Mark Zuckerberg gave an address about free speech at Georgetown University on Thursday. The self-analysis was skin deep; his historical parallels were, in fact, perpendicular; he mischaracterized his opponents with arguments made of straw. And he offered a favorite refrain of the widely reviled—hey, if both sides hate us we must be doing something right!
A recent essay in BookForum took note of this kind of less-than-rigorous centrist sophistry, which frequently finds its way to mainstream op-ed pages. “Incoherence is now a virtue,” writes Tobi Haslett, rhetorically shaking his head. “Rather than irony, modesty, discernment, ambivalence, or the mental sprightliness needed to parse conflicting views, a proud refusal to make solid arguments may be the cure for our divided times.”
In its rough outlines, Zuckerberg was trying to tell a coherent story—namely, that the internet has given voice to the voiceless and that some misguided souls, in their haste to root out hate speech and misinformation, were throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He questioned their motives, too. While his side was acting on principle, his opponents appeared to be masking political ambition. “More people, across the spectrum,” he said of his foes, “believe that achieving the political outcomes they think matter is more important than every person having a voice.” Later, he picked up this point, “Democracy depends on the idea that we hold each others’ right to express ourselves and be heard above our own desire to always get the outcomes we want.”
The problem for Zuckerberg, however, were the inconvenient facts about how Facebook operates. Recently, Zuckerberg met with President Trump in the White House, and shortly thereafter Facebook changed its internal rules to allow the Trump campaign (and other politicians’ campaigns) to spread misinformation. (It’s true that correlation doesn’t necessarily prove causation, but the timing of the rule change looked fishy.) Zuckerberg even had the nerve to refer to this species of misinformation as “primary source speech.” (I distinctly remember being told in high school to consult primary sources to be most accurate.)
How, exactly, does allowing the current president to spend millions on false advertising help every person have a voice? Zuckerberg answered that question with another question: Hey, what is misinformation, anyway?
Misinformation might be satire, he said. It might be a long-ago story misremembered. It might even be the civil rights movement!
Zuckerberg twice referenced the civil-rights-era libel case New York Times v. Sullivan, which granted broad protections for publishers to print inaccuracies. The idea is that a free press needs some breathing room to make errors in the rough and tumble of the information maelstrom. Only inaccuracies about public figures like Sullivan published with “actual malice” can be considered libelous, the Supreme Court ruled. But in Zuckerberg’s warped telling, that case “was actually about an ad with misinformation, supporting Martin Luther King Jr. and criticizing an Alabama police department.” Does he really believe this? That the civil rights movement was engaged in a Trump-style misinformation campaign to rile up its supporters?
A little history refresher: New York Times v. Sullivan involved relatively minor errors in an ad that informed Northerners about the heinous conditions for African Americans in Alabama. The ad, which ran in March 1960, misstated the number of times King was arrested and flubbed the description of how the police were deployed to contain civil rights protestors. The police chief in Montgomery, L. B. Sullivan, who wasn’t named in the ad, sued for damages. An all-white jury in Alabama awarded him damages of $500,000. (The equivalent of about $4.3 million today.) The Supreme Court reversed the decision unanimously and laid down rules to stop a racist state government from using the courts to punish its enemies.
This false invocation of the civil rights movement highlights the incoherence—not to mention dishonesty—in Zuckerberg’s argument. He is so intent on depicting himself as the defender of voices of the dispossessed that he frames his bending to the rich and powerful as similar to defending civil rights protestors facing water cannons in Alabama.
At one point, Zuckerberg argued that the easiest thing would be for Facebook simply to not accept political ads. “From a business perspective, the controversy certainly isn’t worth the small part of our business they make up,” he said. “But political ads are an important part of voice—especially for local candidates, up-and-coming challengers, and advocacy groups that may not get much media attention otherwise. Banning political ads favors incumbents and whoever the media covers.”
To start, publishing political ads is valuable to Facebook’s business beyond the revenue it brings in. Politicians may well decide to break up the company. For self-preservation reasons, Facebook has a stake in cultivating a friendly commercial relationship with those politicians as opposed to declaring their money too dirty to touch. Ideally, of course, someone like Donald Trump takes office who believes that a monopolistic, largely unregulated Facebook was vital to his victory.
But if, indeed, Facebook really didn’t care about losing the money from those ads, it could still ensure a robust political square by publishing politicians’ statements for free. When there were stringent campaign spending limits, you might credibly argue that access to advertising was an important leveling force. But with political spending largely unregulated, advertising actually magnifies the difference between well-funded candidates and those on the fringes.
