Darts and Letters

The psychological establishment has long pathologized diverse forms of sexual identity. In the mid-century, a brave movement of gays and lesbians fought back and claimed: no, actually, we’re healthy. But in the process, did they define other identities unhealthy? This is episode two of Cited Podcast’s returning season, the Rationality Wars. It tells stories about the political and intellectual battles to define rationality and irrational. For the rest of the series, visit citedpodcast.com. You will be able find this on all the relevant podcatchers (Apple, Spotify, etc.). If you use something else or you cannot find our feed, you can manually add our RSS feed.

Every protest movement has been dismissed as a mere ‘mindless mob,’ caught in a psychological frenzy. Where did this idea come from, and why does it last? As we mentioned last week, we are returning as Cited Podcast with a new season called the Rationality Wars. It tells stories about the political and intellectual battles to define rationality and irrational. You will find the first few episodes of our new season here, but not the entire season. For the rest of the series, visit citedpodcast.com. You will be able find this on all the relevant podcatchers (Apple, Spotify, etc.). If you use something else or you cannot find our feed, you can manually add our RSS feed.

This week, we play a trailer to introduce our new series, the Rationality Wars. The Rationality Wars tells stories about the political and intellectual battles to define rationality and irrationality. Behind every definition of rationality, somebody benefits, and somebody is harmed. We ask: what does it mean to be rational?; what does it mean to be irrational?; and most of all, who gets to decide? However, note that we’re launching this new season on our old podcast, Cited Podcast. We will be posting the first few episodes on the Darts and Letters feed so you do not miss out, but we will not post the entire season. So subscribe to Cited Podcast. Website: https://citedpodcast.com/ Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/cited-podcast/id558228325 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6pMLdKYpGooLKis7aORHSi RSS: https://citedpodcast.com/feed/podcast/

There’s a story you can tell about the post-Occupy left gravitating towards a more state-oriented kind of politics, exemplified by the enthusiasm around Bernie Sanders, The Squad, and others. However, this misses autonomous and anarchist-inflected (and sometimes, explicitly anarchist) social movements that have brought enormous energy, and enormous change–from the movement for black lives, to organizing for Indigenous sovereignty, and so much more. In this episode, we examine the theory and practice of anti-statist organizing. First, we look at the work of the late libertarian socialist Murray Bookchin. Bookchin broke with Marxism, and later anarchism, and eventually developed an idiosyncratic ecological and revolutionary theory that said radical democracy could be achieved at the municipal level. This Vermont-based theorist has been enormously influential, including in an area formerly known as Rojava. There, the Kurdish people are making these ideas their own, and developing a radical feminist democracy–while fighting to survive. We speak with Elif Genc about these ideas, and about how the Kurdish diaspora implements them within Canada. Next, what is mutual aid? Peter Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid: A Factory of Evolution (1902) examines how cooperation and reciprocity are core to nature. To anarchists, this should be generalized to radical political program, and a radically new way of living. Darts and Letters producer Marc Apollonio speaks to Payton McDonald about how the theory and practice of mutual aid drives many social movements across North America. Payton is co-directing a four-part documentary series called the Elements of Mutual Aid: Experiments Towards Liberation. Special thanks to the writer and activist William C Anderson for helping this conversation come together. Finally, how do social movement scholars understand (or misunderstand) autonomous social movements? There’s a tendency to dismiss movements that do not make clear tangible demands, and deliver pragmatic policy victories (see: Occupy). However, Max Haiven and Alex Khasnabish say that this misses something key to radical social movements: their radical imagination. These movements do not want to just improve this system, they want to imagine, and create (or prefigure), a different system. We discuss their book the Radical Imagination: Social Movement Research in the Age of Austerity, the blind spots of social movement theory, and whether there might be a new style of organizing emerging that is somewhere between the the statist and the anti-statist. (Programming Note: We released a much longer version of this conversation on the New Books Network, here. The interview discusses the wider history of social movement theory, as well as whether the reactionary right has its own sort of radical imagination, among other things). This episode received support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. It’s part of our mini-series that we are producing which looks at the radical imagination, in all its hopeful and its sometimes troubling manifestations. The scholarly leads are Professors Alex Khasnabish at Mount Saint Vincent University and Max Haiven at Lakehead University. They are providing research support and consulting to this series. For a full list of credits of Cited Media staff, visit our about page.

