theguardian--2020-07-26--What is happening in Portland and what does Trump hope to gain?

Confrontations between protesters and federal agents in Portland , Oregon , have become a national flashpoint as Donald Trump ’ s law-and-order-focused re-election campaign has run up against protests over police brutality and systemic racism .
Eager for continued confrontation , the president has now turned his attention to other cities .
Here ’ s an updated explanation of what ’ s going on and why : What is happening in Portland ?
Since the killing of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis on 25 May , protesters have been out on the streets every night in the largest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive politics but with a dark history of police violence towards African Americans .
Seeking to focus his re-election campaign on law and order – and , many would argue , to exploit racial tension and division – Trump has sent in officers from agencies under the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) , to reinforce and in some cases replace local police .
The White House has repeated the justification that the agents have been sent to protect federal property .
What does Trump hope to gain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indulging in “ performative authoritarianism ” and “ made-for-TV fascism ” , but as he trails Joe Biden in national and battleground state polls he is hoping to rev up his base .
Trump has painted the protests as fueled by “ anarchists ” whom Democrats are afraid to take on .
Agents are already in Kansas City and will be sent to Chicago , where gun violence has risen sharply , and Albuquerque , New Mexico .
Other cities could follow .
As in Portland , the Chicago move sparked confrontation with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ targeting other cities ?
On Wednesday , Trump announced a “ surge ” of federal officers to Chicago ostensibly to combat gun crime and other violence .
In response the mayors of Chicago , Los Angeles , Atlanta and 11 other cities wrote to the administration , accusing the president of an abuse of power and alleging that “ federal law enforcement is being deployed for political purposes ” .
“ Unilaterally deploying these paramilitary-type forces into our cities is wholly inconsistent with our system of democracy and our most basic values , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agents doing ?
Many have operated without identification and in camouflage gear , using tactics denied to police by the courts : firing teargas or , according to witness accounts provided to the Guardian , seizing protesters and holding them without due process .
Like police officers , agents have been accused of using undue violence .
According to Trump press secretary Kayleigh McEnany , the White House “ always encourage [ s ] the appropriate use of force ” .
The mayors who wrote to Trump also said they were disturbed at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , calling their failure to wear proper identification and the snatching of protesters “ chilling ” .
“ These are tactics we expect from an authoritarian regime – not our democracy , ” the letter said .
The demonstrations evolve each night .
Large protests that begin around dusk , which have been swelling by the day , are invariably peaceful and generally keep the focus on the Black Lives Matter cause .
They are held in front of the county Justice Center and jail , on the block next to the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After that , many protesters go home while others move across to the courthouse guarded by federal paramilitaries .
Some have attempted to break boarding on the courthouse windows , barricaded the entrance and lit fires under the building ’ s portico .
Demonstrators repeatedly tore down fencing erected around the courthouse until authorities put up a steel barricade backed by concrete blocks .
Protesters ’ attempts to move this barrier , along with the setting of small fires and the shooting of fireworks , usually prompt a response from the federal agents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the DHS security police division , claim to have had lasers shone in their eyes .
A small hard core of protesters , kitted out in helmets and gas masks , turns out each night looking for a fight and have been criticised by some black leaders for distracting from the Black Lives Matter cause .
However , the federal intervention has boosted support for the protests , which had been dwindling .
Crowds are now swelling into the thousands each evening .
The action is confined to one area of downtown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents in Portland , life goes on as usual – though under pandemic restrictions .
What do Trump ’ s opponents say ?
Portland ’ s mayor , Ted Wheeler , has said the agents are making the situation worse .
After he was caught up in a teargassing , he said its use was unjustified and unprovoked .
Critics pointed out that Portland police , over whom Wheeler has authority , have regularly used teargas against Black Lives Matter protesters .
A US senator from Oregon , Jeff Merkley , described the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all-out assault in military-style fashion ” , while Governor Kate Brown filed the first of a barrage of lawsuits .
Oregon ’ s attorney general , state lawmakers , social justice groups and others have filed legal actions over the federal agents ’ failure to wear identifying insignia and detention without proper procedure or charge .
What does this mean for America ?
Experts have said Trump risks precipitating a constitutional crisis by circumventing state and city governments and denying basic rights of assembly , free speech and lawful arrest .
Ron Wyden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said the wider deployment of federal agents meant the US is “ staring down the barrel of martial law ” as it approaches a presidential election .
“ The violent tactics deployed by Donald Trump and his paramilitary forces against peaceful protesters are those of a fascist regime , not a democratic nation , ” Wyden said in a statement .
Will it work for Trump ?
Recent polling suggests not , putting Biden as the candidate Americans trust more to handle law and order .
But it ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protesters show no sign of backing down .
Nor does Trump .

Chris McGreal in Portland and Martin Pengelly in New York

Confrontations between protesters and federal agents in Portland, Oregon, have become a national flashpoint as Donald Trump’s law-and-order-focused re-election campaign has run up against protests over police brutality and systemic racism. Eager for continued confrontation, the president has now turned his attention to other cities.
Here’s an updated explanation of what’s going on and why:
What is happening in Portland?
Since the killing of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis on 25 May, protesters have been out on the streets every night in the largest city in Oregon, a bastion of progressive politics but with a dark history of police violence towards African Americans.
Why are federal agents involved?
Seeking to focus his re-election campaign on law and order – and, many would argue, to exploit racial tension and division – Trump has sent in officers from agencies under the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to reinforce and in some cases replace local police. The White House has repeated the justification that the agents have been sent to protect federal property.
What does Trump hope to gain?
The president has been accused of indulging in “performative authoritarianism” and “made-for-TV fascism”, but as he trails Joe Biden in national and battleground state polls he is hoping to rev up his base. Trump has painted the protests as fueled by “anarchists” whom Democrats are afraid to take on. Agents are already in Kansas City and will be sent to Chicago, where gun violence has risen sharply , and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Other cities could follow. As in Portland, the Chicago move sparked confrontation with a Democratic mayor.
01:57 Portland protests: why Trump has sent in federal agents – video report
Why is Trump targeting other cities?
On Wednesday, Trump announced a “surge” of federal officers to Chicago ostensibly to combat gun crime and other violence. In response the mayors of Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta and 11 other cities wrote to the administration, accusing the president of an abuse of power and alleging that “federal law enforcement is being deployed for political purposes”.
“Unilaterally deploying these paramilitary-type forces into our cities is wholly inconsistent with our system of democracy and our most basic values,” they wrote.
What are the agents doing?
Many have operated without identification and in camouflage gear, using tactics denied to police by the courts: firing teargas or, according to witness accounts provided to the Guardian, seizing protesters and holding them without due process. Like police officers, agents have been accused of using undue violence. According to Trump press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, the White House “always encourage[s] the appropriate use of force”.
The mayors who wrote to Trump also said they were disturbed at the actions of federal agents in Portland, calling their failure to wear proper identification and the snatching of protesters “chilling”.
“These are tactics we expect from an authoritarian regime – not our democracy,” the letter said.
Are protesters violent?
The demonstrations evolve each night. Large protests that begin around dusk, which have been swelling by the day, are invariably peaceful and generally keep the focus on the Black Lives Matter cause. They are held in front of the county Justice Center and jail, on the block next to the federal courthouse. Authorities have not interfered.
After that, many protesters go home while others move across to the courthouse guarded by federal paramilitaries. Some have attempted to break boarding on the courthouse windows, barricaded the entrance and lit fires under the building’s portico. Demonstrators repeatedly tore down fencing erected around the courthouse until authorities put up a steel barricade backed by concrete blocks. Protesters’ attempts to move this barrier, along with the setting of small fires and the shooting of fireworks, usually prompt a response from the federal agents.
Agents from the Federal Protective Service, the DHS security police division, claim to have had lasers shone in their eyes.
Matthew Pine, 20, of Portland, raises his fist as protesters listen to speakers. Photograph: Daniel Kim/ZUMA Wire/REX/Shutterstock
A small hard core of protesters, kitted out in helmets and gas masks, turns out each night looking for a fight and have been criticised by some black leaders for distracting from the Black Lives Matter cause. However, the federal intervention has boosted support for the protests, which had been dwindling. Crowds are now swelling into the thousands each evening.
The action is confined to one area of downtown. Local media report that for most residents in Portland, life goes on as usual – though under pandemic restrictions.
What do Trump’s opponents say?
Portland’s mayor, Ted Wheeler, has said the agents are making the situation worse. After he was caught up in a teargassing, he said its use was unjustified and unprovoked. Critics pointed out that Portland police, over whom Wheeler has authority, have regularly used teargas against Black Lives Matter protesters.
A US senator from Oregon, Jeff Merkley, described the use of federal paramilitaries as “an all-out assault in military-style fashion”, while Governor Kate Brown filed the first of a barrage of lawsuits. Oregon’s attorney general, state lawmakers, social justice groups and others have filed legal actions over the federal agents’ failure to wear identifying insignia and detention without proper procedure or charge.
What does this mean for America?
Experts have said Trump risks precipitating a constitutional crisis by circumventing state and city governments and denying basic rights of assembly, free speech and lawful arrest.
Ron Wyden, the other US senator from Oregon, said the wider deployment of federal agents meant the US is “staring down the barrel of martial law” as it approaches a presidential election.
“The violent tactics deployed by Donald Trump and his paramilitary forces against peaceful protesters are those of a fascist regime, not a democratic nation,” Wyden said in a statement.
Will it work for Trump?
Recent polling suggests not, putting Biden as the candidate Americans trust more to handle law and order. But it’s going to be a long, hot summer. Protesters show no sign of backing down. Nor does Trump.


