CM – The broadband gap

James Joyner
· ·
Tuesday, May 11, 2021
· ·
54 comments

By Russell Brandom and William Joel, who write for The Verge, take a look at the county-to-county broadband gap and show where less than 15 percent of the home population nominally have high-speed Internet access in less than 15 percent of the country. Their premise:

If broadband access was a problem before 2020, the pandemic turned it into a crisis. When everyday businesses went online, city council meetings or legal proceedings were virtually inaccessible to anyone whose connection couldn’t support a Zoom call. Some school districts have started providing Wi-Fi hotspots to students without a reliable home connection. In other districts, children have settled in McDonalds parking lots to get a signal reliable enough to do their homework. After years of slow expansion, the broadband gap could no longer be ignored.

Your work generated the map above, which is static in my recording, but interactive under the link.

In particular, the colored areas show US states, where less than 15 percent of households use broadband internet, defined as a download speed of 25 Mbps. (That’s a pretty low threshold for high-speed internet, but that’s the Federal Communications Commission standard , let’s stick with it.) To be honest, 15 percent seems a lot more problematic to me than 25 Mbit / s. If 84 percent of households are without broadband, that’s terrible and no profit.

Maps like these are important because for much of the past decade it has been incredibly difficult to pinpoint the extent of the problem. Most large-scale ratings of American broadband access rely on FCC data, a notoriously inaccurate poll that comes from ISPs’ own descriptions of the areas in which they operate. Even as the Commission tried to close the broadband gap, its maps misled policymakers as to how big the gap really is.

Instead of the FCC data, we relied on an anonymized data set that Microsoft provided via its cloud service provider. Services Network and has been published incrementally by the company over the past 18 months. When the FCC monitors the connections that providers are offering, it measures what they are actually getting. You can roll over specific counties to see the exact percentage of households connected at broadband speed. The data is publicly available on GitHub if you want to review our work or drill down further.

The differences between FCC reports and Microsoft data can be shocking. In Lincoln County, Washington, an area west of Spokane with a population of just over 10,000, the FCC lists 100 percent broadband availability. However, according to Microsoft data, only 5 percent of households connect to broadband speeds.

As they point out, much of it revolves around the broadband distribution business model in America.

Nine Nevada counties fall under the 10 percent -Threshold and cover more than 100,000 people and most of the area of ​​the state. Most of Alaska is a similar dead zone – understandably given the ruggedness of the interior – but there are similar gaps in southwest New Mexico or central Texas.

Since this is a measurement of usage, these are different Data not between people who can’t buy a fast connection and people who just can’t afford a connection. Elsewhere, you may see the connectivity problem as just another consequence of the accumulated neglect. In Arizona, Apache County stands out as a long, thin strip in the northeast corner of the state and has only 5 percent broadband usage. More than 70,000 people live there, most of them members of the Navajo, Apache or Zuni tribes. According to the census, more than 23,000 of them live in poverty, by far the highest poverty rate in the state. On the other side of the border, San Juan County, New Mexico has 29 percent broadband usage. So the problem isn’t that the county is too remote or the terrain is too difficult to manage. Apache County is just poor, and the slow progress in broadband deployment seems like a promise it will stay that way.

With the right eyes, you can even see the broadband gap as the dividing line for the US as a whole. Counties on the wrong side of the line are poorer, more remote, and lose population even as the country grows. Because of this, of course, there is no such thing as broadband: From a business perspective, expanding fiber optics in Apache County is a losing bet. However, the lack of fiber is also holding back economic activity and increasing the likelihood of young people leaving the country, creating a cycle of divestment and decay that has swallowed up much of our land.

In Fairfax County, Virginia, where I live in 92 percent of households have broadband. In neighboring Loudoun County, where I lived when I moved to the area (and home to AOL, Verizon, and other big tech companies), it’s 98 percent. In Pike County, Alabama, where I lived before I moved, it’s only 18 percent, although Troy University makes up a significant portion of its population. (And yet, Pike County is still above the 15 percent threshold and therefore not highlighted as a problem.) One caveat to all of this is that this does not seem to apply to people who have high-speed connections on their mobile devices. I would imagine there is a sizeable segment of the relatively wealthy households out there, especially the younger ones, who simply don’t see the need for a separate service when they can just stream Netflix on their iPads.

