100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

December 01, 2021 - Image 10

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

10 — Wednesday, December 1, 2021
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

SIDDHARTH PARMAR
Opinion Columnist

BRITTANY BOWMAN
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

CLAIRE HAO
Editor in Chief
ELIZABETH COOK
AND JOEL WEINER
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Julian Barnard
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Elizabeth Cook
Brandon Cowit

Jess D’Agostino
Ben Davis
Andrew Gerace
Krystal Hur
Min Soo Kim
Jessie Mitchell

Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Elayna Swift
Jack Tumpowsky
Joel Weiner
Erin White

I
t’s no coincidence that the best film
from the 2010s was — according
to Quentin Tarantino and myself —
David Fincher’s “The Social Network.”
At the time, the movie’s depiction of
the protagonist, Mark Zuckerberg
(played by Jesse Eisenberg), seemed
a bit over-the-top. Today it feels like
they held back. The inherent evils of
Zuckerberg’s monstrosity have been
evident for years; a solution cannot be
delayed any longer.
Following
the
testimony
of
whistleblower Frances Haugen, a

former data scientist at Facebook,
we’ve learned a great deal about
what Zuckerberg and his company
are doing. Haugen declared that
“Facebook can change, but is clearly
not going to do so on its own” and that
Congress can limit Facebook’s ability
to cause harm by changing the rules. I
disagree — Congress cannot stop this
social media giant and its conniving
CEO. Only the people can do that, and

it requires one step: hit delete.
Additionally, Haugen said “During
my time at Facebook, I came to
realize a devastating truth: Almost
no one outside of Facebook knows
what happens inside Facebook.”
She also stated that Facebook hides
information from the public, the U.S.
government and other governments;
that it uses algorithms to exploit teens’
insecurities, like exposing them to
anorexia content; and that the website
is “fanning ethnic violence” in places
like Ethiopia. She put her career on the
line to expose Facebook’s abominable
footprint.
That being said, I don’t think
Mark Zuckerberg is vile. Nor do I

think that he’s had malicious intent
in constructing his spectacularly
successful corporation. Good for him
for making that much money; it’s what
capitalism is all about. And I do agree
with him on one point: It is wrong to
regulate what can or cannot be said on
a social network — though this doesn’t
mean that Congress shouldn’t pass
privacy and anti-monopoly legislation,
it absolutely should. My refusal to

accept the stifling of free speech in
social media — a topic for another
article — is why I think people need to
take matters into their own hands. We
need to draw on capitalism’s greatest
strength: choice.
Whoever you are, whatever your
age or ethnicity, various social media
outlets play a leviathan role in how
you and others interpret the world.
There’s Twitter, Snapchat, Telegram,
Pinterest, TikTok, Tumblr, Reddit,
YouTube and even LinkedIn for
the more career-inclined. There’s
Instagram and WhatsApp, two that
belong to Facebook, Inc, which is
now called Meta after a rebrand.
Those are toxic in a throng of ways
too. But Facebook itself is the belle
of the ball. It started an information
revolution; if another data revolution
is coming, the second one would –
and should – begin with Facebook’s
demise. I promised myself that I
wouldn’t reference the movie beyond
a nod of recognition to its artistic
brilliance, as it is widely inaccurate in
numerous regards. However, one of
Aaron Sorkin’s masterly lines is fitting.
It’s a prescient remark from Jesse
Eisenberg’s Zuckerberg, in which he
says that “Users are fickle. Friendster
has proved that. Even a few people
leaving would reverberate through
the entire user base. The users are
interconnected.” Should a fraction of
Facebook’s users choose to leave it,
the company would be forced to make
changes without Congress getting
involved.
According to a study conducted by
the University of Colorado, Facebook
is more of a breeding ground for
misinformation and lies than other
social media sites like Twitter, and
those belonging to the far-left or right
are more prone to sharing those lies.

I
n the last week of October, there
was a curious new cryptocurrency
that burst onto the scene: Squid
Game, or SQUID for short. Based
on, but not officially affiliated with,
the Netflix sensation, its whitepaper
promised a reward pool that would
grow as the number of participants
grew and a series of games inspired
by the show involving SQUID tokens.
The past year saw themed
cryptocurrencies like Dogecoin and
Shiba Inu achieve exponential, albeit
temporary, growth driven primarily
by market hype. Squid Game was
perfectly placed to emulate their
success by capturing the excitement
around its namesake. And it did!
Squid Game grew to $1, then $10,
then $100, all while capturing more
people giving into their feelings of
FOMO (fear of missing out). It peaked
at a valuation of nearly $3,000,
tremendous growth in the space of a
week.
Sound too good to be true? It was.
Within 10 minutes, it all went awry.
The creators took the $3.36 million
invested into the coin until Nov. 1 and
vanished. The coin was reduced to a
valuation of less than a third of a cent
in value; the holders were left gaping
at the speed and scale of the “rug
pull.”
In hindsight, there were red flags
throughout SQUID’s short lifetime.
The value of SQUID never went
down. There were also complaints
about people being unable to sell any

tokens. This was initially attributed to
the anti-dump mechanism described
by the creators. It also never had
any connection to the Netflix show.
Despite all of this, many people
blindly bought into SQUID trying to
chase the next big thing.
Squid Game perfectly encapsulates
everything that’s wrong with the fast-
growing cryptocurrency market.
Cryptocurrencies are mostly driven
by market excitement. A problem
arises when those feelings aren’t
backed by sound fundamentals.
I’ve already mentioned Dogecoin a
few times in this piece, and it’s worth
delving into it for a bit. Dogecoin was
created back in 2013 as a joke, meant
to poke fun at the then-speculative
cryptocurrency
market.
Unlike
Bitcoin, whose value in large part
derives from its limited supply,
Dogecoin could technically have
an infinite supply. Until the start of
2021, its value never went above a
cent. Yet, in the aftermath of the r/
WallStreetBets
GameStop
saga,
Dogecoin started rising inexplicably,
so much so that celebrities such
as Elon Musk took notice with his
tweets, further fueling its growth.
After peaking in May, it started
falling again, settling now at around a
quarter dollar.w
Cryptocurrencies, even the more
well-known and sound ones, are
extremely volatile. Cryptocurrency
advocates will tell you about how their
decentralized nature prevents any
central entity from influencing the
valuation of the currency. However,
in their current form, they are still
easily manipulated. Elon Musk, for

instance, tweeted his reservations
against
Bitcoin’s
environmental
impact. The damage was immediate.
Bitcoin’s value would dip by more
than $10,000 in the coming days. You
don’t have to be a Musk-level celebrity
either to impact valuations. There are
many groups that work to orchestrate
pump-and-dump schemes wherein
the whole group invests in a
cryptocurrency of their choosing at
once. This generates a buzz around it
that drives other investors to invest in
it. As the value of the cryptocurrency
rises, more investors flock to it.
When the group is satisfied with the
growth of the cryptocurrency, they
sell their holdings rapidly, triggering
a dramatic fall in the valuation of
cryptocurrency.
Cryptocurrency’s
nature
as
something
that
is
outside
governmental regulations acts as
a double-edged sword here. While
some praise it for being free of
government interference, it also
lacks all legal consumer protections.
This often means that in the event of
a scam, consumers have little to no
legal recourse.
I’m
certainly
not
going
to
discourage anyone from investing
in cryptocurrency if they so choose.
I personally don’t because it doesn’t
align with my risk tolerance. There’s
a certain level of volatility with even
the more stable cryptocurrencies, so
it is crucial to do your research before
investing. Only invest as much as you
can afford to lose. And never blindly
“hold” on a quest to send prices to
“the moon.” You might get the rug
pulled out from under you.

I
n 2020, the first and most intense
year of the COVID-19 pandemic,
daily life in our society underwent
significant
changes.
These
adaptations were part of what many
believed to be a “new normal” that
would persist as long as — if not longer
than — the pandemic itself. Some
developments have been widely
considered positive. Unnecessary
meetings were canceled or adapted
into emails. Long commutes were
often eliminated. Many families
found themselves spending more
time together. Despite the rapidly
worsening state of public health,
perhaps there were a few silver
linings in this new normal.
Such was not the case for spectator
sports and fans. With restrictions on
large gatherings, live audiences were
prevented from attending sporting
events, and after long periods
of complete shutdown, seasons
were either canceled altogether or
resumed in vacuum environments
free of fans. Players across various
sports noticed the difference in
the atmosphere and the ways in
which empty arenas impacted the
games. Fans waxed poetic about
missing the experience of attending
live competitions and witnessing
athletic history. These audience-
free environments were a necessary
alteration during the height of the
pandemic, but all parties wished for
the conditions which would allow
sports and the broader community a
return to normalcy.
With
COVID-19
cases
decreasing as a result of widespread
immunization,
spectators
have
started to trickle back into stadiums,
and fan bases could not be happier.
The sights and sounds of tens of

thousands of raucous people reacting
to every play could never be replaced
by artificial crowd noise, and being
part of a team’s home-field advantage
is a magical feeling for fans of all ages.
The return of fans has increased
both the quality and stakes of each
game played. The NFL, for one, has
repeatedly called 2021 its “biggest
season ever,” as the return of fans
across the league and the addition of
a 17th game for each team combine to
ceremoniously usher in the future of
the sport.
Nowhere has this comeback borne
out more evidently than at Michigan
Stadium, where spectators have
enthusiastically returned after a 2020
season that left many fans feeling
as empty as the bleachers at the Big
House. As the largest stadium in
North America and the third-largest
in the world, the complete absence
of fans could not be more unnatural.
In normal times, those in attendance
at Michigan football games are
reminded
by
announcer
Carl
Grapentine that they are part of the
“largest crowd watching a football
game anywhere in America today,”
a fact which carries special weight
after a year in which crowds were
robbed of the electric atmosphere
of Michigan football. U-M fans
certainly appear refreshed upon
their return, with their spirited game
day traditions, such as the crowd’s
inspired singing of The Killers’ “Mr.
Brightside,”
garnering
national
attention.
For those who already had the
chance to be part of college fandom
before the pandemic struck, the
removal of fans from sporting events
made for yet another tough blow.
Taking in a game at the Big House,
Crisler Center, Yost Ice Arena or
anywhere else on campus is a one-
of-a-kind experience and practically
a rite of passage for U-M students.

With boisterous collective chants,
seas of maize and blue apparel
and the exceptional performances
of
U-M
student-athletes,
the
environment is unparalleled. After
a year of watching from our couches
as U-M teams achieve greatness,
students and fans have found an
even greater appreciation for simply
being present.
Athletes often explain their love
for team-oriented sport through
an appreciation for being part of
something greater than themselves.
The same can be said for fans, who
dedicate their time, resources and
energy to the teams they adore. Their
cheers, whether stemming from
euphoria or exasperation, are what
make spectator sporting events the
popular rituals they are. Research
has shown that the presence and
energy of a live audience often affect
the performance of athletes and
may exert notable influence on the
outcome of a game. Home court
advantage exists and can certainly
prove powerful.
After a year in which people
felt more socially isolated than
ever before, the enthusiasm for
live sports comes as no surprise.
Despite the lingering of COVID-
19, many of those with a love for
their teams and competition simply
cannot remain on the sidelines any
longer. It once seemed improbable
for crowds to come back to arenas
this year, or perhaps for even longer.
Now, scientific developments and
necessary precautions have assured
that in-person sports attendance is
back and likely here to stay, and it
is beautiful to see athletes and fans
coming together once again. For
those able to attend who haven’t
gotten in on the action, there’s no
better time to get in the game and
be a part of something bigger than
oneself.

O
n Oct. 27, the Wall Street Journal
published a letter to the editor
from former President Donald Trump
regarding an editorial that the paper
had previously published which stated
that he lost Pennsylvania by 80,555
votes. In his letter, Trump reasserted
that the 2020 election was fraudulent,
rigged and corrupt, and therefore
The Journal’s editorial was incorrect.
After publication, some objected to
The Journal publishing this letter at
all, leading the newspaper to publish
a statement on their decision. This
statement conveyed their belief that
their readers could come to their own
conclusions, and then debunked some
of the lies that Trump wrote in his
letter.
Personally, I don’t think that
The Journal should have published
Trump’s letter. Lies should not be
tolerated in newspapers, especially
not in one of the most reputable
newspapers in the country. Allowing
a lie of this magnitude to be published
as an opinion piece in a paper with
this level of prestige legitimizes it in
a way that a tweet or a Facebook post
does not. But, in their piece defending
publishing the letter, The Journal’s
editorial board raised points worthy
of consideration. For example, Trump
says these things elsewhere, and
trying to censor him doesn’t hinder his
ability to share these views. It begs the
question — what should the role of an
opinion page be in publishing speech
that is deemed offensive or blatantly
false?
Traditionally,
opinion
pages
publish pieces from two main sources:
people who are hired to write for the
paper (columnists or editorial board

members) and people who write as
guests — they typically write guest
op-eds or letters to the editor. The
purpose of guest op-eds is to highlight
perspectives of those who do not write
for the paper. The purpose of letters
to the editor is to allow members of a
paper’s audience to engage with their
content, whether that engagement is
in support or criticism.
Many newspapers allow for a
wide variety of people with a range
of opinions to write op-eds in their
opinion sections, including people
who many would consider as having
values that are antithetical to a
democratic society. For example, The
New York Times has published op-eds
from Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Taliban deputy leader
Sirajuddin Haqqani, both of whom
are enemies of the United States. The
Times also published an op-ed by Sen.
Tom Cotton, R-Ark., in June 2020 that
called for the president to send in the
military to combat Black Lives Matter
protests.
Readers reacted strongly (and
negatively) to the op-eds by Haqqani
and Cotton, and for good reason —
Haqqani has been involved in strikes
that have killed American soldiers
and Afghani citizens, and Cotton’s
position is un-American at best and
fascist at worst. But do our opinions
and feelings about these beliefs and
these people mean that we shouldn’t
hear about them? Putin, Haqqani and
Cotton are three people who matter.
The actions of Putin and Haqqani
directly influence American foreign
policy. Cotton is a U.S. senator, and has
aspirations to be the president of the
United States. Their views have a real
impact on the way the world works
and for that, we’re better off knowing
what they think, as appalling as their
opinions may be.

Readers of The Journal and
The Times rightfully want to hear
nuanced, informed opinions in their
newspapers, not lies and un-American
rants. But it might be even more
important that these readers hear
these opinions, no matter how scary
or deluded they are. While some may
prefer to ignore it, others may want
to learn more about the sentiments
expressed by Haqqani or Cotton. That
doesn’t mean that anyone should be
able to write an op-ed about such a
topic. But, since all three men have the
ability to make their ideas into policy
or social norms, it’s necessary that the
public is aware of what their ideas are.
The distinction between the pieces
The Times published and the letter
to the editor that Trump wrote is
that the Times pieces were opinions,
meaning that readers could oppose
them on the basis of disagreement,
but couldn’t dismiss them as wholly
untrue. Trump’s letter was based
on lies, which made it unfit to be in a
newspaper. To me, this is where the
line should be drawn — media sources
should not, as a matter of ethics,
publish something that is based on
clear falsehoods.
We can disagree with Putin,
Haqqani and Cotton on the basis of
their ideas, but a lack of decency or
adherence to democratic ideals cannot
be disparaged in the same way as
lies. Knowledge of the opinions and
ideas of important policymakers and
figureheads — told from their own
perspective — is necessary in order
to combat bad or dangerous ideas.
Opinion pages have an obligation
to publish a diversity of opinions,
even when those opinions will be
unpopular with readers. But readers
should not have to read unchecked
falsehoods directly from the mouth of
their main purveyor.

It’s time for Facebook to end

Why Squid Game is the perfect
cautionary cryptocurrency tale

The roaring comeback of live sports

Why The Wall Street Journal shouldn’t
have published Trump’s election lies

MIGUEL CALLE
Opinion Columnist

Design by Jessica Chiu

File Photo/DAILY

NOAH ENTE
Opinion Columnist

LYDIA STORELLA
Opinion Columnist

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan