Blog Ipsa Loquitur

The New York Times’s Rachel Abrams and John Koblin reporting on how CBS Paid the Actress Eliza Dushku $9.5 Million to Settle Sexual Harassment Claims is, in many ways, the least surprising story you can imagine. A TV show where the main character is a libidinous man (CBS advertises the show with the tagline “He’ll get you off!”) has an on-set environment resembling a fraternity house as much as anything else. When a new actor joins the show, she points out inappropriate behavior and is swiftly fired. Tale as old as time, song as old as rhyme, etc.

But Dushku’s story is hilarious for one specific reason that I’m so, so glad made it into Abrams and Koblin’s story. After paying Dushku nearly $10 million to not sue, CBS launched an investigation into what exactly happened. Here’s how the Times describes the draft report from that investigation:

After considering a lawsuit, Ms. Dushku entered into mediation with CBS. Mark Engstrom, the chief compliance officer at CBS, participated, along with Bettina B. Plevan, a partner at the law firm Proskauer Rose, who was serving as outside counsel for the company.

Mr. Engstrom handed over outtakes from “Bull” in the belief that they would help the company’s cause, because they showed Ms. Dushku cursing on the set, investigators wrote in the draft of their report.

The strategy backfired. The outtakes were a “gold mine” for Ms. Dushku, the lawyers wrote, because they “actually captured some of the harassment on film.”

Although the investigators praised Mr. Engstrom for his “tremendous institutional knowledge” and described him as a “smart and very capable lawyer,” they said the company’s failure to recognize the instances of harassment caught on tape was a symptom of larger problems at CBS, according to the draft of their report. Mr. Engstrom declined to comment.

This is absolutely amazing. You have video evidence of the harassment occurring! Even if you think women like to make up instances of sexual harassment to complain about (hint: they don’t), you don’t have to take Dushku’s word against anyone else’s. You watched the sexual harassment happen on video! You know it happened! And then you gave that video to the harassed person’s lawyers thinking it was exculpatory because their client used a bad word.

You know, if CBS is looking for someone to help figure out if certain behavior is inappropriate, it seems like Eliza Dushku is at least as good at it as the folks they’ve got working on it right now. Oh, and what a coincidence: she’s unemployed at the moment, too. Win-win!

Published on under Doesn’t Look Like Anything To Me

Folks, there’s been a lot of heavy stuff on Blog Ipsa Loquitur these last few months. The news is full of federal indictments, surveillance technology companies moonlighting as social media platforms, and a slow motion constitutional crisis that could spark a second civil war. The depths of winter are dark enough without the news.

So here’s a great long read about something that isn’t life or death or impeachment: Vox’s Kaitlyn Tiffany on shaving implements. Gillette used to rule razors — then came Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club.

The entire razor industry is flailing. It’s not just that Gillette is getting a smaller piece of the pie; the pie itself is also getting smaller. That’s partly driven by the fact that the population of the United States is aging: When you get old, you don’t grow as much hair, so you don’t shave as much, and then (unrelated) you die. […]

According to [global market research firm] Mintel, sales of “shaving and hair removal tools” are estimated to see about $3.5 billion in sales in 2018, a decline of nearly 4 percent from the year before. Worse, Mintel’s analysts predict there will be no growth for at least the next five years.

Yet in tandem with the downward spiral of the necessity of shaving tools, we are experiencing the arrival of an extreme number of new shaving tools to buy. At the same time, there’s only so much true innovation possible for an item like a razor, which does one thing and almost always does it well.

It’s a classic example of capitalism working not quite the way that was promised but the way it does when put into practice by humans. We see it time and again — with the hotel industry, with cable TV, now with razors: Shrinking markets are not allowed to simply shrink, but instead inspire aggressive pandering, bizarre advertising, and nichification of products that have no reason to be so differentiated.

This was a fascinating peek into an industry thrown into silliness, and Tiffany is a great storyteller. For my part, I’m one of those double-edge safety razor users mentioned in her article. A few years back, I bought a 1964 Gillette “Fat Boy” Adjustable Safety Razor on eBay. It’s hard to imagine there’s a whole industry dedicated to manufacturing new safety razors when Gillette left all these perfectly good razors lying around fifty years ago.

