Software developer at a big library, cyclist, photographer, hiker, reader. Email: chris@improbable.org
24150 stories
·
216 followers

A vegan cheese beat dairy in a big competition. Then the plot curdled. - The Washington Post

1 Share

In the wine world, the 1976 Judgment of Paris — a blind taste test in which California chardonnays and Bordeauxs beat out their French counterparts — is remembered as the shocking upending of long-standing order.

A similar moment looked like it was coming to the demimonde of artisanal cheese. On Monday, the winners will be announced of the Good Food awards, a prestigious honor that considers both the quality of the products and the environmental and social consciousness of the companies that produce them.

When the California-based foundation that doles them out announced the finalists in January, among the candidates was a blue cheese from Climax Foods from Berkeley, Calif. The difference between that entrant and its competitors wasn’t a silky mouthfeel or buttery flavor, but rather the fact that the Climax Blue — which is served in restaurants including Michelin-starred Eleven Madison Park in New York — wasn’t made from the milk of cows or goats, but rather a blend of ingredients including pumpkin seeds, lima beans, hemp seeds, coconut fat and cocoa butter.

A plant-based “cheese” held up as an exemplar, in a blind tasting, among true dairy products? Traditional cheesemakers were shocked. As word spread about the interloper, mostly through food writer Janet Fletcher’s Planet Cheese newsletter, the controversy fomented.

The Good Foods Foundation that oversees the awards at first offered a compromise solution: If, in fact, the Climax cheese was a winner, it announced, the foundation would name a co-winner. Then the foundation would reevaluate for next year, perhaps creating a new category or moving them into the broader snacks cohort.

But behind the scenes, things were getting messy.

This week, the foundation quietly removed the Climax Blue from the list of finalists on its website but didn’t make public what had disqualified the cheese. It wasn’t the fact that it is plant-based, since those products are explicitly allowed. But it had never been an issue since a vegan cheese had never impressed the judges enough to be named a finalist.

When asked by The Washington Post about its reasoning, Good Foods Foundation executive director Sarah Weiner at first declined to say, but she said something similar had happened only three times in the awards’ 14-year history. Someone — another entrant, perhaps, or someone else in the community — can alert the foundation that a contestant might not meet the requirements they attested to, which include such things as meeting animal-husbandry guidelines where applicable and offering employees fair wages and diversity training. Weiner also wouldn’t say who tipped off the foundation about Climax.

“I think there were a lot more eyes on this particular entrant than there would be on one of the hundreds of other finalists,” she said. “Which made it more likely that someone with expertise would reach out.”

Climax CEO Oliver Zahn accused the foundation of caving to pressure from dairy cheesemakers in revoking the award. And then he spilled the curds: Climax, it turns out, wasn’t just a finalist — it was set to win the award, a fact that all parties are asked to keep confidential until the official ceremony in Portland, Ore., but was revealed in an email the foundation sent to Climax in January. Based on that information, Zahn and several of his colleagues had planned to attend, booking hotel rooms and making travel plans, until, he says, learning from this reporter that his cheese was no longer in the running.

And in the days leading up to the big event, Climax and the Good Food Foundation offered differing versions of the circumstances around the rare award revocation.

Zahn says the foundation made no attempt to reach the company to address potential questions, citing company email records. Weiner says they emailed and called the person who had submitted the application — who they learned no longer works for Climax — and then emailed another employee with no response.

Zahn says he suspects that the person who lodged the complaint is an “informant” from the dairy cheese world who has been particularly outspoken. The substance of the complaint appeared to rest on the ingredient kokum butter — which is derived from the seeds of a kokum tree’s fruit — that Climax used in an earlier version of its cheese. Kokum butter has not been designated as GRAS (generally regarded as safe) by the Food and Drug Administration. Not all ingredients need a GRAS certification: The FDA grandfathers those that have common use in food.

When Climax and the other competitors submitted their products, the Good Food Awards didn’t explicitly require GRAS certification for all ingredients. Since then, though, the foundation added GRAS certification to its rules — a move Zahn says was a belated and clumsy attempt to disqualify him. It isn’t clear when the foundation added the language, but an internet archive search showed that the new wording wasn’t there in January, after the finalists had been announced. Weiner said the awards exist to promote good foods, and that food safety is part of that definition. The addition of the language was “a clarification of our principles and standards ... rather than a new rule,” she said in an email.

Zahn says the kokum butter shouldn’t be an issue anyway: The company has replaced it with cocoa butter, which does have GRAS certification, and that’s the version he says the version he submitted for the awards. (Weiner contends that Climax submitted an ingredient list that included kokum.) Zahn says they could have worked the confusion out if they’d only known about the complaint sooner, but Weiner said the company missed a deadline to respond. “This is something we would have been happy to take a look at if they had gotten back to us in time,” she said in an email.