Programming note: As we mention in the top, we have been posting less frequently this summer. Plus, we only have one more episode in September before we take a longer break. You can find a full production update on our website. Anyways, onwards to this episode. Psychedelics have gone from the counterculture, to the mainstream. However, can you turn take such an ineffable thing — a tool for personal revelation, cosmic oneness, spiritual enlightenment, whatever people have called it — and make it just another product in late stage capitalism? From something that is potentially radical, to something that is brutally commodified, instrumentalized, hyped, and turned into the next meme stock craze. The venture capitalists and techno-optimist libertarians are certainly trying, but not everyone is happy about that. On this episode, we look at the deep rifts in and around psychedelic medicine, as different camps vie for the future of these drugs. First, we go back to the beginning. Historian Erika Dyck tells us the little-known story of an earlier period of psychedelic research, led by pioneers in — believe it or not — Weyburn, Saskatchewan. Dyke’s book Psychedelic Psychiatry: LSD on the Canadian Prairies charts the early days of this medical research, and reveals important lessons for our current tensions. The book shows that deep rifts have always existed in psychedelic research, because the drugs sit uncomfortably in-between many different ways of knowing. Then, muckracking psychonaut David Nickles is calling out the mainstream commodification of psychedelics, as well as the bullshit and abuse within the underground. Nickles is an underground researcher, harm reduction advocate, and journalist, who is also managing editor of Psymopsia, a psychedelics watchdog group. In 2018, he excoriated the psychedelic research community for playing nice with the emerging VC-backed psychedelic firms, like the Peter Thiel-funded Compass Pathways (Nickles’ talk is summarized here, but the full talk is available on Youtube). Since then, Nickles says things have only gotten worse. He documents much of that in Power Trip, an investigative podcast series on psychedelic therapy, produced by New York Magazine and Psymosia.  This is part of a series looking at medical controversies and the politics of medicine. It received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Dr. Maya Goldenberg and Dr. Maxwell J. Smith are scholarly advisors to the project, with research from Yoshiyuki Miyasaka. For a full list of credits of Cited Media staff, visit our about page.

The World Economic Forum has become the bugbear of the right-wing in Canada, and beyond. Conspiracies swirl about how this shadowy, globalist cabal that wants us to live in pods, eat bugs, and “own nothing, but be happy.” It’s tempting to dismiss these impulses as mere conspiracy theory and faux populism. Even if that’s true, there are many things wrong with the WEF–as any good leftist would (or should) tell you. Yet, it seems that we have let up a bit. The WEF is yet another example of the scrambled ideologues of our moment. Conservatives condemn the WEF, and news organizations like Rebel cover it doggedly; at the same time, left-leaning NGOs speak there, and progressive news organizations say little. What’s going on? On this episode, we examine the shifting political discourse surrounding our global financial elites. How can the left operate in this ideologically confusing moment? First, we take it back to the heyday of the 90s global justice movement. Activist, author, and academic Raj Patel revisits the Battle in Seattle. Then too, there were some reactionary forces pushing an anti-globalization line against the WTO. However, the real politics there were different: it was built on global justice and global solidarity. Could we bring back the spirit of the 90s? Then, we go to Davos and look for left-leaning protesters organizing against the WEF. Each year, there is a planned “protest hike,” quite far from the actual WEF site, because Swiss authorities push demonstrates away. Yet, the WEF also invites individual activists in. Producer Marc Apollonio speaks with three Swiss organizers — from Strike WEF, the Young Socialists of Switzerland, and from Greenpeace — to learn about how they are pushed and pulled by the WEF. Finally, academic and documentarian Joel Bakan is well-known for his hit documentary The Corporation, which was released in 2003–not long after the Battle in Seattle. Today, he tells us the politics are completely different: corporate leaders, including those at WEF, tell us they’re actually the good guys. His new follow-up film The New Corporation: The Unfortunately Necessary Sequel says that this new warm-and-fuzzy branding makes the corporation even more dangerous. This episode received support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. It’s part of our mini-series that we are producing which looks at the radical imagination, in all its hopeful and its sometimes troubling manifestations. The scholarly leads are Professors Alex Khasnabish at Mount Saint Vincent University and Max Haiven at Lakehead University. They are providing research support and consulting to this series. For a full list of credits of Cited Media staff, visit our about page.