In theory, this is a problem The Federal Government is preparing for its rectification. President Biden has proposed $ 100 billion in broadband funding under America’s employment plan, more than double what the FCC would have estimated to provide broadband to 98 percent of households. But it will be a long way from using that money to actually laying fiber in places like Apache County. This road starts by taking a long look at the shaded parts of this map and thinking about what it takes to really get it online.

While « laying fibers » is an outdated approach to me, it seems in fact, it is still the only way to deliver a really fast and reliable service. There are cheaper wireless options that are faster to implement, but these are slower and have significantly higher latency.

Specifically, the shaded areas show US states where less than 15 percent of households use broadband internet than 25Mbps download speed. (That’s already a pretty low threshold for the term « high-speed internet », but since that’s the Federal Communications Commission standard we’ll stick with it.)

I’m probably with that Overall push agreed, but the definition of broadband at 25 Mbps skews the numbers. I’m on a 24 Mbps band that caters for 4 laptops, 4 WiFi-connected phones, and 2 streaming TVs quite well. I don’t think we are disadvantaged. Service is ATT. An alternative choice would be cable (Spectrum), which advertises much faster speeds but is a terrible service.

ATT offers several internet services at less than 25Mbps at lower rates, potentially contributing to the 58% broadband usage rate is responsible for Bexar County, San Antonio. Even Austin is only getting close to a usage rate of 64%.

I wonder how much of this problem is a « last mile » problem. Most of the internet pipes run along the railroad rights of way (which is one of the reasons San Antonio has large data hubs). It’s like electricity. It costs money to bring services to remote rural areas (electricity, mail, paved roads, etc.).

2) The federal government has given billions of dollars to major ISPs to expand their coverage to rural and underserved areas. The ISPs took the money and did nothing.

3) Starlink is stepping up and taking over. On your own (although they just won a reverse auction to get some of the money the others took away forever).

I live in a somewhat rural area in North Florida and can’t get a wired internet connection. So my solution was to get the highest data plan from AT&T and a tablet. I just did a speed test and it got 82 megabits per second. Starlink is a potentially attractive option.

IMO, a good map could be made by the number of households running streaming services. Try this without adequate download speeds.

The Rural Electrification Act of 36 established cooperatives across America and allowed them to borrow from the Fed government to set up the necessary physical infrastructure and then power from commercial ones Buy generators.
Seems like a better approach than incentivizing amazingly wealthy ISPs to provide this service. It is also more likely to offer services that are affordable for the servants.

What we are seeing here is Hicks on the internet getting worse? You get worse pizza too.

Given the widespread damage in and through social media, one might argue that more broadband we need less. Or, in fact, sub-dial speeds for more people.

@JohnMcC: BTW (and I can’t believe I didn’t say that above!) There are hundreds of these cooperatives left. Various updates to the 1935 Act have been attempted, most of which appear to have failed Congress. As far as my inexperienced and brief research has shown, no changes have been made for broadband.

If we assume that economic growth will be driven by an increase in production capacity, this is the argument for it. Most productivity gains come from innovation in digital space and reduced friction in digital space.

Much of this is a last mile problem and ISPs have little interest in changing it. One of the things that I find most uncomfortable is the efforts of the big players to pass state-level laws that ban municipal broadband. You don’t want to offer these communities a service, but you ALSO want to prevent them from receiving it themselves? Pound of sand. And yet, they have very effectively passed model laws from ALEC that do just that.

Broadband is like electricity at this point – if you don’t have high speed you can live, but you can’t be on par with them participate in the economy that do so.

And while James’ point of view on mobile devices is well received, I would recommend overlaying that map with a 4G card – many of the underserved areas also have garbage dump service.

@ Michael Reynolds: Up in any case! These people have no right to expect services far removed from intelligent, civilized people. Fwk em! And if their kids can’t keep up in school, it doesn’t matter. Education is wasted on them anyway. You voted for the wrong person. They no longer have rights.

@Jen: If they want to participate in the economy they should move where the economy exists and improve their skills so that they can use it. Trying to help these people is tossing good money after bad.

While « laying fibers » is an outdated approach to me, in fact, it still seems like the only way to really get one to sell fast and reliable service.

