​Just a quick update on my upcoming move to transfer the site from the platform it’s on now, run by Weebly (owned by Square) to one known as Wix.  I think it’s reasonable to think the new site will go live later this week, but I still have some questions in to the company that built the new site, and also some “housekeeping” on Wix as I familiarize myself with their platform.
 
I’ll have a heads-up here when the move is imminent, and when it happens, it should be done smoothly enough that readers here won’t notice.  Even if it takes a few hours to complete the process, this site here on Weebly will remain active until the transfer is done.
 
I’ll go into more about it when I have my questions answered.  But for now I’ll say the while the new site should look and feel fairly familiar to everyone, it won’t be as identical as I was hoping. 
 
The biggest change – unless I find out differently – is that full articles won’t be displayed as you scroll down a page.  Instead, the first few paragraphs will be – and you click on that to open the full article.  Then, you click “Back” to return to the main blog page.
 
There also won’t be an archive, which here is listed on the right side.  For reasons I can’t understand, Wix only dates articles by the month and day, and not also with the year.  While I prefer having an archive, I suspect most people don’t use it, so it’s not a huge loss, if a loss at all for most everyone.
 
I’ll leave it at that for now, since those are the most meaningful changes, I think.  The design will be similar, the headings at the top of the page will still be there, and the footer will, as well.
 
On my end, under the hood, there are a few things I wish were handled differently, but most things seem to be handled really well and much easier for me.
 
As I said, hopefully the transfer will take place later this week.  If not, then soon.  Updates as they occur.


[UPDATE -- I heard back from the company building the new site for the transfer, and without going into detail, many of the "issues" I had brought up to them are only because they haven't finished yet.  And also, they said that they will change the setting so that full articles are posted (like they are here now) and not just opening excerpts.  That was great to know.]

The other day, the BroadwayHD.com website had a recorded live streaming performance of the current hit comedy, Fallen Angels, written by Noel Coward in 1925.  Yes, 101 years ago.  It stars Rose Byrne and Kelli O'Hara, both of whom got Tony nominations as Best Actress.  I was very interested in seeing it, and I've been interested in signing up for BroadwayHD for a while, at least for a month, since they have a few things I'd like to watch.  But I didn't want to sign up right now, since I not only have a long list of things to see, but also it's the baseball season that takes up a huge amount of my viewing time.  But -- this was a special streaming production, so...I figured, might as well.

I know that Amazon Prime has a BroadwayHD channel, but I thought that as long as I'd be signing up, I might as well do it directly on the BroadwayHD site.

My mistake.

I did a little search first, though, to see if there was a free trial period, since there was that "baseball season" hurdle thing -- and though I couldn't find a definitive answer on the website, I did see articles that said they did have a 7-day trial, and Amazon Prime said there was a trial.  So, I signed up.  And if I decided to stick around, it would be $19 for a month afterwards.

As I said, my mistake.

First, though it cost $20 for a month, on Amazon Prime -- which has the exact same site -- it's only $9 a month, for some reason.  Also, I noticed that I'd already been charged the $19 before the free trial period was up.  So, I wrote to the company to find out if, in fact, there was a 7-day trial.  No, it turns out, there isn't.  Though, yes, there is a free trial on Amazon Prime.  But no, they won't refund the $19 fee.

In fairness, it's my fault not finding out beforehand about the trial period.  And for not realizing that the Amazon Prime was half the price.  And has a 7-day trial.  So, I'm not mad at them at all.  (If anything, I'm annoyed at myself.)  I just think it's terrible customer service.  They certainly could override their "policy" about no refunds if they wanted to, rather than annoy potential customers (I'm certain I'm not alone in my confusion.)  Though, of course, they're under no obligation to do so.  And if people decide to cancel, so be it. 

And at the very least, as I explained them in my reply from my experience in reviewing tech for the Writers Guild and working in movie PR early in my career, they should make note on their site that they do not offer a free trial, so as to clear any confusion and avoid upsetting customers (which is the case I read on many social media posts).  Not doing so only serves to give the impression (rightly or wrongly) of being intentionally deceptive, since most such streaming services – like Amazon’s BroadwayHD channel – do offer a free trial.  Stating this clearly upfront would eliminate any possible uncertainty and sense of being misled, which most services try to avoid.

But it's their site and their decision.  I did cancel my subscription, and will watch the few things on my list and leave it at that.  A lot of their catalogue is on other sites, and may can be found for free on YouTube.  However, they do have productions unique to them, periodic streaming events, and it's well-organized.  If I ever do decide to check back to see if their library has increased with things of interest to me and consider whether or not to re-subscribe, though, it will be on the Amazon Prime channel, and not their own website.  Doing so at double the price would be foolish.

