Reason Roundup

Get Ready for Another Big Deplatforming Debate, Because Facebook Is Tweaking Its Rules Again

Plus: Prosecutors are big lobbyists for new crime bills, Biden floats compromise on corporate taxes, and more...


Politicians may get less special treatment under Facebook content moderation rules. Historically, Facebook has explicitly let political figures get away with certain speech that ordinary users cannot. The company's policy has been to consider both the content of politicians' speech as well as its newsworthiness when deciding whether it is allowed. Posts that can easily get deleted or get users blocked under ordinary circumstances may be safe when coming from a powerful political personality.

If you think that giving politicians enough rope to hang themselves isn't a bad thing, Facebook's policy made sense. (I can get behind that argument.) But many people opposed the policy, arguing that it allowed politicians to spew unfettered "hate speech." Newsworthy or not, they argued, Facebook was wrong to host it and to give these figures' words special weight.

I don't think there's necessarily a right or wrong decision here—but as a private company, Facebook was certainly under no obligation to host it. That should go without saying…yet conservatives these days keep arguing that tech platforms should be forced to host all accounts and speech from political figures. Some even go so far as to suggest that the First Amendment requires it—which is actually the exact opposite of how it works. The First Amendment protects against infringements on private speech by the government, not private unwillingness to host whatever government officials want.

The First Amendment also guards against government-compelled speech, which is exactly what forcing Facebook or any tech entity to host politicians' posts would be. While they often claim to take up the mantle of "free speech," folks arguing that Facebook had an obligation not to boot former President Donald Trump—or championing Florida's new law forbidding social media companies from deplatforming politicians—are explicitly arguing against the First Amendment.

In any event, Facebook may be revising the rules it uses to decide when posts by politicians and other public figures are OK, as well as instituting new transparency about it. The Verge reports that Facebook "plans to end its controversial policy that mostly shields politicians from the content moderation rules that apply to other users, a sharp reversal that could have global ramifications for how elected officials use the social network."

That's not the only content moderation change planned:

Facebook also plans to shed light on the secretive system of strikes it gives accounts for breaking its content rules, according to two people familiar with the changes. That will include letting users know when they've received a strike for violating its rules that could lead to suspension. BuzzFeed News and other outlets have previously reported on instances when Facebook employees intervened to keep political pages from being subject to harsh penalties under the strikes policy.

Facebook is also set to begin disclosing when it uses a special newsworthiness exemption to keep up content from politicians and others that would otherwise violate its rules.

If politicians can still get a newsworthiness exemption from normal moderation policies, it's not clear to me how much the upcoming policy shift—which has yet to be publicly disclosed by Facebook—really changes. But The Verge seems to think the shift, which may be announced as soon as today, is substantial:

Under Facebook's new policies, posts made directly by politicians still won't be subject to review by the company's network of independent fact checkers. But they will for the first time be opened up to enforcement against more rules for things like bullying that Facebook's moderators apply to other users.

According to The Washington Post, "the newsworthiness exemption was first created in response to Trump's inflammatory remarks about Muslims during his candidacy. Since then, the company has maintained that it rarely used the exception and has only acknowledged using it six times. Those incidents were all outside the United States, and include political speech in Hungary, Vietnam and Italy." But unofficially, Facebook seems to have leaned on this exception much more frequently.


A new study of how prosecutors try to influence politics finds "prosecutors are very active lobbyists," as The Prosecutors and Politics Project put it. "Nationally, they lobbied on more than 25% of all criminal-justice related bills. In some states, that number was much higher. In Ohio, for example, prosecutors lobbied on 95% of bills."

Much of their support went to laws that created new crimes:


Biden floats compromise on corporate taxes. "In a big concession to the GOP, President Joe Biden offered to drop his proposed rollback of the 2017 GOP tax law and impose a 15% minimum tax rate on large firms instead as part of a bipartisan infrastructure package," reports Business Insider:

The move comes as the president continues a fourth week of negotiations with the GOP, who have ruled out any alterations to their Republican tax cuts. Biden had proposed raising the corporate rate from to 28% from its current level of 21% enacted under President Donald Trump's tax law.

Asked about Biden's potential change of heart, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was less firm, according to The Washington Post:

Psaki said Biden has "absolutely not" wavered in his belief that Congress should raise the corporate tax rate, adding it is a critical way to "pay for a range of the bold proposals that he has put forward."

"But he also took a look at these proposals, and … all of the tax proposals that he has put forward over time, to find a way where there should be pay-fors that based on their bottom lines, many of the Republican negotiators should be able to agree to," Psaki said.


• A majority of Americans still support the death penalty. In a new Pew Research Center poll, "60% of U.S. adults favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder, including 27% who strongly favor it. About four-in-ten (39%) oppose the death penalty, with 15% strongly opposed."

• The media's lab leak debacle shows why banning "misinformation" is a terrible idea, says Reason's Robby Soave.

• Department of everything-is-a-crime:

(Read more on the case here from Reason's Scott Shackford.)

• Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) has won a lawsuit over how much post-election money candidates can raise to pay off personal loans. After personally spending $260,000 on his 2018 reelection campaign, "Cruz challenged a section of election law that says campaigns cannot pay back more than $250,000 in personal loans through post-election donations," notes The Hill. "In a 31-page ruling, a three-judge panel ruled that the repayment cap, instituted in the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, violated Cruz's free speech rights."

• Connecticut has passed a law to end fees for prison communications:

• To-go cocktails can stick around in California:

NEXT: Conservative Attacks on 'Big Tech' Are Turning the Constitution on Its Head

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But many people opposed the policy, arguing that it allowed politicians to spew unfettered “hate speech.”

    Any argument that relies on the concept of hate speech is an automatic winner.

    1. Facebook shouldn’t be deplatforming anyone for something as fuzzy and undefined as “hate speech”.
      Kick people off for hacking, spamming or distributing malware? Okay. Saying mean stuff? Readers can just stop reading. We are entirely capable of managing our own lives.

      1. Perhaps *you* can stop reading and manage your own life, but apparently many Facebookers are addicted and depend on the algorithms for guidance.

        1. Screw those idiots.


              –Some Facebook moderator somewhere

              1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are SFEW much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. So Facebook is announcing it plans to editorialize content even more. This is ridiculous. How much further can they go before they become ‘publishers’? Section 230 doesn’t seem to provide enough obligations on the part of those being shielded by it. It’s laughable to hear these assholes saying ‘community standards’ when there is no polling of the ‘community’ to find out their ‘standards’. They’re completely made up. Trying to hide behind the language of the Supreme Court ruling on pornography to advance their own narrative.

    3. Why do conservatives hate free speech so much?!?!?!

  2. “The First Amendment guards against government-compelled speech, which is exactly what forcing Facebook or any tech entity to host politicians’ posts would be.”

    Wait, Facebook is not the government?

    1. Because Nancy Pelosi once said mean words about Facebook, suddenly, that act alone nationalized Facebook and transformed it into an organ of the state. It’s like a magic incantation!

