Why Making Real Time Sense Of Israeli-Gaza War Is So Difficult -Part I [Updated]

I've avoided posting about the Israeli-Gaza war for a number of reasons. (The one exception is this post recommending folks watch the Battle of Algiers.) 

The LA Times screenshot below articulates the thoughts behind my hesitation. 

Not that I'm either, but it does feel like people are being forced to pick a side and then attacked for it.  For many nuance is a copout.  

I've been thinking about this post since Hamas attacked Israel.  I've been writing it for about six weeks. Writing, at least the way I write, forces me to learn, to confront those statements I'm not certain about (most) with internet searches and trying my thoughts out on friends.  

The post has been growing organically.  As I write some things, later news events cause me to look up other assertions relevant to all of this.  

This post isn't supposed to be answers, but rather an annotated list of things (yes, I'd like a better word than that, suggestions?) people should know about before taking a firm position on the situation.  Each item is worthy of its own book length discussion. Most of these issues are intertwined.  Separating them into discrete items makes it easier to talk about them, but can be misleading, so read with caution.  Here's the list as it stands today (January 18, 2024)

1.  PROPAGANDA, MISINFORMATION, OBLITERATION OF TRUTH

2.  THE PROBLEM OF NETANYAHU 

3A.  HISTORIC ANTI-SEMITISM

3B.  THE HOLOCAUST

4.  GENOCIDE

5.  ZIONISM

6.  ISRAELI MISTREATMENT OF PALESTINIANS 

7.  TEACH YOUR CHILDREN WELL - PALESTINIAN AND ISRAELI EDUCATION

8.  RUSSIAN IMMIGRANTS AND ISRAEL'S RIGHT WING TILT 

9.  IGNORANCE 

10.  HAMAS

11.  GUERRILLA WARFARE

12.  WHY GETTING JEWS OUT OF ISRAEL SEEMS EASIER THAN NATIVE AMERICANS GETTING EUROPEANS OUT OF THE UNITED STATES

I've 'finished' 1-8.  I've decided that this is too long for most readers, so I'm going to break it down into several posts, starting with 1 through 3B.  A version of 11 - Guerrilla Warfare - is already up offering you the movie Battle of Algiers.  

1.  PROPAGANDA, MISINFORMATION, OBLITERATION OF TRUTH

Democracy requires citizens have access to information - how organizations work, who has power and how they use it - that enables us to make intelligent choices in how we lead our lives and who we vote for to represent us in government. 

Politicians and citizens have always bent the truth in their favor, but today the truth is almost unrecognizable. Trump's Republican Party realizes their ideas are outmoded and they can only win major elections by lying and subterfuge.  Right wing billionaires scheme to protect their wealth and ability to do as they please without regard to others.  Foreign authoritarian governments (ie Russia, Iran, China) have an interest in 'proving' to their citizens that democracy cannot work and destroying democracy in the US would be their greatest victory.  

Here's an Anchorage Daily News headline Dec. 19 2023 on a Washington Post story:

"The rise of AI fake news is creating a ‘misinformation superspreader’"

The story it makes my argument:

"Historically, propaganda operations have relied on armies of lowpaid workers or highly coordinated intelligence organizations to build sites that appear to be legitimate. But AI is making it easy for nearly anyone — whether they are part of a spy agency or just a teenager in their basement — to create these outlets, producing content that is at times hard to differentiate from real news."

So, starting off this discussion, I'd note that from even before the Hamas attack on Israel, false information was being spread to support and attack anyone who ventured to comment on this topic.  Russia sees it as a way to peel off voters from Biden to improve Trump's election to a second term knowing Trump would much more vigorously support Russia's plans in Ukraine and the world.  

It's also a way to divert world attention away from Ukraine and onto Israel.  (This may be just a brief sentence, but I suspect it's an important factor.)

While I think today (in January) the outline of the war is clearer than it was when I started, there is constant misinformation spread in mainstream media as well as social media.

2.  THE PROBLEM OF NETANYAHU 

Before Netanyahu was ever prime minister I found a book he authored on the bargain table at Borders Books in Anchorage.  So this was before 1996 when he first became prime minister.  I read the book and was appalled.  What I remember most vividly was a sentence where he said something to the effect of "I never met an Arab I could trust."  I didn't keep the book, but I've looked on line to see what books he wrote before 1996.  Wikipedia lists Netanyahu's books.  Here are the ones published before 1996:

• International Terrorism: Challenge and Response. Transaction Publishers. 1981. 
• Terrorism: How the West Can Win. Avon. 1987.
• Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorism. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 1995.

All these are edited books, with Netanyahu providing the introduction.  What I recall was more of an autobiographical work.  But I can't find any reference to such a book by Netanyahu before the 2022 autobiography.  

But I did look at an online preview of Terrorism: How The West Can Win. [click on Preview at the link].  This is an edited volume and Netanyahu introduces other speakers at a conference, so these excerpt probably cannot be directly attributed to Netanyahu.  But he has organized this conference and invited the presenters.  Netanyahu edited the book and presumably decided what went in and what didn't. [And we'll see later that this sentiments reappear in the current crisis.]  

The book ignores the idea of terrorism being the last resort of an oppressed people who have no legal way to protest their condition or change it.  Rather it is Civilization versus the Savages.  He quotes Gibbons of the fall of the Roman Empire 

Then he goes on to say that the same dynamic is happening today - civilization vs. the savages.  

This is the language that Europeans used to justify conquering non-Christian lands in the 16 and 1700s.  It's how the US government justified removing Native Americans from their land and killing those who resisted.  And one might argue, how the current Israeli government seems to treat Palestinians in the West Bank as they confiscate their property to make room for Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

I don't know what Netanyahu says about the Jewish terrorists who fought against the British occupiers of Palestine in the first half of the 20th Century.  The deadly bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 was organized by future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.  The book preview does include the index which does list   "King David Hotel Incident on page 45", but the preview on line doesn't go to page 45. In fact it has no page numbers.  He specifically rejects the idea that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."  But what about the Colonists who threw tea into Boston Harbor, or Ho Chi Minh who fought the French and then the Americans to free Vietnam from colonial rule?  

Netanyahu has also  been the subject of criminal prosecutions and huge public demonstrations against his weakening of the judicial branch of government.  Some have argued that pursuing this war is a way for Netanyahu to distract the nation from his legal problems.

It would be interesting to know the relationship between Netanyahu and Henry Kissinger about whom Netanyahu Netanyahu said we "have known one another for 'many years,'”  They seem to be kindred spirits.  

"Kissinger believed in power and disdained abstract ideas about progress, fraternity, democracy and freedom, ideas that America disseminates around the world. In his 1994 book “Diplomacy,” he justified national interests as the desired basis of foreign policy, calling on American leaders not to abandon this even after winning the Cold War.

His approach was congruent with Israel’s foreign policy, which since the days of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion believes in force while harboring deep reservations about international institutions and norms such as human rights and weapons control. That is why the harsh criticism of Kissinger by the left as the person directly responsible for mass murder, atrocities in Cambodia, Laos and Chile, Bangladesh and Timor, and for the bloody and needless prolongation of the Vietnam War, is heard in Israel only among a small circle of anti-American leftists."  (from Haaretz)

My sense of Netanyahu is that he is an absolutist on Arabs and terrorists and sees the civilian deaths resulting from the bombing of Gaza are, in his mind, completely justifiable as he attempts to rid Israel of terrorists.  

