On Attitudes Toward Evil

As I have been thinking in recent months both about different religions—but especially Christianity—and about evil in general, it strikes me suddenly that how different worldviews regard evil is deeply important. This is especially important to me now because of the stunning and sickening amounts of evidence that has emerged that many, not just a few, of our supposed "elites" have been involved in one of the very most evil of human activities, the enslavement and rape of children.

Secular Western Society

It has always been my view that evil, properly so called, is a real and horrible thing, though I did not until recently formulate any clear idea about what it was. But I knew my position was not the intellectually fashionable one, looking at most "sophisticated" modern art and culture, as well as the discourse about evil. The fashionable view seems to be that, while activities traditionally regarded as evil might be abhorrent, there is a certain degree of rebel "cool" and authenticity about them—even about destructive crime. Thus, somehow, The Godfather films, about murderous thugs, are regarded as the pinnacle of sophistication. The callousness of a film like Natural Born Killers is ignored while its edginess is celebrated. The music of criminal gangs literally celebrates crime and is regarded as the trendsetter of cool. So, surely, it is sickeningly appropriate that some of our most admired leaders in politics, science, and entertainment would be close partners and friends with Jeffrey Epstein, a child trafficker.

Of course, most of us are, or claim to be, sickened and shocked by such behavior, and if we happen to enjoy entertainment that seems to elevate evil, we say it is just fantasy. Rarely do we ask ourselves why we find depictions of evil so exciting, attractive, and sophisticated. Similarly, we tend to look at entertainment that elevates honesty and goodness as insipid, boring, and vulgar—or perhaps that is just how the entertainment that Hollywood produces turns out. Movie villains are always the interesting, complex characters; heroes are always dull and flat.

But what should we think about evil? If we put the question seriously, secular scientists and scholars assure us that evil does not really exist. Their views, though doubtless presented as the height of sophistication—because only intellectual sophistication could explain why someone might take such a bizarre stance—strike me as themselves merely naive, if not positively corrupt and dishonest. But more on that anon.

I mention the views of modern, secular Western society toward evil, because I want to compare them to some ancient and religious views of evil. I will save the Judeo-Christian tradition for last.

Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, and Manichaeism

These ancient views embrace the notion that there are two different forces at work within the universe (and by extension within human society), one good and benign, and another evil and malevolent. Thus the view is, in general, called dualism (not of mind and body, but of good and evil as cosmic forces). The struggle between these two cosmic principles is at least part of what leads to suffering.

Now, I am not a historian or religious scholar, so I cannot speak on this with any authority, but it seems to me the key motive behind such dualism is not merely to explain the existence of suffering. It is, also, to explain the evil tendencies within us. If there is a noble struggle, it is the struggle to purify one's soul of the evil in which we are enmeshed. But the power, ultimately, is more or less balanced and not all on one side as in Christianity.

Hinduism

Hinduism predates the aforementioned religions, and it has similarly dualistic notions, but instead of there being two opposing (and specifically personified) forces, it is typically said that there are good and evil in all of the Hindu deities and in all of us, although the gods are generally held to be good and there are supposed to be evil demons opposed to them. The admixture of evil, or bad karma (behavior), in human life is why one of the key requirements of dharma (law) was to live unselfishly and to ritually purify ourselves (not unlike in the Old Testament Jewish tradition).

Buddhism

Compared to Hinduism, Buddhism's stance on evil is relatively simple: while it is crucial that we avoid bad karma, as with Hinduism, the truly enlightened view, which we will have if we achieve nirvana, is the elimination of ego and the illusions of the world. As with Hinduism, this is inherently complex and confusing. But the idea seems to be that evil exists and matters for purposes of weighing up your karma, but it does not really exist if you have achieved nirvana. Since nirvana is a higher, more enlightened state, it seems that Buddhists hold that evil does not really, in fact, exist.

For both Hinduism and Buddism, it is because we are inevitably mixed up with evil throughout our lives that we end up being reincarnated instead of being liberated.

The New Age Movement

While the so-called New Age movement is very diverse in outlook and it is hard to generalize accurately, one of the most common strands one finds in it is gnostic dualism—the rejection of an all-good, monotheistic divinity—via "theosophy." But unlike ancient dualists, New Agers believe that good and evil, though they appear to be at odds, do not really exist, because they are subjective creations of the human spirit. In the New Age of Aquarius, such old ideas will pass away as we all attain some sort of enlightenment, possibly to realize that we are all part of a single universal soul or spirit.

There is something seriously wrong about the notion that evil does not exist because it is a mere construct of unenlightened people; that is a positively pernicious idea that only Buddhism avows. Again, this is not my area of study and so I am only guessing, but the notion that evil seems to be so only due to an unenlightened perspective is not apt to be comforting, in the long run, to those who have suffered from monstrous human evil. Indeed, this strikes me as the sort of doctrine that abusive cults might use to blind their followers to the injustice done in the name of "enlightenment."

The Judeo-Christian Tradition and its Difference

While cognate ethical concepts are to be found across all or most religions, the Judeo-Christian tradition truly stands out in one particular: there is, in fact, one thing in the universe that is utterly pure and holy, namely God, and we fall short of God's purity, which is why it is essential that we be redeemed.

While Jews and Christians traditionally believe in demons, who can be one cause of evil, we fallible humans do not need their help. Evil lives in us due to "original sin," which can be understood as the doctrine simply that we, all of us, inevitably do choose to do something sinful before too long. In this this realistic moral assessment of human fallibility, Judaism and Christianity are much the same as most other religions.

Again, where this tradition differs, however, is in the notion that above us there is an utterly good God. This God does indeed desire for us to live humbly, fairly, and compassionately; most religions are concerned for us to do that. But the God of the Bible (in both testaments) in addition says that the only way we can have a chance at a life made holy is not through any sort of "enlightenment" in the next world, not through not by fighting off opposing forces by which we are inevitably contaminated, not by being joined to a world soul, but—while remaining a separate individual in this world—through the redeeming grace of God. That means that God basically forgives your sins, but only if you have subjected your sinful will to his. God is willing to as it were wipe your sins clean if you are sincerely willing to be made an agent of his (pure, all-loving) will.

Now here's the question: Is the notion of "saving grace," as I have quickly and roughly explained it, a difference that might actually matter?

I think so. All of these other religions have human beings mixed in with evil forces which they cannot properly fight; ultimately, in an enlightened state, the evil on Earth is held not to exist, or not to matter. That seems to imply that it is a matter of perspective—as certain New Agers put it most straightforwardly—that there is, in fact, truly evil in the world.

The Judeo-Christian view is that evil certainly does exist and it absolutely does matter. It is not obviated by a shift in perspective according to which we are one with the universe. We remain individuals throughout. We must, quite individually, take responsibility for our evil, period. But with the help of God, i.e., if we (again individually) enter into a certain kind of relationship with God, then our evil is forgiven or redeemed.

Secular Western Society Redux

If you now want to review what I said about the cynical views of secular Western society toward evil, you will find they have more in common with non-Christian religions than with Christianity. Like dualistic views, Hinduism, and New Age philosophies, we live in an inevitably messy world and are thrown upon our own resources, at least in this world. But, again like Buddhism and New Age philosophies, evil does not really exist according to a more enlightened (scientific, scholarly) views.

What do you think? What have I missed?


Why I Have Not Been a Christian, and Why That Might Change

A Personal History of My Nonbelief

I think I lost the faith I was raised in (Lutheran) when I was 16, a few years after the family stopped going regularly to church. That was when I first started studying philosophy more seriously. To be specific, I stopped being Christian because I stopped believing in God.

A methodological skeptic

I had no particularly special reason to reject belief in God, back then; it was just heaved overboard with virtually all my deepest beliefs when I went through a process of systematic doubt, one not unlike Descartes'. Before I had read Descartes, I decided that it was extremely important that I have the Truth, with a capital T, in all its depth and complexity. So I decided that the only way to arrive at that would be to systematically study philosophy and to begin by ejecting all my beliefs, a stance called methodological skepticism. The belief in God was, of course, one of these, although I think I had already started to doubt a year or two before the philosophy bug bit me.

The reason I desperately wanted the Truth and went through what was an intellectually and even to some extent emotionally wrenching period for some years, in my late teens, is that I had come to understand that the truth about how to live and how to think about the world was actually extremely important. One example I gave myself was some people I knew who had gotten deeply into drugs. I knew (because they told me) that they thought drugs were really cool, that they could expand your consciousness, man. But I watched as several of those people descended into what looked to me like a brain-dead stupor and even crime. It occurred to me that their former beliefs about drugs turned out to be not just false, but quite dangerously false. I then extrapolated from that example to many other life situations. In this way I clued myself in to an idea that I think many adults never do learn—that errors in our thinking that have consequential impact on our lives tend to be systematic and deep. They tend to be about important, broad matters, often aptly described as "philosophical" even if a person knows nothing about philosophy.

Veritas

This is not to say I had no thoughts whatsoever about proving the existence of God. It was obvious enough that belief in the existence of God was, to be sure, one of those extremely consequential beliefs, with systematic, deep impact on our lives—enabling, as it does, an acceptance of various kinds of (theistic) religion and everything that entails. But none of the arguments I encountered seemed adequate. For example, I seem to remember criticizing the cosmological argument, that the universe must have had a beginning and that there must be some explanation of that beginning that was outside of time. Well, doesn't that mean there might have to be some explanation of this entity that exists outside of time? What does it mean, anyway, to exist outside of time? Sounded like potential nonsense, and I did not want to accept anything that I did not quite clearly understand. And perhaps the universe always has existed and that there was indeed a cause of the Big Bang in some unknowable state prior to it.