      Nancy Pelosi: “I don’t like you, Facebook!”
      Nancy Pelosi: “Now we own you! MWAHAHA”

      1. Glad to see the radical statist is misrepresenting what happened and flat out lying in order to give Gov compleate control over corporations.

      2. fat jeff doesn’t seem to get that facebook is doing the bidding of the state. Because fatty is a statist at heart.

        1. Do you brush your teeth? I presume the answer is yes.
          Does the government want you to brush your teeth? Also, yes.
          Does that mean that every time you brush your teeth, you are “doing the bidding of the state”?

          1. Are you called to defend your tooth brushing in front of a congressional committee, and threatened with sanctions?

            1. Well you just smashed and stomped on poor Jeffy’s silly analogy.

          2. We get it jeff, you are perfectly fine with a fascist form of government where government power is used to influence corporations to do their bidding.

    2. Wait, Facebook is not the government?

      Government? no. Fortification ally of the preferred outcome? Indeed, sir.

    3. The sentences says that a law forcing facebook to to host politicians is a first amendment violation because it is compelled speech. This is true because FB is private and not the government.

      1. There’s two options: Host all speech and be shielded from liability or Host some speech and take their chances at being sued for tacit approval of that speech.

  3. Prosecutors were nearly twice as likely to lobby in favor of a bill that created a new crime or otherwise increased the scope of criminal law…

    It’s a business.

    1. I think you mean a racket.

  4. Is this the same Facebook that has now reversed it’s ban on posts relating to evidence that the KungFu Virus possibly originating from the Wuhan lab?

    1. Yeap. And facebook has never reviewed a few of their fact checkers that have been proven to be wrong multiple times. They just take their determination as gospel.

    1. Leftism is cancer, and if leftists aren’t stopped they will destroy everyone’s life

      1. Whimpering, powerless, vanquished, obsolete right-wingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

        Carry on, clingers . . . so long as you comply with the preferences of your betters.

        1. Nardz perfers Russian fascism to American democracy.

          1. Fascism is leftist

            1. You’re delusional buddy

              1. Democrats have been the party of fascism since FDR, if not Wilson.

                1. They literally inspired it

              2. Lord of Strudle is a sarc sock btw.

      2. Everything gives you cancer.There’s no cure. There’s no answer.
        -J Jackson

  5. Under Facebook’s new policies, posts made directly by politicians still won’t be subject to review by the company’s network of independent fact checkers.

    Aren’t “politicians” like “journalists” — these days, *everybody* is one?

    1. So that’s why I hate everyone.

      1. Hmm. If you’re on record as hating *everyone*, wouldn’t you be immune from “hate crime” charges?

        1. Not counting on it. I have been told that treating everyone equally is a form of hate.

          1. Nice catch. One must be equitable.

  6. In a big concession to the GOP, President Joe Biden offered to drop his proposed rollback of the 2017 GOP tax law and impose a 15% minimum tax rate on large firms instead as part of a bipartisan infrastructure package…

    As long as they can all agree on spending money they don’t have.

  7. Finally! Cruella de Brown managed to even mention the CCP lab leak, which is only the biggest story in decades: a lab leak resulting in ~600K American deaths.

    Whether deliberately or by accident, the CCP must pay a severe price for what they have done.

    1. What about all those mean tweets last year. Haven’t they paid enough?

    2. No, Fauci must pay the price. He funded the research. He lied to us about it. He is a monster.

      1. Fauci should be in prison

        1. Funny. Ken Schulz basically believes the same thing, but it takes him about ten bazillion words to express it.

          1. Funny, you hate actual libertarians and complain about well thought out discussions.

            So much easier to just scream Fire Extinguisher and repeat the media narrative I guess.

          2. Funny, White Mike is bitter about Ken’s comprehensive rebuttals of his nonsense. Imagine that.

          3. Oh, is neutral & non-partisan Mikey back?

            What happened Mikey, did Quora reject you? Or was it Quillette?

            Let’s see if you want to take a swing at the question: Did Fauci lie about his role in funding gain of function research? Independent of this, should Fauci be dismissed?

            1. It was Quora. He defended them as truly neutral even after I posted a half dozen studies showing it was nothing more than the same crowd sourced bias that occurs in up/down voting mechanisms across the web, that it is highly biased to the left.

              He (and Jeff) have also claimed Wiki is completely neutral despite even their founder stating it isn’t. Again, linked research showing Wiki editors siding with mob argumentation over actual facts were presented to him, and he ignored it.

              He is just a victim and fan of the long march through institutions to politicize everything. He is happily ignorant.

            2. I think it was Queer Eye.

    3. I refuse to make the 600k dead claim even when it can be used politically to attack censorship.

      The 600k lie is one of the biggest lies in a century. Often end of life people who merely had the disease when they died. No requirement for them to have died of the infection, just having to have died having the infection within the prior 3 months (how long covid tests remain a positive with the PCR threshold used on tests).

      1. JesseAZ, we will never know the final number with certainty. It could just as likely be higher.

        1. I suspect it’s pretty inflated, but you’re right, you can’t really know. I’d like to see an honest accounting of the numbers sometime, but the important thing is that even if it was a million dead, lockdowns, mandates and forced business closures are fucking evil.

        2. Almost every audit of county medical records has brought the numbers down by 30-40%. The latest report showing over estimates of covid death in children showed an overstatement by 40% Last year when Colorado audited their examiners reports, they reduced their deaths by Covid by 30%, and this was just removing obvious non related deaths like traffic accidents.

          The fact is the numbers is going to be lower. When you see a death rate of post 70+ victims who die of covid at being 10% of the population and then compare it to the natural death rate of that same cohort being also 10%, you note that there is not a bump in death rates from the disease itself. People are dying at the same natural rates as pre-covid statistics.

          The latest numbers I was able to find was that the number of excess deaths from 2019 to 2020 was just under 200k. And 2019 was noted as a year in which a low number of deaths occurred. In a given year 3 million people die in the US every year. A swing of 200k is virtually in the noise, being at less than one sigma of the value.

          When people were comparing death rates between the US and countries such as Singapore, they failed to note that Singapore only counted deaths as being from Covid when they died due to respiratory issues. It is believed that under 50% of those who have died “with Covid” died of a respiratory issue.

          So no, I won’t buy that the death count from Covid is much higher.

          1. And a reminder, Covid is dedectable up to 90 days post infection. Which means if someone dies of natural causes in that 70+ cohort, they have a fairly good chance of showing positive on a covid test even if they fully recovered from it. Use the estimation of 2-3 weeks of infection over 90 days of positive test rate as a really rough estimate.

            If the Federal Government would parse data to those with just respiratory issues, I’m sure we would see a much lower number. Oddly the other big death cause associated with Covid infections was Sepsis which early on was likely due to tears in the internal organs from when medical professionals were using invasive procedures later determined to be non effective.

            1. They also juiced the numbers early on by deliberately infecting nursing homes in some states and using ventilators much too liberally, which probably killed quite a few people who would’ve otherwise recovered.

