JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Where Do Things Stand with Iran?
Brief #102—Foreign Policy
By Will Solomon
A central premise of the Biden candidacy was reentering the JCPOA (the Iran Nuclear Deal), which was negotiated and signed by the Obama administration in 2015, and subsequently exited by the Trump administration in 2018. This goal was seen as both a rebuke to Trumpism, as a means for international diplomatic re-engagement, and as practical step to avoid increased nuclear proliferation and potential war in the Greater Middle East.
Leading Environmental Organizations Went Public with a Letter That Supported the Impeachment of President Trump
Brief #110—Environment
By Shannon Q Elliot
Leaders of America’s most prominent environmental organizations penned a letter to the US House of Representatives in support of House Resolution 24; a second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. The letter was authored by The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Greenpeace US, and the Natural Resources Defense Council who concluded the letter gently reminding our leaders that the “health of our democracy and environment are inextricably linked”
Fishing Boat Dispatch
USRN Environment Blog
By Katherine Cart
The Gulf of Alaska last summer was warm. The edge of wind was warm. The water in Yakutat Bay, when I jumped from the boat to swim, was warm. When the July storms came, waves swamped decks. The entirety of our horizon would be green water and foam for days. At night deck lights showed rain and rime flying laterally, our flags ironed straight out, as though the wind would carry what it caught until land’s mountains put up a wall.
Biden Pledges to Admit 125,000 Asylum Seekers Annually
Brief #116—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
The Biden Administration has pledged to increase the annual refugee admissions cap to 125,000 and has already begun efforts to undo the effects of the Trump era ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy that left up to 20,000 in Mexican tent camps while they await their judicial proceedings in the US. Biden plans to enact this new process of bringing asylum seekers, particularly with active Migrant Protection Protocol (Remain in Mexico) cases in phases. Eligible migrants are to be registered and tested for COVID-19 before entering the US at three ports of entry. About 300 migrants may be admitted daily before the need to expand to other ports of entry.
California Introduces Bill Banning Non – Disclosure Agreements (NDA’s) In Workplace Discrimination Cases
Brief #151—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
On February 8, 2021 California State Senator Connie Leyva (D-Chino) introduced Senate Bill (SB) 331, popularly known as the Silenced No More Act. The bill is intended to supplement the Stand Together Against Non – Disclosures (STAND) Act which was also introduced by State Senator Leyva and which was signed into law in California in 2018.
The Importance of Preserving the Biodiversity of Our Planet
Brief #109—Environment
By Jacob Morton
The biodiversity of our planet is declining at an accelerated rate. Populations of plant and animal species around the world are dwindling to the point of near extinction, more rapidly than at any other time in our planet’s history. Sir Partha Dasgupta, an economist at Cambridge University, says this rampant and unheeded degradation of our planet “could have catastrophic consequences for our economies and wellbeing,” pointing to Covid-19 as “just the tip of the iceberg.” Earlier this month, Dasgupta and the UK Treasury released an independent report on the economics of biodiversity. The main takeaway? We are draining the bank of our most valuable asset, natural capital. And the consequences are not going to be pretty.
Dasgupta explains it like this, “Just as diversity within a portfolio of financial assets reduces risk and uncertainty, diversity within a portfolio of natural assets increases nature’s resilience in withstanding shocks.” The widespread impacts of climate change and a coronavirus run rampant across the globe are just a couple examples of nature’s loss of resilience. As the report points out in its opening remarks, “Our economies, livelihoods and wellbeing all depend on our most precious asset: nature. We are part of nature, not separate from it.”
The Minimum Wage of $7.25 Has Not Been Raised Since 2009
Brief #110—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
The debate regarding the efficacy of a $15 minimum wage is heating up since Biden included it in his Corona virus stimulus package. The bill would have a gradual phasing in of the wage over the next four years. Currently, it would be $9.50 and go to $11, then $12.50, then $14 annually until it reaches $15 in 2025. Future increases would be tied the median wage rate, thereby assuring the consistent value of the minimum wage.
The consequences of the increase are debated and the research demonstrates some mixed outcomes but overwhelmingly it supports the increase. Most show it does not actually decrease jobs. One study shows no impact on jobs in 138 state and local areas, over five years and another shows no impact in thirty years. One analysis of 60 studies of wages and jobs shows no net loss of jobs. Increased wages actually are more likely to increase jobs due to the enhanced purchasing power of the lowest income groups. More money would be spent in local businesses and services, increasing revenue and creating jobs.
Both Sides of the Aisle Want to Preserve the Filibuster
Brief #16—Elections and Politics
By Zack Huffman
The Democrats now have slight control of the 50-50 Senate with Vice President Kamala Harris’ tiebreaker vote. Much like the former time the Democrats held the Senate, there is some discussion about whether or not to remove the filibuster, which allows the minority party to block votes on bills they are fighting. The fact that the Democrats failed to move the John Lewis Civil Rights Act past a filibuster in 2020 has further compelled some legislators to favor an end to the filibuster before the GOP can block future Senate bills. The longest filibuster to date is still the one Sen. Strom Thurmond preformed in his failed attempt to block passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The late Dixiecrat spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes before the law was finally passed 72-18. Thurmond would later switch parties from Democrat to Republican in protest over the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Artificial Intelligence —Will It Really Take Away Our Jobs?
Brief #37—Technology
By Linda F Hersey
Artificial intelligence is poised to take over many job functions beyond bolting doors on vehicles at auto plants or filling orders at Amazon warehouses. Jobs that many people assume require a human touch are at risk. They include roles in telemarketing, bookkeeping, employee compensation, office administrative duties, delivery services, proofreading and market research analysis. Within five to 10 years, driverless cars and trucks are expected to transform road transport services, including long-haul trucking and popular door-to-door food delivery. Should humans performing more complex business functions be looking over their shoulder? Perhaps. Emerging roles of artificial intelligence across industries are diverse and sweeping in scope, including entertainment/media, financial services, health care and energy.
Children Remain Separated from their Families, as Election Nears
Brief #105 – Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Children Remain Separated from their Families, as Election Nears
October 28, 2020
Policy Summary
In June 2018, a Federal Judge in San Diego delivered an order that children in government custody were to be reunited with their families. Volunteers, human rights defenders, and attorneys have worked tirelessly to locate and reunite families, but 545 children remain separated still. These children were separated from their families between July 2017 and June 2018. It is estimated that two-thirds of the parents of these remaining 545 were deported and sent back to their home countries without their children.
