anger peacefully, he would look like nothing more than a Republican/maybe right-leaning independent disgruntled with Charlie Kirk. It's a shame the shooter didn't take the peaceful route.
That's my take. I don't think Kimmel was necessarily wrong. Feel free to give your perspective, though.
"This situation makes the "current-events man" a ready target for propaganda. Indeed, such a man is highly sensitive to the influence of present-day currents; lacking landmarks, he follows all currents. He is unstable because he runs after what happened today; he relates to the event, and therefore cannot resist any impulse coming from that event. Because he is immersed in current affairs, this man has a psychological weakness that puts him at the mercy of the propagandist."
This passage really made me re-think a lot of my own habits, thank you for highlighting it and for the thoughtful article.
I can’t express how much I love your writing. So thoughtful, insightful, and illuminating without being condescending or claiming certainty on uncertain subjects. I’m just a huge fan and think this type of writing is extremely important.
It is odd, these types of authoritarian-ish governments tends to ignore things that they denounce when it benefits them. Why not just ignore the Korean workers, if at the end, you will receive a critical piece of manufacturing capability? MAGA government showed on multiple occasions that their so-called values, such as free speech, or promises; such as Epstein files, doesnt matter all that much. It isnt as if this was made a big issue for many people before the arrests. I know that I am kinda nitpicking, but I have seen many more examples of politics over policy, even though prioritizing policy would have netted more political points.
Superbly written. The values embedded in our institutions should serve as checks on the ambitions of the powerful. Most concerning, the preeminent institution of our time, and perhaps the most powerful of all time, is social media. This is the main way that a majority of young people experience the world! And, as you pointed out, it is truly value neutral (maybe X excluded, though not in a positive way). That feels extremely dangerous.
Thank you! And agree.
I do not understand how you could argue that social media, or the companies that own social media, are "value neutral." The term reminds me of the never-ending debate in previous eras of "objectivity" as the gold standard for journalism. As the great Jim Hightower once observed, "There's nothing in the middle of the road but a yellow stripe and dead armadillos." Having values is not bad per se; every person has their own of values--as do all nonprofits and for-profits. Our goal should not be looking for "value free" media; what we need is to bring a critical understanding to all of the media we consume.
I appreciate the way you tackle issues.
Thank you!
Kyla, my kids are fans, and I respect much of the work you’ve done, but sometimes we have to “call a spade a spade”. So just two comments, both related to propaganda:
1) the Fed has not truly demonstrated independence since the Volcker years. It’s long bern a captured institution and lies at the heart of the inequality we face in this country today. They have consistently made the rich richer and everyone else poorer, while enabling fiscal malfeasance by the government like a crack dealer giving away its wares to their customer base.
2) the left, now dominated by the far left it seems, has paid little attention to its own hijacking by radical elements. I simply cannot believe this is organic, but only sponsored propaganda. And I say this as one who agreed with everything thr Democrats were in the 80’s, and am now appalled by what they have become now. For far too long violence by the hard left, BLM, antifa, trantifa, etc has been ignored or treated with kid gloves. It’s time to end this. And it’s time to find the money that pushes this violence and shut it off. What’s been happening on the radical left is the same as the color revolutions this nation sponsors elsewhere. It’s now on our shores. We went through a period of this in the 60’s )yes I’m that old) when the radical leftists were active in bombings no less (look it up). I don’t want to see those days again. There is a live between free speech and violence, protest & destruction, that’s been crossed too often. That line needs to be held again.
(1) I agree that they appease markets (hello taper tantrum) but now they are under direct coercion which deserves further analysis
(2) It is both sides, yes, but this letter again is acknowledging the present moment through the lens of the past. I wish I had enough time to acknowledge all of history!
Thank you for your feedback!
Far left? You’ve got to be kidding. Can’t take you seriously with comments like this.
Two attempted assasinations on Trump, a trantifa going after Justice Roberts, the attack on Republican ball players, the burning of cities by BLM/Antifa (approx $2B in damages) & at least 9 deaths in same, the constant attacks by Antifa in Portland OR, attacks on ICE & ICE facilities, assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Are you for real? Open your eyes.
Nailed it. Thanks
Hi Kyla, while this is not the point of the post, I had a question for you. You wrote,
"Jimmy Kimmel said something (false) around Charlie Kirk’s death..."
While I did not watch it live, I believe this is what Kimmel said,
"We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.
In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving. On Friday, the White House flew the flags at half-staff, which got some criticism, but on a human level, you can see how hard the president is taking this."
While there are certainly matters of opinion in Kimmel's statement, I am missing what is false in the statement. Am I misreading your commentary? or am I missing something in Kimmel's statements that are clearly false?
Ditto??
Exactly. He did not say anything that was literally false. MAGA fanatics have interpreted the "anything other than one of them" comment as implying that Kirk was one of them -- which, again, just looking at the words themselves, is not what he said. It's an interpretation of an implication. It shouldn't be used to guide policy, and we should not reflexively adopt that framing.