      2. Except for George Floyd, who did have covid, he died for our sins.

      3. Here in the US people didn’t even need a positive test to be a “COVID-19” death. All doctors had to do was put “probable COVID-19” on the death certificate and they could get that 20% bonus from Medicare/Medicaid, no questions asked.

  8. …”60% of U.S. adults favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder, including 27% who strongly favor it.

    Thanks to the rank infallibility of the criminal justice system.

    1. The last time I saw polls from civilized Europe, who we are told we should be more like, majorities favor the death penalty too.

  9. The CT legislature has passed #SB972 to make prison communication FREE

    “Yo, this is M.S. Biggy. I wanna speak with my man Lamont again.”

  10. The media’s lab leak debacle shows why banning “misinformation” is a terrible idea…

    But only that, so any of you questioning the partisans who run our elections systems better keep your traps firmly shut.

  11. 60% of U.S. adults favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder

    How many favor it for people convicted of hate speech?

    1. About 60% of progressives (but few of them are functional adults).

    1. Careful, J. You might get cited for being anti-Asian.

    2. When the Nazis bombed Pearl Harbor?

    3. I was just reading about the Square this morning. I had no idea the kid with the grocery bags was AFTER the massacre. *Respect*

  12. Justice Thomas, dissenting in today’s CFAA case, makes the point that basically everything is a crime now anyway.

    That’s what you get for having a prosecutors’ lobby.

    1. That’s what you get for electing democrats.

    2. “”Justice Thomas, dissenting in today’s CFAA case, makes the point that basically everything is a crime now anyway.”‘

      I wonder how many people will blame the justice system for that opposed to the legislative body that makes the laws?

  13. In a 31-page ruling, a three-judge panel ruled that the repayment cap, instituted in the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, violated Cruz’s free speech rights.

    Then how can any campaign finance restrictions remain?

    1. Campaign finance restrictions only help incumbents and those the two main political properties choose to prop up with their dollars.

  14. Connecticut has passed a law to end fees for prison communications…

    Don’t they know that the mom-and-pop prisons are already operating on thin margins?

    1. They are just shifting the cost of that communication to the worthy and noble taxpayers of the state of Connecticut. Nothing changes except the general citizen will now have to pay for MS13 to communicate to it’s people on the inside instead of the dealers and gangs who make the money from the calls.

      Let them bask in sunshine of their socially just policies to the tune of $4.99 a minute.

  15. Please explain a definition of “hate speech” that does not violate the principle of free speech (as opposed to the Constitutional clause).

    Soave’s piece on the platforms policies for suppressing misinformation have turned them into shills for censoring information the government wishes not to talk about, especially those parts of the government controlled by Democrats.

    1. Please explain a definition of “hate speech” that does not violate the principle of free speech (as opposed to the Constitutional clause).

      I don’t believe there is one. But when it comes to private institutions, the principle of free speech ought to give way to private property rights anyway.

      1. Yes, you keep defending corporate collusion with political entities and the government.

        We understand.

        1. AKA Fascism

      2. Likewise cries to censor hate speech should be widely condemned and mocked even when not being done by government powers.

        Libertarianism is not mockery free outside of government which you seem to claim it is. You constantly take criticism of corporate actions, rush in to defend “muh private companies”, even when nobody is calling for legal action, but merely discussing the libertarian perspective.

        Another reason you aren’t actually a libertarian. you are fine with authoritarianism and power nexus in non government entitites. you don’t speak out for libertarian ideals, you just want to be controlled through collusive means. You’re a fascist.

    2. Easy.

      Delicate, enlightened people can only be free to hear speech if the government guarantees that nothing hateful will be said.

    3. Really simple.
      If it involves at any level the faintest concept of individual freedom, it is hate speech.

  16. CA will now allow to-go cocktails and outdoor dining expansions to stay after we fully reopen on June 15th.

    The recall threat has been great for California liberty.

    1. I didn’t realize SQRLS was a Trump fan!

    2. There’s an interesting contradiction in the story. The poopetrator’s motivation is purportedly that he is “a Trump man” while the pooptims are Biden supporters. But it goes on to say the poopetrator has been pooping in their yard for ten years now.

      1. Weird that White Mike is not condemning this trolling by his good buddy Jeff. Weird indeed.

        1. White Mike is only here to run cover for the DNC, Jeff is here to shill for them. Of course he’s going to be hypocritical when it comes to fat Jeff.

    3. Wow. First this is completely idiotic even for Fat Obese Jeff.

      Second, he has me on mute but feels free to try to attack me.

      Jeff, you are clowning yourself.

    4. Hey Jeff, did you see this NYT article recommending your one friend to stop being friends with you?

      Indeed, depressed friends make it more likely you’ll be depressed, obese friends make it more likely you’ll become obese, and friends who smoke or drink a lot make it more likely you’ll do the same,

      White Mike, be wary or you’ll get obese too.

      1. And catch pedophilia.

        1. I’m convinced he already is that. He is pro kid reassignment surgery as well. There is no way to be for one and against the other. If an 8 year old can consent to life altering surgery, then they can consent to anything.


    So far as I can tell – yes I’m obsessively reading the Fauci emails – there was a 48 period between Feb 25 and 27, 2020, in which Fauci went from calm/rational to crazed/totalitarian. I’ve yet to discover the trigger. NYT editorial policy did the same. Something happened. What?

    1. Intriguing. Please keep digging.

    2. They remembered it was an election year?


      The market faltered and the DNC saw their chance to unseat Trump. After a coordinated effort the dems implemented their full-retard plan to destroy the economy.

    4. He realized he will be to blame for funding the research that caused a pandemic and everyone will find out he is a monster.

      1. I dare you ignorant sons of bitches to Google, “Trump praises China dictator”.

        Here’s a taste:

        Trump congratulates China for 70 years as a murderous dictatorship

        Trump praises Chinese president extending tenure ‘for life’

        15 times Trump praised China as coronavirus was spreading across the globe

        The president has lambasted the WHO for accepting Beijing’s assurances about the outbreak, but he repeated them, as well.

        1. How is that relevant to anything? Trump is hardly consistent in the things he says. Doesn’t everyone know that?

        2. Obama….

          Christmas Ornaments for Mao.


          The president has wistfully been thinking about how easy it would be to be the leader of the People’s Republic of China, the New York Times reports. And one unnamed official told the Times’s reporters that “No one is scrutinizing [Chinese leader] Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”

          Biden just called the Uygher camps in China a cultural norm…

          Then at a press conference…

          President Biden called Chinese President Xi Jinping a “smart, smart guy” during his Thursday press conference

          Need more Stroodle?

          1. Biden just gave a speech at Coast Guard graduation wherein he quoted Mao (without attribution)

  18. “The First Amendment also guards against government-compelled speech, which is exactly what forcing Facebook or any tech entity to host politicians’ posts would be.