3A.  HISTORIC ANTI-SEMITISM

I don't want to go through the history of anti-semitism here.  Go to the link if you need a briefing.  I mention it here only to say that the reactions to the Israeli-Gaza war are aggravated by the latent pool of historic anti-semitism that persists in the world today.  

Further we have the conflation of Israeli, Jew, and Zionist.  And the assumption many have of Israelis, of non-Israeli Jews, and Zionists being a unified organism that all support Netanyahu's policy of bombing Gaza.  Each of the groups has divisions and groups who support and oppose, to varying degrees, the bombing.  

It's easy for people who know little or nothing of other countries to group all the people as being united.  But just as the United States has many divisions, so do all other countries. 

I mention this because there are people with strong opinions about the war who really have little or no experience with or understanding of the many different types of Jews or Israelis, who know nothing about the history of the geography and politics of the Middle East, particularly the land where Israel is located.  

Many Jews feel - and the current tolerance on the right of Neo-Nazis verify those feelings - that anti-semitism is alive and well today in the world and that no matter what Israel does they will be vilified.  An Orthodox Jew told me once, he didn't care what the world thought, because it didn't matter what Israel did, they would always get blamed.  

3B.  THE HOLOCAUST

The details in this section are a little rough, but I think the general point is valid.

The loss of 6 million Jews during WW II, seems to have stirred the world to allow the establishment of a Jewish state in what had been the British held territory in Palestine.  There was a moral high ground that Jews had.  And they managed to tell a story of a people who escaped hell on earth to create the Land of Milk and Honey and the miracle of Making the Desert Bloom.  In 1967, these survivors repelled the attack from various Arab neighbors.  Moshe Dayan was an international hero. 

But things went downhill from there.  I suspect part of the problem was that Israelis wrapped themselves in the story of surviving the Holocaust and slogan "Never Again."  They used these to justify taking Arab property and forcing many Palestinians to flee as protecting themselves from another Holocaust.  And Arabs who refused to acknowledge the right of a State of Israel to exist, gave some legitimacy to this idea.  

But in refusing to become the victims ever again, they slipped into the role of the oppressors in the West Bank and Gaza.  There's enough fault on both sides, but using the Holocaust to justify their treatment of Arabs to the world and to themselves, meant that they began losing the PR war among the rest of the world.

[Update - January 19, 2024, I found this comment today in an article by Nurit Elhanan of Hebrew University:

"The only thing that unites the antagonistic Jewish ethnic groups in Israel is fear of the enemy and the quest for a Jewish national 'purity' along with the belief only a Jewish majority and a strong Jewish army can prevent another Holocaust, this time perpetrated by the Palestinians or other Muslim powers, such as Iran." [emphasis added]

So, this is the end of Part I.  Part II is now (1/21/24) up.   Part III is now done.  Still more parts will appear soon.  

US Political Accountability Is Badly Broken

[There are so many forces and issues intertwined.  Every day there are new shocking reports to support one thing or another that I argue here.  This is several drafts along and so I'm just going to post it.  Yes, we are in crisis and I'll probably be writing more about the nature of the crisis.  Here the focus in on the lack of accountability.]

The reports of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' benefits from wealthy benefactors who have interests in the outcome of Supreme Court cases has already told us things weren't working.  

The fact that people who participated in the January 6 insurrection are still in their Congressional seats and voting like other members of Congress, also tells us this.

The fact that most Republicans in Congress voted against Trump's impeachments, and continue to support him publicly and take no action on corrupt Republican Senators and Members of Congress, tells us that accountability is broken. 

The report on Rep. George Santos says it once again, loud and clear.  Our accountability of elected officials and Supreme Court justices is broken.  From the Table of Contents of the report released last week:: 

"III. FINDINGS........................................................................................................ 10

A. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 10

B. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW, HOUSE RULES, AND OTHER

APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT ......................................................................... 13

 1. 2. 3.

C.

1. 2. 3.

Campaign Finance Violations............................................................................ 13 Willful and Knowing Financial Disclosure Violations ...................................... 37 Lack of Diligence and Candor During the ISC Investigation............................ 48

OTHER ALLEGATIONS REVIEWED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE..................................... 51 

Sexual Misconduct Allegation ............................................................................ 51 Conflict of Interest Violations ............................................................................ 52 Additional Allegations Charged by the Department of Justice.......................... 54"

You can read the complete report here. 

WHAT DO I MEAN BY BROKEN?

One could argue that the release of this report on Santos, and his subsequent announcement that he will not be running for reelection, shows that there is accountability.  

The problem is that we have known of evidence of widespread wrongdoing by Santos since shortly after he was elected.  Nevertheless, he's been allowed to serve as a Member of Congress, influencing US public policy through his committee work, public announcements, and votes all this time.  And unless the House votes to expel him, he'll continue doing that until his successor is sworn in.  

In most any other job, if employees are found to have lied on their applications or resumes, have been found to have violated organizational rules, or state or federal laws, they can be fired immediately.  At the very least they can be put on suspension and not allowed to continue using their position for personal gain or to otherwise work against the interests of the organization.  It's trickier to remove an elected official because one can argue 'they were elected by the people in their district." But we still have procedures to do it.  Republicans just won't do it for one of their own.  

Accountability Too Slow

Santos shouldn't have lasted this long.  Trump is using all the courts' protections for the innocent to delay his trials as long as possible.  Just the other day Judge Cannon is allowing delays that mean the classified documents case won't be decided before the 2024 election.  This clearly should be an expedited trial.  The consequences of stealing secret documents, showing them to unauthorized eyes, and probably selling them to enemy nations should be high priority and fast tracked.  

Supreme Court justices continue to rule on cases that have horrendous consequences for democracy.  Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has outlined four types of cases on which the conservative  Justices consistently vote together to help large corporation get their way:  [The link includes his time at the Amy Coney Barrett hearings.  This court background discussion begins around minute 21 on the video.]

1. unlimited dark money; 
2. knock down the civil jury trial down; 
3. weaken regulatory agencies  
4. voter suppression and gerrymandering  on that weaken government powers to regulate, voting rights, women's rights, etc. even though it's now clear that there is no accountability for clearly corrupt judges, and we're moving very slowly if at all to correcting that.  

In other presentations I've heard him include anti-labor cases.  The point is that these are all decisions that significantly weaken opposition to large corporations.  And there are further conflicts of interest due to Justices owning stock that is affected by their rulings on cases before them.  

Corrupted Officials

Republicans in the US Senate refused to impeach Trump despite overwhelming evidence of wrong doing.  They've allowed January 6 co-conspirators to remain in Congress.  

• the lust for power and fear of losing it - Republicans are afraid to buck the party because they fear  loss of GOP funds and the Republican voters in the next primary. They won't hold their colleagues accountable because they fear losing their majority in the House.  They support a Supreme Court that looks the other way in the face of gerrymandering that keeps many Republicans in power.
• the lust for the prestige of being in Congress - Maybe they don't care that much for power, but rather they enjoy the prestige and privileges that come with being a Member of Congress.  The same issues arise as for the lust for power.
• the lust for money for campaigns and personal benefit - Money for campaigns is intertwined with lust for power and prestige.  But Members of Congress also get hefty salaries, travel, health insurance, and retirements.  Additionally there are other opportunities to get richer than they already are.  Staying loyal to their corrupt party seems to be the safest way to hold onto these benefits.  
• mental slowness - I first labeled this 'utter stupidity' but that seemed too simplified.  