My formal study of philosophy in college and then grad school (lasting from 1986 until 2000) did not change my skepticism. I remember a student at Ohio State coming up to me around 1995 and asking what my response to the fine-tuning argument was, and I had to concede that I didn't have a response off hand, and that it was certainly among one of the strongest arguments for the existence of God. In fact, I was much struck by this fact, at the time, and it made me wonder if perhaps I was not giving theism short shrift after all. Later on, in 2003-5, I taught philosophy of religion a few times at Ohio State, and learned about the arguments in more depth. I was able to explain the arguments both for and against the existence of God with enough plausibility that the class was evenly divided on the question, at the end of the term, of whether I myself was a believer, an agnostic, or an atheist. I never did tell them that I was an agnostic, in fact.

Might exist

How I Might Become a Christian

It is 2020. Has anything changed? Well, yes. I find myself taking theism in general and Christianity in particular much more seriously these days. I notice, of course, that this runs directly counter to my old methodological skepticism, which has not really changed, in general. So let me explain a few things I now believe about Christianity, and why I might make an exception to my skepticism for it.

The first thing I want to point out is that, now that I am older and more experienced, the dangers of false belief—i.e., the moral hazards to me, personally—do not seem to be nearly as pronounced as they might have been when I was younger and relatively naive. My experience of life means that, even if I do accept something quite incorrect, I am less likely to get involved in something life-ruining at this stage in my life.

Was He a zealot?

Besides, in the case of Christianity, decades of experience have brought no great and deep insights into anything that I would call dangers associated with Christian religious practice. This isn't to say zealotry and radicalism don't exist, which of course they do; it is just that I know that I am very unlikely to get involved with them. This is true of the most sincere believers I know. They are, quite simply, extremely pleasant people to be around, and they are, far from being crazy, some of the most sane and grounded people I know. It is also quite plausible that it is their faith that has grounded them. They take morality seriously, as something they should act on. They understand and live by the notion of Christian humility and charity, the combination of which make them perfectly docile.

Meanwhile, the more I have learned about the psychology and practices of both atheism and left-wing thinking, generally speaking, the more I am forced to admit that no small amount of my own nonbelief might have been rooted in not just general skepticism but also in propaganda. In short, modern Western society, especially in academic and intellectual circles, is deeply hostile to Christianity, so that it simply has not been given a fair shake. I don't just mean that Christians have been made to look like bigoted fools—though indeed they have been so slandered—I mean the best side of the religion has been systematically hidden. It has not been shown to the best advantage.

I'd like to read a few books like this

In practice, this has meant that I have not been exposed to the best versions of the arguments for God and Christianity, I have not really understood the Bible (and also did not grasp that there was something quite interesting to understand), and I have been largely ignorant of the details of Christian apologetics. In a society more sympathetic to Christianity, those possessed of the more compelling arguments for God would receive a more frequent hearing, I would have studied the Bible properly at some point (I am reading it all the way through for the first time now), and I would be more thoroughly familiar with apologetics as its elements would be both commonly studied and "in the air."

I am not ready to call myself a Christian because I am not ready to declare and defend a belief in God. But, privately and publicly, I have been re-examining many of the, to me quite familiar, arguments for the existence of God, and I have come to a new perspective on several of them.

Reflections on Philosophy of Religion

Any one argument for the existence of God is not particularly persuasive, but taken together, they are more so. If you take the various specific conclusions of specific arguments as data, then "A personal God with whom it is possible to have a personal relationship" becomes an explanation of the set of them, and thus the conclusion of an argument to the best explanation (also called an abductive argument). In other words:

  1. Probably, there is something outside of space and time that explains why there is something rather than nothing.
  2. Natural laws and constants seem fine-tuned for the existence of matter and the rise of life.
  3. We have experience only of minds producing such timeless or abstract things as natural laws and constants.
  4. The only explanation we seem to be able to come up with for why there are these natural laws and constants is that they are aimed at, or have a purpose or function of, the origin of the universe and ultimately of the life we see around us.
  5. Any such purpose would seem to be benevolent and to suggest rules for us, insofar as it allows us to live well, if we live in accordance with our nature and circumstances on earth.

I hear he had some arguments for God

Individually, conclusions like 1-5 look relatively weak, but they are, nevertheless, in need of some explanation or response. (Perhaps I could add to this list.) We can respond critically to each of them, indeed, which is what I have been doing for decades. But an idea I never have really taken seriously, until quite recently, is that we can explain them all together by reference to an eternal, non-extended mind-like entity, originating not only the universe but the laws according to which it runs, which entity has purposes and even benevolence toward life. Thus all of the various "arguments for the existence of God," or several of them anyway, become so much data, or explananda, for a single overarching argument to the best explanation, the explanans being the ordinary notion of a personal God.

I'm not sure precisely what to make of this argument—not that I haven't had thoughts about that. I might elaborate those thoughts later.

Said he believed anyway, go figure

Anyway, to get from there to Christianity, it is necessary to move well beyond what philosophers call "natural religion," i.e., conclusions you can arrive at without any "revealed religion." Why should the God of the Bible (called variously Yahweh/Jehovah, the LORD, and Jesus) be identified with the entity posited as an explanation of 1-5? I'm working on an answer to that as well. It's not simple.

For one thing, it requires that one grapple with the idea of the soul or spirit, of a mental entity independent of any body. While I have always thought it to be beyond doubt that there are mental experiences and hence minds in some sense, the notion of a mind independent of any body (so, a soul) has always seemed puzzling to me. Frankly, one of the stronger arguments for souls is near-death experiences, a reported phenomenon I have never been able to rule out.

But this would mean I would have to re-evaluate the physicalism I have long adhered to, when it comes to philosophy of mind. I have thought that the mind is a property of the body, and the thing that makes it seem to be so completely different from anything material is quite the same as what makes the problem of universals so puzzling: what are properties, anyway? I'm not quite sure I can see my way clear to abandoning that rather elegant solution. But I can admit that, even if (as Hume emphasizes) I cannot introspect a self independent of any passing thoughts or feelings, I do seem to have a sense of a self. I always thought of that as being my body (so that my thoughts are properties occurring to me, a body). But I suppose now that there is something rather absurd about that suggestion. I mean, look, when I say that I'm happy or sad, thoughtful or confused, virtuous or weak, am I referring to my body (such as my brain)? Surely what I mean—and this is an important point, since the whole argument turns on what I am introspecting—is something quite different from my body. Which part of my body is happy? My mouth, which smiles? No. My head? Don't be silly. My entire body without any differentiation? That does not make sense. My brain? That seems more plausible, but I'm not thinking about my brain, surely, when I say I am happy. No, it's my self I mean, which is something I have a definite sense of and which is different both from my body and from any particular idea or feeling I have.

Well, it's possible.

This probably doesn't quite entail that I have a soul, much less that I have an immortal soul. Anyway, I'll leave that there for now.

In any case, if I am going to take all of these things seriously, and consider embracing a belief in God, let alone in Christianity, then I admit that I would have to abandon my methodological skepticism. And I am not really sure I want to do that, as it seems to me it has served me well.


How I'm Reading the Bible in 90 Days

The Bible is easily the most influential book of Western literature. If you haven't read any part of it at all, you aren't educated, period. But, for that matter, if you haven't read it all the way through, then again you still have a massive hole in your education. That's what I told myself last month, deciding once and for all to fill in that hole.

I guess I'm still an agnostic, but let's just say I'm newly curious. I might explain why later on, but for now suffice it to say that for many years I was not particularly curious about the possible truth of monotheism or Christianity in particular—and now I am.

So last month I decided to start reading the Bible all the way through. While I had read quite a bit of it when I was a kid, then a chunk (25%?) again to my boys over the last decade as part of their homeschooling, I never did read the entire thing cover to cover. Maybe more importantly, I never really did understand it. Now that I am reading it, I am understanding Christian (and Jewish) theology much better than I used to.

Even with great care, the big problem about reading the Bible is understanding it, because it is a difficult text. I don't care if you are super-smart and have read lots of difficult texts; if you haven't read the Bible in particular, then you won't understand it without a lot of help, period.

For such a truly ancient book, the Bible is actually quite an amazing piece of literature, history, theology, and philosophy, if you didn't know. Not for nothing has it dominated and shaped Western civilization. Not for nothing did most the greatest minds of Western civilization (most philosophers other great minds such as Sir Isaac Newton) admired it for millennia. It may be confusing and confounding, but it is not stupid. It makes a lot more sense and is much more consistent than many atheists and agnostics believe. I am not declaring here that it is the Truth, but I am declaring that it is far more coherent and intelligent—again, properly understood—than many people in our modern, secular culture know. They think it's stupid; the reason they think so is that they don't understand it. Period. The significance of the Bible text is complex, layered, and deep. But you can't understand that significance without reading it, studying it, and getting help (see below) with your study.

