 |
|
|
|||||
Since President Donald Trump took office, one of his fondest pastimes has been firing off randomly capitalized social media posts lambasting various laws asand this is a technical termtoo woke to be legal. Among his targets last week was the Digital Equity Act, which he deemed RACIST, ILLEGAL, and totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL. He wrapped by promising to (attempt to) end the program immediately. No more woke handouts based on race! he wrote. Other than the name of the Digital Equity Act, basically everything about Trumps post is wrong. Overall, the vast majority of Americans use the internet96% of adults, according to Pew Research Center data. Yet there remains a persistent digital divide in this country, which breaks down on lines that will be unsurprising to anyone with a passing familiarity with its history. As recently as 2019, for example, only 71% of people who didnt graduate from high school said they used the internet, and less than half46%subscribed to home broadband. In 2021, 85% of households making less than $25,000nearly 23 million householdshad a computing device (desktop, smartphone, or tablet) at home, compared to over 99% of households earning $150,000 or more, per U.S. Census Bureau data. Among those households making less than $25,000 a year, 16% had internet access only through a smartphone, compared to just 5% of households at the other end of the income spectrum. The Digital Equity Act, introduced in 2019 by Washington state senator Patty Murray, a Democrat, and passed as part of President Joe Bidens bipartisan infrastructure law two years later, aims to narrow these gaps, if not close them altogether. The law established a trio of grant programs that allow states, Tribes, and other organizations to apply for money they can use to get people online and provide them with the tools necessary to make safe, effective use of the web. (The ability to log on is not especially useful if, for example, you are unfamiliar with the hamfisted phishing scams that will start landing in your Gmail inbox two minutes after you create it.) By passing the DEA, Congress acknowledged the simple fact that it is more or less impossible to find jobs, do homework, obtain healthcare, apply to college, pay taxes, and otherwise fully participate in modern society with limited and/or unstable internet access. The law set aside a total of $2.75 billion over five years for its purposes, which, in the context of the federal budget, is roughly analogous to a thimbleful of Evian poured into the infinity pool on a megayacht. Why, then, is Trump so incensed about the Digital Equity Act? Regrettably, the answer is as stupid as it is cynical: It has the word equity right there in the title, and he and his fellow Republicans are constitutionally incapable of understanding the term outside of the context of the right-wing culture wars they are obsessed with fighting at every turn. His preoccupation with ferreting out racial handouts via clumsy CTRL+F search is now so all-consuming that he is trying to cut government spending that has nothing to do with race, and that would meaningfully improve the lives of millions of voters, many of whom cast their ballots for him six months ago. Some DEA funding recipients have already received notices purporting to cancel their grants. But as is the case with all of Trumps unilateral threats to revoke duly enacted federal laws, ending the DEA is not as simple as the president doing a post on a social media network he controls. Federal judges have spent the last several months blocking many of his illegal attempts to withhold congressionally appropriated funding from those who are entitled to it. Here, too, any would-be recipient of DEA funds who takes the administration to court should have a decent chance of prevailing. But the mere fact that Trump is attacking the DEAa modest, targeted, flexible attempt to extend an essential service to people who do not yet have itdemonstrates just how uninterested he is in doing anything resembling the basic work of governing. In a press release, Senator Murray described Trumps attempts to withhold resources meant to help red and blue communities[to] close the digital divide as absolutely insane. A good rule of thumb in politics is that when a 74-year-old Democratic senator is angry enough to use phrases like absolutely insane in their official communications, the characterization is probably accurate and more than appropriate. The text of the DEA acknowledges that the digital divide, like many problems in this country, affects members of racial and ethnic minority groups, and frames digital equity as a matter of social and economic justice. But the law does not define the concept solely (or even primarily) in terms of race, as Trump asserts. Instead, it emphasizes that the law is intended to cover lower-income people, veterans, people with disabilities, and people living in rural areas, among other demographic groups whose members face systemic barriers to getting on the internet. It is not different from any number of federal programs that identify the intended beneficiaries with specificity; doing so is, one might say, efficient. To the extent that the DEA touches on race, it does so only in the sense that, as is the case with every multibillion-dollar grant program Congress creates, some number of people whom the money helps will, in fact, not be white. The Digital Equity Act should be the sort of policy that conservatives, who treat any invocation of diversity as a form of illegal discrimination, nevertheless enthusiastically support: The law doesnt aim to provide some greater, privileged level of internet access to anyone, but only to establish a baseline level of internet access for everyone. Already, deep-red states like Alabama, Indiana, Arkansas, and Iowa have completed their digital