• short term thinking - as Republicans reveled in the ending of Roe, they didn't see the backlash that was coming.  And while they feel the need to cater to rabid Trump cultists to win the primary, they fail to see how their actions (and inactions) mean greater risks of losing in the general elections.  And even if they are in a highly gerrymandered district and will win, they are likely to lose the majority in the House.
• sheltered thinking - their beliefs and prejudices are reinforced by the people they spend their time with.  They see people who don't agree with them as caricatures  of evil rather than as rational human beings with different, but reasonable world views
• lack of empathy for others - whether they are sociopaths or have other afflictions that allow them no sense of understanding of other people's issues and problems
• inability to break from outdated (if ever even accurate) explanations of how the world works - things like individual responsibility even in a society that favors some over the many; religious and racial stereotypes; belief in the correlation between work and worthiness even as automation makes much work unnecessary and wealthy people need not work at all; belief that money and power will solve all their problems; 
• lack of analytic abilities - they can't understand the complexities of modern life and are stuck on simplistic and black and white explanations

Additionally, Republicans in the Senate allow Senator Tuberman to block appointments of military officers and others to delay the appointment of judges and high government officials.  For various reasons - 

Blocking military appointments only hurts our military readiness and can only help our military adversaries.  Blocking judicial and senior civil service positions, some argue, fits in with the Project 2025 [see below] blueprint, by keeping these positions vacant making it easier for Trump, in a second presidency, to fill them with his loyalists.  

The Republicans in Congress allow (and in many cases support) all the dragging out of these delays.  They refuse to work with Democrats to speed up the accountability of the egregiously guilty.  

HOW ARE THINGS DIFFERENT TODAY THAT MAKES THIS MORE OF A PROBLEM?

In the past, the idea of Democracy was never at stake.  Notice I said 'idea of Democracy.'  For non-whites and non-Christians democracy in the US has been spotty to non-existent.  Voting rights didn't exist for Blacks in the South and their courts were made up of all white juries. US citizens of Japanese descent were locked into camps during WW II and their property taken over by whites.  Immigrants have always been vilified.  Native Americans were displaced and massacred.   

But for white politicians, the idea of Democracy was pretty sacred.  The US was touted as the bastion of democracy in a world of dictators.  

Today, that's not the case.  To say that the election is about Democracy vs. Authoritarianism (whether that be Fascist, White Christian, or whatever democratic antonym is probably not that crucial)  simply is NOT an exaggeration.

You think people like me are alarmist?  Even long time Right Wing Anchorage Times and then Anchorage Daily News columnist Paul Jenkins says democracy is at stake.

"Trump is a danger to US democracy. How can so many good people still support him?"

Just take a look at Project 2025.  (The link is to Wikipedia which is written in a calm, pseudo-objective tone. If democracy and fascism are both equally moral and viable option, that might be ok.  But they aren't.  If you don't read it carefully, you might not see the real danger.  Sentences like:

"Project 2025 seeks to place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the Department of Justice, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission and other agencies.[4]"

For people who don't have a deep understanding of how our government works, that sentence might not be alarming.  But trust me, it is the path to an all powerful president.    

Even NPR's (Here and Now) interview with a key author of Project 2025, while pushing back some, doesn't really give the sense of how this is a full blown attempt to overthrow Democracy.  While they talk about getting rid of 50,000 civil servants by making them 'at will' employees (who can be fired for no reason), they don't mention the long struggle to set up a merit system which hires people based on qualifications for the job rather than political allegiance and which protects civil servants against political firing by requiring their dismissal be based on just cause (such as not doing their job as required by law.)  Despite GOP rhetoric, staffing the government with educated and dedicated civil servants is a good thing if you want a government that runs well and provides the public the services they want and need.  But not if you want to use government to carry out your personal vendettas.

Project 2025 is a Heritage Foundation plan to give the next Republican president the power to obliterate the obstacles that would keep a Trump from controlling the US government as he sees fit.  It eliminates safeguards, it puts Trump's sycophants into power - the kind of people who told him the 2020 election was rigged and that he actually won.  It's a blueprint for taking down Democracy and setting up an authoritarian government.  It's written by the type of people spent 40 years plotting to pack the Supreme Court with Right wing extremists who ignored precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Prior to the Trump presidency, we had lots of lines that politician's didn't cross.  They respected the many unwritten rules because, for most, they had a sense of decency and propriety.  For other because violating them would lead to censure or expelling.  But Trump and his supporters see those lines as challenges.  How many can they mow right over?

Trump violated every such rule that got in his way.  To the point that overthrowing Democracy and replacing the Constitution with the Bible seem to be reasonable to large numbers of people - including the current Speaker of the US House of Representatives.   

We've got January 6 enablers still serving in the Congress.  This would not have been accepted before Trump.  

The Heritage Foundation is behind Project 2025 - aligned surely with the Federalist Society that planned the takeover of the Supreme Court for forty years.  This is not just a band of crazies ready to attack at Trump's command.  Those crazies are are more sophisticated and more than willing to use Trump's cult as their attack dogs.  

The Supreme Court, restructured by Federalist Society judges that Trump dutifully appointed, has overturned long standing precedents - like Roe v Wade - even though each of the Trump nominees swore that such long standing precedents would be respected.  

• Political Violence Is One Of Those Lines

Nancy Pelosi's husband was attacked in her house in San Francisco by a Right Wing conspiracy consuming fanatic and the prospect of more political violence aimed at elected officials, judges, and election officials is on the rise.  

From AP via Anchorage Daily News Nov 19, 2023

The Trump types are using the slow and deliberate court processes to subvert justice.  We've never had an ex-president under multiple indictments who was also running for president again.  There's an urgency to these cases because they are running up against the election deadline.  The Trump team ignores the basic standards and pushes everything way past normal standards of conduct.  Because an ex-president is on trial and because the court's aren't used to this kind of a full court press, they continue to use constraint and deference as if we were in normal times.  We aren't.  I'm not asking judges to go around the law. I'm asking them to stand up to the bully defendants and not tolerate the flouting of their orders.  

SO, ARE YOU SAYING DEMOCRACY IS DOOMED?

If we don't take every action necessary to prevent Trump or any Republican from winning the 2024 election, Democracy as we know it is doomed.  

Senate and House Obstacles 

The US Senate is, in essence, gerrymandered by the Constitutional requirement that every state has two US Senators.  That wasn't a big deal in 1800 when state populations were comparatively (by today's standards) even.  But today state's like Alaska and Wyoming have fewer than one million people and get two Senators just like California with 39 million people.  And the smaller, more rural states tend to be redder.

"With the even split in the current Senate, the 50 Democratic senators represent 56.5% of the voters, while the 50 Republican senators represent just 43.5% of the voters. In 2018, the Democrats won nearly 18 million more votes for Senate than the Republicans, but the Republicans still gained two seats." (From the Brookings Institute)

In the House, the slim Republican majority is almost certainly the result of Republican gerrymandering of districts so that Democrats were either pushed into one or two districts or scattered into Republican majority districts.  

