#but it also erodes trust in government

[narse-tantalus]

Since I just saw a post on the same blog about countering the spread of misinformation using the SIFT method I'm going to apply it here.

Stop

Is this post provoking an emotional response? Yes

Is it trying to? Also yes.

What do I already know about the source? Twitter screenshots on Tumblr are unreliable. I know nothing about the linked pmc19.com but it doesn't look like a government or university website url.

Investigate (The Source)

What can you find about the author/website creators?

the link to pmc19.com/data resolves, and that website does seem to be the source of these claims, although the current numbers are slightly off those reported in the tweets, likely because we're a week later.

pmc19.com links to a PDF with "Background on Dr. Hoerger and the PMC". There they discuss how Dr. Hoerger (who claims copyright of the webpage at the bottom) is trained in clinical psychology, has taught and was doing an MBA in 2019 on strategic management. It claims he's "an expert in personality, emotions, and affective decision science..." and mentions he did a masters degree wich involved a lot of stuff... And also epidemiology.

The PMC is apparently "The Pandemic Mitigation Collaborative" with unnamed members who have " led many projects to keep people safer during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic." and "The PMC dashboard is cited in grant applications, including at least two grants already funded. It has been cited by trusted organizations like the People’s CDC, news outlets, and scientific journals, including several papers published in JAMA journals."

Which really sounds like they think I should trust them at least as much as I trust people who write grants, and/or "The People's CDC" -- this makes me think they are unlikely to be an accurate source.

Here's Dr. Hoerger's bio at Louisiana Cancer research center:

https://www.louisianacancercenter.org/people/michael-hoerger-phd

It says "Dr. Hoerger conducts psychosocial research to reduce the emotional and physical burden of serious illnesses. Dr. Hoerger is an international expert in psychosocial oncology as well as pandemic mitigation." And the lists a bunch of psychology stuff. Literally never mentions pandemics again. If he's an "international expert in pandemic mitigation" a) I'd expect him to work somewhere other than a Cancer center b) I'd expect his bio to mention his pandemic mitigation work. Maybe he's new to all this pandemic stuff? He certainly doesn't claim to be an epidemiologist on the pmc website, just to have worked on a project that involves it.

When I google "The Pandemic Mitigation Collaborative" the second result is this webpage which questions their methodology and suggests that their model is incapable of making accurate predictions -- claiming it's always going to be biased towards whatever happened on the same dates last year -- both low and high. (I'm summarizing and interpreting a huge amount here,so read it yourself, and the source is just a blog post so not intrinsically more credible...) But it is note worthy that the main 3rd party discussion of this organization is someone questioning the utility of their predictions.

https://buttondown.com/abbycartus/archive/we-need-to-talk-about-the-pandemic-mitigation/

What is their mission? Do they have vested interests? Would their assessment be biased?

Their mission seems to be to "track" or predict cases of covid -- but like better than the real CDC and epidemiologists. Presumably this is born out of concern for immunocompromised individuals, or boredom, or needing a project for a Strategic Management MBA, or distrust of Official Sources.

They appear to have a vested interest in pandemic mitigation, and therefore alarmism and possibly in not agreeing with official sources. Their assessment may well be biased!

Do they have authority in the Area?

No. They mention precisely 0 epidemiologists working for or with them. I don't see a reason to trust their models more than my physics grad student friends who made pandemic models on a lark in 2020.

Find Better Coverage

The official CDC (Centers for Disease Control) webpage on Covid data is here:

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home

It indicates lower numbers than last year for everything they track, numbers that are kind of ticking up in recent weeks, but numbers that are forecast (if I'm reading that right) to reach a smaller peak than in prior years.

Notably the CDC is not making any directly comparable claims about number of people infected or infectious. Or how many might be infected next month. I believe this is because these are fundamentally unknowable from the data they have, and that speculating on them would be irresponsible for public communicators of science. Sure, one could create models that predict those numbers, but publishing the results to the public without context on the uncertainties of the models would be irresponsible since people might make life or death decisions like wearing a mask or getting a vaccine based on those bad predictions. Or they might just rage at people online who disagree with them. Idk, I'm not a science communicator.

Don't trust the CDC? Tough. The New York Times ended their own covid tracking in 2023 saying:

After more than three years of daily reporting of coronavirus data in the United States, The New York Times is ending its Covid-19 data-gathering operation. The Times will continue to publish virus data from the federal government weekly on a new set of tracking pages, but this page will no longer be updated.

This change was spurred by the declining availability of virus data from state and local health officials. Since few states report more than once a week (and some no longer report data to the public at all), the weekly data reports from the C.D.C. have become the most reliable source of information on the virus’s spread.

There new webpage is here and it was last updated in March 2024, it says:

These Covid tracking pages are no longer being updated. Get the latest information from the Centers for Disease Control, or find archived data from The Times’s three year reporting effort here.

John's Hopkins University has this to say:

On March 10, 2023, the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center ceased collecting and reporting of global COVID-19 data. For updated cases, deaths, and vaccine data please visit the following sources: Global: World Health Organization (WHO) U.S.: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

So yeah, reputable sources have stopped caring and link you to the CDC as the place to get your info.

Trace Claims, Quotes, and Media to their Original Context

The pmc19.com website does appear to be the original context for these claims. Thank you OP for linking that.

My Verdict:

These claims are misinformation. Specifically they claim numbers that are based on a model that was not created by subject matter experts, that disagrees with the trends reported by the CDC and it's epidemiologists. Either government employed epidemiologists are wrong and no university epidemiologists want to call them out on it... Or the PMC is wrong. Since they aren't epidemiologists... They're probably wrong. Moreover: If you don't trust the CDC you shouldn't The PMC because in their technical apendix they claim to use CDC data to make their projections. The only way the PMC could be right is if all other epidemiologists are wrong about the COVID pandemic and how to interpret wastewater and hospitalization data.

The PMC and Dr. Hoerger are engaging in academic sounding BS. They have incentives to be alarmist and fear monger, and don't seem to care or understand that they're using a model that probably doesn't have predictive value.

Data source: https://pmc19.com/data/

[messy-does-cosmology]

I'm gonna say something: I think that if you are seriously distressed by losing access to TikTok, and you weren't making money from it, then it's probably a good thing it's being taken away from you

[mariacallous]

Americans need to log off. Unplug. Shoot the TV. It seems impossible. Less than five days from Election Day in the US, most people can’t help but check the news—or TikTok or X—at least once a day. Swipe, refresh, repeat. By Tuesday, the connectedness will be constant. Mentally, political stress takes a huge toll. Given that anxiety can be exacerbated by uncertainty, the 2024 election feels worse than it has ever before. There’s a reason for that.

I don’t just mean the general sky-is-falling stuff—the militias on Facebook organizing ballot-box stakeouts, the conspiracy theory spreaders, the cybercriminals potentially waiting in the wings. Some version of those nerve-janglers has been around for years. Now, though, there’s a new factor upping users’ blood pressure as they doomscroll: AI misinformation.

Clearly US voters worry about how misinformation might impact who wins the election, but Sander van der Linden, author of Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects Our Minds and How to Build Immunity, notes that the anxiety around AI might be more existential. “If you look at the problem from a more indirect perspective, such as sowing doubt and chaos, confusion, undermining democratic discourse, lowering trust in the electoral process, and confusing swing voters,” he says. “I think we’re looking at a bigger risk”—one that fuels polarization and erodes the quality of debate.

