Dislike

 The use of "likes" and "dislikes" was always a little foreign to me, but I thought it was a brilliant invention when Twitter rolled it out.

Since that time, it has become a standard feature on social media.  Heck, even the communication app common amongst college students, GroupMe, allows you to heart individual texts.  iPhone allows you "react" to texts.  The feature has become ubiquitous and loved.

That was why it was so strange to me when it was announced this week that YouTube was testing the removal of the dislike button.

YouTube removes Dislike count

Now, if one were cynically minded, they would probably think back, not so long ago, to the most disliked video ever, that just so happened to be from YouTube itself.  That might be why they are doing it.

But my mind went somewhere else.

As always, it went to media and politics.  

This seems to me a blow to, let's call it, internet democracy.  Likes and dislikes are a bellweather of public sentiment.  If we can't tell organizations and politicians(in a public way) that we dislike what they are saying, that's dangerous to public discourse.  Increasingly I view online platforms as the new town square.  People just don't go out and talk politics like they used to.  There is a place for that now, and it's called the internet.  I think this is a dangerous precedent and one that politicians and legacy media orgs will be 100% behind.

Faith in Government Relief

     One of the things that is a constant in both media and politics, is spin.  It is essential to both industries, and any story can be spun to make someone appear to be the savior, or the Anti-christ, with enough talent and prose.

That is why with any new government intiative, it is usually accompanied with a PR campaign.  In the case of this blog post, it is evident how that can also go bad.

Stimulus Fraud

Essentially, people are taking the stimulus funds intended for small businesses, and laundering them through online trading platforms.  Put simply, this is a catastrophe for PR.  

People had faith when the government said it was using tax money to bail out small businesses.  If that faith is seen as misplaced or abused, people won't want their money going to fund "fraudsters", as the article alleges.  So not only do the funds not get to their intended recipients because of theft but also more aid will likely not be coming because of distrust of the policies.  This is a major hit to the credibility of stimulus programs, and online brokerages who will now be seen by some as traffickers in illegal money laundering, who were already losing credibility.

In my view, the government needs to act quickly to strengthen public faith in these programs or we will face a major economic downturn.

Sarah Everard: Forcing the Government to fix it?

 Police Everywhere

I don't quite know why I gravitate towards news stories that I don't know how to feel about.  Maybe it is a subconscious desire to air the material out, and hope someone can help me work through it.  This is one of those cases especially considering my gender.

So, for those unaware of the circumstances, 33-year-old Sarah Everard was murdered on March 3rd(this is in the UK so you might not have heard about it).  Her body was found a week later and a London Metropolitan Police officer was charged with her murder.  While this prompted a nationwide conversation regarding the threats and violence women face, the British government responded with programs as well.

"Project Vigilant, the programme can involve officers attending areas around clubs and bars in plainclothes, along with increased police patrols as people leave at closing time"

"Other steps unveiled by Downing Street include a doubling to £45m of the Safer Streets fund, which provides neighbourhood measures such as better lighting and CCTV."

The highly charged and negative media coverage had caused the government to respond, but many saw these responses as "scattershot" or "tone-deaf".  I mean, a police officer allegedly murdered the girl, installing more police and calling it fixed certainly isn't the best response to feed to the public.  

I don't have any answers or opinions this time.  I'm not a woman.  So let me pass the question off to others who are more qualified to speak on it.

1.)  What should the response from the government have been?  If they should have responded at all.

2.)   Is there anything the government could even do?  Or is this something that should be outsourced to different agencies considering who the alleged murderer is?

3)    Are there situations where the government shouldn't respond to media pressure?  Or should there always be a response?

The Celebrity President

     We just finished with the presidency of Donald Trump two months ago, leaving many people with the impression that the cult of celebrity in the executive was done.  But this isn't the first time, or the last, that this phenomenon will happen.  In fact, I'd argue that Trump was just the beginning.

It's easy to forget that media darlings as president isn't a new thing.  Reagan is the big example, movie star and head of the Screen Actors Guild going all the way to president.  But he wasn't the first either.

There are many examples throughout American History.  Teddy Roosevelt, JFK and even Washington were all media darlings.    And now it seems to me it's accelerating.  We all remember calls for Oprah to be president, or the Rock.

Oprah for President

The Rock for President

But the story for this week is Will Smith has potentially thrown his hat in the ring.

“I will certainly do my part, whether it remains artistic or, at some point, ventures into the political arena,” he said.

I think our days of seeing media influence politics are really ramping up.  We are gonna see more celebrities as president.

Will Smith for President?