UK Chief Rabbi on Shabbat with the King: ‘I wasn’t prepared for how powerful it would be’

“When you see human royalty, it reminds us of how great God is. And obviously the King of Kings is of a far superior nature.”

By World Israel News Staff

The UK Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, recalled his “Shabbat like no other” at the palace of King Charles III on the day of his coronation, calling it “very, very special.”

“The Talmud says that royalty of flesh and blood is a reminder of royalty of the heavens, meaning that when you see human royalty, it reminds us of how great God is. And obviously the King of Kings is of a far superior nature,” he told the London-based Jewish News.

“But when I saw, literally in front of me, the King and Queen with their crowns on, at that moment — it was something very, very special. There was an aura about it, it was palpable, it was just there, and you could sense it. And that was something I wasn’t prepared for: it just came, and was very powerful. So it was an enormous privilege for me to be there at that moment, to represent our community”.

Rabbi Mirvis was invited to stay at St James’ Palace so that he could walk to Westminster Abbey by foot. He also prayed Shabbat morning services at 6am at a nearby synagogue in order to make the coronation on time.

He was full of praise for his palace hosts, whose staff, he said, “had really done their homework” and had gone out of their way to make things comfortable for he and his wife, Lady Valerie. For example, he told the newspaper, there were some rooms in which a light came on automatically when a person walked in, thereby transgressing Jewish law which forbids turning on lights on the Sabbath. “The palace ensured that there was always someone to walk ahead of us so that we played no part in triggering the light”.

He said he had “a sense of deep privilege for the respect being shown to the British Jewish community. I felt enormous appreciation for our gracious hosts”.

“Yes, it was a Coronation — but it was also Shabbat,” he said.

“There was an aura about it, it was palpable, it was just there, and you could sense it. And that was something I wasn’t prepared for: it just came, and was very powerful,” he said.

“The last time there was a Coronation on Shabbat was 1902 [for King Edward VII] and Chief Rabbi Herman Adler attended. The Palace wanted me, literally to walk in the footsteps of Chief Rabbi Adler”, so the route was planned and copied accordingly, after Sir Ephraim had made kiddush at St James’ Palace.

The Chief Rabbi told the Jewish News that alongside the Christian liturgy in the Coronation service, there were several references to Judaism — including a blessing made by the Archbishop of York, which is a direct repetition of the blessing of the priests — “The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine on you and be gracious to you; the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace”.

The post UK Chief Rabbi on Shabbat with the King: ‘I wasn’t prepared for how powerful it would be’ appeared first on World Israel News.

The Pundits Were Wrong: Corporate Greed Stoked Inflation

For the last year, media pundits have insisted that today’s inflation has nothing to do with corporate profiteering, much to the delight of the capitalist class. It is more than clear now that they were wrong.

A shopper looks over a selection of canned soups April 30, 2023 at the Tops Super Market in Greenville, New York. (Robert Nickelsberg / Getty Images)

One year ago, as price hikes were becoming a major national concern, the world’s third-richest man touted his newspaper columnist asserting that corporate profits were not a driving force behind inflation — blaming temporary COVID-19 pandemic aid instead.

While Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos and others were trying to steer the inflation discourse away from a focus on business profiteering, there was already data showing that most of the price increases Americans were experiencing could be attributed to larger corporate profit margins.

Those figures were hardly surprising: corporations that had been permitted to grow into oligopolies during the era of lax antitrust enforcement were now able to leverage their outsized market power to hike prices — and to do so with less fear of competitors undercutting them. It’s a reality that has since been recognized by a Federal Reserve study, a top economist at UBS, European central bankers, and, most recently, Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal.

And yet, corporate media outlets ignored the available data, choosing to publish and platform pundits who scoffed at accusations of what they derisively called “greedflation” and who insisted that the problem is workers being paid higher wages. That decision delivered devastating consequences for the US working class.

As with the “weapons of mass destruction” lies used to justify the deadly Iraq War, and financial deregulation triumphalism leading to the 2008 financial crisis and bank bailouts, the fake media narrative about inflation became conventional wisdom, was echoed by lawmakers, and justified specific policies. In this case, the narrative provided government officials justification to cut off pandemic aid, block new spending, abandon any push for a minimum wage increase, and raise interest rates with the express goal of driving down workers’ wages.

