#employee advocacy social media

[marketbeam]

What is an employee advocacy platform?

An employee advocacy platform is a powerful tool designed to harness the collective influence of a company's workforce in promoting the organization's brand, values, products, and services on social media and other online platforms. It leverages the idea that employees are the most credible and authentic advocates for their employers, reaching wider audiences and enhancing the company's online presence.

Main Points:

1. Content Sharing: Employee advocacy platforms provide a centralized hub where employees can easily access and share pre-approved content, such as blog posts, news articles, videos, and social media updates. These platforms often offer a user-friendly interface, making it simple for employees to distribute content across their personal social networks.

2. Amplifying Reach: When employees share company-related content on their personal social media accounts, it expands the organization's reach exponentially. This extends the brand's visibility to a larger and more diverse audience, increasing the likelihood of reaching potential customers, partners, and job seekers.

3. Enhancing Credibility: Content shared by employees tends to be perceived as more trustworthy than content posted directly by a company. Audiences are more likely to engage with and trust recommendations from people they know, leading to increased credibility and authenticity in the eyes of potential customers.

4. Measurable Results: Employee advocacy platforms often come with analytics tools that track the impact of shared content. Companies can measure key metrics like reach, engagement, and conversions to evaluate the effectiveness of their employee advocacy efforts and make data-driven improvements.

5. Employee Engagement: Beyond external benefits, employee advocacy platforms can boost internal engagement. They empower employees to feel more connected to the company's mission and values, fostering a sense of pride and ownership in their roles.

6. Compliance and Control: These platforms usually include features for content approval and compliance monitoring. This ensures that employees share content that aligns with the company's branding and messaging guidelines, reducing the risk of miscommunication or legal issues.

Conclusion:

In today's digital landscape, where online presence is crucial, employee advocacy platforms have emerged as invaluable tools for companies looking to maximize their reach, credibility, and employee engagement. By enabling employees to become brand advocates, these platforms turn a company's workforce into a potent force for promoting its message and offerings, all while maintaining control and compliance. In essence, an employee advocacy platform is a bridge that connects an organization's goals with its most valuable asset—its people.

[socialmediamanagementtool]

Mastering Social Media Management: A Guide to Using Our Tool Effectively

Regardless of their size, all businesses now depend on social media. It has enabled companies to connect with a sizable audience, engage with them, and develop their brand. A social media management tool is necessary since managing social media may be time-consuming and overwhelming.

Our free social media management solution enables companies to plan content, keep an eye on social media feeds, interact with clients, and handle analytics. We'll demonstrate how to use our tool to master social media management in this blog article.

Introduction to Our Tool

Our free social media management tool is made to assist companies in managing their social media more effectively. Our programme has an intuitive design that makes it simple for you to perform multiple tasks at once. You can plan posts, keep an eye on social media feeds, keep tabs on conversations, and manage analytics all from one platform.

Schedule Social Media Posts

The social media scheduler is one of the elements of our social media management platform. Businesses may develop and schedule their social media posts in advance thanks to the robust social media scheduler tool. Businesses can organise their social media accounts more effectively and save time thanks to this function. You never have to worry about forgetting to submit significant material on social media because you may schedule updates for weeks or months in advance.

Manage Social Inbox

Another element of our social media management tool is social inbox. With the help of this function, organisations may manage a single inbox for social media. By giving businesses a single inbox for all of their social media accounts, this service helps them save time and effort. You can quickly monitor the feedback, queries, and messages that your customers leave on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram in a one location.

Use Social Media Planner

A social media planner is a feature of our social media management platform that aids firms in organising their social media material. Businesses can use the planner to schedule the material they wish to broadcast on their various social media channels for the upcoming week or month. With the help of this function, companies may always submit new content to their social media pages and won't run out of content.

Track Social Media Analytics

Analytics from social media are essential for organisations. Businesses may track the effectiveness of their social media accounts with the help of the data offered by our social media management tool. To monitor the effectiveness of your social media accounts, you can check metrics such as clicks, engagement rate, reach, impressions, and others. Businesses can adjust and enhance their social media strategy with the help of this data.

Free Social Media Scheduler

Our social media management solution is cost-free, so companies may use its features without having to shell out cash. The product is an all-in-one social media management solution that makes it easier for companies to effectively manage their social media accounts.

Social Media Management Tool for Agencies

Our social media management solution is available to agencies as well as corporations. The dashboard of our social media management application enables companies or agencies to control numerous social media accounts for various clients from a single location. For the social media accounts of their clients, agencies can manage analytics, schedule updates, and watch social media feeds.

Social Media Listening

For businesses, social media listening is a crucial component. Businesses may watch and see what consumers are saying about their brands or products on social media by using social media listening. With the help of our social media management tool, you can keep tabs on the hashtags, keywords, and social media mentions of your company. With the aid of this function, businesses may keep track of dialogues and quickly address any complaints or remarks.

Employee Advocacy

The use of employee advocacy in social media management is crucial. Our social media management platform enables companies to utilise their staff members as brand ambassadors. Businesses can use our technology to produce social media material that their staff can post to their personal accounts. By using this tool, brands may reach a wider audience and increase brand awareness. Finally, while learning social media management can be challenging, businesses can effectively manage their accounts with the help of our social media management tool. Our application has a number of features that can assist businesses in managing analytics, scheduling posts, monitoring social media feeds, and engaging with customers. Utilising the features of our tool can assist companies in expanding their brand and audience.

[kimcoxauthor]

Social Media Marketing Series: Employee Advocacy

Welcome back to the Social Media Marketing series. Today we’re going to explore Employee Advocacy Marketing on social media as it relates to books and authors. This one may not be for all authors as we don’t all have employees who work for us, but we do hire people for their services. We can utilize those hires such as: critique groups or partners, web designers, book cover designers, hired…

[fairuzfan]

June was working at the Goldie restaurant in Philadelphia on Sunday night when protesters started assembling outside the Israeli-American-owned eatery waving Palestinian flags.

"Goldie, Goldie, you can't hide, we charge you with genocide," they chanted.

The 24-year-old June, who asked to be identified by his first name only, told Middle East Eye that they watched the rally through the window of the restaurant which sells falafel, hummus and other Middle Eastern cuisine. June was shift-leading at the time.

"I remember thinking it was a big crowd, given it had been raining," June said.

"No one inside was bothered. I didn't feel unsafe. There were orthodox Jews taking part in the protest. We even had a customer come into the business," June, who is also Jewish, added.

After a few minutes, the protesters left.

When June went home after the shift, they found social media alight with accusations that the crowd had targeted the restaurant because it was a Jewish establishment.

But June says they knew that this wasn't a case of antisemitism.

"The protesters had assembled outside Goldie because the restaurant owner had sent money to an aid organisation that supported the Israeli military. They had come because two employees at Goldie were fired for expressing support for Palestine," June told MEE.