Another dispute between the two sides? Weiner said the Climax cheese violated a requirement that any product submitted for an award be ready for retail sale, but Zahn insists the cheese is retail-ready.

Weiner called the controversy around Climax and its ultimate disqualification “a big bummer,” but said it showed how much the food community cares about the foundation’s mission. “Our way of making change is to celebrate the good as opposed to call out the bad,” she says. “But other people are good at that.”

Zahn, though, was left frustrated. For his fledgling company, a Good Food Award would have attracted potential buyers for retail stores and impressed would-be investors. Instead, he was soured by the experience — and pretty sure he won’t submit entrants in future years. “Changing the rules six months after submission, and then not even trying to reach the company to try to fix a fixable situation? If that happened in my company, I would step down as CEO,” he says. “Seriously, I would step down because that would be so embarrassing to me that there was no way I could justify continuing to run the company. And I would fire anybody who was involved.”

The to-do wasn’t just a tempest in a cheese pot, the kind of infighting you might find in any industry. Writ large, a plant-based cheese’s ascension to the top of a prestigious heap might be a bellwether moment, an inflection point in the evolution of vegan cheese from rubbery-textured punchline to a product worthy of sitting alongside some of the country’s top cheddars and tommes. And the pushback might offer a preview of the battle that could play out over supermarket shelf space and even the word “cheese” itself.

To Zahn, the method he’s using isn’t all that different from the one used for centuries. When it comes down to it, he notes, plants fuel the animals that produce milk — and so in concocting a milk made out of plants, Zahn says he’s just cutting out the middleman (or middle-bovine). In his analysis of traditional cheesemaking, a cow is essentially a processing machine — and not a very efficient one at that.

“There’s a lot of energy being used to turn something from one thing to another, and in the case of a cow, 90 percent of the inputs go to just processing,” he says. “There is no factory you could potentially devise that would come with that much processing.”

But traditional cheesemakers see the companies making vegan products as simply operating in another business entirely.

“These are engineered products. And they’re part of a financialized food system that’s fueled by venture capital and disconnected from nature,” says Mateo Kehler, co-owner of the family-run Jasper Hill Farm in Vermont. Kehler’s cheese has previously won Good Food awards, and his bark-wrapped, bloomy-rind Harbison cheese is a finalist this year. “You have these technological products, but they rely on adjacency to the value proposition that we have created — through labor and through creating products that are truly connected to a landscape, to a farming system, and to our collective human history.”

“One could make the argument that this is like a fraudulent cheese,” Kehler said. “As a cheesemaker, it’s a fraud. It looks like a cheese. It might taste like a cheese. But it’s not. It’s not connected to our historical understanding of what cheeses are.”

Kehler appreciates that consumers might want to buy foods that take less of a toll on the environment. But, he says, his farm and ones like it have a much smaller environmental footprint than many of the crops, such as almonds, that are used to create many vegan products. “The people are compelling,” he says of the vegan cheese companies. “The foundational principles and the big ideas are really compelling — like the idea of fully disrupting industrial agriculture. But that’s not what’s happening.”

From a taste perspective, Zahn understands the bad rap that vegan cheese has gotten, or at least what he describes as the “first generation” of the products that rely on artificial flavorings, gums, starches and oils with results that are often bouncy and gummy. But the category is evolving, with companies making high-end products that more closely mimic the real thing, often using culturing and aging processes similar to the traditional methods. Vegan cheese shops have opened from Los Angeles to Atlanta. Big food companies are delving in.

For the Good Food awards, a panel of judges taste entrants without knowing their brands. In the cheese category, judges may learn whether the samples are from cow or goat’s milk — or in the case of Climax, from plants. Weiner indicated that the judges were aware that they were trying a vegan entrant. “Very impressive for being vegan but obviously plant-based,” was one judge’s written comment, she relayed.

“The fact that they selected us to make it this far is exciting, and a testament to the fact that we don’t need cows,” Zahn says.

Janet Fletcher, the newsletter author who has been following the controversy, says it has stoked an unusual level of drama in a typically collegial industry. “For some farmers, it feels almost like an insult to say that their product could be compared to something created in the lab,” she says.

The Good Food awards matter, she says. They might not be something the average consumer is aware of, but retailers often look for the imprimatur when seeking out high-quality, ethically sourced goods.

The incident also brings up the question of semantics. Can you call something “cheese” that has nothing to do with animals? We’ve been here with milk: When alternatives, starting with soy, began making inroads, the dairy industry pushed back. They ultimately lost, with the Food and Drug Administration releasing guidelines allowing plant-based products to be labeled and marketed as milk, but the battle has continued: Last year, the Milk Processor Education Program brought back its iconic milk-mustache motif in a faux advertisement in which actress Aubrey Plaza plays the CEO of a company that makes an unappealing “wood milk,” a clear jab at the alt-milk industry.

