Talk:Chamber of Progress

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that, the Chamber of Progress describes itself as devoted to a "progressive society" but some critics have called it an astroturfing group and "progressive camouflage" for anti-union organizing?

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 18:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • New article, long enough, well-referenced, neutrally written with no significant copyvios. The hook is cited-inline in the article and is interesting. A QPQ has been done by the nominator. Good to go! Ashleyyoursmile! 12:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cotton[edit]

The article currently says that Kovacevich was a "Tom Cotton campaigner." I propose deleting this.

Kovacevich's stints campaigning for his college friend seem insignificant in the full sweep of Kovacevich's career; to put this experience on par with Kovacevich's dozen years lobbying for Google seems skewed.

Moreover, an on-the-ground article from the time (https://arktimes.com/news/cover-stories/2014/07/24/is-tom-cotton-too-extreme-too-robotic-or-the-next-big-thing-in-arkansas-politics) quotes Kovacevich as saying, "I certainly don’t agree with Tom on all the issues." BlueRoses13 (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Our individual evaluations of the significance or insignificance of a person, place, or thing can't be used to determine the contents of a WP article. We must include what WP:RS determine to be significant. As this was a major thematic descriptor in a RS it is significant whether or not we agree with the emphasis the RS chose to place on it. Chetsford (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Chetsford. No question about WP:RS. The issue, as I see it, is more specific: The Mother Jones article devotes 100 words out of 1,150 to Cotton, so it's unclear why this passage constitutes a "major thematic descriptor." Especially in contrast to the CEO's time with Google, which is the headline of the Mother Jones article (and the overwhelming focus of the footnotes the Wikipedia page cites). Thoughts? Thank you. BlueRoses13 (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, 9% is a lot, I didn't realize it devoted that much of the text to Cotton. Combined with its top-of-article positioning I can only imagine we'll have to leave it in. Chetsford (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section[edit]

I removed the following sentence in the WP:MOSLEAD for lack of WP:NPOV:

"The organization describes itself as a progressive advocacy organization; some have characterized it as a corporate front group supporting union busting and anti-consumer practices."

I explained that while the positive half was general, the critical half was significantly more specific.

In response, Chetsford restored this sentence. He explained, "The lead must be a summary of the contents of the article; to omit and hide the presence of any critical analysis would contravene our style guidelines."

Agreed. I should have proposed *changing* the sentence rather than deleting it. My apologies. Here's what I propose instead:

Let's remove the part about "supporting union busting and anti-consumer practices."

In my reading, these characterizations are not supported by the content of the article. For example, it's unclear which "anti-consumer practices" the text refers to. Also, "anti-consumer" doesn't seem to be a neutral term. Finally, because one opposes *certain* union activities doesn't mean, ipso facto, that one opposes unions altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRoses13 (talk • contribs)

I have no problem with changing it to "opposes unions and government regulation of its members" or the equivalent. Chetsford (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Chetsford. I appreciate your perspective, and I'm happy that we're able to talk this through.

I propose the following synopsis, which I think is both specific and accurate:

"Some have characterized it as a corporate front group opposing government regulation of, and unionizing among, its members."

(As I mentioned earlier, "opposes unions" is inaccurate; because one opposes *certain* union activities doesn't mean, ipso facto, that one opposes unions altogether.)

What do you think?

Thanks again for the engagement. BlueRoses13 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objections here. Chetsford (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI[edit]

Hello again Chetsford, While my edits from earlier this year were unconflicted and voluntary, the Chamber of Progress has since hired me. I plan to propose additional edits on their behalf in the coming days, and I have disclosed my COI on my "Talk" page. I look forward to working with you again. Thank you. BlueRoses13 (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Employees, Rubio, and A.V.s[edit]

I’d like to suggest the following changes. They’re all small, and for each one I’ve provided a link and an explanation. Thank you for your consideration.

1. Change (Infobox)
We should correct the number of staff in the infobox from 1 to 5. See the “team” section of the https://progresschamber.org homepage.

