KPAO by Dave Cortright

Audible has tone-deaf UX for their subscription save flow

I signed up for the free month of Audible. Went to cancel. Told them that it was because I couldn’t find audiobooks I liked. Their response? We hear you. Here's a bunch of stuff not related to our book selection at all. Any of those entice you into giving us money every month?! Um, no. And now I have an even worse impression of you as a company and service.

It’s not the other person’s behavior that matters, it’s our response (and the response of those around them)

The presidential and vice-presidential debates laid bare in a microcosm the problems our country is facing. There was a system set up with rules that ostensibly both parties agreed to. However—just like with our current system and laws—some people felt special and felt that in their special circumstances they deserved to break those rules, you know, for the sake of “fairness”.

But here’s the thing that I think most people miss: it’s not about what Trump or Pence or any other smug, entitled, know-it-all blowhard does; it is only our collective response to their actions that really matters. Given any set of rules over any reasonable length of time and someone is going to test them; break them. That’s just human nature. We test boundaries. And if that behavior is allowed—even despite vocal outcry and admonishment—then we have essentially conceded that those rules and boundaries weren’t real. Because we failed to enforce them.

If I’m Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, my issue is not with the guy standing on the stage with me. It is everyone else in that facility; yes the debate “moderator” (if you want to be generous and call what they were doing “moderating”; but I don’t), but more importantly the director, producer, and all of the other decision-makers behind the camera who can actually control what sounds and images are broadcast out to the world. That is a hugely important role. And they failed at it. They failed to cut microphones when scofflaws talked over their time and their opponents; they failed to keep the cameras exclusively focused on the candidate with the floor, thus giving power to the one who “should” be allowing their opponent their time to talk.

It’s actually a quite easy and straightforward fix, but it requires setting a boundary and enforcing it against what will no doubt be a deluge of disapproval and vitriol. But the way to solve that is to spend the first few minutes of the debate clearly laying out the rules and getting each candidate to verbally agree to them. It’s like they are sitting in the exit row of an airplane. You need to look them in the eye, recite the script, and get them on camera for the whole world to see agree to those terms. And then state unequivocally that if you violate the rules, you may get one warning, but you also simply may be cut off. And if it continues, you will be escorted off the stage and the rest of the time will be reserved for your opponent to address America with no possibility for you to rebut.

These debates are a dysfunctional relationship, and we are making the same mistake thinking that calling out the abuser’s bad behavior and shaming is enough to correct the problem. It clearly is not. It is just talk. And by taking no further action, we continue to tacitly approve their actions.

Dr. Joy Browne’s “stupid and cheerful” technique for dealing with passive aggression

When someone is being passive aggressive with you, try Dr. Joy Browne’s technique of “stupid and cheerful”. Make them decide if they truly want to be aggressively hurtful to you or not.

Lucy says she likes Dr. Joy Browne because, unlike some other radio psychologists that she's listened to in the past, Dr. Joy Browne doesn't smack her callers over the head with a frying pan and tell them what they're doing is wrong. Joy Browne is kind but deeply pragmatic. There's a whole raft of principles and mottos that come up over and over, all of which Lucy has internalized. Like, "Stupid and cheerful."

“If somebody is trying to engage you in some sort of passive aggressive issue, you just try to be as stupid and cheerful as possible. So like, if somebody comes into your kitchen and is like, ‘Oh, you're painting it this color?’ You just go like, “Yup. Isn't it great?’”

 

White House press secretary can neither confirm nor deny whether Donald Trump still loves Melania

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany would not provide a declarative statement about whether or not [President Donald] Trump loves Melania. Instead, McEnany pointed to Trump’s past statements declaring his love for Melania, such as at their wedding in 2005 and on at least three additional occasions, while claiming that Trump’s “record on this is unmistakable and it’s shameful the media refuses to cover it.” At one point, McEnany accused CNN’s Kaitlan Collins of asking a “partisan attack question.”

Only slightly modified from the original.

 

The Social Dilemma is as manipulative as social media itself and ignores personal responsibility

Its intentions are good, but Netflix doc ‘The Social Dilemma’ is as manipulative as Facebook

By inventing entirely fictional plot lines to illustrate key points, the vital film undermines its own authority
https://www.nme.com/en_asia/features/the-social-dilemma-netflix-facebook-2761067

What about personal responsibility to not use the app if you don’t like how it’s manipulating you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlKao_Pox5A

Where an individual chooses to focus their attention is a choice. It would help further the discussion if we didn't treat social media consumers as victims but rather as individuals with agency and personal responsibility.