The US Supreme Court Leans Way Right

It used to be that Republican Supreme Court Justices used the Constitution as their guide for making decisions.  Today's Federalist Society judges use a pro-business ideology to find ways to twist the Constitution to favor the rich over the poor.  Individual rights - like abortion rights, voting rights - suffer.  How the Supreme Court will rule if the 2024 election is challenged by Trump does not give me hope.  

Another Insurrection, but larger

Trump persuaded lots of people to come to the Capitol on January 6 to try to stop the Congress from ratifying the election.  Many of them have been convicted of various crimes.  How many others are out there who are ready to make armed protests should Trump lose again?  

People support Trump for various reasons.  The US economy has shifted and good working class jobs no longer pay as well or are lifetime guarantees.  The array of GOP tax cuts for the rich over the years has created a an unbalanced division of wealth, with the top 10% controlling nearly 70% of US  wealth!

People's lives and prospects are not as good as they were.

With greater legal protections for women and people of color, there are more people competing for jobs.  Before the 1960s, white males were the only people competing for the better jobs.  The Republicans have convinced many of those white males, that the decline is because women and non-whites are taking over.  That's what the extreme abortion laws are about and the diatribes against immigration.  Arrows aimed straight at the emotional parts of the Trump cult members.  

IS THERE ANY HOPE?

Part of me takes hope from the elections, particularly those related for abortion, since the 2022 election.  The vast majority of voters do not support Trump.  It's possible the Trump team and the wealthy conservatives they are proxy for to simply collapse.  I hope that happens.  But I also don't want to be in shock the way we were after Clinton lost in 2016.  We need to be in shock now.  If we work harder than necessary to win, that's better than not trying hard enough and losing.

NPR reported that 80 million people DID NOT VOTE in 2020.  That's a lot of votes.  Convincing 10 million of them that Trump means the end of Democracy, would save Democracy, for now.  

But with all the lies and conspiracy theories, with mainstream media acting like the GOP is a normal party to be treated with respect, and with the many calls for violence, I'm convinced that the Trump campaign will do everything it can to obstruct voters, to subvert the election, and to repeat Jan 6 type insurrections, but with more discipline, if they lose again.  Trump's biggest incentive right now would appear to get back the power to pardon, starting with pardoning himself.  

So the votes have to be so strongly for the Democrat that there is no question about who won.  And that will take a lot of grassroots organizing to get non-voters educated and voting.  

Spoutible's Impressive If Imperfect Start - A Serious Attempt For More Civil Society

 I can understand readers here who think I'm spending way too much time on the new Twitter alternative startup Spoutible.  But hear me out.

Why I think this is important

Most of social media has become infected with trolls - from jerks to paid hit men.  Spoutible is a serious attempt to create a protected space where people can interact and discuss serious issues calmly (or even excited too) and rationally.  It's designed to keep out those who prey on the weak, and also on the not so weak.   

The creator of this project is credible and capable.  It has a chance to offer a safe place and be a model for others.  If this works, it would show that neutralizing the haters is possible.  

Who is Christopher Bouzy?

 Christopher Bouzy isn't your typical tech startup creator.  He created BotSentinal - an app that allows you to submit someone's Twitter handle and then scores it by how civil its cumulative tweets are.  He did this to help people recognize those trolls quickly.

In a reasonably small human setting - a school, a religious congregation, at work, on a sports team - you quickly get to know who you can trust and who tends to be a jerk.  Online anonymity means we don't know people's identity or history.  BotSentinel is a tool to help overcome that.

As Twitter became more hateful, Bouzy saw a need for a civil space to discuss the issues of the day, or one's personal life, or whatever one wants without being targeted. And BotSentinel suggested he also had a lot of technical resources to pull it off.   As Twitter's decline in civility quickened with Musk's takeover, things got more urgent.  Using what he knew from working on BotSentinel, Bouzy got to work with a collection of computer folks to create a new online forum.  He made it pretty Twitter like so it would be easy for Twitter users to navigate on it quickly.  

He's also happens to be black which gives him a view of the world most techies don't have.  He's pledged to have 40% of Spoutible workforce be women.  

Spoutible Background

The team spent about three months developing the site.  Then they invited journalists and some other celebrities to try out the site for a week or two.  Journalists, because Bouzy believes that they need a healthy platform to gather early news tips and to alert the world to what they are working on and have produced.  [I'd note that I resisted Twitter for a while.  But at an Alaska Press Club conference I attended a couple of workshops put on by the then Social Media editor of the Wall Street Journal who explained how and why he used Twitter - the reasons I just mentioned: to get early tips on emerging stories and to share their own stories.  That got me to try it.  And it does those things.  It also can help you waste a lot of time if you don't pick the people you follow carefully.

Because I've used BotSentinel to identify Twitter abusers, I appreciated that there was someone who saw this problem and came up with a way to combat it.  So when Christopher Bouzy came into my awareness saying he was working on a Twitter alternative and that his background included creating BotSentinal, I was ready to follow.  I'd already joined Mastodon and Post as I looked for Twitter alternatives, but neither really grabbed me.  

So I was eager for the Bouzy site to become real.  I listened to Bouzy talk to us on Twitter Spaces (ironic that he can use Twitter to promote Spoutible) and take questions.  I was impressed with what I felt was sincerity and openness.  He was going to be as transparent as possible without giving away information that might not be safe in the hands of competitors, scammers, or hackers.  There have been several other open forums and each time I'm impressed with Bouzy's sincerity, his motivation, and his technical knowledge of how to get this done and hire people to do what he can't.  

On February 1, 2023 (yes, just five days ago) Spoutible opened up for preregistered users, which included me.  It was both a strong and rocky start.  Lots of people signed on and started spouting.  But there were technical glitches and the site was really sluggish.  It got better by February 2 and then there were more problems the next day.  

Saturday Bouzy did another Twitter Spaces forum where he talked about the issues and answered questions.  By the time I saw the notice, the meeting was over, but I was able to go for a walk and  listen to the recording.

Meeting Takeaways 

[You can listen here. It's 2 hours and 44 minutes long. Good for an airplane trip, or doing some mindless task, as well as exercising.  Don't need to hear it all, but at least to get a sense of Bouzy.]

1.  Bouzy haters - He started out by taking all the blame for things that went wrong, including a sort of breach.  No data got compromised. But the attackers acted like there had been.  These attackers have been on Bouzy's case since BotSentinal examined online attackers of Meghan and Harry and they have turned their attention onto Bouzy and Tweeting how Spoutible was a scam and you would have all your data compromised. [Me:  I had wondered how much of the problem with Spoutible was hacker related and apparently some of it was.]

2.  Lots of people signed up and lots of kumbaya - Despite the technical problems, there was a surge of people signing up and it seemed that the tone of the conversations was great and that people were meeting lots of new people and following and getting followers and lots of comments and discussions.  Bouzy was a little cagey about numbers, though he Tweeted in mid December that 110,664 had already pre-registered.  His hesitance to talk numbers had to do with the haters, but I didn't quite understand the issues.  [Me:  I agree with the tone and warmth of the spouts.  And people commenting on my posts and following me much faster than they did when I first joined Twitter.  But I suspect there are other explanations.

