TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    News

    Flux Podcasts (Formerly Theory of Change)

    Flux is a progressive podcast platform, with daily content from shows like Theory of Change, The Electorette, and Embrace The Void.

    Advertise

    Copyright: © All rights reserved

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    The far-right origins of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency Jan 28, 2023
    Show notes

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit plus.flux.communityEpisode Summary“The personal is political” was one of the early rallying cries of the Second Wave feminist movement. Decades later, the universal adoption of the internet has led to a new culture around cryptocurrencies with an ethos that could be summarized via similar phrasing: “The personal financial is political.”After decades of languishing in rightful obscurity, extreme forms of anti-government libertarianism have seen a massive influx of converts by melding crank views about the Federal Reserve and fiat currency with a desire to get rich quick through buying and selling made-up digital tokens like Bitcoin, Ethereum, even joke ones like Dogecoin.Most people don’t understand how cryptocurrencies work as a technical matter. But they also don’t understand the politics behind cryptocurrencies either. That’s a serious problem because underneath all the hype is a radical anti-government ideology that seeks not just to overthrow government currency but even democracy itself.For this discussion, we’re featuring David Golombia, the author of the book, “The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right Wing Extremism.” He’s also a professor of English at Virginia Commonwealth University.The lightly edited video of our conversation is below. The transcript of the edited audio follows. Please note that you must be an active Flux subscriber to access the entirety of this discussion. Thank you so much for your support. Please subscribe today for as little as $3 per month.TranscriptMATTHEW SHEFFIELD: Welcome to Theory of Change, David.DAVID GOLUMBIA: Thanks very much for having me.SHEFFIELD: All right. Well, as I mentioned in the intro, I think a lot of people know cryptocurrencies exist. They know that Bitcoin exists. They don’t really understand how it works.So why don’t you, before we get started into more of the discussion here, just give us an overview of when did cryptocurrencies get started, and how do they work?GOLUMBIA: Sure. Well, the history here is kind of complicated for a lot of different reasons, which we might be able to get into.One of the most important historical strands for understanding them is the operations of a group of people who we should talk more about variously called the “cypherpunks” or the crypto anarchists, who since the late 1980s had seen a number of digital technologies as being tools with which they could attack what they call the state, but which I prefer to call democracy.And it’s pretty clear that to them, these two things are identical. What they hate is democracy, and they are doing whatever they can to destabilize democracy. One of the things that these people saw from the very beginning was– in their own view, which is a conspiracy theory type view– that because in their view the state controls money, and we can talk about what that means exactly, but they thought, oh, well, we should have our own form of money that the state won’t be able to control.And since the early 1990s, these cypherpunks have been trying to develop alternative currencies that would sit outside of the quote unquote state financial system.What they mean by that is always very unclear, especially as we get into practice. But during the 1990s and early 2000s, they iterated several versions of a currency that could somehow sit outside the regular financial system. And Bitcoin was probably, it was probably the 20 or 25th version they came up with in practice.Several of the earlier versions were taken down by law enforcement because one of the ideal functions of cryptocurrency is to purchase services and products that are illegal otherwise.SHEFFIELD: So the idea though of crypto, what the crypto in cryptocurrency, what does that mean?GOLUMBIA: Well, it’s funny. It comes out of the fact that these cypherpunks, the thing they are obsessed with is encryption. And encryption technology brought– I mean, encryption isn’t even a technology, it’s just a method, it’s the thing that spies use to communicate with each other. It’s any form of obscuring a message using some kind of regular technique that then the person who is supposed to get the message can und decipher, can decipher for themselves, right?So any kind of code into which something can be encoded and then later can be decoded as a form of encryption, the cypherpunks realized early on that.Machine encryption, machine enabled encryption could potentially make messages very difficult for somebody to intercept and decode on their own. Because in the real world of encryption, there are three parties. Right? There is the person who writes the message and encodes it, and the person who is supposed to receive the message and has the authorized.The proper tools for decoding. And then there are the people who are watching in the middle, the third party, who might be able to use a variety of other techniques in order to see the transaction or the message that they aren’t supposed to see. That’s famously what Alan Turing became well known for, is that he developed a computational tool, a bomb, that helped to decode encrypted