theguardian--2020-07-26--Biden's path to the White House could hit a dead end on Facebook

Way back in June , I wrote a column under the headline : “ One man stands between Joe Biden and the US presidency – Mark Zuckerberg ” .
Trump , flailing against the pandemic at the time , was trailing Biden in the polls , just as at the same point in 2016 he had been trailing Hillary Clinton .
And yet we know what happened that November : Trump ’ s team made inspired use of Facebook ’ s targeting engine to suppress Democratic turnout in key states – and it worked .
What is perhaps less well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embed ” employees for free in the campaign offices of both candidates to help them use the platform effectively .
Clinton ’ s campaign refused the offer .
Trump ’ s crowd accepted , and Facebook employees helped his campaign craft the messages that may have clinched the election .
So here we are in 2020 , 100 days from the presidential election .
Trump is still trailing Biden .
But his base support has remained solid .
So the point I made in June still stands : if he is to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his only hope – which is why his campaign is betting the ranch on it .
And if Facebook were suddenly to decide that it would not allow its platform to be used by either campaign in the period from now until 3 November , Trump would be a one-term president , free to spend even more time with his golf buggy – and perhaps his lawyers .
For Facebook read Zuckerberg , for Facebook is not just a corporate extension of its founder ’ s personality , but his personal plaything .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ other tech founder who has retained such an iron grip on his creation through his ownership of a special class of shares , which give him total control .
The passage in the company ’ s SEC filing detailing this makes for surreal reading .
It says that Zuckerberg “ has the ability to control the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval , including the election of directors and any merger , consolidation , or sale of all or substantially all of our assets .
This concentrated control could delay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of control , merger , consolidation , or sale of all or substantially all of our assets that our other stockholders support , or conversely this concentrated control could result in the consummation of such a transaction that our other stockholders do not support.
” Such a concentration of power in the hands of a single individual would be a concern in any enterprise , but in a global company that effectively controls and mediates much of the world ’ s public sphere it is distinctly creepy .
This impression is reinforced vividly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appearance , especially when he has to wear a suit – as he did when appearing before US Congress in April 2018 .
On such occasions he can look like a tailor ’ s dummy , a man whose sense of humour has been surgically removed at birth .
This caricature , wrote Evan Osnos in an absorbing New Yorker profile , is that of an automaton with little regard for the human dimensions of his work .
“ The truth is something else : he decided long ago that no historical change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] Augustus , he is at peace with his trade-offs .
Between speech and truth , he chose speech .
Between speed and perfection , he chose speed .
Between scale and safety , he chose scale .
His life thus far has convinced him that he can solve ‘ problem after problem after problem ’ , no matter the howling from the public it may cause.
” People who have dealt or worked with Zuckerberg come away with different images of him , but all seem to agree that he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encounters a theory that doesn ’ t accord with his own , says Osnos , who spent some time with him , “ he finds a seam of disagreement – a fact , a methodology , a premise – and hammers at it .
It ’ s an effective technique for winning arguments , but one that makes it difficult to introduce new information .
Over time , some former colleagues say , his deputies have begun to filter out bad news from presentations before it reaches him.
” One of the great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparently bright individual can apparently be so ignorant about how cultures and societies work .
In February 2017 , for example , he published a 5,500-word manifesto on Building Global Community .
It began : “ History is the story of how we ’ ve learned to come together in ever greater numbers – from tribes to cities to nations .
At each step , we built social infrastructure like communities , media and governments to empower us to achieve things we couldn ’ t on our own .
“ Today we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our greatest opportunities are now global – like spreading prosperity and freedom , promoting peace and understanding , lifting people out of poverty , and accelerating science .
Our greatest challenges also need global responses – like ending terrorism , fighting climate change , and preventing pandemics .
Progress now requires humanity coming together not just as cities or nations , but also as a global community.
” There ’ s lots more in that vacuous vein .
The solution to the world ’ s troubles , it seemed , was to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Facebook ’ s “ community ” ( a favourite Zuckerberg term ) .
When I showed this essay to a colleague who teaches politics ( and who was hitherto blissfully unaware of Zuckerberg ) he read it with growing incredulity .
“ If a first-year undergraduate had submitted this , ” he remarked , “ I ’ d have sent him home.
” The thought that the CEO of one of the world ’ s most powerful corporations could write such piffle seemed astounding to him .
It is .
But we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is another , contemporary dimension to the puzzle , namely that the company Zuckerberg controls seems to have the power to influence people ’ s behaviour in politically relevant ways .
We have empirical evidence for this .
In 2014 , for example , a massive experiment on 689,000 Facebook users showed that emotional states can be transferred to others via emotional contagion , leading people to experience the same emotions without their awareness .
And in the 2010 mid-term elections in the US , a campaign by Facebook to increase voter turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an experiment involving 61 million users , reckoned that 340,000 extra people turned out to vote because of a single election-day Facebook message .
In themselves , these experiments may seem innocuous ( though the “ emotional contagion ” study raised some ethical concerns ) .
After all , encouraging people to go out and vote is an admirable thing to do .
The real significance of the experiments , though , was their indication that Facebook had the capacity to influence people ’ s behaviour and emotions in ways that could conceivably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the question of whether Facebook could , if its corporate interests required it , put a thumb on the electoral scales in marginal seats .
Even in the hyper-polarised world of contemporary US politics , that seems unlikely .
But that hasn ’ t stopped people scrutinising Zuckerberg ’ s recent utterances and behaviour in relation to Trump .
When Twitter took the unprecedented step of labelling some of the president ’ s more incendiary tweets , and Trump threatened to revoke the immunity offered to social media platforms by Section 230 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should turn up on the president ’ s favourite news channel but Mark Zuckerberg , saying that “ private companies shouldn ’ t be the arbiters of truth ” ?
And then there were the two visits Zuckerberg paid to the White House in September and October last year .
No smoke without fire , and all that .
These might simply be signs of a corporate boss trying to stay out of trouble with the government of the day .
But it still raises an intriguing question : is it conceivable that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Biden one ?
The answer might depend on whom Biden picks as his running mate .
If he were to choose Elizabeth Warren , for example , my guess is that Facebook ’ s ad-targeting system and expertise would be at Trump ’ s disposal , possibly at a discount .
Why ?
In a leaked recording of an internal Facebook discussion , Zuckerberg described Warren ’ s policy proposals on antitrust as “ an existential threat ” to his company .
And , as General de Gaulle famously observed of nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only interests .
Zuckerberg understands that as well as anyone .
And it will govern his decisions in the next few months .

