OPINION

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

CLAIRE HAO

Editor in Chief

ELIZABETH COOK AND JOEL WEINER

Editorial Page Editors

BRITTANY BOWMAN

Managing Editor

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Julian Barnard Zack Blumberg Brittany Bowman Emily Considine Elizabeth Cook Brandon Cowit Jess D’Agostino Ben Davis Andrew Gerace Krystal Hur Min Soo Kim Jessie Mitchell

Zoe Phillips Mary Rolfes Elayna Swift Jack Tumpowsky Joel Weiner Erin White

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

Why The Wall Street Journal shouldn’t have published Trump’s election lies

LYDIA STORELLA Opinion Columnist

On Oct. 27, the Wall Street Journal published a letter to the editor from former President Donald Trump regarding an editorial that the paper had previously published which stated that he lost Pennsylvania by 80,555 votes. In his letter, Trump reasserted that the 2020 election was fraudulent, rigged and corrupt, and therefore The Journal’s editorial was incorrect. After publication, some objected to The Journal publishing this letter at all, leading the newspaper to publish a statement on their decision. This statement conveyed their belief that their readers could come to their own conclusions, and then debunked some of the lies that Trump wrote in his letter.

Personally, I don’t think that The Journal should have published Trump’s letter. Lies should not be tolerated in newspapers, especially not in one of the most reputable newspapers in the country. Allowing a lie of this magnitude to be published as an opinion piece in a paper with this level of prestige legitimizes it in a way that a tweet or a Facebook post does not. But, in their piece defending publishing the letter, The Journal’s editorial board raised points worthy of consideration. For example, Trump says these things elsewhere, and trying to censor him doesn’t hinder his ability to share these views. It begs the question — what should the role of an opinion page be in publishing speech that is deemed offensive or blatantly false?

Traditionally, opinion pages publish pieces from two main sources: people who are hired to write for the paper (columnists or editorial board members) and people who write as guests — they typically write guest op-eds or letters to the editor. The purpose of guest op-eds is to highlight perspectives of those who do not write for the paper. The purpose of letters to the editor is to allow members of a paper’s audience to engage with their content, whether that engagement is in support or criticism.

Many newspapers allow for a wide variety of people with a range of opinions to write op-eds in their opinion sections, including people who many would consider as having values that are antithetical to a democratic society. For example, The New York Times has published op-eds from Russian President Vladimir Putin and Taliban deputy leader Sirajuddin Haqqani, both of whom are enemies of the United States. The Times also published an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., in June 2020 that called for the president to send in the military to combat Black Lives Matter protests.

Readers reacted strongly (and negatively) to the op-eds by Haqqani and Cotton, and for good reason — Haqqani has been involved in strikes that have killed American soldiers and Afghani citizens, and Cotton’s position is un-American at best and fascist at worst. But do our opinions and feelings about these beliefs and these people mean that we shouldn’t hear about them? Putin, Haqqani and Cotton are three people who matter. The actions of Putin and Haqqani directly influence American foreign policy. Cotton is a U.S. senator, and has aspirations to be the president of the United States. Their views have a real impact on the way the world works and for that, we’re better off knowing what they think, as appalling as their opinions may be.

Readers of The Journal and The Times rightfully want to hear nuanced, informed opinions in their newspapers, not lies and un-American rants. But it might be even more important that these readers hear these opinions, no matter how scary or deluded they are. While some may prefer to ignore it, others may want to learn more about the sentiments expressed by Haqqani or Cotton. That doesn’t mean that anyone should be able to write an op-ed about such a topic. But, since all three men have the ability to make their ideas into policy or social norms, it’s necessary that the public is aware of what their ideas are.

The distinction between the pieces The Times published and the letter to the editor that Trump wrote is that the Times pieces were opinions, meaning that readers could oppose them on the basis of disagreement, but couldn’t dismiss them as wholly untrue. Trump’s letter was based on lies, which made it unfit to be in a newspaper. To me, this is where the line should be drawn — media sources should not, as a matter of ethics, publish something that is based on clear falsehoods.

We can disagree with Putin, Haqqani and Cotton on the basis of their ideas, but a lack of decency or adherence to democratic ideals cannot be disparaged in the same way as lies. Knowledge of the opinions and ideas of important policymakers and figureheads — told from their own perspective — is necessary in order to combat bad or dangerous ideas. Opinion pages have an obligation to publish a diversity of opinions, even when those opinions will be unpopular with readers. But readers should not have to read unchecked falsehoods directly from the mouth of their main purveyor.

It’s time for Facebook to end

MIGUEL CALLE Opinion Columnist

It’s no coincidence that the best film from the 2010s was — according to Quentin Tarantino and myself — David Fincher’s “The Social Network.” At the time, the movie’s depiction of the protagonist, Mark Zuckerberg (played by Jesse Eisenberg), seemed a bit over-the-top. Today it feels like they held back. The inherent evils of Zuckerberg’s monstrosity have been evident for years; a solution cannot be delayed any longer.