Yes. The terrestrial broadband service is provided via hybrid fiber optic networks. That something solves the problem of distribution over the last mile. DSL is a hybrid fiber twisted pair device. The cable modem service is a hybrid fiber optic coax. The cellphone-based service is hybrid fiber. Each of these 5G cellular base stations per block is connected to an optical fiber. Even the relatively rare fiber-to-the-home and fiber-to-the-business products, where the fiber extends to the customer, are usually fiber-fiber hybrids with two different technologies. The problem for rural areas is that the things we all have have a limited range, a mile or two. Takes a crazy amount of fiber to get within a few miles of all rural households / businesses. Oh, and each of those transition points from fiber to something requires reliable electrical power.

@just nutha: Respectfully disagree. I understand what you are saying, but there are many reasons to link these areas together.

« Smart Ag » practices that can help us save water and reduce / make pesticide use smarter, depend on broadband access. If we want cyber-secure wind energy, we need broadband for these areas. Telemedicine is the best way to keep people in touch with doctors in rural areas.

The lack of infrastructure in rural areas does not seem to stop the spread of misinformation. But I’m actually curious: If these people had more access to the diverse knowledge that the Internet offers, would it change the mind of a single person?

If these people had more access to the diverse knowledge that the Internet offers Would that change an individual’s mind?

Probably not, but « rethinking » is not why I support universal broadband access. I support it because it allows people to fully participate in society, especially now that so many jobs are out of the way. Universal broadband access would give people who live in desperately poor areas access to jobs that they did not have before.

Telemedicine, medical IoT devices, Smart AG, access to skills training and remote work, many reasons. </ Fox News is available essentially everywhere through the Dish and DirecTV satellite services. Until his death, AM radio covered almost every square inch with Rush Limbaugh's daily show.

According to @Michael Cain, I’ve had professional opportunities explaining to senior military leaders why they can’t have iPhone-like skills on the battlefield . Mobile telephony isn’t wireless except for the last tiny jump from the tower to your phone and back. Without this massive infrastructure of fiber optic cables, cell towers, and broadband multiplexers, you can:
1. Walkie talkies
2. Tactical radios that require line of sight * for high data rates or enormous heavy batteries to achieve adequate range.
3. Satellite phones / terminals not working during the move
4. That’s it.

* You will be amazed how few pairs of places on the earth’s surface can actually see each other well enough to carry broadband signals.

The problem isn’t just that broadband anymore Goobing gives more access to more lies to devour, but allows the same idiots to signal the stupid.

I am not convinced that the internet is a net positive result for society. The rise of social media has increased social divisions and accelerated the deterioration of Western society. Ask yourself, was democracy less stable before or after broadband? Is the quality of the information consumed – not available, but consumed – better or worse, more or less honest? We are divided and practically paralyzed for fear of the future. Do you feel more hope now than you did 20 years ago or less? Do you have a higher opinion of your fellow Americans, or is your opinion more cynical, more jaundiced? Are you happier

Couldn’t the « last mile » problem be solved with wireless internet and repeating towers in rural areas?

Couldn’t the « last mile » problem be solved with wireless internet and repeating towers in rural areas rural areas?

Wondering, was democracy less stable before or after broadband? Is the quality of the information consumed – not available but consumed – better or worse, more or less honest?

The good news is that the beginnings of the printing press looked very similar. We eventually got over it, and I think it’s clear that the bulk printing was good overall.

I remember the dial-up era. You could easily run Fakebook and Twitter at these speeds, albeit with fewer videos.

I wouldn’t be surprised if much of the damage is no longer caused by constant 24/7 access to such media from cell phones.

The lack of infrastructure in rural areas does not seem to stop the spread of misinformation. But I’m actually curious: if these people had more access to the diverse knowledge that the Internet offers, it would change the mind of a single person.

Fox News is essentially widely available through the Dish and DirecTV satellite service. Until his death, AM radio covered almost every square inch of Rush Limbaugh’s daily show.

Michael is correct. Fox has established a position of denial that is plausible enough for many people to just ask questions. But the evening shows take up the bullshit of blogs etc. Newsmax backs down and comes to terms with Dominion. Meanwhile, OANN is running the Mike Lindell documentary stating that the views are his own.