Way back in June, I wrote a column under the headline: “One man stands between Joe Biden and the US presidency – Mark Zuckerberg”. Trump, flailing against the pandemic at the time, was trailing Biden in the polls, just as at the same point in 2016 he had been trailing Hillary Clinton. And yet we know what happened that November: Trump’s team made inspired use of Facebook’s targeting engine to suppress Democratic turnout in key states – and it worked. What is perhaps less well known is that Facebook offered to “embed” employees for free in the campaign offices of both candidates to help them use the platform effectively. Clinton’s campaign refused the offer. Trump’s crowd accepted, and Facebook employees helped his campaign craft the messages that may have clinched the election.
So here we are in 2020, 100 days from the presidential election. Trump is still trailing Biden. But his base support has remained solid. So the point I made in June still stands: if he is to win a second term, Facebook will be his only hope – which is why his campaign is betting the ranch on it. And if Facebook were suddenly to decide that it would not allow its platform to be used by either campaign in the period from now until 3 November, Trump would be a one-term president, free to spend even more time with his golf buggy – and perhaps his lawyers.
For Facebook read Zuckerberg, for Facebook is not just a corporate extension of its founder’s personality, but his personal plaything. I can’t think of any other tech founder who has retained such an iron grip on his creation through his ownership of a special class of shares, which give him total control. The passage in the company’s SEC filing detailing this makes for surreal reading. It says that Zuckerberg “has the ability to control the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election of directors and any merger, consolidation, or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. This concentrated control could delay, defer, or prevent a change of control, merger, consolidation, or sale of all or substantially all of our assets that our other stockholders support, or conversely this concentrated control could result in the consummation of such a transaction that our other stockholders do not support.”
Such a concentration of power in the hands of a single individual would be a concern in any enterprise, but in a global company that effectively controls and mediates much of the world’s public sphere it is distinctly creepy. This impression is reinforced vividly whenever Zuckerberg has to make a public appearance, especially when he has to wear a suit – as he did when appearing before US Congress in April 2018. On such occasions he can look like a tailor’s dummy, a man whose sense of humour has been surgically removed at birth.
This caricature, wrote Evan Osnos in an absorbing New Yorker profile, is that of an automaton with little regard for the human dimensions of his work. “The truth is something else: he decided long ago that no historical change is painless. Like [the emperor] Augustus, he is at peace with his trade-offs. Between speech and truth, he chose speech. Between speed and perfection, he chose speed. Between scale and safety, he chose scale. His life thus far has convinced him that he can solve ‘problem after problem after problem’, no matter the howling from the public it may cause.”
People who have dealt or worked with Zuckerberg come away with different images of him, but all seem to agree that he’s some kind of hyper-rationalist. When he encounters a theory that doesn’t accord with his own, says Osnos, who spent some time with him, “he finds a seam of disagreement – a fact, a methodology, a premise – and hammers at it. It’s an effective technique for winning arguments, but one that makes it difficult to introduce new information. Over time, some former colleagues say, his deputies have begun to filter out bad news from presentations before it reaches him.”
One of the great puzzles about Zuckerberg is how such an apparently bright individual can apparently be so ignorant about how cultures and societies work. In February 2017, for example, he published a 5,500-word manifesto on Building Global Community. It began: “History is the story of how we’ve learned to come together in ever greater numbers – from tribes to cities to nations. At each step, we built social infrastructure like communities, media and governments to empower us to achieve things we couldn’t on our own.
“Today we are close to taking our next step. Our greatest opportunities are now global – like spreading prosperity and freedom, promoting peace and understanding, lifting people out of poverty, and accelerating science. Our greatest challenges also need global responses – like ending terrorism, fighting climate change, and preventing pandemics. Progress now requires humanity coming together not just as cities or nations, but also as a global community.”
There’s lots more in that vacuous vein. The solution to the world’s troubles, it seemed, was to have everyone in the world as a member of Facebook’s “community” (a favourite Zuckerberg term). When I showed this essay to a colleague who teaches politics (and who was hitherto blissfully unaware of Zuckerberg) he read it with growing incredulity. “If a first-year undergraduate had submitted this,” he remarked, “I’d have sent him home.” The thought that the CEO of one of the world’s most powerful corporations could write such piffle seemed astounding to him.
It is. But we are where we are. And there is another, contemporary dimension to the puzzle, namely that the company Zuckerberg controls seems to have the power to influence people’s behaviour in politically relevant ways. We have empirical evidence for this. In 2014, for example, a massive experiment on 689,000 Facebook users showed that emotional states can be transferred to others via emotional contagion, leading people to experience the same emotions without their awareness. And in the 2010 mid-term elections in the US, a campaign by Facebook to increase voter turnout, carried out by researchers who ran an experiment involving 61 million users, reckoned that 340,000 extra people turned out to vote because of a single election-day Facebook message.
In themselves, these experiments may seem innocuous (though the “emotional contagion” study raised some ethical concerns). After all, encouraging people to go out and vote is an admirable thing to do. The real significance of the experiments, though, was their indication that Facebook had the capacity to influence people’s behaviour and emotions in ways that could conceivably have a political impact. Which leads to the question of whether Facebook could, if its corporate interests required it, put a thumb on the electoral scales in marginal seats.
Even in the hyper-polarised world of contemporary US politics, that seems unlikely. But that hasn’t stopped people scrutinising Zuckerberg’s recent utterances and behaviour in relation to Trump. When Twitter took the unprecedented step of labelling some of the president’s more incendiary tweets, and Trump threatened to revoke the immunity offered to social media platforms by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, who should turn up on the president’s favourite news channel but Mark Zuckerberg, saying that “private companies shouldn’t be the arbiters of truth”? And then there were the two visits Zuckerberg paid to the White House in September and October last year. No smoke without fire, and all that.
These might simply be signs of a corporate boss trying to stay out of trouble with the government of the day. But it still raises an intriguing question: is it conceivable that Zuckerberg might prefer a Trump victory to a Biden one? The answer might depend on whom Biden picks as his running mate. If he were to choose Elizabeth Warren, for example, my guess is that Facebook’s ad-targeting system and expertise would be at Trump’s disposal, possibly at a discount. Why? In a leaked recording of an internal Facebook discussion, Zuckerberg described Warren’s policy proposals on antitrust as “an existential threat” to his company. And, as General de Gaulle famously observed of nations, tech companies have no friends, only interests. Zuckerberg understands that as well as anyone. And it will govern his decisions in the next few months.


theguardian--2020-07-26--Roger McNamee: ‘Facebook is a threat to whatever remains of democracy in the US'

Does Facebook have too much power ?
The scale of internet platforms such as Google and Facebook is unprecedented in the tech world and , I would argue , unprecedented since the Dutch East India Company .
They are ubiquitous in almost every country that has an economy .
And when you are ubiquitous , the political imperative is to align with power .
And that is why in countries such as the Philippines Facebook has been used to marshal public opinion in support of death squads .
In Cambodia , it is being used to suppress dissent .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cleansing .
That ’ s what happens in authoritarian regimes .
In democratic regimes , these companies are actually more powerful than the government .
Because they are so ubiquitous , that they can use their users as a human shield politically , to prevent any kind of change .
So what you see is the defiance of subpoenas in the UK and Canada .
And pre-Trump , and even early into Trump ’ s reign , they defied Congress .
Facebook , in particular , has more monthly users than there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as many as there are people in China .
And when your numbers are that big , your ego can sometimes give you the illusion that you are a nation state .
In practice , in the US , how does this work ?
Facebook ’ s approach can be explained by the way [ Facebook ’ s chief operating officer ] Sheryl Sandberg took to recruiting a government relations team .
Google has people that lobby both parties and it spends more money than Facebook , but it tries to do so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook hired rightwing operatives such as [ ex-Bush aide and energy lobbyist ] Joel Kaplan .
Someone made the point that Kaplan was hired to lobby Republicans but in reality it appears he ’ s been more successful lobbying Facebook .
Kaplan has got Facebook tightly aligned with the Trump administration .
Kaplan even got involved in the Brett Kavanaugh supreme court nomination .
Is there a risk for Facebook in aligning itself closely with Trump ?
The trick when you ’ re doing political lobbying is not to take up a position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can ’ t come back from it .
I don ’ t know whether Facebook has gone too far to the right .
Only time will tell .
Zuckerberg has met privately with Trump on two occasions without any prior notice – the second time was only discovered because of leaks .
Is he doing that with Biden ?
I don ’ t think so .
Did Facebook win the 2016 election for Trump ?
The 2016 election was incredibly close because of a series of factors which would have been hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if you look at voter suppression of suburban white women , black people , and young people who had voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries by the Trump campaign on Facebook and Instagram in the states which Trump had to win , then more than enough voters were discouraged from going to the polls to make the difference .
Social media can do this by , for example , running ads which show long queues or disturbances at voting stations , or messaging creating apathy about the democratic process .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for that factor to matter at all , but it was really important .
So Facebook had a lot to do with Trump getting elected .
There were no rules then that said you couldn ’ t use social media to suppress votes .
Facebook approached it like engineers .
They said : “ Wow , these guys are willing to commit their whole budget .
So they ’ re willing to let us run the experiment of whether we can get this to actually work .
Wow , this is cool.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it for one side and not the other might be an ethical problem .
It never occurred to them that doing so might actually lead to consequences for the country that would be hard to recover from .
Remember , this is a company that had the motto “ move fast and break things ” .
But when you apply move fast and break things in politics , the things you ’ re breaking are the lives of everybody in the country .
The value system of internet platforms , but especially Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of democracy in the US .
If Biden wins in 2020 , do you think he ’ ll make any attempt to reform or regulate these platforms ?
I wrote an open letter that was published in Wired .
It was triggered by President Obama suggesting that Biden should work with Eric Schmidt and Reid Hoffman – two of the absolute architects of the current internet culture .
And my basic message is , go ahead , take their money , work with them on the campaign , but you can not work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have to recognise that the thing that made these guys so successful and that makes them valuable to you in the campaign makes them singularly unqualified to help you out there .
I ’ ve had several people connected to the Biden campaign say my article is going like wildfire .
Having politics take place on social media has given the social media platforms enormous power .
And so , when you look at hate speech , disinformation , conspiracy theories , if you take them out , the level of engagement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down – and with it , their economic value .
Hate speech , misinformation , conspiracy theories , that is the lubricant for their business .
They would claim they ’ ve taken steps to reduce that type of content… Every time there ’ s pressure on them to either eliminate a bad actor like Alex Jones , or to take down a piece of bad information like something on the pandemic or Trump ’ s “ looting shooting ” post , they take down the bare minimum .
When you take out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up , it creates the illusion that everything else is OK .
These people have shown no willingness to self-regulate , no understanding of the responsibilities they have to society .
It ’ s time for society to take matters into its own hands .
So how should social media be regulated ?
There are four categories : safety , privacy , honesty and competition .
Safety has two elements .
First , no tech product should be shipped until it demonstrates safety and freedom from bias ; and if that fails , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the US , we have a safe harbour for internet platforms called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act .
I would like to amend it so that any company that does not treat all content identically loses the protection of Section 230 .
So this goes after the algorithms that amplify content such as hate speech , disinformation and conspiracy theories disproportionately , giving political power to the most extreme voices .
It is a very small change .
It doesn ’ t say you can ’ t do algorithmic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you are under threat of legal action .
And there have to be real teeth .
You have to give everybody the right to sue .
They have to be able to sue for explicit financial rewards , even for things that don ’ t normally have a financial price .
For instance you could put a price on revenge porn – which gets amplified like crazy .
The second category is privacy .
There I would like to follow the Shoshana Zuboff model of treating private data as a human right , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a big leap from where we are .
So the starting point is to move to an opt-in model – GDPR and the California Computer Privacy Act , are both opt-out , so all the burden is on the consumer .
I want to reverse the burden and place it on the people who use data , transfer it and so on .
Third , honesty .
Google and Facebook have an oligopoly power over ad networks .
The industry suspects that many of the ads they are paying for are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true it means the revenues are overstated , which would be a securities law violation , which may give rise to a felony , which would have jail time associated with it .
That would change incentives very rapidly .
Last , competition .
The US economy is horribly concentrated but in this industry it is particularly damaging .
So I want to revive the three core antitrust laws in the US , which have been allowed to become essentially moribund .
I want to get back in the business of encouraging entrepreneurship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have they stopped all that .
A Biden administration has the opportunity to address of all this .