As I first post this, I've done 30 days of my Bible-in-90-days plan, and I've been clued in to some modern discoveries, ideas, and tricks for doing this. I thought I'd share them, if for no other reason than to memorialize this for myself in case I want to do it again sometime:

  • You don't have to use a printed book to read the Bible. I'm using several apps concurrently. This is lighter, easier, and comes with audio and multimedia built in.
  • Top Bible apps? I have reviewed a lot of Bible apps fairly closely. At present (this could easily change), there are five stand-outs, all iPhone apps since I don't use Android: YouVersion's Bible app, Tecarta Bible, Bible Hub, Logos, and BLB (Blue Letter). None of these is perfect (they should contact me and I'll tell them how to improve). What do these excel at?
    • YouVersion's "Bible" app: The plethora of great reading plans (see below), the audio versions, and good but not perfect UX (design/ease of use), especially when it comes to switching between translations. Unfortunately, no commentaries available.
    • Tecarta Bible: Excellent (still not absolutely perfect) UX, good audio versions, free built-in commentaries. You might want to buy a commentary, and if so, I'd recommend doing it through this one because of the design (and they have dozens available, pretty cheaply too).
      Note: As reading hubs, the above two are the best I've found so far.
    • Bible Hub: While the design (it's an app wrapper for a website) might be off-putting, they've got massive numbers of free commentaries that have become my go-to place for second opinions. The amount of free study/scholarly resources packed onto the website is amazing and as far as I can tell, superior to any other app's by far. Just for example, check out this array of free commentaries on one Bible verse. So, that's in the app. If only they would improve their appalling UX...
      Note: The above three are the ones I've been using on a daily basis for the last two weeks or so.
    • Logos: Lots of free resources, particularly the Faithlife Study Bible and online dictionary. The UX is "clever" but actually clunky, so I don't use it much; I can see how some might like it. Especially good for word study and serious Bible scholarship.
    • BLB (Blue Letter): tap a version, get a bunch of resources including, again, a bunch of commentaries. Bible Hub is probably better. Good for word study.
    • So in general, I am currently using YouVersion for the reading plan, actual reading, and audio; Tecarta Bible as my "go-to" commentary; and others for backup commentaries. I also use a Bible dictionary app and a backup Bible atlas map when the commentaries fail me.
  • Here, let me try. If anyone reading this wants to pay me to plan out an open source, collaborative Bible study app from the ground up, I am willing to do so for a fee (gotta eat). If well-coded and my UX/design recommendations were followed, it suspect would blow all others out of the water. Gee, that doesn't sound like Christian humility, does it? Well, let's just say I find these apps frustrating, as useful as they are, and that it is easy for me to imagine how to improve them by using the best ideas from all.
  • Listen to an audio version while you read. Maybe this is a matter of taste, but I find that if the text is coming in through the ears as well as the eyes, I'm able to focus and understand better. But be sure you pick a decent audio version. There are a lot of clunkers, it seems to me. A lot of "dramatizations" in which the voice actors actually try to act out different parts leave much to be desired. I ended up preferring the deep British voice (free) that goes with the KJV in the YouVersion. No nonsense, no strenuous attempt to interpret the text or "do voices." But it does read expressively, and not blandly, as many other (free) audio Bibles do.
  • Play with app reading settings. Your overall experience may be changed significantly, maybe even profoundly, by changing any one of these variables in your app, so play around with these:
    • Bible version/translation: KJV for literality and purism, NASB for (maybe) scholarly accuracy, ERV ("Easy-to-Read Version") for ease of reading, etc.
    • Go-to reading app. You might prefer one I haven't listed. Go with the one that's easiest for you to use.
    • Go-to commentary. Do try several. Some are free, and some other feature-rich ones are quite cheap (less than $10) if you purchase through the app.
    • Go-to sets of reference (maps and Bible dictionary). Super important if you actually want to understand what's going on, which you should, because your commentaries won't always answer your questions properly. Keep trying until you get a set of reference materials that always answer your questions satisfactorily.
    • The speaking voice. I keep coming back to that deep-voiced British guy after trying out others. Frankly, I can't stand the ones who lamely try to act out parts and get them totally wrong.
    • Reading plan, if you use one, which I recommend (see below).
    • Font style, font size, and background (white or black). Yeah, those things make a difference too.
  • Making sense, important. But back to strategies I'm following. In general, do make a real effort to understand the hard vocabulary as well as the person, tribe, and placenames. If you don't, then yeah, it's going to be merely puzzling and look like ancient nonsense to you. If you do, a lot of things start falling into place. Individually it may not matter whether Og or Abimelech was a king, priest, or general, or whether he came from came from Shechem, Moab, or Bashan, but attention to the full set of these details will help the whole to come together much more coherently.
  • Translation switching: for vocabulary. Pick a literal translation (I use the KJV) and stick with it. This can be harder to read but it will get you closer to the original thoughts than versions that are basically just rewritings. I gathered from a few different reliable sources that Bible scholars also like the NASB (North American Standard Bible). Still, I look at other, easier versions when I have trouble with the actual vocabulary of a verse (YouVersion's Bible app is great for this: just tap on a verse, then tap "Compare"). This can be faster than consulting a commentary, if your issue is just about vocabulary.
  • Study Bible: for proper nouns. While switching back and forth between versions can help you puzzle out some archaic vocabulary, the person, tribe, and placenames require other kinds of resources to make sense of. The most efficient way to make sense of this is to use a study Bible (that's what I do, anyway), especially one that comes with many detailed maps integrated just where they are needed (ESV Study Bible is what I use in no small part for the maps). But no study Bible seems to be complete, so the more the better. A Bible dictionary/encyclopedia will often help answer more general questions the commentaries don't cover (like "Who was Abimelech again?").
  • Intros: background for theology, culture, history, archaeology, etc. If you're not familiar with the Good Book, you can't just read the thing straight through. Especially if it's your first time reading the Bible, you definitely will not understand it if you don't have the assistance of not just commentaries, but also introductions or lectures. Book introductions (e.g., an introduction to the book of Genesis) or video lectures (which cover similar information) are essential to understanding the theology of the Bible above all, which is kind of the whole point, but also the narrative structure, which is important if you want to make sense of what you're reading. I've been reading my study Bible's text introductions sometimes, and always also watching short YouTube videos.
  • Study the general concepts. Sometimes you'll notice certain concepts coming up again and again without much introduction or explanation, things like covenant, sacrifice, various angelic beings, redemption, forgiveness, etc. When you come across these and you really have no idea what they really mean, look them up and read several paragraphs about them, at least. If you don't have at least some rough understanding of those (and quite a few other) concepts it is absolutely certain that you will not understand the Bible. Many of those concepts are very unfamiliar to modern, largely amoral, secular minds, and require special explanation.
  • Reading the Bible in 90 days is doable and is a good idea. There are lots of "reading plans" built into several Bible apps, including the top two listed above. Again, YouVersion's Bible app has the biggest selection that I found and their reading plan feature is very well designed. Now, most whole-Bible reading plans are for 365 days, but that struck me as being too slow. For one thing, as with any body of knowledge (think especially of foreign languages), the more you jam it all in together in a relatively short space of time, the more mental connections you will make and the better understanding you will have. So I experimentally tried out the 90 day plan, and worked my way up to doing all of a day's work in one day. I think requires something like 90-120 minutes per day—maybe sometimes more. This includes consulting resources such as commentaries.
  • On "The Bible Project." So a seminary professor and a writer got together with a team of dozens to produce some quite well-made, opinionated, extremely informative videos about not just every book of the Bible, but how to read it and various Biblical concepts. These videos are part of a daily orienting "devotional" that goes along with the reading plan I chose. I'm not 100% sure I trust the theology of these videos (er, so do they really think the seraphim are flying snakes, like the pagan Egyptian critters?), but they sure are handy in how they encapsulate a lot of information briefly. I'm checking out other video series as well, anyway.
  • Do searches on critical questions. Naturally, if you're the least bit curious, you'll have hard and critical questions. Why does God seem to be so, um, harsh in the Old Testament? What really do the Israelites have to atone for? What's the point of all the sacrifices? Is there any real reason to take the history of the Gospel story seriously? Etc. Use your search engine of choice to look up the answers. You might or might not be convinced by the answers (I'm afraid I'm not, in some cases), but if you don't know how intelligent, well-informed, and committed believers answer such questions—and especially if you assume that they have no answers to such questions, because they're not smart enough to think of the questions or take them seriously—then again, I guarantee you simply won't understand what's going on when you read the Bible.
  • Do not zone out and let the words wash over you. Look, maybe you don't need to understand everything in the greatest detail, as a serious scholar does, but if you let a verse pass you by and you can say to yourself, "Wait, what did I just read, and what did it mean?" and you don't know, then you're not really reading. You're sort of pretending to read. Don't do that. If you let whole sections, chapters, or books go past you when you're on autopilot, I guarantee you'll miss something important. The only time when you can safely skip something is when you're going through "the begats," the repetitive details of sacrificing (but going through one of the repetitions seems necessary), the word descriptions of boundaries of the territories of the twelve tribes, and other such things that are best regarded as reference information inserted into what is otherwise a narrative.
  • I walk and read. I happen to pace through my whole house as I read, getting my hourly walking minutes in (something I do for health) and my reading time in. By the end of the day I've finished my day's reading. If not, I do another half-hour's reading after the kids are in bed, no problem. Maybe you can read while on the train, or while on the treadmill, or whatever.

There are of course many other things I am not doing (or, not so much) and that at a future date I might recommend: Bible study groups, both online and in face-to-face; getting help from an actual human being (always a good idea); doing a course on the whole Bible concurrently with reading (something I started on The Great Courses Plus, since we have a subscription, but found was too much of a commitment to do along with 60-90 minutes of daily reading).

Anyway, there you have a catalog of strategies I've followed the last few weeks. Since I'm far from being an expert on any of these subjects, I submit these just as ideas, and maybe more experienced people will be able to give me more ideas as well.

UPDATE: I finished in 100 days, and then immediately started re-reading it in 365 days.


A Response to Jack Dorsey on Decentralizing Social Media

Jack,

Let me begin by telling you (and my blog readers) a personal history of decentralizing social media and content generally.

Decentralizing social media

It began in January when I decided to lock down my cyber-life. Among the items on my "to do" list was: "Quit social media, or at least nail down a sensible social media use policy." I rather quickly decided to get rid of Facebook and a number of others. I grudgingly conceded that I would keep using Twitter for career purposes.

By February, I was still not satisfied with how I was using social media, basically because I did not have control over my own data. When trying to download my own contributed content from Facebook, Medium, and Quora (which did not even offer a tool for downloading my answers), I got seriously frustrated. "This is my data," I thought, "and they act like it's theirs."

I got to thinking. My data was not easy to download. It wasn't even easy to search—almost all Big Social Media platforms have minimal search tools. And there was no standard, as is there is for address books, blogs, and email, that would enable me to move this data to a competitor.