It’s about containing the tidal wave of misinformation that will not occur. Because such a misnomer – it is a system of independent but interconnected waves. It’s not a single big one.
So it’s not about changing your mind or deplatforming regressive ideas. It’s about lessening the effects of conditions that allow bullshit to manure the soil, sew anger, and reap the benefits.

Conspiracy will always exist. It always has. But it stays in the street corner eschatologist’s realm, unless enough of the population has nothing to do but sit and listen.

@ Jen: Respectful disagreements are not required. As I find out today in the forum for a similar chatter, my inner ass is running wild and free today. I can’t imagine what triggered it.

@just nutha: RATS !!!! If you left-click an emoji here, it won’t appear in the message. At the end of my last comment, please imagine a thinking face or an eyeroll emoji.

@ Michael Cain: That may not explain people who lack the economic resources to pay for satellite services. Given the number of people I’ve seen in my neighborhood reconnecting existing satellite antennas to homes they recently occupied, satellite may no longer be for everyone.

Then there is the downside of the problem: Everyone in Silicon Valley who dreams of new products assumes a T1 will come to your home and design accordingly.

Sometimes I think before someone designs a new hot internet service, the person should be forced to 6 Living in the Boonies for months with 1200 baud dial-up as the only connection.

I work in the mobile and wireless internet industries, and geography and density are definitely the main issues.

There is also the question of how to define broadband and the different needs of individuals and families. Zoom-style video conferencing doesn’t take up much bandwidth, I’ve regularly done it at less than 3 Mbps. For important tasks such as work and school, 25 Mbit / s is sufficient. It’s when people start streaming 4k videos that it gets slow.

Starlink is definitely going to be a pretty big game changer. I’ve tested the system for the last few months and it’s pretty amazing. But SpaceX has to launch a lot more satellites, put the Generation 2 birds into orbit, and do other things before they have the ability to really meet the need. Plus everything that needs to be licensed and approved by the government. SpaceX needs to cut hardware costs too – they lose over $ 1000 for every system sold for the beta program. They probably can’t do that once it’s available in retail stores. And I’m not really convinced that they can have 300Mbps of bandwidth with no data limits for $ 100 a month and still be profitable. But keep your fingers crossed. And even at $ 100 a month, that’s too high a price to pay for many.

However, this problem really requires diversity. Satellite systems like Starlink make the most sense in some places. Fixed wireless / cellular for others, fiber optic for others. And all this provided that the backbones and links receive the necessary upgrades.

I remember the dial-up era. You could run Fakebook and Twitter at these speeds without any problems, albeit with fewer videos.

I’m amazed at how many Facebook downloads. It starts with a piece of HTML that downloads the JavaScript for the entire user interface, and then each of those scripts downloads a bunch of data that is only used when you go to part of the user interface. Switching from one view to the other is fairly quick, but only because they have all been downloaded in advance. I wouldn’t be surprised if at least a few megabytes of things are dumped just to load the page.

One of the common tricks to limit download volume is to turn off JavaScript so we don’t do weird things in the background . Last time I checked, Facebook is just a blank page with JS disabled.

Wondering, was democracy less stable before or after broadband? Is the quality of the information consumed – not available, but consumed – better or worse, more or less honest? We are divided and practically paralyzed for fear of the future. Do you feel more hope now than you did 20 years ago or less? Do you have a higher opinion of your fellow Americans, or is your opinion more cynical, more jaundiced? Are you happier

Periods of division occurred in pre-internet societies, pre-industrial societies, pre-print societies, pre-written societies. . .

1994 was a turning point for division. At the time, only two percent of American households had internet access this year. This number rose rapidly through 1998, but was still only 24%. (Source)

Even if you’re correct that the internet is a net negative, it won’t go away. But you are not right The best that can be said is that it magnifies problems that were already there.

And I’m not really convinced that they can get 300Mbps of bandwidth with no data limits for $ 100 a month and still be profitable.

You need to remember that they are working to get licenses around the world. So if geosync is paid for in a time zone, they have the potential to be paid for within 24 years.

In addition, they are working on a military contract and have received permits for mobile units – which enables them to enter the ocean liner market. This is where the profit comes from. I’ve seen the price list for « satellite to a ship » and at the speeds Starlink can offer it’s tens of thousands per month for a single connection.