Does Facebook have too much power?
The scale of internet platforms such as Google and Facebook is unprecedented in the tech world and, I would argue, unprecedented since the Dutch East India Company. They are ubiquitous in almost every country that has an economy. And when you are ubiquitous, the political imperative is to align with power.
And that is why in countries such as the Philippines Facebook has been used to marshal public opinion in support of death squads. In Cambodia, it is being used to suppress dissent. In Myanmar it was used to incite ethnic cleansing. That’s what happens in authoritarian regimes.
In democratic regimes, these companies are actually more powerful than the government. Because they are so ubiquitous, that they can use their users as a human shield politically, to prevent any kind of change. So what you see is the defiance of subpoenas in the UK and Canada. And pre-Trump, and even early into Trump’s reign, they defied Congress.
Roger McNamee. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images
Facebook, in particular, has more monthly users than there are notional adherents to Christianity. Roughly twice as many as there are people in China. And when your numbers are that big, your ego can sometimes give you the illusion that you are a nation state.
In practice, in the US, how does this work?
Facebook’s approach can be explained by the way [Facebook’s chief operating officer] Sheryl Sandberg took to recruiting a government relations team. Google has people that lobby both parties and it spends more money than Facebook, but it tries to do so in a way that is discreet. Facebook hired rightwing operatives such as [ex-Bush aide and energy lobbyist] Joel Kaplan. Someone made the point that Kaplan was hired to lobby Republicans but in reality it appears he’s been more successful lobbying Facebook. Kaplan has got Facebook tightly aligned with the Trump administration. Kaplan even got involved in the Brett Kavanaugh supreme court nomination.
Is there a risk for Facebook in aligning itself closely with Trump?
The trick when you’re doing political lobbying is not to take up a position so extreme that if your side loses you can’t come back from it. I don’t know whether Facebook has gone too far to the right. Only time will tell. Zuckerberg has met privately with Trump on two occasions without any prior notice – the second time was only discovered because of leaks. Is he doing that with Biden? I don’t think so.
If you take out hate speech, disinformation and conspiracy theories, engagement with these platforms goes down – and with it their economic value
Did Facebook win the 2016 election for Trump?
The 2016 election was incredibly close because of a series of factors which would have been hard to predict. But in the end, if you look at voter suppression of suburban white women, black people, and young people who had voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries by the Trump campaign on Facebook and Instagram in the states which Trump had to win, then more than enough voters were discouraged from going to the polls to make the difference. Social media can do this by, for example, running ads which show long queues or disturbances at voting stations, or messaging creating apathy about the democratic process. It took nine things happening before that for that factor to matter at all, but it was really important. So Facebook had a lot to do with Trump getting elected. There were no rules then that said you couldn’t use social media to suppress votes.
Facebook approached it like engineers. They said: “Wow, these guys are willing to commit their whole budget. So they’re willing to let us run the experiment of whether we can get this to actually work. Wow, this is cool.”
It never occurred to them that doing it for one side and not the other might be an ethical problem. It never occurred to them that doing so might actually lead to consequences for the country that would be hard to recover from. Remember, this is a company that had the motto “move fast and break things”. But when you apply move fast and break things in politics, the things you’re breaking are the lives of everybody in the country.
The value system of internet platforms, but especially Facebook, is a threat to whatever remains of democracy in the US.
If Biden wins in 2020, do you think he’ll make any attempt to reform or regulate these platforms?
I wrote an open letter that was published in Wired. It was triggered by President Obama suggesting that Biden should work with Eric Schmidt and Reid Hoffman – two of the absolute architects of the current internet culture. And my basic message is, go ahead, take their money, work with them on the campaign, but you cannot work with them on technology policy. And you have to recognise that the thing that made these guys so successful and that makes them valuable to you in the campaign makes them singularly unqualified to help you out there.
I’ve had several people connected to the Biden campaign say my article is going like wildfire.
Having politics take place on social media has given the social media platforms enormous power. And so, when you look at hate speech, disinformation, conspiracy theories, if you take them out, the level of engagement on these platforms goes way, way down – and with it, their economic value. Hate speech, misinformation, conspiracy theories, that is the lubricant for their business.
They would claim they’ve taken steps to reduce that type of content…
Every time there’s pressure on them to either eliminate a bad actor like Alex Jones, or to take down a piece of bad information like something on the pandemic or Trump’s “looting shooting” post, they take down the bare minimum.
When you take out a few things and leave everything else up, it creates the illusion that everything else is OK. These people have shown no willingness to self-regulate, no understanding of the responsibilities they have to society. It’s time for society to take matters into its own hands.
So how should social media be regulated?
There are four categories: safety, privacy, honesty and competition.
Safety has two elements. First, no tech product should be shipped until it demonstrates safety and freedom from bias; and if that fails, the penalties should be huge. Second, in the US, we have a safe harbour for internet platforms called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I would like to amend it so that any company that does not treat all content identically loses the protection of Section 230. So this goes after the algorithms that amplify content such as hate speech, disinformation and conspiracy theories disproportionately, giving political power to the most extreme voices.
It is a very small change. It doesn’t say you can’t do algorithmic amplification, but if you do it you are under threat of legal action. And there have to be real teeth. You have to give everybody the right to sue. They have to be able to sue for explicit financial rewards, even for things that don’t normally have a financial price. For instance you could put a price on revenge porn – which gets amplified like crazy.
The second category is privacy. There I would like to follow the Shoshana Zuboff model of treating private data as a human right, as opposed to an asset. That’s a big leap from where we are. So the starting point is to move to an opt-in model – GDPR and the California Computer Privacy Act, are both opt-out, so all the burden is on the consumer. I want to reverse the burden and place it on the people who use data, transfer it and so on.
Third, honesty. Google and Facebook have an oligopoly power over ad networks. The industry suspects that many of the ads they are paying for are never seen. If that’s true it means the revenues are overstated, which would be a securities law violation, which may give rise to a felony, which would have jail time associated with it. That would change incentives very rapidly.
Last, competition. The US economy is horribly concentrated but in this industry it is particularly damaging. So I want to revive the three core antitrust laws in the US, which have been allowed to become essentially moribund. I want to get back in the business of encouraging entrepreneurship, encouraging innovation, because these guys have they stopped all that. A Biden administration has the opportunity to address of all this.


theguardian--2020-07-26--The US election is in 100 days: what are the biggest threats to it?