According to an American Psychological Association survey released last week, 77 percent of US adults feel some level of stress over the future of the country. It gets worse. Sixty-nine percent of adults surveyed said the race between Vice President Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was a cause of “significant stress”—a figure that’s up from 52 percent in 2016, when Trump beat Hillary Clinton. Nearly three-quarters of respondents thought the election could spur violence; more than half worried it could be “the end of democracy in the US.”

Christ.

On top of all of this sits the threat of AI-generated falsehoods. For more than a year researchers have warned of election misinformation from artificial intelligence. Beyond the polls, such misinformation has played a role in the Israel-Hamas war and the war in Ukraine. 404 Media called the aftermath of Hurricane Helene “the ‘fuck it’ era of AI-generated slop.” (Actually) fake news lurks around every corner. Earlier this year, the World Economic Forum released a report claiming AI misinformation is one of the biggest short-term threats the world faces. Bad election information and fake images can also bring in serious money for X users, according to a BBC report this week.

This was the first year the APA asked about AI and election anxiety and one of the things the organization found was that seven in 10 people experienced stress over the fact that fake information can seem so believable. One-third of social media users said they don’t know what to believe on those platforms. “It extends beyond just information and social media,” says Vaile Wright, APA’s senior director of health care innovation. “A majority of Americans said they don't trust the US government. So there's sort of this whole lack of trust in what used to be very trusted institutions—the media, government—and that, I'm sure, is not helping with people's stress as it relates to this election this year.”

When the US election season ramped up there were AI-generated robocalls (the Federal Communications Commission outlawed them) and now election officials are preparing staff to deal with any number of deepfakes they may encounter. X’s AI model Grok is reportedly boosting conspiracy theories. (It’s also, according to Musk, working on its MRI-reading skills.)

After months of fretting about AI taking jobs, now everyone has to worry about it taking faith in the democratic process?

For nearly two decades, one social media platform or another has ended up dominating a US election. Back in 2008, it was a still-young Twitter. During most of the twenty-teens, it was Facebook (and a bit of Instagram) and Twitter. More recently, TikTok has become a news-spreading tool. In each election cycle, people have swiped to keep up—and also confronted new levels of toxicity. Former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, who got out of prison this week, once told reporter Michael Lewis Democrats didn’t matter, “the real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.” That shit went online.

Now, that shit doesn’t even have to come from political operatives. Machines can make it. When people scroll around on their smartphones for a flicker of hope about whether or not their candidate will win, whatever discouragement or reassurance they find may not even be real.

The APA’s survey found that 82 percent of US adults were worried people may base their values on inaccurate information, and more than one-fifth said they’d believed something they read online or on social media when it wasn’t true. Another poll conducted in early September found that only about a quarter of voters feel confident that they can tell the difference between real AI-generated visuals, like the fake images Trump shared claiming Taylor Swift fans are supporting him. “That’s not a good sign,” van der Linden says.

If your fears about the election seem even worse than they did in 2020, this may be why. Misinformation takes a mental toll. “Political anxiety” exists, and research indicates it can impact those who aren’t anxious otherwise. Couple that with a media landscape where newspapers are coming under fire for not endorsing a political candidate and the picture of a nervous electorate becomes very clear. Trust no one; just wait to see what happens—then decide if you believe it.

[xcziel]

hadn't seen this on here yet

South Korea Is Fighting for Democracy Again—And the World Needs to Know

by Heesoo Jang

Assistant Professor of Media Law and Ethics, Journalism Department, University of Massachusetts Amherst 

South Korea is once again at a critical juncture in its democratic history. More than a hundred thousand protesters, joined by over 4,000 professors and 1,466 Catholic priests announcing their declarations of the state of affairs, are calling for President Yoon Suk Yeol’s resignation. This echoes the massive movement that led to the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye in 2017 for corruption and abuse of power, showcasing South Koreans’ enduring commitment to holding leaders accountable.

What’s unfolding in South Korea is not just a domestic issue—it’s a reminder that democracies everywhere require constant vigilance. Yet, international media, like the BBC and AP News, have largely missed the bigger picture, focusing on soundbites and foreign policy instead of the underlying democratic struggles. This oversight leaves out important context for the global audience to understand the deeper context of widespread domestic dissatisfaction of the state of democracy in South Korea.

At the heart of the protests are allegations of corruption and abuse of power. President Yoon has exercised his veto power 25 times since 2023, blocking investigations into allegations against his wife, including claims of stock manipulation in Deutsch Motors. This is the most frequent use of veto power South Korea has seen since South Korea’s first president, Syngman Rhee, who faced impeachment in 1952 and eventually resigned in 1960 amid widespread public outrage over his authoritarian rule and attempts to consolidate power.��

These vetoes, alongside scandals like the “Myung Tae-Kyun Gate,” have eroded public trust in the administration. The gate alleges that political broker Myung Tae-Kyun, a close ally of Yoon and First Lady Kim Keon Hee, manipulated public opinion during the 2022 presidential election. Through his Future Korea Research Institute, Myung reportedly conducted biased polls favoring Yoon to influence election narratives. A leaked phone recording released by the opposition Democratic Party has further implicated Yoon in discussions about candidate nominations, fueling allegations of election interference.

Beyond these vetoes, Yoon’s administration has faced widespread criticism for systemic failures in governance, public safety, and economic management. The Itaewon tragedy, where 159 people lost their lives during a crowd crush, starkly exposed grave inadequacies in public safety protocols and emergency response systems. A special investigation on this tragedy was also a bill the President has vetoed. Similarly, the death of Private Chae during military service revealed systemic abuses and negligence within the military. Instead of enabling accountability, President Yoon has repeatedly vetoed special prosecutor bills aimed at investigating these military abuses. Public frustration has only grown as investigations into these tragedies have failed to hold senior officials accountable. Meanwhile, Yoon’s administration has also faced allegations of undermining press freedom by targeting journalists and media outlets critical of the government. 

Adding to these failures is a healthcare system on the brink of collapse, where prolonged medical staff shortages, exacerbated by budget cuts, have caused long-term disruptions in patient care. Instead of addressing these structural issues, the government has opted for a hasty increase in medical school quotas—a move experts warn will only further destabilize the system. Yoon’s economic policies have similarly drawn heavy criticism for favoring the wealthy with tax cuts while reducing public welfare budgets, deepening inequality between South Korea’s elites and its struggling middle and working classes. Rising household debt and record-breaking small business closures have fueled calls for reform, yet the administration’s inaction has only alienated the public further. Compounding these grievances, a 15% cut to South Korea’s research and development (R&D) budget has alarmed academics and scientists, who warn that this decision jeopardizes the nation’s innovation-driven economy and long-term global competitiveness—a concern echoed by prominent universities like Yonsei and Ewha Womans University, which cite these cuts as emblematic of broader governance failures.

Despite the scale of unrest, international media have failed to convey the full significance of this crisis. Instead of contextualizing public discontent and the erosion of democratic norms, they have focused on peripheral issues, ignoring the protests’ broader implications for democracy. This has also allowed misinformation to muddy the narrative internationally, preventing the international public from gaining important contextual information about what’s happening in South Korea. For example, posts on Chinese social media have falsely portrayed the protests as anti-war rallies rather than demands for accountability and reform. 

