Category Archives: Research

Can Innovation Survive in Trump’s America?

If there was one thing that has sparked America’s success, it has been innovation. That has been the engine that has driven the U.S. forward for at least the last several decades. Yes, the U.S. has natural resources. Yes, at one time the U.S. led the world in manufacturing output. But in their pursuit of adding value to economic output to maximize profit, the U.S. has moved beyond resource extraction and manufacturing to the far-right end of the value chain, where the American economic engine relies heavily on innovation.

Donald Trump can talk all he wants about making America great again by bringing back manufacturing jobs that have migrated elsewhere in the world (a goal that many, including the Economic Policy Institute, feel is delusion, at least using Trump’s approach), but if innovation dies in the process, the U.S. loses. Game over. It’s innovation that now fuels the American Dream.

Given that, MAGA adherents should be careful what they wish for. The Great America they envision is a place where it may be impossible for that kind of innovation to survive.

World class innovation needs an ecosystem, where there is adequate funding for start-ups, a friendly regulatory framework, a robust research environment and an open-door policy for innovative immigrants from other countries – all of which the US has historically had in spades. And – theoretically at least – it’s an ecosystem that Trump is promising high tech and why the tech broligarchy has been quick to court him. But like so many things with Trump, the reality will fall far short of his promises. In fact, he will likely stop innovation in its tracks and send U.S. ingenuity reeling backwards.

Next to the regulatory and economic inputs required for innovation – and perhaps more important than both – the biggest requirement for innovation is an environment that fosters divergent thinking. Study after study has shown that innovation lives best in an environment that fosters collaboration, invites different perspectives and provides a safe space for experimentation. All those things can be found in exactly the opposite of the direction in which the U.S. is currently headed.

Each year, the World Intellectual Property Organization publishes their Global Innovation Index. In 2024, the U.S. was in third spot, behind Switzerland and Sweden. To understand how innovation flourishes, it’s worth looking at what the most innovative countries have in common. Of the top ten (the others are Singapore, the U.K., South Korea, Finland, Netherlands, Germany and Denmark), almost all score the highest marks from the Economist Democracy Index for the strength of their democracy. Singapore is still struggling towards full democracy, and the U.S. is now considered to be a “flawed democracy”, in real danger of becoming an authoritarian regime.

The European contenders also receive very high marks for their social values and enshrining personal rights and freedoms. Those are exactly the things currently being dismantled in America.

There is only one country which is defined as an authoritarian regime that made the top 25 of the Global Innovation Index. China sits in the 11th spot. This brings us to a good question, “Can innovation happen in an authoritarian regime?” The answer, I believe, is a qualified yes. But it’s innovation we may not recognize, and which may turn out to be a lot less attractive than we thought.

I happened to visit China right around the time that Google was trying to move into the huge Chinese Market. Their main competition was Baidu, the home-grown search engine. I was talking to a Google engineer about how they were competing with Baidu. He said it was almost impossible to match the speed at which they could roll out new features. The reason wasn’t that they were more innovative. It was because they innovated through brute force. They could throw hundreds of programmers at an issue and hard code it at the interface level, rather than take the Western approach of embedding core functionality in the base code in a more elegant and sustainable approach. The Chinese could afford to endlessly code and recode.

It’s Brute Force Innovation that you’ll find in authoritarian regimes and dictatorships. It’s what the Soviets used to compete in the space race. It’s what Nazi Germany used when they developed rocket science in a desperate bid to survive World War II. It is innovation dictated by the regime, innovating in prioritized areas by sheer force despite the fact that the typical underpinnings of innovation – creative freedom, divergent thinking, the security needed to experiment and fail – have been eliminated.

If you look at the playbook Trump seems to be following – akin to the one Victor Orbán used in Hungary (ranked 36th on the Global Innovation Index) or Putin’s Russia (ranked 59th) – there appears to be  little hope for the U.S. to retain its world dominance in innovation.

The Quaint Concept of Borders

According to a recent Leger poll, one in five Americans would like their state to secede and join Canada. In contrast, according to the same poll, only one in 10 Canadians would like to see Canada become the 51st State.

Of course, no one takes either suggestion very seriously, except perhaps the President of the United States. And, given the current state of things, that job title is a little ridiculous. Those States are probably less united than they have been at any time since the American Civil War.

All this talk about borders does make a good Facebook meme though. You might have seen it – under the title “Problem Solved” there’s a map of North American with the Canadian border redrawn to extend down the east and west coast to include Washington, Oregon, California, New York, New Jersey and The New England States. Minnesota also gets to become part of the Great White North.