Another factual problem for Zuckerberg is that Facebook blocks nudity despite its importance as a means of personal expression. He dealt with that hypocrisy briefly and spoke of pornography rather than nudity. Pornography, he said, “would make people uncomfortable using our platforms.” Before and after he suggested that people who were made uncomfortable by hate speech should simply tolerate it as long as people are “critical of groups without dehumanizing them.” What’s the difference in the discomforts?
I have a suggestion for Zuckerberg: Why not drop all the posturing about getting more voices heard or helping promote progressive change like the civil rights movement? Better that he defend unfettered speech as something that just makes sense to him or feels right or is divinely ordained or market dictated, no matter the consequences it brings. We are all watching the consequences, and they are not helping his case.
More Great WIRED Stories
- WIRED25: Stories of people who are racing to save us
- Massive, AI-powered robots are 3D-printing entire rockets
- Ripper—the inside story of the egregiously bad videogame
- USB-C has finally come into its own
- Planting tiny spy chips in hardware can cost as little as $200
- ? Prepare for the deepfake era of video; plus, check out the latest news on AI
- ??♀️ Want the best tools to get healthy? Check out our Gear team’s picks for the best fitness trackers, running gear (including shoes and socks), and b
Goodyear’s reCharge Concept Tire Regenerates Burned Off Rubber
If Goodyear scientists have their way, replacing complete tires every year or so simply because a few millimeters of rubber wears off will become a thing of the past. The company this week unveiled a far-out concept for a tire that will automatically generate its own tread, continuously replacing the rubber that sloughs off from…
If Goodyear scientists have their way, replacing complete tires every year or so simply because a few millimeters of rubber wears off will become a thing of the past. The company this week unveiled a far-out concept for a tire that will automatically generate its own tread, continuously replacing the rubber that sloughs off from daily use.
Called reCharge, the concept looks at how to curb the waste that plagues Goodyear’s industry: About 250 million tires were scrapped in the US in 2017. “The tire is one of the few components that doesn’t stay on for the life of the vehicle,” says CTO Chris Helsel. “It’s replaced quite often. So the first problem to solve was to make the tire more of a permanent structure, as part of the vehicle itself.”
Stay in the know with our Transportation newsletter. Sign up here!
To make that happen, Goodyear’s engineers designed something that works a bit like a stick of lip balm. At the center of the wheel sits a cylindrical, pressurized cartridge filled with liquified, biodegradable tire compound. As the miles stack up and the tread wears down, the pressure differential between the interior of the cartridge and the tire surface draws out the compound. It oozes out of channels radiating from the center to the tread surface automatically, passing through a grid-like frame that molds it into the proper shape. (The system is envisioned as incorporating both tire and wheel, with a non-pneumatic support structure instead of a tire attached to a metal rim.) When exposed to outside air—where the rubber meets the road—the compound hardens, and your tires never go bald.
So instead of tossing old tires every few years, you’ll keep the bulk of the structure as long as you’ve got the car. The central cartridge would need replacing a few times over the wheel’s projected lifespan of between 100,00 and 300,00 miles, Goodyear estimates. That means less waste, Helsel says, since worn down tires get tossed even if the structural components beneath the tread and in the sidewall remain perfectly intact.
The reCharge concept comes with some other neat ideas built in. Helsel says sensors embedded within the reCharge structure can analyze wear patterns and driving style, and tune the type of compound the user might install next in order for it to better match. Aggressive brakers and performance nuts would get one kind of chemistry, hyper-miling road-trippers another. Goodyear could account for climate and road quality as well.
The tire is also well suited to electric vehicles. Because they’re usually heavier than their gas-powered counterparts and apply greater torque during acceleration, they can wear out tires 20 to 50 percent faster, Helsel says. “So you’re going to need a tire that lasts longer. This idea will allow for extended tire life and much easier swaps, and replacing just the cartridge will require one tenth of the number of parts that would need replacing compared to conventional tires.”
The concept, though, isn’t near production. Goodyear hasn’t made the all-important compound, and getting it to work as described would be complex, especially the bit about hardening with oxidation. Helsel says the company envisions something including fibrous material to enhance strength, inspired by the renowned toughness of natural spider silk. But different elements of the reCharge concept could trickle out sooner than a complete product—potentially within a decade. So the proposed tire compound, the structural framework, or the embedded sensors and artificial-intelligence-based analysis of use patterns might appear earlier in conventional tires. So your tires may get smarter—but they’ll still eventually lose the tread.