equity plans, which repeatedly affirm the urgent need for federal intervention, especially in rural areas. Alabamas plan, for example, notes that 14.3% of its residents who do not have broadband at home say the service still isnt available where they livenearly twice the national figure. Other states are even further along in the process. During the last few weeks of the Biden administration, the Department of Commerce approved a total of $85 million in funding for initiatives to educate users about the basics of cybersecurity and digital privacy in North Carolina; to make interne access more affordable in Kansas; and to provide web devices and skills training in Mississippi. In 2024, these states voted for Trump by 3, 16, and 23 points, respectively. Republicans who supported the DEA in 2021 had no problem with its basic premise. For example, at the time, Ohio Senator Rob Portman emphasized the impact of limited web access on overlooked and underserved communities, and touted the potential for comprehensive digital equity plans and digital inclusion projects to close these access gapsa quote that might get him run out of the party on a rail if the White House finds out about it. Four years later, GOP lawmakers are happily seizing on the Trump administrations ongoing anti-integration crusade to rail against the DEA for its state-sanctioned anti-white bigotry. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, for example, hailed Trump for ending the DEAs impermissible discrimination, which he described as part of the Biden-Harris administrations woke spending spree. For him, preserving the availability of $55 million in federal funding allocated to his state is less important than complimenting his partys leader in public. Conservatives often criticize diversity, equity, and inclusion principles by focusing on ostensibly zero-sum resources: well-paying jobs, prestigious college admissions offers, and so on. But this framework makes absolutely no sense in the context of the DEA, which does not deny anything to anyone on the more online side of the digital divide. A wealthy suburban family with four laptops, four smartphones, and a tablet or two does not need more resources to use the internet; the provision of government-subsidized mobile hotspots for rural middle school students wont affect the ability of white-collar employees living in major cities to get online and do their work. Calling the DEA discriminatory because it benefits people without internet access is like a person with 20/20 vision complaining because their optometrist didnt write them a new glasses prescription: Sure, technically, you arent getting something that others are getting, but thats only because you can see perfectly well already. In a functioning democracy, the Digital Equity Act would be obscure because it is uncontroversialthe product of a bipartisan consensus that making the internet available to everyone is a simple, efficient, and inexpensive method of ensuring greater equality of opportunity. If Trump gets his way, people who remain marginalized by their limited internet access will remain that way for the foreseeable future, all because a reactionary octogenarian encountered statutory language that he didnt understand, and that made him upset.
Category:
E-Commerce
Like most humans, I generally prefer to surround myself with people who like, value, and respect me. You know, its quite a nice and simple way to boost my self-esteem.And yet, after studying human behavior for many years, I am fully aware that the tendency to indulge in this self-enhancing habit is intellectually debilitating: while it feels nice to hang out with people who appreciate you, it is also a way to develop blind spots and ignore opportunities to get better, improve, and develop new skills and ideas. Montaigne warned of this in his Essays, cautioning against surrounding oneself with flattering mirrors that reflect only our vanity, not our flaws. Shakespeare dramatizes this danger repeatedlythink of King Lear, who banishes the only daughter who speaks honestly, choosing instead the empty praise of those who tell him what he wants to hear. In The Iliad, Achilles withdraws from battle in part because his ego isnt sufficiently stroked, with devastating consequences. And Orwell, in 1984, shows us a world where intellectual isolationbeing surrounded by only one narrativebecomes the ultimate mechanism of control. Growing Divided Beyond the personal level, this habit fuels tribalism and polarization: when we curate our social and intellectual circles to exclude dissent or difference, we don’t just grow more complacentwe grow more divided. What begins as a harmless preference for affirmation becomes a breeding ground for intellectual stagnation and collective delusion. Conversely, increasing the time you spend with people who dont like or value you, particularly when they think different from you, may sound like a masochistic activity, but it can reveal important gaps between the person you are and who you would like to be. Indeed, even when people underestimate you, they can be an important source of negative or critical feedback that alerts you to the possibility that you may actually not be as good as you thinkand especially not as good as your inner circle thinks. This is an essential ingredient of self-awareness: coming to terms with your limitations, knowing what you dont know, and accepting the fact that other people may not see you as positively as you see yourself, or as your close friends and fans do.But first, lets understand the likely reasons other people may underestimate you: 1) It is a way to protect their own self-esteem Bringing other people down is the most common way to feel good about yourself (pathetic, I knowbut very human). This phenomenon is often referred to as the Crab Barrel Syndrome, the psychological process where