The results: a sharp increase in the number of Americans who can’t afford to pay their bills, and now mass layoffs amid a slowing economy.

Directing blame for inflation away from corporations and toward government spending that temporarily boosted the working class was lucrative for the world’s wealthiest like Bezos and for the giant companies that belong to corporate lobbying groups like the US Chamber of Commerce.

The discourse manipulation helped stall momentum for anti-price-gouging legislation, higher taxes on the wealthy, and an excessive corporate profits tax. The propaganda also provided a justification for companies to keep jacking up prices as the government inflicted economic pain on workers and families.

We contacted several pundits who helped cement the narrative that “greedflation” was fake, and by extension, that government aid to the working class was the primary inflation culprit. Those who replied offered no apologies for helping create propaganda that justified cutting off millions of Americans from that aid, and they offered no response to a series of reports and analyses indicating that corporate profits have been driving historic price increases — exactly as some progressives accurately noted.

A “Flimsy” Democratic “Conspiracy Theory”

Early last year, the Washington Post editorial board published an op-ed claiming that President Joe Biden’s White House was offering “a bizarre message on inflation,” asserting that “pinning the current inflation problems on corporate greed is a flimsy argument.”

When House and Senate Democrats scheduled hearings a few months later on the role of corporate profiteering in inflation, the US Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s top business lobby, responded with letters to lawmakers pointing them to the Post op-ed.

“The premise of your hearing has been roundly refuted by economists,” the organization wrote to Senator Bernie Sanders in April 2022.

To an extent, the Chamber was right: the economist and pundit class had certainly disputed the notion that profiteering was playing a key role in driving inflation.

So did Republican lawmakers like Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who used his time in the hearing to try to shift blame away from corporate price gouging and instead toward government spending.

First, he cited former Clinton treasury secretary Larry Summers’s warning that Democrats’ 2021 pandemic aid package would spur inflation.

“Democrats ignored common sense,” said Grassley, adding that they were now “grasping at straws to find a scapegoat, hence, blaming inflation on corporate greed, never mind that economists across the political spectrum overwhelmingly reject the theory.”

However, Lindsay Owens, executive director at the Groundwork Collaborative, testified to Sanders’s budget committee that her organization had reviewed hundreds of earnings calls, and found that Corporate CEOs were actively bragging to investors that they had been able to mark up costs on goods and services far beyond the rising costs paid by the companies.

Corporate CEOs were actively bragging to investors that they had been able to mark up costs on goods and services far beyond the rising costs paid by the companies.

“Over and over, in sector after sector, the message from corporate America is clear: CEOs are telling their investors that the current inflationary environment has created significant opportunities to extract more and more profit by raising prices on consumers,” she wrote. “Their strategy is simple — pass along rising costs, and then take even more.”

A few weeks after Sanders’s hearing, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) released a study that found: “Corporate profits have contributed disproportionately to inflation.”

EPI’s chief economist Josh Bivens wrote that more than half of companies’ price increases since the start of the pandemic “can be attributed to fatter profit margins, with labor costs contributing less than 8 percent of this increase,” adding: “This is not normal.”

The EPI analysis should have been definitive — but the corporate pundit class chose to ignore it.

A few weeks after EPI released its study, Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell wrote an op-ed calling “greedflation” a Democratic “conspiracy theory” equivalent to conservatives using a veterinary drug to try to cure COVID-19.

Rampell, who once wrote a piece standing up for legacy admissions at Princeton University such as herself, soon published another column arguing that Democrats were wrong to discuss corporate greed as a factor driving inflation . She instead cast partial blame on the one-time $1,400 pandemic aid payments mailed out by Democrats shortly after Biden took office.

Bezos, the Post’s owner, blasted Rampell’s column out to his millions of followers on Twitter, a few days after he criticized Biden for arguing that raising corporate taxes would help bring down inflation.

