As a bonus, for those interested, this is the very good, thoughtful, detailed (sometimes very detailed) interview that Jon Stewart did afterwards with Mark Cuban.  It covers a wide range of subjects, including basketball, his dealings with Trump, a lot on AI industrialization, and medical drug transparency.

​The other day, I decided to correct the latest MAGOP talking point, that Democrats are the real fascists, not Republicans.  Putting aside that it seems obvious from this that they have no more idea what fascism is than they know what communism or socialism are (despite trying to pain Democrats with that for the past 70 years), what they most are completely unaware of is that fascism is specifically a conservative political philosophy.  So, calling a liberal a fascist is a contradiction in terms.
 
It turned out that MAGOPs don’t like hearing this.  The vitriol came pouring down.  Unrelentingly.  I responded to many, continuing to explain politely that, no, they were incorrect, though for the most invective-laced it was clear why the “Block” button was invented.  Occasionally, though, I did even reply to a few of those that cried out for an answer.  For instance, I would reply, “Just so you know, starting a note to a total stranger with “Dumbass” is generally not going to start a meaningful exchange.”  Or to those who would send a graphic meme that said something like, “You are a stupid idiot idiot idiot idot.  You make me sick,” they would get the response, “That is not a compelling argument.”
 
I particularly liked the person who explained back that fascism was actually just an offshoot of communism.   It was near-impossible to let that fly past, so I’d just point out that that would be a neat trick that could not be found anywhere in reality.
 
I didn’t engage anyone of these in conversation and debate – clearly, there was no point in that.  Minds were certain, locked in.  But to be clear, the reason I did reply at all was for other people reading the wildly off-base comments who didn’t know the truth, and I felt it was important to correct the disinformation so they didn’t go away believing it all.  And yes, I understood full well that it was like playing whack-a-mole in a cornfield of whack-a-mole that spread as far as the weary eye could see.
 
That’s all well and good.  I was okay with the responses, since I eventually realized it was easy to ignore them.  Replies on Twitter go to your Notifications folder, so all one has to do is not read your Notification folder for a couple days, when the vitriol usually dies down.  It does mean you want see the “Likes” and “Reposts” and any comments from people you know who you might want to reply to.  But it’s a minor downside to the beatific comfort of silence.
 
What I didn’t count on was the magical world of algorithms, especially those set up by Elon Musk.  Those are the computer codes that identify content and match it up with like-minded content it thinks you might enjoy.  That’s one of the nefarious results that allows hate-filled posters to find one another and reinforce their anger and echo chamber.
 
And it turns out that by answering many of these corrosive slams and lies and disinformation, my algorithm buddy seemed to think, “Hey, this guy is responding to these people, he must want to continue doing so!  Okay, here, let me dump all this garbage on your timeline…”
 
There is good news/ bad news to all this –
 
The bad news is…well, obvious.  It’s pretty hideous what solid MAGOP writes.  Not to me, but just in general, and mostly to themselves.  And they write a whole lot of it, too.  It’s hateful, ignorant, often filled with lies and actual “fake news” (whimsical for people who claim they supposedly detest it so much) that they believe, and believe all the more so because it gets reinforced.  And I have to wade through this tripe to get to the actual news and exchanges I’m there for.
 
(To be clear, I’ve always gotten a mix of political tweets on my timeline.  Mostly liberal, yes, but enough that’s conservative and MAGOP -- some of which I’ll reply to, most of which I’ll at least be aware of.  And that’s fine, and as it should be.  But this kind of empty, angst-ridden venality is just a detestable bubble.)
 
The good news is that it’s important to see how desolate that unsubstantiated fury is.  It’s disturbing, to say the least, but it’s important to know what the sane world is dealing with.
 
And yes, the bad news part in this dynamic overwhelms the good news.  But I’m glad for that perspective.
 
What I don’t know is if I’m stuck with this algorithm from now on when rummaging through Twitter – especially since occasionally there will be something SO profoundly inaccurate or a hurtful lie about something that demands being corrected, or if it will fade back to normal, as long as I keep my replies to such things to a minimum.
 