    Facebook is facing an antitrust suit from the FTC, now to be directed by a freshly appointed commissioner who authored the House Democrats’ plan to break up Facebook over its tolerance of “misinformation” (among other things). Meanwhile, the Democrats have taken almost complete control of the federal government, and can have a big say in any future interpretations of Facebook’s liability protections.

    Facebook has been willing to do whatever the Democrats say, under those circumstances, revising their ruling on the Wuhan lab leak, etc. when Biden does so, for instance–because the Democrats have Facebook’s balls in a vice.

    Facebook doing the bidding of a one party government under threat of a breakup and the threats of severe restrictions on their ability to make future acquisitions is a terrible example of Facebook exercising their freedom of speech. If Putin were doing this to a Russian media outlet, I wonder if ENB would call this out as forced self-censorship by rank intimidation.

    If the Republicans were forcing Facebook to engage in self-censorship under threat of a break-up, I wonder if we’d read a different story. Under the circumstances of rank intimidation and threat of a break up over tolerating “misinformation”, would it be okay for Democrats to protect speech that Republicans don’t like?

    1. What is your suggested remedy?

      1. Let Facebook either live under the protection that Section 230 provides it by being a host rather than an editor or let them live with the potential liability of the posts they so carefully and judiciously moderate….not some amalgamation of the two that benefits politicians.

        1. You’re dealing with somebody who doesn’t understand that 230 is a trade of liability protection in exchange for expected behaviors. he argues that removal of the protections is government forcing speech. He isn’t intelligent enough to understand your argument.

        2. Section 230 makes no distinction between being a host and being an editor. It gives the website complete freedom of speech to decide what user-generated content it wants to host.

          1. So despite specifying grounds for moderation including “otherwise objectionable” content, 230 was intended as carte blanche publishing choice free of liability?

      2. Replace ENB with an actual libertarian. Or just anyone with something resembling principles.

  19. For faceboom it means that (r) polititions will get less special treatment. They Will still cover the (D) asses


    Ten months later, at the end of a scary article about the history of “gain of function” research and its possible role in the still ongoing Covid pandemic, Nicholson Baker wrote as follows: “This may be the great scientific meta-experiment of the 21st century. Could a world full of scientists do all kinds of reckless recombinant things with viral diseases for many years and successfully avoid a serious outbreak? The hypothesis was that, yes, it was doable. The risk was worth taking. There would be no pandemic.”

    Except there was. If it does indeed turn out that the lab-leak hypothesis is the right explanation for how it began — that the common people of the world have been forced into a real-life lab experiment, at tremendous cost — there is a moral earthquake on the way.

    Because if the hypothesis is right, it will soon start to dawn on people that our mistake was not insufficient reverence for scientists, or inadequate respect for expertise, or not enough censorship on Facebook. It was a failure to think critically about all of the above, to understand that there is no such thing as absolute expertise. Think of all the disasters of recent years: economic neoliberalism, destructive trade policies, the Iraq War, the housing bubble, banks that are “too big to fail,” mortgage-backed securities, the Hillary Clinton campaign of 2016 — all of these disasters brought to you by the total, self-assured unanimity of the highly educated people who are supposed to know what they’re doing, plus the total complacency of the highly educated people who are supposed to be supervising them.

    Then again, maybe I am wrong to roll out all this speculation. Maybe the lab-leak hypothesis will be convincingly disproven. I certainly hope it is.

    But even if it inches closer to being confirmed, we can guess what the next turn of the narrative will be. It was a “perfect storm,” the experts will say. Who coulda known? And besides (they will say), the origins of the pandemic don’t matter any more. Go back to sleep.

    1. Go back to sleep.

      But first, can Tom Phillips add this incident to an updated version of “Humans: A Brief History of How We F*cked It All Up”?

    2. The first rule of expert government is never question expert government.

    3. It’s all fauci’s fault. He will be the fall guy.

      1. the people at fault in china are probably dead already so Fauci is the only one left who hasn’t been punished yet. he will probably qualified imunity


    It is truly disappointing that, even at this late stage in the pandemic, some Americans remain so addicted to racism and xenophobia that they are willing to countenance the theory that COVID-19 was mistakenly leaked from a Chinese research laboratory. To these people, I say this: We see you; we know what you are doing; and it won’t stand.

    Occam’s Razor dictates that there can only be one reason why people who believe that COVID-19 originated in a lab in China keep saying aloud that they believe that COVID-19 originated in a lab in China, and that is to drive anti-Asian hatred on the streets of large cities in the United States. In truth, the “lab-leak theory” — as it is now euphemistically called — is just the latest iteration of an old and ugly stereotype that has haunted America for decades. I remember all too well how the bullies in my kindergarten class used to taunt the AAPI kids. “Hey you,” they would say, “I’ll bet you work on gain-of-function research in an institute of virology and are reckless with your gloves!” It’s been two decades now, but I can still see the agonizing tears this ignorant barb provoked in its targets.

    1. Please tell me that article is sarcastic

      1. Its sarcasm.

        1. Sarcasm is hate speech!

        2. are you just saying its sarcasm to keep us from being worried about the utter stupidity of the those who think that way

        3. nobody @NRO knows sarcasm


    CNN is coming under internal and external criticism over its approach to conflicts of interest for journalists after host Chris Cuomo escaped disciplinary action despite advising his brother, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), on how to handle sexual misconduct allegations.

    Current and former employees have criticized the host of “Cuomo Prime Time” for the transgression, but a retired CNN ethics executive says the lack of clear cut policies are largely to blame.

    “You won’t see any rules that are etched in stone so that a violation could be a firing offense,” said Steve Holmes, who retired from CNN in 2019 after working at the network for more than a decade.

    “And I think you see sort of the results. I mean the Chris Cuomo thing, they can’t say that he’s violated any written policies because there aren’t any, period,” said Holmes, who reported to the executive vice president of news standards and practices when he was at CNN.

    1. Ahhh CNN is pulling a qualified immunity.
      “no one told us it was wrong to abet a murdering rapist governer, it never came up before, but I guess we know it’s wrong now”


    Not sure how to ask someone their pronouns? Or confused about what different gender terms mean?

    We put together a 101 guide to common terms about gender identity, how to talk about gender respectfully — and why it matters [link]

    1. how to talk about gender respectfully

      “Pardon me. I am gender-curious about you — and if that is not your, uh, a preferred pronoun, I apologize — and respectfully request a list of [inaudible] gender or genders. Thank y–Thanks!”

      1. There are so many microaggressions in that statement it would make anyone whose pronouns were that important file a civil rights lawsuit against you.

    2. Kick them between the legs if they keel over they are a dude

    3. Simple really; if someone talks about preferred pronouns, walk away. They cannot add any meaningful content to any conversation. They exist solely to inject totalitarian politics into your life, and survival means leaving the area, because there is a LOT of paperwork involved in “correcting” them.

      1. I’ll call anybody whatever they want, but I’m not going out of my way to strike up a conversation wih xir. It’s honestly because I’m afraid of fucking it up and being accused of hate speech.