Rampell separately wrote, “For ‘corporate greed’ to be the culprit behind the recent spike in prices, well, you’d have to believe either that businesses suddenly got much greedier — that this is the greediest Thanksgiving ever! — or that businesses somehow suddenly got much more effective at acting upon that greed.”

The latter appears to be exactly what happened: data compiled by the Roosevelt Institute study suggested that corporations that had grown larger in the era of lax antitrust enforcement were able to use their expanded market power to inflate prices, knowing they would not be undercut by competitors.

The Washington Post and Rampell did not respond to questions from us.

As recently as February, Rampell tweeted out that those questioning her assertions about inflation are “internet trolls” and that despite all the data, she was right to repeatedly suggest that corporate profits were not a driver of price hikes.

“I Stand by That 100 Percent”

The Post editorial board and Rampell were far from alone in arguing that it was a “conspiracy theory” to suggest that corporate profits are responsible for much of the price inflation that people have experienced during the pandemic.

Jason Furman, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama, shared Rampell’s column about Democrats’ inflation “conspiracy theory” on Twitter, praising her for calling out “this dangerous misguided nonsense.”

A scion of a wealthy and powerful real estate family, Furman later tweeted that “many of the arguments for ‘greedflation’ are unequivocally wrong & confused.”

Economist Justin Wolfers told NPR last fall, “My friend and economist Jason Furman says, ‘Blaming inflation on greed is like blaming a plane crash on gravity.’ It is technically correct, but it entirely misses the point.”

Furman continued to double down on this narrative when contacted by us.

“I do think corporations maximize their profits and try to raise prices as high as they can — and that we have too much corporate concentration so prices are too high,” Furman said. “But I don’t see any evidence that changed over the last few years. What did change was demand fueled by highly expansionary fiscal and monetary policy.”

Summers, the former Clinton treasury secretary who helped usher in the deregulation of the banking industry that led to the 2008 financial crisis and created “too-big-to-fail” banks, said in May 2022 that the idea that corporate profits played a role in inflation was “preposterous.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, amplified Summers and Furman’s criticisms of the “greedflation” narrative on the Senate floor last May.

Bloomberg Opinion columnist Matt Yglesias, whose Slow Boring blog is reportedly read by White House staff, wrote a post last May entitled: “Greedflation is fake.” Yglesias urged readers to suppose they ran a company that decides to hike prices in response to a temporary surge in demand.

“So imagine your surprise when politicians start screaming that the high-profit margins prove that this inflation is really ‘greedflation’ driven by monopoly power when all you did was make tables available promptly to people who wanted tables,” he wrote, adding: “Greed is a constant. But the cause of this particular inflation was a surge in demand, not a surge in greed.”

Reached for comment by us, Yglesias responded, “In terms of my piece, I believe my thesis — as you yourself quoted it back to me — was that inflation could not possibly be attributed to an increase in the level of corporate greed. I stand by that 100 percent.”

He added, “What I remember from my economics textbooks is that if you have a surge in demand that runs up against relatively inelastic supply, what happens is that prices go up (inflation) and so do profits — that’s broadly speaking what I think is going on here and what I assume the economists whose work you’re summarizing are explaining.”

Corporate Spin to “Disguise Profit Margin Expansion”

Several recent economic studies and comments from central bankers indicate that corporate profits are, in fact, driving price hikes.

“Firms raised markups during 2021 in anticipation of future cost pressures, contributing substantially to inflation,” researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City wrote in an economic review published this January.

In March, UBS chief economist Paul Donovan released a revealing commentary concluding: “Recent inflation has been driven by an unusual expansion of profit margins.”

Several recent economic studies and comments from central bankers indicate that corporate profits are, in fact, driving price hikes.

He explained: “Profit margin-led inflation is not caused by a supply-demand imbalance. Profit margin-led inflation is when some companies spin a story that convinces customers that price increases are ‘fair,’ when in fact they disguise profit margin expansion.”

Donovan noted that “widespread reports of rising agricultural prices allow supermarkets and restaurants to raise the price of food.” Other spinnable stories include “supply chain disruption (in fact global trade is at a record high), labor shortages (in fact wage costs are rising far less than prices), and in the most circular of arguments ‘general inflation,’” he wrote.