Time will tell.  If it doesn’t, it might render Twitter useless, or at least as only a platform to post on and not bother reading.  Or perhaps greatly limit what accounts can get sent to my timeline.  I’m hoping for a return to normal.  I’ll accept semi-normal.
 
But I do mean it – I’m glad to see how insane and angry and utterly misinformed the core MAGOP world is.  And no, that's not bias.  It’s an accurate description of the equivalence of people saying “2 plus 3 equals ‘French toast,’ and I hate you, and all libs are scum, minorities should be deported, and Trump is God.”
 
And just to cleanse the palate and end on a refreshing note -- the correct answer is 5.
 

I spend more time on Twitter than I should, since it’s become so abusive, hate-filled, racist and fascist-enabling.  But I do participate for several reasons, some for my own benefit (like promoting my articles), but also because I think it’s important to respond to disinformation.

I should note that the reason I respond is not to convince my correspondent of anything.  I know full well that’s a fantasy lost cause.  The sort of thing where, if the person does get convinced, it’s a surprise bonus, not a trend.  No, the reason I reply is to inform others reading the disinformation so they can see reality presented and explained.
 
But there are limits.  And we’re reaching those limits.
 
To be clear, by “reaching those limits” doesn’t mean I’ll stop responding, but rather how I respond.
 
I began this new effort several months back.  It’s a process, and has taken several paths to "reach the limit."
 
The first path was putting aside my reticence to block people until they crossed the line of decency.  Now, the line of demarcation is more like, “Who needs this??!”  Anything abusive, any infantile name-calling that isn’t just directed at me (the previous standard) but at pretty much anyone, anything that shows they’re reveling in their ignorance of reality and more, things like that.  I might say “Goodbye,” click, block, done – but sometimes “Who needs this??!” kicks in, and the block is immediate. 
 
I should add that among those I’ve blocked is Elon Musk.  Because he has such a huge reader base, I’d often felt compelled to respond to his disinformation or egregious ignorance or racism.  But because I was getting so many of his tweets in my timeline, I finally had enough and blocked him.  It made my life oh-so much more comforting.  And because others on my time line respond to him and so his comments occasionally show up for me to see, I can respond to those, if the spirit moves me, knowing he’s blocked.  Though usually I let them pass since – because they’re appearing on my time line that way – it means others have responded to him, and responded very well.
 
The next path was creating several default responses that I just copy and paste.  They’re different, because they have to fit different situations, but there are two core saved-response that I use as a starting point.  The first, that’s more explanatory, which I use if I feel that others reading it might be deserving of the explanation is –
 
“I'm always happy to debate opinions. But I won't debate facts & reality, and your choice to ignore them is established. While it appears you get ‘talking points’ from sources that chose to misinform, it's on you for accepting that just because it fits what you wish was true. Bye.”
 
But sometimes I just go for blunt, and respond –
 
“I'm sorry but you've confused me with someone willing to debate those who enable a party whose base gets its "information" from an anonymous "Q", ignores science & inconvenient reality, bans books, accepts white supremacists & neo-Nazis and foments insurrection. Best wishes. Bye.”
 
These, and the adaptations, have served me well.
 
But that brings us to now.  And MAGOP World has begun to take on many of the attributes of Trump.  Meaning that members of the MAGOP base now have gotten to where the lie is not just the starting point, but the point.  And then feed on one another passing along the lie.  And when confronted with reality and the lie and with links to established news stories confirming the lie just scream and send GIFs and memes that shout some version of “You lie!!!!!”

It's become pernicious and egregious and -- perhaps worse than even that, which is saying a lot -- almost standard.
 
Mind you, I don’t know if they even know they’re lying – and it doesn’t matter because they not only believe it to be true (or more to the point, gospel) and nothing will convince them otherwise, and pass the lie along.  Some -- many, perhaps -- may also know they're lying, but don’t care since it supports what they wish to be true.
 
Further, though, this has morphed with a long-standing MAGOP tactic:  when presented with evidence of the lie, they shift into “But what about…??!” mode.  Tangentially staying on the general topic, but moving to an issue not being discussed.
 