German messages during World War II.The cypherpunks are really paranoid, and so one of the things they think is that government is trying to watch everything we do, which is not untrue, taken in on its face. And so they were kind of, and still are, convinced that if they could encrypt every message with very strong encryption, they could prevent government from seeing what they’re doing.So part of their goal was to have a financial tool that was heavily encrypted, and that couldn’t be viewed by government. Now, the truth is that Bitcoin, we didn’t really get to Bitcoin, but Bitcoin doesn’t really use encryption in that particular way. It does use some of the techniques involved in the kinds of encryption that they use.One of the places this is most visible is that each user who uses Bitcoin has what is called a wallet. And a wallet is really just a software file. And the software file has an address or a label that you can point at. And if you see one of these addresses or labels, it’s a long string of meaningless characters and alphabetic, numeric, and even special characters, the same kind we use nowadays for strong passwords.And the technique to come up with those addresses uses some of these encryption techniques. But in fact, As I’m sure right. These libertarian-fueled ideologies are always deeply incoherent. And so Bitcoin, maybe I should just explain a minute, like how Bitcoin itself works. What they thought was this great solution.SHEFFIELD: So for crypto, it can mean both the idea of encoding messages, but it also can be used in the idea of hiding identity. Sure. And so in this case, that’s probably more what we’re talking about here, is that, so in other words, when you have, when you hold a cryptocurrency, it’s not linked, generally speaking, not linked to your identity. People don’t know who it is that actually they’re transacting with necessarily, unless they find out through some other means.GOLUMBIA: That’s right. The Bitcoin network is just made up of these wallet addresses which don’t– you can’t actually encode decode them. They don’t mean anything. They’re just arbitrary strings of characters.SHEFFIELD: They’re random. Yeah.GOLUMBIA: They’re random. You can however, use other methods to figure out who is using those wallets and then whether or not they are, it becomes actually quite possible to figure out who is translated.SHEFFIELD: Sure.GOLUMBIA: With the Bitcoin network. Which is one of the sort of ironies, because it certainly was the case that they wanted to make a network that was impenetrable to law enforcement and financial oversight. But in fact, they made something that is incredibly easy to view and that in fact, whose entire history, all the transactions on the blockchain are public.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. So you mentioned blockchain, so let’s discuss that one.GOLUMBIA: So let’s just talk about blockchain. What the thing that Satoshi Nakamoto, which is a pseudonym that was used by one or more people around 2008 to write a paper about proposing this network that used several different software techniques that people had already understood for a long time.And what he came up with was the idea that you would distribute a piece of software that anybody could download onto their computer. And when you run this software, what it does is it does two things really. One is that it takes in all the transactions on this network and it puts them on your computer.And then as new transactions are made on the network, it does some complicated math to validate those transactions. And every computer that downloads the software and runs it is participating in. Essentially the same kind of thing that a bank or a broker or any other financial entity has to do, which is to validate the transactions rather than having one entity or a limited number of entities doing that validation.In the case of Bitcoin and the blockchain technology that Satoshi came up with the innovative idea is that this is done by everyone. Everyone who chooses to participate in this network is also simultaneously participating in the validation of transactions on this network that is sometimes referred to as a distributed ledger, where a ledger is like the thing that any organization has to use to keep track of its finances and distributed means it’s on lots of different computers. That and that–SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And just to clarify for people, the ledger meaning all Bitcoin transactions from the beginning of the release.GOLUMBIA: From the beginning.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. So the entirety of it all is all out there. And in order to participate in these transaction validations, which they kind of erroneously or misleadingly term “mining,” you have to have a computer now at this point that has to be immensely powerful. And uses this process, uses a huge amount of energy, such that it’s actually becoming a serious problem in many localities who feel they don’t have the electrical power to enable large numbers of computers to participate in it.GOLUMBIA: Or they may have incentivized power to be provided to people with low incomes. And then the Bitcoin people may come in and try to take advantage of this and buy cheap power that was not intended for rapacious capitalists, but was intended for very poor people. But to go back to something you just said, that is really fascinating is that when the Bitcoin white paper came out, what excited people so much was that everybody could download this software onto their computer.And in fact, what