I’m sure like everyone else they will have levels of service, where the government and large users pay more. How the service will affect the consumer is currently very uncertain. As with any network, they have to manage capacity constraints, a lesson cellular operators learned the hard way when they tried to bring unlimited, unrestricted ISP-like data service to consumers through cellphones.

How about 2001? That was a good 20 years ago, without social media, but with plenty of internet access.

I don’t have the numbers, but I remember a lot of misinformation online and offline about the 9/11 attacks. Truthful Muslims celebrating in NY / NJ, car bombs being fired at the State Department and elsewhere, etc.

But 1) this was a marginal position, and 2) there was no partisan division.

The problem is not just that broadband gives more goobers more access to more lies to devour, but that it allows the same idiots to signal the stupid.

I don’t believe the internet does is a net positive result for society. The rise of social media has increased social divisions and accelerated the deterioration of Western society. Wonder, was democracy less stable before or after broadband?

I think the internet and « broadband » were great until the social media companies came along. 90% of the problems we see today are, IMO, the direct result of business models based on algorithmic engagement, which has proven to be a bad mix with the way we are wired as a species.

I think the internet and « broadband » were great until the social media companies came along. 90% of the problems we see today are, IMO, the direct result of business models that rely on algorithmic engagement, which has proven to be a bad mix with the way we are wired as a species.

Yeah, that’s pretty much right. Basically, they figured out how to legalize and perfect highly potent « free » drugs.

… Rely on algorithmic engagement that has proven to be a bad mix with the way we are wired as a species. </ Algorithmic engagement is of great importance to the social media companies as they keep an eye on their websites. Unfortunately, it's bad for the user (who may not realize it) and society, but companies don't care.

@ DrDaveT:
The IIRC, the appearance of the printing company in Europe, helped to stimulate the Reformation and the century of religious wars that went with it.

@ Kurtz:
In 1994 I didn’t really think about the possibility that we could have Civil War 2.0.

@Andy:
Indeed. But was it ever likely that we would have internet without a bright lightbulb figuring out something Facebook-type?

Don’t get me wrong, I love the internet. But I also love bourbon, scotch, weed, fast cars, cigars, and sugar in all forms, none of which is good for me.

@Kurtz: Fixing the economy would definitely be great, but I’m not sure, if I consider that for some (most?) subscribers to the tidal wave of misinformation, part of « Fix the Economy » means that the CLANGGGGs, CLLLAAAANNNGGGs, and CCCLLLAAAAANNGGGs will be restored in the subclass, to which they belong.

« Unfortunately it’s bad for the user (who may not notice it) and for society, but companies don’t care. »

Yes. I’m very glad I never got the social media habit. I have a hard time convincing the people I speak to that they are the product that social media is selling.

In 1994 I wasn’t seriously considering the possibility that we could have Civil War 2.0.

Aber das Internet als technologische Entwicklung zu beschuldigen, anstatt wie es genutzt wurde, ist dumm.

Tatsächlich. Aber war es jemals wahrscheinlich, dass wir Internet haben würden, ohne dass eine helle Glühbirne etwas vom Typ Facebook herausfinden würde?

Sie taten. YouTube wurde im Jahr 2004 erstellt. So war Facebook. Aber FB war nicht das erste Social-Media-Unternehmen – MySpace und Friendster waren die ersten. FB hat gerade ein besseres Produkt für Benutzer bereitgestellt.

Beide Plattformen brauchten jedoch Jahre, um zu dem Punkt zu gelangen, dass sie in großem Maßstab ernsthafte Probleme verursachten. Benutzer werden dazu angeregt, kontrovers, nervös und dumm zu sein, weil sie dadurch auf sich aufmerksam gemacht werden. FB und YT werden dazu angeregt, die unverschämte Scheiße auf die Benutzer zu lenken, da dies die Aufmerksamkeit des Verbrauchers auf sich zieht. Es ist eine Rückkopplungsschleife.

Vieles, was Social Media tut, löst bei Menschen Suchtreaktionen aus. Ich weiß nicht, ob dies die ursprüngliche Absicht war, aber im Laufe der Zeit erkannten kluge Leute, dass bestimmte Muster die Websites klebrig machten, und von da an ging es bergab.