The 2020 election is shaping up to be a presidential contest unlike any other in American history .
Even before the pandemic , there were deep concerns over how voter suppression would shut significant numbers of Americans out of the ballot box .
Covid-19 has exacerbated those fears as states rapidly ramp up their vote by mail apparatus to curb long lines and crowds at the polls .
The presidential race will be determined by the outcome of just a handful of swing states , including Wisconsin , North Carolina , and Pennsylvania , which typically do not see large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than 7 % of people voted by mail in each of the three states in 2018 ) .
Other swing states , like Florida and Ohio , have more experience with widespread vote by mail , but also face unprecedented challenges such as recruiting poll workers and finding facilities willing to host voters amid the pandemic .
Election administrators around the country are in an extremely difficult position as they prepare for an election where high turnout is expected .
Here ’ s a look at some of the biggest threats to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states across the country have been in a mad dash to change their election rules to make it easier for voters to cast a ballot by mail .
While voters have responded in record numbers during primary elections , it ’ s been a huge switch for many states that don ’ t yet have adequate infrastructure .
Voters in many states have seen severe delays in getting voters their absentee ballots .
Local election offices , staffed in some places by just a handful of employees , have struggled to keep up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Having seen election offices buckle during the primary , experts are worried about what will happen this fall , when turnout will be even higher .
It will cost roughly $ 4bn to make the necessary upgrades to vote by mail , according to one estimate from the Brennan Center for Justice .
Congress has allocated just $ 400m so far .
“ Unfortunately the primaries have shown we ’ ve seen a huge capacity challenge to get ready for November , ” said Edward Foley , a law professor at the Ohio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could also be slower this year as the United States Postal Service faces pressure to save money .
Those delays are significant because most states require ballots to arrive by election day in order to count .
Many Americans could be disenfranchised through no fault of their own .
“ I am concerned about how long it will take to process and count the ballots , ” said Scott McDonell , an election official in Dane county Wisconsin , a state that saw mail delays during its April election .
“ I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the likelihood of having to wait for results.
” Donald Trump has already laid the groundwork for contesting the election results in November .
Trump , who votes by mail , has falsely claimed that absentee voting will lead to “ massive fraud and abuse ” and that mail-in ballots will be stolen from mailboxes .
Asked whether he would accept the results of the election , Trump told Fox News Sunday “ I have to see .
No , I ’ m not going to just say yes .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Experts are alarmed about Trump ’ s rhetoric and say there could be ample opportunity for the president and his supporters to wreak havoc this fall .
Americans are unlikely to know the winner of the presidential race on election night as election officials continue to count and verify absentee ballots in the days after .
Trump could seize on shifting vote totals to claim the election has been tainted by fraud or malfeasance .
“ Election day and election week really could lay the groundwork for just a rhetorical dumpster fire coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , ” said Charles Stewart III , a professor at MIT who is an expert in election administration .
“ The thing that I really do worry about is that we ’ re not going to be able to convince the public to hold tight , be patient and eventually all the votes will get counted.
” There have been disputed US presidential elections before , but there are potentially toxic circumstances this year because neither Trump nor Joe Biden appears likely to give a traditional concession speech .
“ Neither side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that if the opponents win , the country as they know it is gone forever , ” said Foley , who has urged Congress to revisit a 133 year-old-law to clarify how to deal with a contested election .
Alongside mail-in voting , election officials face an enormous challenge in figuring out how to offer sufficient in-person voting .
Poll-workers tend to skew older – 58 % were at least 61 years old in the 2018 general election – and have been dropping out over concerns they could contract Covid-19 .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , churches , nursing homes – are also declining to serve in that capacity this year .
In Rochester Hills , Michigan , poll workers who had signed up to work in the state ’ s August primary are dropping out daily , said Tina Barton , the clerk there .
“ We are begging people to work , no joke , ” she said , adding that she had just spent $ 2,000 on a newspaper ad to get poll workers to sign up .
In Milwaukee , home to a sizable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population , officials closed 175 out of 180 polling stations for the state ’ s April statewide election .
Turnout in the city dropped by 8.6 percentage points compared to voters outside the city , according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice .
Turnout among black voters in the city dropped by 10.2 percentage points .
In Georgia , where a record 1.1 million people voted by mail in the June primary , there were hours-long waits at some polling stations , as 10 % of polling locations were relocated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one location for in-person voting in some of the state during the June primary and voters faced hours long waits .
Some voters in Jefferson county , the state ’ s most populous county , pounded on the doors of one polling station demanding to be let in before a judge agreed to let them enter .
“ We do not have enough poll workers , we do not have enough polling places , and we do not have enough of the material we need to run this election , ” said Nathaniel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an expert in election administration .
“ If people are used to voting in person , they ’ re very likely to do so.
” Kentucky secretary of state Michael Adams , a Republican , issued an “ SOS ” for poll workers this fall .
“ If you ’ re a Republican who doesn ’ t want a vote-by-mail election in November , you need to step up and be a poll worker , ” he said in a statement .
“ If you ’ re a Democrat concerned about unintentional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting locations , you need to step up and be a poll worker.
” Tens of thousands of votes were rejected during the primaries this year , often because of small technicalities .
There are a number of reasons a mail-in ballot can be rejected : it might arrive too late , without a signature , be unsealed , or election officials might determine the signature on it doesn ’ t match the one they have on file .
In a typical election , these rejections affect such a small percentage of ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots were rejected in the 2016 general election ) .
But as more people vote by mail this year more votes could be left uncounted .
In California , 102,000 ballots were rejected in the state ’ s March primary – a small fraction of the 7m mail-in ballots returned – but an increase from the 69,000 that were rejected in the state ’ s 2016 primary , according to NBC News .
In Wisconsin , 20,000 ballots were rejected in April and just over 79,000 late-arriving ballots were only counted because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York , which is still counting mail-in votes from its 23 June primary , there are reports that about a quarter of mail-in votes were rejected in some parts of New York City .
Most alarming , is that young , first-time and minority voters are more vulnerable – an analysis of the 18,500 votes rejected in Florida ’ s March primary found that those groups were about twice as likely to have their ballots rejected .
“ If you ’ re unfamiliar with the process of mail balloting , then you are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forgetting to put your signature on the exterior of the envelope , ” Persily said .
“ We ’ re seeing racial variation .
That ’ s something that should be really concerning.
” Voting groups are pushing states to require election officials to contact and alert a voter before ejecting their ballot – currently , fewer than 20 US states do so .
Since the onset of the pandemic , DMV offices , usually hubs of voter registration activity , have been closed .
Third-party voter registration drives have been unable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and knocking on doors .
That all means that significantly fewer people have registered to vote than would in a typical election year .
One study of 13 states found there was at least a 50 % dropoff in voter registration in April compared to the same point in 2016 .
A lack of voter registration could have severe consequences down the line .
An unregistered person won ’ t just be unable to cast a ballot , but will also not receive automatically mailed applications for mail-in ballots or instructions on how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of US states allow voters to register on election day .
The 2020 election is already shaping up to be one of the most litigated in US history .
There have been at least 163 lawsuits filed in 41 states and the District of Columbia so far , according to Justin Levitt , a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles .
The lawsuits have a range of election practices , including ones that require voters to pay the postage on their ballots , give an excuse to vote absentee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election day .
A handful of those disputes have already come before the US supreme court , which has upheld voting restrictions in every voting case that has come before it this year .
The court shortened the deadline to return mail-in ballots in Wisconsin and declined to lift restrictions on voting by mail in Texas and Alabama , even amid the Covid-19 pandemic .
It also refused to step in and override an unusual lower court order and allow people with felony convictions to vote in Florida ’ s primary .
Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s long trend in favor of upholding voting restrictions in recent years , leading to fears that as America faces a voting emergency , the court is unlikely to do anything to make it easier to vote .

