Big Tech

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Thinking about C.S. Lewis and today's emerging prophets of transhumanism

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking about C.S. Lewis and today's emerging prophets of transhumanism

Are there any C.S. Lewis enthusiasts in the house?

How about people who, well, detest the famous Oxford don and Christian apologist?

It is my hope that this think piece (pounded out during a two-week road trip) will appeal to both.

Right now, I am about to finish reading — for the 10th time, or something like that — the Lewis “Science fiction trilogy.” It ends with “That Hideous Strength,” a head-spinning mix of science fiction, Arthurian legend and a blistering satire of stuffy, insular, corrupt, boring elites in British higher education (in other words, the world in which Lewis lived until his death in 1963). It’s the narrative fiction take on his prophetic “The Abolition of Man.”

I do not want to give away the plot, of course. But the big idea is that elite there’s that word again) scientific materialists, in a quest for their own brand of immortality and desire to modify the human person, turn to the occult and, well, the Powers of Darkness. You may never hear the term “head,” when used to describe the leader of a school or movement, again without thinking of this book.

So what would Lewis think of this haunting feature from Suzy Weiss at The Free Press? Here’s the double-decker headline:

The Tech Messiahs Who Want to Deliver Us from Death

They see death as a software error — and they have a plan for fixing it. But should they?

The overture:

Kai Micah Mills is going to freeze his parents. 

“They’re both going to be cryopreserved, regardless of their wishes,” Mills told me. 


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: A growing army of Americans (#surprise) no longer trusts the news media

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: A growing army of Americans (#surprise) no longer trusts the news media

Were there tears in Anderson Cooper’s eyes? Did you hear a tremor in his voice?

A clip featuring the CNN superstar (that’s a relative term, these days) went viral after he wore his elite heart on his finely tailored sleeve when responding to woke social-media meltdowns after The. Most. Trusted. Name. In. News. dared to air a ratings-chasing “town hall” with former President Donald Trump.

By all means, watch the YouTube video featured at the top of this post, because it was featured in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), which focused on another set of bleak, hellish poll numbers about Americans doubting the mainstream-news industrial complex. I argued — no surprise if you read my recent Religion & Liberty essay (“The Evolving Religion of Journalism”) — that niche-press coverage of moral, cultural and religious issues has played a big role in this disaster.

Cooper’s dramatic soliloquy included some strong language aimed directly at CNN’s shrinking choir of loyal viewers on what used to be called the “left.” In a way, it’s a kind of niche-news Rorschach test. What do you see and hear?

Meanwhile, here are some of the key quotes, drawn from a rather snarky piece at The Hollywood Reporter (I have added bold text for emphasis):

Echoing some of the points that network CEO Chris Licht had made to CNN staff … (Cooper) attempted to pivot and spin why CNN felt it was important to cover Trump. “The man you were so disturbed to see and hear from last night, that man … may be president of the United States in less than two years. And that audience that upset you, that’s a sampling of about half the country.”

He added, “If last night showed anything, it showed [Trump winning] can happen again. It is happening again. He hasn’t changed and he is running hard. You have every right to be outraged today and angry, and never watch this network again.”

Cooper then rather bizarrely put the onus back on the audience to not remain ignorant of people on the other side of the political divide and incredibly implied that some people were ignorant of Trump. “Do you think staying in your silo and only listening to people you agree with is going to make that person go away? If we all only listen to those we agree with, it may actually do the opposite.”

Yes, the crucial word “silo” was used, in an emotional dermon aimed directly at CNN viewers. At some point, we can expect someone on Fox News to offer some variation of this litany when talking to its post-Tucker Carlson audience.

This is the media dynamic at the heart of trends in the Divided States of America.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

RIP American Model of the Press? It appears that online financial realities killed it ...

, , , , , , , , , , ,
RIP American Model of the Press? It appears that online financial realities killed it ...

From Day 1 here at GetReligion, just over 19 years ago, our primary goal has been to defend religion-beat reporting rooted in what has long been called the American Model of the Press.

You know, that’s the old-liberalism brand of journalism built on accuracy, fairness, balance and respect for the views of citizens involved in debates about issues in culture, morality, religion and even politics.

Some people include the word “objectivity” in creeds about this kind of journalism, which tends to fuel philosophical discussions about whether it’s possible for the minds of journalists to remain “blank slates,” or words to that effect. In my teaching days, I attempted to define objectivity in terms of fair-minded professional standards for newsroom work.

This brings me to an essay that I recently wrote for the Religion & Liberty journal published by the Acton Institute. The headline: “The Evolving Religion of Journalism.” I don’t want to cue waves of weeping violins, but writing this piece was painful and involved about a month of involuntary 3 a.m. brainstorms.

The bottom line: I didn’t want to write another essay about media-bias issues, because discussing “bias” implies the existence of shared, common professional standards for journalists. My goal was to describe the emerging digital-marketplace reality — news that preaches to niche choirs makes money. It produces faithful, paying subscribers, which is what matters now that news organizations cannot depend on mass-market advertising.