Analysis
Efforts to locate still-separated family members has been hindered by recent COVID-19 lockdowns and social-distancing measures both in the US and abroad. Volunteers have gone door to door in Guatemala and Honduras – where many of these parents are believed to be – as US government tracking systems had proven to be subpar. The US government failed to maintain accurate, reliable, and comprehensive data surrounding children separated from their parents at the US Southern Border under the Trump Administration’s Zero Tolerance Policy. In addition to this shortcoming, there are local roadblocks in Guatemala and Honduras that volunteers have faced: remote villages and limited access to technology, gang-controlled regions, and most recently, COVID-19.
Engagement Resources
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- Border Network for Human Rights: network to engage education, organization and participation of border communities to defend human rights and work towards a society where everyone is equal in rights and dignity.
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
- Centers for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
How Non – Profit Groups Are Still Helping To Protect The Vote So Close To Election Day
Policy Summary: With the 2020 United States election only days away a number of states have already started the process of voting. Absentee ballots have been filled out and mailed back and early voting periods have seen a large turnout of voters in anticipation of the November 3, 2020 election. With a little more than a week until Election Day a number of recent incidents illustrate the difficulties that some voters are having in casting their ballot.
In some states, the wait in line to vote has been reported to be two, three or four hours. On October 25, 2020 Representative Alexandra Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) reported that she waited two hours in line to vote in her precinct in the Bronx, New York. And the Washington Post reported that lines in New Mexico, Texas, Tennessee and other locales were having wait times that reached two hours causing some voters who didn’t vote to leave and come back the next day to try again.
In Lucas County, Ohio, the Board of Elections has acknowledged that there has been a delay in counting returned absentee ballots because of a shortage of poll workers. Fear of COVID-19 had caused fewer volunteers than in years past but it remains to be seen if this shortage will translate to problems to in – person voting. Other regions have also reported a shortage of poll workers which prompted a number of non – profit groups and projects to try and fill in the void this week.
And finally, a number of voters in the New York area reported receiving harassing robocalls that were intended to intimidate them from voting. The robocalls stated that if the voter returned their ballot that the info would be used to track down old arrest warrants, be given to credit card companies to collect outstanding debts and be used by the CDC to administer mandatory vaccines. The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law finally stepped in and filed a temporary restraining order to stop the false robocalls under an old anti-Klan statute. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: While there are any number of issues or circumstances that can prevent a voter from casting his or her ballot, these three incidents help to illustrate that many of the problems and barriers are systemic but also that there are a number of good non – profit groups who are willing to do what needs to be done to fix the flaws.
Waiting in line to vote in – person can often cause a person to endure a long period of hours waiting in line but there are options a voter can use to avoid this. A voter does not have to wait to vote on Election Day but can instead utilize early voting periods which can help a voter better manage their time. A voter can also utilize the option of mail ballots which can be dropped off in person, in an officially sanctioned drop box or with the U.S. Postal Service. Waiting in line to vote might seem to be a one time situation to be tolerated because of COVID-19 but the Brennan Center for Justice has been studying the issue of long wait times in line to vote and offers policy suggestions to help manage this issue in the future.
In some areas, the shortage of poll workers is attributed to a rare pandemic that has kept usual election volunteers at home this year. But citizens were alerted to the news of this potential problem and efforts were mobilized by a number of non – profit groups to ensure that polling places had enough volunteers to ensure a safe and fair election. Power the Polls is a first of its kind initiative that was created to try and help recruit 250,000 Americans to sign up to staff a polling booth location. The ability to count and process ballots and staff locations should not run into some of the delays being reported due to the help that is available out there.
And finally, there are a number of right wing groups who are intent on following President Trump’s lead to sow chaos and division at the polls in the coming days. The situation with the recent robocalls in New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio were coordinated by operatives Jacob Wohl of California and Jack Burkman of Virginia. Both men have a history of making statements about their intent to disrupt the 2020 election and harm the chances of many Democratic candidates. While this particular scam was discovered it is very likely that there are many other operations out there that are still trying to intimidate voters from casting their ballots and who may continue to try on Election Day. The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law was quick to file a temporary restraining order for this one scam. That might not be the case with other voter suppression tactics which reinforces the call to be vigilant as Election Day nears and to use any and all resources (governmental, non – profit groups) to combat what a voter may likely see out there heading into next week.
Engagement Resources:
Brennan Center for Justice – “Waiting to Vote” report on racial disparities in Election Day experiences.
Power the Polls – non – profit group’s website on their efforts to recruit polling booth workers and volunteers.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Ben Shapiro and David Pakman’s Take on the 3rd Presidential Debate
The U.S. RESIST NEWS Media Blog reports on how media channels from the right and left are covering today’s news.
Blog Post # 4 Ben Shapiro and David Pakman’s Take on the 3rd Presidential Debate
By John McCabe
October 27, 2020
Covering news and politics on their respective radio shows, conservative commentator, Ben Shapiro, and progressive commentator, David Pakman, offer contrasting views as to who was the winner of the third presidential debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden.
Shapiro is the editor-in chief of The Daily Wire, a right wing, conservative website, and the host of The Ben Shapiro Show. At the age of 17, Shapiro started a nationally syndicated column and wrote two books by 21, his debut title being Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth. Shapiro did not vote for Trump in the 2016 election but is voting for him in 2020.
Pakman is the host of The David Pakman Show, a nationally syndicated radio show with progressive leanings. In 2005, Pakman began hosting a program titled Midweek Politics with David Pakman, which first aired on Valley Free Radio in Northampton, Massachusetts. Shapiro has over two million subscribers on Youtube while Pakman has over one million. Pakman voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and is voting for Biden in 2020.
Shapiro had three reasons for believing that Trump was the winner, the first having to do with Trump condemning Biden’s cautious and grave outlook on the pandemic. He began his commentary by calling Biden immoral for blaming Trump for the 200,000 plus American deaths.
