Jeffrey is a sophisticated journalist and knows the answer to her question but it’s good to say this stuff out loud

- some beats are about access, which comes w tradeoffs. Nina Totenberg is a great SCOTUS reporter. She socializes w the justices. She cannot do this kind of story

https://twitter.com/clarajeffery/status/1654269809947967488

- a big story shakes loose additional reporting. More reporters look at it, more sources realize they have something to share, more editors deem marginal stories newsworthy. Today’s Leo invoice thing is a great example. A decade old, far from a smoking gun—never gets published if

I guess my Twitter use declined to the point where I missed this LoC statement of policy on AI-generated works. It's interesting! federalregister.gov/documents/2023… - keeping copyright human-centered strikes me as good policy, even if only to slow deployment/displacement. "you can't make (c)-derived money off this without a human in the loop"--good!

- the provided rationale strikes me as a bit thin/non-durable

I think this is kind of easy to explain: sorting all art into "aligned/opposed to my tribal resentments" is a bad but compelling habit that has been popular on the right my whole life and has more recently become universally adopted.

https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1597968335643283463

This is a dumb habit employed by dumb people, and that means it's executed in dumb ways, ie by using the (assumed) tribal affiliations of the people who made a work of art as a major input to how it's classified; or the superficial subject matter rather than its implications.