But – even if we took the suggestion seriously – does redrawing borders really solve any problem? Let’s assume that Canada really did become part of the US. It would be a “big, beautiful state,” according to Donald Trump. There have been a few that have pointed out that that state, with our 40 million potential voters, would probably vote overwhelmingly against Trump. Again, according to Canadian pollster Leger, only about 12% of Canadians support Trump.

While we’re redrawing the map of the world, even oceans can’t get in the way. Here in Canada, we are rushing to realign with Europe and its markets. The idea has even been floated that Canada should join the European Union.  Our new prime minister, Mark Carney, has said we have more in common with Europe and the values found there than we do with our American neighbors to the south.

But again, we use the faulty logic of Canadians, Americans or Europeans being identified as a cohesive bloc defined by a border. The recent rush of patriotism aside, Canadians rarely speak with one voice. For example, support for Trump runs highest in Alberta, where 23% of the province’s voters support him. He’s least popular in Canada’s Atlantic provinces, where support dips to 8%

Or let’s hop across the border to the state closest to me – Washington. If you take the state in aggregate, it is a blue state by almost 20 points. But again, that designation depends on an aggregation of votes within a territory defined by a fairly arbitrary border. If you look at Washington on a county-by-county basis, it’s hardly a cohesive voting bloc. Yes, the urban centers of Seattle and Olympia went heavily for Kamala Harris (74% in King County) but eastern Washington is a very different story. There in many counties, for every voter that chose Harris, 3 chose Trump. Ideologically, a resident of Pend Orielle County, Washington has much more in common with someone from Bonner County, which lies just across the border in Idaho, than they do with someone from Jefferson County, which lies on the west coast of Washington.

My point is this: given the polarization of our society, it’s almost impossible to draw a line anywhere on a map and think that it defines the people within that line in any identifiable way. Right now, nowhere on earth defines this more starkly than the United States. Because of the borders of the U.S. and the political structures that determine who leads the people within those borders, almost 2/3rds of Americans lives are being determined by a man they didn’t vote for. In fact, a big percentage of those 2/3rds are vehemently opposed to their President and his policies. How does that make any sense?

Borders were necessary where our survival was tied to a specific location and the resources to be found within that location. This forced a commonality on those that lived within those boundaries. They ate the same food, drank the same water, tilled the same fields, worked at the same factory, shopped at the same stores, attended the same church and their children went to the same schools.

But our digital world has lost much of that commonality. Online, we are defined by how we think, not where we live. This creates a new definition of “tribe” and, by extension, tribal territories. The divides between us now are based on differences in beliefs, not geographical obstacles. And the gap between our beliefs is getting wider and wider. This leaves the concept of a border threatened as something that is becoming increasingly anachronistic. Borders define something that is becoming less and less real and more and more problematic as the people who live in a state or country find less and less in common with their fellow citizens.  As Scottish journalist James Crawford says in his book, The Edge of the Plain: How Borders Make and Break Our World, the tension is usually felt more acutely on those arbitrary borders: “Wherever there are borders … that’s where you are going to find the most concentrated injustice.”

This redefining of our world as it decouples from the concept of “place” will place more and more pressure on the old idea of a border defining a place and a common ideology.  When there is less cohesivity between those living within the border than there is between ideologically aligned factions spread across the globe, we must wonder how to manage this given our current political structures based on the foundation of a common territory. This is particularly true for democracies, where you get a whipsaw backlash between the right and left as the two factions grow further and further apart. That prognosis is not a good one. As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said in their book How Democracies Die, “Democracies rarely survive extreme partisanship.”

Will There Be a Big-Tech Reckoning?

Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook must be thanking their lucky stars that Elon Musk is who he is. Musk is taking the brunt of any Anti-Trump backlash and seems to be relishing in it. Heaven only knows what is motivating Musk, but he is casting a smoke screen so wide and dense it’s obliterating the ass-kissing being done by the rest of the high-tech oligarchs.  In addition to Bezos, Zuckerberg and Cook, Microsoft’s Satya Nadella, Google’s Sundar Pichai and many other high-tech leaders have been making goo-goo eyes at Donald Trump.