“Joe Biden has been telling one lie on covid,” said Shapiro. “…that is that if Donald Trump had handled this wildly differently, then hundreds of thousands of people would be alive today…If you got an empty chair at your table, that is Donald Trump’s fault…But here was Joe Biden, overtly suggesting that Donald Trump is responsible for every American who died of covid, which is just crazy…it’s a crazy, immoral statement…”
Regarding lockdowns, Shapiro contends that Trump was successful in pointing out Biden’s plan as having “doom and gloom” connotations, suggesting that Biden’s outlook is too pessimistic for voters that were sick of the virus.
“…if Trump ends up winning the election,” said Shapiro, “one big reason is because people don’t want the doom and gloom…Joe Biden is preaching doom and gloom. Trump is not preaching doom and gloom…believe it or not, Trump is the candidate of optimism on covid. It is Biden who is the candidate of pessimism, doom, and gloom…”
Shapiro’s commentary also offered Biden’s view on the pandemic as impractical, asserting that Trump is correct in his view that the nation has to learn to “live with” the virus, and is also clever for saying Biden would rather lock himself up in his basement.
After Biden stated that he would not rule out another shutdown, Shapiro considered that another strength for Trump’s argument.
“…this is good from Trump,” said Shapiro. “All day long, he [Biden] just talks about shutdowns. Democrats keep talking about shutdowns. ‘We have to open everything’, is what Trump says. That may be a vision that Americans are going to embrace, particularly if you have kids…there are a lot of people out there who are not on board with lockdown culture.”
In his video title, Pakman suggested that Biden had “eviscerated” Trump in the debate. Regarding COVID-19, Pakman was relentless in his criticism of Trump from the moment the debate began.
“And even from the get-go,” said Pakman, “Trump entering with no mask. Joe Biden with a mask. All emblematic, a microcosm of the entire portion of the debate about coronavirus, which was usual, and, as I expected, one of the worst parts of the debate for Donald Trump. Trump immediately trying to defend his work on coronavirus, defending the indefensible, and predictably making no sense…”
While Shapiro thought Biden blaming Trump for the 200,000 plus coronavirus related deaths was immoral, Pakman saw it as a strong offensive maneuver.
“Joe Biden shot out of a cannon immediately says, ‘Listen, any president who oversees 220,000 deaths, they can’t continue to be president.’ You don’t re-elect someone on the heels of such a failure.”
Additionally, Pakman also dismissed Trump’s basement smear against Biden as “an example of Trump throwing a punch that just missed everything.”
In his breakdown, Shapiro believed that Trump’s second-best debate tactic was trying to promote Biden as a corrupt politician. However, when Trump referred to Biden as “the big man”, along with other vague assertions pertaining to corruption, Shapiro conceded that a lot Trump’s claims against Biden were conflated, as well as not true.
When Shapiro said that it was true that Hunter Biden picked up three and a half million dollars from Elena Baturina, along with other funds from Ukraine, he also granted that there was no direct evidence to suggest that Biden had directly benefitted from his son. However, Shapiro was still of the opinion that there were some questionable elements to Hunter Biden’s joint venture in China.
“It is true that Hunter Biden was picking up bags of cash in China,” said Shapiro, “and this is where things have gotten a little dicey…There are emails suggesting that perhaps Joe Biden had something to do with it. Joe Biden has denied all of that. But here’s the bottom line: if you’re watching this debate and this is the first time you’re hearing any of this, this does change your impression of Joe Biden just a little bit…”
As far as corruption is concerned, Pakman thought Biden won that side of the debate, especially in lieu of Donald Trump paying $750 in federal income taxes in 2017. Pakman not only tacitly dismissed Trump’s corruption accusations against Biden as desperate, but also mocked Trump for referring to Biden as the “big man.” Unlike Shapiro, Pakman didn’t seem to think that Trump’s mentioning of Hunter Biden had any weight as a debate tactic.
“And then this is where it almost seemed like Trump was unaware of his surroundings and not even understanding what he was saying,” said Pakman. “He starts using this mafia-esque language to accuse Biden of giving money to the ‘big men.’ Nobody could understand what he was talking about…One of the most incoherent attacks of the night…”
While both commentators predictably had opposing opinions as to which candidate won the debate, their concluding reasons are fascinating.
Shapiro seems to believe that Trump’s third strength was accusing Biden of being in politics for forty plus years and not accomplishing any of the policies he claims to be running on. Pakman, on the other hand, thought Biden’s final offensive strength had to do when Trump slammed pandemic aid as a “big bailout for badly run Democrats’ cities and states.”
“This was maybe the worst moment of the debate for Trump,” said Pakman. “Trump, again, pulling out this line of attacking so-called ‘Democrat’ cities and states, which is a message of complete division…Joe Biden perfectly responding to that divisive message, saying, ‘Listen, I’m not going to talk about blue states and red states. I’m a Democrat running for president. I will be the president running for everybody, regardless of what state you’re in.”
With the presidential election among the horizon, a short time will tell as to who the victor of last night’s debate was, an answer many Americans are anxious to find out.
End of Eviction Moratoriums Strains Renters’ Legal Support System
U.S. RESIST NEWS Legal Brief
The U.S. RESIST NEWS legal briefs report on the roles that our legal system plays in relation to the processing and adjudication of public policy issues.
# 1 End of Eviction Moratoriums Strains Renters’ Legal Support System
By Zack Huffman
October 27, 2020
Policy
Covid-19 brought record unemployment over the summer, which left millions of families unable to afford rent.With a federal moratorium on evictions expiring in January along with numerous states ignoring the problem, an impending eviction wave could further cripple nonprofit and pro bono legal organizations, further diminishing access to legal counsel for the nation’s neediest.
Somewhere between 30 and 40 million renters are in danger of losing their homes because they can no longer cover the cost of rent, according to data from the Aspen Institute Financial Security Program.
Those in danger represent about a third of all renters in the country, with concentrations in the South and the Rust Belt.
Data from the Aspen Institute and the COVID-19 Eviction Defense Project show, as of early August, at least 37% of renters in Alabama and Nevada were in danger of eviction. Louisiana, New York and Oklahoma show 36% of all renters in danger, which 14 other states had rates above 30%.
Several states issued their own eviction bans, such as New York, Massachusetts and California. California’s lasts until 2021, but other states that previously issued moratoriums have allowed them to expire.