Are you reading the stunning four-part Columbia Journalism Review series by Jeff Gerth about elite newsrooms and Donald Trump? It’s crucial that “The press versus the president” was published by a journal at the heart of the old-liberal journalism establishment. Here is a crucial passage, right after Trump commits to his “fake news” approach to press relations:

In the days after Trump’s declaration, the Times surveyed its new digital subscribers, millions of whom flocked to the paper during his presidency, to better understand their motivations: the administration’s “vilification of the press,” one subscriber replied, in a typical response, according to “New Digital Subscribers Survey” data provided to me by a Times staffer.

Trump would often call the Times “failing,” including the day after the controversial story about Russia-Trump ties, but in fact the soaring digital-subscriber base throughout his presidency offset the steady fall in revenue from print subscribers and advertising.

What does this have to do with my Acton essay, which focuses on a timeline of events that begins long, long before Orange Man Bad?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

New York Times: LGBTQ rights are a key factor in Ukraine (even if many Ukrainians disagree)

, , , , , , , , , , ,
New York Times: LGBTQ rights are a key factor in Ukraine (even if many Ukrainians disagree)

When I was a sophomore at Baylor University (soon after the cooling of the earth’s crust) the great journalism professor David McHam had an interesting pre-computer way of demonstrating what he wanted to see when a student prepared a second draft of a news story.

Taking a metal straight edge (think pica pole), he would tear the copy into horizontal blocks of text. Then he would rearrange these into a different order, locking them in place with clear tape. Then he would say something like this: “You buried some of the most important information. Go rewrite the story in this order.”

This brings me to a New York Times story about religion, culture, politics and war in Ukraine. There’s a lot of interesting material here, but readers who want to know some crucial basic facts will need to be patient — because they are buried deep in this report. The double-decker headline offers the basic framework:

War Spurs Ukrainian Efforts to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage

The role of gay soldiers, the lack of legal rights for their partners, and the threat of Russia imposing anti-L.G.B.T. policies have turned the war into a catalyst for change in Ukraine.

Now, before I go any further, let me note that, yes, I am Orthodox and I attend a parish that includes Slavic believers, as well as lots and lots of American converts. Also, my two visits to Kiev left me convinced Ukraine is — as the Soviets intended — a tragically divided nation. My views are identical to those of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, on that subject.

When Russian began its evil invasion, I posted a note on Facebook that ended with this:

EU-USA was arrogant enough to think they could — with money, culture and military tech — turn Eastern-Russian Ukrainians into Europeans. Will Putin be arrogant enough to think he can, with blood, turn Western-European Ukrainians into Russians?

I raise this issue because, at a crucial point deep in this Times story, I believe it is relevant. Hold that though.

The anecdotal lede for this story focuses on the fears of a young Ukrainian combat medic named Olexander Shadskykh. That leads to the thesis statement:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

Are religious and culturally conservative groups silenced on the Internet?

, , , , , , ,
Are religious and culturally conservative groups silenced on the Internet?

Not all religious believers are conservatives.

I get that. But many are and not a few in this group have seen their posts frozen out of Facebook and other social media simply because some moderator thinks they’re spreading hate speech (which is usually posts defending centuries of Christian doctrine).

Big Tech has gotten reamed on this by members of Congress (which they seem to ignore) on the grounds of crushing political dissent. But what about religious views?

The National Catholic Register recently posted this thoughtful story about how the silencing of religious views (and the morality that emanates from them) affects Catholics who number some 51 million U.S. citizens or one-fifth of the population. This is not a small group. Here’s how the feature begins:

Lila Rose is no stranger to the tactics social-media giants Facebook and Twitter employed in banning former President Donald Trump from their platforms.

As head of the pro-life group Live Action, Rose has seen the organization she founded permanently banned from Pinterest, barred from advertising on Twitter and its entire TikTok account temporarily removed for unnamed “community violations.”

Rose gained some fame for her sneaking into abortion clinics as a teenager, posing as a girl seeking an abortion while recording everything with a video camera in her backpack to later accuse Planned Parenthood of looking the other way on statutory rape. She’s pictured with this post.

In remaining engaged on social media, where she and Live Action have a combined total of 5 million followers, Rose said she sticks to her message and tries to follow each platform’s guidelines. When an issue arises, she attempts to determine whether it was the result of a misunderstanding or mistake before pursuing a challenge.

“If you don’t have a clear case, saying you do when you don’t is not helpful,” she said. “I would caution people that just because your post is not getting a lot of shares or likes or you lost followers doesn’t mean it’s a nefarious scheme to destroy you. It’s important to have a lot of common sense and be thoughtful and discerning about whether this is truly the case.”