Let’s start with Jeff Bezos. One assumes he is pandering to the president because his companies have government contracts worth billions. That pandering has included a pilgrimage to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago, a one million donation to his inauguration fund (which was streamed live on Amazon Prime), and green-lighting a documentary on Melania Trump. The Bezos-owned Washington Post declined from endorsing Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate, prompting some of its editorial staff to resign. At Amazon, the company has backed off some of its climate pledge commitments and started stripping Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs from their HR handbook.

Mark Zuckerberg joined Trump supporting podcaster Joe Rogan for almost three hours to explain how they were realigning Facebook to be more Trump-friendly. This included canning their fact checkers and stopping policing of misinformation. During the interview, Zuckerberg took opportunities to slam media and the outgoing Biden administration for daring to question Facebook about misleading posts about Covid-19 vaccines. Zuckerberg, like Bezos, also donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund and has rolled back DEI initiatives at Meta.

Tim Cook’s political back-bend had been a little more complicated. On the face of it, Apple’s announcement that it would be investing more than $500 billion in the U.S. and creating thousands of new jobs certainly sounds like a massive kiss to the Trumpian posterior but if you dig through the details, it’s really just putting a new spin on commitments Apple already made to support their development of Apple’s AI. And in many cases, the capital investment isn’t even coming from Apple. For instance, that new A.I. server manufacturing plant in Houston that was part of the announcement? That plant is actually being built by Apple partner Foxconn, not Apple.

As far as the rest of the Big Tech cabal, including Microsoft, Google and OpenAI, their new alignment with Trump is not surprising. Trump is promising to make the U.S. the undisputed leader in A.I. One would also imagine he would be more inclined than the Democrats to look the other way when it comes to things like anti-trust investigations and enforcement. So Big-Tech’s deferment to Trump is both entirely predictable and completely self-serving. I’m also guessing that all of them think they’re smarter than Trump and his administration, providing them a strategic opportunity to play Trump like a fiddle while pursuing their long-term corporate goals free from any governmental oversight or resistance. All evidence to date shows that they’re probably not mistaken in that assumption.

But all this comes at what cost? This could play out one of two ways. First, what happens if these High-Tech Frat Rat’s bets are wrong? There is an anti-Trump, anti-MAGA revolt building. Who knows what will happen, but in politically unprecedented times like this one has to consider every scenario, no matter how outrageous they may seem. One scenario is a significant percentage of Republicans decide their political future (and, hopefully, the future of the US as a democracy also factors into their thinking) is better off without a Donald Trump in it and start the wheels turning to remove him from power. If this is the case, things are going to get really, really nasty. There is going to be recrimination and finger pointing everywhere. And some of those fingers are going to be pointed at the big tech leaders who scrapped the ground bowing to Trump’s bluster and bullying.

Will that translate into a backlash against high-tech? I really am not sure. To date, these companies have been remarkably adept at sluffing off blame. IF MAGA ends up going down in flames, will Big Tech even get singed as they warm their hands at Donald Trump’s own bonfire of his vanities? Will we care about Big Tech’s obsequiousness when it comes time to order something from Amazon or get a new iPhone?

Probably not.  

But the other scenario is even more frightening: Trump stays in power and Big Tech is free to do whatever they hell they want. Based on what you know about Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and the rest, are you willing to let them be the sole architects of your future? Their about-face on Trump has shown that they will always, always, always place profitability above their personal ethics.

Paying the Price for Not Trusting

This will surprise no one, but a recent Gallup Poll showed professional trust in the U.S. at its lowest level since they started tracking it in 1999. In their index of 11 core professions, including nursers, bankers, business execs, Members of Congress and 7 others, the average honesty and ethics rates have dropped to the point where just 30% of those professions having high or very high ratings.

Those professionals who received the higher trust marks are nurses, teachers, military officers, pharmacists and doctors. Those in the medical categories have slipped since the pandemic but are still well in positive territory.

The least trusted professions? Car salesmen, advertising practitioners, TV reporters, Members of Congress and lobbyists. The percentage of respondents rating them as highly or very highly trustworthy and ethical was in the single digits for all but one of them (TV reporters). 

Again, not all that surprising. But what does this say about our society? Societal trust is the glue holds communities and nations together. If you’re a student of history, you’ll know that – without exception – cultures and societies with high levels of trust prosper over the long term and those that lack trust inexorably slip backwards.  Four years ago I wrote about this and used North and South Italy as examples. Southern Italy – partly because of geography that restricted widespread trade – historically had low levels of trust. You trusted your family, you may trust your paesani (townspeople) and that was about it. Northern Italy, with a more open geography and proximity to the rest of Europe, developed a widespread trading network that allowed the economies of renaissance City States like Venice, Florence and Milan to prosper, along with arts and culture. The difference between North and South Italy is startling, even to this day.