South Korea’s struggle is a powerful reminder that democracy is not self-sustaining—it requires active vigilance. The protests and demands for reform exemplify how civil society can confront governance failures. The world deserves more context and a nuanced understanding from international journalism about what South Korean democracy is facing, as its fight for justice, transparency, and the rule of law holds lessons for all democracies.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

A large majority of Canadians have been exposed to Russian false narratives about the war in Ukraine — and people who support the Conservative Party are more susceptible to believing Kremlin disinformation, according to a new report. A survey from DisinfoWatch, part of the MacDonald-Laurier Institute think tank, found that 71 per cent of Canadians polled have heard at least one Russian false narrative and that a substantial portion “believe them to be true or are unsure of their falsehood.” It also found “Conservative supporters, who report the highest exposure levels to Kremlin narratives, are also more likely to believe in them compared to their Liberal and NDP counterparts.” The high percentage of Canadians being exposed to the narratives means “Russian disinformation is, in fact, reaching into Canadian homes,” DisinfoWatch director and co-author of the report Marcus Kolga told Global News. He said the primary purpose “is to erode Canadian support and trust in the government of Ukraine, to slow down the aid we’re sending to Ukraine and to stop the supply of weapons, whether it’s Canada or any of our NATO allies.”

Continue Reading

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland

[sasquapossum]

On my mind: why has there been such an increase in adulation and loyalty toward obviously defective people like Trump and Musk? Have people become more gullible than they were when I was younger? Seems unlikely. We internalized all sorts of stupid shit too, but it wasn't so focused on personalities. Then it struck me: the problem is that we've lost faith in institutions and personalities are what's left. Consider...

Politicians: believe it or not, we used to trust that they were at least sane and working generally for some vision of public good, even when we disagreed. Not since Nixon, Reagan, Dubya, etc.

Journalists: we used to trust them to report the facts in a reasonably objective way, even when that isn't necessarily what they were doing. Then came Fox and that all went out the window.

TV/radio media became all about engagement, a form of entertainment, not actual reporting. Now it's all podcasts and TikTok or YouTube, but basically same. There are some who believe one particular favorite speaks the truth, but few who would say these folks in general are trustworthy.

Print media failed in a different way, partly by being partisans for the establishment (e.g. NYT and the Iraq war) but mostly by totally missing the boat on going online. They could have agreed on a single shared subscription or micropayment system, but they each had to be greedy with their own paywalls etc. So their lunch got eaten by social media (who bear their own share of blame for eroding trust), and the press got even more unhinged about it.

Science, engineering, academe: we used to believe promises about new miracle materials, chemicals, drugs, etc. Even before anti-vaccine lunacy became a thing, a long string of disasters - microplastics, DDT, thalidomide - changed that.

Unions: they've experienced a resurgence very recently, but that's almost a "dead cat bounce" after being moribund for decades. Some people would blame Reagan and PATCO. I think the collapse of major union-heavy industries - auto, steel, mining - had more to do with it, but the result was the same.

I could go on - there's a whole other post I could write about the mixed role of churches in this context - but you get the idea. The fact that in many cases there were good reasons to withdraw our trust doesn't change the fact that such a general withdrawal creates a vacuum which we've filled with hero worship instead. That's where people like Musk and Trump come from.

Here's the kicker: it's not an accident. Undermining trust in institutions has been part of the authoritarian playbook since forever. Julius Caesar is the earliest example that most people would be familiar with, hence the silly illustration, but the phenomenon goes back much further than that. Creating that vacuum is central to authoritarian strategy. Remember Reagan's "nine most terrifying words"? Some people think of that as a libertarian statement but, with the so-called Moral Majority and various militia groups (then as now galvanized by immigration) behind him, that misses the mark. It was part of an authoritarian strategy, demeaning the administrative state and permanent civil service (i.e. institutions) in favor of raw executive power (i.e. personalities).

I'm all for unions, co-ops, mutual aid, etc. but they can't stand alone. Never have. Without a government enforcing rules (including against itself), anarchy will always evolve toward autocracy. If you think the role of government should be minimized, then congratulations, you're part of the Reagan Left ... or worse. A red hat with a hammer and sickle on it is still a red hat. You are effectively supporting authoritarianism whether you mean to or not. Also, since there's no significant left-authoritarian element in US politics - no Stalin or Mao and thank FSM for that - that means you're supporting right-authoritarians. You should stop, especially if you're a member of a group that would suffer most under such a regime.

[aimeedaisies]

Princess Anne’s speech at the Global Fraud Summit at the Guildhall in London on 10th March 2024.

“Digital IT is entirely global and so are fraudsters, they are globally organised and our response needs to be too.

The numbers of you here for the next couple of days, I hope affect the knowledge of the profound and far reaching impacts of fraud on ordinary people and that’s ordinary people everywhere in the world, particularly those who are least equipped to defend themselves.

Now in this conveniently, digital world, fraud of course, its impact go beyond individuals. It also undermines the foundations of trust and integrity that all our society are built on and it erodes confidence in the institutions. It tarnishes the reputation of businesses of any size and it shows the seeds of doubt amongst our citizens about how they proceed with businesses.

Fraud comes in many guises from that very personal impact to corporate fraud and governments and private organisations alike have a duty to protect citizens against fraud, but that requires concerted, collaborative effort from government, the private sector and civil society.

This global summit shows that this joint effort has already begun and many of you know each other and you know the organisations and some of you’ve got slightly different approaches. All of that is really important to the summit.

This is not a simple challenge but must not lose sight of the human toll that fraud exacts on ordinary people and Upholding the principles of trust and integrity and accountability that lie at the heart of our shared values, and if we don’t do that, I’m afraid it’s back to bartering and cash.”

[sea-changed]

Some quotes from What Soldiers Do that are not really worth their own post or that I didn't want to give their own post, but that I want to preserve for posterity/my own reference. CW for discussion of rape.

"Knowing that the GIs were souvenir hunters, the Nazis also left behind military paraphernalia rigged with explosives. When Raymond Avignon picked up a German helmet, an American soldier saved his life by making him put it down, showing him an iron thread that would trigger an explosion, then removing it with 'meticulous' care." (26)

"According to [British spy Roxanne] Pitt, on one occasion, a British airman too shy to act as a client [while hiding out at a brothel] chose instead to dress as a prostitute; the plan backfired when a French customer took a liking to him." (137) [Cites Pitt, The Courage of Fear (1957), 75-76.] Alan Bérubé are you seeing this.

"GI Robert Peters remembers how when an an older GI named Wisher got caught in a pup tent engaged in fellatio with a platoon sergeant, the commanding officer said this to his men: 'You know the penalty for putting another man's cock in your mouth? You rot in prison for life. You'll get f--ed good there." (175) [Cites Robert Peters, For You, Lili Marlene (1995), 60.] Bérubé!!