I pass this along for anyone who does ever have interest in checking out BroadwayHD.
​

If you didn’t see Last Week Tonight with Jon Oliver last night, the Main Story was on Twitter.  Or as Oliver explained -- "Or as it's known since Elon Musk bought it...'Twitter.'"

Oliver notes that as bad as you think Twitter is -- it's worse.  It's a very good report, gallingly teeth-gnashing, but also fertile ground for blistering humor.
​

If you didn't see "Last Week Tonight" with John Oliver on Sunday, his Main Story was about content moderation on social media, with a focus on Facebook.  It's a pretty funny report, since the topic lends itself to ridicule, but it's also an important and interesting story.
​

​Ah, Sweet Twitter, what hath thou become under MusXk...

Yesterday, in response to a tweet left by new White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt that was a song-and-dance attempt to explain away something that wasn't true, I wrote the following --

"You have started your tenure VERY poorly for someone who said she 'was about the truth.'  This below at best is a gobbledy-gook to explain a jumble. You lied about the military going into California. And lied about $50 million meant for Gaza that supposedly went instead for bombs."

To my surprise, I received an email from the folks at TwiXter that said --

​
Needless-to-say, after ungnashing my teeth and unclenching my typing fingers, I saw that at the bottom of their email, I was allowed to appeal their algorithm's "decision."  I did not, explaining that I merely criticized the press secretary for lying and there was nothing in my tweet that promoted violence or threatened, and nothing was based on age, gender, religious or whatever.  (I'd have said much more, but I was limited to only 280 characters.)

I explained this online, and then rephrased my original tweet, trying to figure out some way to tone down what was only bluntly critical but not threatening in any imaginable way.  I trimmed out a few words and also cut out the reference that Ms. Leavitt herself made to bombs, since I thought that that word might be been what the algorithm saw and thought was a "threat."  And so, my post now read this kinder, gentler way --

Moments later, also to my surprise, but this time a happy surprise, I received a quick follow-up from TwiXter to my appeal that said --

​
Oh!  How nice.  Honestly, I didn't expect that.  And so quickly.  Sanity ruled the day.  So, okay, good!

But then came the funnier part. 

Much to my, once again, surprise -- after I had toned down my tweet (written before getting their ruling that it was perfectly OK), the algorithm limited my toned down tweet that -- which moments before they had just ruled that the original tweet was fine!

I decided not to challenge the "limited visibility" of the rewritten tweet, since the original was more pointed and better.  And I just deleted the rewrite.

Mind you, I still have absolutely no idea what the algorithm saw that it considered even remotely violent or threatening about my original tweet, since (in my rewrite) I deleted what I thought was the only conceivably algorithmically-threatening word, "bomb" -- and it still got tagged.

Some days, it seems you just can't trust a MusXk-based algorithm.  Go figure.

More than a few friends periodically ask me, “Why do you keep posting on Twitter?  Isn't it crazy there?"  I always answer that, yes, Twitter is incredibly crazy – indeed, ever since Elon Musk took over and opened the door wide with a welcome mat for racists, anti-Semites, fascists and lunatic conspiratorialists, it’s become even crazier and nastier.  But I stay because…Anatevka’s our home.  Wait, sorry, wrong musical.  I stay because the election is too important not to put on a protective helmet and respond to lies, lies, more lies, disinformation and hate.
 
All that holds true, though I’m not sure that TwiXter hasn’t morphed into something else that might not be worth – well, I won’t say “the time,” but – as much time.  What it’s become is whack-a-mole.
 
The lies, disinformation and crazy theories have become so pervasive that there’s no way to respond to even an angel’s breath of them.  The one you do respond to is only one of probably hundreds or thousands saying the same thing.  And that one may have two or three lunatic screeds within it to refute – an even bigger challenge for responding since TwiXtter only allows 288 characters in a tweet.  (You can, of course, respond with more than one tweet, but there’s no guarantee each will be seen by the people following the initial discussion, and so they only react to the one they see.)  Further, a rational response of reality to a conspiratorialist will generally be dismissed simply for the fact that you made it.  Disagreement with a conspiracy theory is often “proof enough” that you’re compromised or an agent of the devil or whatever.
 
That’s why I often don’t even try to debate, since arguing with facts and reality don’t matter.  So, instead I have written a default reply that I just copy-paste in.  It reads –
 
“This below is from someone who supports a man convicted of 34 felonies, found liable for rape, guilty of business fraud, says he wants to be a dictator, wants to rewrite some of the Constitution, echoes HITLER’s words, says he wants to build internment camps & has early dementia.”