That is the price paid for distrust. Essentially, you can choose one of two paths: to trust or to fear. If you choose the later – as at least half of America has apparently done – understand that you are essentially choosing the strategy of the schoolyard bully, competing through fear and intimidation. Let’s take a closer look at that path with as objective a viewpoint as possible.

Bullying is a viable evolutionary survival strategy and it is common in nature. There are undeniably advantages to bullying. It gives you greater access to resources, such as food, shelter and sexual access. But it is a primal strategy and that defines its limits. It is dependent on the bully’s strength alone. It typically causes those being bullied to create new alliances, pushing them into a position where they must trust each other. And that creates a long-term advantage for the alliance, where they eventually gain strength from trusting each other while the bully loses strength by isolating itself. The Bully’s cycle always plays out the same way; gaining temporary advantage but eventually losing it in the long term as trust-based networks emerge. And – once lost – that advantage is very hard to regain.

It’s not just history where the advantage of trust has been proven. Game Theory looks at exactly these types of interactions. In one well-known scenario, the most successful strategy was called “Tit for Tat.” It starts with a default position of mutual trust and only moves to the offensive if one of the parties tries to defect from cooperating. Then, it goes into a cycle of zero sum back and forth retaliations. The advantage of this strategy is that it self-corrects towards trust. Only if that trust is broken does it retaliate. The benefits accrue during cooperation cycles and the strategy continually tries to move back to cooperation. Cooperation always beats confrontation.

As I said a few columns ago, it is a lack of trust in institutions that makes us think that everything is fundamentally broken. This distrust extends to everything but is particularly prevalent with trust in media and government. The Gallup Poll showed that TV reporters and Members of Congress are amongst the least trusted professions of those surveyed.

The Gallup Poll is backed up by the annual Edelman Trust Barometer study, which looks at institutional trust in government, business, media and NGOs (non-governmental not-for-profit organizations)  around the world, using 28 countries as its index. The decline in media and especially governmental trust over the past decade has been stunning, prompting CEO Richard Edelman to note, “Starting in 2005, we noticed the decline of belief in establishment leaders. Prime ministers, presidents, CEOs, and mainstream media lost their dominant status as opinion formers. Peer trust emerged, as friends and family depended on one another for advice and used social media as the connection point.”

This last point about peer trust is troubling. It essentially means a return to tribalism, this time mediated through social media. It really doesn’t sound all that different from the way society has operated in low trust and economically challenged regions such as Southern Italy for centuries now.

I’m not a Doctor, But I Play One on Social Media

Step 1. You have a cough
Step 2. You Google It
Step 3. You spend 3 hours learning about a rare condition you have never heard of before today but are now convinced you have.

We all joke about Doctor Google. The health anxiety business is booming, thanks to online diagnostic tools that convince us that we have a rare disease that affects about .002% of the population.

It you end up on WebMD, at least they suggest talking to a doctor. But there’s another source of medical information that offers no such caveats – social media influencers.

As healthcare becomes an increasingly for-profit business there are a new band of influencers who are promoting dubious tests and procedures because there is a financial incentive to do so.  They are also offering their decidedly non-expert opinion on important health practices such as vaccination. Unfortunately, people are listening.

During Covid, we saw how social media fostered antipathy towards vaccinations and public health measures such as wearing face masks. These posts ran counter to the best advice coming from trusted health authorities and created a distrust in science. But that misinformation campaign didn’t stop when the worst of Covid was over. It continues to influence many of us today.

Take the recent measles outbreak in Texas. As of the writing of this, the outbreak has grown to over 250 cases and 2 deaths. Measles cases across the US have already surpassed the number of cases for all of 2024. Vaccination rates for children in the US seem stuck at the 90% range and have been for a while. This is below the 95% vaccination rate required to stop the spread of measles.

One of the reasons is a group of social media influencers who have targeted women and spread the false impression that they’re being “bad moms” if they allow their children to be vaccinated. According to a study by the University of Washington, these posts often include a link to a unproven “natural” or homeopathic remedy sold through an affiliate program or multi-level marketing campaign.

Measles was something the medical community considered eradicated in North America in 2000. But it has resurfaced thanks to misinformation spread through social media. And that’s tragic. The first child to die in the most recent outbreak was the first measles related fatality in 10 years in America. The child was otherwise healthy. It didn’t have to happen.