    4. I’m not smart enough. If it isn’t a he or a she then it is an it. Demanding more of me is a micro aggresion, discriminatory, and refusing to accommodate my disability.

  24. I know we have a lot of baseball fans out there.

    Any opinions on Arizona Diamondbacks announcer, Bob Brenley’s comment on Marcus Stroman’s head wear?

    It seemed like a joke and didn’t seem racist to me. They are using the term “racist undertone”.

    Is the term du-rag racist? I thought that was it’s correct name. But then again, I’m just an old white dude.

    1. I heard about this.
      It’s ridiculous.
      Fuck Stroman for being a little bitch.

    2. commented “meh” on the yahoo story and received an email that said comment was deleted for controversial content.

      1. So the clear message is to never again have anything to do with “Yahoo!”
        (yahoos as a descriptive term is another story)

        1. thought it was hilarious. I don’t think I’ve commented anywhere but here in maybe ten years and “meh” is now controversial

          Marcus Stroman *wishes* he was Tom Seaver. Seems to me Brenly was saying “think more about your two-seam than your hair, dude”

      2. The only place I’ve ever been banned was on a The Hill article about the Vox Adpocalypse where I ended a comment with “Join Mug Club” in support of free speech/crowder.

        Democrats are pro-censorship these days.

        1. lol I got “banned” 20 years ago from a site called Right Wing News … for talking about baseball … in America wtf

    3. It wasn’t racist. Based on the new victimhood the left pushes, it is since anything someone can figure out how to take offense to is racist. But that’s only valid if you believe in New Speak like Jeff/White Mike do.

    4. Do Rag is being used in crossword puzzles, I’ve seen it in the WSJ and L.A. Times.

    5. On last nights nhl broadcast, studio analyst Anson carter remarked that fellow analyst Kathryn tappen must be rooting for the islanders in OT cuz she was wearing blue. He doubled down on this misogyny later when the lightning went to OT in their game, again in blue uniforms.

      #FireAnsonCarter Haha.

  25. The First Amendment also guards against government-compelled speech, which is exactly what forcing Facebook or any tech entity to host politicians’ posts would be.

    You can’t have it both ways. If you can’t compel speech FB doesn’t want, they you admit what goes out is what they do want, and they are thus legally liable.

    1. This exactly. Either be a host with no liability for the content posted or be a media outlet and take on the liability for what you allow.

      Facebook is free to choose one or the other but not the parts they like from both which discarding what they don’t like.

      1. No.

        How about a system where (within extremely broad limits) all of us, including Facebook, do whatever we want without liability, and people who don’t like someone else’s speech have no legal recourse.

    2. Actually for the vast majority of speech you *should* be able have it both ways. Most of the time you shouldn’t have to worry about the government cracking down on you directly, or about jackpot seekers and people who use the legal process itself as the punishment. We shouldn’t have to pick one or the other.

      It might pain some lawyers to hear this, but a lot of us prefer a system where most things in life have *no role for lawyers at all*.
      Don’t forget that civil lawsuits are in the end a way for private citizens to use the coercive power of the state to get what they want. Sometimes that’s necessary but we should be making it less, not more.

      1. You as a person yes….You as a journalistic entity no. Journalists get all kinds of protections in service of the free press…the price they pay for those protections are libel and slander laws.

  26. I’m sure they’ll have 1st-graders out on the sidewalks with pro-Pal signs:

    “After S.F. teachers union vote to support Israel boycott, Jewish families question if students will feel safe”
    “The San Francisco teachers union turned its attention away from city schools and toward international conflict, calling for a boycott of Israel in a strongly worded statement that has angered some families and outraged Jewish organizations.
    The United Educators of San Francisco passed a resolution “in Solidarity with the Palestinian People,” calling on Israel to end the bombardment of Gaza, and urging President Biden to stop providing aid to Israel….”

    1. As everyone knows, Jews like money. And money is evil. Therefore, Jews are evil. (from the early reader version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, now part of the SFCSD curriculum)

      1. Not to be out-done, the SF school board decided it was of major importance to re-name some 40 schools, and then the VP(?) of the board whined on twitter that the Asian kids were taking all those A-grades and not leaving any for black and brown kids.
        Seems it would be better to put the kids in charge.

        1. Yea grades are like money there are only so many A’s to go around

        2. Can I suggest a few new names/mascots for sf public schools?
          Ibrim x kendi public school home of the hook noses
          Obama public school home of the kikes
          Adolf elementary home of the shylarks

          1. Sevo HS, home of the fighting honkies

            1. That’s racist


    Actually the worst example was when public health academics decided to say en masse that gathering in groups last June was okay if it was done for the right political purposes, because pursuing a liberal policy agenda *is* public health.


    Violent protesting and looting by BLM rioters broke out overnight in Minneapolis after the purported law enforcement-involved shooting of an armed criminal who happened to be black.

    1. We must allow minority criminals to shoot their way out of police custody without any push back from officers.

      1. I know right? This has gone too far. I’ve had it. I don’t know about you, but I volunteer to be publicly executed by a federal officer. This is my sacrifice. I will transform myself into a minority by committing a crime if that’s what it takes.

        If my bloodied remains give just one sheriff a sense of fleeting catharsis, it was worth it. If I can boost morale for a single ICE agent, then fire up the cameras and let em give me what I deserve!

        Time to take off the kid’s gloves and neutralize me in the name of law and order! Let the adrenaline flow like heroin through the veins of a minority in withdrawal!


    Whenever someone tries to tell you science isn’t political — this is the only response you need…The scientific community expressly ignored and became antagonistic to investigating a possible lab leak because a politician they hated suggested it might have happened.

    1. So, one quote from one guy in one Vanity Fair article (which you accept credulously of course) means that all of science is now untrustworthy? This is ridiculous.

      1. and it only took one anonymous quote by someone who was never in the room to try to impeach Trump

      2. It’s like Jeff somehow forgets that the last four years of news has been stories based on single anonymous quotes… and that he was the one pushing them here.

        1. Jeff is also blindingly unaware of the whole replication crisis in science. Look at the “science” paper he was trying to push yesterday as an example of how ignorant he is.

      3. Who said it means all of science is not trustworthy? All I see is saying that sometimes science (or more correctly, I’d say, scientists) is politicized. Which is obviously true.
        And people should realize that not all science is trustworthy, particularly if talking about recently published papers. There is tons of stuff that is not reproducible or just plain wrong.

        1. James Lyndsay and co.’s work of absolutely shitting on academia with their many peer-reviewed, published, satire filled parody papers should be plenty of proof that “accepted science” and those reviewing said science are at the very least subject to some level of personal/political bias. This obviously differs depending on the field. Definitely more of it in gender analysis studies than organic chem.