The 2020 election is shaping up to be a presidential contest unlike any other in American history.
Even before the pandemic, there were deep concerns over how voter suppression would shut significant numbers of Americans out of the ballot box. Covid-19 has exacerbated those fears as states rapidly ramp up their vote by mail apparatus to curb long lines and crowds at the polls.
The presidential race will be determined by the outcome of just a handful of swing states, including Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, which typically do not see large numbers of people vote by mail (less than 7% of people voted by mail in each of the three states in 2018). Other swing states, like Florida and Ohio, have more experience with widespread vote by mail, but also face unprecedented challenges such as recruiting poll workers and finding facilities willing to host voters amid the pandemic.
Election administrators around the country are in an extremely difficult position as they prepare for an election where high turnout is expected. Here’s a look at some of the biggest threats to the November election:
1 Support for mail-in voting
Since March, states across the country have been in a mad dash to change their election rules to make it easier for voters to cast a ballot by mail. While voters have responded in record numbers during primary elections, it’s been a huge switch for many states that don’t yet have adequate infrastructure.
Voters in many states have seen severe delays in getting voters their absentee ballots. Local election offices, staffed in some places by just a handful of employees, have struggled to keep up with increased requests for mail-in ballots. Having seen election offices buckle during the primary, experts are worried about what will happen this fall, when turnout will be even higher. It will cost roughly $4bn to make the necessary upgrades to vote by mail, according to one estimate from the Brennan Center for Justice. Congress has allocated just $400m so far.
“Unfortunately the primaries have shown we’ve seen a huge capacity challenge to get ready for November,” said Edward Foley, a law professor at the Ohio State University who studies elections.
Mail could also be slower this year as the United States Postal Service faces pressure to save money. Those delays are significant because most states require ballots to arrive by election day in order to count. Many Americans could be disenfranchised through no fault of their own.
“I am concerned about how long it will take to process and count the ballots,” said Scott McDonell, an election official in Dane county Wisconsin, a state that saw mail delays during its April election. “I think it is important to prepare the public for the likelihood of having to wait for results.”
A worker verifies ballots at a facility in Phoenix, Arizona. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images
2 Donald Trump
Donald Trump has already laid the groundwork for contesting the election results in November. Trump, who votes by mail, has falsely claimed that absentee voting will lead to “massive fraud and abuse” and that mail-in ballots will be stolen from mailboxes. Asked whether he would accept the results of the election, Trump told Fox News Sunday “I have to see. No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no.”
Experts are alarmed about Trump’s rhetoric and say there could be ample opportunity for the president and his supporters to wreak havoc this fall. Americans are unlikely to know the winner of the presidential race on election night as election officials continue to count and verify absentee ballots in the days after. Trump could seize on shifting vote totals to claim the election has been tainted by fraud or malfeasance.
“Election day and election week really could lay the groundwork for just a rhetorical dumpster fire coming, to name it, from Donald Trump,” said Charles Stewart III, a professor at MIT who is an expert in election administration. “The thing that I really do worry about is that we’re not going to be able to convince the public to hold tight, be patient and eventually all the votes will get counted.”
There have been disputed US presidential elections before, but there are potentially toxic circumstances this year because neither Trump nor Joe Biden appears likely to give a traditional concession speech.
“Neither side wants to concede defeat because both sides believe that if the opponents win, the country as they know it is gone forever,” said Foley, who has urged Congress to revisit a 133 year-old-law to clarify how to deal with a contested election.
3 Fewer polling stations
Alongside mail-in voting, election officials face an enormous challenge in figuring out how to offer sufficient in-person voting. Poll-workers tend to skew older – 58% were at least 61 years old in the 2018 general election – and have been dropping out over concerns they could contract Covid-19. Some places that typically hold voting – schools, churches, nursing homes – are also declining to serve in that capacity this year.
In Rochester Hills, Michigan, poll workers who had signed up to work in the state’s August primary are dropping out daily, said Tina Barton, the clerk there. “We are begging people to work, no joke,” she said, adding that she had just spent $2,000 on a newspaper ad to get poll workers to sign up.
In Milwaukee, home to a sizable portion of Wisconsin’s African American population, officials closed 175 out of 180 polling stations for the state’s April statewide election. Turnout in the city dropped by 8.6 percentage points compared to voters outside the city, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice. Turnout among black voters in the city dropped by 10.2 percentage points.
In Georgia, where a record 1.1 million people voted by mail in the June primary, there were hours-long waits at some polling stations, as 10% of polling locations were relocated. In Kentucky, there was just one location for in-person voting in some of the state during the June primary and voters faced hours long waits. Some voters in Jefferson county, the state’s most populous county, pounded on the doors of one polling station demanding to be let in before a judge agreed to let them enter.
Voters wait in a line that stretched around the Metropolitan Library in Atlanta, Georgia on 9 June. Photograph: Steve Schaefer/AP
“We do not have enough poll workers, we do not have enough polling places, and we do not have enough of the material we need to run this election,” said Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Stanford who is an expert in election administration. “If people are used to voting in person, they’re very likely to do so.”
Kentucky secretary of state Michael Adams, a Republican, issued an “SOS” for poll workers this fall. “If you’re a Republican who doesn’t want a vote-by-mail election in November, you need to step up and be a poll worker,” he said in a statement. “If you’re a Democrat concerned about unintentional voter suppression caused by a paucity of voting locations, you need to step up and be a poll worker.”
4 Ballot rejections
Tens of thousands of votes were rejected during the primaries this year, often because of small technicalities.
There are a number of reasons a mail-in ballot can be rejected: it might arrive too late, without a signature, be unsealed, or election officials might determine the signature on it doesn’t match the one they have on file. In a typical election, these rejections affect such a small percentage of ballots cast (just 1% of mail-in ballots were rejected in the 2016 general election). But as more people vote by mail this year more votes could be left uncounted.
In California, 102,000 ballots were rejected in the state’s March primary – a small fraction of the 7m mail-in ballots returned – but an increase from the 69,000 that were rejected in the state’s 2016 primary, according to NBC News. In Wisconsin, 20,000 ballots were rejected in April and just over 79,000 late-arriving ballots were only counted because of a court order. And in New York, which is still counting mail-in votes from its 23 June primary, there are reports that about a quarter of mail-in votes were rejected in some parts of New York City.
Most alarming, is that young, first-time and minority voters are more vulnerable – an analysis of the 18,500 votes rejected in Florida’s March primary found that those groups were about twice as likely to have their ballots rejected.
“If you’re unfamiliar with the process of mail balloting, then you are more likely to make errors, particularly forgetting to put your signature on the exterior of the envelope,” Persily said. “We’re seeing racial variation. That’s something that should be really concerning.”
Voting groups are pushing states to require election officials to contact and alert a voter before ejecting their ballot – currently, fewer than 20 US states do so.
5 Voter registration
Since the onset of the pandemic, DMV offices, usually hubs of voter registration activity, have been closed. Third-party voter registration drives have been unable to register voters by standing on street corners and knocking on doors.
Sue Randle waits for voters to register at a polling place in Normal, Illinois on 17 March. Photograph: David Proeber/AP
That all means that significantly fewer people have registered to vote than would in a typical election year. One study of 13 states found there was at least a 50% dropoff in voter registration in April compared to the same point in 2016.
A lack of voter registration could have severe consequences down the line. An unregistered person won’t just be unable to cast a ballot, but will also not receive automatically mailed applications for mail-in ballots or instructions on how to fill them out. Fewer than half of US states allow voters to register on election day.
6 The US supreme court
The 2020 election is already shaping up to be one of the most litigated in US history. There have been at least 163 lawsuits filed in 41 states and the District of Columbia so far, according to Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. The lawsuits have a range of election practices, including ones that require voters to pay the postage on their ballots, give an excuse to vote absentee, and require mail-in ballots to arrive by election day.
A handful of those disputes have already come before the US supreme court, which has upheld voting restrictions in every voting case that has come before it this year. The court shortened the deadline to return mail-in ballots in Wisconsin and declined to lift restrictions on voting by mail in Texas and Alabama, even amid the Covid-19 pandemic. It also refused to step in and override an unusual lower court order and allow people with felony convictions to vote in Florida’s primary.
Those decisions have only continued the court’s long trend in favor of upholding voting restrictions in recent years, leading to fears that as America faces a voting emergency, the court is unlikely to do anything to make it easier to vote.


theguardian--2020-07-26--Yaël Eisenstat: 'Facebook is ripe for manipulation and viral misinformation'

