Land of the Negative
Plus: Migrant resettlement, Tom Cotton op-ed scandal, oppressors-in-training, and more...
America is an outlier: New polling by the Pew Research Center indicates that the U.S. is a global outlier when it comes to majority attitudes toward social media.
"People in emerging economies are particularly likely to say social media has advanced their democracy," reports Pew. "Assessments are especially positive in Nigeria and Mexico, where nearly eight-in-ten (77% each) say social media has had a positive effect on democracy."
In other places, like Poland, "86% of adults under 40 say social media has benefited democracy in their country, compared with 56% of those ages 40 and older." Younger people tend to be more likely to report positive perceptions of social media's value for democracy, ditto with the richer and more educated.
Overall, large shares of respondents say they believe social media has been beneficial to democracy—76 percent of Singaporeans, 74 percent of Indians, 68 percent of South Africans, 65 percent of Israelis, and 63 percent of Argentines—while respondents in the U.S. largely disagree, with 64 percent saying "social media has been more of a bad thing for democracy in their country" compared with 34 percent who say it's been more of a good thing.
Might this be because people use social media differently by country? Does, for example, WhatsApp messaging—a means of staying in touch with large groups of friends and family common in much of the world, but less used in the U.S.—count? Might attitudes be colored by U.S. media coverage of the issue (including Russia election interference panic)? Does the perception of social media's value have to do with where each country is on the adoption curve of a given platform?
Maybe in the U.S. we're at the point where we take some of the value for granted—the ease with which we access new information, the minimal effort it takes to stay in touch with family, the little mood-lifting benefits that come from content we authentically want to consume.
Making Elizabeth Warren's dreams come true: I regret to inform you that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is at it again (with some cheerleading by a certain Democratic senator from Massachusetts, naturally): As of this week, the agency has sued to block a nearly $25 billion deal between Kroger and Albertsons, two grocery chains that want to merge. If they are allowed to go through with the deal, they would then control about 13 percent of the grocery market, compared to Walmart's 22 percent (with Costco, Amazon, and the like controlling the other large portions).
"Grocery prices are still too high," writes Warren on Twitter. "One reason: too few competitors for giant grocery chains." Not really—it's inflation, sent skyrocketing in no small part by the federal government's insane COVID-era stimulus packages, that's really leading to high grocery prices. But also, Warren's whole argument is that we need more viable competitors to bring prices down…which is exactly what a Kroger-Albertsons combo would be.
This feels like the JetBlue-Spirit deal all over again: two smaller operators joining together to attempt to present meaningful competition to the top four or five firms that are currently controlling the market, being thwarted by the federal government for… no reason that makes sense. Thanks, regulators.
Scenes from New York: "A program designed to resettle 1,250 families across New York State has moved only about 170 households, barely easing the burden on the city's shelter system," report Dana Rubinstein, Andy Newman, and
QUICK HITS
- Truly stunning revelations from this piece in The Atlantic about dysfunction at The New York Times and the notorious Tom Cotton op-ed:
"What's your favorite sandwich?"
"The spicy chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A."
"Wrong!" pic.twitter.com/4A72FSL11N— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) February 26, 2024
- "Many of my colleagues were clearly worried that lending credence to the laptop story could hurt the electoral prospects of Joe Biden and the Democrats," writes Adam Rubenstein in the above piece. "But starting from a place of party politics and assessing how a particular story could affect an election isn't journalism. Nor is a vague unease with difficult subjects."
- Forgive me, but I simply do not think it is fair to refer to one's own son as an "oppressor-in-training":
Glad this mom is open to not canceling her teenage sons at the table as they think through life. But she also says young men "anxious about saying the wrong thing" in a college classroom are experiencing a "fake problem." Would you feel okay differing in her classroom? pic.twitter.com/HEX6MnzKLL
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) February 26, 2024
- Boeing is facing the wrath of regulators.
- From a new National Bureau of Economic Research paper: "Lows in US consumer sentiment that cannot be explained by unemployment and official inflation are strongly correlated with borrowing costs…" a.k.a. it's interest rates staying high that are leading to a pervasive sense that the economy is not all right.
- Penguins in Antarctica may face devastation from bird flu.
- This specific reference will appeal to like five people total but I AM ONE OF THEM:
Bitcoin is nearing prices at which I start to seriously consider purchasing the complete set of Louis Vuitton luggage from The Darjeeling Limited pic.twitter.com/6KhOfTPIro
— nic ???? carter (@nic__carter) February 26, 2024
- The "free Palestine" protester who I reported on yesterday? Well, the discourse surrounding his self-immolation has spiraled out of control:
I've got a request for comment in to the AFSP, but the idea that it's sound journalistic practice to deviate from (what I view as) well-grounded guidelines on avoiding suicide contagion because… you favor the cause the person supposedly committed suicide to support… uhhhhhhh
— Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) February 26, 2024