• There aren't that many people on Spoutible right now and everyone is trying to find followers and people to follow.  And they are connecting quickly because of a sense of the safety of the site
• No cliques yet.  The crowd is mingling.  There are no groups yet.  So people are connecting with people they normally wouldn't connect with.  This is good.  But I suspect once people get familiar with each other, they will settle in to interacting with regulars more and won't be making friends so freely.

I also didn't see a lot of the serious political or theoretical discussions that I find important on Twitter.  It feels a bit like the early days of the internet where everyone was just looking around and having fun.  People didn't quite know where it was going or how to make money off of it.]

3.  Despite the technical issues in the first couple of days, people have been very forgiving  Lots of thank-yous to Bouzy.   Responses were similar to mine: grateful for this new space and understanding that this was put together in three months and has only had a significant number of users for four days.  A number of of commenters told Bouzy not to be so hard on himself.  We all recognize that Twitter has had  about 16 years to evolve.  Bouzy acknowledged that but said that protecting users was his top priority and anything they overlooked he felt was a problem.  That's good, but as many pointed out - going without sleep too long is not healthy.  

4.  Identification of bugs, suggestions for improvements

There were minor to serious technical issues - ie the Spout drop blocks the like button for some, can't sign up two accounts, some people's emails and some non-US phone numbers weren't recognized,  There were questions about when features would come out - like a phone app, a common suggestion box, the rules of engagement, foreign language options, podcast options, etc.  A couple of people wanted to have kids get access since it seems like a safe space.  That was the only one Bouzy was not receptive to.  In most cases he said it was coming and they were trying to prioritize the most important things first.  

5.  Transparency

This and previous online open forums demonstrated a level of openness we don't see very often.  I can't help but feel that Bouzy is a really decent person I'd love to have as a personal friend.  

My own suggestions:

1. people's profiles should pop up when you put the cursor over their image
2. easier navigation back to where you were - ie not jumping back to the top of your timeline after checking a comment
3. have the follow/unfollow button available with each spurt
4. I understand why they have the Bot-Sentinel button so prominent, but so far everyone is zero.  I think it would be better if it was on people's profile and popped up with the profile (see suggestion #1)
5. Will the BotSentinel score be 
1. just for Spoutible?
2. for Twitter and Spoutible separately?
3. for a combination of both?
4. just for Twitter?
6. Timestamps on Spouts seem to reflect the spouter's time zone - converting them into the readers' time zone seems to make more sense.
7. 
   Why does the Spoutable image in tabs bar look like a P instead of an S? OK, if I look closely maybe that's supposed to be a spouting from the vague but blue whale below.   WOW!  I went back to capture the Spoutible image alongside the Twitter image and there was already a new Spoutible image.  A minute after I wrote this.  But I think a bigger whale without the extra word (which shows where you are on Spoutible) would be better.    There are more, but this is enough for now.  
   
   Follow up:  If tab isn't open, then just the whale or bird show. [Update 4pm - the P is back.  Guessing they're experimenting.]

My hope for Spoutible is that:

1. The platform can be a space where journalists, artists, activists, and other humans can safely express themselves free of hate and vicious attacks. But 'safely express themselves' doesn't include people who make hateful and vicious posts or spread disinformation.  Paradox?  It might appear so, but if people object to something, they need to do it civilly and explain why.
2. That it will serve as a model that such places can exist and thrive online.
3. The world will adapt with the changes and find ways to protect safe spaces in general

My concerns are:

1. The various forces that want to preserve those parts of the status quo they benefit from will do what they can to find ways to infiltrate my ideal Spoutible and poison it as they've poisoned the internet in general.  These include:
1. White supremacists, fragile would-be alpha males, and troubled people in general, who out of anger, spite and/or for profit have used their anonymity to intimidate good people without consequences to themselves and to make truth harder to discern
2. The people who stir up such people with propaganda and pay them to disrupt the free flow of ideas
3. People who will see hacking Spoutible as a challenge.  Bouzy did say he hopes most of those people will be friendly and let Spoutible know of any vulnerabilities they find.  

But I also know that in the flow of time, as new problems emerge, new strategies emerge to overcome them.  The Right has had strategists working for years to exploit race and abortion in order to keep power.  They've plotted for decades to take over the Supreme Court.  The Left  has generally not been so calculating long term and have been slow to recognize the Right's strategy.  But now that they know what has been happening, they are more galvanized to fight it.  They have science and good will on their side and they will find ways to stem the evils that new technologies have unleashed

Spoutible - From The Bird To The Whale

 Tomorrow, Spoutible will be available for the 150,000-200,000 people who have preregistered.  

⚠️Today at 5 PM EST, we are ending the preregistration phase. So if you have not preregistered for Spoutible yet, please do so now, or you will have to wait a week to create an account when it is open to everyone.https://t.co/N5QWQKI768

— Christopher Bouzy (@cbouzy) January 31, 2023

Right now [well I was from 9am PST to 11ish]  I'm listening to Christopher Bouzy on a Twitter Space talking to several thousand people about tomorrow's launch.  I've heard him several times before talking about how they plan to make a platform that's easy for Twitter users to navigate, yet corrects many of the problems of Twitters.

[I'd also note that Boozy was the creator of Bot Sentinel, a site where you can check on people who post on Twitter.  Using Twitter's standards, Bot Sentinel rates users so you can see if the account is normal or harasses people.  They'll use that technology to track Spoutible users and I heard earlier you will be able to see the Bot Sentinal rating of people who reply to you.  At right is an example of a Bot Sentinel report.] 

First I'll list some key points I heard, then I'll just leave a very rough transcript of what was said (starting about an hour into the discussion)

Overview of Key Points as I heard them

• User safety and security - the platform was designed to give users a safe space for discussion.  To that end a number of features have been put in place.
• General security of the site aimed at making it harder to be hacked, and if hacked, harder to steal personal info of users because all is encrypted
• Users can delete replies and block hateful users, this also blocks replies to the blocked users
• Spoutible has tighter security for users joining (they have to give their phone number which also prevents someone from making more than two accounts with one number) and more vigilant system to detect users abusing the rules
• Key feature ways to keep mis- and disinformation to a minimum 
• Money and size less important to Spoutible than safety and security
• Acknowledgement, repeatedly that 
• no system is completely safe from hackers
• that there will be mistakes, but they'll jump to fix them as fast as possible
• determining the  right balance on issues (ie what is misinformation) will always be difficult
• we're just starting, give us time to discover and fix bugs, work with us
• Want to promote media and news outlets important
• Only three months old, but have experience of Twitter, and will be adding features and tweaking system as it develops
• Intentionally made it easy for Twitter folks to move over to Spoutible - it will feel comfortable and familiar.  
• Expects that Twitter users with lots of followers will stay on Twitter until followers move over - but working on ways to post on both platforms at once

My notes - (not sure what time I moved to the laptop to take notes) (These are pretty rough, but I hope I've gotten the gist of the questions and the answers)

Anne - how quick a turnaround response to a hate attack? (She said she'd been a victim with death threats etc. on Twitter, had to call FBI and that Twitter was slow in responding.)

Christopher - we have tools to address swarming, trying to get folks to harass you, they'll get time out.  On the other side, sometimes people say dumb things, and they we won't take action if they aren't crossing the line.  

Crossing the line - is used a lot.  But Christopher recognized that figuring out where that line is.  

We have tools - you can delete replies and block people.  Would like to have folks hold off on those things until the platform has been up a while.  But you have tools to block things yourself if necessary.

Michael Morgan (was a test account for the last couple of weeks - says was not paid and is not connected to Spoutible)

Safe, Fresh, has your interests at heart.  Some platforms push the issues that rile you.  On Spoutible that isn't going to happen.  

Smoke detector - tells you about accounts.  [ I wasn't sure what Smoke Detector means.  sounds like some sort of warning system, or notification system.]

Spoutible eels like wearing comfortable slippers as you move from Twitter.

Q:  Will edition up tomorrow have push notifications?  What will Spoutible do to address feature parity  with other platforms.

Christopher:  We are trying to get Spoutible out as soon as possible, so focused on what people wanted first.  So yes, there will be push notifications so you know when people respond.  We can add features in suitable time frame.  Twitter, sometimes take months.  Some stuff we'll do in days, other in months.  The push stuff we'll have up soon.

Freature parity, laugh, we're trying not to fall into the trap, but don't have an  answer for that.

Melinda:  Thanks, sounds very good.  Planning on platform or stand-alone app, like Tweet deck, but they cancelled it.  Like it because dynamic.  Going to do something like that?

Christopher:  Tweet deck does still exist.  Don't worry about being nervous - I'm nervous.  It's in the pipeline to allow customize platform.  Most don't want that because they want to maximize platform.

Going to launch own app store to allow developers to extend the capability of Spoutible.  Not having that made making Spoutible work was much harder.[Not sure how to fix that sentence.]  Not sure when, but we'll do it.  Part of the road map to allow developers to come in.

Rick:  Working with media orgs?  Birdwatch?

Christopher:  That's the plan - like to work with other outlets to let you to text certain stuff.  Don't want just anyone to come in.  Not sure how, but will invite journalists to discuss.  Important to platform, but also to democracy in general.  Want to work with outlets to keep garbage off.  Don't want mis- and disinformation rampant.  Do we take off this misinformation?  Tag it?  Something deadly like treat COVID with bleach, will be removed.  Want to be the platform for media, researchers - people who fight this stuff.

???:  You're being really thoughtful in how you approach this stuff.  Use tools available and protect yourselves.  

Christopher:  Thanks for saying this.  I have a vision and had for a while.  Tried to get Twitter folks to see this, but they went on as business as usual.  Rare opportunity.  Twitter isn't the same anymore. If we had launched five months ago, it would have failed.  You wouldn't have moved.  I think we have a chance now - people want to leave for a better alternative - content moderation at scale is difficult, but we've built Spoutible with that in mind.  Someone being doxxed with phone number, user can remove themselves.  Be patient with us.  There'll be bugs.  Twitter had a long time to do this.  Give us time.  We've only had three months.  A year from now if you don't see us listening, then call us out.  First few weeks allow us to get our bearings.

Q:  Thanks, doing great job.  1.  Will you be able to keep media and reporters 

Christopher?  Will we address folks in the media who target Spoutible?  yes

2.  Have global manpower to support?  They have people in other countries, do you have that?

3.  Do you communicate with followers across the platform.  I have followers who are important for online fundraisers, will I be able to communicate with them.  

Christopher: 1.  going after journalists, I am pro journalists, news outlets, even ones negative to me.  But there are people who do that actively.  It would probably be addressed by the panel, do we ban the president, do we kick off journalists who are attacking?  Difficult questions.

2.  International?  Not yet.  Focusing on US first.  But there will be people using the platform, but if someone is spouting in another language, there are translators doing it automatically and can see.  But ultimately we will have people.  I believe in work from home model - you can have people moderating in France or Brazil and not have everyone in central place.  My team is spread around the world to develop safe platform. 

3.  Want to allow folks to cross post, - allow to Tweet and Spout simultaneously.  But present owner may shut that down.  One tech hurdle.  Spout 300 characters but Twitter fewer.  If you want to cross post you'll have to reduce # of characters.  I'm going to be Tweeting a while trying to get people over here.  People with 500k are going to stay on Twitter as well.  Not giving up those followers.  But eventually hope followers move.  If he shuts it off, he shuts it off.  Haven't figured out how to have seamless transition from one platform to another and keep all your followers.  

Dr. Kate - a lot of people earn a living saying terrible things about people.  Would you moderate for me or expect me to block them.  

Christopher -Say Meghan Markle.  How help this lady to breathe?  VP Harris and others.  Overwhelmingly women and women of color who go through this.   You have those tools in place you can use to prevent them from posting in your feeds.  I have been victim of people profiting off of hate.  On Spoutible will be extremely hard to do that. [But of course people will take that as a challenge.]  We also have to be proactive knowing who is own our platform.  If account is focused on attacking Meghan Markle or VP Harris we'll take it off.  Other platforms have this policy, but they don't enforce it.  Youtube channels could have 50 videos on Markle, they don't take it down.  On Spoutible, they will get removed.  Not just user, but Spoutible will too.  We know hostile nations will do this.  Why we want phone numbers.  We won't be perfect, but your experience on Spoutible will be vastly better than on Twitter

Gadi Ben-Yehuda - been on T since 2006.  I'm a  social media director, ability to manage those.  Someone mentioned Tweet deck, if I'm overseeing multiple accounts can I use single platform?  Encouraging businesses and more important government on.  My school is delayed, National Park Service.

Christopher:  Yes.  Extremely important.  But flip side to third parties to post on your behalf is completely different from a hostile foreign nation.  Only certain verified will be able spout on behalf of a user.  Outreach - we've had conversation, but focus for last few months was to get this up and running and then go for govt. agencies.  There are a lot of officials who have preregistered and even are on and testing.  Hope word of mouth.  Also want local organizations and authorities, so amber alert will be available on spoutible.  How can we make the platform better?  Part of us communicating?  Gotta be honest.  Only three months.  

Akunjee - They successfully brought in ways to onload people onto platform.  Get to set ethos - these are the sort of people here.  There townhall system allowing local conversations, to set up discussions on those issues.  Going to look at these?  

Christopher - Yes, no.  Not opposed to.  Open to suggestions.  How we've developed this platform - allowing you to give your ideas.  We took a lot and implemented them.  I took flak.  I had a vision.  Wanted you to participate.  So far worked well.  Something like that is a feature we'd be interested in that.  If you ask 10 people you get 10 different answers.  But if ask 10K you start seeing patterns.  I said earlier, no Nazis on the platform.  Misinformation/Disinformation number 2.  Took top stuff you wanted us to address.  Yes.  Clubhouse could work well on Spoutible.  Totally against waitlists.  You build something, you want a few folks to test.  We did.  But then need to open up.  If you have a waitlist, it stifles the momentum.  Even what we're doing, a week for the preregistered people, will slow us down, but I think it's for ???.  Not studio 54, you can come in, you can't.  Once the preregistered week is over, all can join

Julie - I was targeted by horrific racists - N word, videos, my 5 year old daughter.  Had to call FBI.  Eventually Twitter .   He duplicated my account  - bio, pics, etc.  And he Tweeted terrible things in my name.  Twitter wanted my drivers license.  I didn't want to give them that info.  If that happens on Spoutible.  Would we have to give Drivers License to verify identity.

