“We Will Never Be Rid of Google” (The New York Times, September 30) is quite a headline for the same Julia Angwin who wrote the book on MySpace.

Angwin’s comprehensive unofficial account was published in 2009 as Stealing MySpace: The Battle to Control the Most Popular Website in America (not “We Will Never Be Rid of MySpace”). Its subtitle didn’t remain current for long: Facebook’s international reach already made the “in America” qualifier requisite for the other social network by 2008. Still, the snapshot of the then-hip site, not yet a punchline in a David Pogue Times column exemplifying when “a hot property becomes a lame has-been” (alongside action star Steven Seagal, well after his career transition from Hard to Kill to direct-to-video, and the Macarena dance craze), remains an instructive case study.

In Angwin’s own words, the juggernaut “now positioned to further entrench its dominance of our information landscape” due to lack of antitrust enforcement was a parenthetical in the post-Y2K cyberspace from which MySpace emerged: “In early 2003 the dot-com boom was over, and the next Internet boom had not yet begun. During this in-between period, only the big three companies — AOL, MSN, and Yahoo ([MySpace cofounder Chris] DeWolfe called them ‘the untouchable triumvirate’) — were thriving  (Google had not yet taken off.)” The first of the troika disconnected its formerly ubiquitous dial-up service on the same day that “We Will Never Be Rid of Google” saw fit to see print.

While Angwin asserts that “Google has an unassailable lead in collecting and analyzing data from across the web” in 2025, in 2009 she had noted that by 2003, “even high school students could build expert-looking webpages;” upstarts like MySpace no longer “required massive computer resources and huge teams of computer programmers” as they had when Google and Yahoo were founded in the 1990s. Individual web designers unaffiliated with Google have made such improvements to its core services as &udm=14, which automatically filters out AI from Google web searches, and Filmot for finding phrases in video subtitles on Google-owned YouTube.

Angwin’s desired future of “competing search engines that offer different experiences” independently of Google already exists, albeit unevenly distributed in the remaining 10% of total search traffic, from generalists such as DuckDuckGo whose crawlers span the publicly accessible World Wide Web, to the hyper-specific likes of “The Geocities Animated Gif Search.”

To be sure, their names are harder to remember, even when typable just as quickly, but Google’s originated as a pun on a previously obscure math term for a quantity so ludicrously gigantic as to defy any conceivable practical use. So did that of their Googleplex headquarters; but is the relevant quantity not a googol or even a googolplex, so much as the trillions spent by the Pentagon?

Angwin highlights the tech maverick’s “small but growing defense contracts” —  an example of how “despite its power in the marketplace, Google is still vulnerable to all kinds of pressure campaigns from the government.” Yet apparently it simultaneously possesses “unfettered market power” — a contradiction untangled by libertarian activist Karl Hess in a 1970 New York Times Magazine profile: “We have the illusion of freedom only because so few ever try to exercise it. Try it sometime. … We have all the freedom of a balloon floating in a pin factory.”

Angwin’s feared “possible future in which the administration starts pressuring Google to shape search results in its favor” was already the present reality during the four years of the Biden administration (and even Trump’s first four years). As Jenin Younes explained in “How Biden Enabled Trump’s Censorship” (Compact, March 19): “the lesson of the past five years is clear: Civil-liberties violations that you countenance will be turned against you sooner than you expect. That is why we need a renewed commitment to civil liberties from both the left and the right, not the sort we have seen in which each side uses the concept as a cudgel when convenient.”

Humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow made a frequently paraphrased observation that “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” You should be less so inclined when you don’t have the hammer — especially when it’s about to be used on you.

New Yorker Joel Schlosberg is a senior news analyst at The William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Military leaders have raised serious concerns about the Trump administration’s forthcoming defense strategy,” the Washington Post reports. “The critiques from multiple top officers … come as [US defense secretary Pete] Hegseth reorders U.S. military priorities — centering the Pentagon on perceived threats to the homeland, narrowing U.S. competition with China, and downplaying America’s role in Europe and Africa.”