Yaël Eisenstat was a CIA officer for 13 years and a national security adviser to vice president Joe Biden .
Between June and November 2018 , she was Facebook ’ s global head of elections integrity operations , business integrity .
Before you were hired by Facebook to investigate the company ’ s effect on the electoral process , what was your opinion of it ?
Early on , I was a big fan of Facebook .
I had lived and worked all over the world , so I used it to stay connected to friends .
But , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it was becoming a real threat to democracy because of the role it was playing in the breakdown of civil discourse .
So when you were appointed , you were quite excited about the opportunity to effect change ?
I was very clear as they interviewed me for the role that what I cared about was Facebook ’ s effect on our democracy .
The fact that they would even hire someone like me for that role made me cautiously optimistic .
But on your second day in the role , your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effectively demoted ?
Correct .
Not only was I not empowered to do the job I was hired to do , but I was intentionally sidelined and never able to effect any sort of change or even participate in most of the conversations that were directly tied to the job I was hired to do .
And did that tell you that the company wasn ’ t serious about addressing the problems it hired you to work on ?
Yes .
I still turn the question over in my head of why did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I do think there are people at Facebook who genuinely want to tackle these challenges , genuinely do not want the platform to be manipulated by bad actors to play elections , but I was hired into the area that actually is the money-making machine , the advertising side of it .
So my questions , the things I tried to push , all actually were things that went against their core idea of how it could make money .
After working there for six months what did you conclude ?
My first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making all sorts of reactive changes around the margins of the issues , [ to suggest ] that they are taking things seriously – such as building an ad library or verifying that political advertisers who reside in the country in which they advertising – things they should have been doing already .
But they were never going to make the fundamental changes that address the key systemic issues that make Facebook ripe for manipulation , viral misinformation and other ways that the platform can be used to affect democracy .
What prevents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There were three things that guided every major decision , and I recognised them when I was there .
One was : whatever we do has to be something that answers the criticism but never opens us up for having to take actual proactive responsibility and threaten in any way our Section 230 immunity .
Second , we also need to be very careful not to bite the hand that feeds us – we ’ re not to anger the powers who are currently in office who could regulate us .
And three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ scalable ” , so we could never address the unique intricacies of any particular country ’ s elections or political issues .
So is the net result that Mark Zuckerberg has his thumb on the scale for Donald Trump ?
I think he has the potential to .
I think he ’ s skating a fine line because he does not want to be accused a second time of helping any particular candidate win the election .
When it happened in 2016 , I don ’ t necessarily believe there was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think it was a series of terrible mistakes because of the business decisions that that company makes , but now I find Mark Zuckerberg ’ s reaction to different politicians to be very telling .
I don ’ t want to imply that he is purposely trying to get Donald Trump re-elected .
But it is in his best interests to have this administration stay in power rather than to have a new administration that will regulate or break up his company .
The fact that one individual has the power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a leaked memo , Facebook executive Andrew Bosworth took the line that Trump ’ s team were better at gaming Facebook than the Democrats , and that ’ s why they won .
That the Trump campaign absolutely knew how to game the algorithms , how to use the targeting tools to perfection seems pretty clear , but it still begs the question of why do you have algorithms that can be gamed to begin with ?
Just because one party played with your tools better doesn ’ t mean that your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook pose to the process of the 2020 election ?
I would put them in two buckets .
The first bucket is using the platform to coordinate inauthentic behaviour and manipulating users with disinformation .
There was so much focus on how the Russians did that in 2016 but , let ’ s be real , domestic actors are doing that now .
I suspect that there ’ s a debate internally about this , because it ’ s politically convenient for Facebook to take down a Russian disinformation network – that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US – but for them to target a rightwing , domestic disinformation network becomes much more politically tricky because those groups align with the current administration .
And that ’ s what I am concerned they are not doing .
For one example from my time there : there were times where we would get appeals on certain ads , and it would be pretty clear to us that it ’ s violating our policies , but we would get an answer from our people in Washington that I would call “ both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on both sides .
We would only get that answer when that current piece of content seemed to be coming from the far right .
And so I don ’ t envy Facebook for being in the position where anything they do will anger one party or the other .
But , at the end of the day , if you write your policies in a certain way and you enforce them equally – not equally in terms of numbers but in terms of enforcing the policy as it was written – that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is what happened with the recent voter suppression post by Trump that created such an outrage .
If you read Facebook ’ s current civil rights report , they make it very clear that his post about mail-in ballots is not just misleading but actually violated their voter suppression policy , and yet they decided not to enforce that policy against him .
And what ’ s in bucket two ?
Unfortunately , in addition to all of their challenges , we now are going to have an election like no other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follows this knows that there are domestic actors who will absolutely exploit this pandemic to spread intentionally misleading information about our voting process .
There are two reasons to do that .
One is actual voter suppression , to actually encourage people not to vote ; and two is to encourage people to not trust the outcome of the election .
Those are two different things and Facebook likes to just focus on the first and say we will take down posts that say things like vote on 4 November instead of 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not looking at is the bigger issue of how this has all been set up to intentionally sow distrust in the election process and what ’ s gon na happen when the president of the United States of America has done everything in his power to tell his base not to trust mail-in ballots .
So , whereas with Covid-19 , they claim that they will not allow misinformation about it because they recognise that that would harm the health of society , why would they allow people to post misinformation about mail-in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going to affect the health of our democracy ?
Do you think that Facebook ’ s new oversight board will be any help with this ?
Zero .
Yes , the oversight board has very impressive people on it .
Yes , in theory , it ’ s an interesting concept .
I have three major issues with it .
First of all , it ’ s another example of Facebook putting responsibility on someone else .
The oversight board does not have any authority to actually address any of the policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the underlying systemic issues that make the platform absolutely rife for disinformation and all sorts of bad behaviour and manipulation .
The second issue is : it ’ s basically an appeal process for content that was already taken down .
The bigger question is the content that remains up .
Third , they are not even going to be operational until late fall and , for a company that claims to move fast and break things , that ’ s absurd .

Yaël Eisenstat was a CIA officer for 13 years and a national security adviser to vice president Joe Biden. Between June and November 2018, she was Facebook’s global head of elections integrity operations, business integrity.
Before you were hired by Facebook to investigate the company’s effect on the electoral process, what was your opinion of it?
Early on, I was a big fan of Facebook. I had lived and worked all over the world, so I used it to stay connected to friends. But, in 2015, I started becoming incredibly concerned that it was becoming a real threat to democracy because of the role it was playing in the breakdown of civil discourse.
So when you were appointed, you were quite excited about the opportunity to effect change?
I was very clear as they interviewed me for the role that what I cared about was Facebook’s effect on our democracy. The fact that they would even hire someone like me for that role made me cautiously optimistic.
It is in Zuckerberg’s best interests to have this administration stay in power rather than face a new one that will regulate his company
But on your second day in the role, your job title was changed – you were effectively demoted?
Correct. Not only was I not empowered to do the job I was hired to do, but I was intentionally sidelined and never able to effect any sort of change or even participate in most of the conversations that were directly tied to the job I was hired to do.
And did that tell you that the company wasn’t serious about addressing the problems it hired you to work on?
Yes. I still turn the question over in my head of why did they hire me to begin with? I do think there are people at Facebook who genuinely want to tackle these challenges, genuinely do not want the platform to be manipulated by bad actors to play elections, but I was hired into the area that actually is the money-making machine, the advertising side of it. So my questions, the things I tried to push, all actually were things that went against their core idea of how it could make money.
After working there for six months what did you conclude?
My first takeaway when leaving was: they are making all sorts of reactive changes around the margins of the issues, [to suggest] that they are taking things seriously – such as building an ad library or verifying that political advertisers who reside in the country in which they advertising – things they should have been doing already. But they were never going to make the fundamental changes that address the key systemic issues that make Facebook ripe for manipulation, viral misinformation and other ways that the platform can be used to affect democracy.
Yaël Eisenstat. Photograph: Photo by Katie Burwick
What prevents them from making the necessary changes?
There were three things that guided every major decision, and I recognised them when I was there. One was: whatever we do has to be something that answers the criticism but never opens us up for having to take actual proactive responsibility and threaten in any way our Section 230 immunity. Second, we also need to be very careful not to bite the hand that feeds us – we’re not to anger the powers who are currently in office who could regulate us. And three, every potential solution had to be “scalable”, so we could never address the unique intricacies of any particular country’s elections or political issues.
So is the net result that Mark Zuckerberg has his thumb on the scale for Donald Trump?
I think he has the potential to. I think he’s skating a fine line because he does not want to be accused a second time of helping any particular candidate win the election. When it happened in 2016, I don’t necessarily believe there was a strong intent to get Trump elected. I think it was a series of terrible mistakes because of the business decisions that that company makes, but now I find Mark Zuckerberg’s reaction to different politicians to be very telling. I don’t want to imply that he is purposely trying to get Donald Trump re-elected. But it is in his best interests to have this administration stay in power rather than to have a new administration that will regulate or break up his company. The fact that one individual has the power to tip the scales is a danger.
In a leaked memo, Facebook executive Andrew Bosworth took the line that Trump’s team were better at gaming Facebook than the Democrats, and that’s why they won.
That the Trump campaign absolutely knew how to game the algorithms, how to use the targeting tools to perfection seems pretty clear, but it still begs the question of why do you have algorithms that can be gamed to begin with? Just because one party played with your tools better doesn’t mean that your tools are therefore OK.
What threats does Facebook pose to the process of the 2020 election?
I would put them in two buckets. The first bucket is using the platform to coordinate inauthentic behaviour and manipulating users with disinformation. There was so much focus on how the Russians did that in 2016 but, let’s be real, domestic actors are doing that now. I suspect that there’s a debate internally about this, because it’s politically convenient for Facebook to take down a Russian disinformation network – that is not going to anger anybody in the US – but for them to target a rightwing, domestic disinformation network becomes much more politically tricky because those groups align with the current administration. And that’s what I am concerned they are not doing.
For one example from my time there: there were times where we would get appeals on certain ads, and it would be pretty clear to us that it’s violating our policies, but we would get an answer from our people in Washington that I would call “both sides-ism” – there are bad people on both sides. We would only get that answer when that current piece of content seemed to be coming from the far right. And so I don’t envy Facebook for being in the position where anything they do will anger one party or the other. But, at the end of the day, if you write your policies in a certain way and you enforce them equally – not equally in terms of numbers but in terms of enforcing the policy as it was written – that’s what should matter.
Trump has used social media to sow anxiety among voters about the US electoral system. Photograph: REX/Shutterstock
And this is what happened with the recent voter suppression post by Trump that created such an outrage. If you read Facebook’s current civil rights report, they make it very clear that his post about mail-in ballots is not just misleading but actually violated their voter suppression policy, and yet they decided not to enforce that policy against him.
And what’s in bucket two?
Unfortunately, in addition to all of their challenges, we now are going to have an election like no other because of this pandemic. Everybody who follows this knows that there are domestic actors who will absolutely exploit this pandemic to spread intentionally misleading information about our voting process. There are two reasons to do that. One is actual voter suppression, to actually encourage people not to vote; and two is to encourage people to not trust the outcome of the election. Those are two different things and Facebook likes to just focus on the first and say we will take down posts that say things like vote on 4 November instead of 3 November. But what they’re not looking at is the bigger issue of how this has all been set up to intentionally sow distrust in the election process and what’s gonna happen when the president of the United States of America has done everything in his power to tell his base not to trust mail-in ballots.
So, whereas with Covid-19, they claim that they will not allow misinformation about it because they recognise that that would harm the health of society, why would they allow people to post misinformation about mail-in ballots and voting procedures if that’s going to affect the health of our democracy?
Do you think that Facebook’s new oversight board will be any help with this?
Zero. Yes, the oversight board has very impressive people on it. Yes, in theory, it’s an interesting concept.
I have three major issues with it. First of all, it’s another example of Facebook putting responsibility on someone else. The oversight board does not have any authority to actually address any of the policies that Facebook writes and enforces, or the underlying systemic issues that make the platform absolutely rife for disinformation and all sorts of bad behaviour and manipulation.
The second issue is: it’s basically an appeal process for content that was already taken down. The bigger question is the content that remains up. Third, they are not even going to be operational until late fall and, for a company that claims to move fast and break things, that’s absurd.


