[Ethan Zuckerman in The Atlantic]
I completely agree with the points Ethan makes here. The TikTok ban was a spectacular own-goal for all kinds of reasons. In particular:
"[...] This is a depressing moment for anyone who cherishes American protections for speech and access to information. In 1965, while the Cold War shaped the U.S. national-security environment, the Supreme Court, in Lamont v. Postmaster General, determined that the post office had to send people publications that the government claimed were “communist political propaganda,” rather than force recipients to first declare in writing that they wanted to receive this mail. The decision was unanimous, and established the idea that Americans had the right to discover whatever they wanted within “a marketplace of ideas.”"
Truly, so much for the country that is allegedly about freedom of speech. There's something particularly messed-up and McCarthyist about how this ban came about, not least because some representatives have admitted that the ban is partially because of the availability of pro-Palestinian content on the platform. If we endorse this ban, do we also need to revisit the rightly widely-derided un-American-activities policies of the past? I'd rather we leave them in the dustbin of history.
But luckily, the kids are alright. This is also true:
"Although I don’t think this specific rebellion can last, I’m encouraged that American TikTok users realize that banning the popular platform directly contradicts America’s values. If only America’s leaders were so wise."
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
[David Marchese in The New York Times]
This profile of Curtis Yarvin in the New York Times (paywalled, probably for the best) is far softer than it should have been, with far less formal fact-checking. It is of the moment, though: this guy’s writing is highly influential to the political class that’s about to land in power, as well as to prominent VCs and other tech luminaries.
It’s not a bad idea to shine a spotlight on who he is and what he’s all about — this is a man who has directly inspired JD Vance, multiple prominent venture capitalists, and other people in our still-forming tech oligarchy. And as softball and cozy as the conversation really is, it’s still hard to come away without thinking: this guy is genuinely evil.
In this interview he argues, among other things, that the Civil War (what he calls the “War of Secession”) didn’t improve anybody’s lives, and that women’s lives before suffrage were pretty great. He argues that people had at least as much liberty in the era of kings than they do today.
Towards the end of the interview, you'll find this exchange:
"What’s your Achilles’ heel? I also have self-confidence issues. I won’t bet fully on my own convictions."
I mean: good.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
[Dave Karpf at Tech Policy Press]
Peter Thiel and other tech oligarchs are seeking to weaponize US foreign policy as a way to enforce their corporate agendas:
"Thiel is developing a blueprint for putting Big Tech’s policy agenda at the center of US foreign policy. Australia’s social media ban is bad for American social media companies. The European Union’s Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act impose regulatory requirements on very large online platforms that operate within the EU. Peter Thiel expects the US government to do something about that, in the guise of investigating and redressing past wrongdoings.
Tech billionaires like Thiel simply do not believe that their companies and investments should be beholden to governments. And now that they have control of the US government, they are suggesting that, if any other countries interfere with their business, the US government ought to intervene on their behalf."
The thing is, protections like the ones offered by the European Union are really good, and significantly better than we enjoy in the United States. Part of the worry is that if they're allowed to stand, similar restrictions will emerge here too. We're already seeing that in more progressive states like California.
That's an inevitability: as we all get more used to the internet now that most of us are on it, beyond the initial excitement, we're going to make more nuanced policy decisions. Clearly, privacy is an important democratic prerequisite, and countering the internet's tendency to support monopolies is similarly important to prevent outsized centralization of power. When it comes to the free reign moguls have enjoyed to build giant businesses unencumbered, time is ticking. But in the meantime, they'll keep trying to protect their interests - in increasingly dramatic ways.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
[Sergio Hernández, Nat Lash, Brandon Roberts and Ken Schwencke at ProPublica]
Private schools in the US are much whiter than public schools. My colleagues over in the newsroom at ProPublica explored this data while illuminating the ongoing extent of segregation academies in the south:
"Our analysis of that survey revealed, among other things, Amite County, Mississippi, where about 900 children attend the local public schools — which, as of 2021, were 16% white. By comparison, the two private schools in the county, with more than 600 children, were 96% white."
But that data hasn't traditionally been easy to explore. Until now:
"In the course of our reporting, we realized that this data and analysis were illuminating and useful — even outside the South. We decided to create a database to allow anyone to look up a school and view years worth of data."