          COVID never had a chance. The level of tribalism was insurmountable

    2. The book “free radicals” is an interesting science/history book about the crazy crap scientists pull on each other, including drugging, blackmail, ip theft, extortion etc. One of the parts of the book that’s most interesting is the marketing push that happened in the 30s and 40s to present scientists as emotionless robots who are compleatly objective. So if you have the view of the scientist as a boringly objective person who only seeks the truth you fell for a marketing campaign.
      You probably also believe that coke a cola makes people like you more, Pepsi means your young, and that guniess is good for you… Okay that last one is true, but you get the point


    Facebook is now attaching a “Fact-Check” to any mention of #FauciEmails

  31. Vac-passports required:

    “California votes to continue requiring masks at work if anyone is unvaccinated”
    “If anyone in a workplace is unvaccinated, all colleagues must wear masks when in the same room, according to a new California workplace standard passed Thursday. But the standard allows workers to ditch masks when everyone in a room is vaccinated.
    [and for a comedic break]
    The board said it considers the measure temporary and will act quickly to craft a replacement…..
    [Haa, haa, snirkle, giggle…]

    1. Absolutely no logic involved.

      1. Logic is racist!

  32. are explicitly arguing against the First Amendment

    Bullshit. Compelled speech is only compelled if the platform itself is in the business of generating speech.

    1. Disagree. Facebook’s business is to put up a website that attracts millions of users every day, so that Facebook can sell advertisements. Facebook pays for server farms, bandwidth, and an expensive staff of professionals.

      Ultimately, Facebook’s interest is to publish speech that draws “eyeballs” and earns them advertising bucks. Any government action that forces them to publish content that works against that goal is compelling them to host and publish speech that they do not want to host and publish. That is compulsion.

      1. I have no problem with that premise. But that makes them in the editorial content business. And that then ties back to 230.

        So either act like a platform or lose the 230 liability shield.

        Again, it’s not compelled speech if its a platform and not a content curator.

        1. This.

          The government is actually doing more damage to free speech by wanting to break up the platforms or eliminate Section 230. Facebook is making a choice to moderate content and come out from under the protection of Section 230. All it will take is one judge to rule that Facebook can’t claim that protection when they are actively moderating content and Facebook will have to make the choice on which side of that divide it wants to operate in. until then, Facebook will cherry pick the parts of law it wants to follow and those it doesn’t.

          1. Section 230 does not in any way say that a website cannot moderate content.

            1. 230 is an exchange of liability protection for certain agreed to behaviors dummy.

            2. It says that if they make editorial decisions, which facebook says they do, then they can be held liable for the content they allow, same as newspapers/magazines etc. Seeing as they make editorial decisions while letting people like maxiene Watters post that people should riot makes them directly complicit in aiding the rioting

        2. Section 230 makes not “platform” distinction. That is widely spread misinformation about 230.

          1. Yeah man go Mike go! SPEAK those truths!

            I wish the pea-brains would actually STUDY UP on Section 230!


            I’ve seen many-many conservaturd posters here lusting after punishing Facebook (for example) for Facebook having “published” a defamatory post (written by a user, not Facebook, of course). Classic “Punish Party A for the Deeds of Party B, and call it justice”.

            Conservaturds lost in the recent POTUS elections, so let’s go take it out on Facebook!

            My boyfriend treats me badly, but I can’t bitch-slap him, ’cause his dick is bigger than mine, he might beat me up some more, so I’ll go beat the dog or the little kid(s) some more!

            Most of us can see that this is a power-pig, punk thing to do, in domestic relations. Why can’t more of us see that it is ALWAYS wrong to “Punish Party A for the Deeds of Party B”? Any answers from ye power-pig punks?

      2. Facebook is almost exclusively censoring political speech that reflects poorly on elected Democratic party officials. Don’t pretend to us that it benefits Facebook or its advertisers to forbid people from talking about issues that reflect poorly on the DNC.

        This is government censorship of citizens evading the First Amendment through the use of corporatist puppets.

        1. MammaBahnFuhrer is an Expert Christian Theologian, as we know from her past post(s). Also an expert in Christian Justification for Identity Theft.

          “You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife; or his man-servant, or his maid-servant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbour’s.”

          No mention made of your neighbor’s web site! So MammaBahnFuhrer the Expert Christian Theologian is all on board with us coveting, and then TAKING OVER your neighbor’s web site! Wow, cars and motorboats not mentioned either!!! Let’s PARTY with the property of others!!!

          1. Now, what we need is someone who speaks Idiot to translate this mass of gibberish for us.

            1. Jeff and White Mike are both fluent.

            2. Translation for morons: MammaBahnFuhrer is a Marxist who believes that if Government Almighty blesses it, it is totally moral and ethical to put Her Filthy Mitts all over the property of others!

              1. That is almost the exact opposite of what he said.

                1. Sarcasmic doesn’t care.

                2. MammaBahnFuhrer: “This is government censorship of citizens evading the First Amendment through the use of corporatist puppets.”

                  Standard conservaturd Marxist argument, Big Lie told over and over and over again: “Facebook de facto acts as a branch of Government Almighty! Facebook ***IS*** a branch of Government Almighty! So Government Almighty owns Facebook, and should micro-manage the snot out of it, per the wishes of MammaBahnFuhrer!

                  MammaBahnFuhrer and like-minded tyrant wannabes imagine themselves as pussy-grabbers, freely grabbing Facebook’s pussy exactly as they please! And the “enemy” liberals will NEVER figure out how to pussy-grab them right back! They’ve not even noticed that Der TrumpfenFuhrer, Pussy Grabber in Chief, has LOST, and Der BidenFuhrer is now Hair Sniffer in Chief! And they STILL think they’ll get things THEIR way, by growing Government Almighty some more! Right-wing Marxists describes them very accurately!

                  1. Yeah, sorry…. I’m still not getting it. You’d think Google Translate would have something, but no.

                    1. Spoiled brats don’t always get their way. Spoiled brats do NOT own toys that belong to OTHER children!

                      HOW simple does it need to be for you, spoiled brat?

      3. That is their business, but not their sole motivation mikey. Why are you so naive?


    BREAKING: my months-long @VanityFair investigation on #COVID19 origins is live. Interviews w/ over 40 people, review of hundreds of pgs. of U.S. gov’t docs. incl. internal memos, meeting minutes, email correspondence, found….… /1
    Conflicts of interest, in part from large US gov’t grants supporting controversial virology research, known as “gain-of-function,” hampered U.S. gov’t investigation into #COVID19 origins, and legit. questions on #LabLeak hypothesis, at every step. /2
    In a 12/9/20 @StateDept meeting, officials say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome att’n to U.S. gov’t funding of it. /3
    In internal memo, Thomas DiNanno, then acting ass’t secretary of @StateDept Arms Control, Verification, Compliance bureau documented his team was “warned…“not to pursue an investigation into the origin of COVID-19” because it would “‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.” /4
    Four former State Dep’t officials told @VanityFair they were repeatedly advised not to open a “Pandora’s box.” DiNanno said: “smelled like a cover-up, and I wasn’t going to be part of it.” /5
    How much U.S. taxpayer $$ went to Wuhan Institute of Virology? On her CV, a lead researcher Shi Zhengli listed U.S. gov’t support of more than $1.2 million over 5 years: $665,000 from @NIH; $559,500 from @USAID. /6
    Former @CDCgov director @redfield_dr got death threats from fellow scientists after telling CNN he believed #COVID19 had lab origin. “I was threatened and ostracized because I proposed another hypothesis,” Redfield told @VanityFair. /7

    1. Nothing to see here, folks; just move along. Go check out what Harry and Meghan Windsor are up to, or why Kate Winslet is done with nude scenes – you know, important stuff.