I didn’t say is that the process of validating the transactions creates the possibility of a Bitcoin being issued to one of the computers that successfully validates the transaction. And that’s how Bitcoin is created by all these computers running. And every once in a while, a Bitcoin gets spit out to one of the ones that does the transactions correctly or successfully.And at the beginning, anybody could download the software and run it. I ran it for a little while. You could run it on any cheap computer, and not only could you run it, but in the early days, you could get a hundred Bitcoin by running the software on a cheap computer for a few weeks.Of course it wasn’t worth anything at the time. And it’s also important to say, I don’t think Satoshi Nakamoto thought about how these tokens would be valued in the real world. He just thought of issuing them. I can send out lots of tokens and or people will start to generate these tokens and they’ll accumulate a lot of them and they can use them to buy drugs and other things that are illegal.But he didn’t really think about the valuation of, again, this is sort of a typical libertarian, there’s a blind spot of something that maybe a non-libertarian would look at and say, wait. And another thing that the– to go to what you were just saying that that someone with a little more like sanity and background might say is, well wait a minute, something built into this blockchain technology, to the Bitcoin blockchain at least, is that it becomes more difficult over time to validate the transactions. Partly because in the early days there weren’t very many transactions, so anyone could download the whole software under their computer.But over time it’s become enormous. It’s actually become prohibitive to even download the whole thing, let alone to process it. And I, in addition, the blockchain network, the Bitcoin blockchain network makes these transactions more difficult in an automated way. And so in the beginning you had this rhetoric of—and they used the word right, we’re going to democratize finance.Everybody in the world can participate in this wonderful movement. Everybody can share in some kind of egalitarian way in the creation of this new financial system. Isn’t it wonderful? You know it, but what quickly happened as it happens in all these kind of deregulated, libertarian spaces, of course, is that people with the most money and power swoop in and they buy up all the resources and the.the fact that you had this algorithmic increase in the difficulty of the Bitcoin transactions meant that it very be, very quickly became impossible for an ordinary person to mine Bitcoin. It became something that only people with a huge amount of power and money could do, and that’s where it sits today.There are very few entities that actually mine Bitcoin. It’s unprofitable for the most part, unless you have access to very powerful computers. and very cheap power. And so in fact, it’s become a kind of arbitrage against the price of certain kinds of computing processors and the availability of cheap power all over the world.And you actually have seen the Bitcoin miners move from country to country looking for the cheapest power available, which they kind of convert. And that’s, and they, the server firms are now enormous, right? The move from running it on your desktop computer to needing enormous, huge warehouses full of very fast computers with tons of air conditioning needed so the processors don’t melt.And the energy waste of that is unbelievable. Yeah. All these things are doing is sitting there validating these transactions in an extremely redundant, repetitive really useless way. Occasionally spitting out a Bitcoin that somebody gets. Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Well, and the other thing about it, and of course, and we’re talking about Bitcoin here, but of course most of this applies to the other, the huge number of cryptocurrencies that are out there as well.GOLUMBIA: Yes.SHEFFIELD: And so, there are others of them out there, but I think the other key thing from a political standpoint, I guess as a technical matter, I think we’ve covered all the bases there, I think, unless you think there’s another part we need to talk about.But as a political matter, the original Satoshi Nakamoto paper about Bitcoin, it was an inherently political document. And the reason that, that he, or they said they were creating it, was that they believed that governments destroy value by not having a gold standard based currency.Now these are viewpoints that are, up until the emergence of cryptocurrency as a somewhat well-known thing, these were viewpoints that were limited to extremist cranks who worshiped Ron Paul, the crazy libertarian guy who ran for president a bunch of times and just got laughed out of his candidacy every time.GOLUMBIA: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: And these were controversies that were settled in the 1930s, and that Americans overwhelmingly said, yeah, you know what? We don’t want a gold backed currency because we see that harms us. It creates deflation in many cases.And the foundational claim of Bitcoin and a lot of other cryptocurrencies is that government backed currencies are manipulated by governments and that they fluctuate too widely in value and that they destroy the assets of people who have it, have their assets in those dollars, or francs, or e…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    To make a better future, we must first realize why we didn’t get the one we were promised Jan 22, 2023
    Show notes

