I go on NPR To share My Opinions on Stuff

 I was interviewed by "The Takeaway" about why the FCC decided to slow roll the net neutrality repeal and my opinion on state law movements.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/why-repeal-net-neutrality-taking-so-long ;

A Lot Depends On How You Package Things . . . Including Racial Anxiety

All incumbents resist displacement.  No matter how much incumbents may say they welcome competition, compete in the marketplace on merit, and generaly express confidence as to their own excellence, this vanishes in a hot minute the second an incumbent perceives an "existential threat" to its dominance.

Unsurprisingly, this applies to human beings as well.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/2/17305402/majority-minority-demographic-forecast

Technically, this is about how newspapers running screaming headlines about how WHITE PEOPLE WON'T BE THE MAJORITY!!! makes a lot of white people nervous that they are gong to be rounded up and renamed "Loquisha" and "Ty-Rone." By contrast, headlines that say "Lots of white people who happen to have Latino ancestry or a white parent ensure that white people are going to be a majority of the country for the foreseeable future" don't get people in Iowa or Wisconsin or Pennsylvania to freak out nearly as much.

The articles notes that you can talk about the exact same data wrt changing demographics either "inclusively" (e.g., "America population growing -- including people who identify as "white" so don't wet yourselves") or "exclusively" (e.g., "You will be a minority in your own country") (nb: I made up every other line to exaggerate for rhetorical effect, this line actually is used *constantly* by the media.) turns out, according to a study discussed in the article, that if you give (white) people articles using inclusive language to describe the data where much calmer, optimistic and hopeful about the future than people who read the articles presenting the data as exclusive. It also made them less likely to vote Republican.