Outraged by the feverish pace with which the false narrative of a marauding mob intimidating a business on account of their Jewishness was being amplified on the internet and the news media, June posted on social media in support of the protesters.

"If you don't want to be directly funding genocide, stay away from Goldie, Kfar, Federal Donuts, Laser Wolf or Zahav. Goldie's parent company CookNSolo held a fundraiser where sales from all their restaurants went to an org [sic] that gives supplies to the IDF [Israeli military]," June wrote.

On the way to work the next morning, June received a call from the restaurant. They were told that they were no longer needed and they was fired with immediate effect.

That made June the third person at Goldie to be fired on account of their pro-Palestinian advocacy since 7 October when Israel's war on Palestine began.

Since late Sunday, the US media, prominent Jewish Americans, Philadelphia's mayor, several lawmakers, and even the White House have issued statements condemning the protests outside the restaurant.

"This is idiotic and dangerous. Protest outside the Israeli consulate or the offices of your member of Congress, not Jewish or Israeli-owned restaurants," prominent Jewish-American writer Peter Beinart wrote.

Likewise, Andrew Bates, a White House spokesperson, described the incident as "antisemitic and completely unjustifiable to target restaurants that serve Israeli food over disagreements with Israeli policy".

On Tuesday, US Vice President Kamala Harris' husband, Doug Emhoff, called Michael Solomonov, the owner of the restaurant group, to express support for his business.

But former employees at Goldie as well as pro-Palestine advocates who either organised or participated in the protest say the outrage was manufactured to distract from both the crimes of the Israeli state and those who have chosen to support it.

"While Goldie was not the goal of our protest, we briefly paused and led chants [outside the restaurant] because the owner, Michael Solomonov, has used proceeds from the restaurant to fund an organisation that works directly with the Israeli Occupational forces," Natalie Abulhawa, a spokesperson from the Philly Palestine Coalition, said.

Abulhalwa said that the group spent only a few minutes outside the restaurant and moved on to other stops before continuing the rally.

"We also stopped at Starbucks for the same reason and then continued to march. Our march was roughly three hours long and we stopped at Goldie's for four minutes, at most," Abulhalwa added.

June, who was at the business at the time, confirmed to MEE that the protesters were only around for a few minutes.

Sophie Hamilton, who worked at Goldie for more than two years, including as a store manager, confirmed to MEE that Solomonov had held a fundraiser in mid-October, where $100,000 was raised for United Hatzalah, an Israeli emergency aid organisation based in Jerusalem.

She said Goldie, part of the CooknSolo company, was not some small-time "mom-and-pop" business, but a sprawling company whose owner was appointed by the Israeli tourism ministry as its culinary ambassador for Israel in 2017. Solomonov is an Israeli chef who owns four restaurants in the Philadelphia area under the CookNSolo banner.

According to a statement released by the Israeli authorities at the time, the role was designed "to champion Israel’s extraordinarily diverse and vibrant culinary landscape".

Hamilton said the company had mischaracterised United Hatzalah to staff as "non-partisan, non-military aligned, like the Red Cross", when a cursory internet search showed that not only did the charity openly collaborate with the Israeli military, they also spoke like an arm of the Israeli state.

"The influx of terrorists infiltrating Israeli territory and the resulting high number of injured individuals also prompted United Hatzalah to provide additional medical supplies and protective equipment to IDF teams on the ground," a statement issued in late October by United Hatzalah, reads.

"Since the beginning of the war, United Hatzalah medical teams have treated over 3,000 soldiers and civilians and provided more than 900 soldiers, civilians, and volunteers with psychological first aid. The organization also delivered over 30 tons of medical supplies and humanitarian aid to the IDF and residents of southern Israel," the statement added.

Hamilton said when she had discovered the information, she refused to take part in the fundraiser because she didn't want to be complicit in the genocide of Palestinians.

However, when she returned to work after the fundraiser, she said she still wanted to show solidarity with Palestinians and decided to wear a pin bearing the Palestinian flag on her shirt.

A few days later, the company came out with a new policy that banned any pin or patch unrelated to the store on their uniforms.

"I wore the pin anyway in defiance of the policy and I was sent home that day," Hamilton says.

When she returned to work, she decided she needed the job and abided by the policy. But when one of her colleagues, Noah Wood, refused to take off his pin, and she wouldn't discipline him as his manager, she was fired. And so was he.

"I would never, as a manager censor someone I work with for showing their heartfelt belief in human rights," Hamilton said.

Wood, who had already resigned from his job on account of the suppression of Palestinian advocacy at the restaurant, was serving his notice period at the time when he was told to stay home.

He told MEE that it appears a customer complaint may have led to his dismissal.

"We've had LGBTQ flags up in the store. They might still be up. And one of the other locations had Black Lives Matter signage, so it wasn't as if it was an entirely politically neutral work environment," Wood said.

"You must remember Sophie and I didn't say anything. We didn't argue with customers. We weren't posting online. We were just wearing Palestine patches and pins and this seemed to make a customer uncomfortable, and this was enough for termination," he added.

Goldie and its parent company, CookNSolo, did not immediately reply to MEE's request for comment.

Activists say they remain appalled by the smear campaigns pitted against Palestinians on a daily basis. The rush to defend a business working with the Israeli army under the mask of an antisemitic attack was in line with the higher echelons of the American state to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, they say.

With the devastation in Gaza spiralling and the death toll ever increasing - now upwards of 16,000 Palestinians - organisers say the rapid resort to smear those who dare to raise the plight of Palestinians was the surest sign that officials had run out of excuses to justify the support of Israel.

Activists say the flurry of support for the Israeli-owned business also showed the close ties between the US political establishment and Israel-aligned businesses.

"The hypocrisy of our elected officials is despicable. Within a couple hours of our protest, Pennsylvania's Governor Josh Shapiro and others ran to Twitter to accuse us of antisemitism with absolutely no context and no facts," Abulhalwa, with the Philly Palestine Coalition, said.

"No one from their offices reached out to us to 'investigate'," Abulhalwa added.

Organisers said US politicians were constantly attempting to portray pro-Palestinian protesters as unhinged or violent when it was the US state that was supporting genocide in Gaza and it was Palestinians in the US who have either been killed or physically attacked.

In its report about the call made by Emhoff, the US vice president's husband, to Solomonov, the owner of Goldie, NBC News reported that the duo spoke about "how food was actually supposed to bring people together rather than be a source of division"

Likewise, Pennsylvania's Governor Shapiro, who was among the first to condemn the protests outside Goldie, baked bread with its owner, Solomonov, as recently as September.

"Being an Israeli ambassador is a big part of Solomonov's brand," Leila, a Jewish-American who took part in the protest outside Goldie on Sunday, said.

Leila, who offered only her first name to MEE, said the suggestion that any part of the action outside the restaurant may have been construed as antisemitic was simply absurd.