Still, for Catholics and others with conservative views, examples of Big Tech’s heavy hand abound, providing plenty of reasons to be concerned about access to social media.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

Despite China's vast religious and political repression, 2022 Olympic boycott still unlikely

, , , , , , , , , ,
Despite China's vast religious and political repression, 2022 Olympic boycott still unlikely

We’re rapidly approaching the inflection point on whether China will get to stage the 2022 Winter Olympics without some sort of concurrent international protest — such as a major boycott — prompted by Beijing’s often outrageous treatment of its Muslim Uighur, Tibetan Buddhist and underground Christian religious minorities, as well as its secular pro-democracy movement.

The question for me is: Will the international community — and in particular the United States and other democracy-espousing nations — punk out as it did with the Nazi-run 1936 Berlin Olympics. Or will the International community find some righteous backbone and either boycott the 2022 winter games, or make its opposition to Beijing’s policies known in another significant and unmistakable manner?

China, of course, has threatened retaliation against any nation that dares to challenge it by linking the Olympics and human rights.

When I last posted about the possibility of an international boycott of the upcoming China Games, — back in 2019 — I wrote off any boycott possibility as an extreme long shot.

As of this writing, I think a widespread boycott is still highly unlikely. But it’s no longer a completely dismissible long shot, I believe, because of changed circumstances — not the least of which is the ongoing coronavirus crisis and China’s oblique explanations of the pandemic’s Wuhan region origins.

Why still unlikely? Ironically, for the very same reason a protest is now slightly more conceivable, the coronavirus.

The U.S., without which no boycott can succeed, as well as its major pro-Western democratic allies, are all still deeply engaged in trying to halt the coronavirus.

We don’t know how much longer this fight will go on or what surprises are ahead. Regardless, the effort has left them economically vulnerable and politically drained. I’d say they lack the necessary additional emotional and intellectual bandwidth to take on another international crisis. Certainly not one they can avoid without triggering immediate dire consequences for their own citizens.

Forget the morality of the situation. Moral avoidance is a well-honed government strategy with a global heritage.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

From social media to stocks: How are religious conservatives punishing Big Tech?

, , , ,
From social media to stocks: How are religious conservatives punishing Big Tech?

Part of getting the good religion story involves thinking ahead. Once the social media platform Parler got shut down, the question was where religious conservatives are going to go next.

Whether we’re talking evangelicals or Pentecostal/charismatics, Latter-day Saints or conservative Jews, these groups together number at least one-fifth of the American populace, so the question is an important one.

Oddly I’ve seen no stories about this.

The shutting down of Parler set off major alarms. I’ve been writing about Pentecostal prophets a lot in recent weeks and nearly everyone, when posting on places like Twitter or Facebook, darkly warn how this may be the last time you read them and to please get used to calling up their web sites instead. They don’t need to get warned twice.

Enter alternate social media platforms. Ever hear of Jesus.Social, ChristiansLikeMe.net, or SocialCross.org along with Minds, Gab, MeWe or Rumble? Or Xapit, the network sponsored by the prophetic web site ElijahList?

I’d like to see some stories on where religious folks are going. We know they are signing up by the millions on alternate sites.

Another angle is the depth of anger some feel toward the Big Tech folks that pushed Parler off the air. One reason Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley is going to outlast the current controversies he’s involved in is that he’s concentrated on Big Tech and media censorship during his short career and those are issues a lot of people care about.

Fox Business News calls this the danger of “woke religion” taking over the internet.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

News story? Twitter algorithms cancel Tim Tebow, just ahead of Big Tech showdown on Hill

, , , , , , , ,

Growing tensions between Big Tech and the U.S. Congress has to be one of the biggest news stories in America right now, even as coronavirus statistics soar and shadowy activists keep setting fires at strategic locations in American life.

Think about it: How many Americans get their “news” about COVID-19 and the events swirling around #BlackLivesMatter through sources controlled by these czars of Big Tech — Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Google’s Sundar Pichai, Apple’s Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos of Amazon and The Washington Post?

Democrats have their own reasons to be concerned about Big Tech, whose clout in the lives of modern Americans make the railroad tycoons of the Gilded Age look like minor-league players. These companies, after all, resemble digital public utilities more than mere Fortune 500 powerhouses.

Meanwhile, you know that — at some point — Republicans are going to roll out a long list of cases of viewpoint discrimination against cultural, moral, religious and — oh yeah — political conservatives. Here’s a bite of preview material from The Washington Post:

Some Republicans, meanwhile, plan to revive their assertions that major social media sites exhibit political bias. Party leaders have ratcheted up their attacks in recent weeks after Facebook and Twitter began taking action against President Trump for his incendiary posts. But GOP critics often have provided scant evidence of their bias allegations, which tech giants fiercely deny and Democrats have decried as a distraction.

“If a platform is dominant in the marketplace and is discriminating against a particular political point of view, [then] anti-competitive behavior coupled with bias is concerning,” said Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), a member of the antitrust panel.

As the old saying goes, it’s not bias — it’s just bad algorithms, over and over.

Now, if journalists were looking for a clickable story to illustrate this side of the Big Tech wars, perhaps a story involving a symbolic person in American life who drives big numbers in social media, why not cover a big tech conflict involving Tim Tebow?


Please respect our Commenting Policy