Christopher.  Look at this from Twitter's perception, and sorry you had to go through this.  Horrible on platform and feel like platform not helping.  From Twitter's perspective.  How do I know that picture belongs to you.  Basic verification - customer service that handles bank security.  We don't want that.  But whatever company we partner with, what will they do with it?  Sell it?  No.  Just for verification.  If user targeted, get verified.  If another account steals it, we can take it down.  If this account is doing other stuff and doing crazy stuff - we'll take them down for other stuff.  But if stealthy, we have the problem of verifying.  People in this room opposed using phone numbers to verify.  We had to find balance.  Not looking to sell numbers or spam people.  With Spoutible resend an email or two a week.  No spam stuff.  Also to keep people from creating a bunch of accounts with one phone number.  It's encrypted.  Not selling.  

Hoping to launch about 12am, maybe 3am.  Definitely tomorrow.  Probably early.  

If you preregistered, your email address is on the list.  You have to use same email address, you have to use same email address.  Still debating about phone number confirmation.  Have 60-70 people try it out, have some bugs, but it's built to handle 1 million users, but we don't get those numbers.  If we have tech difficulties, be patient.  Prepared for more people.  Don't think 200K will sign up, it will be staggered.  

Is it fast?  Fast now, but we'll see in a week if it holds up.  Built with scale in mind.   Using service called ??Detectify.  Looking for vulnerabilities in our code.  Tried our best to make it as secure as possible.  But if a hacker finds something - there are people who spend all day hacking.  If firm tells us there's a problem, we'll notify you immediately.  Microsoft finds vulnerabilities all the time.  We will be.  If it happens, all they get will be encrypted data.  

Thanks for taking this journey with us.  I promised we'll get it up by mid-Jan or February.  We did that.  I promised certain features.  We did that.  Look at what we've done in 3 months and think about what we can do in a year.  Give us time to work it out.  It's not going to feel like a beta.  

We don't have to accept this crap, this misinformation/disinformation.  We can do something about it.  If you see us turning into another Twitter, you need to hold our feet to the flames.  Not about how many users or money, but success for us is protecting users.  

-------------------

I did notice the remarkable situation of Spoutible holding this meeting on Twitter to encourage people to leave Twitter.  Did Twitter not notice?  Not care?  One commenter during the meeting asked when Twitter was going to shut them off.  Twitter never did.  

However The Night Ends, Remember These Two Things

 1.  However things turn out, remember that more people will have voted for Democratic candidates than Republican.  Only a Senate that gives small states (Wyoming and Alaska both have under 1,000,000 populations) the same number of Senators as large states (California has almost 40 million and New York has 20 million) and gerrymandered House maps cause the outcome to seem close. 

2.  Whatever the results, we must continue the struggle for respect, decency, understanding, and democracy.  No gloating if the results are good, no giving up if they aren't.  

The 2024 election begins Monday.  Lots of people have to talk to people about their values and where they came from and listen to others do the same.  Here's one path forward:

What is going to happen in these midterms? And what will it take for the pro-freedom movement to defeat American fascism?

Join @anatosaurus and me for this @nytopinion Twitter Space today at 12:30 pm ET.https://t.co/W9xLbOYjK4

— THE PERSUADERS by Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) November 7, 2022

I worked at a polling place today from 10:30 to 2:30.  Everyone was cordial to everyone.  Even when a ballot got jammed in the machine and people had to wait, they were calm and reasonable.  (I did have home made chocolate chip cookies as compensation for the wait to fix the machine.)

Click to enlarge

Alaska has great I VOTED stickers.  The blue Alaska flag stickers and then some alternate stickers designed by kids.  

Thank You Ms. Downing For Calling Attention To My Email To The Anchorage Assembly

Yesterday I sent an email to the  Anchorage Assembly.  I've been concerned about the disruptive behavior of a number of people who give testimony at Assembly meeting.  It's frequently demeaning and racist (calling Assembly members Faggots, using Jew as an epithet) and who otherwise attempt to prevent the Assembly from getting their work done.  There are also reports of people verbally and physically intimidating others who testify, both inside the Assembly chambers and out. 

I'd started a letter to the Assembly back in July.  Yesterday, after reading the ADN article about the man who made a long racist diatribe about Alaska Natives and homelessness,  I went through it, edited it a bit, and emailed it to all the Assembly members.  

This morning I got a comment on my last point that was simply a link to a Must Read Alaska* post.  

Actually, it was a relatively decent post by Must Read Alaska (MRAK) standards.  After discussing the incident and reactions, it then turned to my email (which was sent to all the Assembly members.)  In fact 85% of what I sent the Assembly was in the post.  Over 50% of the the MRAK post was my letter.  (I'm sure there is a check in the mail to pay me for my contribution.)  

The first part is a report of the incident and other people's reactions.  Then she gets to my email.  Mostly it's direct quotes, but she does say in the headline "university professor suggests ‘people’s brains have been polluted.'  She also says I want censorship 

"a letter to the Assembly about how to handle speech that is racist, hateful, or not welcome. He wants the public censored."

I never use the word censorship nor do I talk about unwelcome speech.  But I did use hateful and racist.  I guess she thinks those things are good.  That seems to be her biggest issues and you'd miss her comments if you blinked. 

I'd note 'pollution' was a metaphor here.  But I think it is apt and I explained it in the email.

What's telling is the tiny, but important, part she left out:  The conditions for participation in Democracy:  

• Sincerity - authentic discourse requires trust between participants that they are being honest and truly wish to find a solution. 
• Focus on specific issue - not simply ideological posturing without reference to some specific situation.
• Willing attention - Sincerely interested in the problem, willing to do the work necessary to get through the issues seriously, including listening attentively to what others say.
• Substantive Contribution - having a unique point of view, specific expertise, or something that helps the discussion move along - even just the ability to express the concerns of a class of people.

I quoted Fox and Miller who were examining what was needed for the public forum to work, that is to come to decent solutions to the problems the public faces.  

I have to thank Suzanne Downing for giving my email this much attention - much more than it would get from the Assembly members.  Much more than it would get on my blog.  

And she doesn't actually say anything negative about it.  I'm not sure whether she disagrees with the idea that brains can be polluted or whether she just thought that was an idea that would rile up her readers.  

She does also suggest that I'm proposing to censor people who speak at the Assembly.  I'd point out that I recognize that people have First Amendment rights to free speech.  But the Assembly has an interest in having orderly meetings and speakers who add to solving problems, not speakers whose intent is to spread hate, disrupt, and, yes, pollute the public forum.  Perhaps her intent was to rally the troops against what I see as a reasonable and logical attempt to honor people's free speech rights while also maintaining some semblance of order at Assembly meetings.  Maybe she recognizes it for what I intended and that's precisely why she's flagging it and hoping her loyal readers (some of whom are frequent Assembly disrupters) will  attack the suggestions and make it harder for the Assembly to use it.  We'll see.  

So my suggestions allow them to help people organize their thoughts better and to ban folks who cannot follow the rules.  It's not about what they say, but whether it furthers the Assembly's objectives to come up with ways to deal with the issues that arise or if it makes it harder to do that. 

And since Assembly meetings are online people can still view them.  And since people can send in written comments (or even leave voice mail messages), their freedom of speech is preserved, while allowing the Assembly to have orderly meetings.  