And yes, that’s just under the 288 character limit.  I made sure of it.
 
Thank goodness, too, that God created the “Block” button.  It’s made life so much better.  Alas, it’s not a panacea.
 
Another main reason I participate on TwiXter, though, isn’t just to debate disinformation and hate from “the other side” – but to shore up support of those who agree with me or maybe need talking down from the ledge.
 
Unfortunately, the lunacy has now begun to permeate though the edges of one's own side, as well.  And that, perhaps more than the hate and racism, is what is making it almost not worth spending as much time in the morass.  When your “friends” are driving you nuts, and arguing with you if you don't support them in everything and are telling you off, that’s when you think maybe you should make sure you always know where the nearest exit is.
 
The great thing about the Democratic Party is that it’s, as the expression goes, “a big tent.”  Filled with many views.  The hurdle the Democratic Party has to deal with is that it’s a big tent – filled with many views.  The party has long been known for eating its young.  As humorist Will Rogers famously said back in the 1930s, almost 100 years ago, “I’m not a member of any organized political party.  I’m a Democrat.”
 
And I’m okay with that.  The different views are what give Democrats their vibrancy and strength.  But in recent days, starting months ago, the “What I heard is's …” have grown louder – never mind almost no one on TwiXter is in any position to “hear” anything from a direct, informed source, but are just passing along a rumor based on a rumor.  And the fear of “what if Trump wins…” has begun to color views, to the point that disagreement is less tolerated.  And surface-level conspiracies have begun to creep in.  (Rational, but unsupportable ones, not "JFK is coming back to life.")  A “We should boycott...” attitude also now permeates over anything you don’t like, for many.  “That reporter is really a Trumper” because the reporter asks hard questions to a Democrat is something that has begun to crop up all over, as well.
 
Just yesterday, I saw a few more cries for MSNBC to drop Jen Psaki.  Apparently she’s been more critical of President Biden than many people think is appropriate, since she worked for him.  I replied to one by saying, “Personally, I admire any reporter seriously trying to be objective and honest even against their friends, whether I agree with their opinion or not. It’s their job.”
 
Just yesterday, too, TwiXter was bombarded with Democrats red-hot outraged at Adam Schiff for calling on President Biden to leave the race.  While I certainly understand people being upset, I can make a great case for him staying in the race or leaving.  What I don’t like much is when politicians make the case publicly for dropping out, since they have direct access to the real power brokers that the rest of the public doesn’t have.  But being upset at Schiff’s decision (or supporting it) is one thing.  It’s another to see the tsunami of questions on social media about if he’s been bought off, is his campaign in trouble, is he out of money, “I heard on the street that…” (yes, someone actually said that) and how, oh my God, this is trouble for California.  I left as many  replies as I could saying that -- “Steve Garvey outraised Adam Schiff this last quarter by $1 million.  Overall, however, Schiff has outraised Garvey by almost $30 million.  He has $3 million more cash on hand than Garvey.  And a poll just showed that Rep. Schiff was leading former first-baseman Garvey by 25 points!  No, Adam Schiff is not in trouble or bought off.”  But there are only so many times you can keep posting that.
 
Just yesterday, again -- and yes, this is all just yesterday -- perhaps my favorite exchange of the day came from someone trying to drag me into an argument because she disagreed with something I wrote and, in doing so, made a claim of fact that, in fact, had no basis as “fact.”  So, how do I respond?, I wondered.  I checked her bio, laughed, and wrote back – “I see in your bio that you have disdain for the left and antipathy for the right. Fair enough, but that's not an arena I care to participate in, so someone else is going to have to jump in and debate with you.  Not me.”
 
And that’s why God also created the “Mute” button.

And none of these "yesterday" tales were were from the other side of the aisle.
 
So – we’ll see.  I’ll continue posting on TwiXter to provide links to my articles here.  And I’ll continue posting thoughts about news stories.  And I’ll let my eyes drift over other posts to see if there’s anything I strongly agree with and want to lend support – or anything (especially from a MAGOP official) that’s a blatant, egregious lie or disinformation that I want to refute.  Or…who knows?, perhaps continue replying to a range of topics (being careful not to get dragged into whack-a-mole) – as long as I follow what may possibly be a new rule:  don’t read replies.  Or at the very least, debate them.
 
There’s still too much of importance with the election to depart TwiXter,  But I never much cared for playing whack-a-mole in a game box, so I can’t see any reason to start playing it online.