June, the former employee at Goldie, who had watched the protest from inside the store itself, said the charge of antisemitism was divorced from reality.

"They didn't come to the restaurant simply because it was Jewish-owned. If that was the case, they would've gone to hundreds of restaurants across the city," June said.

Likewise, Abuhalwa said the smears against Palestinians were once more exposing a double standard toward Palestinian life.

"Palestinian protesters being held at gunpoint by a racist, Islamophobe is a hate crime. Palestinians being shot for wearing keffiyehs is a hate crime. A grown man stabbing a little boy for being Muslim is a hate crime. Using your First Amendment rights and peacefully protesting is not a hate crime.

"They accused us of targeting Goldie because it's Jewish-owned, which is far from the truth. Solomonov is not being targeted due to his religious beliefs, but rather his ties to a violent apartheid state that is currently enacting a genocide," Abuhalwa added.

Meanwhile, June, the 24-year-old who lost his job at Goldie for supporting the protesters, says he has no regrets.

"If I could educate more people on how this company feels about Palestinians being killed, I'd gladly do it in a heartbeat," June said.

"I will always advocate and support anyone who advocates for a ceasefire and an end to the occupation of Palestine," they added.

[mariacallous]

Recently, Planned Parenthood released a statement on the Oct. 7th attacks and the broader conflict between Israel and Palestine. Their statement condemned Hamas’s attacks on civilians, and specifically condemned sexual assaults committed against Israeli women during the violence. They also noted how thousands of Palestinian women and children had been killed in Israel’s counteroffensive, stated the need for Palestinian women to maintain access to reproductive and maternal healthcare, and condemned both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

The social media reaction to such a balanced and empathetic statement? Furious, unrelenting anger.

The statement was quote-tweeted thousands of times by social media users outraged by the statement. Planned Parenthood was accused of spreading Israeli propaganda, ignoring Palestinian deaths and fabricating rape claims, and enabling genocide. These outraged users aren’t conservatives who always oppose Planned Parenthood—they’re progressives furious that an organization they normally support put out a statement they hated. Now there are calls to end donations and Planned Parenthood staffers are fighting with donors. Their own employees, affiliates and organizers are making public statements against them.

This outcome was predictable to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of social media dynamics. And it raises an obvious question—why release a statement at all?

Metastatic social justice

It’s actually quite common for organizations and activists to get into hot water these days by addressing areas outside their expertise. Trans activists in Vancouver loudly insisted there can be no Trans Liberation without Palestinian Liberation, which caused pushback all over Canada. Two years ago, New York City’s Pride organizations courted controversy by excluding LGBT police officers from the city’s Pride parade in the name of racial justice. There are YIMBY housing organizations taking a stand on abortion rights and climate organizations demanding a Federal Job Guarantee.

There’s a common theme here. Organizations that appear to be single-issue advocacy groups are increasingly commenting and taking stances on issues outside of their narrow focus. Activism is becoming more global in nature—if you are an activist for one cause, you’re expected to speak up about all causes now. It’s not enough to ‘stay in your lane’, you need to be protesting and advocating for all forms of social justice. Pro-choice advocacy is now part of your racial justice non-profit. Jobs packages are in your environmental bills. Your LGBT organization has a stance on ‘Defund The Police’ and your housing group has a stance on Israel/Palestine. Social justice is metastasizing.

This phenomenon has happened on the right as well—see the NRA transitioning from being a somewhat non-partisan group to essentially being an arm of the GOP—but it’s especially striking in the current progressive movement. There’s a real sense in which NYC Pride is no longer an LGBT advocacy organization, but rather an overall progressive social justice organization. That may sound like an exaggeration, but they kicked out a gay organization (the Gay Officers Action League) to accommodate another form of social justice. It’s the internal logic behind a LGBT Pride march excluding LGBT people.

This also explains the online fury at Planned Parenthood. Their statement was thoughtful and balanced, but deviated from the dominant and overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian progressive narrative. Their donors expect them to advocate not just for progressive goals in women’s health, but progressive goals everywhere.

This type of activist mission creep risks stunting the progress on the core issues that social justice advocates care about.

The downsides of missions creep

The urge towards mission creep comes from a reasonable place. If you care so deeply that you spend your free time (or your career!) as an activist for a particular issue, the odds are that you also have strong feelings on many other issues. You’re also likely to live in a bubble of activists and people who think like you, and so your conversations professionally and socially may often center around all sorts of political issues. But as an activist it’s important to remember that most people you’re trying to reach are not like you and don’t think like you.

The typical voter is over 50 and does not have a college degree. They also don’t think about politics all that much. They are far, far away from the mindset of a typical activist. And when they do have political opinions, those opinions are far more varied and haphazard than a committed political partisan would guess. I think a few minutes scrolling the twitter feed of the American Voter Bot is invaluable to understand how voters think. This bot takes real voters and profiles them in brief tweets. While some look as expected—a Democrat who supports gun control, for instance—many look like this:

Most people are a confusing mix of demographic signals, issue positions and partisan identification, and they rarely fit squarely within one political tribe. That’s the danger of turning a single-issue advocacy group into a generalized progressive messaging group—you’ll end up alienating a far wider group of potential allies than you realize.

If Issue Group X declares loud progressive positions not just on Issue X but also on gun control, abortion, Palestine, Medicare For All, trans rights, free trade and school prayer, they won’t attract a large diverse group of people who care about Issue X. They’ll end up attracting a narrow slice of progressive activists who are ideologically pristine enough to agree with them on every issue.

The ultimate result of activist mission creep is that your issue ceases to be something that people across the ideological spectrum can work together on. It becomes coded as a red tribe vs blue tribe issue, gets swallowed by the general culture war, and progress grinds to a halt as partisan warfare starts.

The most likely outcome of Planned Parenthood voicing an opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not that they make any difference at all towards that conflict. It’s that they alienate their own supporters with differing views on Israel/Palestine. They’ve undercut their own ability to make progress on reproductive care and reproductive rights for no gain.

One thing at a time

None of this is to say that individuals shouldn’t care about many issues at once—they obviously should. And general purpose ideological organizations can and should tackle many policy areas. But it’s a poor strategy for single-issue groups to try to become general purpose organizations. There are real benefits to staying in your lane.

One example of a movement that has done a reasonable job at this is the pro-housing YIMBY movement. While there are some instances of YIMBY groups straying from their purpose, for the most part they’ve done a good job staying narrowly focused, and that that focus has allowed them great success.

YIMBYism is a far more ideologically diverse movement than many people realize. There are conservative YIMBYs, neoliberal YIMBYs, Democratic YIMBYs, libertarian YIMBYs, and many left or socialist YIMBYs (although in true socialist tradition, some want to break away from the YIMBY label and create a sub-label PHIMBY). This isn’t just a feel good story about how conservatives and liberals can be friends—this has a real impact on YIMBYs getting things done. It’s part of why you see both Republican and Democratic officials at the local level working towards YIMBY solutions in different cities, and why those solutions can often pass without bitter partisan warfare. It’s why the YIMBY Act in Congress had Republican and Democratic co-sponsors. It’s why YIMBYs are scoring victories in blue states like California and red states like Montana.