theguardian--2020-07-28--Trump returns to plugging false Covid-19 'cure' as US deaths near 150,000 – live

In his “ Good Morning America ” interview today , Dr Anthony Fauci also corrected false claims reshared by the president that the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine is a “ cure ” for coronavirus .
GMA host George Stephanopoulos noted the Food and Drug Administration revoked its emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine as a coronavirus treatment last month .
“ I go along with the FDA , ” Fauci said .
“ The overwhelming prevailing clinical trials that have looked at the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine have indicated that it is not effective in coronavirus disease.
” The infectious disease expert also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much attention to Trump ’ s Twitter feed , which was particularly active last night .
One tweet reshared by the president accused Fauci , the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , of having “ misled the American public.
” Asked about the tweets this morning , Fauci said , “ I don ’ t tweet .
I don ’ t even read them , so I don ’ t really want to go there .
I just will continue to do my job no matter what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s very important.
” He later added , “ I have not been misleading the American public under any circumstances .
”

28 Jul 2020 00.59 BST From me and Joan E Greve: The number of coronavirus deaths in the US approached 150,000. Florida marked a record-breaking spike in the death toll, while Los Angeles and Maricopa, Arizona have marked the highest number of cases in the US.
Florida marked a record-breaking spike in the death toll, while Los Angeles and Maricopa, Arizona have marked the highest number of cases in the US. Donald Trump once again delivered a coronavirus briefing alone, without his leading public health officers. The president complained that top infectious disease expert Dr Anthony Fauci had a higher approval rating, and defended his promotion of a disinformation video.
The president complained that top infectious disease expert Dr Anthony Fauci had a higher approval rating, and defended his promotion of a disinformation video. Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr both promoted a video featuring misinformation about the coronavirus. Twitter suspended rump Jr’s account for spreading false claims after he shared the video of a doctor falsely claiming that the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine is a “cure” for coronavirus.
Twitter suspended rump Jr’s account for spreading false claims after he shared the video of a doctor falsely claiming that the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine is a “cure” for coronavirus. Trump also discussed his administration’s $765m loan to Eastman Kodak - the camera company - so it can manufacture pharmaceutical ingredients. The move leverages the Defense Production Act, which allows the government to direct the production of certain supplies in the interest of national security.
The move leverages the Defense Production Act, which allows the government to direct the production of certain supplies in the interest of national security. Attorney general William Barr testified before the House judiciary committee. During the hearing, Barr struggled over a question about whether presidents should be allowed to solicit or accept foreign assistance in elections, and he said he did not believe that there is systemic racism in US police departments.
During the hearing, Barr struggled over a question about whether presidents should be allowed to solicit or accept foreign assistance in elections, and he said he did not believe that there is systemic racism in US police departments. Seattle’s mayor Jenny Durkan confirmed that federal forces have left the city she represents. The mayor denounced the Trump administration for sending federal law enforcement to act against US citizens, saying in an MSNBC interview that the president had conducted a “dress rehearsal for martial law.”
The mayor denounced the Trump administration for sending federal law enforcement to act against US citizens, saying in an MSNBC interview that the president had conducted a “dress rehearsal for martial law.” Joe Biden criticized Trump for sending federal agents to crack down on anti-racism protests in Portland, Oregon. “This isn’t about law and order. It’s about a political strategy to revive a failing campaign,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in Wilmington, Delaware. “Every instinct Trump has is to add fuel to the fire. And it’s the last thing, the last thing we need.”
“This isn’t about law and order. It’s about a political strategy to revive a failing campaign,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in Wilmington, Delaware. “Every instinct Trump has is to add fuel to the fire. And it’s the last thing, the last thing we need.” The Trump administration will allow “dreamers” to renew deportation protections for a year, after the supreme court blocked the administration’s effort to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. However, the acting homeland security secretary also announced that the department would not accpet new DACA applications.
after the supreme court blocked the administration’s effort to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. However, the acting homeland security secretary also announced that the department would not accpet new DACA applications. The American Federation of Teachers has authorized “safety strikes” if necessary to protect teachers from coronavirus. The announcement comes as number of school districts in coronavirus hot spots are pushing to reopen schools, despite concerns about the spread of the virus in classrooms.
Updated at 01.48 BST
28 Jul 2020 00.53 BST Seattle mayor says federal forces have left the city Mayor Jenny Durkan said that federal law enforcement sent to Seattle have left, less than a week after being deployed. In an interview with MSNBC, Durkan said that Trump was “doing a dress rehearsal for martial law” in her city. .@DHSgov notified me that federal forces deployed to Seattle have demobilized & left. The President’s actions to target Democratic cities with federal forces is chilling and increased violence in Portland, Seattle & other cities - exactly what the President intended. — Mayor Jenny Durkan (@MayorJenny) July 28, 2020 Governor Jay Inslee noted that the departure of federal officers “means Washingtonians no longer have to worry about the White House’s aim to provoke confrontation and undermine peaceful protests”.
Updated at 00.59 BST
28 Jul 2020 23.48 BST Two hundred and fifty years after they were stripped of their ancestral homeland, the Esselen tribe of northern California is landless no more. The land encompasses old-growth redwoods, oak woodlands, meadows and endangered steelhead trout. Photograph: Doug Steakley/AP Mario Koran reports:
This week, the Esselen tribe finalized the purchase of a 1,200-acre ranch near Big Sur, along California’s north central coast, as part of a $4.5m acquisition that involved the state and an Oregon-based environmental group.
The deal will conserve old-growth redwoods and endangered wildlife such as the California condor and red-legged frog, as well as protect the Little Sur River, an important spawning stream for the imperiled steelhead trout. Tribal leaders say they’ll use the land for educational and cultural purposes, building a sweat lodge and traditional village in view of Pico Blanco peak, the center of the tribe’s origin story. Northern California Esselen Tribe regains ancestral land after 250 years Read more
Updated at 23.54 BST
28 Jul 2020 23.38 BST Asked about the absence of Dr Fauci, Trump comments: 'Nobody likes me' Asked about the persistent absence of Dr Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, at Donald Trump’s briefings, the president mused about his health official’s approval rating. Fauci has “got a very good approval rating and I like that”, Trump told reporters. And Fauci was working with the administration, “so why don’t I have a very high approval rating?” the president wondered out loud. “But nobody likes me,” Trump said. “It can only be my personality, that’s all.” This morning, Fauci was asked about the coronavirus disinformation that Trump has promoted on social media during an interview with ABC. “I don’t tweet, I don’t even read them. I don’t really want to go there,” he told Good Morning America. “I just will continue to do my job, no matter what comes out, because I think it’s very important.”
Updated at 23.46 BST
28 Jul 2020 23.30 BST More than 149,000 people have died of coronavirus in the US, according to the tally by Johns Hopkins University. More than 4.3m cases of the virus have been recorded in the country. Los Angeles county has the highest number of cases (176,028), followed by Maricopa county in Arizona, and Miami-Dade in Florida.
28 Jul 2020 23.06 BST “I thought she was very impressive,” Trump said of the woman in the disinformation video he promoted. Here’s more background from colleagues Joan E Greve and Martin Pengelly: The video in question featured Dr Stella Immanuel, a physician from Houston, Texas, speaking on the steps of the US Capitol in Washington, surrounded by members of a rightwing doctors’ group. Immanuel made baseless claims about coronavirus, including hailing hydroxychloroquine as a “cure”, even though the drug, which has been repeatedly touted by the president, has not been found to be an effective treatment. The Houston doctor has also dismissed mounting evidence that face masks substantially help limit the spread of coronavirus. Twitter limits Donald Trump Jr's account for posting Covid-19 misinformation Read more
28 Jul 2020 22.59 BST Trump abruptly ended the conference after sustained question from CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. Before he walked off, he said he did not know why Twitter and Facebook removed the hydroxychloroquine video he promoted. “I’ve read a lot about hydroxy,” Trump said, and repeated an old refrain that there was no harm in taking the antimalarial drug to treat coronavirus. “I think it could have a very positive impact in the early stages and I don’t think you lose anything by doing it.,” he said. Although hydroxychloroquine is used as a treatment for some conditions, including lupus, studies have not found that the drug can help treat or prevent coronavirus. The US Food and Drug Administration revoked an emergency approval that had allowed doctors to prescribe hydroxychloroquine as an untested treatment for Covid-19.
Updated at 23.10 BST