The Trump administration initially announced a federal ban on evictions, which expired in July. The Centers for Disease Control then issued its own eviction ban, which lasts until January 2021, as a means to reduce the spread of COVID-19.In October, the CDC clarified that its ban solely applies to the removal of people from a home and that landlords were still able to bring tenants to court as a means to start the eviction process or to collect unpaid rent.Whatever happens this fall and winter, it is almost guaranteed that 2021 will bring an avalanche of housing court evictions when there is already a limited supply of support for nonprofit and pro bono legal help.
Analysis
Regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic, tenants facing eviction need legal representation. Now with the economy reeling from the effects of COVID-19 shutdowns there is an even greater need for legal help on the horizon.Without adequate funding for nonprofit legal aid organizations and attorneys that provide pro bono help, there will be little that can help against the swelling eviction wave.
In the absence of federal action, cities and states can pass regulations that require full notification of tenants’ rights by the landlord before they can begin the eviction process. Few tenants are properly prepared to defend themselves from legal action. Most people lack a basic knowledge of housing law and are ill-equipped to defend themselves. At the same, few people who struggle to pay their rent have enough income to cover the cost of a lawyer. Aside from leaving people without a home, eviction can leave a black mark on their record, making it more difficult to obtain housing from skeptical landlords.
“Civil legal aid evens this unfair playing field and helps people protect their health, home, income, and family,” said the National Legal Aid & Defender Association in an open letter to all members of the U.S. Congress from June, seeking additional funding for the Legal Services Corporation. “This will be of particularly critical importance over the coming months as the legal consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to develop and become clearer.”
Resistance Resources
The National Legal Aid & Defender Association
The NLADA advocates and raises funds for legal aid, particularly for those who cannot afford it. http://www.nlada.org.
The COVID-19 Eviction Defense Project
The CED Project was founded in March 2020 to respond to urgent questions about housing, homelessness and community recovery during the spread of the coronavirus. https://cedproject.org
Learn More References
Buhayar, N. (2020, August 26). Why a Historic Eviction Wave Is Bearing Down on U.S.: QuickTake. Retrieved October 23, 2020, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-26/why-a-historic-eviction-wave-is-bearing-down-on-u-s-quicktake
The CDC and Health and Human Services’ FAQ on the Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19. Retrieved October 23, 2020, from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/eviction-moratoria-order-faqs.pdf
Keating, D. And L. Tierney (2020, April 29). Which States Are Doing a Better Job Protecting Renters from Being Evicted During the Coronavirus Pandemic. Retrieved October 23, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/29/which-states-are-doing-better-job-protecting-renters-being-evicted-during-coronavirus-pandemic/?arc404=true
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Refuses to Protect Wolverines Under the Endangered Species Act
Brief # 100 The Environment
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Refuses to Protect Wolverines Under the Endangered Species Act
By Jacob Morton
October 27, 2020
Policy
The wolverine is a rather elusive character. Only about 300 of these iconic mammals exist in the United States’ lower 48 states. With a broad head, short round ears and long snout, wolverines resemble a miniature bear with a bushy tail. Each animal covers a wide range, traversing mountainous terrain, trotting across snowpack with large snowshoe-like paws. Wolverines feed primarily on scavenged carrion and can use their strong jaws to pry open frozen carcasses, providing a food source for other scavengers once they have had their fill.
Wolverines were nearly eradicated from the contiguous United States in the early 1900’s, victim to “fur trapping, predator poisoning and lack of prey due to sheep farming” and overgrazing. Over 90% of their potential habitat in the U.S. lies on Federal lands and wilderness areas. Efforts to protect wolverines by placing them on the Endangered Species List, have existed since 1994, but continually face denial by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Previous protection attempts have been denied by the FWS, because “conservation groups could not provide empirical data on how wolverines’ range had changed over time because of humans.”
However, in 2013, under the Obama administration, the FWS acknowledged evidence suggesting climate change as an existential threat to wolverine populations due to decreasing snowpack throughout their range in the lower 48. The FWS proposed a rule to federally protect them as “threatened,” under the Endangered Species Act. Female wolverines rely on a substantial snowpack between February and April, seeking out “the deepest snow available to make their dens in snow tunnels or under snow-covered rocks or logs.” The FWS described the wolverine population in the lower 48 as distinct from its neighboring population north of the Canadian border, and thus deserving of protection.
Despite the position taken by the agency in 2013, the FWS withdrew its proposal the following year, rejecting previous studies and insisting that “Even under conditions of future reduced snowpack, sufficient habitat will likely remain.” Following this reversal, Judge Dana L. Christensen of Federal District Court in Montana ordered the FWS to reevaluate their decision. Judge Christensen and the District Court determined that, “immense political pressure that was brought to bear on this issue, particularly by a handful of Western states,” was the reason for the reversal. He called the agency’s rejection of previous studies “arbitrary and capricious,” even pointing to written documents within the agency that “expose the likely motives — freedom from perceived federal oversight, maintaining the public’s right to trap — behind the states’ efforts against listing the wolverine.”
On October 8, 2020, per Judge Christensen’s order to reevaluate its refusal to protect wolverines, the FWS under the Trump administration announced its final decision that wolverine populations in the United States do not require federal protection. The agency wrote, “The best available science show that the factors affecting wolverine populations are not as significant as believed in 2013. … Accordingly, the Service has withdrawn its listing proposal.”
Analysis
In a press release, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service wrote, “New research and analysis show that wolverine populations in the American Northwest remain stable, and individuals are moving across the Canadian border in both directions and returning to former territories. The species, therefore, does not meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).” Noreen Walsh, Colorado’s Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director said, “In the time since our original proposal, the science on wolverines has been greatly advanced thanks to the work of state wildlife agencies and researchers in the U.S. and around the world.”
Despite the agency’s own 2013 determination that wolverines south of the Canadian border represent a distinct population from those northward, todays FWS claims “New information from genetic and observational studies shows that wolverines in the lower 48 are connected to populations in Canada and Alaska, these populations interact on some level, and migration and breeding is possible between groups.” Thus, “Wolverines in the lower 48 states do not qualify as a distinct population segment and they are instead an extension of the population of wolverines found further north.” Leader of the agency’s Montana project, Jodi Bush, claims the decision was based on new science and “was not a political decision.” Bush says, “If wolverines need snow, we think that there’s going to be enough snow out there for them.”