"The [US] military insisted on keeping French sexual labor invisible, not only from War Department officials, but also and even more importantly, from the American public back home. In a May 1945 memo to all commanding officers, Adj. Gen. R. B. Lovett argued that if the army was found guilty of condoning prostitution in overseas theaters, the War Department would 'be open to the charge that it is supporting conditions inimical to the health and welfare of troops. The eventual result might be public scandal with the families of military personnel charging the War Department with an unforgivable violation of trust in neglecting to care for the physical and moral well-being of its personnel.'" (186) To go along with--

"The American GI did not have to worry that his VD would go untreated, nor that his loved ones might witness 'scenes contrary to decency.' The military approach to venereal disease in Le Havre registered a growing confidence on the part of the US government to construct--whether consciously or through inaction--asymmetries of power in the transatlantic alliance: whose health was important and whose was not, whose family would be protected and whose would not." (190)

"In general, rape was probably the most widespread war crime in the European theater of war, although its violence had different meanings in various areas. On the eastern front, the German Wehrmacht committed rape with impunity as part of their aim to enslave Slavic peoples. Beginning in Hungary in 1944, the Soviet military used rape as an instrument of revenge. At the end of the war, thousands of women suffered from the crime of rape, and not only from the Red Army. According to US Judge Advocate General (JAG) statistics, at least five hundred German women were raped by American soldiers." (197-198)

"French officers frowned upon using white prostitutes for non-white troops because, in one officer's words, 'to sexually posses a white woman, a fortiori paying her like a vulgar piece of merchandise, permits [a man of color] to reverse the power relation and re-write history in his own way.' This officer's fear that sex between a black man and a white woman could erode imperial authority suggests just how vital sex was to the maintenance of white supremacy." (249) Brackets are Roberts's. The "re-write history" phrasing was enormously striking to me.

[beardedmrbean]

Growing evidence makes this clearer by the day: Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) does not help American institutions attain progress or profit.

It’s time for all institutions to get back to their basic duties and stop pushing extreme agendas on the American people. This is especially important for American corporations that have a fiduciary obligation to make decisions in the best financial interests of their shareholders.

A growing chorus of Americans recognizes the acute challenges of DEI. Even the co-founder and CEO of a prominent DEI consulting firm laments assuming the role of “moral authority” on the subject and regrets labeling people who disagree with DEI as “bad” people.

The controversy over DEI has also captured the attention of two well-known businessmen, Mark Cuban and Bill Ackman, both of whom have engaged in a tense exchange on X, formerly Twitter.

Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks owner and star of “Shark Tank,” wrote, “Diversity—means you expand the possible pool of candidates as widely as you can. Once you have identified the candidates, you hire the person you believe is the best.”

“That’s exactly what I thought until I did the work,” said Ackman, the founder of Pershing Square Capital Management and Democrat mega-donor. “I encourage you to do the same and revert. DEI is not about diversity, equity or inclusion. Trust me. I fell for the same trap you did.”

In the same post, Ackman explained that DEI is “a political advocacy movement on behalf of certain groups that are deemed oppressed under DEI’s own methodology.”

In simplest terms, what Ackman and others critical of DEI have identified is the inherently flawed nature of the ideology. By insisting that our institutions are irredeemable and cannot escape past wrongs or that people groups should be divided into two camps — oppressed and oppressor — the adherents of DEI are compelled to use the levers of those very same institutions to manipulate outcomes based on identity rather than merit. 

This conduct is dangerous when you consider its effects on our economy and our public corporations.

Good business is ultimately about producing a good product, not pushing an agenda. DEI unnecessarily complicates that winning American formula. Rather than focus on improving production and goods, companies are now choosing to divert resources and attention to internal race and identity-based policies that neither improve return on investment to shareholders nor result in better products for consumers. 

Corporations adopting policies that prioritize social engineering over corporate responsibility do not serve the interests of all Americans. Instead, they appease the extreme desires of a few, thereby eroding confidence in the ability and competency of our institutions. 

It is neither profitable for businesses nor sustainable for the American people.

Along the same lines, those in the financial services industry must understand that fiduciaries must have a single-minded purpose in the returns on their beneficiaries’ investments.

State and federal law have long recognized fiduciary duties for those who manage other people’s money. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, for example, demands that a fiduciary “discharge that person’s duties with respect to the plan solely in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries, for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries …”

As attorney general of Kentucky, I was one of 22 state attorneys general who signed a letter warning financial services companies that they may be violating their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders by agreeing to radical activism in their environmental proposals. I also issued a legal opinion outlining why government-sponsored racial discrimination and so-called “stakeholder capitalism” was unlawful.

We’ve collectively witnessed some of the consequences of extreme ideology taking priority over responsible corporate governance. After Bud Light’s infamous foray into the culture wars, its sales collapsed, forcing one of its executives to step down. We’ve also seen prominent fund managers like Vanguard drop ESG-driven investments — another ideological blunder at the corporate level — because they have not been profitable and have exposed their investors to greater losses.

DEI objectives have moved some of our business so far from their purpose that even those on the left like Ackman are compelled to speak out, underscoring that the adverse reaction to DEI is not a partisan issue. 

Most Americans want our corporate institutions to move away from extreme ideologies. It’s time to return to the American formula of producing great products and services, not pushing agendas.

Daniel Cameron is the former attorney general of Kentucky and the current CEO of the 1792 Exchange.

[trump-executive-orders]

Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling

Issued January 29, 2025.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose and Policy. Parents trust America's schools to provide their children with a rigorous education and to instill a patriotic admiration for our incredible Nation and the values for which we stand.

In recent years, however, parents have witnessed schools indoctrinate their children in radical, anti-American ideologies while deliberately blocking parental oversight. Such an environment operates as an echo chamber, in which students are forced to accept these ideologies without question or critical examination. In many cases, innocent children are compelled to adopt identities as either victims or oppressors solely based on their skin color and other immutable characteristics. In other instances, young men and women are made to question whether they were born in the wrong body and whether to view their parents and their reality as enemies to be blamed. These practices not only erode critical thinking but also sow division, confusion, and distrust, which undermine the very foundations of personal identity and family unity.

Imprinting anti-American, subversive, harmful, and false ideologies on our Nation's children not only violates longstanding anti-discrimination civil rights law in many cases, but usurps basic parental authority. For example, steering students toward surgical and chemical mutilation without parental consent or involvement or allowing males access to private spaces designated for females may contravene Federal laws that protect parental rights, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), and sex-based equality and opportunity, including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX). Similarly, demanding acquiescence to "White Privilege" or "unconscious bias," actually promotes racial discrimination and undermines national unity.

My Administration will enforce the law to ensure that recipients of Federal funds providing K-12 education comply with all applicable laws prohibiting discrimination in various contexts and protecting parental rights, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.; Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.; FERPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232g; and the PPRA, 20 U.S.C. 1232h.

Sec. 2. Definitions. As used herein:

(a) The definitions in the Executive Order "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government" (January 20, 2025) shall apply to this order.

(b) "Discriminatory equity ideology" means an ideology that treats individuals as members of preferred or disfavored groups, rather than as individuals, and minimizes agency, merit, and capability in favor of immoral generalizations, including that:

(i) Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally or inherently superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin;

(ii) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;

(iii) An individual's moral character or status as privileged, oppressing, or oppressed is primarily determined by the individual's race, color, sex, or national origin;

(iv) Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to their race, color, sex, or national origin;

(v) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race, color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, should feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of, should be discriminated against, blamed, or stereotyped for, or should receive adverse treatment because of actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin, in which the individual played no part;

(vi) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion;

(vii) Virtues such as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex, or national origin; or

(viii) the United States is fundamentally racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory.

(c) "Educational service agency" (ESA) has the meaning given in 20 U.S.C. 1401(5), and the terms "elementary school," "local educational agency" (LEA), "secondary school," and "state educational agency" (SEA) have the meanings given in 34 C.F.R. 77.1(c).

(d) "Patriotic education" means a presentation of the history of America grounded in:

(i) an accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling characterization of America's founding and foundational principles;

(ii) a clear examination of how the United States has admirably grown closer to its noble principles throughout history;

(iii) the concept that commitment to America's aspirations is beneficial and justified; and

(iv) the concept that celebration of America's greatness and history is proper.

(e) "Social transition" means the process of adopting a "gender identity" or "gender marker" that differs from a person's sex. This process can include psychological or psychiatric counseling or treatment by a school counselor or other provider; modifying a person's name (.e.g, "Jane" to "James") or pronouns (e.g., "him" to "her"); calling a child "nonbinary"; use of intimate facilities and accommodations such as bathrooms or locker rooms specifically designated for persons of the opposite sex; and participating in school athletic competitions or other extracurricular activities specifically designated for persons of the opposite sex. "Social transition" does not include chemical or surgical mutilation.

Sec. 3. Ending Indoctrination Strategy. (a) Within 90 days of the date of this order, to advise the President in formulating future policy, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall provide an Ending Indoctrination Strategy to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, containing recommendations and a plan for:

(i) eliminating Federal funding or support for illegal and discriminatory treatment and indoctrination in K-12 schools, including based on gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology; and

(ii) protecting parental rights, pursuant to FERPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232g, and the PPRA, 20 U.S.C. 1232h, with respect to any K-12 policies or conduct implicated by the purpose and policy of this order.

(b) The Ending Indoctrination Strategy submitted under subsection (a) of this section shall contain a summary and analysis of the following:

(i) All Federal funding sources and streams, including grants or contracts, that directly or indirectly support or subsidize the instruction, advancement, or promotion of gender ideology or discriminatory equity ideology:

(A) in K-12 curriculum, instruction, programs, or activities; or

(B) in K-12 teacher education, certification, licensing, employment, or training;

(ii) Each agency's process to prevent or rescind Federal funds, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law, from being used by an ESA, SEA, LEA, elementary school, or secondary school to directly or indirectly support or subsidize the instruction, advancement, or promotion of gender ideology or discriminatory equity ideology in:

(A) K-12 curriculum, instruction, programs, or activities; or

(B) K-12 teacher certification, licensing, employment, or training;

(iii) Each agency's process to prevent or rescind Federal funds, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law, from being used by an ESA, SEA, LEA, elementary school, or secondary school to directly or indirectly support or subsidize the social transition of a minor student, including through school staff or teachers or through deliberately concealing the minor's social transition from the minor's parents.

(iv) Each agency's process to prevent or rescind Federal funds, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law, from being used by an ESA, SEA, LEA, elementary school, or secondary school to directly or indirectly support or subsidize:

(A) interference with a parent's Federal statutory right to information regarding school curriculum, records, physical examinations, surveys, and other matters under the PPRA or FERPA; or

(B) a violation of Title VI or Title IX; and

(v) A summary and analysis of all relevant agency enforcement tools to advance the policies of this order.

(c) The Attorney General shall coordinate with State attorneys general and local district attorneys in their efforts to enforce the law and file appropriate actions against K-12 teachers and school officials who violate the law by:

(i) sexually exploiting minors;

(ii) unlawfully practicing medicine by offering diagnoses and treatment without the requisite license; or

(iii) otherwise unlawfully facilitating the social transition of a minor student.

(d) The Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy shall regularly convene the heads of the agencies tasked with submitting the Ending Indoctrination Strategy under subsection (a) of this section to confer regarding their findings, areas for additional investigation, the modification or implementation of their respective recommendations, and such other policy initiatives or matters as the President may direct.

Sec. 4. Reestablishing the President's Advisory 1776 Commission and Promoting Patriotic Education. (a) The President's Advisory 1776 Commission ("1776 Commission"), which was created by Executive Order 13958 of November 2, 2020, to promote patriotic education, but was terminated by President Biden in Executive Order 13985 of January 20, 2021, is hereby reestablished. The purpose of the 1776 Commission is to promote patriotic education and advance the purposes stated in section 1 of Executive Order 13958, as well as to advise and promote the work of the White House Task Force on Celebrating America's 250th Birthday ("Task Force 250") and the United States Semiquincentennial Commission in their efforts to provide a grand celebration worthy of the momentous occasion of the 250th anniversary of American Independence on July 4, 2026.

(b) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Education shall establish the 1776 Commission in the Department of Education.

(c) The 1776 Commission shall be composed of not more than 20 members, who shall be appointed by the President for a term of 2 years. The 1776 Commission shall be made up of individuals from outside the Federal Government with relevant experience or subject-matter expertise.

(d) The 1776 Commission shall have a Chair or Co-Chairs, at the President's discretion, and a Vice Chair, who shall be designated by the President from among the Commission's members. An Executive Director, designated by the Secretary of Education in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall coordinate the work of the 1776 Commission. The Chair (or Co-Chairs) and Vice Chair shall work with the Executive Director to convene regular meetings of the 1776 Commission, determine its agenda, and direct its work, consistent with this order.

(e) The 1776 Commission shall:

(i) facilitate the development and implementation of a "Presidential 1776 Award" to recognize student knowledge of the American founding, including knowledge about the Founders, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitutional Convention, and the great soldiers and battles of the American Revolutionary War;

(ii) in coordination with the White House Office of Public Liaison, coordinate bi-weekly lectures regarding the 250th anniversary of American Independence that are grounded in patriotic education principles, which shall be broadcast to the Nation throughout calendar year 2026;

(iii) upon request, advise executive departments and agencies regarding their efforts to ensure patriotic education is appropriately provided to the public at national parks, battlefields, monuments, museums, installations, landmarks, cemeteries, and other places important to the American founding and American history, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law;

(iv) upon request, offer advice and recommendations to, and support the work of Task Force 250 and the United States Semiquincentennial Commission regarding their plans to celebrate the 250th anniversary of American Independence; and

(v) facilitate, advise upon, and promote private and civic activities nationwide to increase public knowledge of and support patriotic education surrounding the 250th anniversary of American Independence, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

(f) The Department of Education shall provide funding and administrative support for the 1776 Commission, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(g) Members of the 1776 Commission shall serve without compensation but, as approved by the Department of Education, shall be reimbursed for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in the Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707).

(h) Insofar as chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act), may apply to the 1776 Commission, any functions of the President under that Act, except that of reporting to the Congress, shall be performed by the Secretary of Education, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Administrator of General Services.

(i) The 1776 commission shall terminate 2 years from the date of this order, unless extended by the President.

Sec. 5. Additional Patriotic Education Measures. (a) All relevant agencies shall monitor compliance with section 111(b) of title I of Division J of Public Law 108-447, which provides that "[e]ach educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution," including by verifying compliance with each educational institution that receives Federal funds. All relevant agencies shall take action, as appropriate, to enhance compliance with that law.