This, kids, is why you read old books. Kyla, you're clearly fond of C.S. Lewis so I'll quote him here: "Every age has its own outlook. It is especially good at seeing certain truths and especially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need books that will correct characteristic mistakes of our own period." In other words, old books contain forgotten wisdom. Your willingness to reach back and rediscover that wisdom and then use it to better understand our times makes you one of the most compelling writers on Substack today.
You’ve quickly become one of my favorite writers. The explanations for the why of it in this one, are exceptional and complex. Thanks from old boomer here.
Thank you!!
Wow this is excellent writing! Thank you for the book references as well. I appreciate how incredibly well you capture the challenge of the times.
Thank you!
So insightful. I particularly like the analogies you use to describe our modern age: the suburbanization of the internet and attention as a currency are very powerful.
Drawing out the attention as currency analogy a bit further is particularly interesting. Many people today are too "attention poor" to "afford" nuance and long term trend recognition. And it is not their fault, the infrastructure we have built (social media) and continue to build (AI) make it more difficult to build up the muscle of attention. Those stoking these flames also have a financial incentive to do so and their business model of jumping from issue to issue works all too well.
The free marketplace of ideas seems to have led us to a scary place.
Thank you Kyla!
Thank you for making this point!
I wish we lived in a world in which there was a "free market of ideas." Take a look at who owns the world's major media companies. Look at how readily the managers of some of these enormous companies "bent the knee" to curry favour with Trump to allow their proposed mergers to go through. One of the reasons that the world is the mess that it is now is because the world's media are owned by wealthy individuals who use their control over content to enhance their wealth at the expense of the common good. On of the greatest tragedies of the last 100 years was the failure of the cohort of people who invented and built out the Internet not to put it in the hands of a democratically controlled cooperative, instead of letting it fall into the private hands of the Bezos/Zuckerbergs/etc.
I’ve always enjoyed your takes—they’re consistently a great read. I first came across you on Twitter back when you were posting goofy TikTok videos about Dogecoin, and I just finished reading your book. It’s amazing to see how far you’ve come!
Haha yes it’s been a journey!
this is excellent
Great piece, but one question:
"Jimmy Kimmel said something (false) around Charlie Kirk’s death"
What exactly would you say is "false"?
That the shooter was “one of them” meaning MAGA. He wasn’t.
Okay, that's what I thought someone would say. For what it's worth, here is what I would say:
The shooter was very clearly raised in a Republican/MAGA household, and in a household that encouraged him to use guns, firearms, and weapons very early on. From there, all I have seen to suggest he is to the left of MAGA is that he had become extremely turned off with Charlie Kirk's anti-gay and anti-trans rhetoric (correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe I am).
Now, 8 years ago, we would have seen that this does not a "leftist" or a Democrat make. After all, Caitlyn Jenner was (and maybe, still is) a member of the REPUBLICAN PARTY. I would be curious to see what Caitlyn Jenner's opinions on some of the stuff Charlie Kirk said would be. I doubt Caitlyn would like any of it.
My point is that getting angry at what Charlie Kirk said about trans people and gay people does not make someone a Democrat. In fact, what makes the shooter truly a "radical" IN ANY WAY were his methods, or his ways of expressing his anger. If he had expressed his anger peacefully, he would look like nothing more than a Republican/maybe right-leaning independent disgruntled with Charlie Kirk. It's a shame the shooter didn't take the peaceful route.
That's my take. I don't think Kimmel was necessarily wrong. Feel free to give your perspective, though.
"This situation makes the "current-events man" a ready target for propaganda. Indeed, such a man is highly sensitive to the influence of present-day currents; lacking landmarks, he follows all currents. He is unstable because he runs after what happened today; he relates to the event, and therefore cannot resist any impulse coming from that event. Because he is immersed in current affairs, this man has a psychological weakness that puts him at the mercy of the propagandist."
This passage really made me re-think a lot of my own habits, thank you for highlighting it and for the thoughtful article.
I can’t express how much I love your writing. So thoughtful, insightful, and illuminating without being condescending or claiming certainty on uncertain subjects. I’m just a huge fan and think this type of writing is extremely important.
I really appreciate how you're one of the few writers in the econ/policy space that unifies rationality, relatability, and perspective. Thanks Kyla
Great piece. Can you clarify what exactly Jimmy Kimmel said that was untrue? I am not saying he didn’t; I just don’t know.
It is odd, these types of authoritarian-ish governments tends to ignore things that they denounce when it benefits them. Why not just ignore the Korean workers, if at the end, you will receive a critical piece of manufacturing capability? MAGA government showed on multiple occasions that their so-called values, such as free speech, or promises; such as Epstein files, doesnt matter all that much. It isnt as if this was made a big issue for many people before the arrests. I know that I am kinda nitpicking, but I have seen many more examples of politics over policy, even though prioritizing policy would have netted more political points.