Ich habe Facebook noch nie benutzt, aber als es dazu kam, sagten mir Freunde, die es nutzten, dass sie es genossen, mit längst verlorenen Menschen in Kontakt zu treten, die sie neu waren, und es half, mit den Familiennachrichten Schritt zu halten. Nichts davon interessierte mich, aber ich konnte sehen, wie es einem Bedürfnis nach ihnen entsprach. Leider hat sich der Algorithmus durchgesetzt und jetzt sind sie entweder von Facebook oder verrückt.

Ich hatte einen Blog und einen Tumblr für Bilder, aber die einzige wirklich (meiner Meinung nach) Social-Media-Website, auf der ich war, war Linkedin. Das war aus geschäftlichen Gründen und ich habe mein Konto gelöscht, als ich in den Ruhestand ging.

@mattbernius: FB hat tatsächlich einen Feed mit guten Nachrichten getestet, in dem Sie positive Geschichten erhalten haben, und nicht versucht, Sie zu verärgern. Es hat funktioniert, aber die Benutzer haben weniger Zeit auf der Website verbracht. Also haben sie das Projekt abgesagt.

Scott Galloway, Business-Professor an der New York University, weist darauf hin, dass Facebook jedes Mal, wenn es die Wahl hat, gut für die Welt zu sein und mehr Geld zu verdienen, das Geld wählt, und Mark Zuckerburp ist das Schlimmste, was der Welt in unserem Leben passieren kann.

Wenn Sie über die Tools verfügen, laden Sie die Startseite der Washington Post in eine JavaScript-fähige Umgebung. Warten Sie 24 Stunden. Eine erstaunliche Menge an Daten wurde selbst gesaugt. Zuletzt habe ich überprüft, dass die Startseite alle fünf Minuten vollständig neu geladen wird.

Aber das Internet als technologische Entwicklung zu beschuldigen, anstatt wie es genutzt wurde, ist dumm.

Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob ich damit einverstanden bin. Es ist schwer, eine Stadt ohne Flugzeuge zu bombardieren. Sicher, beschuldigen Sie den Bomberpiloten, aber ohne den Bomber und die Bombe ist er nur ein Typ.

Es gab mehr Spaltung als Sie denken. Der Unterschied bestand nicht nur in einer nahezu universellen Einigung über ein Thema, sondern auch in der Bedeutung dieses Themas. Das meiste davon hatte sich bis 2004 aufgelöst. Sein Jahresdurchschnitt verteilte sich auf seine beiden Amtszeiten:

Von 2002 bis 2004 sank die Genehmigung um 12,2 Punkte, dann um weitere 9 Punkte. Im gleichen Zeitraum stieg die Missbilligung um 23,7 Punkte und dann um weitere 10,5 Punkte. Dies wird etwas erwartet, da zwischen dem 11. September und der Halbzeit nur ~ 14 Monate lagen. Aber mit den Wahlen von 2004 kam eine Rückkehr der Spaltung. Aber seine Zahlen erholten sich insgesamt nie.

Und die Wahlumfrage von 2004 zeigt, wie wichtig es für Bush war, sich sowohl über die Position zu einem Thema als auch über die Bedeutung dieses Themas weitgehend einig zu sein:

51-29-9% (!!!) (Beachten Sie auch, wie Unabhängige den Unterschied in diesen beiden Fragen fast genau aufteilen … es ist fast so, als wären Unabhängige _________)

Andere Regierungsquellen, die andere ging nicht über 1998 hinaus. Die Zahlen sind für 98 leicht, nicht wild unterschiedlich.

Außerdem ist der Unterschied zwischen dem Internet damals und dem Internet heute Tag und Nacht. Und nicht nur die Allgegenwart und der Übergang von der Verwendung eines PCs zu Telefonen und Tablets.

Der Medien- / Nachrichtenverbrauch fragmentierte sich von einer Handvoll Unternehmen zu einem demokratisierten Modell, zu einer teilweisen Rekonsolidierung der Gatekeeper, jedoch mit weniger Einfluss als zuvor.

Social Media tauchte zuerst auf und fand später ein Gewinnmodell heraus. Dieses Modell ist… nicht gut für die Gesellschaft.

Und das veränderte Medien / Nachrichten erneut, indem der Verbrauchspunkt für einen anständigen Teil der Bevölkerung geändert wurde. . . Gatekeeper stärker schwächen und den Inhalt traditioneller Outlets beeinflussen.