individuals attempt to hinder the progress of others perceived as competitors. When people feel threatened, envious, or insecure, they often cope by diminishing the value of others. Its less effortful than self-improvement and more immediately gratifying. So, when someone underestimates you, it may say more about their fragile ego than your actual potential. In other words, their low opinion of your talents might just be a defense mechanism theyre using to avoid facing their own inadequaciesa mix of jealousy, insecure narcissism, and self-pity that is expressed as a derogatory view of you. In Joseph Mankiewiczs All About Eve, the aging stage actress Margo Channing becomes increasingly threatened by the seemingly innocent and adoring Eve Harrington, a young fan who slowly infiltrates her life and career. Margos initial condescension gives way to paranoia and defensiveness, while Eve’s ascent is lubricated by subtle manipulation and strategic modesty. Here, the envy runs in both directionsEve envies Margos fame and legacy; Margo resents Eves youth and promise. Each woman underestimates the other as a means of preserving her own sense of value, which makes the film a masterclass in how admiration curdles into rivalry when identity feels fragile. 2) You may actually be a high performerbut surrounded by other high performers If you’re consistently underestimated despite strong output, consider the context. Being in an environment full of exceptional peoplelike elite academic programs, competitive companies, or high-performing teamscan distort perceptions. Just watch Damien Chazelles Whiplash, where gifted jazz drummer Andrew Neiman is pushed to his limits at a prestigious music conservatory. In that hypercompetitive setting, even brilliance isnt enoughevery success is met with silence or scorn, because greatness is simply expected. When excellence becomes the baseline, even impressive contributions may be overlooked. Meanwhile, others who are objectively less capable may shine simply because they operate in low-stakes environments where mediocrity passes for brilliance, and enjoy being a big fish in a small pond. So being underestimated may be a function of your high-performing context, not your low ability. 3) You may not be as good as you think Self-enhancement bias is real. Research shows that most people overestimate their abilities, especially in ambiguous domains. Even if you’re talented, that doesnt guarantee youre making your value visible. Are you communicating clearly, aligning your work with others goals, or just expecting people to get it? Being underestimated might be your cue to refine how you showcase your strengthsclarify your contributions, seek feedback, and build a brand that matches your actual impact. (And yes, that means leaving the Dunning-Kruger zone.)So, what are the best strategies for winning your critics over? 1) Focus on them, not you Dale Carnegie 101: take a genuine interest in others. The irony is that people who underestimate you often care more about being seen than about seeing you. So, just play the game: ask them about their work, their opinions, their ideasconvincingly faking appreciation for them. Make them feel important. To be sure, flattery works best when its believable, which means you need to pay attention, listen, and reflect their values back to them. Call it effective impression management, strategic empathy, or just good politics: contrary to popular belief, its one of the key ingredients of career success. 2) Quantify your achievements People are less likely to ignore results when theyre staring at hard numbers. Share outcomes, metrics, and results that demonstrate your impact. Be specific: revenue increased, error rates decreased, engagement improved. You dont have to bragjust document. Some people may still dismiss the data because they favor charisma over competence, but those arent the people you should be trying to impress anyway. Let the results speak, and if they dont listen, speak louder with your results. 3) Change your behavior Maybe theyre right. Or at least not entirely wrong. Being underestimated can be a gift disguised as insult: a wake-up call that motivates you to adapt, grow, and become harder to ignore. If youve been coasting, this is your cue to sprint. If youve been misaligned, recalibrate. The good news is that people revise their judgments when they see genuine effort and improvement. Theres nothing more satisfying than disproving someones low expectationsespecially when you do it without gloating (at least not outwardly). A final consideration: at times, the most effective way to win over the people who underestimate you may require you to care less about whether you actually win them overespecially if your goal is merely to inflate your ego. Focus instead on learning from them. Just as failure is a better teacher than success, critics and adversaries often teach us more than friends and fans. Nietzsche, for instance, argued that we owe our greatest growth to resistance and struggle, not comfort: What does not kill me makes me stronger is not just a gym slogan, but a blueprint for character development. Similarly, in The Republic, Plato has Socrates sharpen his thinking through constant dialectical combat with hostile interlocutorsbecause truth, like steel, is forged through friction. Even in literature, consider Jane Austens Pride and Prejudice: it is precisely through misunderstanding, misjudgment, and critical feedback that Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy evolve into better versions of themselves. In the end, you cannot expect everybody to appreciate your talentsbut those who dont may be more valuable than your supporters. Their underestimation can sting, yes, but it also serves as a psychological spur to refine, improve, and provenot just to them, but to yourselfwhat you’re truly capable of becoming.