Several days later, a top official at the European Central Bank gave a speech suggesting that corporate profiteering is sustaining inflation.

“Opportunistic behaviour by firms could also delay the fall in core inflation,” said Fabio Panetta, an executive board member at the bank. “In fact, unit profits contributed to more than half of domestic price pressures in the last quarter of 2022. In some industries, profits are increasing strongly and retail prices are rising rapidly, in spite of the fact that wholesale prices have been decreasing for some time.”

He added, “This suggests that some producers have been exploiting the uncertainty created by high and volatile inflation and supply-demand mismatches to increase their margins, raising prices beyond what was necessary to absorb cost increases.”

On Tuesday, the conservative Wall Street Journal reported, “Inflation has proved more stubborn than central banks bargained for when prices started surging two years ago. Now some economists think they know why: Businesses are using a rare opportunity to boost their profit margins.”

On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve once again hiked interest rates — increasing the risk that the US economy will fall into a recession.

For its part, the Washington Post recently republished a Bloomberg column that noted: “The idea that corporate profit expansion has been a big driver of inflation was once mostly confined to trade unions and left-wing academics, but it’s now taken seriously.”

But neither Bezos nor the newspaper’s editorial page have themselves responded to — or apologized for suppressing — the data showing their inflation narrative was false.

WATCH: Mark Zuckerberg wins gold at jujitsu after squabble with referee

Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg recently won gold and silver medals at his first ever Brazilian jiujitsu tournament, but got into an argument with the referee which resulted in a recast.

The post WATCH: Mark Zuckerberg wins gold at jujitsu after squabble with referee appeared first on World Israel News.

Matt Walsh’s Vitriolic Anti-Trans Christianity Is Distinctly Anti-Christian

Friedrich Nietzsche once wrote, “Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is they are not even superficial.” By that logic the work of Matt Walsh is so superficial it barely registers as two-dimensional. A media commentator for the Daily Wire, Walsh tackles big questions like the scientificity of a black mermaid and the fertility of […]

Linoleic Acid — The Most Destructive Ingredient in Your Diet

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article

The post Linoleic Acid — The Most Destructive Ingredient in Your Diet appeared first on Global Research.

Disinformation and the State: The Aptly Named RESTRICT Act

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article

The post Disinformation and the State: The Aptly Named RESTRICT Act appeared first on Global Research.

Big Tech Is Taking Cues From Big Tobacco’s Playbook

Alongside tireless political lobbying, Big Tech has infiltrated the academic institutions studying and often promoting AI — with little regard for the potentially catastrophic downsides.

As Big Tech execs and their lobbyists seek to protect the investment potential of AI, they will no doubt wield academic research from corporate-linked experts to make their case. (Jakub Porzycki / NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Artificial intelligence has a lot of potentially huge upsides, but it is also big and scary because it could get out of control and possibly end all human life, according to some scientists. And so naturally the tech companies that stand to make bank off the menace are aping one of the original big and scary industries: Big Tobacco.

That’s the thrust of a recent study flagged for me by Dr Max Tegmark after our fascinating and terrifying Lever Time discussion about his dire AI warnings that have been making headlines across the planet.

Tegmark likens the situation to the plot of Don’t Look Up, in which experts tout the benefits of the incoming comet rather than sounding the alarm about its dangers. The 2021 paper he sent me offers some answers about why: it shows how Big Tech has infiltrated the academic institutions studying and often promoting AI — with little regard for the potentially catastrophic downsides.

The researchers at the University of Toronto and Harvard who spearheaded the study offer a conclusion: “Just as Big Tobacco leveraged its funding and initiatives to identify academics who would be receptive to industry positions and who, in turn, could be used to combat legislation and fight litigation, Big Tech leverages its power and structure in the same way.”

Their proof is in the data. Among the tenure-track research faculties at universities they studied, “58 percent of AI ethics faculty are looking to Big Tech for money” and when “expanding the funding criteria to include graduate funding as well as previous work experience, we note that 97% of faculty with known funding sources (65% total) have received financial compensation by Big Tech.”