It’s not just measles. There is an army of social media influencers all hawking dubious tests, treatments and tinctures for profit. None of them have the slightest clue what they’re talking about. They have no medical training. They do – however – know how to market themselves and how to capitalize on a mistrust of the medical system by spreading misinformation for monetary gain.

A recently published study looked at the impact of social media influences dispensing uneducated medical advice. They warned, “alarming evidence suggests widespread dissemination of health-related content by individuals lacking the requisite expertise, often driven by commercial rather than public health interests.”

Another study looked at 1000 posts by influencers to a combined audience of 194 million followers. The posts were promoting medical tests including full-body MRI scans, genetic screening for early detection of cancer, blood tests for testosterone levels, the anti-Mullerian hormone test and a gut microbiome test. 85 percent of the posts touted benefits without mentioning any risks. They also failed to mention the limited usefulness of these tests. Lead study author Brooke Nickel said, “These tests are controversial, as they all lack evidence of net benefit for healthy people and can lead to harms including overdiagnosis and overuse of the medical system. If information about medical tests on social media sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”

Social media misinformation is at epidemic levels. And – in the case of medical information – it can sometimes be a matter of life and death.

Trump, The Media and the Problem of “Pretty Good.”

A number of years back, I was in China for a conference and during a dinner thrown by the hosts for their international presenters, I was lucky enough to find myself sitting next to James Fallows, who was in China on assignment for the Atlantic. His dispatches back eventually became the book Postcards from Tomorrow Square: Reports from China.

It was my first trip to China and I was stunned by the apparent contradiction of the most entrepreneurial society I had ever seen under the rule of a Communist Regime. I asked James how China’s then leader, Hu Jintao, managed to maintain that seemingly impossible balance without widespread insurrection. He said something I’ll always remember: “As long as the Chinese people believe that their lives today are better than they were yesterday, and that they will be even better tomorrow, they will continue to follow their leader.”

That same very simple equation is what populists, some of whom may eventually become dictators, depend on – promising to make life better for their base. If you were Hitler, or Mussolini, or Francisco Franco, that was easy to do. Each of those countries and their economies were fundamentally broken in the 1920’s or 30’s. You didn’t have to be a genius to make things better for the average German, Italian or Spaniard. Just getting trains to run on time was a pretty big step in the right direction.

But that’s not the U.S.A. Things there are (or were) pretty good. Perfect? Not by a long shot. But pretty good.

You disagree? The plain facts are that at no time in history have people ate more, had more, did more or lived longer than right now. And that is doubly true for the U.S., who has about 5% of the world’s population but consumes about 20 to 25% of the world’s resources. Yes, there’s a lot that can be fixed (for instance, there are huge disparities in wealth and consumption), but things are pretty good. Especially in the U.S. of A.

So where does that leave a populist like Trump? Populists say that they – and they alone – can make life better tomorrow for their base. But when things are pretty good already, that’s a hard promise to keep. The U.S. – and the rest of the world – is a complex place that exists thanks to complex systems. The economy, financial markets, diplomacy, healthcare, immigration, education – all of these things are complex. And because of this complexity, the problems that do exist are what are called “wicked” problems – problems that have no quick or simple solution. In fact, they may have no solution at all.

Someone like Trump has no clue about complexity. He will spout inanely ignorant “fixes” and back them up with talking points that have no basis in reality.

Take Trump’s insanely stupid “tariff” solution he imposed just over a week ago. It wasn’t even 24 hours old when he started pulling it back because the U. S. economy started running off the rails. As I said a month ago, imposing a 25% blanket tariff is like doing open heart surgery with a hand grenade

And this is a big problem for Trump. He has no idea how to keep his promise to make life better for people in a complex environment.  It’s not just tariffs. The flurry of executive orders and the chainsaw massacre that is DOGE are similarly stupid solutions to complex issues. They are doomed to fail, which means the U.S. will inevitably slip backwards, rather than leap forward.

Trump will blunder for mistake to mistake, blowing up all the systems that made things “pretty good” in America. He is bulldozing through the complex international relationships that have enabled the U.S. to perch on top of the world order for 100 years. He is blowing up trade agreements and mutual defense pacts. He is pissing off every other country in the world with the exception of one: Russia.

As the Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau just said – “Make that Make Sense.”