The Private School Demographics database is available to use for free. It makes it very easy to examine disparities between private schools and their surrounding school districts. And knowing is the first step towards changing something.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
[Adria R Walker at The Guardian]
A full century after the Bureau of Investigation blamed the Tulsa race massacre on Black men and claimed that the perpetrators didn't break the law, the DoJ has issued an update:
"“The Tulsa race massacre stands out as a civil rights crime unique in its magnitude, barbarity, racist hostility and its utter annihilation of a thriving Black community,” Kristen Clarke, the assistant attorney general of the DoJ’s civil rights division, said in a statement. “In 1921, white Tulsans murdered hundreds of residents of Greenwood, burned their homes and churches, looted their belongings, and locked the survivors in internment camps.”"
Every one of the perpetrators is dead and can no longer be prosecuted. But this statement seeks to correct the record and ensure that the official history records what actually happened. There's value in that, even if it comes a hundred years too late.
It's worth also checking out Greenwood Rising, which will be the first to tell you that discrimination against Black citizens of the town and the descendants of the race riot has been ongoing.
The Tulsa race massacre "was so systematic and coordinated that it transcended mere mob violence". Calling it a stain on our history would paint it as a one-off; instead, it's part of a continuum of hate, violence, and discrimination.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
I've been thinking about this paragraph since I read it:
"In times past, we would worry about singular governmental officials such Joseph Goebbels becoming a master of propaganda for their cause. Today’s problem is massively scaled out in ways Goebbels could only dream of: now everyone can be their own Goebbels. Can someone please tell me what the difference is between an “influencer” holding a smartphone and…a propagandist? Because I simply can’t see the distinction anymore."
This brings me back to Renee DiResta's Invisible Rulers: whoever controls the memes controls the universe.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
[Natasya Salim, Najma Sambul, and Bill Birtles at ABC News]
This is something that every nation should provide. It's really impressive that Indonesia is putting it into action:
"Indonesia has launched a transformative free meal program designed to combat malnutrition and support underprivileged communities.
Championed by President Prabowo Subianto, the initiative aims to provide nutritious meals to almost 83 million Indonesians by 2029, focusing initially on school children and pregnant women."
Over here, this would likely be dismissed as socialism, because how dare we simply provide for people who need it? (The horror!) But the bet is that it will lead to greater growth and prosperity, not least because of investment in the ecosystem itself:
"On the other hand, Mr Prabowo called the program one of the main drivers of economic growth, saying it would eventually add an estimated 2.5 million jobs and spur demand for local produce."
Over in the Financial Times, they additionally note:
"Prabowo, who took office in October, has touted the programme as a solution to improve children’s nutrition and boost local economies — which he hopes will have a ripple effect on economic growth and development in the world’s fourth most-populous country.
“This is a long-term investment in human capital,” said Dadan Hindayana, head of the newly created national nutrition agency, which will oversee the free meals programme. "
There will be a lot of people incentivized to not make this work. But it should. And we should be looking to this as leadership; we should be following suit.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
[Arno Rosenfeld at the Forward]
The Heritage Foundation is out to "identify and target" Wikipedia editors, using antisemitism as a cover:
"Employees of Heritage, the conservative think tank that produced the Project 2025 policy blueprint for the second Trump administration, said they plan to use facial recognition software and a database of hacked usernames and passwords in order to identify contributors to the online encyclopedia, who mostly work under pseudonyms. It’s not clear exactly what kind of antisemitism the Wikipedia effort, which has not been previously reported, is intended to address. But in recent months some Jewish groups have complained about a series of changes on the website relating to Israel, the war in Gaza and its repercussions."
Given that Wikipedia has also been under attack from Elon Musk and other right-wing figures, multiple groups should archive multiple snapshots of its content before major changes are made (or worse) to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia currently provides a full history of edits as part of its core software, but there are no guarantees about what might be required by the administration in the future.
I'd also strongly consider donating to support it to help it weather any future assaults on truth.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
An interesting election mortem and post-mortem, from an arguably refreshing perspective:
"Here's what I think is going on: Our system is foundationally built to devour human beings in order to enrich the already wealthy, and it's moved so far down that road that a critical mass of people now understand this, for the very good reason that they are now being devoured."
"[...] We're in a time when most people understand we are in a systemic fight, and so most people want a fighter—and, to the perceptions of most people, Trump and the Republicans are fighting, and Democrats are not."