I had such an exchange yesterday.  The attack on President Biden brought up that concerned the Strategic Petroleum Reserved.  Putting aside that the attack was based on a lie made by Trump in 2023, and all the subsequent “points” were built on that lie and untrue, the attempted aim was to show that this one untrue issue about something worth discussion but utterly meaningless to most Americans supposedly (even if it was true, which it wasn’t) offset everything fascist and criminal about Trump, starting with trying to overthrow the government of the United States.

I explained the lie, and linked to a detailed article on the subject.  This brought out several attempts by others to repeat the lie, to which I simply referred them to the same article, and the contorted into the obligatory “But what about…??!” new topic.
 
I had enough.  And my new response, which I expect now to use a similar version of in similar situations was –
 
“The premise and points in the original tweet were from a Trump lie in 2023. I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole chasing "what about" whack-a-mole issues from those defending an Insurrectionist who says he wants to be a dictator, undo the Constitution and who was found liable for rape.”
 
And then blocked the person.
 
Enough.
 
Not “enough” that I won’t respond any further.  I will.  As I said, I’m responding for the “others” reading the exchange who can be convinced by hopefully well-explained reality.  But enough so that once the explanation is made, that is the limit.  No more heading down rabbit holes, no more playing whack-a-mole.  Now, instead, pointing out the large, far more reality – that the person trying to make this meaningless point with a lie or disinformation is missing, not the forest for the trees, but the mountain range for the pebble.  And explain to the others reading it that this person is making his or her case (whether an egregious lie or a valid, insignificant thought) in order to help enable an out-of-control fascist who tried to overthrow the government, said he wants to be a dictator, said he wants to throw out parts of the Constitution, and has been found liable twice by a jury of the equivalence of rape.  As a starting point.
 
Now, knowing me, I’m sure I’ll forget and occasionally respond as before.  But I also know that, since we’ve passed the limit and reached “enough,” that muscle memory will kick in, and I’ll calmingly reach into my treasure chest and reply –
 
“I'm sorry but you've confused me with someone willing to debate those who enable a party whose base gets its "information" from an anonymous "Q", ignores science & inconvenient reality, bans books, accepts white supremacists & neo-Nazis and foments insurrection. Best wishes. Bye.”
 
Well, either that or more pithy:
 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
-- George Bernard Shaw

Starting about a month ago, Jon Stewart returned to hosting The Daily Show, though only on Monday nights.  However, he is now serving as Executive Producer.

It turns out that The Daily Show is posting the main story of the opening segment on the shows that Stewart hosts.  And here's his coverage from this past Monday.  He talks about the false promises of Artificial Intelligence.  It's pretty funny, interesting and smart.

On this week’s Naked Lunch podcast, hosts Phil Rosenthal and David Wild sit down for lunch with Justine Bateman.  As they say on the site – “Here's a striking new episode with actress, writer, author, director, and producer Justine Bateman who Phil became friends with on the last WGA strike -- they both also appear in the 2006 film, The TV Set. Justine, Phil and David enjoy a freewheeling conversation covering everything from Artificial Intelligence to Family Ties, from Justin's compelling books Fame and Face to her acclaimed feature film directorial debut Violet in 2021 to going back to earning a degree in computer science and digital media management from UCLA in 2016. Justine is full of insights into Hollywood's current labor issues to making the movie Satisfaction with Julia Roberts. 

While I don't agree with all her conclusions on where media and technology will go, I do agree with most.  And the few I don't fully agree with, she comes at them with so much expertise and thoughtful insight that they're well-worth consideration.
 
(As a sort of addendum, like Phil Rosenthal, I too sort of crossed paths with her on the last WGA strike.  We never met face-to-face, but did exchange a bunch of “mutual admiration society” emails between one another, over articles we each wrote about the strike.  I’d been very impressed by a couple she wrote – even though she wasn’t a member of the WGA at the time, but she said she hoped to be one day – and it turned out she regularly read a long series of articles I was writing on the strike for the Huffington Post.  Unlike Phil, though, we haven’t been in touch since.)
 