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit plus.flux.community

    The future is a funny thing. It’s always around the corner and yet it never quite arrives. That’s certainly true when speaking about the technology industry. As the personal computer revolution and the internet began spreading around the world, commentators and entrepreneurs made fortunes telling everyone that we were going to have a technological utopia in which everything was possible.

    It was a parallel to what was happening in the political world, where the collapse of the Soviet Union inspired writers and politicians to declare that humanity had reached the “End of History,” a singular moment in time in which we could have the freedom of social democracy as smiling and benevolent billionaires provided everything we could ever want at unimaginably low prices.

    In the years since, however, all of these promises have failed to materialize. While we can indeed get more stuff than ever before, wages have been stagnant, millions have abandoned the labor force, and the supposedly benevolent billionaires have openly allied themselves with religious fundamentalists in the hopes of preserving the massive wealth they’ve extracted from the world economy.

    One person who perhaps saw this coming is Richard Barbrook, our guest on this episode of Theory of Change. He’s the co-author of a 1995 essay called “The Californian Ideology,” which was a rare contemporary dissent from what became known as neoliberalism outside of America and libertarianism in the States. While the essay went on to become one of the earliest viral pieces of content on the early internet, its argument for a greater role for governmental engagement in the technology economy was not heeded in the U.S. or elsewhere.

    Several years after “The Californian Ideology” was published, Barbrook wrote a 2007 re-examination of the subject in a book called Imaginary Futures: From Thinking Machines to the Global Village which argued that left-leaning critics of techno-libertarianism needed to put forward an alternative vision if they hoped to prevail.

    MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS

    The full transcript, audio, and video of this episode are available to subscribers. Please join today to get full access with Patreon or Substack.

    The deep conversations we bring you about politics, religion, technology, and media take great time and care to produce. Your subscriptions make Theory of Change possible and we’re very grateful for your help.

    If you would like to support the show but don’t want to subscribe, you can also send one-time donations via PayPal.

    If you're not able to support financially, please help us by subscribing and/or leaving a nice review on Apple Podcasts. Doing this helps other people find Theory of Change and our great guests.

    ABOUT THE SHOW

    Theory of Change is hosted by Matthew Sheffield about larger trends and intersections of politics, religion, media, and technology. It's part of the Flux network, a new content community of podcasters and writers. Please visit us at flux.community to learn more and to tell us about what you're doing. We're constantly growing and learning from the great people we meet.

    Theory of Change on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheoryChange

    Matthew Sheffield on Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mattsheffield

    Matthew Sheffield on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattsheffield


    Theory of Change #055: Lisa Curry on comedians crying "cancel culture" Jan 14, 2023
    Show notes

    Comedy has always been about pointing out the absurd and unjust things in life, but lately, a lot of veteran comedians have taken to complaining about their business more than anything else. Long-time standup comics like Dave Chapelle and Ricky Gervais are oftentimes at war with their own audiences, accusing them of being intolerant of dissent and killing off comedy.

    Is there anything at all to that critique? Or is it mostly about older comedians not wanting to update their material? In this episode, I’m joined by Lisa Curry, she’s a standup comedian who’s performed in 13 different countries, written on Comedy Central’s Jiff Jeffries Show, and she’s the host of “Long Story Long,” a weekly show on SiriusXM. You can also find her on Instagram and Twitter.

    MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS

    The full transcript, audio, and video of this episode are available to subscribers. Please join today to get full access with Patreon or Substack.

    The deep conversations we bring you about politics, religion, technology, and media take great time and care to produce. Your subscriptions make Theory of Change possible and we’re very grateful for your help.

    If you would like to support the show but don’t want to subscribe, you can also send one-time donations via PayPal.

    If you're not able to support financially, please help us by subscribing and/or leaving a nice review on Apple Podcasts. Doing this helps other people find Theory of Change and our great guests.

    ABOUT THE SHOW

    Theory of Change is hosted by Matthew Sheffield about larger trends and intersections of politics, religion, media, and technology. It's part of the Flux network, a new content community of podcasters and writers. Please visit us at flux.community to learn more and to tell us about what you're doing. We're constantly growing and learning from the great people we meet.

    Theory of Change on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheoryChange

    Matthew Sheffield on Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mattsheffield

    Matthew Sheffield on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattsheffield


    This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theoryofchange.flux.community/subscribe
    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

    Male popular culture is obsolete, and many men are suffering because of it Jan 08, 2023
    Show notes

    One of the biggest social changes since the 1960s has been the empowerment of women to make personal choices, to control who they date, whether they’re married, and when or if they have children.

    While society and popular culture aimed at women seem to have embraced many of these changes, the unfortunate reality is that popular culture aimed at men has not kept pace. Instead of encouraging adaptation and teaching new social and professional skills, cultural influencers who aim for the male media market have mostly been offering the same old advice—which simply doesn’t work in a world in which divorce is common and dating apps have made things easier but also more complicated.

    Male friendship has also declined. A 2021 study from the Survey Center on American Life found that 15 of male respondents said they had no close friends. Obviously the COVID-19 pandemic played an important role in this, but there are other factors as well, such as pop culture that encourages men to avoid new friendships or discussing their feelings. As a result, many men have not been able to resolve these struggles. So-called “deaths of despair,” such as drug or alcohol overdoses and deliberate suicides are much higher among men than women.

    Further compounding the negative situation has been the proliferation of “men’s rights” activists and other far-right political actors such as the “incel” movement who have been radicalizing millions of young men to blame others for their problems, instead of learning from mistakes or improving their outlook.

    Is there a crisis of masculinity in America? In this episode, we’re featuring Brandon Bradford, he’s a political consultant who also serves as a men’s support group leader in his spare time.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

    Theory of Change #053: Melissa Peltier on how Trump superfans changed their minds about him Dec 12, 2022
    Show notes

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit theoryofchange.flux.community

    We’ve talked a lot on Theory of Change about the growing threat of political extremism and how far-right activists are leveraging religion and business connections to build power over the minds of millions of Americans.

    And yet, despite all of that, it’s also the case that people can change. No matter how strong they hold their viewpoints today, no one was born with their opinions. Having been born and raised in fundamentalist Mormonism, I personally can attest that people can change their opinions when exposed to the facts. The process usually is a gradual one, but it’s real.

    The results of the 2022 elections in the United States are also proof of this as well. Almost everywhere, Republicans who actively put forward Donald Trump’s election lies lost their races. And interestingly enough, many of those losses seem to have been caused in part by people who supported Republicans who didn’t promote Trump’s election lies.

    In Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and lots of places in-between, millions of Republican-leaning voters couldn’t bring themselves to support Trump’s dangerous sore-loser campaign.

    Joining me to discuss what’s going on here is Melissa Peltier, she’s the director and writer of a documentary called The Game Is Up: Disillusioned Trump Voters Tell Their Stories. It’s a film that closely profiles several people who supported Donald Trump in 2016 and then decided to change their minds—and why they did so.

    MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS

    The full transcript, audio, and video of this episode are available to subscribers. Please join today to get full access with Patreon or Substack.

    The deep conversations we bring you about politics, religion, technology, and media take great time and care to produce. Your subscriptions make Theory of Change possible and we’re very grateful for your help.

    If you would like to support the show but don’t want to subscribe, you can also send one-time donations via PayPal.

    If you're not able to support financially, please help us by subscribing and/or leaving a nice review on Apple Podcasts. Doing this helps other people find Theory of Change and our great guests.

    ABOUT THE SHOW

    Theory of Change is hosted by Matthew Sheffield about larger trends and intersections of politics, religion, media, and technology. It's part of the Flux network, a new content community of podcasters and writers. Please visit us at flux.community to learn more and to tell us about what you're doing. We're constantly growing and learning from the great people we meet.

    Theory of Change on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheoryChange

    Matthew Sheffield on Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mattsheffield

    Matthew Sheffield on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattsheffield


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

    America’s public libraries are facing an epidemic of censorship Dec 05, 2022
    Show notes

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit theoryofchange.flux.community
    When you turn on your news app, YouTube, or television, chances are you’re going to be deluged with content about “cancel culture,” an amorphous term that no one ever actually defines, but seems to be about private citizens criticizing other private citizens.
    What you’re much less likely to hear about is that right now, America is facing an epidemic of censorship--actual government officials using their power to ban speech or content that they don’t like.
    According to the free expression and literary human rights group PEN America, since 2021, there have been 185 educational gag orders in 41 states targeting authors and teachers from teaching specific books and topics. Censorship advocates are also coming after the nation's public libraries, trying to block and remove materials they deem inappropriate based on their religious opinions.
    In this episode, we're joined by Jonathan Friedman who is the director of free expression and education programs at PEN America.
    AUDIO TRANSCRIPT (Patreon membership required for full text):
    https://flux.community/matthew-sheffield/2022/12/americas-public-libraries-are-facing-an-epidemic-of-censorship/
    GUEST INFO
    Jonathan Friedman on Twitter:
    https://twitter.com/jonfreadom
    PEN America website:
    https://pen.org/
    PEN report, "Banned in the USA"
    https://pen.org/report/banned-usa-growing-movement-to-censor-books-in-schools/
    ABOUT THE SHOW
    Theory of Change is hosted by Matthew Sheffield and is part of the Flux network, a new content community of podcasters and writers. Please visit us at https://flux.community to learn more and to tell us about what you're doing. We're constantly growing and learning from the great people we meet.
    Theory of Change website:
    https://theoryofchange.show
    Theory of Change on Twitter:
    https://twitter.com/TheoryChange
    Matthew Sheffield on Twitter:
    https://twitter.com/mattsheffield
    SUPPORT THE SHOW
    PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/theorychange
    Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/discoverflux
    If you're not able to support financially, please help us by subscribing and/or leaving a nice review on your favorite podcast app. Doing this helps other people find Theory of Change and our great guests. Thanks for your help!
    Theory of Change on Apple Podcasts:
    https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/theory-of-change-podcast/id1486920059
    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe


    After envisioning themselves as centrists, tech billionaires like Elon Musk have moved to the far right Nov 28, 2022
    Show notes

    Just as the 2020 elections were fading into America’s rear view mirror, Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, cast the political and media worlds into chaos by taking ownership control over Twitter. Most people don’t use Twitter because they find it too weird and disjointed, but it is actually the place online where most of America’s political junkies: activists, politicians, and journalists come to talk.

    It all seems to have started as a joke, however. Musk offered to buy Twitter at a price of $54.20 per share, 420 being the very, very old reference to marijuana. After his Tesla stock price went south dramatically, Musk tried to get out of the deal but was forced into it by a lawsuit from Twitter. Since then, Musk has brought the site into complete chaos, reinstating a number of accounts that had been banned for promoting hatred and violence and disinformation, including, most famously, Donald Trump.

    While he appears to have had no real plan for Twitter beforehand, what has become very evident is that Elon Musk has become radicalized by the far right, a path that has become increasingly common in recent years for wealthy white libertarian men who just a few decades ago actually saw themselves on the political left, before the re-emergence of populists like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

    There’s a lot to talk about Musk and Twitter and how he fits into the larger tradition of the libertarian right within Silicon Valley and the American political right as a whole. We’re pleased to feature two panelists to discuss this topic. Jacob Silverman is the co-author of the forthcoming book Easy Money: Cryptocurrency, Casino Capitalism, and the Golden Age of Fraud, which he’s co-writing with the actor, Ben McKenzie. We’re also joined by Chris Lehmann, who is the Washington Bureau Chief of The Nation magazine and the former editor of The New Republic.

    MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS

    This is a free episode of Theory of Change, but the deep conversations we bring you about politics, religion, technology, and media take great time and care to produce. Your subscriptions make Theory of Change possible and we’re very grateful for your help.

    Please join today to get full access with Patreon or Substack.

    If you would like to support the show but don’t want to subscribe, you can also send one-time donations via PayPal.

    If you're not able to support financially, please help us by subscribing and/or leaving a nice review on Apple Podcasts. Doing this helps other people find Theory of Change and our great guests.

    ABOUT THE SHOW

    Theory of Change is hosted by Matthew Sheffield about larger trends and intersections of politics, religion, media, and technology. It's part of the Flux network, a new content community of podcasters and writers. Please visit us at flux.community to learn more and to tell us about what you're doing. We're constantly growing and learning from the great people we meet.

    Theory of Change on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheoryChange

    Matthew Sheffield on Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mattsheffield

    Matthew Sheffield on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattsheffield


    This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theoryofchange.flux.community/subscribe
    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

    Theory of Change #050: Liz Dye on the many lawsuits against Alex Jones Sep 26, 2022
    Show notes

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit theoryofchange.flux.community

    Alex Jones, the far right talk radio host who pioneered the art of making money from internet conspiracy theories, is facing the worst moment of his career. It is quite possibly the apocalypse of Jones. After making up thousands of lies over a career spending decades, Jones is now starting to face consequences.

    In August, a jury in Austin, Texas, returned a damages verdict against Jones for defaming the parents of a child who was killed in a school shooting in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, in 2012. Jones was ordered to pay $4.1 million in compensatory damages and $49 million in punitive damages. The lawyer for the plaintiffs in this case, which is one of only several, insists that this will be only the beginning of what’s going to happen to Jones and his company Infowars.

    But is that right? Will he actually have to pay those large-scale fines? And will Jones be affected by large-scale fines at all?

    And in the long term, are legal suits a way forward to stop the propagation of conspiracy theories in this country? Joining me to discuss in this episode is Liz Dye. She is a columnist with the legal affairs website Above the Law. And she also is a writer at Wonkette.com.

    MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS

    The full transcript, audio, and video of this episode are available to subscribers. Please join today to get full access with Patreon or Substack.

    The deep conversations we bring you about politics, religion, technology, and media take great time and care to produce. Your subscriptions make Theory of Change possible and we’re very grateful for your help.

    If you would like to support the show but don’t want to subscribe, you can also send one-time donations via PayPal.

    If you're not able to support financially, please help us by subscribing and/or leaving a nice review on Apple Podcasts. Doing this helps other people find Theory of Change and our great guests.

    ABOUT THE SHOW

    Theory of Change is hosted by Matthew Sheffield about larger trends and intersections of politics, religion, media, and technology. It's part of the Flux network, a new content community of podcasters and writers. Please visit us at flux.community to learn more and to tell us about what you're doing. We're constantly growing and learning from the great people we meet.

    Theory of Change on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheoryChange

    Matthew Sheffield on Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mattsheffield

    Matthew Sheffield on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattsheffield


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

    Theory of Change #049: Brandi Collins-Dexter on why Democrats shouldn't take Black votes for granted Aug 07, 2022
    Show notes

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit theoryofchange.flux.community

    Since the 1964 presidential election, Americans of African ancestry have voted overwhelmingly for Democratic presidential candidates. Republicans in most races usually get in the single digits, according to decades of opinion surveys.

    On the surface, it may seem like Black Americans have an undying loyalty to the Democratic party. But when you take a closer look, you see that there’s a much more complicated situation. And that’s because Black Americans are actually no different than any other racial group in having many different ideological groups.

    In fact, many Black people are actually conservative and not just on religious matters either, but they don’t want to vote for a Republican party that has a decades long history of empowering and pandering to racists, especially since Donald Trump came on the political scene in 2015. But even that aspect is complicated as well, because Trump actually got more Black votes in 2020 than he did during his first presidential run.