Perhaps I'm including this link here because it's cathartic, or because it's because I happen to agree with the premise that the Democrats are trying to be centrists again even though being centrists doesn't at all work for them and shouldn't work for them. I don't think it'll change anything; I don't think I'll be anything but disappointed. But, anyway, here this piece is. It would be nice to not be in the position we're in, and it would be nice to have politicians who will genuinely make this a more progressive country that will fight for the people who really need it. I'm not holding my breath.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
This ought to be a movie:
"Posing as an ideological compatriot, Williams had penetrated the top ranks of two of the most prominent right-wing militias in the country. He’d slept in the home of the man who claims to be the new head of the Oath Keepers, rifling through his files in the middle of the night. He’d devised elaborate ruses to gather evidence of militias’ ties to high-ranking law enforcement officials. He’d uncovered secret operations like the surveillance of a young journalist, then improvised ways to sabotage the militants’ schemes. In one group, his ploys were so successful that he became the militia’s top commander in the state of Utah."
This long-read about John Williams's work to infiltrate right wing militias is vividly told. It's inspired other reporting at ProPublica, but now it's time to tell the story of the mole who brought the information forward.
It's also a good reminder that many of the people who participated in the Capitol riot weren't just misled civilians: they were members of dangerous, armed, right-wing militias. These are the people that Trump would like to pardon:
"Now President-elect Donald Trump has promised to pardon Jan. 6 rioters when he returns to the White House. Experts warn that such a move could trigger a renaissance for militant extremists, sending them an unprecedented message of protection and support — and making it all the more urgent to understand them."
That understanding is important. This is a good piece to get started with.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
The contracts and relationships that seemingly allow law enforcement and federal agencies to use private services and data brokers to monitor the activities of American citizens without obtaining a warrant seem to be based on a nudge and a wink. 404 Media obtained an email which admitted that the Secret Service never checked to make sure users had consented to tracking:
"The email undermines the Secret Service’s and other U.S. federal agencies' justification that monitoring the movements of phones with commercially available location data without a warrant is possible because people allegedly agreed to the terms of services of ordinary apps that may collect it."
Even if users had consented to tracking by the app, it's highly unlikely that they consented to tracking by the Secret Service. Regardless of whether they checked or not, I have questions about whether this should be allowable: we have an expectation of privacy, particularly given our Constitutional rights, and using private services to obtain this information has always felt like a dirty loophole. Those services, of course, should also not be performing this kind of tracking.
Wouldn't it be nice if we had effective privacy protections that upheld our rights according to their spirit rather than our current cynically-interpreted letter of the law?
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
President Biden commuted the sentences of all but three prisoners on federal death row. (He doesn't have the power to pardon or commute the sentences of people held on state charges.)
This is also good:
"The president campaigned in 2020 on ending the federal death penalty. Although proposed legislation to that effect failed to advance in Congress during his administration, Mr. Biden directed the Justice Department to issue a moratorium on federal executions. Thirteen prisoners on federal death row were put to death during Mr. Trump’s first term."
The death penalty is a barbaric practice that has no place in the 21st century, just as it had no place in the 20th century. It needs to be abolished everywhere, for any reason. But this is at least a humane one-time action.
I unfortunately don't see Trump, who seems to be more on the traditional American "the government should murder people" train, taking any steps to correct the country's horrendous system. And it's a sign of how backwards and cruel we are that Biden couldn't advance legislation to end it once and for all.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
If we're going to improve on Medicare, we have to fund it - and it turns out that even today's Medicare taxes are being skipped out on by some of the wealthiest citizens in America, thanks to a legal loophole that the IRS has not adequately addressed.
"The trove of tax records behind ProPublica’s “Secret IRS Files” series contains plenty of examples of billionaire financiers who avoided Medicare tax despite earning huge amounts from their companies. In 2016, Steve Cohen, the owner of the New York Mets, paid $0. So did Stephen Schwarzman, head of the investment behemoth Blackstone. Bill Ackman, the headline-grabbing hedge fund manager, was able to shield almost all his income from the tax."
Tax advisers have found a way to funnel income - including at very high levels - in such a way that it avoids Medicare taxes, allowing these high net worth individuals to profit while ensuring that some of our most vulnerable people's healthcare is underfunded.