The other day, I wrote about Netflix ending its DVD plan, and the challenge I had figuring out which "final" DVD I wanted to get, which I'd be allowed to keep.  And I ended up choosing the classic TV special, Hal Holbrook in Mark Twain Tonight!, adapted from his one-man Broadway show.

As I noted, though I get chided for it (wrongly, I might add, as I think will become clear), I like DVDs for several reasons.  I think they handle fast-forwarding much better than streaming, DVDs include "extras" which I occasionally like to check out -- streaming video generally only offer the movies, and there are movies, TV series and TV specials available on DVD that are not available for streaming.  Those are all personal reasons, I know, but I think they're good ones.  Not everyone might care about them all (or any), but that's life.

However, there is a larger principle that I realized a few months back when Netflix announced its decision to drop DVDs.  It's related to availability, but on a far more significant level.

DVDs always exist and are available as physical entities anyone can have, but a streaming service can remove movies and TV shows from their library -- and regularly do -- and so they cease to exist.  I not only thing this is a personal problem, not being able to find something you want to watch, but even more, I think is is a potential huge problem for cultural "history."

I mentioned this is a screenwriter friend who didn't know why I kept insisting on sticking with DVDs.  He loves streaming.  But when I mentioned this, he had a sort of "lightbulb" moment.  He said that over the years, his movies generated a nice sum of WGA royalties for him.  Being able to own a downloaded a copy on a website to rent is not the same thing.  And he pointed to the music industry.  As he asked, "How can a playlist possibly compete with a collection of LPs"

And that is spot on.  His personal experience is Exhibit A.  But I’ll go even a big step further -- not only can a lot of streaming material not be downloaded to own, even if one wanted to, and rented only…but a ton of material isn’t even available to stream!  (One quick example:  “Mart Twain Tonight!” -- the DVD I selected as my last DVD so I could keep it --  is not available to stream, period, at least not on Amazon Prime or Netflix.  Only DVD.  That’s the main reason I chose it as my last the DVD.)

It’s actually (I think) a very huge problem with the entertainment industry’s full reliance on streaming, a point driven home all the more by Netflix dropping DVDs -- which has gone near-unreported.  I’m not even sure how significant the various Guild’s have addressed it (not that they can do much, I suspect, other than draw attention to it.)  They most I’ve seen is individual producers or directors complain when their movie or TV series has been taken out of the rotation of a streaming service that has exclusive rights to it.
 
And that’s the other thing -- services buy the exclusive rights to stream things.  So, if -- for example -- Netflix or Disney+ or Apple+ buys the sole rights to a movie or TV series and then drops it from circulation, everyone is out of luck.  Arguably forever.

Previously, it was up to individuals and the public to decide what they want to keep and move the popular culture of a society.  Now, that's becoming more the decision of a corporations bottom line.

Up to now, this hasn't been an issue as new technologies arrive.  Wax cylinders gave way to records which gave way to LP albums which gave way to reel-to-reel tape which gave way to cassettes which gave way to CDs.  Even MP3 files are physical entities you can have copies of.  VHS tapes gave way to DVDs.  There were always physical copies available that helped spready the cultural history of society.  With streaming -- that's dwindling. 

Put this in another perspective -- though eBooks have grown in popularity, and who knows?, may one day eliminate hardcopy books, libraries still exist as a repository for literary culture going back a hundred years. Actually hundreds of years, in some cases -- and even in scholastic settings, a thousand years.  While libraries certainly could disappear, it's not imminent.  Nor arguably, probable...especially if one considers the reality of digital e-libraries.  In fact, eBooks have shown themselves as a vibrant and economical way to preserve old literature, with numerous projects digitizing books and making them not only available as content for individuals, but free.  That's a world aside from streaming, where corporations own the rights to what they'll stream.  And if something is taken out of "rotation," it largely ceases to exist.

Hopefully, this will be something that gains attention as DVDs disappear, and people begin to discover that much of what they want to see is gone.  Here's hoping.
​