Published on under Razor Thin Profit Margins

Yves Smith in New York Magazine: Will Uber Survive the Next Decade?

But, but, but — you may say — Uber has established a large business in cities over the world. Yes, it’s easy to get a lot of traffic by selling at a discount. Uber is subsidizing ride costs. Across all its businesses, Uber was providing services at only roughly 74 percent of their cost in its last quarter. Uber was selling its services at only roughly 64 percent of their cost in 2017, with a GAAP profit margin of negative 57 percent. […]

Well, sure, negative 26 percent profit margin seems bad, but you just make it up on volume.

Uber defenders might argue that that’s a big improvement from 2015, when revenues only covered 43 percent of costs, and the GAAP margin was negative 132 percent. But as we’ll discuss in more detail, this reduction in how much Uber spends to get each average dollar of revenue didn’t come from improved efficiency, but was due to almost entirely to cutting driver pay. The transportation company appears to have hit the limit of how much it can squeeze drivers, since churn has increased. […]

Just wait until you see how little these companies plan to pay their autonomous cars!

The only advantage Uber might have achieved is taking advantage of its drivers’ lack of financial acumen — that they don’t understand the full cost of using their cars and thus are giving Uber a bargain. There’s some evidence to support that notion. Ridester recently published the results of the first study to use actual Uber driver earnings, validated by screenshots. Using conservative estimates for vehicle costs, they found that that UberX drivers, which represent the bulk of its workforce, earn less than $10 an hour. They would do better at McDonald’s. But even this offset to the generally higher costs of fleet operation hasn’t had a meaningful impact on Uber’s economics.

For someone like me who only knows Uber as the multi-billion dollar juggernaut, this was an interesting read.

Published on under Headed For a Crash

Apropos of the last post about the Yellow Jackets, here’s BuzzFeed News’s Ryan Broderick on How We Radicalized The World:

Chances are, by now, your country has some, if not all, of the following. First off, you probably have some kind of local internet troll problem, like the MAGAsphere in the US, the Netto-uyoku in Japan, Fujitrolls in Peru, or AK-trolls in Turkey. Your trolls will probably have been radicalized online via some kind of community for young men like Gamergate, Jeuxvideo.com (“videogames.com”) in France, ForoCoches (“Cars Forum”) in Spain, Ilbe Storehouse in South Korea, 2chan in Japan, or banter Facebook pages in the UK.

Then far-right influencers start appearing, aided by algorithms recommending content that increases user watch time. They will use Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to transmit and amplify content and organize harassment and intimidation campaigns. If these influencers become sophisticated enough, they will try to organize protests or rallies. The mini fascist comic cons they organize will be livestreamed and operate as an augmented reality game for the people watching at home. Violence and doxxing will follow them.

Some of these trolls and influencers will create more sophisticated far-right groups within the larger movement, like the Proud Boys, Generation Identity, or Movimento Brasil Livre. Or some will reinvigorate older, more established far-right or nationalist institutions like the Nordic Resistance Movement, the Football Lads Alliance, United Patriots Front, or PEGIDA.

While a far-right community is building in your country, a fake news blitz is usually raging online. It could be a rumor-based culture of misinformation, like the localized hoaxes that circulate in countries like India, Myanmar, or Brazil. Or it could be the more traditional “fake news” or hyperpartisan propaganda we see in predominantly English-speaking countries like the US, Australia, or the UK.

Typically, large right-wing news channels or conservative tabloids will then take these stories going viral on Facebook and repackage them for older, mainstream audiences. Depending on your country’s media landscape, the far-right trolls and influencers may try to hijack this social-media-to-newspaper-to-television pipeline. Which then creates more content to screenshot, meme, and share. It’s a feedback loop.