What’s safer than baby powder? Parents have been using it for over 100 years to powder their baby’s bottoms, and they’ve found one brand especially trustworthy: Johnson & Johnson. Yet, numerous studies have revealed the presence of trace amounts of asbestos in this talc-based powder. Thousands of parents now claim that this asbestos is responsible for their cancers. In 2018, an explosive Reuters investigation catalogued the extent of this evidence, including the fact that J&J knew about the asbestos since the 1950s. Yet, J&J continued to sell the powder, right up until 2023. J&J disputes the tests, and calls the allegations spurious. However, the courts have weighed in, and in several cases they have sided with parents. Producer Marc Apollonio guest hosts today, speaking with one of those claimants, Manon Lavigne. Also in the program, we speak with Dr. David Egilman, the scientist and expert witness who has studied asbestus in talc, and helped parents secure billions. Egilman is also something of a muckracker, having assiduously document what Johnson & Johnson knew, and how they influenced the FDA. Now, over 38,000 lawsuits are being brought against the company. Johnson & Johnson is proposing a $9 billion dollar settlement for these claims, and all claims into the future. However, it depends on the courts accepting a controversial bankruptcy procedure called “the Texas Two-Step.” This strategy is being used to address a raft of personal injury complaints against a number of companies, but critics call it nothing more than a ‘sham bankruptcy’ that is being used to let corporations off the hook. The fate of the Two-Step is being decided right now, and there are billions at stakes for 100s of thousands of people in a variety of cases. Financial Times pharmaceutical correspondent Jamie Smyth recounts the history of the move, and discusses its legal status today. This is part of a series looking at medical controversies and the politics of medicine. It received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Dr. Maya Goldenberg and Dr. Maxwell J. Smith are scholarly advisors to the project, with research from Yoshiyuki Miyasaka. For a full list of credits of Cited Media staff, visit our about page.

We’re excited to announce Academic Edgelords, a new podcast that Cited will be producing in alternating weeks with Darts and Letters. This is a scholarly podcast about scholarly provocateurs. Gadflys, charlatans, and shitposters sometimes get tenure, believe it or not. This is a leftist podcast that takes a second look at their peer-reviewed work, and tries to see if there’s anything we might learn from arguing with them. We are hosted by: Victor Bruzzone, Gordon Katic, Matt McManus, and Ethan Xavier (AKA “Mouthy Infidel”). On this episode, we read the ultimate Academic Edgelord: Ted Kacynski, who just died. This domestic terrorist was also a real scholar, with a few peer-reviewed works in mathematics. We read his manifesto: Industrial Society and its Future. Why has Kaczynski become so popular with young people? He is just one extreme proponent of an anti-civilizational political theory called anarcho-primitivism. Few call themselves anarcho-primitivists, yet the basic ideas have become widespread, thanks to worsening environmental degradation and the ongoing techlash. You probably saw some anarcho-primitive thinking on Twitter right after Kaczynski died; many people lamented his death, and praised his arguments. What makes his thinking appealing to some? What does it get right about technology, and what does it get very wrong? We also discuss the broader anarcho-primitivist tradition, with the help of Chamsy el-Ojeili and Dylan Taylor’s critical but generous review article from April, 2020, “the Future in the Past”: Anarcho-primitivism and the Critique of Civilization Today,” in Rethinking Marxism.

Could an artificial intelligence diagnosis what ails you? Medical futurists offer a techno-utopian vision of perfect personalized risk assessments, diagnoses, and treatment recommendations. Yet, recent stories belie this optimism. Many of these robot doctors are rather stupid, and they seem more interesting in cutting costs than providing care. We explore the world of AI in medicine with STAT News investigative reporter Casey Ross, and hematologist and philosopher Ben Chin-Yee. This is part of a series looking at medical controversies and the politics of medicine. It received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Dr. Maya Goldenberg and Dr. Maxwell J. Smith are scholarly advisors to the project, with research from Yoshiyuki Miyasaka. For a full list of credits of Cited Media staff, visit our about page.

Paulo Freire offers activists and academics everywhere a lesson in what it means to be a radical intellectual. He is known as the founder of critical pedagogy, which asks teachers and learners to understand and resist their own oppression. His subversive books have been banned and burned in many countries, including his native Brazil, where the military dictatorship of the 1960s imprisoned and then exiled him. On this episode, we learn about Freire’s life and the basics of his foundational text, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, with help from professor emeritus John Portelli. Then, we explore how Freire’s legacy is still shaping our ideas of teaching and learning today. Academic/activist/artist Deborah Barndt takes us to York University’s faculty of Environmental and Urban Change, which is rooted in the work of Freirean scholars. Next, we learn about how Freire’s pedagogy is put into practice to advocate for disabled learners, with Mark Castrodale, a teacher, disability officer, and scholar of critical disability and Mad studies. Finally, social worker Sharon Steinhauer tells us the story of the University at Blue Quills, and how an act of Indigenous resurgence led to the beginning of a network of decolonial universities in Canada. This is a production of Cited Media. This episode received support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. It is part of a series of episodes on the relationship between activism and academia. Our scholarly advisors on this series are Professors Lesley Wood at York University, Sigrid Schmalzer at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, as well as Sharmeen Khan, Sami McBryer, and Susannah Mulvale. For a full list of credits, contact information, and more, visit our about page.

That was a bit of a 180°, wasn’t it? The COVID-19 lab leak theory went from being dismissed as mere misinformation, to now a credible matter of debate amongst media, scientific, and intelligence organizations. What’s changed, and what does this teach us about science journalism and science communication? Is it time to let go of our obsession over “misinformation”? First, Jacobin staff writer Branko Marcetic lays out the political problems with the idea of misinformation. Later, Nicole M. Krause, a PhD candidate focussing on science communication, looks at conceptual problems in the research itself. What’s “True,” and who gets to decide? Further reading: From Marcetic, his latest in the Nation is on the Twitter files. If you want to dig into Krause’s research ideas in science communication, a couple of things we’d recommend: on public pathologies in the public understanding of science, on misinformation and the infodemic (open access), and on the ethics of misinformation (open access). The Steven Shapin article we read about science communication with “warts-and-all” is worth checking out. This is part of a series looking at medical controversies and the politics of medicine. It received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Dr. Maya Goldenberg and Dr. Maxwell J. Smith are scholarly advisors to the project, with research from Yoshiyuki Miyasaka. For a full list of credits of Cited Media staff, visit our about page.

Online masculinity is getting weirder and weirder. We’re way past mere misogyny and sexual predation (though, that’s still certainly there). Now, we’ve also got bro science, ball tanning, ball eatin,’ piss drinkin,’ and who knows what’s next. Eat your hearts out, Hugh Hefner and the old kings of male revolt–in fact, these kings of this new manosphere will literally eat hearts. However, perhaps these mockable male influencers are onto something, in a roundabout way. There is just something broken in the hearts of men, as Barbara Ehrenreich once put it. If there wasn’t, male influencers wouldn’t be as popular as they are. This new mansophere offers a simple remedy for whatever ails: yearning for old gendered hierarchies, obsessing over self-improvement and dieting, and ceaselessly grinding under capitalism. In response, we ask: what’s really wrong with men, and how might we fix it? We’ll speak to Annie Kelly of the podcast QAnon Anonymous, and discuss their fantastic new mini-series MANCLAN, which introduces us to the innovations of the new manosphere. Then, socialist megastreamer Vaush turns the critical gaze inward: was it actually the left’s inaction that enabled Andrew Tate, Tucker Carlson, and the Liver King? Finally, we argue that the crisis of masculinity is inextricably linked with the contradictions of our political economic order, and always has been. Nicholas Lemann — professor at the Columbia Journalism School and staff writer at the New Yorker  — takes us on a cultural and intellectual history of male angst, reviewing key touchpoints like David Riseman’s the Lonely Crowd (which Lemann revisits in this article), Barbara Ehrenreich’s the Hearts of Men, Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone, and more. More: On our Youtube, you’ll find bonus, extended versions of our interviews with Annie Kelly and with Vaush. You might also want to check out Southpaw podcast, and Men at Work, which we mention in the podcast. This episode received support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. It’s part of our new mini-series that we are producing which looks at the radical imagination, in all its hopeful and its sometimes troubling manifestations. The scholarly leads are Professors Alex Khasnabish at Mount Saint Vincent University and Max Haiven at Lakehead University. They are providing research support and consulting to this series. For a full list of credits of Cited Media staff, visit our about page.

The story of the Fountain of Youth is as old as history itself. Herodatus, the father of ancient Greek history, wrote of a mythical spring that extended the life of its bathers. Today, entrepreneurs, scientists, and health influencers are still searching for that mythical spring. Longevity and anti-aging research has recently blossomed, with a number of tantalizing discoveries. Still, this research hasn’t delivered any magic bullets. Yet, that hasn’t stopped a cottage industry of folks hawking a plethora of dubious supplements and bizarre health regimens. Guest host Jay Cockburn tries to makes sense of what’s real, what’s hype, who could benefit, and who would pay. Do we even want to live in the world the longevity researchers are looking for? Should we keep looking for that fountain? We’ll hear from: CEO of BioViva, Liz Parish, who has stepped outside of the regular drug approval process and experimented on herself; Dr. Charles Brenner, a scientist and vocal critic of the claims of life extension; and Dr. Keisha S. Ray, a bioethicist who reminds us that while the rich look for fanciful new ways to live longer, the poor lack access to basic health care. This is part of a series looking at medical controversies and the politics of medicine. It received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Dr. Maya Goldenberg and Dr. Maxwell J. Smith are scholarly advisors to the project, with research from Yoshiyuki Miyasaka. For a full list of credits of Cited Media staff, visit our about page.

For seven years, from 1968 to 1975, one eighteen story high-rise was the heart of Canada’s counterculture. Rochdale College in Toronto, ON, was jammed full with leftist organizers, hippies, draft dodgers, students, artists, and others just looking for a good time. Although, Rochdale wasn’t really a “college.” It was something much bigger: a political, educational, communal, artistic, and psychedelic experiment. During its time, it was endlessly lambasted by conservatives and leftists alike–until it reached its inglorious end. Today, like much of the counterculture, it’s often remembered for its problems: its ideological contradictions, drug-addled hedonism, bourgeois individualism, sexism, suicide, and more. However, is that the whole story? Were the kids in the hippie highrise onto something, …or was it indeed just one giant waste of time? We investigate with a special documentary presentation, produced by Marc Apollonio. This is a production of Cited Media. This episode received support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. It is part of a series of episodes on the relationship between activism and academia. Our scholarly advisors on this series are Professors Lesley Wood at York University, Sigrid Schmalzer at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, as well as Sharmeen Khan, Sami McBryer, and Susannah Mulvale. For a full list of credits, contact information, and more, visit our about page.

The Darts team is working on another big episode! In the meantime, we’re sharing this one from our friends at PlasticPills – Philosophy & Critical Theory Podcast. They do a great discussion of OpenAI and its implications in academia. For a full list of credits, contact information, and more, visit our about page.

The idea of moving to Canada figures prominently in the imagination of many disaffected Americans. Most recently, it was comedian Marc Maron who said he’s on his way to Vancouver, BC. Usually, they don’t come. However, between the mid-60s and early-70s they really did–and in the 10s of thousands. Yet, when these Americans made their way, they did not always find the Canada they expected. First, many of them were unjustly turned away at the border. We tell the story of how student journalist Bob Waller helped to expose the policy with a dastardly sleuth and legendary piece of stunt journalism. Then, draft resister Joseph Jones tells us what it was like to assimilate into Canadian academia as the new kid in school. Jones was also cataloguer and reference librarian at the University of British Columbia from 1980-2003, and he still keeps a vast archive of materials about Vietnam War Resisters in Canada. Finally, how did the war resisters help shape radical culture and Canadian national identity? Historian Donald Maxwell surveys the flow of people and of ideas, revealing that the American radicals sparked a surge in nationalistic sentiment in some of Canada’s elite academic institutions. Maxwell is author of the forthcoming book from Rutgers University Press Unguarded Border: American Émigrés in Canada during the Vietnam War. Darts and Letters producer Ren Bangert is guest host today. This is a production of Cited Media. This episode received support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. It is part of a series of episodes on the relationship between activism and academia. Our scholarly advisors on this series are Professors Lesley Wood at York University, Sigrid Schmalzer at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, as well as Sharmeen Khan, Sami McBryer, and Susannah Mulvale. For a full list of credits, contact information, and more, visit our about page.        

In this special bonus, we’re sharing the latest episode of Kino Lefter, the socialist film podcast! Our host Gordon and producer Marc join Kino Lefter host Evan MacDonald to discuss our latest episode, a retrospective on the 2004 documentary Discordia. If you liked our episode, you’ll certainly like this one. Marc, Gordon, and Evan talk much more about their experiences with campus activism, where they think things are today, and the lessons they took from the movie. For a full list of credits, contact information, and more, visit our about page.

Henry Kissinger once said “the reason that university politics is so vicious is because the stakes are so small.” Was he right? We investigate. Our case study is one of the most politically-engaged campuses in Canada: Concordia University, in Montreal, QC. This marks the twentieth anniversary of their tumultuous 2002/03 year. School started with a planned speaking event from Benjamin Netanyahu, the then former (and now current) Prime Minister of Israel. Pro-Palestinian protesters clashed with police, and this event came to be know as “the Concordia Riot.” The fallout from that day defined how the school year proceeded, with heated council debates, media stunts, lawsuits, arrests, explosions, and a contentious student election. This was all captured in the extraordinary National Film Board documentary Discordia (2004), directed by Ben Addelman and Samir Mallal. What you see in the film is indeed vicious, but were the stakes so small? We track down the people involved to find out. What did it all amount to? What did it mean personally, professionally, and politically? Where did everyone end up? Plus, you’ll hear the inside story from the directors themselves. Finally, we’ll ask a current a Concordia student activist how the events in Discordia compare with student activism today. Is student activism in the doldrums? This is a production of Cited Media. This episode received support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. It is part of a series of episodes on the relationship between activism and academia. Our scholarly advisors on this series are Professors Lesley Wood at York University, Sigrid Schmalzer at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, as well as Sharmeen Khan, Sami McBryer, and Susannah Mulvale. For a full list of credits, contact information, and more, visit our about page.

Forced by the courts, the Canadian government has recently instituted an expansive Medical Assistance in Dying regime (MAID). You need not be terminal to seek MAID, and in March, 2023, you might even be able to seek MAID for mental health issues. The usual Left impulse on MAID has been to honour people’s wishes, and afford them dignity and autonomy over their own bodies. Yet, a string of cases in Canada has troubled this impulse. There have been news reports of at least 14 cases in which patients seek MAID because they lack access to proper housing, health care, or disability supports. This means that MAID is not just being used to address the suffering resulting from illness–it is being used to address the suffering from poverty. Is MAID letting the government off the hook from providing what they should be providing? Should we respect people’s choices on harm reduction grounds, even if those choices are severely constrained by an unjust social and political context? Should we give doctors this power over the mentally ill and disabled, given the racist and ableist nature of our crumbling health care system? We’ll debate this and more, with perspectives from either side. Professor Trudo Lemmens argues that MAID sends a disturbing message: disabled lives aren’t worth living. Next, Dr. Derryk Smith of Dying with Dignity says just the opposite: excluding certain people from this civil liberty is tantamount to stigmatization. This is first in a series of episodes we’ll be releasing, from time to time, on medical controversies and the politics of medical expertise. This series is receiving funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Dr. Maya Goldenberg and Dr. Maxwell J. Smith are scholarly advisors, with research from Yoshiyuki Miyasaka. For a full list of credits of Cited Media staff, visit our about page.

In the creative industries, Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow say there’s often a ‘chokepoint’ between creators and their fans. Corporate behemoths — be they streaming apps, publishers, tech giants, or others — put on the squeeze, exploiting their market power to extract rents, push down wages, and push up prices. On this episode, guest host Jay Cockburn asks Cory Doctorow how these monopolistic (and monopsonistic) corporations put on the chokehold, and how we can loosen their grips. With Rebecca Giblin, Doctorow is co-author of Chokepoint Capitalism: How Big Tech and Big Content Captured Creative Labor Markets and How We’ll Win Them Back. If you like this episode, you can also check out our other episode with Doctorow, the one about radical thought in science fiction writing. Darts and Letters is a production of Cited Media. For a full list of credits, contact information, and more, visit our about page