      1. UFO’s!


    The BLM protest in Minneapolis devolved into looting overnight. A large group smashed their way into the @TMobile store. Exceptional video by @RebsBrannon: [video]

    1. Duh, how can black lives matter if Shoshanna can’t tweet from the next mostly peaceful protest?

    2. Mostly peaceful shopping.


    My latest on J6.

    Took a dive into “conspiracy” case against Oath Keepers—now 16 defendants with 13 federal counts.

    But charges, evidence against the far-right “militia” group are dubious at best.

    What “militia” group doesn’t bring weapons on a mission? [Link]

    “Part of their grand conspiracy…was donning clothes with the Oath Keepers insignia for the January 6 operation. Prosecutors also made a point of detailing how…a few Oath Keepers discussed whether they should wear khaki pants or jeans.”

    They were inside for 20 minutes.


    I’ve heard from doctors who’ve been reported to their departments for criticizing residents for being late. (It was seen by their trainees as an act of racism.) I’ve heard from doctors who’ve stopped giving trainees honest feedback for fear of retaliation. I’ve spoken to those who have seen clinicians and residents refuse to treat patients based on their race or their perceived conservative politics.

    Some of these doctors say that there is a “purge” underway in the world of American medicine: question the current orthodoxy and you will be pushed out. They are so worried about the dangers of speaking out about their concerns that they will not let me identify them except by the region of the country where they work.

    “People are afraid to speak honestly,” said a doctor who immigrated to the U.S. from the Soviet Union. “It’s like back to the USSR, where you could only speak to the ones you trust.” If the authorities found out, you could lose your job, your status, you could go to jail or worse. The fear here is not dissimilar.

    1. Imposing any performance standards on humans is unfair and therefore racist. How can oppressed people ever be free if they have to work for a living and show up on time and do things properly?

    2. Sorry, Nardz beat you to this story earlier today.

      This is just one giant argument by anecdote. A few people sit around bitching on a Zoom call about the state of medicine nowadays and suddenly that becomes “medicine is facing an existential threat!!!”

      1. Oh look, reductio ad absurdum. Jeffy sure loves himself a fallacious argument.

        1. Jeff isn’t an intelligent person at all. He is fine with anecdotes that project the leftist narrative. yet in this case there are multiple people on record stating the same issue. He is blind to reality because he chooses the narrative.

    3. Because insisting that non-white people can’t be expected to be on time is totally not-racist.

  37. Greenwald:

    Why was the U.S. government creating exotic and extraordinarily deadly infectious bacterial strains and viruses that, even in small quantities, could kill large numbers of people? The official position of the U.S. Government is that it does not engage in offensive bioweapons research: meaning research designed to create weaponized viruses as weapons of war. The U.S. has signed treaties barring such research. But in the wake of the anthrax attacks — especially once the FBI’s own theory was that the anthrax was sent by a U.S. Army scientist from his stash at Fort Detrick — U.S. officials were forced to acknowledge that they do engage in defensive bioweapons research: meaning research designed to allow the development of vaccines and other defenses in the event that another country unleashes a biological attack.
    But ultimately, that distinction barely matters. For both offensive and defensive bioweapons research, scientists must create, cultivate, manipulate and store non-natural viruses in their labs, whether to study them for weaponization or for vaccines. A fascinating-in-retrospect New Yorker article from March, 2002, featured the suspicions of molecular biologist Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, who had “strongly implied that the F.B.I. was moving much more slowly in its anthrax investigation than it had any reason to.” Like The New York Times, the magazine (without naming him) detailed her speculation that Dr. Hatfill was the perpetrator (though her theory about his motive — that he wanted to scare people about anthrax in order to increase funding for research — was virtually identical to the FBI’s ultimate accusations about Dr. Ivins’ motives).
    But the key point that is particularly relevant now is what all of this said about the kind of very dangerous research the U.S. Government, along with other large governments, conducts in bioweapons research labs. Namely, they manufacture and store extremely lethal biological agents that, if they escape from the lab either deliberately or inadvertently, can jeopardize the human species.

    1. We do not know for sure if the COVID-19 virus escaped from the Wuhan lab, another lab, or jumped from animals to humans. But what we do know for certain — from the anthrax investigation — is that governments most definitely conduct the sort of research that could produce novel coronaviruses. Dr. Rosenberg, the subject of the 2002 New Yorker article, was suggesting that the F.B.I. was purposely impeding its own investigation because they knew that the anthrax actually came from the U.S. government’s own lab and wanted to prevent exposure of the real bio-research that is done there. We should again ponder why the pervasive mainstream doubts about the F.B.I.’s case against Ivins have been memory-holed. We should also reflect on what we learned about government research into highly lethal viruses from that still-strange episode.

    2. It looks like that conspiracy guy ranting to me in the line-up for Nando’s was right all along.

    3. Wasn’t the Gov covering up offensive bio weapons research the plot of outbreak?

      1. And The Stand.

  38. “muh private Facebook company”

    The libertarian viewpoint would be that platform speech censorship is just as damaging to society, if not more so, than government censorship. Libertarianism is a social philosophy applicable to society as a whole, not just for government operating policies.
    However, the use of government force in compelling these entities to stop censoring individuals, is also wrong.

    Also, if ENB were remotely libertarian she would also acknowledge that these companies are censoring people for the sole benefit of elected officials of a certain political party. The censorship does not benefit the companies themselves. It is political censorship, by government, through the backdoor in order to skirt the first amendment. THIS can, and must be stopped according to libertarian principles.

    1. When the feds call CEOs in front of congress and threaten legal action if they do not comply, the distinction of government vs private control of speech is meaningless.

      1. My recollection is hazy, but didn’t a number of dudes in Europe do something like this almost a hundred years ago?

    2. The libertarian viewpoint would be that platform speech censorship is just as damaging to society, if not more so, than government censorship. Libertarianism is a social philosophy applicable to society as a whole, not just for government operating policies.

      Oooohhh. So you are going to go the “conscious capitalism” route and say that companies have an obligation to be socially conscious and serve a higher social good. Is that so. Somehow I don’t think this is a consistent position of yours, but we’ll see.

      1. Nope. That’s not what I said at all.
        Nice try though.

  39. That should go without saying…yet conservatives these days keep arguing that tech platforms should be forced to host all accounts and speech from political figures.

    Except the vast majority of the arguments is the companies should lose their liability protections, not be forced to host speech. Likewise these companies themselves have argued in court that user generated content is not their speech, they use this argument often in defamation cases. So by their own omission, speech of others is not their speech.

