,
9 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
I'm starting to wonder about the ethics of reposting @HawleyMO's anti-tech drivel like his latest in the WSJ. His oft-repeated "we went to moon, but what have you done for me lately" bit has been rightly lampooned by folks listing all the amazing innovations of the last decade.
There's a legit debate to be had about whether engagement tech (infinite scroll, etc) is socially beneficial on net. But Hawley keeps inflating that into a, "Tech ain't doin' nuttin' no more" framing, which is just silly. He's too smart not to know better, so why does he do it?
He's betting anti-Big Tech populism will grease his path to political success. He, and politicians like @ewarren from other side of the aisle, believe that there is a reservoir of public discontent with tech companies that can be exploited for partisan gain.
Depressingly, they might be correct. An ad hoc, bipartisan coalition of the willing could ride the tech backlash, including protectionists worried about flow of ideas/jobs, nativists worried about skilled immigrants, parochial paranoia about cosmopolitan concentration, etc..
And Hawley LOVES to complain about "cosmopolitans," the kind of people who go to Stanford and Yale Law School, clerk for Supreme Court justices, and work in the DC interest group swamp, you know, people just like...Hawley. newrepublic.com/article/154526…
So then why does he write in the WSJ, a readership that leans towards the very cosmopolitans he uses as a lazy shorthand? Because he wants the signal-boosting that comes from even hate-sharing of his essays. And although I didn't share it, I'm still talking about him, so...
Should tech policy wonks engage with bad faith actors like Hawley? Some will do anything / work with anyone in order to get a seat at the table. Tech policy is DC-centric, so perhaps we should be surprised at any response other than naked calculation & compromise.
I'm also a historian and #twitterstorians have had a related conversation in regards to @KevinMKruse and Dinesh D'Souza. Kruse refuses (rightly, imo) to share a stage w/ a bad faith actor like D'Souza and thus lend him the semblance of respectability.
The more complicated question is whether engaging with D'Souza on social media, even in disagreement, is beneficial signal-boosting? Is it feeding the trolls or exposing them? I don't have a pat answer, but tech policy wonks should have their own version of that discussion.