Miquela Hanselman, director of regulatory affairs for the National Milk Producers Federation, says vegan products don’t meet the federally prescribed standards of identity for cheese, either. “Our stance is basically the same — if you’re going to use the word cheese on your package, and you’re not going to qualify it with ‘substitute’ or ‘alternative’ that is pretty boldly out there and explain the differences, then it shouldn’t be on the label.”

Marjorie Mulhall, senior director of policy for the Plant Based Food Association, says labeling is just a matter of making things easier for shoppers. “Using cheese terminology helps consumers locate plant-based foods to meet their needs,” she said in an email.

Zahn insists he isn’t hung up on terminology, and would defer to consumers on the matter. And while he says he doesn’t want to offend traditional cheesemakers and instead hopes they can coexist, he challenges his skeptics to have an open mind. “Maybe there is a fear about us infringing or replacing them, but I don’t see it that way — I just want us all to work together towards the better,” he says. “The other thing I would tell them is to taste it themselves. Do they like it?”

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete

Extensive Desert 'Lava Tubes' Sheltered Humans for 7,000 Years, Archaeologists Find | Smart News| Smithsonian Magazine

1 Share

Each year, researchers, tourists and hikers from around the world visit the Umm Jirsan lava tube system in Saudi Arabia, looking to explore the sprawling network of underground tunnels formed by lava flow millions of years ago. The geological wonder—with passageways covering some 5,000 feet—is located in Harrat Khaybar, one of the country’s largest volcanic fields that last saw an eruption during the 7th century C.E.

Now, a new study suggests prehistoric humans and their livestock periodically lived inside these naturally hollowed-out structures for 7,000 years during the Neolithic Age and the Bronze Age.

From previous research, archaeologists knew ancient humans were present in northern Saudi Arabia. However, the region’s hot, windy and arid conditions have led organic remains to deteriorate over time, leaving lots unknown about these early inhabitants, Vishwam Sankaran reports for the Independent.

But in the cooler, sheltered underground tunnels, prehistoric remains have been better preserved. In the new paper, published last week in the journal PLOS ONE, archaeologists reveal a range of discoveries in Umm Jirsan indicating repeated phases of human occupation of the lava tubes between 3,500 and 10,000 years ago.

“This is really the first clear evidence of people occupying these caves,” lead author Mathew Stewart, a research fellow at Griffith University’s Australian Research Center for Human Evolution (ARCHE), tells the New York Times’ Robin George Andrews.

In the lava tubes, archaeologists discovered human bones, animal remains and stone tools. They also found rock art featuring cattle, sheep, goats and dogs, which aligns with ideas that prehistoric people of the region kept livestock.

“This site likely served as a crucial waypoint along pastoral routes, linking key oases and facilitating cultural exchange and trade,” Stewart says in a statement.

Isotopic analysis of the remains revealed the animals primarily grazed on wild grasses and shrubs, while humans ate a protein-rich diet that centered more foods like dates, figs and wheat over time.

These findings suggest the lava tubes’ early inhabitants engaged in oasis agriculture: farming practices used on fertile lands in otherwise arid regions.

Stewart was also the lead author of a 2021 study published in the journal Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, which detailed evidence of striped hyenas stockpiling hundreds of thousands of bones belonging to at least 14 species—including humans—in the back of Umm Jirsan over the past 7,000 years.

Archaeologists have investigated the tunnel system since 2007. However, only a small portion has been examined, as researchers first ventured into the cavern’s depths in 2021, as Smithsonian magazine’s Isis Davis-Marks wrote at the time.

ARCHE led the new study in close partnership with international researchers and organizations, including the Saudi Heritage Commission, the Saudi Ministry of Culture and the Saudi Geological Survey. The research “represents the first comprehensive study of its kind in Saudi Arabia,” Michael Petraglia, the director of ARCHE and a co-author of the study, says in the statement.

Thousands of volcanic caves like Umm Jirsan exist across Saudi Arabia, and Stewart tells the New York Times the systems “hold huge promise” for understanding ancient humans’ movements and practices.

“As a scientist who works primarily in caves, I am excited that we have another type of cave system being used by past human populations,” Mike Morley, a geoarchaeologist at Flinders University in Australia who was not involved with the study, tells New Scientist’s James Woodford. “These finds represent a treasure trove of archaeological information for Arabia, a massive region that has only recently been investigated systematically for prehistoric archaeology.”

Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete

Mastodon forms new U.S. non-profit - Mastodon Blog

1 Share
Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete

The only thing university administrators had to do was NOTHING.

1 Share

I am not on campus this semester. I’m on sabbatical, sitting in coffeehouses, writing blog posts and a book.

But if I were on campus this semester, yesterday I would have seen the quad across the street filled with tents yesterday. And then I would have seen the police arrive, to break up the encampment. Not the campus cops either — the real ones.