My questions for the Social Dilemma filmmakers:

 

1. Regulation seems to take tech down the same path as tobacco & drugs. What are your thoughts either on focusing primarily on education & treatment—much like Portugal is doing with their drug program—or a hybrid?

2. The need for publicly traded companies to consistently show growth & profit are at the foundation of this arms race. How can we change the system so that companies are not punished for decisions that end up making them grow more slowly or generate fewer profits? B corps?

3. If you look at the underlying reason people want to engage with social media, it is our core need to connect with other people. How can we foster a world where people can mindfully connect with others in healthy and meaningful ways?

 

https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/1308986939887046656

 

 

On the importance of understanding unintended consequences in any new technology

Really great article on the unintended consequences of technology. From the article:

There are four different types of revenge effects, described here as follows:

1. Repeating effects: occur when more efficient processes end up forcing us to do the same things more often, meaning they don’t free up more of our time. Better household appliances have led to higher standards of cleanliness, meaning people end up spending the same amount of time—or more—on housework.
2. Recomplicating effects: occur when processes become more and more complex as the technology behind them improves. Tenner gives the now-dated example of phone numbers becoming longer with the move away from rotary phones. A modern example might be lighting systems that need to be operated through an app, meaning a visitor cannot simply flip a switch.
3. Regenerating effects: occur when attempts to solve a problem end up creating additional risks. Targeting pests with pesticides can make them increasingly resistant to harm or kill off their natural predators. Widespread use of antibiotics to control certain conditions has led to be resistant strains of bacteria that are harder to treat.
4. Rearranging effects: occur when costs are transferred elsewhere so risks shift and worsen. Air conditioning units on subways cool down the trains—while releasing extra heat and making the platforms warmer. Vacuum cleaners can throw dust mite pellets into the air, where they remain suspended and are more easily breathed in. Shielding beaches from waves transfers the water’s force elsewhere.

The last one I’ve learned as externalizing costs where all you are doing is shifting the cost of something from your own place and time to somewhere else at some other time. This is the basis of burning fossil fuels.

Article: The Unlikely Friendship that Helped Legalize Same-Sex Marriage in Ireland

A fantastic story of empathy and connection between two of the most unlikely of friends. Our government could learn a lesson from this inspiring example.

https://wearenotdivided.reasonstobecheerful.world/the-unlikely-friendship-that-helped-legalize-same-sex-marriage-in-ireland/

Round 2 of my correspondence with Crisis Text Line regarding my involuntary and retaliatory termination

To be completely crystal clear, I encouraged anyone reading my responses to your tweets to reach out to other orgs that offer equivalent services, such as the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. It’s right there in the tweet you quoted in your original message to me:

• “If you want to talk about suicide, I recommend you go to the experts at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline @800273TALK and skip @CrisisTextLine who's corporate culture is rooted in racism. #NotMyCrisisTextLine.”

I never suggested that texters reach out to me personally. I once responded to a tweet by DoSomething employee Tej Gokhale stating that any employee from DoSomething who wanted to talk through their workplace trauma could reach out to me. I fail to see how that would be in any way visible to texters. Tej has 106 followers.

 

It appears you are calling me a liar, inferring I was making “false and misleading tweets”. I adamantly rebuke this inference. I respectfully request that—rather than making vague statements like that—you produce specific examples. And if you can not, I would expect a retraction and an apology. I will defend myself of specific claims, but I can not—and will not—tolerate your ad hominem attacks on me and my overall character.

 

You also appear to be making references to things that were not included in your original email to me. Are you now trying to increase the scope of evidence beyond the three Facts of this case? I don’t know what protocol you are following for this case, but it appears to be less than rigorous, almost as if you don’t really have one clearly laid out that you are following.

 

Since I am a resident of California, perhaps you should ask your counsel if you are—in fact—complying with “all applicable laws and regulations.” Because it certainly appears like you may have violated the California Fair Housing and Employment Act in your retaliatory termination of me. I would be happy to have my counsel speak directly to yours in this matter if you would be so kind as to send me their contact information.

 

Also the last sentence of your email says “for the reasons laid out below.” yet lists no reasons below that. Can you please expound on this? I am confused. It almost appears as if you threw this email together quickly without proofreading indicating no real care for its veracity or accuracy.

 

·Dave

 

 

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 6:46 PM, Crisis Counselor Policy Review Committee <ccprc@crisistextline.org> wrote:

 

Thank you for your message, Dave.

The reason(s) for your dismissal were clearly spelled out in our committee’s email, and were directly tied to objective criteria and conduct specified therein which violated our Code of Conduct. 