The latter is probably what gave me the idea, which of course is not a new idea at all, that what we really need to do is to decentralize social media. I wrote a blog post about that, which TheNextWeb printed. The idea was wildly popular on Twitter and in a few speeches I gave last spring and summer.

In one of these speeches, at South by Southwest in March—in a shortened version of this Wired article—I said there desperately need to be open standards for a new system of decentralized social media, and that we should have a social media strike to raise awareness of this.

Decentralizing Twitter?

In the speech, I asked you, Jack, three questions. I reiterated them on Twitter, and you answered "yes" to all three:

  1. Once the standards for microposts are properly settled on, will you, Jack, enable Twitter users to incorporate Twitter-style microposts that are hosted elsewhere inline in their Twitter feeds? [Q] [A]
  2. Will you create tools to let people export and sync their tweets with microposts from outside of Twitter? [Q] [A]
  3. And will you give users a lot more control over their feeds? [Q] [A]

Shortly thereafter, you DM'd me and offered to chat on the phone about Twitter's plans. Since you are now, nine months later, coming out publicly with your plans, I'm now going to share the notes I took then:


My piece in Wired [i.e., this] is “spot-on”

They’ve had
discussions about similar plans for last six months

Run some ideas past
you: problems we’re trying to solve; then solutions

CR2019, execute 2020

Pressure testing the
ideas now.

Want to encourage
greater amounts of healthy conversations

Four leading
indicators of health of corpus of conversation: shared attention,
shared reality, variety, receptivity. MIT lab is measuring these
against talk radio.

Six problems with
the poor health of conversation on Twitter: (1) focus on following
accounts rather than topics; problems with variety and shared
reality. (2) Attention problems, is dissipating. (3) Global enforced
policy is not scalable. (4) Burden of moderation is placed on the
victim. (5) Permanent bans and takedown do not promote health. (6)
Tech trends challenge content hosting.

Principles going
forward that address the problem:

  1. An account or
    tweet can only be deleted by the account owner.
  2. Anyone can
    follow any account, topic, keyword/question.
  3. Anyone can
    mute any account, topic, keyword, question.
  4. By default,
    we’ll only promote “healthy” accounts/tweets.
  5. Everyone can
    quickly switch off to see all accounts and all tweets in all
    conversations.
  6. Everyone will
    have incentive to participate in healthy conversations.

You could use a
different recommendation engine purposes of filtering feed.

CTO is working on how to implement principles.


I was cautiously optimistic in March. But now, I don't think you were sincere. I still don't after your recent announcement.

We were going to circle back after a month. We never did. I said in my speech that I wanted to organize a social media strike, and I suggested July 4-5 as the date.

Still, Twitter finally gave me a blue checkmark in May, I suppose in an attempt to appease me. (Didn't work.)

The social media strike

I organized a social media strike and asked strikers to sign this Declaration of Digital Independence. I'm pretty sure Twitter noticed, because it was then that my tweets, ironically, started being throttled as "sensitive content," which has happened dozens of times since, and when the content was nowhere near being "sensitive"—unless it's Twitter being quite sensitive about the idea of a social media strike. Throttling. Kind of pisses me off, Jack.

The strike got quite a bit of news coverage, even though it was quickly and informally organized, with no backing organization, no PR firm, no nothin'. By July 6, it was not clear how successful the strike was, because of course the social media companies were not going to supply data. It is possible the strike might have had something to do with outages at Facebook and Instagram, but I heard nothing specific about that.

I'm not terribly surprised that no one at Twitter (or any other social media giant) contacted me about the strike. I'm sure it didn't help that I went on Fox to talk about the strike:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK6BHGu9SD4

Or CNN:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8m-F8C2lrU

Consequences: traffic decline and throttling?

The strike did have one very clear and beneficial effect: it spread the idea that there was something wrong about social media companies having exclusive control over our social media data. I speculate—and saw a fair bit of anecdotal support of this—that people started abandoning social media in general more last summer. I started tracking to the Alexa Rank of various social media sites, as an imperfect way to check up on this.

After Twitter's rank kept dropping throughout the summer, I looked at other sites in September, and I noticed their ranks, too, had precipitously and noticeably declined recently—and yet, strangely, nobody had reported this remarkable news. So I reported it myself here on this blog. A fair few opinionated techies follow me, but none of them told me this wasn't news; still, the tech press was entirely silent. And weirdly, within days, the Alexa Rank of my own blog plunged by around 500K places, and did not come back up for a few months, while the ranks of almost all of the sites I reported on slowed or stopped their decline, and started plateauing and even slowly climbing back. Could be a coincidence, of course. But the ranks have not yet climbed past where they were in late September.

Anyway, Jack, I confess that those notices of "sensitive content" slapped on my social media strike-related tweets began to bother me quite a bit. It especially bothered me when Twitter stopped me (for a day) from linking to my own blog. I wasn't the only one who noticed. Of course, I can't prove that my posts about the social media strike had anything to do with censoring links to my blog: it did turn out someone had been using my blog's password reset functionality in a simple spamming exploit. But if that was the reason, it was a frankly boneheaded excuse to block the domain; and there was no excuse to ignore my repeated requests for explanation.

So it has become personal for me, not that I wasn't already thoroughly pissed off about Big Tech encroachments on free speech and privacy.

Decentralizing Encyclopedias

When we last spoke, I was working for Everipedia, the blockchain encyclopedia. In September, I left in order to start a new, independent nonprofit project to define open standards for encyclopedia articles, which will, I hope, create a new encyclopedia network called the Encyclosphere (after the Blogosphere). This was the plan all along with Everipedia, but I figured I needed to develop the standards independently of any for-profit organization, or the standards would probably never enjoy mass adoption. You can learn about our new Knowledge Standards Foundation here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PrWGMyJgpI

The plan for the Encyclosphere is very similar to the plan I was proposing for social media. In both cases the proposal is:

  • Define open standards for sharing content.
  • Content is published in a feed; everyone controls their own feed.
  • Content aggregators bring many feeds together and make them available via an API or (probably decentralized) database (such as WebTorrent).
  • Reader apps (analogous to blog readers) make is possible to read (and contribute) the aggregated content.

Your announcement

So I'm going to be honest. When you say you're going to create "an open and decentralized standard for social media," I don't believe it. My reaction to this announcement is similar to my reaction to Mark Zuckerberg giving a speech in favor of free speech: to laugh.

Twitter used an open standard in its early days—then abandoned it. Twitter said they were the "free speech wing of the free speech party," then started banning and throttling people for political speech.

A lot of people are working on decentralizing content in reaction to your mishandling of social media.

We don't need Mark Zuckerberg's "help" to support free speech, and we don't need your "help" to make content decentralized.

Sincerely,
Larry Sanger


A Theory of Evil

First posted Aug. 16, 2019. Revised and reposted Nov. 4. Good to read alongside "Why Be Moral."

For a long time, the nature of evil eluded me. But dark contemplation of the Jeffrey Epstein case and of the very existence of pedophile rings has clarified the nature of evil for me. Here, then, is a brief and provisional theory.

Evil is contempt for the humanity, the human life, of others.

Evil is contempt for the humanity, the human life, of others. I will explain what I mean by this, but first let me clarify what, on this theory, evil is not.

One personification of evil: Jeffery Epstein

First, evil is not contempt for this or that person; contempt can be deserved. Epstein himself richly deserves our contempt. But evil is something more far-reaching: it is contempt for the humanity of others. That qualifier is very important, as we will see.

Another thing evil is not is mere old-fashioned, curmudgeonly misanthropy. Misanthropes might claim to "hate everybody," and they are very much distrusting, but they aren't necessarily bad just for that. Most self-described misanthropes do not hate human life as such; they're just deeply, profoundly disappointed with everyone. They have ideals that we fall far short of, and it is actually their unyielding principles that make them misanthropes. They are impressed with the idea that we are all sinners, so they have not given up the idea of sin. They do not reject the principle that we should value all human beings; they just believe that, due to the inevitable foibles of humanity, we cannot justify admiring or trusting anyone. Distrust and disappointment are not evil at all.

Quite a good book

I have come to the conclusion that a proper understanding of evil—i.e., understanding the very idea of contempt for the humanity of some others—is profoundly important if you are to have a mature, clear-sighted view of your own life and of the world and its history. We might define naïveté as the failure to accept that anyone has such contempt. I have been rather naïve, in this sense, all my life. I have always liked Will Rogers' charming sentiment that he never met a man he didn't like. I have become increasingly impressed, over the years, by the Christian elevation of love, or agape, as a virtue—love for one's fellow man. I thought it was something of a failing in myself that I disliked some people. One of the fictional characters I rather admired was Dostoyevsky's Idiot, Prince Myshkin; his trusting nature, his unwillingness to accept the existence of evil, was his problem, too. I am coming to the conclusion that I myself have been rather idiotic about evil, and that has to end.

Kant

An evil person looks at another person and says: this is a non-person; this is a piece of trash; this is an obstacle or tool to be used and then discarded. Psychiatrists call such people sociopaths. A Kantian would say they treat others as mere means to their selfish ends, not as ends in themselves. That formulation is close, perhaps, but limited. After all, there is also a kind of nihilistic evil, which seeks to destroy pointlessly, due to the deepest contempt for a person, and hatred of their humanity as such—not to advance any further goal. Such dark, twisted, broken souls exist in real life, not just in horror stories.

With that long preamble finished, let me now explain what I mean by the key phrase "contempt for the humanity, the human life, of others." How do I distinguish this from mere contempt of some disagreeable human feature? If the big bad boss sees that an employee does poor work, the big bad boss might look down on, or have contempt, for the employee, but it might be due only to poor work. The stereotypical mean girl in high school has contempt for "ugly girls" and "nerds," but that might only be contempt for ugliness and nerdiness.