I’m writing this on the morning of, and you’ll presumably read it after, a meeting Hegseth and Trump have called with the US military’s general and flag officers, supposedly to harangue them about something called the “warrior ethos,” which mostly seems to involve endorsing, and unquestioningly executing orders to commit, war crimes rather than prosecuting such crimes.

Hopefully the meeting will instead be dedicated to explaining three facts of reality to those generals and admirals.

Fact #1:  Any “national defense strategy” that’s actually about national defense would indeed involve “centering the Pentagon on perceived threats to the homeland, narrowing U.S. competition with China, and downplaying America’s role in Europe and Africa.”

Fact #2: In a time of massive government deficits and debt, re-centering “national defense strategy” on, you know, “national defense” instead of constant, dangerous, and expensive military adventurism around the globe makes financial sense. Current US “defense” spending  officially hovers at just below, and likely actually exceeds, $1 trillion per year. Cutting that by 80-90% would still provide a robust “national defense,” while reducing the economic damage government spending in general does to the people living in the nation in question.

Fact #3: The military is the employee, not the employer. It’s not a general’s or an admiral’s job to define the overall “national defense strategy.” It’s a general or admiral’s job to execute the lawful orders he’s given by the civilian government.

For the most part, Trump, Hegseth, and US military leaders openly disdain the “lawful” part of Fact #3 … but the proposed “national defense strategy,” if it’s as described, would tend to reduce opportunities for lawless military conduct. Fewer troops in fewer places would have fewer opportunities to commit (or be ordered to commit) war crimes.

Unfortunately, it’s probably not as described. We almost certainly won’t see the cuts in military spending or the reductions in foreign adventurism the description implies.

“Mission inflation” lobbying from both military commanders and corporate welfare queens dependent on large weapons orders and other military contracts may have to change things up, but they’ll find ways to keep their gravy trains on the rails.

On the civilian government side, foreign entanglements are go-to excuses for more of the taxing, borrowing, and spending politicians love, and also provide useful distractions from domestic policy failures and popular discontent.

The only way to get the US Department of Defense (or is it War now?) out of our wallets and off our necks is to discard the idea of political government itself. We should treat Washington, DC the way the Scipio Africanus the Younger treated Carthage.

But meanwhile, we should welcome even the slightest reorientation of US military policy toward “national defense” rather than foreign meddling.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On September 25, a federal grand jury indicted former FBI director James Comey on charges of making a false statement to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding (by making that false statement) in 2020.

The false statement? The word “no,” in answer to the question of whether he had “ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation.”

The “someone else” is former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, himself fired for those unauthorized disclosures … and for lying about them.

The claim of a known liar that someone else lied seems like a pretty weak prosecutorial rede. That explains why DOJ prosecutors reported no probable cause to seek the indictment. US president Donald Trump bullied their boss, US Attorney Erik Siebert, into resigning, replacing Siebert with a sycophant (Lindsey Halligan) who could be counted on to follow Trump’s orders.

BUT!

Comey himself is also a known liar. That’s not speculation. It’s not an open question, it’s a confirmed fact.

In 2020, Comey told Congress that he didn’t know about Hillary Clinton’s plans to link Trump to Russia using disinformation — “that doesn’t ring any bells with me.” Subsequently declassified documents established that he had been briefed on Clinton’s plans by then CIA director (and former Communist Party member, and also known liar) John Brennan.

Comey also told Congress that he had only briefed Trump on the “salacious” parts of the infamous “Steele Dossier” (part of Clinton’s disinformation campaign). Again, subsequently declassified memos establish that he discussed the entire dossier, in depth, with Trump.

In fact, perhaps the only time Comey was very truthful was in 2016 when he more or less admitted that Clinton had committed crimes by negligently exposing classified information through her illegal use of a private email server, but wouldn’t be prosecuted because, well, she was Hillary Clinton.

It seems like Comey’s tenure was mostly lies. So pardon me if I decline to break out even the world’s smallest violin for his current legal problems.

On the other hand, it’s also true that this prosecution has nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged lie in question.

It’s partly about Donald Trump’s desire to “get” Comey for having proven insufficiently loyal to Donald Trump.

It’s mostly about Trump’s need for distractions from his close personal relationship with the late Jeffrey Epstein.

So, OK, prosecute Comey.

And release the Epstein files.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY