 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