It would be easy to blame Donald Trump. But I won’t. He’s just being Trump, just like a shark is just being a shark. It would also be easy to blame the Republican sycophants that are letting him do this. But again – sharks will be sharks. They have evolved to swim towards blood. No, to truly assign blame, we have to ask “why” a few times.

Why was Trump put in the position where he could do this? He’s there because 77 million Americans voted for him. And why did they vote for him? Because they believed he could make things better tomorrow than they are today. It’s a pretty simple equation.

Let’s ask why one more time.  Why did they believe that Trump could save them? Ah! Now, we’re getting somewhere. The Media – our media – built this belief. They built it because there is no profit in saying things are “pretty good.”  The Media thrives by creating conflict. And so they built the belief that things were fundamentally broken and needed fixing. They created the illusion that there are simple solutions to complex problems. They allowed ignorance to flourish in an absence of reliable and objective reporting. They gave Trump the air he needed to breath.

The media – especially social media – also planted the false notion that we deserve better than “pretty good.” It has fostered the nonsensical equation that all of us should have the same as the richest of us.  We are entitled to it. And if we don’t get it, somebody is to blame. No one stops to think that the equation is mathematically impossible.

That is what we have to fix.

Curation is Our Future. But Can You Trust It?

 You can get information from anywhere. But the meaning of that information can come from only one place: you. Everything we take in from the vast ecosystem of information that surrounds us goes through the same singular lens – one crafted by a lifetime of collected beliefs and experiences.

Finding meaning has always been an essentially human activity. Meaning motivates us – it is our operating system. And the ability to create shared meaning can create or crumble societies. We are seeing the consequences of shared meaning play out right now in real time.

The importance of influencing meaning creates an interesting confluence between technology and human behavior. For much of the past two decades, technology has been focusing on filtering and organizing information. But we are now in an era where technology will start curating our information for us. And that is a very different animal.

What does it mean to “curate” an answer, rather than simply present it to you? Curation is more than just collecting and organizing things. The act of curation is to put that information in a context that provides additional value by providing a possible meaning. This crosses the line that delineates just disseminating information from attempting to influence individuals by providing them a meaningful context for that information. 

Not surprisingly, the roots of curation lie – in part – with religion. It comes from the Latin “curare” – “to take care of”. In medieval times, curates were priests who cared for souls. And they cared for souls by providing a meaning that lay beyond the realms of our corporal lives. If you really think about religion, it is one massive juxtaposition of a pre-packaged meaning on the world as we perceive it.

In the future, as we access our world through technology platforms, we will rely on technology to mediate meaning. For example, searches on Google now include an “AI Overview” at the top of the search results The Google Page explaining what the Overview is says it shows up when “you want to quickly understand information from a range of sources, including information from across the web and Google’s Knowledge Graph.” That is Google – or rather Google’s AI – curating an answer for you.

It could be argued that this is just another step to make search more useful – something I’ve been asking for a decade and a half now. In 2010, I said that “search providers have to replace relevancy with usefulness. Relevancy is a great measure if we’re judging information, but not so great if we’re measuring usefulness.” If AI could begin to provide actionable answers with a high degree of reliability, it would be a major step forward. There are many that say such curated answers could make search obsolete. But we have to ask ourselves, is this curation something we can trust?

With Google, this will probably start as unintentional curation – giving information meaning through a process of elimination. Given how people scan search listings (something I know a fair bit about) it’s reasonable to assume that many searchers will scan no further than the AI Overview, which is at the top of the results page. In that case, you will be spoon-fed whatever meaning happens to be the product of the AI compilation without bothering to qualify it by scanning any further down the results page. This conveyed meaning may well be unintentional, a distillation of the context from whatever sources provided the information. But given that we are lazy information foragers and will only expend enough effort to get an answer that seems reasonable, we will become trained to accept anything that is presented to us “top of page” at face value.

From there it’s not that big a step to intentional curation – presenting information to support a predetermined meaning. Given that pretty much every tech company folded like a cheap suit the minute Trump assumed office, slashing DEI initiatives and aligning their ethics – or lack of – to that of the White House, is it far-fetched to assume that they could start wrapping the information they provide in a “Trump Approved” context, providing us with messaged meaning that supports specific political beliefs? One would hate to think so but based on Facebook’s recent firing of its fact checkers, I’m not sure it’s wise to trust Big Tech to be the arbitrators of meaning.

They don’t have a great track record.

