Month: August 2022

Klobuchar’s Media Bill Won’t Save the Press


Amy Klobuchar with her hand up

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) likes to paint herself as a 21st century trustbuster. However, her latest antitrust proposal, the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA), is pro-collusion and provides an antitrust exemption for politically well-connected news media companies.

What this bill reveals is that the heart of the antitrust crusade by Klobuchar and other neo-Brandeisians is not actually about consumer protection or small businesses. They seek to use antitrust and the force of the government to protect the companies and industries they prefer.

The JCPA pits digital platforms like Facebook and Google against “traditional” media services such as newspapers. To “help” these traditional media companies against the supposedly big, bad tech companies, the JCPA mandates that platforms pay news publishers to link to their articles, creates an artificial limit discouraging news platforms from expanding their newsrooms’ reach to reap the law’s benefits, and creates an eight-year safe harbor from existing antitrust laws including allowing news companies to collude with one another. In short, this proposal empowers the government to help out its favored, eligible news services while also attacking today’s successful tech companies. The real losers, however, are the American people.

The media plays an important role in public discourse, and one incredible benefit of the internet is the ability to access both hyperlocal information and news sources from around the world. For the average consumer, this means access to more sources of information and different voices than ever before. No longer is it just a matter of what makes the morning edition of a few newspapers, but instead, we can see what is happening on the other side of the world and read commentary from new perspectives.

It has allowed us to stay connected to what’s going on back home even when we’re far away and unable to get our favorite local news sources in print. For example, a beloved local pub in Arlington, Virginia, recently caught fire after a car crashed into it. Like many familiar with Ireland’s Four Courts, I rushed online to see what had happened. Initially, the first reports of the incident came from bystander tweets of a local news site. Much to my and others’ benefit, social platforms enable the quick sharing of this information rather than having to physically go find it, or worse, wait until the evening news or the next day’s local or national paper decides to run it (or not).

But laws like the JCPA could make it more difficult and costly for platforms to provide access and allow users to share this sort of information from small, local news sources. Consumers might end up facing additional paywalls as online platforms will have to pay for sharing news.

Looking into the media industry itself, it’s no secret that Americans increasingly distrust legacy news organizations. According to a recent Gallup poll, trust in the media has crashed over the past 30 years. But the press as an idea is still seen as very important to democracy.

As such, Americans and people globally still rely on local and niche news sources to obtain information that may not be important to others. But today, consumers are getting that information from more and different forms than ever before. Not only do we have traditional newspapers, TV, and radio channels, but we also have new types of media emerging, such as podcasts, apps, videos, blogs, and newsletters.

This dynamism is increasing the reach of legacy and emerging outlets alike without the need for the government to step in. However, traditional media outlets seem to be worried about current sentiments against their industry, and they may be turning to the government to ensure they remain viable even if Americans reject them. It’s a playbook seen in other instances of industries running to the government and begging it to make things “fair” when the competition heats up, rather than evolving with market demands. The result would likely be, as has happened before, that the government unfairly props up those who are least useful in a changing market by giving them special privileges.

But the potential damage that laws like the JCPA could do is not purely theoretical. We can look at the consequences Australia has faced in light of a similar law. Like the JCPA, Australia’s Media Bargaining Code was portrayed as protecting journalism from its loss to social media. Its actual results remain murky at best, and the way it’s designed favors certain media players like Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Increasingly, it has been revealed that proposals like the JCPA are less about helping local news and more about crony capitalism.

Today’s journalists face many serious challenges, including the pressure to conform rather than innovate and improve. But the JCPA would further fail today’s independent journalists, decrease the amount of information available, and raise costs for consumers, small outlets, and online platforms.

The post Klobuchar's Media Bill Won't Save the Press appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/BgCK5EL
via IFTTT

Klobuchar’s Media Bill Won’t Save the Press


Amy Klobuchar with her hand up

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) likes to paint herself as a 21st century trustbuster. However, her latest antitrust proposal, the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA), is pro-collusion and provides an antitrust exemption for politically well-connected news media companies.

What this bill reveals is that the heart of the antitrust crusade by Klobuchar and other neo-Brandeisians is not actually about consumer protection or small businesses. They seek to use antitrust and the force of the government to protect the companies and industries they prefer.

The JCPA pits digital platforms like Facebook and Google against “traditional” media services such as newspapers. To “help” these traditional media companies against the supposedly big, bad tech companies, the JCPA mandates that platforms pay news publishers to link to their articles, creates an artificial limit discouraging news platforms from expanding their newsrooms’ reach to reap the law’s benefits, and creates an eight-year safe harbor from existing antitrust laws including allowing news companies to collude with one another. In short, this proposal empowers the government to help out its favored, eligible news services while also attacking today’s successful tech companies. The real losers, however, are the American people.