Lest you thought the problem with social media began and ended at Facebook, Broderick’s platform-agnostic 350-word synopsis of our ongoing epistemological crisis is probably the best and most concise one I’ve read. He’s got an interesting perspective on this stuff. In 2015, I started listening to Broderick’s “Internet Explorer” podcast, in which he and co-host Katie Notopoulos shared the weirdest and darkest internet memes they could find. They described their show as covering “things like subreddits where men ejaculate on anime figurines, dragon-shaped dildos, and the adult baby fetish community.” It’s like when the guy who plays Captain America in the movies gets into real-life Twitter beefs with neo-nazis: that’s a career arc that somehow makes perfect and zero sense simultaneously.

There’s also this story from Andy Kroll in Rolling Stone, on the way John Podesta had his life turned upside-down by the Pizzagate conspiracy. I liked this nugget from the middle of Kroll’s article, in which the owner of the pizza parlor at the center of Pizzagate is trying to get social media companies to stop pushing conspiracy theories to their billions of users. At this point, one conspiracy theorist has already walked into the pizza parlor with a rifle and started shooting:

The response from the social media companies ranged from helpful to utterly dismissive, [Comet Pizza parlor owner James] Alefantis recalls. Even before he’d hired lawyers, Alefantis had gotten Yelp to suspend Comet’s page after his staff had reported the abusive reviews. Facebook was responsive to Comet’s complaints. YouTube, however, refused to so much as acknowledge its role in amplifying Pizzagate, saying they were just a platform, that they weren’t an arbiter of truth and falsity and told Alefantis to get back in touch if and when he could get a court order finding the videos that promoted Pizzagate to be defamatory.

“YouTube is a platform committed to allowing a wide range of free expression, but it is not and never has been anything goes,” a YouTube spokesperson tells Rolling Stone, adding that in the first half of 2018 the company removed more than 17 million individual videos that violated its policies.

YouTube’s first response (to the guy who owned the shot-up pizzeria) was basically “hey, it’s not our job to figure out whether the conspiracy theory is true.” It’s cool, I’m sure it’s someone else’s job to moderate the thing you built. Don’t sweat it. And then, when the Rolling Stone reporter got in touch with YouTube for his story, YouTube’s second response was essentially “we kick stuff off our platform all the time but only when they break the rules.” I feel like there’s a possibility that YouTube missed their window to play the ‘we moderate our platform real good’ card in this case.

Here’s hoping the big social media platforms figure this stuff out sooner rather than later.

Published on under It Is Not Rad To Be Radical

BuzzFeed’s Ryan Broderick: The “Yellow Jackets” Riots In France Are What Happens When Facebook Gets Involved With Local News

In January this year, “Anger Groups” (Groupes Colère) started to appear across French Facebook. The first group was titled “Are you fed up? This is now! (anger + dept)” and it was started by a Portuguese bricklayer named Leandro Antonio Nogueira, who was living in the southwest département — or administrative territory — of Dordogne.

Nogueira’s group called for members to peacefully protest local authorities by blocking roads. Nogueira then quickly helped set up Anger Groups in other départements across France. These immediately gave lower-middle-class and working-class people in small towns a chance to complain about local issues. Nogueira’s first group, which is private, currently has around 90,000 members.

These pages weren’t exploding in popularity by coincidence. The same month that Nogueira set up his first group, Mark Zuckerberg announced two algorithm changes to Facebook’s News Feed that would “prioritize news that is trustworthy, informative, and local.” The updates were meant to combat sensationalism, misinformation, and political polarization by emphasizing local networks over publisher pages. One change upranks news from local publishers only. Another change made the same month prioritizes posts from friends and family, hoping to inspire back-and-forth discussion in the comments of posts.

The easiest thing to do when the monster stomps out of the castle and starts strangling peasants is to waggle your finger at the mad scientist and howl ‘you tempted fate by playing God; you must have known you could never control your creation!’ But I’m not going to sit on my couch and blame Mark Zuckerberg for building something that he lacks the ability to control or even understand. Technology is weird, man. Even the so-called geniuses don’t get it all the time. For example, Steve Jobs was reportedly quite surprised the iPhone’s App Store was so darn popular. And, you know, if the App Store ended up destroying Western Civilization, he’d probably have been pretty surprised by that, too.

