#poetry; geopolitics is the new diversity; get off X, and much more!

Hi team

I made a poem about the imperative to post.

What else would you like to hear poetry about?

In this week's edition:

1. Opinion: Geopolitics is a third rail for communicators
2. Ideas: Philosophy of science versus the age of disinformation; brands should not be on X.
3. Stories: Alternatives to X for news; carbon offsetting scandal; rewind.

Here we go:

1 Opinion: Geopolitics is the new diversity

I am distraught over events in the Middle East. I am distraught about the war in Ukraine. Ethnic cleansing is underway in Nagorno-Karabakh. 20 million of Puglia’s 60 million olive trees have been killed by a bacterial infection. It’s hot everywhere. Water will be more valued than oil. This last weekend, Australia, my country, voted "No" to recognising its First Nations people and give them a Voice to parliament.?

The world around us is complicated, interconnected and extremely fast-moving. It is not going to get simpler or slower.?Or easier to comment on.

How should corporate communicators respond? Should your channels express sympathy with the people affected, take a side, be clear about how abhorrent things are?

It is, of course, highly dependent on context. The answer will differ if you are directly affected by events, for instance, if you are an airline suspending flights to Israel. If your senior executives are especially gifted communicators, it might veer into the personal:

I’m also reminded of the #1 topic of discussion I’ve seen at a number of communication industry events this year: diversity. As companies and brands become increasingly vocal about standing for diverse communities - using pride as a marketing opportunity, and using transgender influencers to promote products, they have been exposed to political currents in perhaps unintended ways.

Wading into political waters is never going to be easy. Sometimes, though, it might just be the right thing to do.

How do you handle politically-related communications on your channels? Who needs to be in the room?

2 Ideas

2(a) Testing observed truth against reality in the age of misinformation

I studied Philosophy of Science at college many, many moons ago. My understanding of the world was shaped by this. Science proceeds thus: a scientist has a theory of the world, and designs an experiment to test that theory, often requiring a bunsen burner. If reality reflects theory through experiment, then you can say the theory has not been disproved. Perhaps you are closer to “truth”, as in, perhaps you know more about how the world really is.?

This process works very well in the physical sciences: physics, chemistry, geology. All the technology we rely on everyday to live our amazing modern lives has been built on this process: Planes, multi story car parks, the internet, social media.?

That is why, I think tech billionaires shout loudly about “free speech”. Because, from a science-based view of the world, if more theories are tested against reality more quickly, progress happens faster.?

There are just a couple of things wrong with this.

Firstly, science proceeds on the basis of a shared foundation of facts. When facts are in dispute, as they are in our current age of misinformation, you are not testing theories against reality. You are testing them against garbage.?

Secondly, this theory of scientific progress does not work so well in the social sciences. Social reality is subjective, based on everyone’s lived experience, biases, ideologies. And this subjectivity flows into emotion.?

So, what would you give for an online platform that really checked its content against reality? Had people on the ground, checking sources, witnessing IRL, and reporting against a set of principles.?

Oh… wait. Isn’t that the traditional media?

2 (b) Brands should not be on X

I have flip-flopped on this one for a while. Despite endless opportunity for ruthlessly cutting observations, I have avoided posting about changes to Twitter under its new management. Here’s what I did do…

8 months ago, I held a poll:

I think the results would be different if I did it again today.

And about a month ago I wrote an opinion saying that I thought there was a good chance that Musk might pull it off, simply because he has so much skin in the game, and an awful lot of money. I never published that opinion because... I never really believed it.

The Israel-Hamas war has revealed the extent to which that platform is broken, and unable to handle its role as the global town square where news might be reported and followed. It has lost its role as a place where scientific communities gathered.?Twitter was never a great environment and always awash in mis- and disinformation. X is next level.

If you are a brand owner on X, what is your business case for being there?

3 Stories: In case you missed them

• As X gives up its claim to be the platform for news, Bluesky, an upstart, makes a pitch.
• Carbon offsetting is the idea that I can emit carbon here if I pay you to not emit it, or to suck it up, over there. This industry is hit by a fraud scandal. All is not grim in the fight against climate change, Apple is leading the way.
• We live in a deeply witnessed world. Just this month, Meta has introduced two devices that can surreptitiously record images and video, first the Rayban shades, version 2, an improvement on the version 1 originally reviewed by Max Hanley here. Then this week, the Meta 3 Quest headset that takes and stores images from your augmented reality. Add to these devices the newly launched Rewind pendant that records everything you say and submits it to an AI engine for search and query, and you never have to remember your shopping list ever again, because the CIA and the Kremlin will both already have it.

That's it for this edition. Thank you for reading.

Please do comment below (for reach of course), and share with your friends and colleagues.

Mike