Those are my students occupying the tents. I don’t mean that figuratively. Among the students who organized the protest action on campus yesterday are almost certainly people who have taken my strategic political communication class. They’ve shown up to my office hours. They did the reading. (FWIW, several of them are jewish.)

One book that I have my students read every semester is E.E. Schattschneider’s 1960 classic, The Semi-Sovereign People. The book is a tight 180 pages. It weighs only 7.1 ounces. I mention its weight because, if I were on any college campus right now, I would be mighty tempted to smack a few administrators in the face with it. Doing so would leave an impression without leaving a mark.

Schattschneider tells us that contentious politics can be best understand through a lens of conflict expansion. Those in power will (and, strategically, should) try to maintain and contain the scope of a conflict. Those arrayed against them will (and should) attempt to expand the scope of the conflict. If you want to understand an episode of contentious politics, don’t evaluate the substance of the arguments as though you are judging an intercollegiate debate. Instead, watch the crowd.

I don’t personally know Columbia University’s President, Minouche Shafik. But I am pretty confident that, unlike my students, she has not read her Schattschneider.

If you had asked me on April 17th what I thought of the Columbia University encampment, I would’ve shrugged my shoulders before apologetically explaining why it didn’t seem like an especially powerful tactic. Around 100 Columbia University students had set up a tent city on the campus quad. They were standing in solidarity with the residents of Gaza, while making demands of the campus administration.

This is a radical tactic, but it is not a novel tactic. It breaks campus rules while demonstrating commitment and solidarity among the participants. But it is also a radical tactic that is relatively easy to defuse or ignore. There is less than month until finals and the end of the semester. The students aren’t preventing the university from operating. They are making some noise and making a scene. Once the semester ends, the campus shuts down, as does the encampment.

The way that administrators normally respond to a tactic like this is to just wait it out. Have campus security keep an eye on them to make sure things don’t get out of hand. Make vague statements to the campus paper. Schedule some meetings. Maybe declare that you’ll form a committee to look into things further.

Traditionally, the weakness of this tactic is that it does little to expand the conflict. Students are outraged. They have demands. But they don’t have numbers or time on their side. Even when the majority of their peers agree with them, so long as the administration slow-walks the response, it will remain a conflict between the most-committed student activists and a slow-moving bureaucracy.

All the administration has to do is nothing. University administrators are great at doing nothing.

But that’s not how it looked to President Shafik. Because she wasn’t responding to the students.

She was responding to the former Presidents of Harvard and Penn.

Here’s the basic timeline of events.

  • Five months ago, the Presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT testified before a House committee. This was a trap. It was not subtle. Everyone knew it was a trap.

  • Instead of prepping for the testimony by talking to a comms professional, they prepped by talking to a lawyer. (Don’t do that. Don’t treat televised spectacle like a deposition. It will go badly for you in all the very predictable ways.)

  • Having screwed that up, outraged conservative alumni were able to force Penn’s President to resign. That was a win for them. They tried to force Harvard’s President to resign. That didn’t work, so they ginned up some more faux scandals until they got their way. Double-win.

  • Fast-forward to this month. Columbia’s President is asked to testify before the House committee as well.

  • She decides to do the opposite of those other Ivy League Presidents. That, apparently, is her entire comms strategy. Just agree with everything the hostile Republicans say, and hope they applaud you at the end.

  • But they aren’t asking these questions in good faith. They are strategic actors, pursuing another win. (Again, this isn’t exactly subtle.)

  • Having given them every answer they asked for, she then went back to campus and clamped down on the protest, in order to prove that she really totally meant it, guuuuuuys.

  • They’re calling for her resignation anyway, and turning Columbia into a prop. Of course they are. That’s what they were planning to do anyway. You only win against these Congressional Republicans by refusing to play their game.

  • But in the meantime, she called in the NYPD to clear the encampment. And she tried to shut down the campus radio station. And she barred journalists (IN NEW YORK!) from covering the Columbia protests (DESPITE COLUMBIA JOURNALISM SCHOOL BEING THE PLACE THAT AWARDS THE PULITZERS).

  • And, oh yeah, now that the conflict has expanded, a bunch of protestors unaffiliated with the university, some of whom are rabid antisemites, are showing up and shouting things at students in front of cameras as well. Not great, because this part can potentially escalate in directions that pose an actual safety risk to students. (Unlike the encampment, which wasn’t a risk to anyone. And which you could’ve just ignored if you weren’t shadowboxing the phantom figures of other universities’ former presidents.)

  • So now you’ve launched the biggest crackdown on campus speech since the 1960s. The conflict has now expanded. Every college campus is now going to feature an encampment. And that encampment is both a show of solidarity with people in Gaza and a show of solidarity with students at Columbia. (And Emory. And UT Austin. And probably a dozen other places.)