However nasty they can be, I don't propose to call the boss or the mean girl positively evil unless they demonstrate contempt for something deeper: their target's humanity.

Not quite evil

So, what is that? I add "human life" as a clue: I mean contempt for the very life or existence of a person, not just for perceived weaknesses, faults, sins, or mistakes. This could entail careless disregard for a person's mind or body, or both; it could entail active desire to harm without regard to ultimate consequences. Certainly this comes in degrees. Perhaps a bully who relentlessly teases is on the road to something like evil, if over time it becomes clear that the bully thinks of the person as merely a plaything for pleasurable torture. But most bullies have some regard for their victims: killing, for example, is out of the question. An accidental killing would inspire deep guilt in most of the world's bullies, who are merely bad, not evil. Lack of a sense of guilt indicates positive evil.

But clearly, evil is not an all-or-nothing affair. There are degrees of evil because there are degrees not just in the scope of one's contempt for humanity (as I will explain shortly), but also in the amount or strength of one's contempt.

I take the latter to be a truism: some people are merely bad, some are inconsistently evil (for example, reformed), and some are "pieces of work." The concept of a "piece of work" has long interested me. Perhaps it can be understood as a person who consistently has a mild amount of contempt for the interests of those who surround him, but who hides this contempt well. In any event, bad sorts have contempt for the basic humanity of others, contempt that waxes and wanes with their moods, their society, substances imbibed, and even their philosophy or religion.

Goya, Saturn Devouring His Son

But generally, I think that for us to call a person evil requires strong and consistent contempt for the humanity of others. By the way, whether a person actually acts on their contempt seems unimportant. An evil monster, locked away with no opportunity to work evil, is still an evil monster.

How should we understand the other key term, "contempt"? A brief gloss is "considering someone to be inferior or worthless." It is typically regarded as an emotion, but there is a distinguishable attitude of contempt as well, one that could be cold and unfeeling, insofar as it merely involves a low evaluation of others. The attitude of contempt would be the contemplation of another person as being unimportant. Someone who regards some others with "nothing but contempt" will not credit them with rights, interests, or consideration typically accorded to (respected) peers.

But contempt for the humanity of others is a special sort of contempt. Note that we sometimes speak of dignity as a sort of "baseline value" that people have, in virtue simply of their being human. Contempt for the humanity of others, then, is the denial of their basic dignity. One who has such contempt denies his victim—deemed "scum" or "trash"—any rights, interests, or consideration.

Contempt for the humanity of others, then, is the denial of their basic dignity. One who has such contempt denies his victim—deemed "scum" or "trash"—any rights, interests, or consideration.

Root of all evil?

Evil is essentially dehumanization. If love of money is the root of all evil, that would be because it reduces human beings to commodities—which is to dehumanize them.

So far I have omitted to mention the varying scope, or target, of evil. Sometimes, the scope is quite narrow. A person obsessed with just one other person can have quite evil feelings and motives toward just that person. Perhaps this is how we should understand certain relationships that go terribly wrong. In addition, some criminals who are prone to outright evil may experience that type of contempt—for the humanity of their victims—on an individual basis. Two particularly evil crimes often directed at individuals are murder and child rape.

If evil can be manifested toward single individuals, can it be manifested toward families and small groups? Certainly it can. The motive of revenge may be understood as the utter rejection of the humanity of a person, well beyond a righteous demand for justice. When the revenge motive occurs to an extreme degree across families, clans, and gangs, we have a blood feud, which is sometimes regarded as a particularly dark sort of evil: members of opposing tribes regard each other as worthless vermin in need of extermination.

"I am a man."

Widening the scope even further, racism is revealed as one of the varieties of evil: it involves the very destructive notion that there is no difference among all members of a race, that they are all equally undeserving of respect. It can be horrifically evil in its more extreme forms, in which contempt rises from lack of respect as a peer to positive desire to harm or exterminate some dehumanized vermin.

War crimes are a tremendous evil: they reveal profound contempt for the humanity of the enemy. War is a terrible plague, because success at the endeavor often seems to require that one dehumanize, or lose all respect for the humanity of, one's enemy. By contrast, noble warriors have respect for their foes and refuse to treat their humanity with contempt. Perhaps that is an old-fashioned notion of war, but it seems the only defensible one. Good soldiers may have to participate in terrible, destructive battles, but they never sink to the level of war crimes because they retain a basic respect for the enemy's humanity. I wonder: Is war psychologically devastating for very good people, unusually so, because it requires they kill people they respect?

Child rapists would have to have contempt for the minds and bodies of the most vulnerable human beings, for their basic humanity, to mistreat them so appallingly.

Jimmy Savile—a child rapist, pure evil, was knighted and allowed to thrive for decades by powerful people. Ask why.

One very broad possible scope (21% of the U.S. population) is children. There are some people in the world—believe it or not—who have contempt for the humanity of children. They are the child rapists. They would have to have contempt for the minds and bodies of the most vulnerable human beings, for their basic humanity, to mistreat them so appallingly.

In the broadest scope, there is an evil, if thankfully small, movement afoot in the world. It appears to be hostile to human life as such, wherever it occurs. In lieu of a better word, which I couldn't find, I invented one: antivitism (anti-life-ism). This is, I want to suggest, an evil movement, however organized or disorganized it might be. "After birth" abortion and active euthanasia of teens for depression are two examples: only those contemptuous of the value of human life as such could champion such things. Again, pedophilia advocacy is another example: the harm to children is so horrible and so obvious that it seems only contempt for humanity as such can explain the defense of it.

One strand of this movement does have a name: antinatalism. As a dictionary definition has it, this is "a philosophical position that opposes human procreation, holding it to be morally wrong." More generally, antinatalists hold that human life is itself a tremendously bad thing, as they never tire of telling you.

One of the original anti-natalists, Théophile de Giraud

Now, let me be fair: I don't claim that antinatalists feel contempt toward their fellow humans. They certainly sympathize with human pain, which of course suggests decency. But anyone who takes such a theory seriously enough to act on it, I think, would have to be among the most inhuman monsters conceivable. If human life is on balance so awful, then the antinatalists would seem to be doing us all a favor by literally putting us out of our misery. This does raise an interesting theoretical challenge to my definition of evil: if antinatalists have contempt (as in, a very low estimation) for human life, but they do not in any obvious way have contempt for people, are they evil according to my definition?

My response to this is not to revise my definition of evil but to accuse antinatalists of incoherence. If they value human pain, then as a matter of fact they do value human life over human death, regardless of their protestations. Please, though, antinatalists, remain incoherent if you must remain antinatalists; please don't start taking your contempt for human life to heart.

I accuse no one of evil of the broadest possible scope, for the simple reason that the accusation would be absolutely extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Perhaps some of history's worst murderers were that evil—perhaps many. I would not rule that out.

Luis Alfredo Garavito Cubillos, The Monster of Génova, admitted to rape, torture, and murder of 138 children and teenagers

So much for this brief discussion of the scope of evil. Next I want to maintain that it is of the utmost importance that we accept that evil actually exists. Naïve people have had too little experience with extreme evil to accept that it exists. They react with horror and incomprehension when confronted with it. I myself have willingly used the concept of evil (as in essays I linked to above about murder and child rape) but with some incredulity. I suppose I used it as shorthand for "extremely bad." That's not wrong, but it fails as a definition because it leaves out the essential feature of contempt for humanity.

The existence of evil is simply hard for some people to accept, and that is precisely because they can't imagine anyone having such contempt for innocent life. It was only after wrestling with the Epstein case—only after confronting the increasing evidence from this case from my own lifetime, of monsters callously, deliberately, joyously violating innocence, demonstrating extreme contempt for the human life in their sway—that I was really able to believe it.

A modern impulse, which looks naïve, is to be highly suspicious of the concept of evil. Old-fashioned ideas of evil strike "sophisticated" people, sometimes, as mean, stupid, and insensitive. So they try to sympathetically "understand" evil, to explain it reductively in terms of vague, impersonal root causes rather than the unambiguous attitudes of specific, real people.

I don't recommend it

This modern notion that the concept of evil is somehow insensitive is highly pernicious, I believe. If we are not willing to name evil as such, we will understand evil motives badly, we will judge evil actions improperly, and we will punish evil crimes leniently. To deny that evil exists is to make it easier to be evil.

Indeed, in the last few generations—since in the mid-20th century—clinical, merely descriptive, sympathetic, and even celebratory depictions of evil have become the norm in Western culture. I will not here speculate on why this has been the case. I will say, however, that I believe this attitude to explain why crime rose in the same time period (until mass incarceration began), and why horrifically evil crimes seem to have proliferated and to have become ever more popular to this day.

This is a result of the moral abyss we find ourselves in—an echo from its depths, so to speak. If we fail to credit evil people fully with their inhuman motives, if we fail to contemplate head-on the tremendous destructive force of their contempt for humanity, then we allow evil to thrive. That is a fact, a very awful one. It should give us all pause.

If we fail to credit evil people fully with their inhuman motives, if we fail to contemplate head-on the tremendous destructive force of their contempt for humanity, then we allow evil to thrive.

We have been allowing evil to thrive. A good first step to stopping it is to re-examine the notion of evil and begin, once again, to name it for the unspeakable, but very real, horror that it is.

I leave you with a related thought.

What makes humanity loveable, and what inspires the most devotion toward heroes and leaders, is the capacity for creation, the ability to invent, build, preserve, and restore whatever is good, i.e., that which supports and delights flourishing, well-ordered life. What makes evil individuals worthy of our righteous anger is their capacity for destruction of the good, due to their contempt for human life as such.

Ary Scheffer, The Temptation of Christ

If so, then the love for God may be understood as a perfectly natural love of the supremely creative force in the universe. For what could be greater than the creator of the universe, and what could be more loveable? And then it certainly makes sense that they would regard Satan as a force most worthy of our hatred and condemnation, since Satan is held to be an essentially destructive entity, the one most contemptuous of human life as such.


A Civilizational Creed

DRAFT UNDER REVISION

I propose this creed as neither specifically ethical, nor religious, nor yet political; it is what I will call a civilizational creed. Religious creeds define religions; ethical creeds define theories of right and wrong; political creeds define ideologies or parties. But this, a civilizational creed, defines an outlook on what our goals and views that define what our civilization is about, if it is to survive. And when I say "our civilization," perhaps I mean mainly Western civilization, but there need be nothing specifically Western or regional about the sort of civilization I mean, nothing chauvinistic at all, considering that elements of it have spread to various points East. What I am defending is the best elements of the culture I have grown up in. There is nothing wrong with defending that; for anyone to object to my defending that is to indeed to be bigoted.

This creed is not just a statement of belief. It is, in addition, an attempt to galvanize and regain a sense of public spirit, of a shared mission.

What We Stand For, and What We Stand Against

This is not a conservative creed: many old-fashioned Democrats and Liberals could get behind this. It is not a uniquely Christian or Western creed.

It is, however, opposed to a lot of left-wing radicalism as well as racist, bigoted attitudes, both—and maybe most of all the leading Establishment attitudes inculcated through education and media. The attitudes of many "elites" are anathema to much of the following, and we must not be ashamed to place ourselves at variance with them, as necessary. Much of "elite" culture today represents a deep perversion of Western ideals and deserves to be rejected, mocked, and sternly rebuked.

Ethics

We stand for: The deep value of individual human life as the basis for morality; love and kindness; the tragically lost but deep importance of honesty and integrity; hard work; a few other virtues. A belief in human nature.

We stand against: Nihilism; relativism; any view that permits contempt of whole large groups of others.

Religion

We stand for: Deep respect, at the very least, for religious belief as a moral influence; the belief in an objective reality, something larger and ultimately more important than oneself, that places moral constraints upon us; human love and kindness enshrined as a transcendental requirement on us all.

We reject: Radicalism that inspires people to violence; massive, centrally-controlled and -controlling bodies that are not answerable to the believers; bigotry and intolerance toward those with different beliefs; atheism as a destructive, critical project.

Social attitudes

We stand for: The unique value of the individual; volunteerism, public spiritedness; value of the uniqueness of our own local cultures; the deep importance of passing on our cultures; in the case of Western culture, this means reaquainting ourselves and our children with the classics; the deep importance of learning; a deep support and valuation of the traditional family.

We reject: Bigotry, racism; mob thinking (so easy for powerful ideologues to manipulate); cultishness; anti-intellectualism; the sickening influences of degrading pop culture.

Politics

We stand for: Democracy, tolerance, individual rights, free markets, entrepreneurship, the ability of individuals to pave their own way, a fair playing field, equality before the law, equal educational opportunities, beautiful, uplifting public art and architecture

We reject: Far-left socialism; giant faceless bureaucracies passing massive regulatory frameworks that only giant corporations can satisfy; egalitarianism of outcome; ugly public art and boxy, emotionally flat or depressing places of living and working.

Our Obligation

We accept an obligation—we believe it is our obligation to help bring about this civilization, which has never quite existed. We are worried that it will not survive if we don't help.

We should begin discussing this (very common) body of beliefs and come out strongly in its favor, championing it, creating groups supporting it, etc.


Big Tech In Decline?

Massive Shakeup of Major Players Under Way, Especially in Social Media

LarrySanger.org does not usually break news. But since this is such a huge story and no other outlets seem to be covering it, we thought we would do so.

Note: Updated rank numbers (not images), below, with data from Sept. 30.

Sep. 29, 2019 (THE INTERNET) – Many of the websites that have come under attack in recent years for violating user expectations of privacy, free speech, autonomy, and neutrality are now in decline, according to data published by Amazon's web traffic ranking website, Alexa.com. The decliners include many of the best-known names of Big Tech: Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, Instagram, Quora, and more.

LarrySanger.org has been unable to locate any recent articles in the technology and Internet press making similar observations of these startling declines. We rely on our readers to fact-check us. The observations are much in line with declines in downloads of Facebook and Instagram apps, noticed by ReclaimTheNet.org.

Twitter traffic ranking 90-day trend, to September 30, 2019.

Twitter plunged from Alexa rank 11 to 26 in the last three months. The microblogging site, dominated by celebrities and news, now trails Reddit in the rankings. Reddit itself has recently declined from a peak of 12, in July, to 18 today. Twitter was the focus of a "Social Media Strike" campaign last July 4-5. At the same time Wikipedia ex-founder Larry Sanger and others, who organized the strike, promoted a Declaration of Digital Independence.

Facebook traffic ranking 90-day trend, to September 30, 2019.

Facebook slid from Alexa rank 3 to rank 5. This might be significant, though a drop of only two spots, considering that it is within the top five. The social media giant has come under severe attack for its failure to respect user privacy rights, and has been abandoned by millions of users. The two sites that now occupy Alexa ranks 3 and 4 are Chinese sites.

Wikipedia traffic ranking 90-day trend, to September 30, 2019.

Once a mainstay of the top five, Wikipedia, too, has sunk with surprising speed from rank 5 to rank 9—all of this decline just within the last six weeks. Conservatives and libertarians have become more vocally fed up with the website's noticeable abandonment of its neutrality policy, which Sanger originally articulated and still champions. "This is not surprising to me," Sanger said, "considering everything that I have heard from Wikipedia's readers in the last few years. The dominant tone among anyone not on the political left has shifted from grudging respect to outright hostility." A relevant consideration is that the encyclopedia site's traffic can decline over the summer, when school is out, so we will see if it bounces back in the coming months.

Instagram traffic ranking 90-day trend, to September 30, 2019

The Facebook-owned Instagram, which has also come under attack for its privacy and free speech violations, skidded from rank 13 to rank 23 in the last three months. This is in line with a study claiming Instagram engagement declined from May through July this year. As with Twitter, a common criticism of the social photo sharing site is that it tends to induce otherwise quite nice people behave nastily. Left-wing media and activists, as with many others on this list, have pressured the site to adopt policies that disproportionately impact conservative views, leading the right to exit.

Quora traffic ranking 90-day trend, to September 30, 2019

Perhaps the most dramatic decline is that of Quora, which plummeted from the respectable rank of 82—similar to the BBC website's rank—all the way to rank 235, with no sign of a slowdown. The once-dominant social Q&A site has moved gradually left over the last five years or so. The site has shed many disgruntled contributors in recent years, who frequently complain of biased moderation.

Other major recent decliners include Amazon's gaming video site Twitch (slid from 26 to 37), Jimmy Wales' for-profit wiki site Fandom (formerly Wikia; down from 53 to 74), and social sharing site Pinterest (dropped from 71 to 111).

Assuming the data is reliable, it is possible that users of major corporate offerings are finally leaving because they have decided "enough is enough" and that their privacy, free speech, and other legitimate interests will never be properly respected by the Big Tech companies that dominated the scene throughout the past decade. Other explanations are possible, of course.

Not all famous and big brands declined, but it is notable that the English language websites that gained include a few competitors of those that have come under the most severe criticism. Notable gainers include Bing (rose from 38 up to 29, a competitor of much-criticized Google Search), Office (51 to 30, a competitor of Google Docs), eBay (40 to 35), Stack Overflow (50 to 44), Apple (59 to 48), Medium (151 to 93, a competitor of Quora), and some pornography sites.

Some familiar news brands have probably absorbed traffic that might otherwise have gone to the declining social media sites: BBC (87 to 78), ESPN (113 to 85), The New York Times (117 to 103), Washington Post (287 to 178), FoxNews.com (245 to 219), Breitbart (333 to 285), and WSJ (627 to 466).

Some of the risers are of Chinese or Russian origin, the most notable of which is the Chinese TMall (rose from 9 to 4).

It is possible that these are all somehow reflections of some internal changes to Alexa's ranking algorithms; LarrySanger.org has not contacted the company for this report. But this explanation is perhaps less likely since the declines did not happen all at once but have been spread out gradually, over a period of weeks or months.


Constantly monitor those in power

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

That's a question we should be asking more in this day and age of constant surveillance.

I'm toying with a proposal: Anyone who goes into public office should have absolutely no privacy whatsoever. Every movement should be available on video, every email and message logged and read, and every conversation recorded. Even the most top secret and sensitive state negotiations should be watched by duly vetted, randomized—and constantly monitored—professional monitors. As with state secrets, maybe for things like sex, bathroom breaks, etc., only some special monitors would have access.

Whether or not monitors actually saw every moment and heard every word, it would all be there, available to the law, not capable of being tampered with. And perhaps we would want monitors to actually watch it all, people duly tasked to catch any whiff of impropriety.

No one would go into public office then, you say? Nonsense. Power is powerfully attractive. No dishonest, secretive person would go into public office—that seems clear.

It would be humiliating, you say? Well, power ought to be a humbling thing. Only those really willing and able to wield it in the full light of day it should be able to.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant—and power, throughout human history, has so often been so profoundly dirty.

It is not as if we don't have the technology. (Well, we do if we create legal consequences for tampering with the monitoring devices.)

Power corrupts, they say; but consider that it corrupts primarily in private. If all email, phone, etc., were transacted under massive, constant monitoring, only honest public servants would go into politics.

What state interest—to use the language of the lawyers—is really served by public officials having privacy, in light of the awful consequences of allowing power to be wielded in secret? Is the privacy of a President, Senator, or big city mayor really so important that it outweighs the public's profound interest in making sure that power is never abused?

We might have a similar legal requirements regarding executives of companies worth over $N. Clearly, they too wield far much power for us to trust them to exercise that power responsibly. They need a rolling, anonymized, and confirmed-independent cadre of monitors.

The precise social and technical requirements of monitors as a citizen role (and, perhaps, profession) would be difficult to work out, granted, but not insurmountable. Monitors might sell secrets? This is why monitors themselves would be monitored. They might collude with each other and with power to overlook misdeeds? This is why they would be unknown to each other and reassigned on a rolling basis. Isn't there still a need for privacy even for the most powerful positions, in the case of sex or using valuable cryptocurrency keys? These are technical problems with technical solutions, to a certain extent, and the punishment for violating your trust as monitor would be harsh.

What kind of person would a monitor be? Professional monitors would be vetted for honesty, intelligence, and responsibility, I imagine, not unlike judges. It is probably important that the monitors be drawn from pre-vetted but fairly large public pool, not (or not just) a privileged professional class. The role would be like jury duty. And again, the consequences for a monitor divulging legitimate secrets would be very serious.

It is also possible that people would be available only to do random spot checks; or even less, just to monitor that the system is working reliable and recording everything. The mere fact that the data is being saved constantly would probably be an adequate disincentive for most criminal politicians and executives.

Finally, this proposal would make leadership more of a moral calling. That's what it would be, then, too: difficult and wise leadership, not morally fraught power. It would require real personal sacrifice; it would require you to be on your best behavior, and that your best really can stand up to close scrutiny.

Obviously, I'm not sure of the details. But it sure is fun to think about a system in which there is totalitarian surveillance of the powerful and not of the people.

Totalitarianism only for the powerful—never for the people.


On the misbegotten phrase "surveillance capitalism"

The loaded phrase surveillance capitalism has been in circulation since at least 2014, but it came into much wider use this year with Shoshana Zuboff's book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. The phrase means the system of extremely widespread surveillance by giant private corporations, entailing the systematic invasion of our privacy as well as control and abuse of our personal data.

I am opposed to the phenomenon that the phrase names, but I also am opposed to the phrase itself. How so? As I've made amply clear in this blog, I think we should care much more about privacy, and indeed we should be hardcore about it. Moreover, the best defense we have against incursions on our privacy by Big Tech is to decentralize social media (and other data, too, come to think of it) and to embrace data self-ownership.

The problem with the misbegotten name "surveillance capitalism" is that it implies that it is because of capitalism that we currently live under a regime of surveillance through social media (as well as financial, medical, and other data). This is nonsense. Indeed, it should be obvious why it is nonsense. But I enjoy explaining obvious things, and sadly it sometimes seems necessary. So here goes.

It isn't capitalism per se that is responsible for our massive surveillance. The Internet was capitalistic in 1999 but did not feature 2019 levels of surveillance. We could still institute new decentralized systems of data exchange that would make what Zuboff is pleased to call "surveillance capitalism" much more difficult. Moreover, massively intrusive surveillance can be expected to happen, and actually does happen, under socialism, as it does in China.

The reason we live under a regime of massive surveillance is not economic or political but technological: blame it on the cloud. Because we need to sync data on our various devices, and between large networks of people, our data came to be put in the cloud. Though they could have been, different networks were not made interoperable, so that you and I could take exclusive control of our data if we wanted to. Instead, each of the Big Tech giants—Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.—came to have its own internal data standards which allowed it to operate its own walled garden, insulated from the others and from smaller competitors. The economic system of capitalism is, quite simply, governments permitting free markets to operate with comparatively little regulation. The presence of such a system is not enough to explain why we found ourselves with such proprietary standards and walled gardens.

If you are still not convinced, then imagine, if you will, that the Democratic left took control and converted America to the sort of government-controlled economy so many democratic socialists want with increasing desperation. That would not make it more likely that we would adopt a system of neutral, open standards. Why would it? Data standards and our economic systems certainly seem to have little to do with each other. Indeed, a socialist economy would be much more likely to impose various kinds of surveillance and top-down control. After all, such control is essentially what "market socialism" is all about. In the market socialist economies that the American and European left hanker after, giant governments and massive corporations would naturally work together to surveil the populace via the social media panopticon. Not for nothing has the Western left-wing commentariat backpedaled on their original expressions of horror at Chinese social credit system. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad, some are saying.

And that, of course, would be surveillance socialism.

By contrast, the adoption of common, open standards that would allow us to own and serve our own data without fear of interference by massive authorities, corporate or governmental, would essentially be an individualist, pro-liberty system, much as the Internet itself was and to some extent still is.

The irony is rich indeed when giant institutions like Facebook and Twitter are led by avowed progressives but, because they are corporations, it is capitalism that is blamed for their immoral power-grab. At best it could be blamed on corporatism. What's the difference, you ask? Capitalism is defined by and highlights the freedom of economic interactions. But, you ask, wasn't it corporate freedom that allowed Big Tech to take control? Not really; not necessarily. Corporate freedom greatly underdetermines why our privacy has come to be systematically violated in 2019. In other words, it's not enough to explain the problem. Corporatism, by contrast, involves the wielding of power by giant corporations; by now, it is clear that it was the desire to shore up their power, economic power to be sure but also ultimately their political power, that motivated Big Tech to make our data into their private fiefdoms. So the more apt term is, surely, surveillance corporatism.

Indeed, it is only a free market system that could be counted on to support and guarantee any future possibility of privacy, or freedom from surveillance. If enough of us are left free to build network of decentralized social media, decentralized (and properly encrypted) cloud storage, and encrypted communication, then how will it be possible for us to be monitored, except with our very clear acquiescence (as when we write public blog posts)? If we join together in decentralized networks, it will be impossible for us to be subjected to the same sort of surveillance. Well, it will be impossible if we are left alone.

But governments could require that we make our data capable of being monitored. Those politicians and bureaucrats who have insisted on having (probably unworkable) government back doors for encryption fall into this camp. The problem is that progressives and socialists ultimately want to regulate (if not collectively own) pretty much everything. But to do that, they need to surveil everything; they certainly can't permit conversations and economic transactions going on out of earshot.

So let's call such a system of government-sponsored regulation, indeed, surveillance socialism and possibly surveillance corporatism. Unlike "surveillance capitalism," those really would be apt sobriquets, because it would be the essentially socialist demand for regulation or collective ownership that would require our data to be left open to government surveillance—and indeed, perhaps also to corporate surveillance by the wealthy friends of politicians. Such chummy back-scratching is, after all, how market socialism, or corporatism, works.


The challenges of locking down my cyber-life

In January 2019, I wrote a post (which see for further links) I have shared often since about how I intended to "lock down my cyber-life." That was six months ago. I made lots of progress, but it seems I'm far from finished, too.

In that post, I explained three problems about computer technology (viz., they put at risk our security, free speech, and privacy). I resolved to solve these problems, at least in my own case, by executing a lengthy to do list involving such things as adopting a better method of managing my passwords and quitting social media.

So the problem is that I didn't quite finish the job. Finishing the job, as it turns out, is kind of difficult. There's always a little more that can be done. Simple-sounding tasks, like switching browsers, can have aspects that one just never get around to. So in the following, I'm going to discuss the things I haven't actually done. Perhaps in a later post I'll make a to do list that you can use. But first I need to just talk things through.

  1. Stop using Chrome. Well, of course, I did stop; that was easy. I'm not sure when the last time I opened Chrome was. I switched to 95% Brave, but also 5% Firefox for those times when Brave seems to have a weird Javascript issue (what's up with that, Brendan Eich?). But I still have so many questions:
    • What do all of these different features of Brave do, really?
    • Do they really work? Are they adequate? Are there other plugins I should be using on top of what is built into Brave?
    • When I don't want a website to be able to infer who I am, must I use the Tor feature? Does browsing "Privately" help at all? (It deletes cookies, OK, but...)
    • What should my cookie strategy be? Should I generally browse with cookies off?
    • What are best practices for browsing generally? I remember reading a bunch of things in The Art of Invisibility that I thought were good ideas but which I don't think I ever implemented.
  2. Stop using Google Search. I use DuckDuckGo about 90% of the time, StartPage (which uses Google results) for the 10% when I think Google might have better results (which it does maybe 20% of the time, to be honest—that's when I'm dissatisfied with what I get from DDG). Sadly, I do rarely use Google News when I need to look more deeply through the news. So:
    • How do I comprehensively search recent news without using Google News? (I just haven't investigated the question, that's all. There are lots of apps, but are any really comprehensive while also respecting user privacy?)
  3. Start using (better) password management software. Don't let your browser store your passwords. And never use another social login again. So I'm doing pretty well here. I did stop using social logins many months ago and never looked back; if you're already using a password manager, they aren't an added convenience. The password manager I use is Enpass, which is easy to use and allows me to sync directly between my devices and my NAS, bypassing the cloud (unless you want to call my NAS a "private cloud"). My only misgiving is that Enpass is not open source, which means they could be sending copies of my passwords to their servers, and customers (who would otherwise be helped by the OSS community) wouldn't be any the wiser. Now, I guess I trust Enpass, but I'm thinking:
    • Is there in 2019 a password manager that is (1) easy to use (has autofill capabilities in browsers, at least computer browsers), (2) open source, and (3) allows me to sync my passwords across iPhone and two Ubuntu computers (using WebDAV)? I haven't taken the time to look into Bitwarden yet.
    • I have inadvertently saved a few passwords in my browser. Gotta delete them.
    • I am still using old, insecure passwords on many minor accounts I haven't opened in years. I should at least do an audit of the most important accounts I haven't touched in a while (that could pose a danger) and change those passwords.
    • I have to get my wife and younger son using password managers, both for their sake and because *ahem* it's possible they could be a backdoor into my systems.
    • WebDav is a secure protocol, right?
  4. Stop using gmail. Well, I'm mostly done with this; I pay for my own hosting, although the data itself is on somebody else's server, and I use my own domain name (sanger.io). But I still have a Gmail account, and that simple fact is still bothering me. Part of the reason for this is that there are still some accounts I made that made use of my Gmail account, and I might lose control of them if I delete my address. The other problem is YouTube. In sum:
    • Is it adequately secure that I host my own email? I've protected my privacy against incursions by Gmail (as long as there isn't a Gmail user in the thread...), but shouldn't I be using a service that provides zero-knowledge encryption? That would be quite a bit more expensive, I think.
    • Again, I need to review all my old accounts for importance, and switch the email address and passwords from Gmail to my personal email address.
    • Probably, I should turn on a vacation message for a couple of months, just on general principles, before permanently deleting.
    • Wait, is it possible to delete my Gmail account without entirely removing my Google account? Oh good, yes it is.
    • I still haven't downloaded and started separately maintaining my own address book (this is a huge oversight on my part). I think I should do that before deleting Gmail.
  5. Stop using iCloud to sync your iPhone data with your desktop and laptop data; replace it with wi-fi sync. This is mostly done. I mean, I flipped some switches, but completely extricating yourself from iCloud if you've been actively using it isn't simple. I went through a bunch of different menus on my phone. On the other hand, I think my son is still using my account's free iCloud space on the MacBook I gave him (that was when I switched to Ubuntu). So I'm not sure.
    • Investigate thoroughly how to ensure that I'm no longer using iCloud and whether I really for any purpose must use it if I'm going to keep using my iPhone. Pretty sure I don't.
    • Discuss with/negotiate with/frown sternly at son to determine whether he really needs to use iCloud. He likes the "find my iPhone" feature. Ugh.
  6. Subscribe to a VPN. Done! But:
    • Look again into my choice of VPN now that I've been using it for a few months.
    • Should I not perhaps give myself another option? Other people switch between VPNs. I haven't had a need to yet.
    • VPNs might protect you from being protected from unsophisticated identification tactics, but they don't protect you from malicious/tracking cookies (see above), digital fingerprinting, or VPNs who lie and/or collude with governments or criminal organizations about whether they keep logs. What really is the best way?
  7. Get identity theft protection. Done; this is one area where I have nothing further in mind to do.
  8. Switch to Linux. Yeah, baby! Ubuntu installed on my desktop and laptop. Very happy with it. So much nicer in many ways than both Windows and Mac. Not looking back. I very much recommend it. But:
    • I'm not sure I've optimized my systems for security adequately. Need to do an audit.
    • First, I need to do research on what such an audit would look like. Maybe this, maybe more.
    • Ugh, if I'm going to do this right, I need to study Bash more so I can really understand networking (like iptables) better.
    • And then I need to study infosec properly. Something like this?
  9. Quit social media, or at least nail down a sensible social media use policy. I quit and have nothing left to do (as far as I know) with Facebook, Instagram, Quora, and Medium (at least). This is still, however—it turns out—is a huge pain point for me. I'll just dive into the individual issues:
    • I said I'd stay in touch with family and friends via a mailing list. I haven't been doing that. I'm sorry. But there's a huge difference between interacting randomly with people I know and pushing out my personal news to a bunch of people's email inbox.
    • Hence I'm inclined to think I need to start interacting a lot more on some alternative social network. But none seem to be "happening" yet, although there are some. We're getting there; we're getting closer.
    • So maybe I should organized another strike or a mass try-out as I said. But ugh. Both of those are a lot of work and distract from other important priorities. I'm not trying to be a rabble-rouser except to solve my own problem here, honest.
    • YouTube is increasingly problematic. But I still use it. BitChute and others have some copies of videos I want to see, but definitely not all of it. Maybe I should use a proxy/republisher/search provider of some sort, but wouldn't that still enable Google/YT to track me? Well, how would I use it without being tracked—like an anon account I use only behind Tor or something? Is that even feasible? Could I live without it? Should I? (I would be cutting myself off from a lot of stuff I want to keep up with. Are there other ways to keep up with it?)
    • Twitter: well, OK, just in the last few weeks I've started posting more randomly as I used to, not just in promotion of my blog and Everipedia and programming. Again, I'm sorry. I've been a bad boy. I think I should rein myself in. Right? No doubt. I should probably just re-read this. Maybe update it.
    • I gotta think about installing my very own Mastodon instance. It could get big. I have a friend (several friends) who could help. Hmm. This might be a good idea for me. My friends would join. Then I'd just have to get them to interact with me and each other there. Could work!
  10. Stop using public cloud storage. This is 90% done! I installed a NAS, all my files are on it. But:
    • I need to do a proper sync with my desktop instead of accessing via the (convenient, but slow and not right for daily workstation use) browser and mobile apps. (You'd know what I meant if you had a NAS. This is a problem you want to have. You just want a NAS. You will thank me.)
  11. Nail down a backup plan. I have a zero-knowledge encryption service...but in the cloud. So it's done and I think it's secure, but I'm not that happy about it. For backup, I'll switch to another less centralized solution when I am convinced that one works properly with all the features I need; I'm pretty confident that none do yet, but there are plenty of people working on such.) Issues:
    • All righty then, how are those decentralized alternatives coming along?
    • Is zero-knowledge encryption backup really secure? Come on, really? And the service I'm using isn't open source, is it? That sucks.
    • I haven't organized my old backup files (which used to live on a large old external drive) and investigated them generally. I did back them up, right? Surely I did. Need to triple-check.
  12. Take control of my contact and friend lists. Well, I don't store my active contacts in iCloud, so that's a start. The most up-to-date database is the one that is local to my iPhone. I really haven't made much a start on this:
    • I don't use my Gmail address book, but Google still has access to it, so that sucks. Really need to finally delete Gmail so I can delete those contacts. I feel like I'm letting my friends down by letting them keep that data.
    • Pretty sure Microsoft still has some contact data in the cloud as well. Looks like I'll have to fire up the crappy old Windows partition, investigate, and nuke.
  13. Stop using Google Calendar. So here is a way in which I am cooler than you. (There aren't many ways, but this is one.) My calendar works via my NAS. I set it up using CalDAV, which frankly I wouldn't have been able to do if I weren't comfortable with rather geeky stuff. That isn't to say you couldn't engage your geeky friends or family members to set your NAS up with this functionality. I still use the Apple app but they don't have my data; it updates directly with my NAS via CalDAV. I even gave an associate of mine an account for updating my calendar directly, something I wouldn't feel so comfortable doing on gCal. Anyway, no adjustments needed at this time.
  14. Study and make use of website/service/device privacy options. OK, so now this is a bit of a problem. I never really did this properly. I spent many hours, but I was haphazard and I left out a lot of important sites. Indeed there are some sites that perhaps I shouldn't be using at all if I really want to be hardcore about privacy. Let me give a partial list, with notes:
    • Amazon: They're pretty goddamn evil. They do store a hell of a lot of data about you. But I should check them out some more and make sure of my harsh judgment, because just getting rid of them would be pretty difficult. They're so convenient. But the rest of the Internet is very big, you know. I could look stuff up on Amazon without logging in and not using cookies, and then buy elsewhere (e.g., books from Powell's in Portland, or whatever).
    • Netflix: It (like Prime Video, which we ditched) is becoming more like TV used to be, as someone predicted not too long ago. As these services proliferate, you'll have to subscribe to many if you want to have good access. Well, my family went without any access (just DVDs) for years. Didn't do us harm. I know my wife wouldn't complain, except insofar as the boys would complain. And is it really necessary to get rid of a big source of entertainment just to secure your privacy?
    • Expedia: Do they sell my travel data? Well...so should I buy direct from the airlines? Are they any better?
    • Etc. I need to go through assorted other apps I have installed and accounts I have opened, which I have ignored but which might find ways to track me, and which it might actually benefit me to uninstall/remove account. This could extend this to do list very long indeed.
  15. Also study the security and privacy of other categories of data. I haven't done this at all. Another long list, in each case asking: well, what are my risks to security and privacy, and how can I mitigate them?
    • banking data
    • medical data
    • automobile data
    • telephone/cell data
    • credit card (including shopping) data: Is it getting quite unreasonable to make a regular habit of buying gift cards and using them to avoid putting all that shopping data out there? Well folks, I'm not afraid to admit that I'm thinking: maybe.
  16. Figure out how to change my passwords regularly, maybe. I've been thinking about this one and I'm fairly sure I'm not going to bother with most, but I do have more refined ideas about how to approach this. I think this is reasonable (comments welcome):
    • Make a list of unusually sensitive passwords. Not too many (maybe 5-10) or you won't do the next step:
    • Change those ones quarterly.
  17. Consider using PGP, the old encryption protocol (or an updated version, like GNU Privacy Guard) with work colleagues and family who are into it. I looked into this but never followed through. Won't take long. Just need to take the time, and then start using it with those very few people who are geeky enough to use it as well.
  18. Moar privacy thangs. None of these are done.
    • Buy a Purism Librem 5 phone. Just to support the cause. I might actually do this, but I've been waiting for more evidence that I'd actually, you know, want to use the damn thing. But I sometimes think I'm morally obligated to spend the money anyway, because the thing so badly needs to exist.
    • Physical security key. Maybe just for the laptop, when I'm traveling. I have one. I might get a different one (since this one was given to me, and so...). The biggest trouble is to pick one out and then learn how to use it.
    • Encrypt my drives. Is that even possible after I've started using them? No idea. Is it really worth it? Don't know. Need to investigate.
    • Credit card use for shopping. I could buy some prepaid credit cards or gift cards; this is a Kevin Mitnick suggestion, which he goes into in great detail in The Art of Invisibility. I might not go into all of that as I am not a federal criminal. My wife, who is also not a federal criminal, might go in for this as she is soo private. "How private is she?" you ask. She's so private, she would probably not want me to say that she's very private. True!

What have I left out? A fair few of my readers know all this stuff better than I do. Can you answer my questions? Please do so below.