The media plays an important role in public discourse, and one incredible benefit of the internet is the ability to access both hyperlocal information and news sources from around the world. For the average consumer, this means access to more sources of information and different voices than ever before. No longer is it just a matter of what makes the morning edition of a few newspapers, but instead, we can see what is happening on the other side of the world and read commentary from new perspectives.

It has allowed us to stay connected to what’s going on back home even when we’re far away and unable to get our favorite local news sources in print. For example, a beloved local pub in Arlington, Virginia, recently caught fire after a car crashed into it. Like many familiar with Ireland’s Four Courts, I rushed online to see what had happened. Initially, the first reports of the incident came from bystander tweets of a local news site. Much to my and others’ benefit, social platforms enable the quick sharing of this information rather than having to physically go find it, or worse, wait until the evening news or the next day’s local or national paper decides to run it (or not).

But laws like the JCPA could make it more difficult and costly for platforms to provide access and allow users to share this sort of information from small, local news sources. Consumers might end up facing additional paywalls as online platforms will have to pay for sharing news.

Looking into the media industry itself, it’s no secret that Americans increasingly distrust legacy news organizations. According to a recent Gallup poll, trust in the media has crashed over the past 30 years. But the press as an idea is still seen as very important to democracy.

As such, Americans and people globally still rely on local and niche news sources to obtain information that may not be important to others. But today, consumers are getting that information from more and different forms than ever before. Not only do we have traditional newspapers, TV, and radio channels, but we also have new types of media emerging, such as podcasts, apps, videos, blogs, and newsletters.

This dynamism is increasing the reach of legacy and emerging outlets alike without the need for the government to step in. However, traditional media outlets seem to be worried about current sentiments against their industry, and they may be turning to the government to ensure they remain viable even if Americans reject them. It’s a playbook seen in other instances of industries running to the government and begging it to make things “fair” when the competition heats up, rather than evolving with market demands. The result would likely be, as has happened before, that the government unfairly props up those who are least useful in a changing market by giving them special privileges.

But the potential damage that laws like the JCPA could do is not purely theoretical. We can look at the consequences Australia has faced in light of a similar law. Like the JCPA, Australia’s Media Bargaining Code was portrayed as protecting journalism from its loss to social media. Its actual results remain murky at best, and the way it’s designed favors certain media players like Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Increasingly, it has been revealed that proposals like the JCPA are less about helping local news and more about crony capitalism.

Today’s journalists face many serious challenges, including the pressure to conform rather than innovate and improve. But the JCPA would further fail today’s independent journalists, decrease the amount of information available, and raise costs for consumers, small outlets, and online platforms.

The post Klobuchar's Media Bill Won't Save the Press appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/BgCK5EL
via IFTTT

Ford Hikes Mustang Mach-E Price By As Much As $8,000

Ford Hikes Mustang Mach-E Price By As Much As $8,000

It was just days ago we wrote about how Ford was hiking the price of its F-150 EV by almost exactly the same amount offered as an EV subsidy in the Biden administration’s new “Inflation Reduction Act”.

While some argued that the price hikes came days before the Act was signed by President Biden, and therefore weren’t definitive proof that Ford was just price gouging the government’s latest handouts, we think that argument has now officially been put to rest, with Ford now also increasing Mustang Mach-E EV prices between $3,000 and $8,100, depending on Model.

The company is “also increasing shipping costs by $200 on all models,” according to Automotive News’ Michael Martinez. 

The company says the new price reflects “significant material cost increases, continued strain on key supply chains, and rapidly evolving market conditions,” according to The Verge. They provided a breakdown of the increases by model type:

  • Select RWD Standard Range: $46,895 ($43,895)

  • Select eAWD Standard Range: $49,595

  • California Route 1 eAWD Extended Range: $63,575 ($52,450)

  • Premium RWD Standard Range: $54,975 ($48,775)

  • Premium eAWD Standard Range: $57,675

  • GT Extended Range: $69,895 ($61,995)

The kicker is that the Mach-E may not even be eligible for the new tax credit until 2024, due to requirements that 40% of the vehicle’s components are made in North America or by a US trading partner, the report says. 

Recall, just days ago, we wrote that Ford had hiked its F-150 EV price. Ford announced last week that it is raising the price of its high end electric F-150 by up to $8,500; an amount that adds another $1,000 onto the new $7,500 EV subsidy that was including in President Biden’s “Inflation Reduction Act”. Base models are seeing their prices hiked by $7,000. 

The electric F-150 had previously been listed for $40,000 for its base version. Now, it is priced at $47,000, according to CNN. The better equipped versions of the vehicles have similar price hikes, up to $8,500. 

Rather than come right out and state what appears to be the obvious, Ford said that the price change is due to “significant material cost increases and other factors.” They are making the same claims about the Mustang Mach-E price hike. 

Other factors like…oh, say, a $7,500 taxpayer subsidized cash grab?

Tyler Durden
Mon, 08/29/2022 – 06:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/s7oqF5G Tyler Durden

German Experts Warn Of Grid Instability…”Conventional Power Plants Needed For A Long Time To Come”

German Experts Warn Of Grid Instability…”Conventional Power Plants Needed For A Long Time To Come”

Authored by Pierre Gosselin via NoTricksZone.com,

Germany’s massive, subsidized expansion of electricity generation from renewable sources has squeezed out conventional generation units out of the market. Two experts warn of growing grid instability.

Quo Vadis, Grid Stability?

Original article at Die kalte Sonne

The conclusion of the two is very alarming. Here, too, not a word about “storage facilities galore. Here, reality clashes with the wishful thinking of some green energy protagonists who think there is enough storage and that all that needs to be done is to change the “mindset,” as Patrick Graichen put it.

The continued expansion of highly volatile renewable energy sources and the further displacement of more conventional generation units from the market are making the power grid increasingly sensitive to weather-related fluctuations. Unusual weather phenomena such as dark doldrums pose significant challenges to the security and stability of supply to the power grid. The largely intermittent output of solar and wind farms does not correlate with fluctuations in electricity demand.

The excess supply of renewable energy should be buffered during periods of low electricity demand, and the stored capacity should be injected back into the grid during periods of high electricity demand when fewer renewable sources are available. However, large battery energy storage systems, which have been promisingly announced, are still not on the horizon due to their low capacity and maturity, as well as their exorbitantly high cost of deployment.”

At this point, at the latest, some people’s ears should be ringing:

As long as economic energy storage systems are not established, even proponents of the current direction of Germany’s energy transition will have to admit that reliable conventional power plants will be needed for a long time to come.”

This article is also an urgent reading recommendation for politicians and experts who like to be interviewed.

The authors also conclude:

The importance of nuclear power plants for security of supply in base-load operation and their and their ability to operate the grid in parallel with renewable renewable energies have been demonstrated. The nuclear power plants appear to be well suited for the energy made to achieve the future goal of carbon-free power generation. However, the Atomic Energy Act foresees an early end to nuclear power generation by the end of 2022.”

So without nuclear power in Germany, grid stability problems are a future certainty.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 08/29/2022 – 06:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/9EnLNpX Tyler Durden

How J.K. Rowling Became Targeted by Both Progressive Millennials and Christian Conservatives


J.K Rowling Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone banned book

Some millennials are still waiting for their Hogwarts letter more than two decades after Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone was released in the United States. The book topped the New York Times bestsellers list, and its sequels were enormously popular too. But not everyone raced to join Dumbledore’s Army. The book that launched a media empire also held the top spot on the American Library Association’s list of the 100 most banned or challenged books from 2000 to 2009.

Initially, most of the concerns over J.K. Rowling’s wizarding world were religious. Father Daniel Reehil, the pastor of St. Edward Church & School in Nashville, Tennessee, sent parents an email claiming that “the curses and spells used in the books are actual curses and spells; which when read by a human being risk conjuring evil spirits into the presence of the person reading the text.” Therefore, he explained, the school was removing the book from its library. Christian parents in Minnesota, Michigan, New York, California, and South Carolina issued demands for the series to be exorcized from their school libraries too. Even Pope Benedict XVI weighed in on the controversy, writing in 2003 when he was still a cardinal that the books “deeply distort Christianity in the soul before it can grow properly.”

While these concerns diminished over time, new ones originated from the other end of the political spectrum, and Rowling remains She Who Must Not Be Named. In December 2019, the author was lambasted for supporting Maya Forstater, an infamous trans-exclusionary radical feminist. “Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill,” Rowling tweeted, triggering outrage from trans activists and their allies.

Separating Rowling from her work—which has earned her nearly $1 billion—has been a challenge for Potterheads. A few have gone as far as hosting book-burning parties or lighting their copies of Harry Potter books aflame on TikTok.

For different reasons, many progressive millennials and traditional Christian parents share a disdain for the series. But perhaps that’s the mark of a great story—everyone can find cause both to love it and to hate it.