This sort of thing matters. YIMBYs are a big tent and they’re getting things done. It’s hard enough to make real change happen on a single policy or a single issue. Whole movements try for years and still sometimes fail. Single-issue groups trying to address every issue at once aren’t going to succeed. The urge towards mission creep is strong, and too many groups are weakening their core strengths to address problems they can’t solve. Single-issue organizations shouldn’t burden themselves with having the answer to every question, with having a stance on every issue, and with having to be all things to all people. It’s ok not to comment. It’s ok to stay in your lane and just work on one problem. It’s ok to try to change the world just one issue at a time.

[genderqueerpositivity]

Separately, the DOJ accused two Russian employees of RT, the Russian state-owned media outlet, of a nearly $10 million scheme to create and distribute content to U.S. audiences while keeping the connection to Russia hidden.

RT worked with an online content creation company in Tennessee, which was directed to contract with U.S. social media influencers to distribute its content on social media platforms including, TikTok, X, Instagram and YouTube. Since November, the company posted more than 2,000 videos that received more than 16 million views on YouTube, according to the indictment.

United States intelligence and security officials have been warning for months about Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2024 election, specifically to undermine the Democratic presidential nominee, exploit social divisions, sow distrust in democratic institutions and to erode support for Ukraine.

The U.S. has provided arms to Ukraine to support its war following Russia's invasion in 2022.

“Russia remains the most active foreign threat to our elections,��� Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines told senators in May at a briefing about election risks.

This is not the first time the U.S. has taken action against those behind the Doppelganger influence campaign.

In March, the U.S. Treasury sanctioned Social Design Agency and Structura, as well as their founders, for a network of fake accounts and phony news websites, saying they carried out the campaign "at the direction of the Russian Presidential Administration."

A report released on Tuesday by social network analysis company Graphika documents a cross-platform influence operation linked to the Chinese government with the aim of influencing online discourse ahead of the November 5 elections.

The operation has relied on "spamouflage" to spread misleading or false information, adopting faux American accounts to sow division through anti-government narratives and posts on divisive topics such as the Israel-Hamas conflict, gun control, and racial inequality.

Using ATLAS, its proprietary platform for real-time intelligence and data analysis, Graphika identified 15 such accounts on X (formerly Twitter) and one on TikTok. Mimicking both U.S. nationals and advocacy groups, these accounts have taken aim at both major political parties and called into question the legitimacy of the U.S. electoral process.

They exhibited certain patterns, including the use of U.S.-related hashtags like #American, and presented themselves as U.S. voters who "love America" but feel alienated by issues ranging from abortion to U.S. support for the war in Ukraine.

One X post from June 2023 stated: "Although I am an American, I am extremely opposed to NATO and the behavior of the U.S. government in war. I think soldiers should protect their own country's people and territory from being violated, and should not initiate wars on their own initiative." The post was accompanied by an image depicting NATO's expansion in Europe.

Not to say "I told you so" but I've been saying this for months. Social engineers are hard at work trying to influence the outcome of the election in November. It is very likely happening on a larger scale than we know of. Take everything you read online with a grain of salt between now and November.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Andrew Perez and Adam Rawnsley at Rolling Stone:

THE CONSULTING FIRM led by Leonard Leo, the architect of the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, has worked for billionaire Charles Koch’s political advocacy network and a dark-money group that is currently arguing a Supreme Court case designed to preempt a wealth tax, according to documents obtained by Rolling Stone. The firm even worked to promote a book by Donald Trump cronies Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie. Leo has played a central role in shifting the high court and its decisions far to the right. As former President Donald Trump’s judicial adviser, Leo helped select three of the Supreme Court’s six conservative justices. He also leads a dark-money network that boosted their confirmations and helps determine what cases the justices hear and shape their rulings. The Supreme Court connection has paid off for Leo — big time. In 2021, he was gifted control of a $1.6 billion political advocacy slush fund. Over the past decade, Leo’s dark money network has plowed more than $100 million into his for-profit consulting firm, CRC Advisors. 

Leo co-chairs the Federalist Society, the conservative lawyers network. He is also the chairman of CRC. Like many consulting firms, CRC does not publicly disclose its clients. However, several of the firm’s clients were named in resumes that applicants submitted to an online jobs bank hosted by the Conservative Partnership Institute, which accidentally left the files exposed online. One CRC employee’s 2024 resume says his clients include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a dark-money group arguing a case before the Supreme Court this term that is designed to slam the door shut on a federal wealth tax. Experts say the case could upend the nation’s tax code.  “In the last Congress, legislation to establish a wealth tax was introduced in both the House and the Senate,” CEI wrote in its petition to the Supreme Court, adding that justices should act now to “head off a major constitutional clash down the line.” During oral arguments in December, Justice Samuel Alito presented a hypothetical where “somebody graduates from school and starts up a little business in his garage, and 20 years later, 30 years later, the person is a billionaire,” and asked whether the government “can Congress tax all of that.” According to the CRC employee’s 2024 resume, Leo’s firm has also worked for the Koch network’s political advocacy arm, Americans for Prosperity. AFP’s super PAC spent more than $40 million supporting former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s failed Republican primary campaign against Trump this election cycle. AFP’s charitable arm has supported a case at the Supreme Court this term pushing justices to block the government from influencing content moderation by social media platforms.

Rolling Stone exposes radical right-wing SCOTUS puppetmaster Leonard Leo's consulting firm CRC Advisors, whose clients were leaked online.

[rjzimmerman]

This is fucking sick. This man cannot be put into any position by any US governmental agency to do anything at all. I would suggest he be first on the list to be deported, back to South Africa, but only after the US government traps all his money, just as we trap the money of some of the Russian oligarchs. Wanna bet this post alone will get me in trouble after January 21 or whatever the date of the "inauguration" is.

Excerpt from this story from CNN:

When President-elect Donald Trump said Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy would recommend major cuts to the federal government in his administration, many public employees knew that their jobs could be on the line.

Now they have a new fear: becoming the personal targets of the world’s richest man – and his legions of followers.

Last week, in the midst of the flurry of his daily missives, Musk reposted two X posts that revealed the names and titles of people holding four relatively obscure climate-related government positions. [BTW, the positions each held deals with climate change.] Each post has been viewed tens of millions of times, and the individuals named have been subjected to a barrage of negative attention. At least one of the four women named has deleted her social media accounts.

Although the information he posted on those government positions is available through public online databases, these posts target otherwise unknown government employees in roles that do not deal directly with the public.