All you had to do was ignore the fuckin’ encampment for a month. Maybe make a bland statement. Have campus security issue a citation or two. Declare that a committee is going to look into things.

Saul Alinsky writes that “the action is in the reaction.” The campus encampments don’t work if you don’t react to them. And not reacting to student speech on campus is usually one of the things that university administrators do best.

Instead, here we are. Snipers on the roofs of major universities. Encampments springing up everywhere. Actual cops arresting students and faculty. Enough of a spotlight that every university administration is worried that shit might go sideways. Republican politicians gleefully egging it on, crowing about “chaos on campus.” (Because the more this moment resembles 1968 on tv, the better.)

The conflict has expanded. Colleges are passing draconian measures to clamp down on campus protest. Students are responding to those actions, and responding to the police violence. The action is in the OVER-reaction. The semester will end soon, but it now seems more likely that it will form an ellipses instead of an ending.

I’m worried for my students. They are smart and they are brave and they are outraged. They are facing batons and tear gas. This escalation did not have to happen. This escalation will not end well.

I blame Republican legislators. But I also expected them to behave this way. Tom Cotton is exactly how we thought he was. Elise Stefanik’s outrage is scripted, typecast. They have not been subtle about their views or intentions.

I did expect more from University administrators — Shafik especially. All she had to do was act like an average university administrator. Make noncommittal promises, and wait.

Now this is spiraling. And I sit here in this coffeehouse, tapping away at the keyboard. Hoping my students are safe. Hoping I taught them well enough. Wishing that the people who run universities would learn anything at all.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete

The Tech Baron Seeking to “Ethnically Cleanse” San Francisco | The New Republic

1 Comment

To fully grasp the current situation in San Francisco, where venture capitalists are trying to take control of City Hall, you must listen to Balaji Srinivasan. Before you do, steel yourself for what’s to come: A normal person could easily mistake his rambling train wrecks of thought for a crackpot’s ravings, but influential Silicon Valley billionaires regard him as a genius.

“Balaji has the highest rate of output per minute of good new ideas of anybody I’ve ever met,” wrote Marc Andreessen, co-founder of the V.C. firm Andreessen-Horowitz, in a blurb for Balaji’s 2022 book, The Network State: How to Start a New Country. The book outlines a plan for tech plutocrats to exit democracy and establish new sovereign territories. I mentioned Balaji’s ideas in two previous stories about Network State–related efforts in California—a proposed tech colony called California Forever and the tech-funded campaign to capture San Francisco’s government.

Balaji, a 43-year-old Long Island native who goes by his first name, has a solid Valley pedigree: He earned multiple degrees from Stanford University, founded multiple startups, became a partner at Andreessen-Horowitz and then served as chief technology officer at Coinbase. He is also the leader of a cultish and increasingly strident neo-reactionary tech political movement that sees American democracy as an enemy. In 2013, a New York Times story headlined “Silicon Valley Roused by Secession Call” described a speech in which he “told a group of young entrepreneurs that the United States had become ‘the Microsoft of nations’: outdated and obsolescent.”

“The speech won roars from the audience at Y Combinator, a leading start-up incubator,” reported the Times. Balaji paints a bleak picture of a dystopian future in a U.S. in chaos and decline, but his prophecies sometimes fall short. Last year, he lost $1 million in a public bet after wrongly predicting a massive surge in the price of Bitcoin.

Still, his appetite for autocracy is bottomless. Last October, Balaji hosted the first-ever Network State Conference. Garry Tanthe current Y Combinator CEO who’s attempting to spearhead a political takeover of San Franciscoparticipated in an interview with Balaji and cast the effort as part of the Network State movement. Tan, who made headlines in January after tweeting “die slow motherfuckers” at local progressive politicians, frames his campaign as an experiment in “moderate” politics. But in a podcast interview one month before the conference, Balaji laid out a more disturbing and extreme vision.

“What I’m really calling for is something like tech Zionism,” he said, after comparing his movement to those started by the biblical Abraham, Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism), Theodor Herzl (“spiritual father” of the state of Israel), and Lee Kuan Yew (former authoritarian ruler of Singapore). Balaji then revealed his shocking ideas for a tech-governed city where citizens loyal to tech companies would form a new political tribe clad in gray t-shirts. “And if you see another Gray on the street … you do the nod,” he said, during a four-hour talk on the Moment of Zen podcast. “You’re a fellow Gray.”

The Grays’ shirts would feature “Bitcoin or Elon or other kinds of logos … Y Combinator is a good one for the city of San Francisco in particular.” Grays would also receive special ID cards providing access to exclusive, Gray-controlled sectors of the city. In addition, the Grays would make an alliance with the police department, funding weekly “policeman’s banquets” to win them over.

“Grays should embrace the police, okay? All-in on the police,” said Srinivasan. “What does that mean? That’s, as I said, banquets. That means every policeman’s son, daughter, wife, cousin, you know, sibling, whatever, should get a job at a tech company in security.”