The post How J.K. Rowling Became Targeted by Both Progressive Millennials and Christian Conservatives appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/QGYgq1B
via IFTTT

Texas Crypto Miners Ask To Use As Much Power As All Of New York State

Texas Crypto Miners Ask To Use As Much Power As All Of New York State

Texas officials have been urging crypto currency-miners to move their operations to the Lone Star State. The campaign is working so well that applications for power hook-ups are piling up to a level far above what state power authorities estimated just four months ago. 

According to a new report from Bloomberg, miners have asked the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) to use up to 33 gigawatts of electricity over the next decade, a draw that’s a third larger than what ERCOT’s CEO estimated in April. To put that in perspective, 33 gigawatts would be enough to power all of New York state.

After suffering through disastrous power outages that factored into a 246-person death toll during a bitterly cold storm in Feb 2021, Texans couldn’t be blamed for wringing their hands a little over the prospect of miners seeking so much energy. 

An ERCOT spokeswoman assured Bloomberg that the organization expects to have sufficient output to meet surging demand. The stakes are high: Unlike other states that can lean on neighbors in times of stress, Texas operates its own, independent electric grid that makes most of the state an electricity island unto itself. 

A map of US and Canadian interconnected power grids (via NERC)

The Texas campaign to woo crypto miners has centered on the state’s friendlier regulatory climate, cheap electricity and substantial renewable-energy sources. Per kilowatt-hour, commercial customers pay about a third less than the national average.

“It also has more wind power than any other state, which is appealing to miners pushing to appear more environmentally friendly,” write’s Bloomberg’s Naureen S Malik.      

Miners claim they’re ideal power customers, ready to devour excess wind and solar energy when it’s abundant, but also flexible enough to shut down when the grid is under strain. 

That flexibility can pay off big: In July, Riot Blockchain collected a stunning $9.5 million in credits for shutting down its Texas mining rigs as the state faced a historic heat wave and energy was at a premium. 

“By reducing power consumption by 21% last month, Riot got ERCOT to pay 100% of its electricity bill. So even though the company created fewer bitcoins in July, the company made about $7 million more than it would have if it had not curtailed its operations,” reported the Houston Chronicle. 

No wonder crypto miners are rushing to Texas. 

 

Tyler Durden
Mon, 08/29/2022 – 05:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/FNKZwAp Tyler Durden

How J.K. Rowling Became Targeted by Both Progressive Millennials and Christian Conservatives


J.K Rowling Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone banned book

Some millennials are still waiting for their Hogwarts letter more than two decades after Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone was released in the United States. The book topped the New York Times bestsellers list, and its sequels were enormously popular too. But not everyone raced to join Dumbledore’s Army. The book that launched a media empire also held the top spot on the American Library Association’s list of the 100 most banned or challenged books from 2000 to 2009.

Initially, most of the concerns over J.K. Rowling’s wizarding world were religious. Father Daniel Reehil, the pastor of St. Edward Church & School in Nashville, Tennessee, sent parents an email claiming that “the curses and spells used in the books are actual curses and spells; which when read by a human being risk conjuring evil spirits into the presence of the person reading the text.” Therefore, he explained, the school was removing the book from its library. Christian parents in Minnesota, Michigan, New York, California, and South Carolina issued demands for the series to be exorcized from their school libraries too. Even Pope Benedict XVI weighed in on the controversy, writing in 2003 when he was still a cardinal that the books “deeply distort Christianity in the soul before it can grow properly.”

While these concerns diminished over time, new ones originated from the other end of the political spectrum, and Rowling remains She Who Must Not Be Named. In December 2019, the author was lambasted for supporting Maya Forstater, an infamous trans-exclusionary radical feminist. “Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill,” Rowling tweeted, triggering outrage from trans activists and their allies.

Separating Rowling from her work—which has earned her nearly $1 billion—has been a challenge for Potterheads. A few have gone as far as hosting book-burning parties or lighting their copies of Harry Potter books aflame on TikTok.

For different reasons, many progressive millennials and traditional Christian parents share a disdain for the series. But perhaps that’s the mark of a great story—everyone can find cause both to love it and to hate it.

The post How J.K. Rowling Became Targeted by Both Progressive Millennials and Christian Conservatives appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/QGYgq1B
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Bad Doggy


Police attack dog training

A federal judge has dismissed an excessive force lawsuit filed Olivia Sligh against the Conroe, Texas, police department after she was bitten for roughly 62 seconds by a police dog. Body camera video shows the dog ignoring commands by his handler to release her. The judge said it was reasonable for the officers to have the dog attack her “because Sligh refused to comply with orders and physically resisted arrest.” Sligh’s boyfriend had called 911 for help, saying she was suicidal after her medicine for bipolar disorder was changed.

The post Brickbat: Bad Doggy appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/L9uMXrU
via IFTTT