A note I did leave out of my letter, was that judges in court have this power to eject people who disrupt the proceedings.  While the courtroom and the Assembly chamber are not the same, both have an interest in conducting public meetings so they can come to a fair and reasonable resolution.  The point of public testimony is to get input from the public about the issue at hand.  It is not just an open forum to talk about anything, or to insult those you disagree with.  Just as the judge in a courtroom has the right and power to limit how information is introduced, the Assembly members have the right to limit speech that does not lead to resolving the issue at hand.  They don't have the right to simply cut off people who advocate solutions they disagree with.  But if someone's speech is not on topic or is disruptive, they can cut them off from oral testimony.  Written testimony can be submitted without disrupting the meeting and allows for people to get their ideas on the record.  The Assembly is not a Speakers Corner at Hyde Park  where anyone can say most anything.  The Assembly is taking testimony to add to their understanding of how to resolve issues facing the Municipality.  

I'd also like to clarify the Fair Use Doctrine here. From Stanford University:

"What Is Fair Use?

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement.

So what is a “transformative” use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general guidelines and varied court decisions, because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit its definition. Like free speech, they wanted it to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody."

She only appears to comment/criticize a very limited part of what I wrote.  If it were parody there would be some transformation of what I wrote.  BUT, emails to the Assembly aren't copyrighted, so she can probably do what she wants with it.  

So, below is the full text of what I wrote to the Assembly.  The parts that appeared in the Must Read Alaska blog are in green.  The parts I sent to the Assembly that she did not lift verbatim are in black.  I'd note that she did give credit and she did use quotation marks.  

"Suggestions for the Anchorage Assembly on ways to get public testimony focused on the issues and to avoid disruptive and hateful testimony.

I offer this as a contribution to the discussions ignited recently in response to David Lazer’s recent racist testimony.  First there's an introduction to the concept of pollution of public discourse.  Then there are specific recommendations.  

Steven Aufrecht

Professor Emeritus, Public Administration

University of Alaska Anchorage

Underlying concepts for good public discourse  

Charles Fox and Hugh Miller, two public administration scholars, many years ago suggested some conditions for participation in a public discourse.  Without these, democracy cannot thrive.

The participants should all possess the following:

• Sincerity - authentic discourse requires trust between participants that they are being honest and truly wish to find a solution. 
• Focus on specific issue - not simply ideological posturing without reference to some specific situation.
• Willing attention - Sincerely interested in the problem, willing to do the work necessary to get through the issues seriously, including listening attentively to what others say.
• Substantive Contribution - having a unique point of view, specific expertise, or something that helps the discussion move along - even just the ability to express the concerns of a class of people.

Pollution of Public Discourse

What's that? If toxic chemicals get into the water system, the whole system has to be cleaned out before people can drink the water again.

When people come to the public forum, but insult their fellow citizens, spout half truths and complete lies, don't learn the complexity of issues, they are really civic outlaws who pollute the public forum. 

Our progress to finding alternatives that we can all reasonably live with is thwarted. Instead, the public forum is cluttered with rhetorical litter - lies, falsehoods, innuendo and clear cut slanders - that have to be cleaned up before we can go on. 

But it's not as simple as picking up trash. People’s brains have been polluted, misinformation has been planted, and people have lost trust in others, healthy debate dissolves into hostile conflict.    

The point of civic debate, theoretically, is to work out our disagreements. We:

1.  share ideas about the problem, the possible solutions 

2. identify facts, 

3. forecast consequences and costs. 

That’s the ideal. Separating the objective from the emotional is never easy. We want to allow for emotion in testimony, but we also must draw a line when emotion becomes polluting of the discourse and derails sincere attempts to deal with issues.

Recommendations

Point of the Assembly having the public speak is:

1. Hear their preferences
2. Hear the reasons for supporting one action/path over another
3. Gain additional facts about the costs (financial or other), impacts, etc. about one option versus another
4. Identify options that meet the needs of the most people, or minimally inconvenience the fewest people 
5. Get a sense of how many people support a position (though good polling would be more accurate than counting people at meetings)

Actions that pollute the public discourse:

1. Repetition of the same information
2. Addressing unrelated issues
3. Intentional misinformation 
4. Personal insults and attacks
5. Trying to get one’s preferred outcome through physical or verbal abuse and intimidation rather than reason and information

Strategies to encourage good public discourse and to discourage pollution of public discourse.  

1. Clarifying what is expected of speakers
1. Written guidelines for oral testimony
2. Video guidelines
3. Written public testimony form to help people focus their presentation
1. State your preference - A, B, C etc.
2. Facts supporting your preference
3. Reasons for your preference 
1. How does it affect you?
2. How does it affect others?
3. Costs/Savings it might entail
4. Additional facts/points that have not been raised

2. Offer the public a summary of the basic options, supporting data, costs, and impacts and ask speakers to address those points - particularly if they have something to add or refute
3. Assembly chair or members ask questions guiding the speaker toward answering the questions on the public testimony form - “Do you have any new facts to add to the discussion?”  
4. Use of technology to get the public’s views

1. Electronic surveys people can take live at meetings to show support for one or another option or point - these can be done via cell phones and can show results on the screen.  People watching from home should also be able to participate.  
2. Online written, possibly audio and video, options that people can use to submit their testimony.  The Alaska Redistricting Board had this option on their website which allowed people to submit written testimony online.  The testimony was then made available for all to see online.  Board members got packets of the testimony.
3. Investigate what other participation technology options are already in use in classrooms, in government public hearings, in  business settings

5. Consequences for people who violate the Assembly ground rules

1. There’s a difference between people who genuinely have trouble organizing their thoughts and those who are intentionally trying to disrupt the meetings.  The former should be encouraged and given help.  The latter should be given alternative ways to submit their input other than oral testimony at Assembly meetings.
2. There can be a hierarchy of offenses.
1. Level 1: Worst
1. Intimidation - name calling, insults, slurs directed at other members of the public or at Assembly members or administration representatives.  This includes physical and verbal threats that occur inside and outside the chamber.
2. Intentional disruptions that unnecessarily delay the proceedings.  This is trickier, however the Assembly needs the power to keep order at meetings and to eject people who regularly disrupt meetings and do not stop when asked to, 
2. Level 2:  Bad
1. Regular harangues that are disruptive rather than sincere attempts at resolving an issue
3. Level 3:  Minor 
1. Repetition of things already said (this can be handled with electronic polls)
2. Difficulty organizing one’s thoughts - this needs understanding, unless it is something that happens repeatedly from the same person, in which case, moving to written testimony or referral to Public Testimony Guidelines
3. Hierarchy of penalties  - should be appropriate to the offense
1. Banning from public meetings (online access is available and ability to make online written testimony means the person can still hear what is happening and can still participate, but without disrupting the public discourse.)
2. Banning from making oral testimony at public meetings. Again, they can still submit written testimony, all of which should be available to the public.

This is a start.  Obviously there are legal issues to be resolved.  But I believe that the ability to watch the Assembly meetings online and to submit written testimony means that people who are banned from giving public oral testimony or even from attending meetings because of disruptive behavior, can still have access to their First Amendment rights. The rules, warning steps, and penalties have to be clearly stated, and even handedly meted out for this to work."

*I should note that Must Read Alaska is written by a former Alaska Republican Party communications director and she has been supportive of the disruptive actions of the group Save Anchorage. It is hard to find objective reviews online. Here is an Anchorage Press piece that gives some background.