The researchers explain what this means:

Big Tech is able to influence what [faculty] work on. This is because, to bring in research funding, faculty will be pressured to modify their work to be more amenable to the views of Big Tech. This influence can occur even without the explicit intention of manipulation, if those applying for awards and those deciding who deserve funding do not share the same underlying views of what ethics is or how it “should be solved.”

If you want some recent proof of this influence, take a look at this Reuters report showing that Google “moved to tighten control over its scientists’ papers by launching a ‘sensitive topics’ review, and in at least three cases requested authors refrain from casting its technology in a negative light.”

Notably, some of Big Tech’s funding of AI research goes specifically to AI ethics experts often quoted throughout the media. Executives at these companies understand the political power of those experts and their research. Quoting a US Senate aide, journalist Rana Foroohar recounts this in Don’t Be Evil:

“It’s about social and intellectual capture, which is actually much more effective both short- and long-term. Google supports researchers working in areas that are complementary to Google business interests and/or adverse to its competitors’ business interests; things like relaxed copyright laws, patent reform, net neutrality, laissez-faire economics, privacy, robots, AI, media ownership. . . . They do this via direct grants to the researchers, funding of their centers and labs, conferences, contributions to civil society groups, and flying them out to Google events.”

In this way, the company not only builds goodwill, but successfully “grooms academic standard-bearers, prominent academics who will drive younger peers in a direction that is more favorable to the company,” says the aide.

Right now, this is all playing out most prominently in the EU, where tech lobbyists are trying to water down AI regulations amid warnings that the technology could pose an existential threat to all life on the planet. Here in the United States, Politico has been touting an AI lobbying “gold rush” in Washington, as companies and the K Street influence machine have dollar signs in their eyes.

These real-world Peter Isherwells don’t want lawmakers to know — or legislate against — the potential dangers, because that might get in the way of what a new Morgan Stanley memo noted: “Cognitive computing creates potential investment opportunities, as companies develop the technology and use it to transform their business.”

As they seek to protect that investment potential, tech execs and their lobbyists will no doubt wield academic research papers from corporate-linked experts to make their case — and in many cases, policy makers might not even know of those links.

That was Big Tobacco’s trick a few decades ago — and now it’s Big Tech’s strategy today.

The WGA Strike Is a Fight Against Silicon Valley’s Gigification of the Entire Economy

If the ongoing film and TV writers strike is successful, the Writers Guild of America could establish a model for how service sector, app-based gig workers can take on Silicon Valley.

A large group of WGA members picket in front of Paramount Studio gate in Los Angeles, California on May 4, 2023. (Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times)

Thousands of Writers Guild of America (WGA) writers in New York City and Los Angeles are on strike fighting the impact of technological innovation on their industry and earnings. These entertainment writers are in many ways the original gig workers. Even for unionized writers, job security never lasts more than a few weeks. Much like other gig workers including Uber drivers and DoorDash delivery workers, technological innovations driven by Silicon Valley firms have been used to drive down wages and to justify rewriting the terms of employment in the industry to workers’ detriment. Where taxi drivers saw their work moved onto apps like Uber and its independent contractor model, writers saw their shows moved from broadcast networks to streaming services — with entertainment bosses insisting that residuals, the compensation writers receive on reruns and other future revenue generated from their work, no longer need to be paid.

At their core, the challenges facing both kinds of workers are driven by Silicon Valley’s ethos of rule-breaking in the name of “disruption” that is slowly impacting every sector of the economy. The impact of tech firms on Hollywood began in the 2000s, resulting in the 2007–8 strike, which ensured that streaming services like Netflix and other internet-based media would be covered by the WGA contract.

The primary sticking points of the current strike are about technology. As the WGA West published their list of demands and the companies’ counter proposals, the main issues are the extent to which streaming residuals are based on the number of streams and the preservation of writers rooms (a demand that is about ensuring minimum levels of staffing for writers), which have been threatened by streamers’ movement to shorter seasons than broadcast shows, as well as a ban on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the script generation process.

The fight for streaming residuals based on the popularity of the show is the most indicative of technology’s impact on the industry. Historically, writers would work on a broadcast television show, and then every time the show airs, including decades later through syndication, all the writers who worked on the episode would receive a residual payment. Shows like Friends and Seinfeld continue to pay the rent for writers on these shows.