Several current federal employees told CNN they’re afraid their lives will be forever changed – including physically threatened – as Musk makes behind-the-scenes bureaucrats into personal targets. Others told CNN that the threat of being in Musk’s crosshairs might even drive them from their jobs entirely – achieving Musk’s smaller government goals without so much as a proper review.

“These tactics are aimed at sowing terror and fear at federal employees,” said Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents more than 800,000 of the 2.3 million civilian federal employees. “It’s intended to make them fearful that they will become afraid to speak up.”

This isn’t new behavior for Musk, who has often singled out individuals who he claims have made mistakes or stand in his way. One former federal employee, previously targeted by Musk, said she experienced something very similar.

“It’s his way of intimidating people to either quit or also send a signal to all the other agencies that ‘you’re next’,” said Mary “Missy” Cummings, an engineering and computer science professor at George Mason University, who drew Musk’s ire because of her criticisms of Tesla when she was at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Last week Musk reposted an account with the handle Fentasyl and the name “Datahazard,” which describes itself as “Unincorporated Think Tank ~~ Focus: Govt Efficiency, Civil Rights, Victim Advocacy.”

One of the posts reads: “I don’t think the US taxpayers should pay for the employment of a ’Director of Climate Diversification (she/her)’ at the US International Development Finance Corporation,” with a partial screengrab of an employee and her location.

Musk, who called himself “super pro climate” in an X post last year, reposted and commented: “So many fake jobs.” The post has received more than 33 million views and a storm of negative comments. Some called the role a “fraud job” and others demanded Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency cut jobs like it. One user commented: “Gravy train is over.”

[t0mies-b0dy]

.... so nanowrimo sent out an apology email.

[Copy-Paste under the cut, its a long one, boys]

To Our NaNoWriMo Community: 

There is no way to begin this letter other than to apologize for the harm and confusion we caused last month with our comments about Artificial Intelligence (AI). We failed to contextualize our reasons for making this statement, we chose poor wording to explain some of our thinking, and we failed to acknowledge the harm done to some writers by bad actors in the generative AI space. Our goal at the time was not to broadcast a comprehensive statement that reflected our full sentiments about AI, and we didn’t anticipate that our post would be treated as such. Earlier posts about AI in our FAQs from more than a year ago spoke similarly to our neutrality and garnered little attention. 

We don’t want to use this space to repeat the content of the full apology we posted in the wake of our original statements. But we do want to raise why this position is critical to the spirit—and to the future—of NaNoWriMo. 

Supporting and uplifting writers is at the heart of what we do. Our stated mission is “to provide the structure, community, and encouragement to help people use their voices, achieve creative goals, and build new worlds—on and off the page”. Our comments last month were prompted by intense harassment and bullying we were seeing on our social media channels, which specifically involved AI. When our spaces become overwhelmed with issues that don’t relate to our core offering, and that are venomous in tone, our ability to cheer on writers is seriously derailed. 

One priority this year has been a return to our mission, and deep thinking about what is in-scope for an organization of our size. A year ago, we were attempting to do too much, and we were doing some of it poorly. Though we admire the many writers’ advocacy groups that function as guilds and that take on industry issues, that isn’t part of our mission. Reshaping our core programs in ways that are safe for all community members, that are operationally sound, that are legally compliant, and that are mission-aligned, is our focus. 

So, what have we done this year to draw boundaries around our scope, promote community safety, and return to our core purpose? 

We ended our practice of hosting unrestricted, all-ages spaces on NaNoWriMo.org and made major website changes. Such safety measures to protect young Wrimos were long overdue.

We stopped the practice of allowing anyone to self-identify as an educator on our YWP website and contracted an outside vendor to certify educators. We placed controls on social features for young writers and we’re on the brink of relaunch. 

We redesigned our volunteer program and brought it into legal compliance. Previously, none of our ~800 global volunteers had undergone identity verification, background checks, or training that meets nonprofit standards and that complies with California law. We are gradually reinstating volunteers.

We admitted there are spaces that we can’t moderate. We ended our policy of endorsing Discord servers and local Facebook groups that our staff had no purview over. We paused the NaNoWriMo forums pending serious overhaul. We redesigned our training to better-prepare returning moderators to support our community standards. 

We revised our Codes of Conduct to clarify our guidelines and to improve our culture. This was in direct response to a November 2023 board investigation of moderation complaints.

We proactively made staffing changes. We took seriously last year’s allegations of child endangerment and other complaints and inspected the conditions that allowed such breaches to occur. No employee who played a role in the staff misconduct the Board investigated remains with the organization. 

Beyond this, we’re planning more broadly for NaNoWriMo’s future. Since 2022, the Board has been in conversation about our 25th Anniversary (which we kick off this year) and what that should mean. The joy, magic, and community that NaNoWriMo has created over the years is nothing short of miraculous. And yet, we are not delivering the website experience and tools that most writers need and expect; we’ve had much work to do around safety and compliance; and the organization has operated at a budget deficit for four of the past six years. 

What we want you to know is that we’re fighting hard for the organization, and that providing a safer environment, with a better user interface, that delivers on our mission and lives up to our values is our goal. We also want you to know that we are a small, imperfect team that is doing our best to communicate well and proactively. Since last November, we’ve issued twelve official communications and created 40+ FAQs. A visit to that page will underscore that we don’t harvest your data, that no member of our Board of Directors said we did, and that there are plenty of ways to participate, even if your region is still without an ML.

With all that said, we’re one month away! Thousands of Wrimos have already officially registered and you can, too! Our team is heads-down, updating resources for this year’s challenge and getting a lot of exciting programming staged and ready. If you’re writing this season, we’re here for you and are dedicated, as ever, to helping you meet your creative goals!

In community,

The NaNoWriMo Team

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Sabrina Joy Stevens

Published: Dec 18, 2024

How I got out of the industry, and how you can protect yourself from it

A few years ago, as funders started throwing money at anyone willing to address the purported role of disinformation in Donald Trump’s 2016 election, many advocacy organizations, academics, political operatives, and media professionals dove into the counter-disinformation business. As a former employee of one such organization and later as an independent consultant and trainer, I saw that business up close. While I'll always support individuals and organizations doing responsible work to overcome divisiveness and deception in civic life, I feel the need to warn people about the dishonest and partisan industry that has sprung up around “fighting disinformation.”

My encounter with Groupthink, Inc.

I’m a storyteller, strategist, trainer, and educator dedicated to civil and human rights, whose practice is rooted in social and cognitive psychology. I’ve been working on digital platforms since their invention. There, I’ve spent years contending with how age-old political manipulation tactics manifest in new media environments.

This background gave me some unique opportunities to work alongside researchers and practitioners formalizing the study of mis-, dis- and malinformation. In turn, this eventually led to opportunities to work within the “counter-disinformation” field. Some independent reporters have dubbed this field the “censorship-industrial complex.” I like to think of it as the enforcement wing of Groupthink, Inc.