In exchange for extra food and jobs, cops would pledge loyalty to the Grays. Srinivasan recommends asking officers a series of questions to ascertain their political leanings. For example: “Did you want to take the sign off of Elon’s building?”

This refers to the August 2023 incident in which Elon Musk illegally installed a large flashing X logo atop Twitter headquarters, in violation of building safety codes. City inspectors forced him to remove it. This was the second time Musk had run afoul of the city in his desire to refurbish his headquarters: In July, police briefly halted his attempt to pry the “Twitter” signage from the building’s exterior. But in Balaji’s dystopia, he implies that officers loyal to the Grays would let Musk do as he pleases (democratically inclined officers, he suggests, can be paid to retire).

Simply put, there is a ton of fascist-chic cosplay involved. Once an officer joins the Grays, they get a special uniform designed by their tech overlords. The Grays will also donate heavily to police charities and “merge the Gray and police social networks.” Then, in a show of force, they’ll march through the city together.

“A huge win would be a Gray Pride parade with 50,000 Grays,” said Srinivasan. “That would start to say: ‘Whose streets? Our streets!’ You have the A.I. Flying Spaghetti Monster. You have the Bitcoin parade. You have the drones flying overhead in formation.... You have bubbling genetic experiments on beakers.… You have the police at the Gray Pride parade. They’re flying the Anduril drones …”

Everyone would be welcome at the Gray Pride marcheveryone, that is, except the Blues. Srinivasan defines the Blue political tribe as the liberal voters he implies are responsible for the city’s problems. Blues will be banned from the Gray-controlled zones, said Balaji, unlike Republicans (“Reds”).

“Reds should be welcomed there, and people should wear their tribal colors,” said Srinivasan, who compared his color-coded apartheid system to the Bloods vs. Crips gang rivalry. “No Blues should be welcomed there.”

While the Blues would be excluded, they would not be forgotten. Srinivasan imagines public screenings of anti-Blue propaganda films: “In addition to celebrating Gray and celebrating Red, you should have movies shown about Blue abuses.… There should be lots of stories about what Blues are doing that is bad.”

Balaji goes on—and on. The Grays will rename city streets after tech figures and erect public monuments to memorialize the alleged horrors of progressive Democratic governance. Corporate logos and signs will fill the skyline to signify Gray dominance of the city. “Ethnically cleanse,” he said at one point, summing up his idea for a city purged of Blues (this, he says, will prevent Blues from ethnically cleansing the Grays first). The idea, he said, is to do to San Francisco what Musk did to Twitter.

“Elon, in sort of classic Gray fashion ... captures Twitter and then, at one stroke, wipes out millions of Blues’ status by wiping out the Blue Checks,” he said. “Another stroke … [he] renames Twitter as X, showing that he has true control, and it’s his vehicle, and that the old regime isn’t going to be restored.”

Those who try to downplay Balaji’s importance in Silicon Valley often portray him as a “clown.” But Donald Trump taught us that clowns can be dangerous, especially those with proximity to influence and power. In the nearly 11 years since his secession speech at Y Combinator, Balaji’s politics have become even more stridently authoritarian and extremist, yet he remains a celebrated figure in key circles. 

He has one million followers on X-Twitter, where Musk regularly boosts him. Tim Ferriss and Lex Fridman, two influential podcasters, have interviewed him. “Balaji is a friend of mine and is neither a dumbshit nor a clown,” tweeted economics blogger Noah Smith last June, defending Balaji from critics. Alex Lieberman, co-founder of the Morning Brew newsletter, recently listed Balaji at the top of what appears to be his ranked wish list of guests for an upcoming How to Start a Startup podcast (Musk and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg ranked sixth and fourteenth, respectively). Last week, he headlined Token2049, a sold-out conference in Dubai that bills itself as the “premier crypto event.”

Even more disturbing, however, is Balaji’s tight connection with Tan, the Y Combinator CEO who has publicly aligned himself with the Network State for years. “I legit believe [Y Combinator] is a prototype model for what @balajis talks about when he says the Network State,” wrote Tan in August 2022, shortly before he was named CEO. Over the past two years, as Musk has transformed Twitter into a right-wing information weapon, Tan has used the platform, along with his bully pulpit at Y Combinator, to wage all-out war for political control of San Francisco. This fits with Balaji’s recommendation that, as an alternative to forming new cities, tech zillionaires can use elections to seize existing governments.

Increasingly, Tan has also pursued another key Network State goal: attacking journalists. Balaji portrays the press, especially The New York Times, as the chief enemy of the Network State ideology.  He accuses the venerable paper of upholding something called “Woke Capital.”