More Great WIRED Stories
- Inside Devs, a dreamy Silicon Valley quantum thriller
- Algae caviar, anyone? What we’ll eat on the journey to Mars
- How to work from home without losing your mind
- Deliver us, Lord, from the startup life
- Share your online accounts—the safe way
- 👁 Want a real challenge? Teach AI to play D&D. Plus, the latest AI news
- 🏃🏽♀️ Want the best tools to get healthy? Check out our Gear team’s picks for the best fitness trackers, running gear (including shoes and socks), and best headpho
New TCL Foldable Phone Concepts Are Weird but Exciting
TCL Communication, one of the fastest-growing TV brands in the US, now wants its own slice of the phone market—and it’s not afraid to push the envelope to get it.The company took the wraps off two foldable device concepts, different from the one it showed at CES 2020. The first has a trifold display; think…
TCL Communication, one of the fastest-growing TV brands in the US, now wants its own slice of the phone market—and it’s not afraid to push the envelope to get it.
The company took the wraps off two foldable device concepts, different from the one it showed at CES 2020. The first has a trifold display; think the triple-folded paper brochure you get at state parks, except replace the paper with a phone. It’s one of the first concepts we’ve seen with two separate hinge mechanisms working simultaneously, converting a 6.65-inch phone into a 10-inch tablet.
I got a chance to play around with a prototype. It feels very rough around the edges—namely, it’s stiff and tough to unfold—but the device veritably went from a traditional-looking phone into an iPad-like tablet. You can also fold one-third of the screen away for the times you don’t need the maximum available amount of screen space. I can easily see myself unfolding this in a coffee shop and pulling out a slim Bluetooth keyboard to type up some words instead of lugging around a laptop.
Unfortunately with so much folding going on it, it’s a very thick phone—around the chunkiness of Samsung’s Galaxy Fold, if not more. It’s not terribly fun to use one-handed.
That’s why the second concept is a little more interesting. It’s not exactly a foldable phone, rather a phone with a “rollable” screen, as TCL puts it. It looks just like an ordinary smartphone with a 6.75-inch screen, but spectacularly, you can tug on the right edge of the handset to roll out more display and increase the screen real estate to 7.8 inches—about as much as the iPad Mini, and with no folding required. This design keeps the phone really thin at 0.35 inches. The dummy unit I used required me to manually extend the screen, but TCL said it has a motorized version that automatically does it.
Since TCL manufactures its own displays, the company has gone wild playing around with various form factors. It has more than three dozen other concepts floating around in its factories. However, it’s likely the two concepts being unveiled today (as well as the wallet-like foldable device that debuted at CES) will never make it to market.
“We are not shy to show some of these ideas to engage in a discussion, to get your feedback, to learn,” says Stefan Streit, general manager of global marketing at TCL. “We believe this is much more important than just putting a product out, keep the volumes low, charge a very high price, and make the consumer a beta user and pay for it. That’s not TCL’s style.”
This testing phase lets the company identify which types of foldable phones resonate with people the most. Once it nails down a particular design and form—and there’s apparently a leading candidate—TCL intends to create a portfolio of foldables that give several options to buyers.
Being patient also gives the company time to figure out how to make foldable phones more affordable overall. Most of the products we’ve seen from the likes of Samsung, Lenovo, Motorola, and Huawei start at $1,380 and go all the way up to $2,700. That’s far more expensive than some of TCL’s most popular TVs.
“We’re not here to make novelty products,” says Jason Gerdon, head of global strategic communications. “We’re here to make innovation accessible.”
Whatever design TCL ends up settling on, the foldable phone is expected to arrive by the end of the year or early 2021. Before then, TCL is expected to launch its first US phones: the TCL 10 Pro, 10L, and the TCL 10 5G, which it teased at CES. (Gerdon said TCL doesn’t see the Covid-19 outbreak causing a substantial impact on its supply chain in the immediate term, but there is a chance products could be delayed “the longer the crisis continues.”)
Regardless, all this shows just how much TCL is now investing in its own brand name after a few attempts at leveraging others. It licenses the BlackBerry name and made a couple of keyboard-laden phones, but after making no real gains in smartphone market share, TCL is ending its BlackBerry contract this summer. Streit said making BlackBerry phones was still a very valuable learning experience.
TCL also licenses the Alcatel brand and owns Palm, both of which are here to stay. Alcatel will continue to offer ultra-low-cost phones—the TCL phone brand will sit just above it—and Palm will explore other ways to minimize screen time like, say, slapping a flexible screen on your wrist as a bracelet, Streit suggested.
Whether foldable phones prove to be a big part of our future is still up in the air. There’s no singular folding device stealing the hearts of mainstream consumers. But it’s undeniable that a folding screen makes any phone just a little more interesting.
More Great WIRED Stories
- The secret to enjoying nature is … your phone
- Wikipedia is the last best place on the internet
- So, amphibians glow. Humans just couldn’t see it—until now
- Is this the end of oversharing?
- Flying car developers get a boost from the Air Force
- 👁 A defeated chess champ makes peace with AI. Plus, the latest AI news
- 📱 Torn between the latest phones? Never fear—check out our iPhone buying guide and favorite Android phones