The late roundup with mothwrites
Today's links feel like free lunch, disinformation, and the biggest tech anti-trust lawsuit of your LIFE
My dill, chives, and parsley are sprouting and I feel pretty good about it, lads.
The long read
1. A free school lunch isn’t just about hunger, but about dignity
I adore this essay on free school lunches, not only because it demonstrates anthropological methodology really well, and not only because it shines a light on a topic that needs to be addressed more, but also because it’s written by someone I know and she’s brilliant. If there’s one thing you read from this newsletter, let it be this essay.
…children are people with their own social lives, who make their own decisions and make meaning from their experiences together just like adults do.
At Tūrama School kids could request a “spare lunch”: a peanut butter sandwich pulled out of the freezer, made by volunteers out of donated ingredients once a week and often accompanied by a muesli bar or fruit cup. But these lunches were unappealing – one child described them to me as “cold bread” and, probably because it featured in the sandwiches, all the kids hated peanut butter. (I began bringing peanut butter sandwiches for my own lunch because it was the one thing kids would not “scab” (beg) from me).
Kids also gave these spare lunches symbolic meaning. Asking for a spare lunch made a statement about the kind of parents that child had and the kind of person that child was. The kind of child who was “pōhara” (poor) or uncared for, who was only worth cold bread.
Some kids would take a spare lunch and accept the indignity and social stigma, or, as I saw in one case, throw the lunch away under pressure from teasing. Or, at times when the spare lunch came with a popular food item like fruit cups or trail mix, some groups of children would collectively decide it was acceptable to ask for a spare lunch to get the high-value item. Then, hungry kids could make a performance out of picking out the chocolate from the trail mix, and quietly eat the rest as well. But most of the time, kids would just say “I’m not hungry.” To kids, not having food was shameful, but not being hungry was socially acceptable, reframing not eating as a choice.
A quick read (meme break)
The tech long read
3. Facebook knows what toothpaste you like
I find it ironic that when you click this link they ask you about your privacy.
A few weeks ago, Apple dropped its long-promised bombshell on the data-tracking industry. The latest version (14.5) of iOS – the operating system of the iPhone – included a provision that required app users explicitly to confirm that they wished to be tracked across the internet in their online activities. At the heart of the switch is a code known as “the identifier for advertisers” or IDFA. It turns out that every iPhone comes with one of these identifiers, the object of which is to provide hucksters with aggregate data about the user’s interests. For years, iPhone users had had the option to switch it off by digging into the privacy settings of their devices, but, because they’re human, very few had bothered to do that.
Facebook really didn’t want Apple to do this. When I think of Facebook I think of that old adage: “if the product is free, you’re the product”:
Late January saw the latest exchange of words between the two companies in a standoff that’s been going on for months. On January 27, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a quarterly earnings call that “we increasingly see Apple as one of our biggest competitors,” accusing Apple of using its “dominant platform position” to push its own apps while interfering with Facebook’s. Zuck added that Apple may frame this as a privacy service to its customers, but it’s really only in Apple’s own best anti-competitive interests. The following morning, the Information reported that Facebook was preparing an antitrust suit against Apple over its App Store rules (which, if filed, will joinseveralothers).
On the other hand, the point from the first article remains. Why is Apple committed to doing this? Because it’s a good business strategy. If you can market your product as the thing that retains privacy in an increasingly open world, you have a great marketing strategy, not only for individuals, but for governments too.
But as Facebook (and several other companies) have pointed out, Apple has an incredible amount of control over every aspect of its devices. Apple mobile devices are only manufactured by Apple and can only use Apple’s operating system. Apple hardware must also use apps obtained through Apple’s App Store, and those apps have to meet Apple’s requirements, use Apple’s in-app features, pay Apple’s commissions, and compete against Apple’s own apps, which sometimes look a whole lot like their own. So Apple can make privacy part of its selling point for its customers, and it can also mandate it from any apps that want access to iPhone users. Even when those apps are made by companies as big and powerful as Facebook.
This is an important conversation to have or be aware of, and it’s all coming up now because this whole thing has been going on:
After months of preparation, Epic Games will finally take on Apple in court in a trial that could fundamentally change the makeup of the App Store. The fight dates back to August, when Epic added a direct payment mechanism to its hit battle royale game Fortnite in violation of Apple’s rules. The iPhone maker quickly removed the game from the App Store, and Epic responded shortly after with an antitrust lawsuit aiming to establish the App Store as a monopoly. The case will finally be brought to trial starting May 3rd.
Essentially, Apple and Epic games (the people who brought you Fortnite) are debating what constitutes a game. Anthropologically, this is a really interesting conversation. Definitions of words are sometimes difficult to pin down, especially when they transcend culture. Words like “game” tend to be universal, but no one meaning exists. Legally and individually, this is interesting because of how it will affect the way we see digital privacy in the future. There’s a lot going on here.
Meme break
A medium read
5. The things we do and do not say
This article on “disinformation” is interesting, and I took some things away from it but it mostly took me back to when I used to argue with people on Facebook and I just wanna be like. dont. engage. That’s my advice. Post something on reddit and practice self-control muscles by not responding to any of the comments. It’s fun.
…what I’m trying to draw a parallel with is the distinction between misinformation and disinformation. Per Wikipedia: “Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that is communicated regardless of an intention to deceive … Disinformation is a species of misinformation that is deliberately deceptive.”
Misinterpretation is when people incorrectly understand meaning. Disinterpretation is when they don’t have the intention of understanding it.
Needless to say, disinterpretation helps foster a climate that dampens intelligent debate and makes people reluctant to articulate themselves in ways that don’t signal conformity to recognizable factions.