Environmentalists and conservation groups are skeptical of the agency’s credibility. Jeff Copeland, wolverine expert and director at The Wolverine Foundation says, “My primary concern is that [FWS’s] decision was not based on good science. Either it represents a gross misinterpretation of the science or a purposeful misrepresentation of the science in order to produce a preconceived result.” Copeland notes that wolverines avoid areas used by snowmobilers and backcountry skiers, but climate change has reduced the degree of separation and has forced wolverines to find new habitat. However, as Copeland points out, “This is an animal with extremely specific habitat requirements. It lives in a very narrow environmental niche that can be easily impacted by climate change. There is no reason to believe that it is adaptable to other climate situations.”
Brad Smith, director of the North Idaho chapter of the Idaho Conservation League, said of the agency’s decision, “It’s a continued pattern of wanting to stick their heads in the sand about climate change and not do anything about the impacts that greenhouse gas emissions will have on species. With the current administration, there’s been a rollback of many protections for the environment and for listed or proposed species.” Opinions are mixed however, over how best to manage wolverine populations and habitat. Bob Inman, the carnivore and fur bearer coordinator for the state of Montana, feels that leaving regulation decisions up to local governments might actually “persuade landowners to grant easements for wolverine corridors, connecting one mountain peak’s wolverine population with another.” Inman says, “People get the perception that ‘the feds are coming to take my land.’ That’s not the way to be successful. The way to be successful is to convince people that they would be part of something important.”
Conservationists however, such as Copeland, feel that relying on local regulation may not be enough. Copeland explains that, “Some of the places I worked in the ’90s, where I was able to readily capture wolverines, they’re gone now. These little sub-populations could blink out and be gone without us even knowing.” Eric Odell, species conservation program manager at Colorado Parks and Wildlife argues that with federal protections, “We might be able to increase the [wolverine] population by a third, because there is so much suitable, unoccupied habitat.” But, because of financial and regulatory obstacles resulting from the federal government’s decision, “Now we’re back to square one.” If wolverines had been approved for protection under the Endangered Species Act, “the FWS would have to draft a recovery plan that applies across the species’ entire US range and designates certain areas as critical wolverine habitat.”
Jodi Bush says the Western States Wolverine Conservation Project will continue to fight to protect wolverines at the state level. Andrea Zaccardi of the Center for Biological Diversity says, “We’ve been fighting to get wolverines the federal protection they deserve for decades. And we’re going to keep fighting.” Jonathan Proctor of Defenders of Wildlife says, “With this decision, the Fish and Wildlife Service has abandoned its moral and legal obligation to protect these animals. But we will not abandon our efforts.”
The fight is a contentious one, and as explained by New York Times reporter, Catrin Einhorn, the debate is about more than just wolverines. In this country, there are “deep-seated cultural and political beliefs about how best to protect animals, how much power the federal government should wield over states and even how humans should interact with nature in the first place.” As EarthJustice lawyer, Timothy Preso puts it, “There is a group of people in the Northern Rockies that traps and snowmobiles and wears Carhartt, and another group that wears Patagonia and wants to see a wolverine track in the snow. A lot of these issues are characterized by the tension between those people.” Finding ways to ease those tensions and establish authentic dialogue may prove a necessary step to creating sustainable solutions for the many complex issues facing our country.
Resistance Resources
The Wolverine Foundation
- A non-profit organization comprised of wildlife scientists with a common interest in the wolverine. The Wolverine Foundation, Inc. (TWF) was formed in 1996 to promote interest in the wolverine’s status and ecological role in the world wildlife community. http://wolverinefoundation.org/
Defenders of Wildlife
- Defenders of Wildlife is dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities. Founded in 1947, Defenders of Wildlife is the premier U.S.-based national conservation organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of imperiled species and their habitats in North America. https://defenders.org/
Earthjustice
- Earthjustice is the premier nonprofit public interest environmental law organization. https://earthjustice.org/
Learn More References
Einhorn, C. (2020, October 08). Wolverines Don’t Require Protection, U.S. Officials Rule. Retrieved October 24, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/08/climate/wolverines-no-federal-protection.html
Supertrooper. (2020, October 12). ‘Heads in the sand’: Conservationists condemn US failure to protect wolverines. Retrieved October 24, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/12/wolverines-endangered-species-act-us-fish-wildlife
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2020). Wolverine: US Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved October 24, 2020, from https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/wolverine.php
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Mountain-Prairie Region. (2020, October 8). Science Shows Wolverines in the Contiguous U.S. Are Healthy. Retrieved October 24, 2020, from https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pressrel/2020/10082020-Science-Shows-Wolverines-in-the-Contiguous-US-Are-Healthy.php
Can Social Media Companies Regulate Their Own Content?
Brief #22 Technology
Can Social Media Companies Regulate Their Own Content?
By Scout Burchill
October 25, 2020
Summary:
As the 2020 election approaches, social media platforms have been taking major actions to moderate content in an attempt to combat growing amounts of misinformation. The controversial steps signal a major policy shift for the social media giants, especially Facebook and Twitter, on issues of free speech and the need for content regulation.
The list of actions that social media companies have taken to slow the spread of misinformation grows longer by the day, however the most high-profile cases have become the topic of mainstream political discourse. On October 14th, the New York Post published a story on Hunter Biden’s business connections in Ukraine that contained unverified emails obtained through questionable means. In response, Twitter quickly responded by blocking users’ ability to share the story. Facebook, taking a different approach, limited the extent to which the story would appear in users’ News Feeds.
This incident, along with others including crackdowns on QAnon conspiracy groups across social media platforms, comes at a time when the spread of misinformation continues to grow online and social media companies are facing increasing scrutiny from politicians and the public. According to a new study by the Digital New Deal project of the German Marshall Fund, engagement with media outlets that regularly publish misleading or false articles on Facebook has almost tripled between the third quarter of 2016 and the third quarter of 2020.
Analysis:
The actions that social media companies have taken in the run up to the 2020 election to curb the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories online mark an unprecedented shift in how these companies will be scrutinized and held accountable going forward.
