I’m neither a fan nor a supporter of Vivek Ramaswamy, one of the also-rans who’s made it to the “debate” phase of auditions for the vice-presidency or a cabinet slot in a notional second Donald Trump administration. For the most part, neither his ideas nor his presentation impress me. But his demeanor has a way of usefully baiting the other candidates into showing us who they really are.

The big reveal at the second “debate” — scare quotes because these events aren’t really debates, they’re just illegally large advertising donations that the Federal Election Commission turns a blind eye to — came from former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, who’s been having a moment as just maybe, possibly, an eensy teensy bit, more likely than Florida governor Ron DeSantis to notch a distant second place to Trump in the GOP presidential primaries.

“TikTok,” Haley informed America by way of scolding Ramaswamy for setting up a campaign account on it, “is one of the most dangerous social media apps that we could have. … 150 million people are on TikTok. That means they can get your contacts, they can get your financial information, they can get your emails, they can get text messages, they can get all of these things. … You are now wanting kids to go and get on this social media that’s dangerous for all of us.”

In the middle of all this, Haley let loose with what was, I suppose, intended as the zinger: “Every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber.”

Every time Haley speaks, she sounds a little bit dumber, but I doubt that’s Ramaswamy’s fault.

Nor is it Ramaswamy’s fault that she comes off as unhinged on the level of Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper, the fictional character who engineers a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union for “corrupting” his “precious bodily fluids” in the 1964 film Dr. Strangelove.

Is it possible that the Chinese regime gains access to American users’ data via TikTok? Of course it is. We already know that the US regime gains access to the data of Americans, and foreigners, via their use of apps and platforms domiciled in the US. We know this because American hero Edward Snowden told us all about it nearly a decade ago.

Interestingly, Vivek Ramaswamy has pledged to “pardon” Snowden — currently exiled to Russia — for his non-crimes, one of his few truly attractive promises. Haley hasn’t.

It’s possible that Haley’s shrill and bellicose presentation is for real. Or maybe it’s just an act, a woman going over the top to prove that she’d be just as cluelessly belligerent in the Oval Office as any man.

Either way, voters shouldn’t allow her within 100 miles of the nuclear “football.”

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) 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

A disclaimer, just to clarify things up front: I have no opinion on the truth or falsehood of allegations — made anonymously by multiple women and reported by multiple UK media outlets — that comedian/podcaster Russell Brand is a serial rapist.

I happen to have disliked Brand during his earlier comedy career (just a matter of personal taste), and to enjoy his current podcast, “Stay Free With Russell Brand.” That is, or at least should be, irrelevant. While I’m subject to the same “where there’s lots of smoke, there’s usually fire” predisposition as most people,  I personally try to resist that tendency. I don’t know if he’s guilty. I don’t know if he’s innocent. I’m not going to PRETEND to know.

I do, however, know (or at least believe) a few things about how matters like this should, may, shouldn’t, and must not be handled by various people and organizations.

You and I are, of course, entitled to our own opinions. “Presumption of innocence” is a legal concept applicable to court proceedings, not a prior restraint on our right (assuming we’re not jurors) to believe whatever we want to believe. We should (if we’re interested) pay attention while reaching our conclusions. We may (if we’re lazy), but shouldn’t, decide not to do so and just go with whatever our feelz say. We must not take it upon ourselves to, for example, assault Brand in the street.

Media covering the matter should (but often don’t) do so with care and attention to the facts. They may, but shouldn’t, ignore inconvenient facts to get a more salacious story out of other facts. They must not (at least within the existing legal framework as it relates to libel/defamation) lie about Brand, knowingly or from reckless disregard for the truth.

Media platforms which characterize themselves as “open to the public” should be “open” to Brand. They may, but shouldn’t, choose to ban or “demonetize” members of that public, especially on the basis of as yet unproven allegations, as YouTube has done with Brand. They should, as the Rumble platform has done, respond to government demands that they “deplatform” members of the public with a firm “no, we will not act as censors on your behalf.”

Governments (if we allow them to exist — we shouldn’t, but that’s a different subject) should carefully, and with respect for all the rights of the accused, investigate and adjudicate accusations like those made against Brand. They must not lean on media to slant its coverage of such matters, or on media platforms to ban or “demonetize” those accused of crimes.

That last one is the most important. I’m of the opinion that  government agents or agencies which engage in such behavior should be banned and demonetized. People should be fired. Agencies should lose their funding. Governments should be (as peacefully as possible) overthrown.

If Brand is a rapist, he should pay — AFTER that is proven, not before. Either way, he’s not nearly as dangerous as the machine that’s going after him.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) 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

A group of 17 well-known authors — too many to usefully list here, but you’ve probably heard of, and certainly live in a world influenced by, the likes of John Grisham and George R.R. Martin — recently joined the stampede to sue artificial intelligence firm OpenAI. Following earlier plaintiffs, these authors allege that use of their work to “train” Large Language Model products like ChatGPT amounts to “systematic theft on a mass scale.”

OpenAI counters that letting its models read and learn from the authors’ books is perfectly According to Hoyle under, among other things, the “fair use”  provisions of coypright law (which courts have held protect such “reading” by search engines).

It looks like a legal thicket. But I’m not a lawyer and this column isn’t legal advice. My interest in the matter stems from my standing as a lifelong reader.

I REALLY like books. Over the course of my life I’ve purchased thousands of volumes in print or electronic format, borrowed more from lending libraries, read a good many of them (not as many as I’ve tilted at, I confess), and learned a lot from them.

Whatever the legal grounds for the lawsuit, its essence comes down to a claim that the function of a reader (whether that reader is “human” or “artificial”) is to buy authors’ books … and do nothing with them except perhaps display them prettily on household shelves, if even that.

When you read a book, your brain inevitably stores a mental copy of that book, in part or whole. You remember it. If it’s a well-written book and you’re an attentive reader, you also learn things from, and find yourself influenced by, its content.

Those things, according to the litigious authors, constitute theft, and if you do much of them you’re engaged in such theft “on a massive scale.”

Oddly, nearly all of the involved authors cheerfully confess to theft of that kind on their own pars. Few if any claim complete originality for their own work, and most  would get laughed out of any room they made such claims in.

Why should we care whether the brains reading, remembering, learning from, and acting on the influence of a story are made of meat or silicon?

Does — should — the purchase of a book confer absolute and perpetual veto power upon the author to control how readers use what they learn from that book?

If it did, none of the authors involved in this suit would have anything to sue over. We’d have never heard of them. Their works would remain unpublished and likely unwritten.

Their fear of replacement by AI is certainly understandable, but their demand for control of work they’ve released into the learning wild is unreasonable.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) 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