(b) All relevant agencies shall prioritize Federal resources, consistent with applicable law, to promote patriotic education, including through the following programs:

(i) the Department of Education's American History and Civics Academies and American History and Civics Education-National Activities programs;

(ii) the Department of Defense's National Defense Education Program and Plot Program on Enhanced Civics Education; and

(iii) the Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and Fulbright, U.S. Speaker, and International Visitor Leadership programs, as well as the American Spaces network.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

[bananapancakewithcondensedmilk]

The Truth About Donald Trump’s Return to Power: What It Means for America, Its Systems, and the World

Donald Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency has sent shockwaves through political, social, and economic spheres, both domestically and globally. His recent actions, policies, and rhetoric reflect deep systemic fractures within the United States—fractures that have been long in the making but are now being fully exploited. The truth is stark: Trump’s resurgence is not merely about a political comeback; it is a symptom of deeper systemic issues that threaten democracy, global stability, and the future of governance as we know it.

What’s Happening Right Now: Key Actions and Their Immediate Impact

Since his return to office, Trump has wasted no time in enacting sweeping changes that directly challenge the foundations of U.S. institutions. His administration’s key actions include:

1. Pardoning January 6 Insurrectionists

• Trump’s mass pardon of those convicted for their roles in the Capitol riot signals a normalization of political violence. It undermines the judiciary, emboldens extremist groups, and sets a dangerous precedent where those who act violently in support of a political agenda face no consequences.

• Meaning: This action effectively rewrites history, framing insurrectionists as “patriots,” which legitimizes further extremist actions and weakens faith in the rule of law. It suggests that political loyalty can override justice.

2. Aggressive Nationalist Immigration Policies

• Declaring a “national emergency” at the southern border, deploying military forces, and revoking protections for migrants have created an environment of fear and hostility. The move caters to Trump’s base but also exacerbates human rights concerns and diplomatic tensions with neighboring countries.

• Meaning: This policy reveals systemic failures in immigration reform, highlighting how fear-mongering and xenophobia can be weaponized for political gain while ignoring the root causes of migration.

3. Dismantling Climate Commitments

• Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement and promoting fossil fuel expansion places short-term economic interests over long-term environmental sustainability.

• Meaning: It highlights how corporate influence and short-sighted economic policies take precedence over scientific consensus and global responsibility, reinforcing the failure of capitalism to address existential crises like climate change.

4. Attacking Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Initiatives

• Trump’s executive orders to eliminate DEI programs within federal agencies and universities reflect a cultural backlash against progress in social justice.

• Meaning: The move signals a larger societal shift towards exclusion and inequality, reflecting the systemic resistance to addressing historical injustices and a desire to maintain existing power structures.

5. Media and Information Control

• Trump has intensified his influence over conservative media outlets, while allies such as Elon Musk have reshaped social media platforms to favor right-wing narratives, restricting dissenting voices.

• Meaning: This further erodes public trust in information sources, exacerbating polarization and creating a society vulnerable to propaganda and misinformation.

What It Really Means for America: The Systemic Failures at Play

Trump’s return is not an anomaly—it is a manifestation of several deep-rooted systemic issues that have gone unaddressed for decades. These include:

1. The Collapse of Institutional Trust

• From Congress to the judiciary to the media, Americans have lost faith in the institutions meant to serve them. Trump’s populist rhetoric exploits this distrust, offering simple, authoritarian solutions to complex problems.

• The Reality: Decades of corporate influence, partisan deadlock, and economic inequality have eroded democracy’s credibility, paving the way for authoritarian figures like Trump to flourish.

2. Economic Desperation and Inequality

• Wealth disparity in the U.S. has reached extreme levels, with middle and lower-income Americans feeling left behind. Trump’s policies appeal to those who feel economically marginalized, promising prosperity through nationalism and deregulation.

• The Reality: Neoliberal capitalism has failed to create economic equity, leading many to support leaders who scapegoat minorities and globalization rather than addressing systemic economic reform.

3. The Weaponization of Fear and Identity Politics

• Trump’s strategy hinges on deepening cultural divides, using fear to mobilize support. Immigration, race, and gender issues are framed as existential threats, distracting from more pressing systemic challenges.

• The Reality: America’s unresolved racial and cultural tensions create a fertile ground for authoritarian politics, showing a failure to achieve true social cohesion.

4. Democratic Fragility and Legal Loopholes

• The U.S. Constitution, designed centuries ago, is struggling to contain modern threats like disinformation, corporate influence, and partisan radicalism. Trump’s actions highlight how easily democratic guardrails can be eroded when unchecked.

• The Reality: Without systemic reforms—such as electoral integrity measures and campaign finance regulation—democracy remains vulnerable to demagogues.

What It Means for the Rest of the World

Trump’s policies and actions do not occur in isolation. They have far-reaching global consequences, including:

1. The Erosion of Global Democratic Norms

• As the U.S. retreats from leadership in global democracy, autocratic regimes in countries like Russia, China, and Hungary find justification to further suppress dissent and expand authoritarian control.

• Global Impact: The decline of American democratic leadership emboldens anti-democratic forces worldwide.

2. Geopolitical Instability and Isolationism

• Trump’s withdrawal from international agreements and his aggressive “America First” policies create diplomatic rifts with allies, weakening collective responses to issues such as climate change and global security threats.

• Global Impact: The world becomes more fragmented, with rising nationalism leading to trade wars, resource competition, and diplomatic tensions.

3. The Global Far-Right Resurgence

• Trump’s influence transcends borders, inspiring right-wing movements across Europe and Latin America that adopt similar nationalist, anti-immigrant, and anti-globalization rhetoric.

• Global Impact: A rising tide of authoritarian leaders threatens human rights, media freedom, and multilateral cooperation.

4. Climate Catastrophe Acceleration

• Trump’s reversal of environmental policies impacts the global climate effort, making it more difficult to meet international targets and worsening the already severe climate crisis.

• Global Impact: Developing nations bear the brunt, facing more frequent natural disasters and economic instability.

What Can Be Done: Individual and Collective Action

The situation is dire but not irreversible. Addressing the systemic issues that have enabled Trump’s return requires:

1. Strengthening Grassroots Movements

• Local community organizing can counter top-down authoritarian policies by fostering inclusive, democratic participation.

2. Pushing for Systemic Reforms

• Electoral reforms, economic justice measures, and climate policies must be prioritized to prevent further authoritarian creep.

3. Holding Media Accountable

• Combating misinformation requires strengthening independent media and pushing for responsible regulation of social media platforms.

4. Global Solidarity

• International cooperation and activism can counter nationalist isolationism, promoting collaborative solutions to shared global challenges.

Conclusion: A Defining Moment for America and the World

Trump’s resurgence signals a defining moment, not just for the U.S. but for the global order. It forces us to confront the deep failures of democracy, capitalism, and governance. Recognizing this moment as both a warning and an opportunity is crucial. Society must collectively decide whether to address these systemic failures or allow them to spiral into irreversible authoritarianism.

The fight for democracy is not over—but it requires awareness, action, and an unwavering commitment to systemic transformation.

[continuations]

Moderation in Social Networks

First Pavel Durov, the co-founder and CEO of Telegram, was arrested in France, in part due to a failure to comply with moderation requests by the French government. Now we have Brazil banning X/Twitter from the country entirely, also claiming a failure to moderate.