Strategies for Surviving the News

When I started this post, I was going to unpack some of the psychology behind the consumption of the news. I soon realized that the topic is far beyond the confines of this post to realistically deal with. So I narrowed my focus to this – which has been very top of mind for me lately – how do you stay informed without becoming a trembling psychotic mess? How do you arm yourself for informed action rather than becoming paralyzed into inaction by the recent fire hose of sheer WTF insanity that makes up the average news feed.

Pick Your Battles

There are few things more debilitating to humans than fretting about things we can’t do anything about. Research has found a strong correlation between depression and our locus of control – the term psychologists use for the range of things we feel we can directly impact. There is actually a term for being so crushed by bad news that you lose the perspective needed to function in your own environment. It’s called Mean World Syndrome.

If effecting change is your goal, decide what is realistically within your scope of control. Then focus your information gathering on those specific things. When it comes to informing yourself to become a better change agent, going deep rather than wide might be a better strategy.

Be Deliberate about Your Information Gathering

The second strategy goes hand in hand with the first. Make sure you’re in the right frame of mind to gather information. There are two ways the brain processes information: top-down and bottom-up. Top-down processing is cognition with purpose – you have set an intent and you’re working to achieve specific goals. Bottom up is passively being exposed to random information and allowing your brain to be stimulated by it. The way you interpret the news will be greatly impacted by whether you’re processing it with a “top-down” intent or letting your brain parse it from the “bottom-up”

By being more deliberate in gathering information with a specific intent in mind, you completely change how your brain will process the news. It will instantly put it in a context related to your goal rather than let it rampage through our brains, triggering our primordial anxiety circuits.

Understand the Difference between Signal and Noise

Based on the top two strategies, you’ve probably already guessed that I’m not a big fan of relying on social media as an information source. And you’re right. A brain doom scrolling through a social media feed is not a brain primed to objectively process the news.

Here is what I did. For the broad context, I picked two international information sources I trust to be objective: The New York Times and the Economist out of the U.K. I subscribed to both because I wanted sources that weren’t totally reliant on advertising as a revenue source (a toxic disease which is killing true journalism). For Americans, I would highly recommend picking at least one source outside the US to counteract the polarized echo chamber that typifies US journalism, especially that which is completely ad supported.

Depending on your objectives, include sources that are relevant to those objectives. If local change is your goal, make sure you are informed about your community. With those bases in place, even If you get sucked down a doom scrolling rabbit hole, at least you’ll have a better context to allow you to separate signal from noise.

Put the Screen Down

I realize that the majority of people (about 54% of US Adults according to Pew Research) will simply ignore all of the above and continue to be informed through their Facebook or X feeds. I can’t really change that.

But for the few of you out there that are concerned about the direction the world seems to be spinning and want to filter and curate your information sources to effect some real change, these strategies may be helpful.

For my part, I’m going to try to be much more deliberate in how I find and consume the news.  I’m also going to be more disciplined about simply ignoring the news when I’m not actively looking for it. Taking a walk in the woods or interacting with a real person are two things I’m going to try to do more.

Getting Tired of Trying to tell the Truth

It’s not always easy writing these weekly posts. I try to deal with things of consequence, and usually I choose things that may be negative in nature. I also try to learn a little bit more about these topics by doing some research and approaching the post in a thoughtful way.  All of this means I have gone down several depressing rabbit holes in the course of writing these pieces over the years.

I have to tell you that, cumulatively, it takes a toll. Some weeks, it can only be described as downright depressing. And that’s just for myself, who only does these once a week. What if this were my full-time job? What if I were a journalist reporting on an ever more confounding world? How would I find the motivation to do my job every day?

The answer, at least according to a recent survey of 402 journalists by PR industry platform creator Muck Rake, is that I could well be considering a different job. Last year, 56% of those journalists considered quitting.

The reasons are many. I and others have repeatedly talked the dismal state of journalism in North America. The advertising-based economic model that supports true reporting is falling apart. Publishers have found that it’s more profitable to pander to prejudice and preconceived beliefs than it is to actually try to report the truth and hope to change people’s minds. When it comes to journalism, it appears that Colonel Nathan R. Jessup (from the movie A Few Good Men) may have been right. We can’t handle the truth. We prefer to spoon fed polarized punditry that aligns with our beliefs. When profitability is based on the number of eye-balls gained, you get a lot more of them at a far lower cost by peddling opinion rather than proof. This has led to round after round of mass layoffs, cutting newsroom staffing by double digit percentages.

This reality brings a crushing load of economic pressure down on journalists. According to the Muck Rake survey, most journalist are battling burnout due to working longer hours with fewer resources. But it’s not just the economic restraints that are taking their toll on journalists. A good part of the problem is the evolving nature of how news develops and propagates through our society.

There used to be such a thing as a 24-hour news cycle which was defined by a daily publication deadline, whether that was the printing of a newspaper or the broadcast of the nightly news. As tight as 24 hours was, it was downright leisurely compared to the split-second reality of today’s information environment. New stories develop, break and fade from significance in minutes now rather than days or weeks as was true in the past. And that means that a journalist that hopes to keep up always has to be on. There is no such thing as downtime or being “off the grid.” Even with new tools and platforms to help monitor and filter the tidal wave of signal vs. noise that is today’s information ecosystem, a journalist always has to be plugged in and logged on to do their job.

That is exhausting.

But perhaps the biggest reason why journalists are considering a career change is not the economic constraints nor the hours worked. It’s the nature of the job itself. No one choses to be a journalist because they want to get rich. It’s a career built on passion. Good journalists want to do something significant and make a difference. They do it because they value objectivity and truth and believe that by reporting it, they can raise the level of thought and discourse in our society. Given the apparent dumpster fire that seems to sum up the world today, can you blame them for becoming disillusioned with their chosen career?

All of this is tremendously sad. But even more than that, it is profoundly frightening. In a time when we need more reliably curated, reliably reported information about the state of affairs than ever before, those we have always trusted to provide this are running – in droves – towards the nearest exit.

Is This The Time to Say No?

I like to be agreeable. I’m not really into rocking boats or stirring things up. If there is a flow to be found, I will usually be found going with it.

But today, one day after Trump v2.0 became official, I’m wondering if I should change my tune and say “no” more often. Trump hasn’t even been president for 24 hours yet and already the world seems to be changing, and not in any way I’m comfortable with.

There has been a lot of talk about how Big Tech is embracing the wild and wacky world of misinformation in the new era of MAGA. Musk’s malevolent makeover of X has proven to be prescient rather than puerile. Mark Zuckerberg is following suit by sending Meta’s Fact Checkers packing. Jeff Bezos first blocked the Washington Post from endorsing Kamala Harris and then dialed back diversity, equity and inclusion at Amazon to be better aligned with Trumpian sensibilities.

All of these moves are driven purely by business motives. The Tech Broligarchs (the worlds most exclusive white male club) are greasing the wheels for maximum profitability over the next 4 years for their respective empires. They are tripping over each other rushing to scatter rose petals at Trump’s toes. When collectively those three are worth close to 1 trillion dollars – well – a dude has the right to protect his assets, doesn’t he?

No. I don’t think so. I’m not okay with any of this. As Big Tech primes the profitability pump by pandering to the new president, we are all going to pay a much bigger price. The erosion of social capital is going to be massive. And so, I feel the time has come to say when I don’t agree with something. And I don’t agree with this.

We all somehow believe that free markets will eventually lead us to the best moral choice. And nothing could be further from the truth. Nobel prize winning economist Milt Friedman was wrong when he said, “an entity’s greatest responsibility lies in the satisfaction of the shareholders.” This doctrine has guided the corporate world for half a century now, towing along our western governments in its wake. The enshrining of profits as more important than social responsibility has led us inevitably to where we are now, where the personal worth of a handful of tech billionaires is judged as more important than the sustainability and fairness of our own society.

Normally, we would rely on our governments to put in place legislation to protect us from the worst instincts of big business. But yesterday, with the second swearing in of Donald Trump as president, we saw that dynamic flipped on its head. For the next four years, the U.S. will have a sitting president that will be leading the way in the race to the bottom. Corporate America will be hard pressed to keep up.

So, if big business is not looking out for us, and our government is looking the other way, who should we turn to? The answer, sadly, is there is no one left but ourselves. If we don’t agree with something – if the world is going in a direction contrary to our own values – we have to say something. We also have to do something. We have to become a little more defiant.

That is the theme of the brand-new book “Defy” by organizational psychologist Dr. Sunita Sah. She says that we are typically hard-wired to comply rather than defy, “There are situations where you want to defy, but you go along with it. Maybe the costs are too great, the benefits too meager, or the situation is dangerous. We all have to do that at times, even our defiant heroes like Rosa Parks. How many times did she comply with the segregation laws? A lot, but there comes a moment when we decide now is the time to defy. It’s figuring out when that time is.”

For myself, that time has come.