2. Change (Employees)
I’d like to correct this:

As of 2021, Kovacevich was the Chamber of Progress' only employee.

to this:

As of October 2021, the organization has five employees.

Explanation: In addition to CEO Kovacevich, the Chamber currently employs a VP of Legal Advocacy (https://www.protocol.com/policy/230-democratic-lawyer); a Director of State and Local Public Policy (https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/other-voices/article254451678.html); a Director of Federal Public Policy (https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-tech/2021/06/14/senate-to-vote-on-khan-as-antitrust-pressure-heats-up-795927); and a Director of Communications (https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-tech/2021/06/14/senate-to-vote-on-khan-as-antitrust-pressure-heats-up-795927).

3. Add (Rubio)
Can we add “California Assemblymember Blanca Rubio” to the following list?

As of 2021, the organization's advisory board consisted of Colorado State Senator Jeff Bridges, New Jersey State Senator Troy Singleton, Malcom Glenn, Vikrum Aiyer, Roy Bahat, Hillary Brill, Maura Corbett, Michele Jawando, Helen Milby, Joe Miller, Alejandro Roark, and Julie Samuels.

Explanation: The “advisory board” section of https://progresschamber.org lists Rubio.

4. Add (Auto)
Can we add this to the “Positions” section:

Autonomous vehicles
The Chamber of Progress advocates for updating automobile regulations to allow for the deployment of more self-driving cars.[1] The organization is critical of automaker Tesla for marketing its cars as “self-driving” even though they are not fully autonomous.[2]

Explanation: This issue has drawn the attention of the mainstream media, as documented in the sources above.

BlueRoses13 (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with a few edits. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Heartmusic678! Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueRoses13: You're welcome. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kovacevich, Adam (July 21, 2021). "Congress should stop stalling autonomous vehicle technologies". dailynews.com. The Los Angeles Daily News. Retrieved October 28, 2021.
  2. ^ Siddiqui, Faiz (September 25, 2021). "Tesla owners can now request 'Full Self-Driving,' prompting criticism from regulators and safety advocates". washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 28, 2021.

Adding More Details[edit]

I'd like to suggest the following five changes. They're all straightforward, and for each one I've provided a link and an explanation. Thank you for your consideration.

1. Delete “Puke” Quote (Analysis)[edit]

Can we delete the following sentence?

In an April 2021 interview, Chung said the group "makes me want to puke".

Explanation: This quote is gratuitous and doesn't do anything to enlighten our readers.

2. Add Issues (Lead)[edit]

I’d like to change the following sentence from this:

The organization describes itself as a progressive advocacy organization.

to this:

The organization works on issues such as antitrust law, content moderation, and self-driving cars, and describes itself as a progressive advocacy organization.

Explanation: Wikipedia readers will want a few key specifics upfront, so I added, in alphabetical order, the top three issues the Chamber works on, as documented in the "Positions" section and by media coverage.

Note: The "Positions" section uses slightly different terms ("Monopolization," "Health misinformation regulation," and "autonomous vehicles").

3. Add Apple and Twitter (Lead)[edit]

Can we add Apple and Twitter to this list?

It was established in 2020 by Adam Kovacevich and is funded by Amazon, Uber, Facebook, Google, and other technology companies.

Explanation: Both Apple and Twitter are as notable as the other companies cited. (For a full list, see https://progresschamber.org/#corporate-partners.)

4. Add Lime (History)[edit]

Can we add “Lime executive” to the following sentence?

The Chamber of Progress was incorporated in November 2020 and announced in March 2021 by its founder and CEO Adam Kovacevich, a former Google lobbyist, Tom Cotton campaigner, and press secretary to United States Senator Joe Lieberman.

Explanation: Here are two news articles that support Kovacevich's prominence at Lime:

1. https://cheddar.com/media/e-scooter-startup-lime-hopes-to-operate-in-new-york-by-spring

2. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-28/google-s-ex-policy-lead-founds-tech-friendly-progressive-group

(Please don't confuse the latter for a press release; it is a news article from Bloomberg — a reliable source — written by a reporter.)

5. Add Funders (Leadership and Organization)[edit]

Can we add change this sentence:

The organization is funded by Amazon, DoorDash, Instacart, Grubhub, Zillow, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Uber and other companies.

to this:

The organization is funded by big tech companies such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Uber, and Zillow, as well as smaller tech companies such as DoorDash, Instacart, Lyft, Nuro, Turo, Waymo, and Wing.

Explanation: I clarified that funders include both big and smaller companies, and I named them in alphabetical order. For a full list, see https://progresschamber.org/#corporate-partners.

Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Heartmusic678! Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3 More Changes[edit]

Hello again, Thank you (especially @Heartmusic678) for responding to my previous edit requests here. I have one more batch for the community's consideration. I've tried to make each request clear and to provide appropriate documentation and an explanation. Thank you very much.

1. Change (Misinformation)[edit]

THE CURRENT TEXT WHAT I PROPOSE
Health misinformation regulation

The Chamber of Progress was a signatory to a letter opposing legislation proposed by United States Senators Amy Klobuchar and Ben Ray Lujan that would hold social media companies liable for the dissemination of false or erroneous health and medical information and advise.[1]

Misinformation regulation

The Chamber of Progress has opposed legislation in Texas[2][3] and Florida[4] that would limit the ability of social media platforms to take down misinformation and other content that violates community standards. The organization also opposed legislation proposed by United States Senators Amy Klobuchar and Ben Ray Lujan that would hold social media companies liable for the dissemination of false or erroneous health and medical information and advice.

Explanation: “Health” misinformation is merely one facet of the broad misinformation issue that the Chamber of Progress works on. I documented other facets with links above. In the second sentence, I also cleaned up “was a signatory to a letter opposing” to “opposed,” and I corrected “advise” to “advice.”

2. Change (Tech Regulation)[edit]

THE CURRENT TEXT WHAT I PROPOSE
The Chamber of Progress opposes reform or repeal of Section 230.[5] It argues that this internet legislation incentivizes companies to delete lawful but objectionable content, like hate speech.[6] The Chamber of Progress supports proposals to provide additional funding for the Federal Trade Commission to create a new tech bureau focused on privacy, data security, and identity theft.[7] The organization opposes reform or repeal of Section 230, arguing that this internet legislation incentivizes companies to delete lawful but objectionable content, like hate speech.

Explanation: To say that an organization opposes X without saying what the organization supports seems misleading.

3. Add (The Internet Association)[edit]

I’d like to add the following sentence to the “Analysis” section:

Emily Birnbaum, a journalist with Politico, noted in 2021 that the Chamber of Progress now receives much of the media attention that used to go to the Internet Association.[8]

Explanation: In the above source (“The Internet Industry’s D.C. Powerhouse Recedes”), Politico reports, “Chamber of Progress … has been capturing a lot of the media attention that used to go to IA,” the Internet Association. That power shift seems notable and worth mentioning.

Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk)

References

  1. ^ Hughes, Siobhan (July 22, 2021). "Bill Would Strip Social Media of Protections for Health Misinformation". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 24, 2021.
  2. ^ Brodkin, Jon (September 10, 2021). "Texas law could force social media to host misinformation and hate speech". Ars Technica. Retrieved December 19, 2021.
  3. ^ "Tech Industry Groups Support Suit Against Texas Social Media Law". Bloomberg Law. October 7, 2021. Retrieved December 19, 2021.
  4. ^ Loiaconi, Stephen (May 25, 2021). "Florida Republicans tout bill targeting 'Silicon Valley elites,' but challenges loom". ABC. Retrieved December 19, 2021.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference hill was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Davis, Wendy. "Google Veteran Launches Tech Policy Organization". MediaPost. Retrieved April 26, 2021.
  7. ^ "Chamber of Progress Applauds FTC Privacy & Security Boost". Chamber of Progress. September 13, 2021. Retrieved December 19, 2021.
  8. ^ Birnbaum, Emily (July 11, 2021). "'Nowhere to be found': The internet industry's D.C. powerhouse recedes". Politico. Retrieved December 19, 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chamber_of_Progress&oldid=1199720907"