To save the news, ban surveillance ads: No publisher will ever beat ad-tech at spying, but no tech company will ever understand a publisher's content better than they do.
Milton Friedman was a monster, but he wasnāt wrong aboutĀ this.
Only a crisisāāāactual or perceivedāāāproduces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.
A new way to think about utilitarianism, courtesy of the Office of Management andĀ Budget.
Utilitarianismāāāthe philosophy of making decisions to benefit the most peopleāāāsounds commonsensical. But utilitarianism isāāāand always has beenāāāan attractive nuisance, one that invites its practitioners to dress up their self-serving preferences with fancy mathematics that āproveā that their wins and your losses are ārational.ā
Thatās been there ever since Jeremy Benthamās formulation of the concept of utilitarianism, which he immediately mobilized in service to the panopticon, his cruel design for a prison where prisoners would be ever haunted by a watcherās unseeing eye. Bentham seems to have sincerely believed that there was a utilitarian case for the panopticon, which let him declare his sadistic thought-experiment (thankfully, it was never built during Benthamās life) to be a utility-maximizing act of monumental kindness.
Ever since Bentham, utilitarianism has provided cover for historyās great monsters to claim that they were only acting in service to the greater good.