Residuals ensured that writing remained a middle-class job, evening out writers’ incomes between writing gigs. It also ensured that if a show was a hit, the writers got a piece of the money still being made from their creation. Today, writers for hit streaming shows such as Bridgeton or Wednesday stand to receive nothing beyond their initial payment for writing the show; if these shows become a hit or the streamers resell their work, the bosses will make money from the reruns but the writers will not.

The denial of this residual highlights the impact of Silicon Valley’s magical thinking in the entertainment industry. Just look at the math. The WGA West reports that their demands would cost the studios an additional $429 million a year, which is less than half of recent summer blockbusters like Top Gun: Maverick and Black Panther: Wakanda Forever made at the box office. The studios have rejected the proposal, resulting in each of them losing over a billion dollars each in stock value on the first day of the strike. They have the money to pay the streaming residuals, but doing so would require greater transparency in reporting shows’ streaming volume. This threatens the core myth of streamers’ relationship to Wall Street: only growth in subscriptions matters, not profitability.

Ever since Amazon convinced Wall Street that the company was a sound investment despite not running a profit for years, Wall Street investors have flooded money into tech firms such as Uber and DoorDash, which have also failed to prove they can ever consistently turn a profit. In Hollywood, this logic manifested in streaming services like Netflix, HBO Max, and Disney+ arguing that the number of subscribers they hold, not profitability, should be the metric by which Wall Street measures the streamers’ success. The streamers’ argued that if subscriptions continue to grow, they will become profitable eventually.

If Hollywood studios began paying streaming residuals, they would have to agree to a level of transparency on the number of streams individual shows or movies received.

But subscription numbers, much like determining Uber’s value by the number of rides performed, could be juiced by pouring venture capital money into coupons and subsidized deals, which encourages temporary customers. Unlike Amazon’s years of unprofitability, which resulted in the company’s investment in a vast network of distribution warehouses all throughout the United States and world, all of Uber’s free rides and Disney+’s discounts are not building an infrastructure upon which future earning can be generated — they are a casino-style bet that customers will stay and pay significantly more money in the future.

This system seemed to come crashing down last year, when Netflix’s stock tanked, and the company was forced to introduce advertising to the platform despite years of insisting they would not. Despite this concession, and Netflix’s agreement to share viewership data with advertisers, the union contends the company continues to refuse the level of transparency needed to properly compensate writers for the value they have created. Silicon Valley broke Hollywood’s existing business model with streaming, and no one knows if their new model based on subscriptions will ever even work. If Hollywood studios began paying streaming residuals, they would have to agree to a level of transparency on the number of streams individual shows or movies received, which might reveal that the emperor in fact has no clothes.

As Goes Low-Wage Work, So Goes Writing Work

While the entertainment industry has long been a gig industry, Silicon Valley logic has attempted to further gigify writing in the image of what they did in lower-wage service industries. WGA’s demand to preserve the writers’ room would prevent the industry from becoming staffed largely by freelancers and ensure that younger, more diverse writers can gain experience to move up in the industry, seeks to counter this trend.

For example, the studios are demanding that comedy variety writers be paid only a “day rate” in which a writer’s contract could only be a single day long. Currently, late show writers are only guaranteed thirteen-week contracts; going to a day rate would essentially turn writers in the industry into the equivalent of Uber drivers. There is nothing fundamentally different between writing for a traditional TV show and a streaming service, but the studios are trying to shift to this gig model and eliminate the writer protections, which the WGA has fought for, just like gig apps argued their tech innovations allow them to misclassify workers as independent contractors.

Writers walk the picket line on the second day of the television and movie writers’ strike outside of Paramount Studios in Los Angeles, California, on May 3, 2023. (Frederic J. Brown / AFP via Getty Images)

Making matters worse, the companies are seeking to replace writers with AI technology. The fear is that first drafts of TV shows will be produced by AI, then a smaller number of writers would “punch up” the scripts. As anyone who has used ChatGPT knows, this seems unlikely to produce high-quality scripts. And AI-generated scripts might not even be copyrightable, as the US Copyright Office has ruled that AI-generated artwork is not entitled to legal protections because it is inherently based on plagiarizing past works of art.