    It is weird watching Reason wanting companies to have it both ways.

    Also reason continues to ignore the whole contract issues of vague ToS clauses and arbitrary enforcement that would open up a company in any other industry up to lawsuits.

    1. Exactly. I’ve said it before. These woke companies drove a Mack truck through “otherwise objectionable” and have left the only options on the table to either remove that phrase from 230 or completely rewrite/rearchitect 230.

  40. a 15% minimum tax rate on large firms instead as part of a bipartisan infrastructure package,” reports Business Insider:

    15% of what? Profits, revenue, what?

    If it is only profits, what this does is basically end carry forward losses. So if you take 10 years to become profitable, oh well, it all comes out the day you make a penny.

    1. Easy, 15% of everything.

    2. Easy, take whatever their “fair share” is.

  41. Bari Weiss:

    A few weeks ago, someone sent me a recording of a talk called “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind.” It was delivered at the Yale School of Medicine’s Child Study Center by a New York-based psychiatrist as part of Grand Rounds, an ongoing program in which clinicians and others in the field lecture students and faculty.
    When I listened to the talk I considered the fact that it might be some sort of elaborate prank. But looking at the doctor’s social media, it seems completely genuine.
    Here are some of the quotes from the lecture:
    • This is the cost of talking to white people at all. The cost of your own life, as they suck you dry. There are no good apples out there. White people make my blood boil. (Time stamp: 6:45)
    • I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a fucking favor. (Time stamp: 7:17)

    1. Totally not racist in any way.

    2. Where are those red flag laws when you need them?

  42. >>But many people opposed the policy, arguing that it allowed politicians to spew unfettered “hate speech.”

    ya, but people who think hate speech is a thing are idiots.

  43. Oh look, audit-o-rama is sweeping the nation!

    Again, audits are fine if they are a routine thing, like annual financial audits.
    Audits are fine if they are going to be examining some narrowly defined question.
    Audits are NOT fine if they are just a fishing expedition.
    Audits are NOT fine if they are intended to prove a negative (“prove the election wasn’t stolen!”) , or chase some wild conspiracy theory.
    And audits are absolutely not fine if they are one-sided and completely run by partisans.
    Jesse and his pals in Arizona are actually making fraud EASIER to get away with, by turning the audit into a circus. Even if they do find fraud, who outside of the right-wing bubble is going to believe it?

    1. “Audits are NOT fine if they are just a fishing expedition

      Sure they are. In fact that’s what for instance, annual audits, are supposed to do.

      You’re so marvelously cocksure in your ignorance.

      1. As a former internal auditor, I can attest to this. In fact, if we uncovered no violation of the rules then we hadn’t done our job thoroughly.

      2. They have to be defined in scope. Otherwise it is a wild goose chase.

        1. Which is a far cry from your claims in the post above. But no, you’re wrong again. Audits should be as broad as practical.

        2. The scope of the Maricopa Audit was put publicly on the web by Cyber Ninjas you fat dolt.

    2. This little rant of yours demonstrates you haven’t a fucking clue what an audit’s purpose is.

      Read this and educate your ignorant ass:

      Every election, from local to federal should be subject to an audit.

      1. If Arizona or any other state wants to define rules for an audit, according to a pre-established and precisely defined procedure, agreed to by all parties, to be performed on a routine basis, then that is totally fine. I completely agree with that.

        What I don’t agree with is a one-sided “audit” where the rules are made up on the spot, to go on a wild goose chase and intending to prove a negative. That is the fiasco in Arizona.

        1. You really don’t get audit’s purposes, and your labels of “wild goose chase” and “prove a negative” are just cheap and obvious attempts to discredit bog-standard audit procedures.

          I think you’re actually terrified of what these audits are going to discover, aren’t you.

          1. To jeff, a recount is the only valid audit because it doesn’t actually investigate fraud, just counting. He doesn’t care about fraudulent ballots, in fact he seemingly supports fraudulent elections.

    3. LOL. Jeff has been called on his anti-audit behavior so much he has now added a catch all that he will never agree to. he will claim all audits are fishing expeditions.

      See the Maricopa Audit. Cyber Ninjas clearly posted what their methods and plans were, allowed it for review, had the entire audit be live streamed, and Jeff still claims it is a fishing expedition.

      Jeff, you’re an idiot. You lie constantly. When called on your BS you try to hedge your claims under vague clauses to pretend your claims aren’t BS, but those vague clauses are just as idiotic as your original claims.

  44. Senile old man dementia patient president cornpop doesn’t have the votes in Congress, which is why he’s backpedaling. It’s a sign that they’ve lost and they know it. Of course there’s always the RINOs in Congress who will try and “negotiate” some deal for no reason thus increasing taxes, but that’s an opportunity to identify them and remove them in ’22.

  45. Its been pointed out (here?) that Dan Rather would have gotten away with the forged National Guard docs against W if the current social media regime had been in place. Evidence against Rather would have been banned as ‘disinformation’.

    1. “font didn’t exist in 1973”

      your comment has been deleted for controversial comment.

  46. (I can get behind that argument.)

    I thought sex workers were the only things we were supposed to get behind.

    Facebook also plans to shed light on the secretive system of strikes it gives accounts for breaking its content rules, according to two people familiar with the changes. That will include letting users know when they’ve received a strike for violating its rules that could lead to suspension.

    Don’t be fooled into thinking this will lead to the “more transparency” facebook claims. It will not. At all. They already let users know when their rules have been violated. They just don’t tell the user what particular comment violated what rule. It’s the Kafkaesque routine of telling people they violated the rules, then merely point them to the byzantine terms of service when the content creator asks which specific rule, and which specific comment or post violated said rule.

    Under Facebook’s new policies, posts made directly by politicians still won’t be subject to review by the company’s network of independent fact checkers. But they will for the first time be opened up to enforcement against more rules for things like bullying that Facebook’s moderators apply to other users.


    Since then, the company has maintained that it rarely used the exception and has only acknowledged using it six times. Those incidents were all outside the United States, and include political speech in Hungary, Vietnam and Italy.”

    This is much simpler than we’re making it. Rule #1, Facebook is full of shit. There are no other rules.

  47. it’s not clear to me how much the upcoming policy shift—which has yet to be publicly disclosed by Facebook—really changes.

    It changes nothing because the issue is the politicized process they use to determine supposed misinformation and hate speech.

  48. AOC, girl genius, sez
    “If we want to reduce violent crime, if we want to reduce the number of people in our jails, the answer is to stop building more of them,”

  49. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…Visit Here

  50. Facebook on Friday announced a major reversal to its content moderation policies, saying politicians’ posts will no longer be exempt from the company’s rules that prevent users from engaging in harmful speech.
    The company also said Friday that former President Donald Trump will remain suspended from the platform for two years, effective from the initial Jan. 7 suspension date.
    Specifically, Facebook said that it will no longer treat content that is posted by politicians as inherently of public interest or newsworthy. This means such posts will be moderated like that of any other user.

Please to post comments