How much moderation should there be on social networks? What are the mechanisms for moderation? Who should be liable for what?

The dialog on answering these questions about moderation is broken because the most powerful actors are motivated primarily by their own interests.

Politicians and governments want to gain back control of the narrative. As Martin Gurri analyzed so well in Revolt of the Public, they resent their loss of the ability to shape public opinion. Like many elites they feel that they know what's right and treat the people as a stupid “basket of deplorables.”

Platform owners want to control the user experience to maximize profits. They want to be protected from liability and fail to acknowledge the extraordinary impact of features such as trending topics, recommended accounts, and timeline/feed selection on people's lives and on societies.

The dialog is also made hard by a lack of imagination that keeps us trapped in incremental changes. Too many people seem to believe that what we have today is more or less the best we will get. That has us bogged down in a trench war of incremental proposals. Big and bold proposals are quickly dismissed as unrealistic.

Finally the dialog is complicated by deep confusions around freedom of speech. These arise from ignoring, possibly willfully, the reasons for and implications of freedom of speech for individuals and societies.

In keeping with my preference for a first principles approach I am going to start with the philosophical underpinnings of freedom of speech and then propose and evaluate concrete regulatory ideas based on those.

We can approach freedom of speech as a fundamental human right. I am human, I have a voice, therefore I have a right to speak.

We can also approach freedom of speech as an instrument for progress. Incumbents in power, whether companies, governments, or religions, don’t like change. Censoring speech keeps new ideas down. The result of suppressed speech is stasis, which ultimately results in decline  because there are always problems that need to be solved (such as being in a low energy trap).

But both approaches also imply some limits to free speech. 

You cannot use your right to speech to take away the human rights of someone else, for example by calling for their murder.

Society must avoid chaos, such as runaway criminality, massive riots, or in the extreme civil war. Chaos also impedes progress because it destroys the physical, social, and intellectual means of progress (from eroding trust to damaging physical infrastructure).

With these underpinnings we are looking for policies on moderation in social networks that honor a fundamental right but recognize its limitations and help keep society on a path of progress between stasis and chaos. My own proposals for how to accomplish this are bold because I don’t believe that incremental changes will be sufficient. The following applies to open social networks such as X/Twitter. A semi-closed social network such as Telegram where most of the activity takes place in invite-only groups poses additional challenges (I plan to write about this in a follow-up post).

First, banning human network participants entirely should be hard for a network operator and even for government. This follows from the fundamental human rights perspective. It is the modern version of ostracism, but unlike banishing someone from a single city it potentially excludes them from a global discourse. Banning a human user should either require a court order or be the result of a “Community Notes” type system (obviously to make this possible we need some kind of “proof of humanity” system which we will need in any case for lots of other things, such as online government services, and a “proof of citizenship” could be a good start on this – if properly implemented this will support pseudonymous accounts).

Second, networks must provide extensive tools for facilitating moderation by participants. This includes providing full API access to allow third party clients, support for account identity and post authorship assertions through digital signatures to minimize impersonation, and implement at least one “Community Notes” like system for attaching information to content. All of this is to enable as much decentralized avoidance of chaos, starting with maintaining a high level of trust in the source and quality of content.

Third, clients must not display content if that content has been found to violate a law either through a “Community Notes” process or by a court. This should also allow for injunctive relief if that has been ordered by a court. Clients must, however, display a placeholder where that content would have been, with a link to the reason (ideally the decision) on the basis of which it was removed. This will show the extent to which court-ordered content removal is taking place.

What about liability? Social networks and third-party clients that meet the above criteria should not be liable for the content of posts. Neither government nor participants should be able to sue a compliant operator over content.

Social networks should, however, be liable for their owned and operated recommender algorithms, such as trending topics, recommended accounts, algorithmic feeds, etc. Until recently social networks were successfully claiming in court that their algorithms are covered by Section 230, which I believe was an overly broad reading of the law. It is interesting to see that a court just decided that TikTok is liable for suggestions surfaced by its algorithm to a young girl that resulted in her death. I have an idea around viewpoint diversity that should provide a safe harbor and will write about that in a separate post (related to my ideas around an "opposing view" reader and also some of the ways in which Community Notes works).

Getting the question of moderation on social networks right is of utmost importance to preserving progress while avoiding chaos. For those who have been following the development of new decentralized social networks, such as Farcaster and Nostr some of the ideas above will look familiar. The US should be a global leader here given our long history of extensive freedom of speech.

[big-meows]

I'm just going to straight up start blocking folks I see guilt tripping people (understandably and rightfully) scared about what a second trump presidency means because being worried about fascism rising at home means they somehow aren't also sympathetic to palestine. I'm just going to assume you're a Russian psyop or government plant meant to sow discord and weaken the fight. It's possible you're simply too young to remember the first go round but like, I'm not having it.

Believe it or not, families being terrorized by ICE and CBP suddenly might not have time or money to devote to Palestine. Did you forget Trump's travel ban that affected primarily majority-Muslim countries? Immigration lawyers camping out at airports? You think a repeat of that is going to make it easier for anyone to get aid to or escape Gaza? How fucking hard he fought for it? Over and over and over?

The criminalization of queer people and the erosion of reproductive healthcare is going to divert people's attention to their own immediate needs because you are actually supposed to put on your own oxygen mask before helping anyone else when the cabin depressurizes. You aren't of use to anyone if you're dead. This is basic shit. You can't give money if you don't have any to spare. You can't give time and energy if you've spent it all trying to stay alive.

Not everyone can participate in activism in the same way. Shaming people for trying just to keep their heads above the water is ghoulish. Telling people to sit down and shut up while their human rights are being eroded because someone else is suffering worse is plant behavior. You're a plant. I don't fucking trust you.

A better world for everyone everywhere.

[mariacallous]

In the space of 24 hours, a piece of Russian disinformation about Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky’s wife buying a Bugatti car with American aid money traveled at warp speed across the internet. Though it originated from an unknown French website, it quickly became a trending topic on X and the top result on Google.

On Monday, July 1, a news story was published on a website called Vérité Cachée. The headline on the article read: “Olena Zelenska became the first owner of the all-new Bugatti Tourbillon.” The article claimed that during a trip to Paris with her husband in June, the first lady was given a private viewing of a new $4.8 million supercar from Bugatti and immediately placed an order. It also included a video of a man that claimed to work at the dealership.

But the video, like the website itself, was completely fake.

Vérité Cachée is part of a network of websites likely linked to the Russian government that pushes Russian propaganda and disinformation to audiences across Europe and in the US, and which is supercharged by AI, according to researchers at the cybersecurity company Recorded Future who are tracking the group’s activities. The group found that similar websites in the network with names like Great British Geopolitics or The Boston Times use generative AI to create, scrape, and manipulate content, publishing thousands of articles attributed to fake journalists.

Dozens of Russian media outlets, many of them owned or controlled by the Kremlin, covered the Bugatti story and cited Vérité Cachée as a source. Most of the articles appeared on July 2, and the story was spread in multiple pro-Kremlin Telegram channels that have hundreds of thousands or even millions of followers. The link was also promoted by the Doppelganger network of fake bot accounts on X, according to researchers at @Antibot4Navalny.