Following the testimony of whistleblower Frances Haugen, a

former data scientist at Facebook, we’ve learned a great deal about what Zuckerberg and his company are doing. Haugen declared that “Facebook can change, but is clearly not going to do so on its own” and that Congress can limit Facebook’s ability to cause harm by changing the rules. I disagree — Congress cannot stop this social media giant and its conniving CEO. Only the people can do that, and it requires one step: hit delete.

Additionally, Haugen said “During my time at Facebook, I came to realize a devastating truth: Almost no one outside of Facebook knows what happens inside Facebook.” She also stated that Facebook hides information from the public, the U.S. government and other governments; that it uses algorithms to exploit teens’ insecurities, like exposing them to anorexia content; and that the website is “fanning ethnic violence” in places like Ethiopia. She put her career on the line to expose Facebook’s abominable footprint.

That being said, I don’t think Mark Zuckerberg is vile. Nor do I

think that he’s had malicious intent in constructing his spectacularly successful corporation. Good for him for making that much money; it’s what capitalism is all about. And I do agree with him on one point: It is wrong to regulate what can or cannot be said on a social network — though this doesn’t mean that Congress shouldn’t pass privacy and anti-monopoly legislation, it absolutely should. My refusal to accept the stifling of free speech in social media — a topic for another article — is why I think people need to take matters into their own hands. We need to draw on capitalism’s greatest strength: choice.

Whoever you are, whatever your age or ethnicity, various social media outlets play a leviathan role in how you and others interpret the world. There’s Twitter, Snapchat, Telegram, Pinterest, TikTok, Tumblr, Reddit, YouTube and even LinkedIn for the more career-inclined. There’s Instagram and WhatsApp, two that belong to Facebook, Inc, which is now called Meta after a rebrand. Those are toxic in a throng of ways too. But Facebook itself is the belle of the ball. It started an information revolution; if another data revolution is coming, the second one would – and should – begin with Facebook’s demise. I promised myself that I wouldn’t reference the movie beyond a nod of recognition to its artistic brilliance, as it is widely inaccurate in numerous regards. However, one of Aaron Sorkin’s masterly lines is fitting. It’s a prescient remark from Jesse Eisenberg’s Zuckerberg, in which he says that “Users are fickle. Friendster has proved that. Even a few people leaving would reverberate through the entire user base. The users are interconnected.” Should a fraction of Facebook’s users choose to leave it, the company would be forced to make changes without Congress getting involved.

According to a study conducted by the University of Colorado, Facebook is more of a breeding ground for misinformation and lies than other social media sites like Twitter, and those belonging to the far-left or right are more prone to sharing those lies.

Design by Jessica Chiu

Why Squid Game is the perfect cautionary cryptocurrency tale

SIDDHARTH PARMAR Opinion Columnist

In the last week of October, there was a curious new cryptocurrency that burst onto the scene: Squid Game, or SQUID for short. Based on, but not officially affiliated with, the Netflix sensation, its whitepaper promised a reward pool that would grow as the number of participants grew and a series of games inspired by the show involving SQUID tokens.

The past year saw themed cryptocurrencies like Dogecoin and Shiba Inu achieve exponential, albeit temporary, growth driven primarily by market hype. Squid Game was perfectly placed to emulate their success by capturing the excitement around its namesake. And it did! Squid Game grew to $1, then $10, then $100, all while capturing more people giving into their feelings of FOMO (fear of missing out). It peaked at a valuation of nearly $3,000, tremendous growth in the space of a week.

Sound too good to be true? It was. Within 10 minutes, it all went awry. The creators took the $3.36 million invested into the coin until Nov. 1 and vanished. The coin was reduced to a valuation of less than a third of a cent in value; the holders were left gaping at the speed and scale of the “rug pull.”

In hindsight, there were red flags throughout SQUID’s short lifetime. The value of SQUID never went down. There were also complaints about people being unable to sell any tokens. This was initially attributed to the anti-dump mechanism described by the creators. It also never had any connection to the Netflix show. Despite all of this, many people blindly bought into SQUID trying to chase the next big thing.

Squid Game perfectly encapsulates everything that’s wrong with the fastgrowing cryptocurrency market. Cryptocurrencies are mostly driven by market excitement. A problem arises when those feelings aren’t backed by sound fundamentals.

I’ve already mentioned Dogecoin a few times in this piece, and it’s worth delving into it for a bit. Dogecoin was created back in 2013 as a joke, meant to poke fun at the then-speculative cryptocurrency market. Unlike Bitcoin, whose value in large part derives from its limited supply, Dogecoin could technically have an infinite supply. Until the start of 2021, its value never went above a cent. Yet, in the aftermath of the r/ WallStreetBets GameStop saga, Dogecoin started rising inexplicably, so much so that celebrities such as Elon Musk took notice with his tweets, further fueling its growth. After peaking in May, it started falling again, settling now at around a quarter dollar.w

Cryptocurrencies, even the more well-known and sound ones, are extremely volatile. Cryptocurrency advocates will tell you about how their decentralized nature prevents any central entity from influencing the valuation of the currency. However, in their current form, they are still easily manipulated. Elon Musk, for instance, tweeted his reservations against Bitcoin’s environmental impact. The damage was immediate. Bitcoin’s value would dip by more than $10,000 in the coming days. You don’t have to be a Musk-level celebrity either to impact valuations. There are many groups that work to orchestrate pump-and-dump schemes wherein the whole group invests in a cryptocurrency of their choosing at once. This generates a buzz around it that drives other investors to invest in it. As the value of the cryptocurrency rises, more investors flock to it. When the group is satisfied with the growth of the cryptocurrency, they sell their holdings rapidly, triggering a dramatic fall in the valuation of cryptocurrency.