The actions taken by social media companies, which include bans, content removals and new features designed to slow the spread of misleading articles such as labels warning users of misleading information, have largely proven to be ineffective. As noted earlier, studies show that misinformation is now more popular than in the run up to the 2016 election. Furthermore, newly published data suggests that Twitter’s aggressive moderation tactics seemed to have backfired. The unprecedented decision to ban users from sharing the story made it go viral. In a report from MIT’s Technology Review, which used data from Zignal Labs, a media intelligence firm, it was found that shares of the New York Post article roughly doubled after Twitter attempted to suppress it. This sequence of events perfectly illustrates what is known as the Streisand Effect: the phenomenon in which attempts to conceal, censor or suppress information has the opposite effect and ends up bringing more attention to it[1]. On top of this unintended consequence, Twitter and other social media platforms came under immediate attack by Republican politicians, pundits and influencers for having a left-wing bias and censoring speech online. This incident seems to have lent further credence to this long-running political talking point on the right.
Twitter explained its decision, which even went so far as to lock the account of White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, by stating that the story violated its policies of distributing hacked materials. Obviously, this policy is extremely hard to defend considering that banning hacked or stolen materials would inevitably block countless important stories from reaching the public. For example, just recently the New York Times published a damning expose of Trump’s tax returns that, according to this Twitter policy, could conceivably be subject to the same treatment as the New York Post’s Hunter Biden story. Even the CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, facing a massive amount of political pressure especially from Republicans, acknowledged that it was wrong to block the article and the company announced it would change its policy, citing fears that the policy was too sweeping and would affect journalists and whistle-blowers.
It was not so long ago that both Facebook and Twitter championed unregulated free speech on their platforms. In a sense, it was simply smart business strategy. For years social media platforms have made the argument that they are platforms not publishers and therefore cannot be held responsible for content. However, with political pressures mounting, as calls for government regulation and anti-monopoly sentiment grow on both sides of the aisle, social media companies seem to be back-tracking from this previous position and are attempting to impose their own content-moderation regimes. In some instances this new stance has been celebrated, in others condemned. As of recently, this approach has been somewhat of a disaster as new crackdowns and moderation tactics have only brought further scrutiny and a growing sense of distrust. Ultimately, these incidents bring to the fore an increasingly urgent and important question: Should we trust private companies to regulate content and political discourse online?
As many commentators point out, social media platforms have little economic incentive to actually slow the spread of misinformation. At the end of the day, they are private companies motivated by profit and viral content is good for their bottom lines. These current content-moderation decisions are probably attempts to weather the political storm that is brewing concerning how much power these companies wield in shaping political discourse. However, in the absence of a coherent and well-articulated framework for content regulation that clearly draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech attempts to moderate will likely continue to backfire.
Resistance Resources:
Countering Truth Decay Initiative:
https://www.rand.org/research/projects/truth-decay/fighting-disinformation.html
Tools to educate and combat misinformation: https://www.rand.org/research/projects/truth-decay/fighting-disinformation/search.html
Maplight Election Deception Tracker:
https://maplight.org/story/election-deception-tracker/
[1] This term was coined after a 2003 incident in which the singer Barbra Streisand sued a photographer for taking aerial photos of her Malibu mansion and posting them online in a project documenting coastal erosion in California. Prior to Mrs. Streisand’s lawsuit, the obscure photo was one of thousands in a database and had been viewed only several times, a few of those by her own lawyer. However, all that changed when she attempted to have it removed from the database. The lawsuit was reported in the media and subsequently hundreds of thousands of people searched for it, viewed it and shared it.
An Update on House Races in Florida
Congressional Campaign Update
Congressional Campaign Updates is a new feature of U.S. RESIST NEWS. Written by reporter William Bourque. The updates will help our readers follow key races in the House and Senate that are key to the ability of democrats to gain control of both houses of Congress.
Brief # 10: An Update on House Races in Florida
Another tightening race in Florida is for the 16th district in the House, where upstart Margaret Good is slowly closing in on Vern Buchanan, the incumbent who is one of the richest members of congress. Good wasn’t expected to be competitive in the race, but after the former-republican gained national support the race began to tighten. Change Research, on behalf of the Good campaign, polled 527 likely voters several weeks ago. The results showed Buchanan with a 3 point lead, which was within the margin of error for the data. Good still has an uphill battle but had received a significant amount of recent funding from ActBlue, as well as garnering endorsements from national figures like Joe Biden and Barack Obama, as well as organizations like Emily’s List and the Tampa Bay Times. As signs of a second wave of Covid begin to show up in Florida, Good may just get the push she needs for a close win in a district that is historically red.
In District 15 there is another tight race that could indicate how the state will fall in the Presidential election. Incumbent Ross Spanos is finishing his first term in office but lost his primary to Scott Franklin, an insurance executive. Franklin faces a tough competitor in Alan Cohn, a former television reporter who has run for the seat once before, in 2014. Cohn was known for his work uncovering political corruption as a reporter and even won an Emmy for a story about a Vietnam War veteran. Cohn is well-funded and has raised more money than his competitor, according to opensecrets. It is a tough uphill battle to win the district that is home to Lakeland and it’s metropolitan area, but Cohn may have the funding and campaign that could do it. A poll from October 12th shows that Franklin only has a 3 point lead, which is within the margin of error for the dataset. Cohn will rely on Franklin’s endorsement of President Trump to drag him down to win this race in a historically red district.
Florida is a close state in terms of House of Representatives, with 14 republicans and 13 democrats. Matt Gaetz is considered one of Florida’s most important congresspeople, with many seeing him as a potential candidate for Senate next time a seat becomes available. In Florida, both Senators are republican with Marco Rubio and former Governor Rick Scott representing the state. The districts that are most likely to flip are 15 and 16, as discussed earlier in the brief. There is potential for some other districts to flip, such as 18 and 19. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is another important member of the House from Florida who will likely be re-elected, although she is seen as more of a moderate democrat. Despite this, we expect Florida to be remain 14-13 with the republicans maintaining the advantage, although 15 and 16 both indicate some potential to be flipped, which could result in a 15-12 advantage for democrats. We will have continuing coverage of the whole US and Florida as it winds down to election day.
