They believe that our words threaten them. Let’s prove them right.

Tovia Smith of NPR reported that the effort to ban books has prompted alternate ways of getting banned books to kids. A Ben & Jerry’s shop in Melbourne, Florida sells banned books. There are pop-up banned book libraries (one next to a movie theater), book giveaways, a bookmobile of banned books, even neighborhood Little Free Libraries stocked with banned books. The more books are banned, the more activists come up with alternatives. George Johnson, who wrote All Boys Aren’t Blue, carries copies to throw into free libraries he sees. High school senior Oliver Stirland of St. George, Utah had his life transformed when a school librarian recommended books as he was fighting thoughts of suicide over his sexuality. Two of those books are now banned. He now raises money to buy books to slip into free libraries. Of course, these books are available on the internet and through the Brooklyn Public Library’s Books Unbanned program, so why go through the effort of banning? Yeah, members of Moms for Liberty, a group behind many of the mans, calls these books pornography and threatens to call down federal obscenity laws on those distributing these books. Activists respond these books are neither obscene or pornographic. But these activist activities will never get books into the hands of all the kids who need them. In addition, a ban also sends a message, especially to kids who no longer see themselves in the books they read. So the best response to a book ban is to go to a school or library board meeting and make a stand for books. Reshma Saujani wrote an op-ed for Teen Vogue a couple weeks ago on International Women’s Day. One of her books, about young women of color learning to code, has been banned. Some of what she wrote:

At its core, the ban on my book isn’t about books at all. None of them are. Rather, book bans are about oppressing girls—especially girls of color, queer girls, and nonbinary people—by making us believe that our stories aren’t worth sharing, our aspirations aren’t worth pursuing, and our identities aren’t worth celebrating. ... If there was a common thread uniting these titles, it was that each offered an underrepresented point of view—one that could empower someone who shared it to challenge a broken system, and rebuild it in their image. In that sense, book bans are part of a larger, manufactured culture war to keep young people from understanding and uprooting harmful systems of oppression—all under the guise of, ironically, shielding them from harm in the first place. ... But if there’s hope, it’s that the opposite is true, too. Because as I have experienced firsthand, when you offer girls books that tell them how their differences make them special, they believe it. When you share stories that show them their dreams are possible, they pursue them. And when you give them proof that their world is changeable—and that they can change it—they won’t just do it; they’ll lead the charge. Indeed, history has shown time and time again that there are few things more powerful than a teenage girl armed with equal parts self-confidence and righteous fury. Today, from Austin, Texas to York County, Pennsylvania to Wentzville, Missouri, empowered girls are wresting back control of their education in order to create a better future for themselves, their friends, and every person touched by these bans. ... For so long, people have sought to silence women because they believe that our words are dangerous; that our very existence threatens the status quo. This International Women’s Day, let’s prove them right.

Mike Luckovich tweeted a cartoon of a slave auction and off to the side one gentleman says to another:

This history mustn’t be taught lest future generations find it “uncomfortable” ...

Mark Sumner of Daily Kos wrote that “Large Language Model AIs,” the kind that are now available to make up an answer to anything, are pushing us beyond post-truth and alternative facts into the end of objective facts. Sumner shows an AI response that included a reference to a study, even citing the journal where it was published. But there was no such study. Which average person is going to check? The AI’s learning featured lots of articles citing lots of sources, so it did the same. Another AI response prompted Sumner to explain:

This is an AI, citing a lie created by another AI, which was citing an article from another AI, based on something that the last AI was instructed to write based on a joke. If you went onto the internet right now, asked a question, and got an answer that included a citation, that included a citation, that included a citation … how far would you really try to unravel things to determine if you were being told the truth?

And it seems Big Tech and every company on the planet wants AIs in every search engine, word processor, email app, spreadsheet, and any other type of app one can think of that will fill our discourse with “another layer of obfuscation, false authority, and just plain-vanilla lies.” We already have trouble agreeing on a set of authoritative facts. Shannon Bond of NPR reported that Ethan Mollick, a business professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, needed only $11, eight minutes, a photo of himself, and sixty seconds of himself speaking to create a video of him giving a (short?) lecture he never actually gave. There are already these deepfake videos of the nasty guy (getting arrested), Obama, Biden, and Zelenskyy. They could easily be created for nefarious political purpose, such as Biden declaring a war time draft. There are also scams of people posing as family members to steal money. Even if the fake is detected it spreads distrust for the truth. We aren’t ready for this. While Big Tech is trying to erect guardrails, some open source AIs are already out in the web and won’t have guardrails. There is also a difference between AIs where one goes to a site to use it and AIs that are baked into fundamental infrastructure where we aren’t aware it is in use. In response to a tweet expressing shock at how few Americans have passports, compared to Europeans who all seem to have one, Leah McElrath tweeted “Many Americans have no desire to travel overseas. The United States is a massive, diverse country to explore.” Then she included a map of Europe with her own state of Texas laid over it. The state covers from about Florence, Italy to the border between Germany and Denmark, from Vienna to the tip of Normandy. It covers a big chunk of Germany, half of Czechia and Austria, most of Switzerland, close to all of Belgium and Neterlands, and about a quarter of France. That’s just one (though the second biggest) American state. That reminds me of hearing from a couple European friends who visited America. They are surprised at how big it is and how long it takes to get from one side to the other. Yeah, Americans can see a great deal of scenery and a great diversity of humanity and culture without a passport. Even so, I’m glad I have mine. Of course, that comparison prompted me to find more. World Atlas says Europe (including Russia to the Urals) is 3.91 million square miles and the US (presumably including Alaska) is 3.53 million square miles. Mapfight shows one overlaid on the other with their similar sizes. Vividmaps shows a more accurate overlaying – with the eastern edge of Maine at the Urals the western edge of California is even with the shore of Portugal. It also notes the US is one nation and Europe is not. The page includes several other comparisons: latitude, obesity rates, homicide rates, road traffic death rates, and more.