Will this loophole be closed in the next administration? I'll leave that thought exercise up to the reader.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
Ricardo argues that Twitter's sale to Elon Musk was one major factor that led to the rise of extremism worldwide, and that it should never have been allowed:
The sale of Twitter to Musk should never have been allowed to proceed without serious scrutiny, oversight, or regulation. It handed control of a vital part of the global information ecosystem to a tech mogul whose priorities are clearly out of step with the principles of democracy. The risks were evident from the outset: toxicity, polarization, disinformation, and the undermining of democratic institutions. This is yet another example of how democracies are left vulnerable to the whims of billionaires whose agendas often run counter to the public good."
I have questions about how media ownership rules (for broadcast, newspapers, etc) could be adapted for our monopoly-first internet world. Musk didn't own any other media properties, so he couldn't have been restricted on those grounds, but there's something about the way he intentionally turned the dial to favor conservative speech that feels like it should have been illegal on a platform over a certain size.
Probably, as Ricardo notes, this comes down to anti-trust: no platform with a single owner should be allowed to be this big and this influential to begin with. I'd love to see a world where we keep networks (and services) small and manageable in order to dilute the influence any one person can have over our discourse and our elections. This seems to be a lesson we need to learn again and again - and, of course, there are plenty of forces that are against exactly this from happening, because they're trying to achieve exactly this level of power, influence, and financial value.
I don't know what the solution is, but I'm excited about the growth of Mastodon and Bluesky for this reason. Enough is enough, please.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
[Melissa Sanchez and Mica Rosenberg at ProPublica]
Important resentments coming to the surface here:
"Her anger is largely directed at President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party for failing to produce meaningful reforms to the immigration system that could benefit people like her. In our reporting on the new effects of immigration, ProPublica interviewed dozens of long-established Latino immigrants and their U.S.-born relatives in cities like Denver and Chicago and in small towns along the Texas border. Over and over, they spoke of feeling resentment as they watched the government ease the transition of large numbers of asylum-seekers into the U.S. by giving them access to work permits and IDs, and in some cities spending millions of dollars to provide them with food and shelter."
The issue is not so much with asylum seekers as such - it's that asylum makers could make progress while immigration reforms that could help people who were already here stalled. These resentments mirror other complaints about the struggles of working class people who saw other groups receive what they perceived as preferential treatment.
What's particularly sad is the idea that Trump will help immigrants (or working people) in any meaningful way. He's been very clear that he wants to conduct unprecedented mass deportations - not just for criminals, but potentially for tens of millions of people.
"But the Democrats “promised and they never delivered,” Garza Castillo said. “They didn’t normalize the status of the people who were already here, but instead they let in many migrants who didn’t come in the correct way.” He believes asylum-seekers should have to wait outside the country like he did."
And of course, the challenge is that these reforms were blocked by Republicans - it's not that Democrats didn't want them (although it must be said that Democrats have not done a stellar job of backing the kinds of grassroots reforms that are really needed). There's a whole base of people out there who simply don't like immigrants. I find that point of view repellant - but it's prevalent, and it doesn't seem to be going away soon. Certainly not over the next four years.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
As Mike Masnick points out here, the hypocrisy from Elon Musk about collusion between tech and government is staggering:
"Before, we were told that White House officials’ merely reaching out to social media companies about election misinformation was a democracy-ending threat. Now, the world’s richest man has openly used his platform to boost one candidate, ridden that campaign’s success into the White House himself, and ... crickets. The silence is deafening."
There never was an anti-conservative bias on social media - but now there's active collusion between the owner of X and the Trump administration, to the extent that he's actually got a formal role in it. X is a clear threat to democratic values; further to that, it's an obvious warning against any centralized social media site of its magnitude. No one person should have control over how so many people learn from the world and communicate with each other. And yet, here we are.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
[Timothy Graham and Mark Andrejevic]
Elon Musk didn't just endorse Trump with his words - according to this pre-print research paper, he gave Republicans an algorithmic boost on X, too:
"The analysis reveals a structural engagement shift around mid-July 2024, suggesting platform-level changes that influenced engagement metrics for all accounts under examination. The date at which the structural break (spike) in engagement occurs coincides with Elon Musk’s formal endorsement of Donald Trump on 13th July 2024."