While we will not engage in a back and forth regarding characterizations in your email -- which we dispute vigorously, to be clear -- we would like to respond to your question about who is harmed by the Code of Conduct violations cited below. 

1. Texters. Texters and would-be texters are harmed when a CTL volunteer publicly discourages texters from texting in during their moment of need. As you know, we serve all members of the public, and 68% of our texters reach out to us with something they have never told another person, some of whom text in regarding suicidal ideation. Telling texters to not reach out to us -- and instead to reach out to you personally -- is not something the org can excuse from one of its volunteers.
2. The org and its personnel. In addition to the dangerous harm to texters discussed above, a CTL volunteer making false and misleading tweets concerning the org’s culture and its transformation harms the people at CTL that have been working so hard to accomplish the changes that the org needs over the last several months by (a) minimizing and disparaging their work, and (b) discouraging donors and funders from helping to keep those people employed and to keep the lights on. That kind of harm -- in addition to the harm to the org’s texters discussed above -- is not something the org can excuse from one of its volunteers. 

The organization complies with all applicable laws and regulations, and takes pride in its support and compassion for all of its community members. We deeply value our CCs, and we are saddened when one has to be dismissed. But this was one of those times, for the reasons laid out below. 

Take care.

Crisis Counselor Policy Review Committee

 

Learn | Volunteer | Press | Careers

 

California mail-in election ballot tracking website 2020

Putting this here so I won’t forget it. Maybe of use to others too…

https://california.ballottrax.net/voter

My response to Crisis Text Line RE: my involuntary termination

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 7:38 PM, Dave Cortright wrote to Crisis Counselor Policy Review Committee <ccprc@crisistextline.org>:

 

I respectfully disagree with both your framing of the issues here and your conclusion. I very much want to be a part of the Crisis Text Line community, but not the one it has historically been—rooted in systemic racism and a toxic workplace. I want to be a part of a newer, better Crisis Text Line that—at its foundation, and throughout all levels of the organizational—embodies the ideals your training teaches us to use with the texters. 

 

You must surely be aware that many volunteers and employees have been disappointed with your anemic response to the organizational crisis you are undergoing. There is a whole grassroots movement that has been watching with increasing dismay and disappointment with each feint at something of substance only to have it changed or canceled or “rescheduled” and ultimately concluding in nothing.

 

I respectfully ask: who in particular was harassed or harmed by my tweets? Because as you might notice upon further review of the tweets you quoted below, I called out no single individual in them. I was merely offering facts (and my particular view of those facts) about the organization as a whole—not any one person in particular—in order to help shine a light on what I see is a lack of accountability and action within the organization. 

 

The sad thing here is I could be such an asset and ally for the cause. I challenge you to go back and look at my conversations I’ve had with texters. I've received above average texter feels (somewhere in the 14% range IIRC) and I am quite likely also above average when it comes to whatever metrics you use to measure counselor effectiveness.

 

While you are at it, go check out all of my posts on Mighty Networks, as well as in the group chat on the platform. I was stepping up voluntarily—and quite effectively from the responses I received—as a mentor, providing tips and insights to help make the whole network around me better. I posted about the peak-end rule and use that to craft such a powerful close that I got consistent, positive feedback from texters and counselors alike:

 

“Thank you so much for reaching out today and sharing your story with me. I am honored you trusted me to open up about your struggles. It shows your strength to confront these things head on in order to overcome them. It’s inspiring! Remember, if you’re ever in crisis again, we will always be here for you. You never have to go through these things alone. Never. Take care.”

 

 That you would just make a unilateral decision like this to terminate my affiliation with your organization without even attempting to have a conversation with me first speaks volumes for the kind of organization you are. I have never seen such extreme irony in my life. You—an organization that ostensibly meets people “where they are”—refusing to even meet one of its own where they are.

 

You claim I did not use internal mechanisms for providing feedback; yet I did. If you again check Mighty Networks AND the Google form AND messages sent to my coach AND supervisors, I provided plenty of feedback. I reported privacy issues only to have them ignored. So what is my recourse when you aren't responding?

 

Let me conclude by saying how grateful I am that you gave me this opportunity to become a trained crisis counselor and to both learn and grow in that role while helping to play a small yet meaningful part in dealing with the growing mental health crisis in our country. Despite this involuntary—and in my mind unjust—termination, I am still proud that I fulfilled  my 200 hour commitment and that I can take this training and experience onward and upward to even greater heights.

 

Best regards,

·Dave

 

Original message here