The end result is that the WGA strike is an existential battle for the future of the profession. While the challenges to preserve a model that has produced decent-paying jobs is daunting, the situation could be worse. WGA’s last strike in 2007–8 ensured that the streaming services were covered under the WGA contract in the first place. Had the union not won that battle, they might not have survived to this point.

A Model for Taking on Silicon Valley?

If successful, this strike offers a path forward for the labor movement in fighting the gigification of labor and Silicon Valley’s insistence that tech need not follow existing laws or feel beholden to its workers in any way. The WGA stands well-positioned to lead this fight, because they do not fit the stereotypical notion most Americans have of what a labor union is. In contrast to factory-based industrial unions of the Depression and New Deal eras, such as the United Auto Workers or Steelworkers, the WGA is a guild drawing on traditions that precede the AFL-CIO, going back to the nineteenth-century Knights of Labor. During our current tech-based Gilded Age, turning to union models from the last such age could prove useful.

Historically, guilds were formed by artisans to protect the conditions of their industries by establishing standards and ensuring members adhere to these standards. Where a union negotiates with the employer, the guild negotiates with its members, setting standards that members will not undercut. The WGA both fights to ensure that employers follow the contract and that members do not attempt to work outside the contract. But a major problem facing the WGA is whether the actors and directors’ guilds will join their fight or undermine their strike like the directors did in 2007 when they settled their contract before the WGA did. The WGA might get their own members to hold the line, but if the other guilds don’t follow suit, the union could be in trouble. (A solidarity rally last Wednesday which included all the major entertainment unions hinted that this time might be different.)

If this strike is successful, the WGA could provide a powerful model of service sector app-based gig workers to take on their Silicon Valley foes.

Furthermore, unlike industrial unions, guild membership is based on demonstrated skill, not merely employment at a given factory. As such, writers “earn” a WGA card from working enough jobs. A major benefit of guilds in fighting tech firms is that they mirror the network structure of these firms. The guild structure matches the reality that writing is gig work. No movie or TV production lasts forever. Many in the labor movement have called for portable benefits to match the reality that workers increasingly move between employers and often work for multiple employers at the same time. Yet the WGA and other artist guilds have been doing just this for decades. They have achieved benefits portability without compromising on core labor issues such as employee status, which have plagued many efforts to provide benefits and rights to app gig workers.

Additionally, unlike an industrial union, guilds maintain standards by negotiating on the number of workers, the price paid, and costs incurred by gig-based employment. Guild unions recognize the hard truth that for gig work to be truly profitable for workers, restrictions must be placed on the number of workers in the industry and the minimum standards of membership in the guild. This is often hard for trade unionists schooled in the industrial unions that have dominated American labor to digest, but it is essential for maintaining standards and full-time employment in diffuse and gig-based industries.

If this strike is successful, the WGA could provide a powerful model of service sector, app-based gig workers to take on their Silicon Valley foes. Where the WGA demands streaming residuals, Uber drivers could demand a say in setting the pay and conditions of each ride, as the New York Taxi Workers Association and the Deliveristas have done in New York City. The WGA is fighting for minimum staffing levels; DoorDash drivers could fight for greater control over the number of delivery workers on the streets. Where WGA demands streaming transparency and no AI, Lyft drivers could demand greater transparency of algorithmic management and tracking, such as a recent CWA-led effort in Colorado.

Uber drivers and their unions see the tech-based similarities between their struggles and the WGA strike. As Bhairavi Desai, president of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, which has organized Uber drivers, explained, “We stand in full solidarity with writers . . . the mighty Writers Guild gives us hope to push back and win against the tide of Uberization. It’s not about streaming, just like for us it’s never been about an App. The fight is against tech finance upending generations-old labor protections in the name of technology.”

The WGA strike is not only a massive fight to defend decent-paying writing jobs, but also a battle over how the labor movement as a whole can fight Silicon Valley’s tech-based disruption logic, which seeks to expand the gig economy’s abusive and exploitative model into every industry.