Ich muss eine der wenigen Personen sein, die tatsächlich den größten Teil dessen hat, was auf ihrer FB-Seite zu sehen ist. Die Bilder der Menschen zeigen, was im Garten blüht, und die Haustiere der Familie. Ich verbringe mehr Zeit mit YT, aber selbst dort enthält mein vorgeschlagener Feed viele Katzenvideos und BBC-Dokumentationen.

So wie das Internet andere als Radikalisierung als Effekt zweiter Ordnung eines bestimmten Geschäftsmodells in einem fehlerhaften Wirtschaftssystem verwendet hat.

Geht es dir gut, Alter? Sie haben immer starke Meinungen. Aber das kommt mir aus irgendeinem Grund, den ich mir nicht vorstellen kann, als Un-Michael vor.

Ich denke, jemand hat hier mit diesem Chait-Stück verlinkt, oder vielleicht war es in meinem Chrome-Feed.

Wie prägen rassistische Einstellungen die politischen Präferenzen in der Ära der Black Lives Matter und die zunehmend liberalen Ansichten zu rassistischen Themen? Eine große Anzahl von Untersuchungen hat ergeben, dass die Hervorhebung der Vorteile einer fortschrittlichen Politik für rassistische Minderheiten die Unterstützung dieser Politik untergräbt. Die demokratischen Eliten haben jedoch begonnen, die Rasse in ihren Botschaften auf eine progressive öffentliche Politik zu konzentrieren. Um dieses Rätsel zu lösen, bieten wir in diesem Artikel einen empirischen Test an, der den Effekt der Beschreibung einer angeblich rassenneutralen progressiven Politik mit rassistischer Gestaltung, wie sie von demokratischen Eliten verwendet wird, auf die Unterstützung dieser Politik untersucht. Um diese Effekte zu bewerten, vergleichen wir einen Rassenrichtlinienrahmen mit Klassen-, Klassen- plus Rassen- und neutralen Richtlinienrahmen. Wir zeigen, dass trotz der Verschiebung der öffentlichen Haltung gegenüber Fragen der Rassengleichheit nach links die rassistische Gestaltung die Unterstützung für eine rassenneutrale progressive Politik verringert. Im Allgemeinen erhöht der Klassenrahmen am erfolgreichsten die Unterstützung für fortschrittliche Richtlinien in rassischen und politischen Untergruppen.

IIRC, @Jen, und einige andere von uns hier haben dieses Argument bereits vorgebracht. Sie weiß ein bisschen über politische Nachrichten Bescheid.

Wird es noch Rassisten geben? Ja. Aber rassenbasiertes Messaging löst sie aus (ha) und sie sind bereit, sich Richtlinien zu widersetzen, die ihnen helfen, und sie würden sie sonst unterstützen.

@gVOR ruft Luntz häufig auf. Diese Studie ähnelt der gleichen Art von Fokusgruppen, die Luntz eingesetzt hat, um einen guten Ruf und Wohlstand aufzubauen.

Es gibt in der Tat viele Menschen ohne Breitband, und es wäre gut, wenn sie es hätten. Es ist so, als hätte man keinen Strom, keine Telefone, Eisenbahnen oder Telegraphen, als diese Dinge neu waren. Aber ich habe ein bisschen Ärger damit, dies als riesige Schwaden zu bezeichnen. Karten wie die oben genannten sind etwas irreführend, genau wie die üblichen rot / blauen Karten. Wir haben viele Morgen ohne Breitband. Es sind auch viele Leute, aber nicht so viele, wie diese Karte zu zeigen scheint.

In meiner Grafschaft in FL, Sarasota, leben 434.000 Menschen. Die Karte zeigt uns grau mit Breitband. Die Karte zeigt drei blaue Landkreise östlich von uns, groß oder größer, blau, ohne viel Breitband. Aber die drei zusammen sind weniger als 80 Tausend. Eine Karte von FL unterhalb von Orlando, skaliert nach Bevölkerung, würde wie ein grauer Streifen aussehen, der den Atlantik und den Golf mit ein paar winzigen, dünnen blauen vertikalen Strichen in der Mitte trennt.

Nicht abonnierenAlle Antworten auf meine Kommentare Benachrichtigen Sie mich über Folgekommentare per E-Mail. Sie können sich auch ohne Kommentar anmelden.