Category:
E-Commerce
Branded is a weekly column devoted to the intersection of marketing, business, design, and culture. With economic uncertainty, inflation, and high interest rates lingering, consumers who cant decide whether to spend now or hold off until later are increasingly doing some of each. And thats good news for the buy now, pay later business. Buy now, pay later (BNPL) optionsincluding those facilitated by major BNPL services like Klarna, Afterpay, and Affirmhave been growing increasingly commonplace. According to an April survey from LendingTree, for example, 25% of BNPL users have spent the loans on groceries, up from 14% last year. And the services are becoming more widely known through linkups with familiar brands. Klarnawhich filed IPO paperwork in March but reportedly put those plans on hold when the markets swooned last monthrecently announced a partnership with DoorDash to enable customers to pay for deliveries in installments. And Affirm has a new deal with Costco that will give approved customers monthly payment options. Interest in BNPL is likely to grow as tariffs cause prices to rise (Walmart, for instance, just warned of price hikes). This builds on a steady rise of BNPL spending that goes back several years. This past holiday season, such spending hit an all-time high of $18.2 billion, up nearly 10% over the prior year, according to data from Adobe, which listed popular categories such as electronics, apparel, and video games. Research from EMarketer found that the per user spend on BNPL services topped $1,000 in 2024, and forecast the category will make up 1.4% of all retail sales this year. BNPL firms position their steady move into everyday spending categories as a matter of convenience and household budgeting flexibility. The loans are generally interest-free to consumers, with the services charging merchants a small percentage (ranging from an estimated 1.5% to 7%) of the total transaction. The merchant benefits from increased sales from consumers who presumably feel more open to spending if they can spread out the impact, and avoid adding to credit card debt. Of course theres a flip side to that. Critics argue that the services exploit consumer psychology, underscoring the instant gratification of buying something new at just a fraction of the total price nowa temptation that overwhelms the reality of continuing to pay it off for months. While BNPL offerings are fundamentally similar to old-school layaway plans and the like, theyre much easier to qualify for, and often pop up as seamless options on e-commerce sites. Moreover, the services make money from late fees if an overextended consumer falls behind. Roughly 41% of BNPL users copped to paying late in the past year, compared to 34% a year ago. Most were only a week or so late, and many of the laggards were in higher-income categories, but thats a notable trend at a time when total consumer debt stands at a record $18.2 trillion. Either way, the expanding popularity of BNPL options for quotidian purposes like takeout and groceries is seen by many as a bad economic indicator: Surely an increased interest in alternative payment schemes to fund pizza night sounds like a sign of a skittish consumer. And while the use of BNPL options has been growing for some time, it has done so at a somewhat slower pace in the relatively positive economy of the past few years; by comparison, adoption spiked during and in the aftermath of the pandemic downturn. And theres no question that services like Affirm and Klarna are becoming an increasingly routine part of the consumer-spending landscape. Recent fears of tariff-fueled inflation, shortages in some retail and grocery categories, and perhaps even a recession actually make the idea of buying nowbefore things get even worsesound particularly appealing, and rational. Ultimately, both assessments of BNPL can be true at the same time: Its a convenient and potentially sensible option, and a worrisome trend. Discussing his firms latest data, Matt Schulz, LendingTrees chief consumer finance analyst, told CNBC that the popularity of BNPL reflects economic headwinds and uncertainty that has lots of consumers struggling and looking for ways to extend their budgets. For an awful lot of people, thats going to mean leaning on buy now, pay later loans, he said, for better or for worse.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||