Trump’s Erratic Military Policies
Brief # 95 Foreign Policy
Trump’s Erratic Military Policies
By Colin Rugg
October 23, 2020
Policy Summary
In the wake of Jeffrey Goldberg’s September 3rd Atlantic report lambasting Trump for his disparaging comments about the United States Military, the president has come under fire from Military commanders and politicians on both sides of the aisle. Trump has a reported history of mocking veterans, calling soldiers who lost their lives abroad “losers,” making disparaging remarks about prisoners of war, and complaining that “nobody wants to see” disabled veterans injured in the line of duty at a military parade. On a Memorial Day visit to the grave of Lt. Robert Kelly, son of Gen. John Kelly, the president reportedly turned to the general and said, “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?” The president denies these claims. But actions speak louder than words and the president’s lack of respect for domestic and international military norms goes much deeper than the claims of disrespectful language.
To understand the president’s current cagey relationship with the US military, it is important to understand the context in which he interacts with it. During his presidential campaign in 2016, Trump promised to swiftly pull troops back from “endless wars” The American people, tired of seemingly endless conflict with billions of dollars spent on a national defense budget in lieu of domestic needs, were generally in favor of the sentiment despite concerns of military top brass and Republican lawmakers. But the urgent demands of addressing the insurgence of the Islamic State and rising tensions between the Afghan government and the Taliban pushed the president to increase foreign military presence, raising the Obama-era cap of 8,400 troops stationed in Afghanistan to 15,000.
Now, under the shadow of a looming presidential election, Trump has been hasty to make good on his promises to reduce the foreign US military presence. In contrast to Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden’s stated goals to support longtime NATO allies and to pull out of the Middle East “in a manner that ensures we both guard against threats to our homeland and never have to go back,” Donald Trump does not seem concerned about such long-term concerns. Gen. Frank McKenzie, the top US military commander for the Middle East claims that at the current rate, the number of troops in Afghanistan could fall below 4,500 in November, and down to 3,000 in Iraq.
Analysis
While the withdrawal of troops might sound like good news to humanitarian and the America-First movements alike, the policy’s carelessness should be of concern to both parties. Iraq and Afghanistan are both in critical political moments that require support beyond what local governments can provide.
The Afghan-Taliban peace talks are only just beginning and are already steeped in contention. President Trump is clearly eager to disengage, proclaiming victory as soon as the Taliban came to the negotiating table, already having lowered the number of troops well in advance. In the wake of the president’s hasty retreat, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that the negotiations will be deeply contentious. They have already been marred by increased Taliban attacks on Afghan soldiers and assassination attempts, with scores of civilians killed in the crossfire.
Iraq has also seen Trump declare premature victory only to disengage with no thought for long-term consequence. The president announced in late 2018 that the US would withdraw nearly all its troops from Syria under the pretense that the Islamic State was decimated. And while the radical terrorist movement indeed lost all its territory and their leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, military commanders from Iraq and the Pentagon urge caution. Both put the current number of Islamic State members between 14 and 18 thousand – 4 to 8 thousand more than when the organization first proclaimed a caliphate.
Not only is the Islamic State still growing and organizing underground, but those who survived the initial conflict have been further radicalized and trained in live combat. Masrour Barzani, the Prime Minister of Iraqi Kurdistan and former leader of the Kurdish paramilitary force known as the peshmerga, claims the Islamic State is reorganizing at an alarming rate. Even at its nadir, the organization continued to launch an average of 60 attacks a month on Iraqi security forces. It is under these circumstances that Trump is removing antiterrorism forces from the country, leaving a nascent anti-American Islamist terrorist organization to develop undisturbed.
Trump’s ham-fisted attempts to make good on his electoral promises will have disastrous consequences in the Middle East. It has already cast doubt on the United States’ reputation as a loyal ally following the president’s removal of troops stationed in longtime NATO allied countries like Germany.
But the most frustrating aspect of the president’s military policy is the fact that these actions are deeply hypocritical. Trump boasts about delivering on his campaign promises to cut foreign military spending and bring American forces home, while in the same breath he signs into law the National Defense Authorization Act which drastically increased the military budget, redeploys soldiers elsewhere around the world, and bullishly enflames conflicts with the potential to pull the United States into deeper military entanglements. He recalls and redeploys forces to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain on a whim, baiting Iran into conflict. According to the Congressional Research Service, Donald Trump’s history of conducting unilateral military action against Iran could easily lead to future military conflict, including action against Iranian allies or proxies, retaliation against Iranian key targets and facilities as seen in the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, blockades, or even outright invasion. With the current breakdown of international military cooperation as well as the lack of communication and support between the United States and its NATO allies, it is likely that a regional conflict would be deeply taxing for the United States.
Trump’s blatantly hypocritical approach to military policy will have disastrous results for the American people and our allies abroad. It will risk American lives by pushing away our allies, enflaming our regional rivals, and allowing anti-American terrorism and instability to grow deep roots abroad, while skirting around the stated goal of decreasing the military budget. These policies were put in place to stroke Trump’s ego by allowing him to grandstand on an international stage, spend exorbitantly on nothing more than a show of force, and lend false legitimacy to the claim that he made good on his promises to the American people.
Resistance Resources
Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS) – TAPS provides a variety of programs to offer compassionate care to those grieving the loss of a loved one who died while serving in the Armed Forces, or as a result of service. TAPS has helped more than 70,000 surviving families, caregivers, and casualty officers since the nonprofit was founded in 1994.
https://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/how-donate-united-nations-system/ – In the absence of a multilateral military mission from the United States, the best hope at maintaining stability and decency abroad is through the support of international organizations like the United Nations.
https://www.usa.gov/confirm-voter-registration – Vote in the upcoming 2020 presidential election. Foreign and Military policy are inextricably linked to the Commander in Chief. We need a responsible steward of our nation now more than ever.
Will “Ballot Harvesting” Play A Role In The 2020 Election?
Policy Summary: In 2016 the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1921 which expanded on who can return an absentee or mail ballot on another person’s behalf. Previously, the only persons permitted to return another person’s mail ballot were family members residing in the same household as the voter (spouse, children, parents, brother, sister, etc.). With the new law California allowed any person designated by the voter to return the mail ballot. Familial ties were no longer required nor did the person designated by the voter have to reside in the same household. The rationale for the law was to remove further barriers that could have prevented some people from returning their ballot.
Over the last few weeks, the Republican Party in California hatched an idea to collect ballots and deliver them to local election headquarters. In the cities of Fresno and areas around Los Angeles ballot collection boxes were set up at churches and gun shops. The ballot collection boxes set up at these locations by the Republican Party were in violation of state law and prompted a memorandum from California Secretary of State Alex Padilla to provide clarity on the use of unauthorized ballot collection boxes. Republicans countered that their use of ballot collection boxes is perfectly within the law as written by the Democrats in the Legislature. On October 12, 2020, Secretary Padilla filed a cease and desist order with the California Republican Party and local Republican Parties in Fresno, Los Angeles and Orange Counties to stop the use of unauthorized ballot collection boxes. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The issue that triggered this fight in California just weeks from Election Day is known as “ballot harvesting.” It is also known as “ballot collection.” A voter can mail their mail ballot or absentee ballot back to election headquarters or simply drop it in an official ballot collection box set up by the local county. However, the laws from each of the fifty states are not uniform and some states permit another person to return their ballot, some states do not and other states have no laws addressing the issue. Some of the most common restrictions are the number of ballots that can be returned by one person (e.g. Montana limits a person to six ballots returned by him or her on behalf of another voter), a bar on political candidates or their staff from returning another person’s ballot and some technical requirements such as signing an affidavit on voter assistance forms.
The problem with the ballot collection boxes set up in California by the Republican Party, aside from the technical requirements, is that the collection boxes are only targeted at likely Republican voters. The intent of the ballot collection law in California and in a number of other states is to allow the individual voter to select one person to return their ballot. Many of the ballots have sections on the envelope where the designated person will sign their name and attest that the voter has voted. What the Republicans are instead doing is setting up a massive ballot collection effort that will operate outside the safeguards that many of these state ballot collection laws have implemented. If a person known to be a Democrat in the community drops his or her ballot in these unauthorized collection boxes there is no guarantee that the Republican Party will deliver the ballot. Additionally, there is no one signing for the receipt of these ballots which does not give anyone responsibility for the delivery of the mail ballot. And while the use of officially sanctioned ballot drop boxes have protocols for the security of the box and the retrieval of the ballots by known elections officials in the county these receptacles used by Republicans have none of those protocols in place. And it can be difficult to demand and monitor these kinds of protocols if the boxes are placed in a location like a gun shop.
While Republicans claim to merely be playing by the rules set up by California Democrats there is a dark chapter with the Republican Party when it comes to ballot harvesting. Just last year, a Republican political operative in North Carolina was indicted in a ballot harvesting scandal. Leslie Dowless, Jr. ran a ballot collection operation that included sending absentee ballots to voters who never requested one, filling in the ballots personally for multiple voters and signing the voter’s name himself. With this sordid incident happening so recently, it is questionable to allow the Republican Party to engage in another ballot collection effort on a large scale without ensuring that security and retrieval protocols are in place. Secretary Padilla of California has already sent out cease and desist orders to local Republican officials to halt their efforts at using unauthorized ballot collection boxes but it may take a few days to see if Republicans will comply or if they will continue to use this ballot harvesting method to try and sow confusion and try to manipulate an election that is only weeks away. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Resistance Resources:
LawFare – infopage on ballot collection issues and how it has been handled in courts.
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) – chart detailing ballot collection statutes in all fifty states.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
As Social Media Giants Move to Curtail QAnon Trump Steps Up His Misinformation Campaign
Brief #21 – Technology
By Charles A. Rubin
As Social Media Giants Move to Curtail QAnon Trump Steps Up His Misinformation Campaign
October 21, 2020
Policy Summary
With the U.S. presidential election only weeks away, Facebook and other social media companies are struggling to show that they take the use of their platforms to spread misinformation and hate speech seriously, Facebook announced on October 6, 2020 that it had removed nearly 1,000 QAnon conspiracy theorist groups and promised to halt political ads after the polls close on November 3. YouTube, owned by Google, followed suit on October 15, 2020 updating its hate-speech and harassment policies to prohibit “content that targets an individual or group with conspiracy theories that have been used to justify real-world violence.” These follow the July announcement by Twitter that it had begun taking sweeping actions to limit the reach of QAnon content, banning over 7,000 of the conspiracy theory’s followers because of concerns over harassment and misinformation.
At the same time the President has been using Twitter and Facebook to flood the public discourse with unsubstantiated pronouncements about the unreliability of mail-in balloting and amplifying conspiracy theories about his political opponents and the origins of the Coronavirus.
Analysis
Throughout the Trump presidency Twitter has been exploited to manipulate the news cycle by providing a direct unfiltered avenue to a large audience. The medium has been used to spread rumors, amplify the President’s positions and shift the focus to a different outrage when convenient. The platforms have taken little responsibility for the content posted on them arguing that these are free speech issues. As long as posts do not violate rules regarding pornogrpahy or violence they are left alone unless there is a complaint and those are sent to third party moderators to judge their propriety.
Under public pressure, the social media giants have attempted to moderate the content by employing artificial intelligence to root out factually incorrect information and posts that incite to violence. It is an art more than a science. With an average of over 500 million posts a day on both Facebook and Twitter this is a huge and ever moving body of work to monitor.
More importantly, though, the social media companies do not see this as their role. They see themselves as primarily corporations that provide a service but ultimately turn a profit by engaging their users. Engagement means recommending the types of material the user has read before and stoking controversy. The more the platform engages the user by “suggesting” similar content and reinforcing an already held view, the more revenue they earn.
The Federal government has failed in gauging and regulating the negative externalities of a company’s behavior. If a company pollutes the air or its service harms citizens it is the government’s responsibility to protect the public. If social media companies, through the spread of misinformation or incitement to violence, are harming our democratic processes then we should have an expectation that the government will move to regulate that behavior.
As we have seen with environmental regulations, civil liberties, workplace safety and many other spheres this administration’s priority is protecting the corporations. Add that to the fact that Trump has a vested interest in discrediting the election and the institutions that work to protect these institutions we can expect little regulation or meaningful discussion.
Resistance Resources
- AccessNow provides resources on keeping the internet safe and open.
- A group of prominent Facebook critics has launched a RFOB (Real Facebook Oversight Board) as a check on the internal Oversight Board that Facebook has created to police itself.
- The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world.
The Center for Digital Democracy’s mission is to ensure that digital technologies serve and strengthen democratic values, institutions and processes. CDD strives to safeguard privacy and civil and human rights, as well as to advance equity, fairness, and community