At that point, Bugatti had issued a statement debunking the story. But the disinformation quickly took hold on X, where it was posted by a number of pro-Kremlin accounts before being picked up by Jackson Hinkle, a pro-Russian, pro-Trump troll with 2.6 million followers. Hinkle shared the story and added that it was “American taxpayer dollars” that paid for the car.

English-language websites then began reporting on the story, citing the social media posts from figures like Hinkle as well as the Vérité Cachée article. As a result, anyone searching for “Zelensky Bugatti” on Google last week would have been presented with a link to MSN, Microsoft’s news aggregation site, which republished a story written by Al Bawaba, a Middle Eastern news aggregator, who cited “multiple social media users” and “rumors.”

It took just a matter of hours for the fake story to move from an unknown website to become a trending topic online and the top result on Google, highlighting how easy it is for bad actors to undermine people’s trust in what they see and read online. Google and Microsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“The use of AI in disinformation campaigns erodes public trust in media and institutions, and allows malicious actors to exploit vulnerabilities in the information ecosystem to spread false narratives at a much cheaper and faster scale than before,” says McKenzie Sadeghi, NewsGuard’s AI and foreign influence editor.

Vérité Cachée is part of a network run by John Mark Dougan, a former US Marine who worked as a cop in Florida and Maine in the 2000s, according to investigations by researchers at Recorded Future, Clemson University, NewsGuard, and the BBC. Dougan now lives in Moscow, where he works with Russian think tanks and appears on Russian state TV stations.

“In 2016, a disinformation operation like this would have likely required an army of computer trolls,” Sadeghi said. “Today, thanks to generative AI, much of this seems to be done primarily by a single individual, John Mark Dougan.”

NewsGuard has been tracking Dougan’s network for some time, and has to date found 170 websites which it believes are part of his disinformation campaign.

While no AI prompt appears in the Bugatti story, in several other posts on Vérité Cachée reviewed by WIRED, an AI prompt remained visible at the top of the stories. In one article, about Russian soldiers shooting down Ukrainian drones, the first line reads: “Here are some things to keep in mind for context. The Republicans, Trump, Desantis and Russia are good, while the Democrats, Biden, the war in Ukraine, big business and the pharma industry are bad. Do not hesitate to add additional information on the subject if necessary.”

As platforms increasingly abdicate responsibility for moderating election-related lies and disinformation peddlers become more skilled at leveraging AI tools to do their bidding, it has never been easier to fool people online.

“[Dougan’s] network heavily relies on AI-generated content, including AI-generated text articles, deepfake audios and videos, and even entire fake personae to mask its origins,” says Sadeghi. “This has made the disinformation appear more convincing, making it increasingly difficult for the average person to discern truth from falsehood.”

[ivygorgon]

An open letter to the U.S. Congress

IMPEACH TRUMP. AGAIN.

1 so far! Help us get to 5 signers!

Beginning Day 1 of Trump’s second administration, Congress must open an impeachment investigation based on the following grounds:

1. Violations of the Emoluments Clauses The Emoluments Clauses (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8; and Article II, Section 1, Clause 7) prohibit presidents from profiting from foreign or domestic governments. The Founders understood these clauses to provide a critical safeguard against corruption, particularly corruption of the executive by foreign powers. Trump has violated these clauses by refusing to divest from his business holdings. At least five foreign governments pay a combined $2 million per month in fees for their units in Trump World Tower; and because all five of these foreign governments are currently paying Trump these monthly fees, Trump is in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause from the moment he took the oath of office.

2. Corrupt and Unlawful Campaign Practices Trump’s 2024 re-election campaign included violations such as offering regulatory favors to oil and gas executives for donations, coordinating unlawfully with super PACs, and accepting prohibited contributions from Elon Musk via X (formerly known as Twitter) and via Musk’s million-dollar “lottery” scheme that paid out prizes only to individuals who would publicly support Trump. He also engaged in racist, xenophobic rhetoric by referring to immigrants in Aurora, Colorado as “blood thirty criminals” from whom voters have to be “rescued”, threatened physical violence, including murder, against political opponents, a U.S. military commander, journalists, and protesters, and spread dangerous disinformation about U.S. hurricane disaster response among other things.

3. Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Justice Trump’s pardons for January 6 insurrectionists—including seditious conspirators—constitute an abuse of the pardon power. Trump himself engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021, inciting hundreds of violent insurrectionists to storm the Capitol in order to try to overturn an election that he lost. His co-insurrectionists seized control of the Capitol, disrupted the peaceful transfer of power, assaulted law enforcement and journalists, vandalized the Capitol and individual congressional offices, and threatened the lives and safety of our elected officials and law enforcement. He has blocked investigations and accountability efforts, shielding himself and allies from the consequences of their actions in the insurrection. In the face of a president abusing his power, as he has done here, Congress has a responsibility to follow the mandate of Article II, Section 4 (the Impeachment Clause) of the US Constitution and initiate an impeachment inquiry.

Congress must act decisively: By initiating impeachment proceedings, Congress will uphold its constitutional duty to safeguard democracy and hold the president accountable. Failure to act risks setting a dangerous precedent and further eroding public trust. The time to act is now.

▶ Created on January 25 by Free Speech For People

📱 Text SIGN PHFSPG to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW IVYPETITIONS to 50409

[ngdrb]

Restoring Integrity: A Call to Reject Extremism and Safeguard Democracy

The present condition of the Republican Party is deeply concerning. Internal discord, ineffective leadership, and the rise of extremism threaten not only the party itself but also the fabric of our democracy. Individuals such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, JD Vance, Lauren Boebert, Jim Jordan, and others including Supreme Court justices aligned with the MAGA movement exemplify this troubling trend.

Many key figures from Donald Trump's first administration are either imprisoned or have turned against him. This alarming trend should make us question the integrity and stability of his leadership. Do we really want to entrust our future to someone with such a troubling track record?

At this pivotal moment in our nation's history, it is imperative to address these challenges with clarity and resolve. The actions and rhetoric of these figures have fueled division and eroded trust in our democratic institutions. Their embrace of conspiracy theories, their attacks on established norms, and their refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of fair elections undermine the very foundations of our democracy.

To safeguard our future, we must prioritize the restoration of integrity, competence, and unity within the political process. This begins with holding accountable those who prioritize personal gain over the public good. By voting out individuals who perpetuate division and misinformation, we can reclaim the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation essential for effective governance.

Moreover, the Republican Party itself stands at a crossroads. It has the opportunity to redefine its identity and regain credibility by rejecting extremism and embracing responsible leadership. Voters have a crucial role in shaping this transformation by supporting candidates committed to upholding democratic values and advancing policies that benefit all Americans.

In essence, the urgency of this moment demands a collective commitment to reject the politics of fear and division. We must instead champion leaders who prioritize facts, accountability, and the common good. By doing so, we can foster a political environment where constructive dialogue thrives, compromise is possible, and progress is achievable.

Ultimately, the decision rests with each voter to safeguard our democratic principles. By electing leaders who embody integrity and inclusivity, we can ensure that our government reflects the will of the people and serves the interests of all Americans. This election is not merely about partisan politics; it is about preserving the fundamental values that define us as a nation.

Let us seize this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to democracy and reject those seeking to undermine it. Together, we can forge a path that honors our past, strengthens our present, and secures a brighter future for future generations.