Cryptocurrency’s nature as something that is outside governmental regulations acts as a double-edged sword here. While some praise it for being free of government interference, it also lacks all legal consumer protections. This often means that in the event of a scam, consumers have little to no legal recourse.

I’m certainly not going to discourage anyone from investing in cryptocurrency if they so choose. I personally don’t because it doesn’t align with my risk tolerance. There’s a certain level of volatility with even the more stable cryptocurrencies, so it is crucial to do your research before investing. Only invest as much as you can afford to lose. And never blindly “hold” on a quest to send prices to “the moon.” You might get the rug pulled out from under you.

File Photo/DAILY

The roaring comeback of live sports

NOAH ENTE Opinion Columnist

In 2020, the first and most intense year of the COVID-19 pandemic, daily life in our society underwent significant changes. These adaptations were part of what many believed to be a “new normal” that would persist as long as — if not longer than — the pandemic itself. Some developments have been widely considered positive. Unnecessary meetings were canceled or adapted into emails. Long commutes were often eliminated. Many families found themselves spending more time together. Despite the rapidly worsening state of public health, perhaps there were a few silver linings in this new normal.

Such was not the case for spectator sports and fans. With restrictions on large gatherings, live audiences were prevented from attending sporting events, and after long periods of complete shutdown, seasons were either canceled altogether or resumed in vacuum environments free of fans. Players across various sports noticed the difference in the atmosphere and the ways in which empty arenas impacted the games. Fans waxed poetic about missing the experience of attending live competitions and witnessing athletic history. These audiencefree environments were a necessary alteration during the height of the pandemic, but all parties wished for the conditions which would allow sports and the broader community a return to normalcy.

With COVID-19 cases decreasing as a result of widespread immunization, spectators have started to trickle back into stadiums, and fan bases could not be happier. The sights and sounds of tens of thousands of raucous people reacting to every play could never be replaced by artificial crowd noise, and being part of a team’s home-field advantage is a magical feeling for fans of all ages. The return of fans has increased both the quality and stakes of each game played. The NFL, for one, has repeatedly called 2021 its “biggest season ever,” as the return of fans across the league and the addition of a 17th game for each team combine to ceremoniously usher in the future of the sport.

Nowhere has this comeback borne out more evidently than at Michigan Stadium, where spectators have enthusiastically returned after a 2020 season that left many fans feeling as empty as the bleachers at the Big House. As the largest stadium in North America and the third-largest in the world, the complete absence of fans could not be more unnatural. In normal times, those in attendance at Michigan football games are reminded by announcer Carl Grapentine that they are part of the “largest crowd watching a football game anywhere in America today,” a fact which carries special weight after a year in which crowds were robbed of the electric atmosphere of Michigan football. U-M fans certainly appear refreshed upon their return, with their spirited game day traditions, such as the crowd’s inspired singing of The Killers’ “Mr. Brightside,” garnering national attention.

For those who already had the chance to be part of college fandom before the pandemic struck, the removal of fans from sporting events made for yet another tough blow. Taking in a game at the Big House, Crisler Center, Yost Ice Arena or anywhere else on campus is a oneof-a-kind experience and practically a rite of passage for U-M students. With boisterous collective chants, seas of maize and blue apparel and the exceptional performances of U-M student-athletes, the environment is unparalleled. After a year of watching from our couches as U-M teams achieve greatness, students and fans have found an even greater appreciation for simply being present.

Athletes often explain their love for team-oriented sport through an appreciation for being part of something greater than themselves. The same can be said for fans, who dedicate their time, resources and energy to the teams they adore. Their cheers, whether stemming from euphoria or exasperation, are what make spectator sporting events the popular rituals they are. Research has shown that the presence and energy of a live audience often affect the performance of athletes and may exert notable influence on the outcome of a game. Home court advantage exists and can certainly prove powerful.

After a year in which people felt more socially isolated than ever before, the enthusiasm for live sports comes as no surprise. Despite the lingering of COVID19, many of those with a love for their teams and competition simply cannot remain on the sidelines any longer. It once seemed improbable for crowds to come back to arenas this year, or perhaps for even longer. Now, scientific developments and necessary precautions have assured that in-person sports attendance is back and likely here to stay, and it is beautiful to see athletes and fans coming together once again. For those able to attend who haven’t gotten in on the action, there’s no better time to get in the game and be a part of something bigger than oneself.