“Woke Capital is the ideology of America’s ruling class as explicated by America’s ruling newspaper, The New York Times,” writes Balaji in his book. “It’s capitalism that enables decentralized censorship, cancel culture, and American empire.” Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger, whom Balaji characterizes as a “rich white male nepotist,” especially irks him. “What if Sulzberger is more like Keyser Söze?” writes Balaji, comparing Sulzberger to the mysterious criminal mastermind in 1995’s The Usual Suspects. “What if his employees are highly self-interested professional prevaricators? What if they’ve always been like that?”

“So long as you aren’t running a corporation based on hereditary nepotism where the current guy running the show inherits the company from his father’s father’s father’s father, you’re more diverse and democratic than the owners of The New York Times Company. You don’t need to take lectures from them, from anyone in their employ, or really from anyone in their social circle—which includes all establishment journalists.”

The solution, he says, is to create rival media outlets“parallel” forms of journalism controlled by tech plutocrats. Both he and Tan point to Musk’s transformation of Twitter as a perfect example of parallel media: a propaganda machine that smears real journalism as “fake” while aggressively promoting disinformation.

Over the past year, Tan has ramped up his attacks on reporters at The San Francisco Chronicle, The San Francisco Standard, and Mission Local. “If you want to understand why we got here, you have to understand three things,” Tan wrote in an anti-media Twitter screed last year. “1/The local political machine and the local media (Chronicle, Mission Local) are complicit in keeping it this way, supporting the worst, most corrupt candidates and repeating their propaganda.”

“Nobody likes this article,” he tweeted at the Standard, owned by billionaire Michael Moritz, after the site published a feature about a progressive leader last year. “Fix your headline,” he commanded in a tweet after it published a story about a Cruise robotaxi hitting a pedestrian in October.

“Mission Local besmirches the city with unbalanced coverage that only emboldens Preston, Peskin, Chan,” he wrote in November, name-checking three of the elected officials upon whom he would later wish a “slow death.”

Amid his drunken tweet scandal, Tan paused such attacks. He hired a public relations consultant, apologized, and ceased sending out caustic tweetstemporarily. Then, on March 29, the Times published a favorable profile of him. Written by former Chronicle columnist Heather Knight, it characterized him as a “middle-of-the-road” Democrat agitating for “common sense” ideas. Tan came across as contrite and humble, a civic-minded centimillionaire who let his passion for political change get the best of him. “Mr. Tan has tried to learn from his online messor says he has,” wrote Knight. “In person, he speaks kindly and calmly and smiles often, frequently bowing to people while making a prayer gesture with his hands.” 

Progressives groaned at what they saw as a conspicuous whitewashing of Tan’s behavior. Tan proudly shared the piece on social media. He has nevertheless returned to his old antics. “SF legacy media is dishonest and lies to you,” he wrote to his 428,000 followers on April 1.

What’s stunning, however, is the degree to which coverage of Tan has been quite evenhanded and fair, if not positive. The press has unquestioningly accepted the framing that he represents moderate or “common sense” politics. Not one local story has mentioned his long affiliation with Balaji or the Network State cult that is currently trying to create tech-controlled cities around the globe, and which maintains a fascination with an alt-right, neofascist movement known as the “Dark Enlightenment.” (In 2021, Cade Metz of the Times wrote that Balaji had suggested targeting journalists who mention these connections. “If things get hot, it may be interesting to sic the Dark Enlightenment audience on a single vulnerable hostile reporter to dox them and turn them inside out with hostile reporting sent to *their* advertisers/friends/contacts,” wrote Balaji in an email viewed by the Times.) In a twisted way, these omissions almost lend credence to claims that mainstream press outlets don’t tell us what’s really going on.

In the aftermath of Tan’s death threat tweets, both the Chronicle and the Standard hesitated for at least a day before publishing full stories. For a moment, it seemed unclear whether they would cover it at all. Yet despite the local media’s generally fair approach and the puffy Times glow-up, Tan continues to rage against the press. Nothing less than absolute control and fealty seems acceptable to the Network State types.

“Do not hire PR,” tweeted Balaji on April 4, days after Tan’s P.R.-wrangled Times profile. “They want to ‘train’ you to talk to journos. But journos hate you! So this is an obsolete model. Instead, just hire influencers. Build your own channel. And go direct.”

Tan boosted the message to his feed.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
acdha
1 hour ago
reply
“Those who try to downplay Balaji’s importance in Silicon Valley often portray him as a “clown.” But Donald Trump taught us that clowns can be dangerous, especially those with proximity to influence and power. In the nearly 11 years since his secession speech at Y Combinator, Balaji’s politics have become even more stridently authoritarian and extremist, yet he remains a celebrated figure in key circles.”
Washington, DC

Inside the Brutal Business Practices of Amazon—And How It Became “Too Toxic to Touch”

1 Comment and 2 Shares

In May of 2020, seven members of the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee penned a letter to then CEO of Amazon Jeff Bezos. “On April 23,” their message began, The Wall Street Journal “reported that Amazon employees used sensitive business information from third-party sellers on its platform to develop competing products.” The article contradicted previous sworn testimony from the company’s general counsel, possibly rendering the testimony “false or perjurious,” the seven congressional leaders wrote.