No, I think at this point in my life, I’m mostly upset that we’ve spent the last half-decade watching Mark Zuckerberg’s creation lurch from bloody disaster to increasingly bloody disaster, all while Zuckerberg hems and haws and goes “Well, you know, this monster really brings us all together, and we take it very seriously when our users ask us to keep the stranglings to a minimum.” I can’t read his mind, but I don’t really need to. Even if Zuckerberg were an altruist and not the world’s most successful surveillance capitalist, or if creating a surveillance capitalist apparatus were somehow an altruistic goal, Zuckerberg’s failing miserably. Facebook causes so much collateral damage that even the most charitable version of Zuckerberg’s intentions and motivations aren’t enough to make up for all this bullshit:

So, in less than two weeks, what you end up with is this: A Change.org petition with fewer than 1,500 subscribers gets talked about on a local radio station. The radio appearance is written up by a local news site. The article is shared to a local Facebook page. Thanks to an algorithm change that is now emphasizing local discussion, the article dominates the conversation in a small town. Two men from the same suburb then turn the petition into a Facebook event. A duplicate petition goes viral within the local Facebook groups. Then a daily newspaper writes up the original petition. This second article about the petition also goes viral. So does the original petition. And then the rest of French media follows.

This week, protesters scaled the Arc de Triomphe, burned cars, and clashed with police in the third consecutive weekend of riots in France. More than 300 people were arrested in Paris last weekend alone, and 37,000 law enforcement officers have been deployed around the country to restore order.

There’s a time for mad science, there’s a time for apologizing for the unforeseen consequences of said mad science, and then there’s a time to shut up and help the rest of us destroy the monster you built before it kills us all.

If you’re looking for a torch or pitchfork, I hear Paris is lovely this time of year, Mark.

Published on under Somehow YouTube is Probably Worse

Last week, the Special Counsel’s Office (SCO) and Paul Manafort’s attorneys filed a joint status report in the DC federal court where Paul Manafort entered his plea agreement back in September. Joint Status Reports are how parties keep the judge posted on how the cooperation is going after a defendant flips. Manafort’s cooperation is going… not so great. Here’s how the SCO puts it:

After signing the plea agreement, Manafort committed federal crimes by lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Counsel’s Office on a variety of subject matters, which constitute breaches of the agreement.

Now, “the agreement” is the plea deal: it’s a contract between the government and Manafort. In that plea deal, Manafort agreed to help with other investigations, and the SCO agreed to tell the judge that Manafort was so helpful that he should receive a lighter sentence.

It’s called a plea deal because, as part of this contract, Manafort pleaded guilty to somewhere between 17 and 22 years worth of federal felonies. Manafort’s stuck with those guilty pleas: the contract specifically says that if Manafort breaches the agreement, he still can’t withdraw his guilty pleas. Even worse for Manafort, the moment he breached the plea deal, the SCO was no longer under any obligation to ask the judge for a lighter sentence. (If I were a betting man, I’d wager the SCO will actually ask for a harsher sentence.)

Paulie and the situation

Okay, so it’s pretty bad for Paul Manafort right now. I’ll go into exactly how bad it is in a minute, but first let’s talk about what he did. Here’s the New York Times:

A lawyer for Paul Manafort, the president’s onetime campaign chairman, repeatedly briefed President Trump’s lawyers on his client’s discussions with federal investigators after Mr. Manafort agreed to cooperate with the special counsel, according to one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers and two other people familiar with the conversations.

The arrangement was highly unusual and inflamed tensions with the special counsel’s office when prosecutors discovered it after Mr. Manafort began cooperating two months ago, the people said. Some legal experts speculated that it was a bid by Mr. Manafort for a presidential pardon even as he worked with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in hopes of a lighter sentence.

Yeah, that’s bad. When you sign a plea deal, you’re supposed to help the feds, not your co-conspirators. That’s why flipping on your friends is such a big deal in all those mafia movies, Paulie. In addition, the SCO says Manafort’s been lying about a bunch of stuff, which is yet another crime.