Despite big words about "free speech", Musk seems to be hell-bent on using the platform he acquired as a megaphone for his own interests, in the same way that Rupert Murdoch has used Fox News. To me, this points to the need for media regulation, and for anyone using the platform to approach it with caution. It's not an even playing field - not even close.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
[Noah Hurowitz at The Intercept]
This should be a five alarm fire:
"Up for a potential fast-track vote next week in the House of Representatives, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, also known as H.R. 9495, would grant the secretary of the Treasury Department unilateral authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit deemed to be a “terrorist supporting organization.” [...] The law would not require officials to explain the reason for designating a group, nor does it require the Treasury Department to provide evidence."
Unbelievably, this is a bipartisan bill, despite its obviously harmful effects: if any non-profit can be stripped of its status without reason or evidence, the ability for an adverse administration to do harm with it is huge.
Non-profits one can imagine being affected include those reporting the news, providing reproductive healthcare, supporting vulnerable communities, aiding immigrants at risk of deportation, providing aid in places like Gaza, and more. It's a blank check to harm political opponents - and it seems ludicrous that it's on the verge of passing.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
"With just days to go before Election Day, political coverage is everywhere. At ProPublica, we avoid horse race reporting and focus on telling stories about deeper issues and trends affecting the country.
Here are some stories from the last year about issues that are important to voters."
Some selected stories from my colleagues at ProPublica.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
This is a remarkable kind-of-sort-of-endorsement from Teen Vogue.
"As the head of this publication, dedicated to young readers, I have been closely following younger generations’ collective disbelief at the Biden administration’s support of the Israeli government during its all-out assault on Gaza, following the brutal terror attack from Hamas last Oct. 7 — including the horrific killing of civilians in Gaza, the targeting of journalists and aid workers, and the reports of children being shot in the head.
The Democrats’ policy on Israel has been disastrous. What is also true: Trump would, somehow, be even worse."
I was once in a private meeting of journalism professionals where someone described Teen Vogue's leadership as "some very left-wing women". I'm not sure how, exactly, Teen Vogue came to be such a blazing voice for progressive values, but - contrary, I think, to what that person intended with their remarks - it's been incredibly impressive to see.
This magazine for teenagers makes point after point about our culpability as Americans in human suffering and how that might be affected by the two candidates in play. It's hardly a surprise how that nets out:
"We would be constrained in even expressing dissent in a Trump administration. He has talked about shooting protesters, jailing his opponents and critics, and taking action against media who dare to report honestly on him, including revoking licenses for broadcast news he disagrees with. Teen Vogue itself could be held liable under a Trump administration — there is a world where we could face punishment for publishing something like this."
Which is why, Sharma argues, everyone should vote. Only overwhelming numbers will shut this conversation down: in safe states and swing states and deeply red states.
"If you’ve got any anxiety or concern about this election, I urge you to channel that into action. There’s no more putting it off or tuning it out. This is it."
This magazine for people who are still in the early stages of figuring out who they are in the world doesn't pull any punches. If Teen Vogue is any indication, the kids are alright.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
[Craig Silverman at ProPublica and Priyanjana Bengani at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism]
"The network, which uses the name Patriot Democracy on many of its ad accounts, is one of eight deceptive Meta advertising operations identified by ProPublica and Tow. These networks have collectively controlled more than 340 Facebook pages, as well as associated Instagram and Messenger accounts. Most were created by the advertising networks, with some pages masquerading as government entities."
Despite Meta's claims that they were cracking down - which were likely backed up with real efforts - ProPublica ad Tow have discovered that there are plenty of ad networks out there spreading misleading election information.
The issue is likely not to do with Meta itself but the way these targeted ad networks work to begin with. The fact that a company as large as Meta, which is absolutely incentivized to stop these ads from spreading, effectively can't, is an indictment of the model. There's no way that they can proactively approve ads before they run at the scale their business operates, so some will always get through.
That said, there are some serious policy failures here, too:
"Meta removed some of the ads after initially approving them, the investigation found, but it failed to catch thousands of others with similar or even identical content. In many cases, even after removing the violating ads, it allowed the associated Facebook pages and accounts to continue operating, enabling the parent networks to spawn new pages and ads. [...] Our analysis showed that while Meta had removed some pages and ads, its enforcement often lagged or was haphazard. Prior to being contacted by ProPublica and Tow, Meta had taken action against roughly 140 pages affiliated with these eight networks, representing less than half of the total identified in the investigation."
Cracking down on these networks too forcefully could also create a chilling effect throughout the network of potential advertisers, making a real impact on Meta's bottom line. And, of course, that's not something that any product manager watching their progress towards their quarterly OKRs wants to do.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
[Cassandra Jaramillo and Kavitha Surana at ProPublica]
The deeply tragic stories of how abortion bans lead to preventable deaths continue.