Groupthink, Inc. is the cumulative effect of the subset of academics, activists, political operatives, and media professionals devoted to the manufacture, marketing, and enforcement of a social and political consensus that flatters their self-perceptions, aligns with their ideological preferences, and exalts them into positions of undeserved power. These academics, activists, operatives, and media people, supported by funding from Big Philanthropy and the government, have pushed identity politics, luxury beliefs, and all manner of related nonsense on Western societies over the past few decades, particularly since the mid-2010s. Their efforts have created a manufactured consensus about race, gender, sexuality, class, and innumerable other topics. (See Figure 1.)

[ Figure 1: How Groupthink, Inc. manufactures consensus ]

In hindsight, I should have known from the jump that the field of counter-disinformation would be a mess. How, exactly, could an industry populated primarily by people who espouse the postmodernist belief that “all truth is relative” effectively oppose the rise of “alternative facts”? They are two sides of the same counterfeit coin.

However, when I entered the counter-disinformation field, circa 2019, I was still too caught up in the leftwing worldview that pervades it to recognize the inherent problem. Plus, my entry into the industry started out plausibly enough, initially around clearly-defined civic processes. Did I want to do something about bad actors telling confused voters the wrong election dates or scaring them out of being counted in the Census? Of course I did. And especially post-2020, as I became increasingly disillusioned by partisan/ideologically-driven advocacy but unsure of what to do with myself, I was excited to use my skills as a narrative strategist to boost what should ideally have been nonpartisan efforts.

But as the efforts in which I found myself engaged sprawled to ever hazier, more partisan and ideologically-driven topics, the more frustrated and troubled I became. One thing that really pushed me over the edge was the conversation that arose when The Washington Post (Figure 2) shamed women for allegedly spreading misinformation about birth control pills on the internet. These women were taking to TikTok and other platforms to discuss the weight gain, anxiety, and depression they experienced after starting hormonal birth control…all of which is information that you can literally find on these medications’ package inserts.

[ Figure 2 ]

By labelling these women’s accounts of their experiences “misinformation,” The Washington Post abused the term. We live in an age of informational warfare and it is critical that we have accurate terms and language to discuss this phenomenon so that we can deal with it. But a variety of actors, including media organizations like The Washington Post, seem to be working overtime to render that language meaningless by attaching terms like “misinformation” and “disinformation” to anything that doesn’t fit their political prejudices, their financial interests, or their cultural preferences. In the process, they are destroying public trust in the media and our other collective sense-making institutions.

As time went on and I continued to question myself, my industry colleagues, and the shaky academic foundation our counter-disinformation work was built upon, it eventually became undeniably clear that regardless of their stated intentions, people working in this industry are fundamentally unable to do what they claim they’re trying to do. Why?

Why the counter-disinformation industry fails

For starters, people who adhere to an ideological framework—leftism, progressivism, wokism, whatever you want to call it—that’s grounded in an assumption that there is no such thing as objective truth have literally no basis to label anything as mis- or disinformation. (A clear example of this conflict can be seen in their embrace of the hollow, ever-shifting concept of “gender” over the stable, powerful reality of biological sex.) In order to even begin to approach this work with any kind of consistency, the overwhelming majority of people working in this field would have to abandon their ideological priors. I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

Moreover, their unwillingness to consider that they or the “experts” they agree with might be wrong, to humbly listen to those they disagree with, to be appropriately skeptical of politically-aligned public officials, or to remain curious about what objective evidence actually shows us about various issues makes it all but impossible for them to consistently distinguish truth from falsehood even if they earnestly wanted to. Indeed, while I still think most people working in this field genuinely want to be helpful, their hubris undercuts even their best intentions.

Intentionally or not, by deciding in advance that they know what kinds of people are or are not credible, rather than seeking and following actual evidence wherever it leads, they’ve shielded themselves from feedback from reality while replicating the same problem that already exists at multiple levels of our sense-making institutions: when they’re not busy denying that truth exists, they’re mistaking a manufactured consensus for truth. Worse, their attempts to police so-called “mis-” and “disinformation” (which, in practice, means anything that deviates from that distorted consensus) essentially extend that shield against reality to the rest of society. As we’ve seen again and again over the past few years, that’s had serious consequences for our health, safety, and freedom of expression.

I know much of this comes as no surprise to independent or conservative observers of the disinformation industry over the past few years, and I hope you’ll take some comfort in a bit of confirmation and validation from a former participant. But I’m speaking up now primarily for the sake of folks who may have missed—or more likely, dismissed—existing reporting or investigations because they came from people whose perspectives you’ve been conditioned by Groupthink, Inc. to ignore or mistrust. If you can’t hear it from them, perhaps you can hear it from me: someone who truly wanted to believe the best about these efforts, but was eventually so frustrated by what I saw that I forfeited income rather than continue to participate in it.

Left-wing bias in the counter-disinformation industry

Many journalists, researchers, and other professionals working in and around the counter-disinformation industry claim and earnestly believe, like I once did, that they are doing important work to protect freedom, fight bigotry, and clean up our information environment. From what I’ve seen, there isn’t any grand conspiracy here so much as a deeply prideful failure to consider the shortcomings of their own and their peers’ knowledge, or their own biases.

And those biases are significant. This field is heavily dominated by people on the left. I have watched people in the counter-disinformation industry take significant precautions to protect themselves from public scrutiny, which they typically dismiss as right-wing attacks, regardless of the political affiliation of those trying to scrutinize them. But I have never seen anybody in this field take any steps to protect the public from the impact of their own biases. I’ve encountered multiple squads of researchers and firms using very sophisticated technology to monitor alleged disinformation, but they’re almost exclusively focused on right-leaning targets, instead of scanning for false and misleading information from every political perspective.

Even more troubling, I have yet to encounter a counter-disinformation researcher whose job it was to independently verify what exactly counts as accurate information versus what constitutes dis- or misinformation. Instead, their default stance is to take the words of “experts” or public officials as fact, if they even stop to consider what’s true versus false at all.

Now, that’s not necessarily a big deal when it comes to concrete, clearly defined things like election dates or census-taking processes. But it’s a huge deal when it comes to rapidly changing and uncertain issues like pandemic response, nuanced issues like climate science, or ideologically-inflected issues like how to help children who say they’re distressed about their biological sex. On issues like these many in the counter-disinformation space have actively spread misinformation while suppressing better information that challenges their political preferences and biases.

Likewise, it is really important to recognize that especially in abstract academic fields that don’t have clear-cut, objective standards, the “experts” are a pretty ideologically slanted group. For decades now, left-leaning academics and professionals have dominated research spaces in most academic fields (see Figure 3), while activists on both ends of the political spectrum have waged campaigns, often vicious, against researchers whose findings they consider inconvenient. What emerges as expert consensus under these distorted and distorting conditions can’t just be assumed to be accurate. Those pressures toward conformity, censorship, and self-censorship affect who is given opportunities to do research, what kinds of questions they feel free to pursue, how they interpret their findings, and how they present those findings or whether they even do present them.

[ Figure 3: Number of Democratic Faculty Members for Every Republican in 25 Academic Fields (source). ]

Consensus vs. truth

It’s crucial to remember that consensus and truth are two different things. Consensus can emerge around true observations of reality, but expert consensus on complex issues, or on simple issues that have been made to seem complex by people with misguided beliefs or agendas, can also emerge as a result of excluding dissenting voices, pressuring people to conform for fear of losing relationships or careers, or even threats to their safety.

I’ve yet to encounter other people in this counter-disinformation space who actually stopped to consider this distinction between consensus and truth. When I asked disinformation-industry folks how they discern truth, I was repeatedly told that I was the first person they’d encountered in this space to even ask those kinds of questions. None of them had solid answers, yet that didn’t stop any of them from accepting huge grants and contracts, continuing to advise influential organizations and campaigns, or attempting to influence laws and platform policies governing Big Tech across multiple continents.

And that’s really my biggest concern. For too many people in this industry, ideological conformity preempts the pursuit of evidence. They are so used to ideologically skewed campuses and professional organizations, and so accustomed to hearing certain perspectives and opinions echoed throughout the media and culture, that they reflexively treat ideas that conform to their political and ideological expectations as being synonymous with truth itself. And then they partner with other influential organizations, media outlets, public officials, and Big Tech to enforce that conformity, stifling the free flow of information we need to make important personal and collective decisions. Pressure from people in networks like these are why tech platforms sometimes hide, demonetize, or just ban content and users that challenge deceptive activist dogma presented as expert consensus on issues like gender ideology or abortion. It’s why even accomplished experts with robust evidence-based findings have been stifled for challenging powerful people’s preferred narratives on things like pandemic response or environmental policy.

This has had serious costs for many people. From the vulnerable young people whose bodies are permanently damaged by harmful drugs and surgeries, to the scholars whose careers have been up-ended for sharing unpopular recommendations, to society as a whole when we’re denied important or politically inconvenient information that pierces the illusion of consensus.

How to avoid misinformation from Groupthink, Inc.

Despite their stated intentions, the counter-disinformation industry does not promote truth. It promotes conformity and groupthink. That’s why those of us who care about having more honest and productive public conversations need to get serious about protecting free speech and promoting viewpoint diversity.

To individuals: To state what should be obvious, you can’t know everything or read or replicate every study yourself. That’s why it’s really important to be intentional about how you approach information instead of defaulting to the common habit of letting ideology become your mental shortcut for filtering new information. If your goal is to better understand the world, beware of getting your information from committed partisans or organizations that prioritize ideology over evidence. Instead, learn all you can about the fields you work in and the topics that interest you most; build relationships and exchange ideas with a diverse range of thoughtful people who know more about what you know less about; and curate news and information from a wide range of sources. I know this last bit is particularly challenging these days. Ground News is one of the best news resources for this purpose that I have found.

To research teams and non-profit organizations: If you’re genuinely nonpartisan, ask yourselves, do you have viewpoint diversity? No individual is correct all the time and no group of completely like-minded people is going to be right all the time, either. Viewpoint diversity and a culture that promotes logic and evidence over conformity is your best protection against misinformation and the self-deception bred by groupthink.

Platforms: Please refocus on protecting users from harassment, violence, and self-harm. Do not let government officials or activists bully you into policing alleged disinformation, particularly on topics where public knowledge is still contested or is rapidly evolving. Platform policies and content moderation decisions about non-violent speech should not be influenced by government officials, much less by unelected, unaccountable activists, who don’t even bother to question what is or isn’t true. Mistrust and confusion only grow when you restrict the free flow of information and undermine people’s livelihoods for not conforming to the preferred narratives of government officials or special interest groups.

To journalists, researchers, and everyone else in the counter-disinformation industry: Please have some humility and self-awareness. Just because a certain narrative or set of claims suits your political and cultural preferences, that doesn’t mean it’s true. Don’t get mad when critics call you out for mislabeling disagreement as disinformation, when that’s exactly what you’re doing by refusing to check your own biases, question official narratives, or examine what passes for expert consensus in a politically distorted research environment.

In sum, it’s not that there’s no mis- or disinformation out there. Far from it! But the disinformation industry as it currently operates serves Groupthink, Inc. much more than it serves the public. Indeed, it is often one of the greatest purveyors of mis- and disinformation in our information ecosystem! In this article, I’ve tried to spell out why this is so, and offer steps that all actors, from private citizens to disinformation-industry organizations, can take to bring more balance and truth to the information landscape.

--

Sabrina Joy Stevens is a recovering ideologue, still-dedicated storyteller, strategist, and trainer serving causes, campaigns, and companies committed to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She has dedicated her whole life to human and civil rights, and has been heartbroken by how she and many others in these fields have unwittingly helped to undermine these rights and destabilize our societies in the process. As a former leftist with 20+ years of experience with political organizing and advocacy, she has seen the good, the bad, and the VERY ugly of movement-building. Her Substack, Leaving Groupthink, Inc. (where a version of this article first appeared), is part real-time memoir, part public conversation, and part strategy session. She envisions it as a project dedicated to reclaiming our good sense and society from the ugly, namely the demoralizing industry she’s nicknamed Groupthink, Inc. Check out her website, where you’ll find links to her Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, and TikTok accounts, as well as information about the professional services she offers.

[marketbeam]

Crafting the Ultimate 2024 Social Media Brand Advocacy Strategy

In 2024, the digital landscape continues to evolve rapidly, and with it, the strategies brands use to engage and expand their audience. Social media brand advocacy is more crucial than ever, combining the reach of social media with the authenticity of personal recommendations. Here are some cutting-edge tips and tricks for implementing the best social media brand advocacy strategy using the latest tools and harnessing the power of employee brand advocacy.

1. Understand the Power of Employee Brand Advocacy

Personal Touch: Recognize that employees can provide a personal, authentic touch to your brand's message, something no corporate account can replicate.

Trust Factor: Leverage the trust employees have within their networks. Friends and family are more likely to engage with content shared by someone they know.

2. Select the Right Social Media Advocacy Tools

Comprehensive Platforms: Choose tools that offer a range of features from scheduling and analytics to content curation and employee engagement tracking.

Ease of Use: Ensure the tool is user-friendly to encourage maximum participation from your team.

Integration Capabilities: Opt for tools that integrate seamlessly with your existing social media platforms and CRM systems.

3. Educate and Empower Your Team

Training Sessions: Conduct regular training to familiarize your team with the chosen advocacy tools and best practices for sharing content.

Content Library: Create a library of shareable content that is easy to access and aligns with your brand message.

Feedback Loop: Establish a system for employees to give feedback on the advocacy program and suggest content ideas.

4. Create Quality, Shareable Content

Engaging Formats: Utilize a variety of formats like videos, infographics, and blog posts to keep content fresh and engaging.

Value-Driven: Ensure the content provides value to your audience, whether it's informative, entertaining, or inspiring.

Brand Aligned: Maintain a consistent brand voice and message across all shared content.

5. Incentivize and Recognize Participation

Recognition Programs: Develop a system to acknowledge and reward the most active and effective brand advocates.

Leaderboards: Use gamification like leaderboards to create a friendly competition among employees.

Rewards: Offer tangible rewards such as bonuses, gift cards, or extra vacation days to incentivize participation.

6. Monitor, Measure, and Optimize

Track Performance: Utilize your advocacy tool's analytics to track the performance of shared content.

Adjust Strategies: Be prepared to pivot your strategy based on what content performs best and which employees are most engaged.

Regular Reports: Share regular reports with your team to demonstrate the impact of their advocacy and encourage continued participation.

7. Stay Updated with Latest Trends and Regulations

Trend Awareness: Stay informed about the latest social media trends and adjust your strategy accordingly.

Regulatory Compliance: Ensure all shared content is compliant with industry regulations, especially important in regulated sectors like finance and healthcare.

A Strategy for Success

In 2024, an effective social media brand advocacy strategy is about much more than just boosting your online presence. It's about creating a community around your brand, one that's built on trust, authenticity, and personal engagement. By leveraging the right tools, educating and empowering your team, and continuously optimizing your approach, you can transform your employees into powerful brand advocates and your brand into a dynamic, engaging presence in the digital world.

[kimcoxauthor]

Social Media Marketing Series: Pros and Cons

This past week, I had the privilege of taking two short 5-day courses involving Facebook Ads and Amazon Ads as well as a Photoshop course. Imagine my surprise when I realized I’d scheduled them all for the same week. I love learning but I believe I overdid it a bit. In the coming few weeks, every Monday, we’ll explore the different aspects and types of social media marketing. Today, we’ll cover…

[eretzyisrael]

by Leo Shane III

A Veterans Affairs employee whose video mocking Israeli hostages caused outrage on social media has been required to undergo counseling for the incident but was not fired, department officials said Friday.

Shekeba Morrad, an appellate attorney for VA’s Office of the General Counsel, had been embroiled in controversy since November, when she posted a video on social media which appeared to mock Israeli citizens worried about hostages taken by Hamas militants in October attacks.

After quick condemnation of her action, the video was removed from public sites. But several conservative activists saved and reposted it, leading to wider criticism of her and the department.

In a statement Friday, VA Secretary Denis McDonough called Morrad’s video “inaccurate, abhorrent, and insensitive.” Morrad was instructed to undergo counseling, then completed required harassment prevention and accountability training in response to the incident.

“Let me be clear: I condemn antisemitism in the strongest terms possible. It is inconsistent with our core values of integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect, and excellence,” McDonough said.

“There’s no space at VA for hate, not least because it hinders our ability to care for veterans, their families, caregivers and survivors who represent every race, creed, gender and belief and who swore an oath to defend the Constitution.”

VA officials noted, however, that past court rulings have established that federal employees have a right to express personal opinions, provided they do so on personal time and without identification as a federal employee.

Still, numerous Republican lawmakers called for severe action against Morrad in light of the video.

“This is unacceptable,” wrote Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and a member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, in a social media post sharing Morrad’s video. “Antisemitism has no place at the VA and this behavior should not be tolerated. (McDonough) should remove this employee immediately.”

In a letter to McDonough last month, 18 House Republicans called the behavior reprehensible and criticized the slow response of the department to the controversy.

“We are worried VA’s investigation, like many of its investigations the committee has performed oversight of, will be untimely and result in minimal consequences,” they wrote. “Ms. Morrad’s conduct was abhorrent and has no place at VA.”

Morrad is not a supervisor for any other VA employees and is a career staffer, not a political appointee. Department leaders said they regularly requires training to prevent harassment while supporting inclusion in the workforce.

[mariacallous]

Twitter blocked a Democrat’s campaign video from being promoted on its platform because it expressed support for abortion rights, according to email conversations obtained by HuffPost.

The video, created by North Carolina state Sen. Rachel Hunt (D) for her campaign for lieutenant governor, centers on abortion rights in North Carolina and the fall of Roe v. Wade. Hunt says in the video that she’s running for lieutenant governor to combat anti-choice Republicans who recently passed a 12-week abortion ban in the state.

“When Roe v. Wade came to rural America, women woke up to a different world. A world with a bit more time. Little girls were little girls a little longer. Young women had the freedom to stay or go. The word ‘liberty’ was finally being used to talk about our lives,” Hunt says in the campaign video. “The important decisions didn’t get easier, but they were hers. A move to the city for college, for a career, for life ― those dreams didn’t have to end with an unplanned pregnancy.”

“I’m running for lieutenant governor because the Republican plan isn’t this year’s 12-week abortion ban ― it’s next year’s total abortion ban,” she continues. “We’re talking about 50 years of precedent. Not just legal precedent, but how three generations of women have lived their lives.”

The video is still available on Twitter, but the Hunt campaign cannot currently advertise or promote the video on the platform.

It’s common for companies and political candidates to pay Twitter to advertise content, whether it’s campaign videos or promotional material for certain products. Hunt’s campaign told HuffPost that they had set up a budget with Twitter to advertise certain videos, but then they noticed the money hadn’t been spent and the ad hadn’t been boosted by the platform.

When the Hunt campaign reached out to Twitter to inquire about the holdup, an employee said the video was blocked from promotion because of “the mention of abortion advocacy.”

“Ah yes, the mention of abortion advocacy is the issue here,” a Twitter employee told Hunt’s campaign Wednesday in an email reviewed by HuffPost. The employee said the company may have “some good news to share on that front” in the next week or so, seemingly suggesting it may change its standards and practices on content discussing abortion rights.

“For now, though, you still won’t be able to message around that topic,” the employee added.

HuffPost reached out to Twitter for comment and received an automated response with a poop emoji, as is now standard.

Hunt said she’s deeply concerned that Twitter believes content regarding abortion rights should be prohibited.

“This campaign is about representing the issues most important to North Carolinians ― including ensuring that all women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies,” she told HuffPost.

“I find it deeply concerning that Twitter considers the topic of protecting our fundamental freedoms as prohibited content,” Hunt continued. “Regardless, I will continue to focus on sharing my message with voters in every community in every part of the state.”

Since business mogul Elon Musk bought Twitter last year, the social media platform has shifted conspicuously to the right. When Musk took over, he immediately invited several right-wing extremists who had been kicked off Twitter back to the platform, including former President Donald Trump. Musk gutted the company from 7,500 employees to now closer to 2,000, laying off people in critical roles and curtailing employees’ ability to moderate hate speech and misinformation.