The Journal’s exposé, which ultimately spurred Bezos’s first-ever congressional testimony, was written by Dana Mattioli as part of the paper’s wide-ranging investigation into Amazon’s business practices. At the time, Mattioli, a longtime business reporter, had recently moved into the Amazon beat, her interest piqued by the corporation’s tentacular infiltration of nearly every aspect of American economic life. Now, four years later, she’s out with The Everything War, a new book-length examination of Amazon that explores everything from its rise to power to its lobbying efforts and the brewing backlash against it.

Hive

Where Wall Street, Washington, and Silicon Valley meet.

In this interview with Vanity Fair, edited for length and clarity, Mattioli and I spoke about the challenges of reporting on an infamously secretive and combative company, Amazon’s forays into political-influence peddling, its new foe in the Biden administration, and which candidate she thinks Amazon execs want to see back in the White House come January 2025.

Vanity Fair: What first got you interested in covering Amazon?

Dana Mattioli: I was The Wall Street Journal’s mergers-and-acquisitions reporter for six years, and in that role, my job was to cover which companies are buying other companies across industries globally. Something fascinating happened during my tenure in that role. It wasn’t just retail companies that were nervous about Amazon. I’d speak to the bankers, the lawyers, the CEOs, the board members at different companies, and they started talking about how they were worried about Amazon invading their industry. Over the course of those six years, those questions got louder. It started bleeding into other sectors where you wouldn’t even really think about Amazon at the time. The company seemed to stretch into every vertical and its tentacles kept spreading. It occurred to me that this was the most interesting company, but also one of the most secretive companies in business history. That to me seemed like such a fun challenge to dig in and see what was going on behind the scenes.

What are the sorts of challenges reporters covering the company face?

I would say that, as it relates to me, they didn’t provide access, but that doesn't mean I didn’t get access. I spoke to 17 S-team members—the most senior people at the company—for this book, without the company knowing. I spoke to hundreds of people in and around the company. I had hundreds of pages of internal documents. They didn’t really cooperate for the book in setting up interviews, and I understand why. Some of my investigations at the Journal had been very hard-hitting. One of them was the basis for Jeff Bezos’s being called to testify to Congress for the first time in his career. So they didn't participate on an official basis, but I of course did a full fact-check. Out of fairness, I incorporate their PR statements and rebuttals very generously throughout. But it is an interesting company from a PR standpoint. There was an investigation from Mother Jones about the company bullying reporters, how they have lied to reporters in the past, and how that makes things difficult for reporters trying to cover the company. And that investigation questions whether that’s a tactic to get people to back off and not even want to cover them in the first place.

$2.50 $1 per month for 1 year + a free tote.

$2.50 $1 per month for 1 year + a free tote.

Subscribe Now

What do you think it is about Amazon’s internal culture that made so many employees willing to talk to you?

Amazon is the most interesting company culture and the most aggressive one I’ve ever covered. It’s a giant company. More than a million people work there. The turnover and the burnout is much higher than at most other companies. People tend not to last, because it’s very aggressive and it can be bruising. As a result of that, a lot of people have come to me—both people still there and people that have left—to tell me their experiences.

When I delve into what goes on behind the scenes and the anticompetitive business behaviors that make Amazon win so often, a lot of it is the product of this culture. A lot of the shocking behaviors are because of this company’s culture. If you’re auditioning for your job every day, and you’re auditioning against every other brilliant employee there, and you know that at the end of the year, 6% of you are going to get cut no matter what, and at the same time, you have access to unrivaled data on partners, sellers, and competitors, you might be tempted to look at that data to get an edge and keep your job and get to your restricted stock units. If you’re at [Amazon] and you’re meeting with [outside companies] on the dealmaking side or the Alexa venture capital side, you might be tempted to not forget what you learned in those meetings and use it on a product to have a home run.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
acdha
1 day ago
reply
“When I delve into what goes on behind the scenes and the anticompetitive business behaviors that make Amazon win so often, a lot of it is the product of this culture. A lot of the shocking behaviors are because of this company’s culture. If you’re auditioning for your job every day, and you’re auditioning against every other brilliant employee there, and you know that at the end of the year, 6% of you are going to get cut no matter what, and at the same time, you have access to unrivaled data on partners, sellers, and competitors, you might be tempted to look at that data to get an edge and keep your job and get to your restricted stock units. If you’re at [Amazon] and you’re meeting with [outside companies] on the dealmaking side or the Alexa venture capital side, you might be tempted to not forget what you learned in those meetings and use it on a product to have a home run.”
Washington, DC
Next Page of Stories