"The fetus was on the verge of coming out, its head pressed against her dilated cervix; she was 17 weeks pregnant and a miscarriage was “in progress,” doctors noted in hospital records. At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica.
But when Barnica’s husband rushed to her side from his job on a construction site, she relayed what she said the medical team had told her: “They had to wait until there was no heartbeat,” he told ProPublica in Spanish. “It would be a crime to give her an abortion.”"
This is another look at how "pro life" policies are not necessarily pro life at all. As the piece notes, some Republican representatives have begun muting their anti-abortion stances after realizing how unpopular and damaging it actually is. Still, plenty more continue to fight for what amounts to a nationwide ban.
And then there's this:
"Abortion bans put doctors in an impossible position, she said, forcing them to decide whether to risk malpractice or a felony charge. After her state enacted one of the strictest bans in the country, she also waited to offer interventions in cases like Barnica’s until the fetal heartbeat stopped or patients showed signs of infection, praying every time that nothing would go wrong. It’s why she ultimately moved to Colorado."
If were of child-bearing age and you had the ability to move, why would you stay in a state that threatened your life like this? Why would you practice medicine in a place that put you in such a position? The knock-on effects of these policies will continue to be felt for a long time to come.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
This is, uh, the opposite of this year's trend of a bunch of newspapers refusing to endorse anyone:
"Donald Trump is a dangerous maniac who can barely complete a sentence, and it is lunacy to believe he can even recognize the existentially threatening collective action problems facing our nation, let alone actually solve them."
It's odd that a tech publication like The Verge is coming out so strong here, but it's hard to disagree. I particularly like that the bulk of the piece is about the collective action problem - not just individual policies, but the actual difference in philosophy between a conservative and more progressive approach.
This is good:
"It is extremely frustrating that the Harris campaign keeps going on about Trump being a danger to democracy without explaining why his whole deal is so deeply incompatible with America, so here’s the short version: the radical founding principle of the United States of America is the idea that the government’s authority to make laws and solve collective action problems comes from the consent of the governed."
Right. Exactly. It was a (relatively) clean break from the divine right of kings and the tendrils of monarchy in favor of a more democratic approach. It has problems, it's messy, and it turns out not to be as independent from the influence of generational wealth (those pesky kings again) as we would like it to be, but it was something different.
The naked self-servingness of the Trump / Vance campaign is laid out here. It's a world where school shootings are "a fact of life" and vaccines, a medical technology that has saved the lives of hundreds of millions of people, are not to be trusted.
I agree with this too:
"The list of massive collective action problems facing our nation is almost overwhelming to consider, and they threaten to tear us apart: our population is getting older, with a looming healthcare crisis to come. Education. Housing. Income inequality. There are so many more."
The piece goes on to call out climate change as perhaps the biggest, alongside anti-trust and a host more. It's time to actually consider those problems as communities - democratic races like this one, where we're forced to talk about the dumbest possible stuff at the hands of a barely-coherent candidate, rob us of the ability to have those really substantive conversations. I'm excited for us to put this one to bed and go back to the business of actually dealing with the hard stuff.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
[Molly Redden and Andy Kroll, ProPublica, and Nick Surgey, Documented]
"A key ally to former President Donald Trump detailed plans to deploy the military in response to domestic unrest, defund the Environmental Protection Agency and put career civil servants “in trauma” in a series of previously unreported speeches that provide a sweeping vision for a second Trump term."
Russell Vought directed the Office of Management and Budget in the first Trump administration, and is likely to be back again for the next one. The rhetoric here dovetails with Trump's own and paints a bleak picture of what the future might hold.
As always, I'm grateful to my colleagues at ProPublica who have been bringing these topics to light.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post
[Jan Diehm and Michelle Pera-McGhee at The Pudding]
"To illustrate how difficult it is to get abortion care, we built a maze for each state where the difficulty is calculated by the state’s abortion policies."
What an incredible use of the web as a platform. These stories - even in more progressive, pro-human states like California - reveal that the process is harder and trap-filled than it should be. Of course, in anti-human states like Texas, it's significantly harder to the point of impossibility.
The Pudding is killing it. Just absolutely A-plus work for story after story. This one is a particular highlight.
[Link]
· Links · Share this post