So the next step for Manafort and the SCO is a court filing on Friday, in which the SCO lays out why Manafort has breached the plea agreement. According to the plea deal, the SCO has to show enough evidence that Manafort’s been lying to meet the “good faith” standard. That’s an exceedingly low bar: compare it to the much higher “preponderance of the evidence” standard, or “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard we all know from TV.

It’s not over until it’s over, though. Manafort’s lawyers can argue that only an idiot would sign a plea deal and then lie and snitch on the feds instead of his friends, and the off-the-record statements to the contrary in the Times don’t count. Why, only an idiot would openly con-

Rudolph W. Giuliani, one of the president’s personal lawyers, acknowledged the arrangement on Tuesday and defended it as a source of valuable insights into the special counsel’s inquiry and where it was headed. Such information could help shape a legal defense strategy, and it also appeared to give Mr. Trump and his legal advisers ammunition in their public relations campaign against Mr. Mueller’s office.

Oh. Oh, Rudy. You probably shouldn’t have said that.

Well, Manafort’s lawyers can at least try to argue that Manafort’s been telling the truth, but again, the SCO doesn’t have to prove he’s been lying. They just have to show good faith evidence that he’s been lying.

wait it gets worse

If the court finds Manafort in breach, he’s toast. Remember that “17 years of felonies” that I mentioned at the outset? Those are just the ones Manafort had to plead guilty to when he signed the plea deal; the SCO actually dropped some of the charges when Manafort agreed to cooperate. The SCO is free to re-charge Manafort for those and have another trial. And that’s just in the DC court. Remember, there’s that federal court in Virginia where the jury deadlocked on ten other charges. The SCO can bring those charges again, too. If Manafort was hoping to save time or money by pleading guilty, it didn’t work. He forfeited something like $46 million worth of assets when he pled guilty, so for his sake, I hope he’s got a few more million stashed away somewhere for his lawyers.

But, uh, the big takeaway here is that Paul Manafort is going to die in prison. There was a good chance that was going to happen before he signed the plea agreement; his first trial went pretty poorly and he’s 69 years old. Remember that Manafort’s been in prison since this summer when he engaged in witness tampering while out on bail. We’ll find out how long Manafort will spend in prison in February when he’s sentenced for the Virginia convictions. Then, in March, he’ll be sentenced for the ten felonies Manafort pleaded guilty to in DC. After that, who knows? We could have a second and third trial.

Even if Trump pardons Manafort, many of the federal felonies with which Manafort has been charged (money laundering, tax fraud, conspiracy, etc.) have state equivalents. There’s no telling how many states’ attorneys general already have charges drawn up, waiting for this exact circumstance.

What about Mueller

As far as what happens next, nobody’s got a track record better than Marcy Wheeler. Here’s Wheeler earlier this week:

Mueller’s team appears to have no doubt that Manafort was lying to them. That means they didn’t really need his testimony, at all. It also means they had no need to keep secrets — they could keep giving Manafort the impression that he was pulling a fast one over the prosecutors, all while reporting misleading information to Trump that he could use to fill out his open book test. Which increases the likelihood that Trump just submitted sworn answers to those questions full of lies.

Wheeler has a follow-up story with more predictions about the next possible shoes to drop:

Finally there’s any number of key disclosures involving Trump about which Trump — as well as Manafort — have already submitted sworn statements. The key one of these involves the Trump Tower meeting. Trump’s lackeys have already made it clear he denied knowledge of the meeting. […]

Given that Trump has made this clear, he must believe his answers match Manafort’s on this point. But if Mueller has solid evidence — perhaps in the form of both witnesses and communications — then revealing that would undercut all the President’s claims about this meeting. An even crazier possibility is if Mueller has found evidence — perhaps on those iPods I’m so obsessed about — that Manafort not only has proof to the contrary, but that Manafort was keeping records for his handler Kilimnik.

Boy, I’d love to see the return of those iPods.

Published on under Pardon Me, Sir