    According to exit polling by Edison Research in 2016, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 69 points among Black men. But four years later, Joe Biden had only a 60 point margin. A similar trend happened among Black women. In 2016, Democrats won the group by 90%. In 2020, they won by 81%. This trend parallels a similar movement among Hispanic voters, which we’ve discussed in a previous episode.

    And it raises all sorts of questions. Joining us to discuss is Brandi Collins-Dexter. She’s the author of a book that will be coming out in September called Black Skinhead: Reflections on Blackness and Our Political Future. She’s also a former senior campaign director at Color of Change, which is a progressive activism group.

    MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS

    The full transcript, audio, and video of this episode are available to subscribers. Please join today to get full access with Patreon or Substack.

    The deep conversations we bring you about politics, religion, technology, and media take great time and care to produce. Your subscriptions make Theory of Change possible and we’re very grateful for your help.

    If you would like to support the show but don’t want to subscribe, you can also send one-time donations via PayPal.

    If you're not able to support financially, please help us by subscribing and/or leaving a nice review on Apple Podcasts. Doing this helps other people find Theory of Change and our great guests.

    ABOUT THE SHOW

    Theory of Change is hosted by Matthew Sheffield about larger trends and intersections of politics, religion, media, and technology. It's part of the Flux network, a new content community of podcasters and writers. Please visit us at flux.community to learn more and to tell us about what you're doing. We're constantly growing and learning from the great people we meet.

    Theory of Change on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheoryChange

    Matthew Sheffield on Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mattsheffield

    Matthew Sheffield on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattsheffield


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

    EWTN, a TV channel founded by a cloistered nun, has quietly become a right-wing media juggernaut Jul 30, 2022
    Show notes

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit theoryofchange.flux.community

    Protestant televangelists have been infamous for decades for their lavish lifestyles and nefarious scandals. They’ve also been extremely successful at promoting far-right political viewpoints to unsuspecting Protestants who just want to watch some devotional preaching.

    The radicalization of American evangelicalism has attracted some journalistic and scholarly attention, but it’s important to note that there is also something very similar happening among some Roman Catholics in this country.

    And that’s primarily due to a TV channel called Eternal Word Television Network. Many people outside of EWTN’s elderly demographic have never heard of it, but the network’s influence on Catholicism in America and around the world is substantial.

    By its own account, EWTN reaches 400 million households in more than 150 countries. It also owns a radio network with 380 affiliates, several news services, and the influential national Catholic Register newspaper.

    At its founding in 1981 EWTN wasn’t about mixing far-right political agendas with religious services. But in the years since, it’s gone all in for Donald Trump and a host of extremist Catholic figures who are bent on canceling anyone with progressive views in the church, even Pope Francis himself.

    Joining us in this episode to discuss is Molly Olmsted. She is a staff writer at Slate, and she recently wrote an extended article about EWTN that is definitely a must-read.

    MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS

    The deep conversations we bring you about politics, religion, technology, and media take great time and care to produce. Your subscriptions make Theory of Change possible and we’re very grateful for your help.

    Please join today to support our work with Patreon or Substack.

    If you would like to support the show but don’t want to subscribe, you can also send one-time donations via PayPal.

    If you're not able to support financially, please help us by subscribing and/or leaving a nice review on Apple Podcasts. Doing this helps other people find Theory of Change and our great guests.

    ABOUT THE SHOW

    Theory of Change is hosted by Matthew Sheffield about larger trends and intersections of politics, religion, media, and technology. It's part of the Flux network, a new content community of podcasters and writers. Please visit us at flux.community to learn more and to tell us about what you're doing. We're constantly growing and learning from the great people we meet.

    Theory of Change on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheoryChange

    Matthew Sheffield on Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mattsheffield

    Matthew Sheffield on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattsheffield


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

    Previous 1 16 17 18 19 20 23 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters

    1

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters Business
    WSJ Your Money Briefing

    2

    WSJ Your Money Briefing Business
    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task

    3

    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task Business
    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women

    4

    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women Business
    Slate Money

    5

    Slate Money Business
    In The Dark – The New Yorker

    6

    In The Dark – The New Yorker Business News
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights