buzzfeed--2020-08-07--Massive Crowds Are Rallying Around This 37-Year-Old Woman Trying To Oust “Europe’s Last Dictator”

Three women political novices have captured Belarusians ’ imagination with a promise of change and three simple hand gestures that have become symbols of hope for many : ✌✊❤ .
KYIV — Under a setting summer sun recently , 63,000 roaring Belarusians waved flags and held up homemade signs bearing the likeness of a woman who was a total unknown just over a month ago .
They chanted her name as she strode in a loose-fitting pantsuit onto the stage at Minsk ’ s Park of Peoples ’ Friendship : “ Sveta !
Sveta !
Sveta !
” Sveta is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And in just a matter of weeks , she has gone from obscurity and , as she put it to demonstrators , frying cutlets for her children to a household name and the biggest political threat to Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko , famously dubbed by the West as “ Europe ’ s last dictator , ” since he came to power in 1994 .
It is an extraordinary rise that has already earned her the label of Belarus ’ s “ Joan of Arc.
” Just as remarkable considering the patriarchal system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s comments about how a woman president “ would collapse , poor thing , ” Tikhanovskaya is campaigning alongside two other women political novices , Maria Kolesnikova and Veronika Tsepkalo , who serve as campaign advisers and hype the crowd from the stage .
Together , the female troika has captured the imagination of frustrated Belarusians with a promise of change and three simple hand gestures that have become symbols of hope for many in the country : ✌✊❤ .
“ The Belarusian people woke up , ” Tsepkalo told BuzzFeed News by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We were sleeping for 26 years and now we are ready for changes.
” Belarus historically has been heavily dependent on Russia but has taken recent steps to normalize bilateral relations with the US after more than a decade of friction .
Lukashenko seems unlikely to lose Sunday ’ s election because of his control over the government and authoritarian tactics , but the US is watching with a keen eye to see how his government conducts itself in the days running up to the voting and when the ballots are counted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of intimidation and harassment .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Minsk in February , the most senior US official to do so in more than two decades .
And President Donald Trump has nominated career foreign service officer Julie Fisher to be the first US ambassador to Belarus since the last one was expelled in 2008 .
Fisher ’ s nomination moved forward on Wednesday , when she faced questioning from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee .
“ The first component to ensuring that we can continue to grow this relationship is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conduct of this presidential election , ” Fisher said of the US and Belarus during the hearing .
Lukashenko , a mustachioed 65-year-old former Soviet collective farm director who loves a good publicity stunt — whether it ’ s playing ice hockey with Russian President Vladimir Putin , swinging scythes with French actor Gérard Depardieu , or feeding carrots and watermelon to Steven Seagal — has ruled Belarus with an iron fist for 26 years .
In that time , the man once affectionately referred to by supporters as Batka , meaning “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widespread repression , the expansion of his authority as president , and the systematic dismantling of the country ’ s democratic institutions .
He has won five presidential elections , although all but the first failed to meet democratic standards and involved widespread vote-rigging , according to international election monitors .
Now Lukashenko wants a sixth term as president — and , using familiar tactics , he will almost certainly win again .
His KGB security service has been busy detaining more than 1,300 people considered to be opponents of the president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American citizens , according to the Viasna human rights group .
He has ordered snap military drills and visited with anti-riot police , telling them that they “ must not allow ” street protests .
And in a desperate plea for support , he warned an audience of government officials and lawmakers on Tuesday not to “ betray ” him .
“ He ’ s preparing for a mass falsification of the election , ” Valery Tsepkalo , a former Belarus ambassador to the US and the founder of Minsk ’ s High @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kyiv .
He is the husband of Veronika Tsepkalo and was one of several figures who applied to challenge Lukashenko in the election .
But he was banned from doing so .
Fearing arrest , he fled to Moscow with his children before coming to the Ukrainian capital .
Veronika Tsepkalo said authorities had started the procedure to remove the couple ’ s children from their custody , even calling their school to notify it of the move .
“ If they see you as a threat , they go after you , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obedient security forces .
The heavy-handed tactics are being employed by Lukashenko , her husband said , because the president is backed into a corner .
“ He ’ s really alone now , ” he said .
Indeed , Lukashenko is facing an unprecedented groundswell of criticism from Belarusians over egregious human rights abuses , a stagnant economy that hasn ’ t improved since 2010 , and his failure to respond to the coronavirus pandemic , which has ripped through the population of 9.5 million .
Many Belarusians are especially angry over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
Authorities have refused to implement health measures to stem the spread of the coronavirus while Lukashenko himself has dismissed it as a “ psychosis ” and argued that merely drinking vodka , playing ice hockey , going to the sauna , and riding tractors through fields would stave it off .
Making matters worse , he publicly berated people who became infected with the virus .
And then he announced last week that he had contracted it himself but had survived it without experiencing symptoms and remained “ on his feet.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia studies program at the Center for Strategic and Foreign Policy Studies in Minsk , told BuzzFeed News that Lukashenko made a huge mistake when he “ positioned himself as a COVID denier ” and made disrespectful comments about people who had contracted it before he did .
“ I think it was him losing touch with reality , ” Tsarik said .
Belarus had reported 68,503 cases of COVID-19 , including 580 deaths , as of Friday .
All of this suggests that winning won ’ t be so easy for Lukashenko @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face staunch opposition long after the election .
Franak Viacorka , an independent Belarusian journalist , told BuzzFeed News that people are desperately seeking an alternative to Lukashenko , especially Belarus ’ s progressive , democratic-minded youth , who have lived under the ironfisted rule of him for all or most of their lives .
The attraction of Tikhanovskaya , Viacorka said , is that she “ is the opposite of Lukashenko.
” “ She is educated , gentle , honest , ” while the incumbent president is a “ brutal , old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those qualities have made an impression , rousing tens of thousands of Belarusians to come out to her rallies in cities and towns across the country on an almost daily basis for weeks despite the threat of detention .
Independent journalist Hanna Liubakova told BuzzFeed News that such massive rallies taking place outside of Minsk represent a major difference from past anti-Lukashenko protests that have generally occurred in the Belarusian capital .
“ Even people who voted for him before are saying , ‘ We might have voted for him , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ’ ” she said .
Liubakova said the rallies themselves also feel different .
Instead of the typical political demonstrations of old , with “ boring political speeches ” they feel more “ like a rock concert.
” And in some ways they are .
The unofficial anthem of Tikhanovskaya ’ s campaign is “ Changes ” — a song made popular by Russian rock star Viktor Tsoi during Perestroika .
At every rally , the presidential hopeful and her two sidekicks pump up the crowd with it .
They have also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video .
This sort of grassroots movement was unimaginable before Tikhanovskaya reluctantly stepped into the political arena after her husband , the popular vlogger and would-be presidential candidate Sergei Tikhonovsky , was barred from running , arrested , and jailed by authorities in May .
Liubakova observed that Svetlana Tikhanovskaya can appear awkward on stage , smiling nervously and speaking in a shaky voice , asking supporters to “ forgive her mistakes.
” But , Liubakova said , those traits help make her relatable .
Tikhanovskaya hasn ’ t grown this movement on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ played by Kolesnikova , who ran the campaign of Viktor Babariko , a banker and presidential hopeful , before he was also arrested and jailed , and Tsepkalo .
The trio joined forces last month after hashing out a campaign platform in just 15 minutes and deciding that Tikhanovskaya would be the one to register as a candidate .
Their campaign is built on three pillars : to free all political prisoners , overturn authoritarian changes to the constitution made in 1996 , and to organize new , fair presidential elections within six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
I want my husband and children back , and to fry my cutlets , ” Tikhanovskaya told a crowd recently to uproarious applause .
It ’ s hard to know for sure just how popular she and Lukashenko actually are among the population , as there is no independent polling in Belarus .
But some independent Belarusian media , including leading online news sites Tut.by and Onliner.by , published informal polls that showed the incumbent authoritarian with a measly 3 % of support .
That led to a meme calling the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sasha is short for Alexander ) that spread on social media .
After that , authorities barred the media from publishing any more public surveys .
But it might be enough to simply look to the streets to see who Belarusians support .
With their flashy and innovative campaign , Tikhanovskaya and her women partners have managed to organize the biggest public rallies Belarus has seen since becoming independent in 1991 .
“ We are all joined together in solidarity , ” Tsepkalo said .
“ Now , we wake up every day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put in jail today or not ?
’ ” “ We want to raise our kids in a free Belarus , ” she added .
On Thursday , afraid that Tikhanovskaya would again assemble a rally of tens of thousands of supporters in Minsk just three days before the big vote , the government announced that the location where their last planned demonstration was set to take place had already been booked for a concert in honor of Railway Troops Day , a holiday that Tsepkalo said has never been celebrated before .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tsepkalo made a snap decision : They announced in a video shared on social media that they would attend the government-approved concert .
“ We will be there .
We will be together , ” Tsepkalo said .
Within moments of their arrival and as a crowd of their supporters cheered , two DJs controlling the music for the government-approved concert defied the authorities and played “ Changes , ” the women ’ s unofficial campaign song .
Blaring from the speakers came Soviet-era rocker Tsoi ’ s famous lines : Our hearts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longing for changes It ’ s in our laugh and in our tears And it ’ s pulsing through our veins Changes , we are longing for changes Police dragged the two men away but not before they thrust their hands into the air , forming a fist and a V for victory .
On Friday afternoon , a Minsk court sentenced the two men to 10 days in jail .
●

“He’s preparing for a mass falsification of the election,” Valery Tsepkalo, a former Belarus ambassador to the US and the founder of Minsk’s High Tech Park, told BuzzFeed News in Kyiv.
He is the husband of Veronika Tsepkalo and was one of several figures who applied to challenge Lukashenko in the election. But he was banned from doing so. Fearing arrest, he fled to Moscow with his children before coming to the Ukrainian capital.
Veronika Tsepkalo said authorities had started the procedure to remove the couple’s children from their custody, even calling their school to notify it of the move. “If they see you as a threat, they go after you,” Tsepkalo said of Lukashenko’s obedient security forces.
The heavy-handed tactics are being employed by Lukashenko, her husband said, because the president is backed into a corner. “He’s really alone now,” he said.
Indeed, Lukashenko is facing an unprecedented groundswell of criticism from Belarusians over egregious human rights abuses, a stagnant economy that hasn’t improved since 2010, and his failure to respond to the coronavirus pandemic, which has ripped through the population of 9.5 million.
Many Belarusians are especially angry over the president’s mismanagement of the pandemic. Authorities have refused to implement health measures to stem the spread of the coronavirus while Lukashenko himself has dismissed it as a “psychosis” and argued that merely drinking vodka, playing ice hockey, going to the sauna, and riding tractors through fields would stave it off.
Making matters worse, he publicly berated people who became infected with the virus. And then he announced last week that he had contracted it himself but had survived it without experiencing symptoms and remained “on his feet.”
Yuri Tsarik, head of the Russia studies program at the Center for Strategic and Foreign Policy Studies in Minsk, told BuzzFeed News that Lukashenko made a huge mistake when he “positioned himself as a COVID denier” and made disrespectful comments about people who had contracted it before he did.
“I think it was him losing touch with reality,” Tsarik said.
Belarus had reported 68,503 cases of COVID-19, including 580 deaths, as of Friday.
All of this suggests that winning won’t be so easy for Lukashenko this time around and he will likely face staunch opposition long after the election.
Franak Viacorka, an independent Belarusian journalist, told BuzzFeed News that people are desperately seeking an alternative to Lukashenko, especially Belarus’s progressive, democratic-minded youth, who have lived under the ironfisted rule of him for all or most of their lives.


buzzfeed--2020-08-07--A Federal Court Ruled House Democrats Can Sue The Trump Administration When Its Officials Defy Subpo

A Federal Court Ruled House Democrats Can Sue The Trump Administration When Its Officials Defy Subpoenas

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that House Democrats can take the Trump administration to court when current and former officials refuse to comply with subpoenas , rejecting the Justice Department 's argument that Congress could not ever sue .
The ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit is a major win for House Democrats in their ongoing efforts to wrest documents and testimony from the Trump administration .
A three-judge DC Circuit had previously ruled that Democrats lacked standing to bring a lawsuit after former White House counsel Don McGahn defied a subpoena @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democrats asked the full court to rehear the case .
In Friday 's 7–2 decision , Judge Judith Rogers wrote for the majority of the court that the committee had proved that it `` suffers a concrete and particularized injury '' when it can not get information `` necessary to the legislative , oversight , and impeachment functions of the House . ''
`` Indeed , the ordinary and effective functioning of the Legislative Branch critically depends on the legislative prerogative to obtain information , and constitutional structure and historical practice support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Rogers wrote .
Trump 's two appointees to the DC Circuit , Judges Greg Katsas and Neomi Rao , did not participate in the case .
Friday 's decision does n't end the fight over McGahn 's testimony .
The Justice Department could petition the US Supreme Court to take up the case ; if the justices agreed , the litigation could extend well into 2021 .
The ruling does n't resolve other arguments that McGahn and the Trump administration raised in contesting the subpoena , so the case now goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to address those .
A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately return a request for comment .
House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler said in a statement that the court 's decision `` strikes a blow against the wall of impunity that President Trump has tried to build for himself . ''
The DC Circuit heard arguments in the case in April , along with a separate case that House Democrats had brought against the administration over Trump 's plan to divert money allocated for military spending to pay for border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administration had also argued that Congress lacked standing to sue .
The DC Circuit sent that case back down to the district court judge to reconsider in light of the decision in the McGahn case .
The House Judiciary Committee had subpoenaed McGahn in April 2019 to testify after the conclusion of Robert Mueller 's investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 election and whether Trump attempted to obstruct that probe .
McGahn , who served as White House counsel from January 2017 to October 2018 , featured prominently in Mueller 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McGahn to testify as they considered whether to pursue impeachment against the president .
McGahn 's successor as White House counsel , Pat Cipollone , notified the committee that Trump had directed McGahn not to appear because the Justice Department 's Office of Legal Counsel had concluded that current and former senior advisers to the president were `` absolutely immune '' from being forced to testify before Congress .
The House Judiciary Committee sued to enforce its subpoena .
The effort to subpoena McGahn predated Democrats ' eventual impeachment proceedings , which did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mueller 's report and were instead focused on Trump 's overtures to the Ukrainian government for help investigating his political rival in the 2020 presidential election , Joe Biden .
But the administration made the same absolute immunity argument in ordering officials to defy subpoenas to testify in the Ukraine investigation .
US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled in November that the committee did have standing to sue , and she also dove into the merits of the fight and rejected the administration 's absolute immunity argument .
The Justice Department appealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration on the standing issue in February .
Rogers , who wrote the main opinion on Friday , was part of the original panel and dissented at the time .
Rogers wrote on Friday that allowing the legislative branch to sue the executive branch to enforce a subpoena `` is consistent with the system of separated powers and capable of resolution through the judicial process . ''
The judiciary was n't taking on any new power , Rogers wrote , `` but rather plays its appropriate constitutional role . ''
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's recent decision in another subpoena fight between Trump and House Democrats .
In that case , Trump had sued to challenge congressional subpoenas for his financial records from his accountant and financial institutions , and the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts that sided with House Democrats had failed to fully consider the separation of powers issues at play and sent the cases back for further consideration .
Rogers wrote that the broader separation of powers concerns expressed by the Supreme Court — specifically , whether lawsuits would get in the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and executive branches negotiating among themselves to resolve fights over information — did n't get in the way of Congress having standing to sue to enforce a subpoena , however .
`` To the contrary , permitting Congress to bring this lawsuit preserves the power of subpoena that the House of Representatives is already understood to possess .
Rather , it is McGahn ’ s challenge to the Committee ’ s standing that seeks to alter the status quo ante and aggrandize the power of the Executive Branch at the expense of Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibility of a lawsuit `` would upset settled expectations and dramatically alter bargaining positions '' in future negotiations between the branches , the judge wrote .
`` Presidents could direct widescale non-compliance with lawful inquiries by a House of Congress , secure in the knowledge that little can be done to enforce its subpoena — as President Trump did here , '' Rogers wrote .
Judges Thomas Griffith and Karen LeCraft Henderson — who issued the previous 2-1 decision siding with the Trump administration — each wrote dissents .
Henderson wrote that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court 's reasoning in sending the subpoena fight over Trump 's financial records back to the lower courts to grapple with the separation of powers issue .
`` By holding that the Committee has standing , the majority enlarges the Judiciary ’ s power to intervene in battles that should be waged between the Legislature and the Executive and opens the door to future disputes between the political branches , '' Henderson wrote .
Griffith called the majority 's opinion a `` Pyrrhic victory for Congress , '' writing that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political branches .
He wrote that it diluted Congress 's power to use the threat of impeachment to force the executive branch to cooperate with investigations , because presidents could just argue that Congress should have to go through the courts first to enforce subpoenas .
`` Today ’ s decision thus grants Congress the sluggish remedy of judicial superintendence only to blunt the most potent weapon in its arsenal , '' Griffith wrote .

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that House Democrats can take the Trump administration to court when current and former officials refuse to comply with subpoenas, rejecting the Justice Department's argument that Congress could not ever sue.
The ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit is a major win for House Democrats in their ongoing efforts to wrest documents and testimony from the Trump administration. A three-judge DC Circuit had previously ruled that Democrats lacked standing to bring a lawsuit after former White House counsel Don McGahn defied a subpoena to testify before the House Judiciary Committee.
Democrats asked the full court to rehear the case. In Friday's 7–2 decision, Judge Judith Rogers wrote for the majority of the court that the committee had proved that it "suffers a concrete and particularized injury" when it cannot get information "necessary to the legislative, oversight, and impeachment functions of the House."
"Indeed, the ordinary and effective functioning of the Legislative Branch critically depends on the legislative prerogative to obtain information, and constitutional structure and historical practice support judicial enforcement of congressional subpoenas when necessary," Rogers wrote.
Trump's two appointees to the DC Circuit, Judges Greg Katsas and Neomi Rao, did not participate in the case.
Friday's decision doesn't end the fight over McGahn's testimony. The Justice Department could petition the US Supreme Court to take up the case; if the justices agreed, the litigation could extend well into 2021. The ruling doesn't resolve other arguments that McGahn and the Trump administration raised in contesting the subpoena, so the case now goes back down to the US district court to address those.
A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately return a request for comment. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler said in a statement that the court's decision "strikes a blow against the wall of impunity that President Trump has tried to build for himself."
The DC Circuit heard arguments in the case in April, along with a separate case that House Democrats had brought against the administration over Trump's plan to divert money allocated for military spending to pay for border wall construction. In that case, the administration had also argued that Congress lacked standing to sue. The DC Circuit sent that case back down to the district court judge to reconsider in light of the decision in the McGahn case.
The House Judiciary Committee had subpoenaed McGahn in April 2019 to testify after the conclusion of Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 election and whether Trump attempted to obstruct that probe. McGahn, who served as White House counsel from January 2017 to October 2018, featured prominently in Mueller's report, and Democrats said they wanted McGahn to testify as they considered whether to pursue impeachment against the president.
McGahn's successor as White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, notified the committee that Trump had directed McGahn not to appear because the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had concluded that current and former senior advisers to the president were "absolutely immune" from being forced to testify before Congress. The House Judiciary Committee sued to enforce its subpoena.
The effort to subpoena McGahn predated Democrats' eventual impeachment proceedings, which did not relate to events spelled out in Mueller's report and were instead focused on Trump's overtures to the Ukrainian government for help investigating his political rival in the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden. But the administration made the same absolute immunity argument in ordering officials to defy subpoenas to testify in the Ukraine investigation.
US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled in November that the committee did have standing to sue, and she also dove into the merits of the fight and rejected the administration's absolute immunity argument. The Justice Department appealed, and the three-judge panel sided with the Trump administration on the standing issue in February. Rogers, who wrote the main opinion on Friday, was part of the original panel and dissented at the time.
Rogers wrote on Friday that allowing the legislative branch to sue the executive branch to enforce a subpoena "is consistent with the system of separated powers and capable of resolution through the judicial process." The judiciary wasn't taking on any new power, Rogers wrote, "but rather plays its appropriate constitutional role."
The DC Circuit decision noted the Supreme Court's recent decision in another subpoena fight between Trump and House Democrats. In that case, Trump had sued to challenge congressional subpoenas for his financial records from his accountant and financial institutions, and the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts that sided with House Democrats had failed to fully consider the separation of powers issues at play and sent the cases back for further consideration.
Rogers wrote that the broader separation of powers concerns expressed by the Supreme Court — specifically, whether lawsuits would get in the way of the historical practice of the legislative and executive branches negotiating among themselves to resolve fights over information — didn't get in the way of Congress having standing to sue to enforce a subpoena, however.
"To the contrary, permitting Congress to bring this lawsuit preserves the power of subpoena that the House of Representatives is already understood to possess. Rather, it is McGahn’s challenge to the Committee’s standing that seeks to
alter the status quo ante and aggrandize the power of the Executive Branch at the expense of Congress," Rogers wrote.
Removing the possibility of a lawsuit "would upset settled expectations and dramatically alter bargaining positions" in future negotiations between the branches, the judge wrote.
"Presidents could direct widescale non-compliance with lawful inquiries by a House of Congress, secure in the knowledge that little can be done to enforce its subpoena — as President Trump did here," Rogers wrote.
Judges Thomas Griffith and Karen LeCraft Henderson — who issued the previous 2-1 decision siding with the Trump administration — each wrote dissents. Henderson wrote that she believed the majority's decision conflicted with the Supreme Court's reasoning in sending the subpoena fight over Trump's financial records back to the lower courts to grapple with the separation of powers issue.
"By holding that the Committee has standing, the majority enlarges the Judiciary’s power to intervene in battles that should be waged between the Legislature and the Executive and opens the door to future disputes between the political branches," Henderson wrote.
Griffith called the majority's opinion a "Pyrrhic victory for Congress," writing that it only encouraged more drawn-out legal fights between the political branches. He wrote that it diluted Congress's power to use the threat of impeachment to force the executive branch to cooperate with investigations, because presidents could just argue that Congress should have to go through the courts first to enforce subpoenas.
"Today’s decision thus grants Congress the sluggish remedy of judicial superintendence only to blunt the most potent weapon in its arsenal," Griffith wrote.


buzzfeed--2020-08-07--TikTok Is “Shocked” By Trump’s Order Threatening To Ban It And Will Fight Back

TikTok has slammed President Donald Trump ’ s executive order — which bans the app in the US unless it is bought by an American company — as “ undermining the rule of law.
” “ We are shocked by the recent Executive Order , which was issued without any due process , ” the company wrote in a statement early Friday morning .
“ For nearly a year , we have sought to engage with the US government in good faith to provide a constructive solution to the concerns that have been expressed .
What we encountered instead was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts , dictated terms of an agreement without going through standard legal processes , and tried to insert itself into negotiations between private businesses.
” Trump ’ s order , issued on Thursday night , bars anyone “ subject to the jurisdiction of the United States ” from carrying out transactions with ByteDance , TikTok ’ s Beijing-based parent company .
The order says TikTok “ automatically ” captures “ vast swathes of information from its users , ” and could be used by China ’ s authoritarian government to influence Americans and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says TikTok “ reportedly censors ” content about the Chinese government ’ s treatment of Uighur Muslims , as well as “ sensitive ” videos showing protests .
“ [ TikTok ] may also be used for disinformation campaigns that benefit the Chinese Communist Party , such as when TikTok videos spread debunked conspiracy theories about the origins of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus , ” the order says .
TikTok disputed these claims in its statement , saying that they rely on “ unnamed ‘ reports ’ with no citations ” or “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it does not share data with the Chinese government .
“ This Executive Order risks undermining global businesses ' trust in the United States ' commitment to the rule of law , which has served as a magnet for investment and spurred decades of American economic growth , ” TikTok said .
“ And it sets a dangerous precedent for the concept of free expression and open markets .
We will pursue all remedies available to us in order to ensure that the rule of law is not discarded and that our company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if not by the Administration , then by the US courts.
” TikTok has been under global scrutiny for its links to China .
Last week , Trump said the United States would ban the app citing national security concerns around ByteDance .
Since then , the president has changed his mind and said TikTok would be allowed to function in the US as long as an American company bought its operations in the country , and as long as the United States received a “ substantial portion ” of the sale price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Microsoft confirmed in a blog post that it was in talks to buy TikTok and would close negotiations by Sept. 15 .

TikTok has slammed President Donald Trump’s executive order — which bans the app in the US unless it is bought by an American company — as “undermining the rule of law.”
“We are shocked by the recent Executive Order, which was issued without any due process,” the company wrote in a statement early Friday morning. “For nearly a year, we have sought to engage with the US government in good faith to provide a constructive solution to the concerns that have been expressed. What we encountered instead was that the Administration paid no attention to facts, dictated terms of an agreement without going through standard legal processes, and tried to insert itself into negotiations between private businesses.”
Trump’s order, issued on Thursday night, bars anyone “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” from carrying out transactions with ByteDance, TikTok’s Beijing-based parent company. The order says TikTok “automatically” captures “vast swathes of information from its users,” and could be used by China’s authoritarian government to influence Americans and compromise their privacy.
The order also says TikTok “reportedly censors” content about the Chinese government’s treatment of Uighur Muslims, as well as “sensitive” videos showing protests. “[TikTok] may also be used for disinformation campaigns that benefit the Chinese Communist Party, such as when TikTok videos spread debunked conspiracy theories about the origins of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus,” the order says.
TikTok disputed these claims in its statement, saying that they rely on “unnamed ‘reports’ with no citations” or “substantiation.” The company also said that it does not share data with the Chinese government.
“This Executive Order risks undermining global businesses' trust in the United States' commitment to the rule of law, which has served as a magnet for investment and spurred decades of American economic growth,” TikTok said. “And it sets a dangerous precedent for the concept of free expression and open markets. We will pursue all remedies available to us in order to ensure that the rule of law is not discarded and that our company and our users are treated fairly – if not by the Administration, then by the US courts.”
TikTok has been under global scrutiny for its links to China. Last week, Trump said the United States would ban the app citing national security concerns around ByteDance.
Since then, the president has changed his mind and said TikTok would be allowed to function in the US as long as an American company bought its operations in the country, and as long as the United States received a “substantial portion” of the sale price.
Earlier this week, tech giant Microsoft confirmed in a blog post that it was in talks to buy TikTok and would close negotiations by Sept. 15.


buzzfeed--2020-08-07--Facebook Fired An Employee Who Collected Evidence Of Right-Wing Pages Getting Preferential Treatment

Facebook employees collected evidence showing the company is giving right-wing pages preferential treatment when it comes to misinformation .
And they ’ re worried about how the company will handle the president ’ s falsehoods in an election year .
After months of debate and disagreement over the handling of inflammatory or misleading posts from Donald Trump , Facebook employees want CEO Mark Zuckerberg to explain what the company would do if the leader of the free world uses the social network to undermine the results of the 2020 US presidential election .
“ I do think we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to be used to aggressively undermine the legitimacy of the US elections , in a way that has never been possible in history , ” one Facebook employee wrote in a group on Workplace , the company ’ s internal communication platform , earlier this week .
For the past week , this scenario has been a topic of heated discussion inside Facebook and was a top question for its leader .
Some 2,900 employees asked Zuckerberg to address it publicly during a company-wide meeting on Thursday , which he partly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position . ''
Zuckerberg ’ s remarks came amid growing internal concerns about the company 's competence in handling misinformation , and the precautions it is taking to ensure its platform isn ’ t used to disrupt or mislead ahead of the US presidential election .
Though Facebook says it has committed more money and resources to avoid repeating its failures during the 2016 election , some employees believe it isn ’ t enough .
President Trump has already spent months raising questions about the legitimacy of the upcoming 2020 election , spreading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say if he ’ d accept the possibility of losing to Democratic nominee Joe Biden in November .
In July , Trump told Fox News he wasn ’ t sure if he ’ d concede to Biden , casting doubt on whether there would be a peaceful transition of power if the former vice president wins the election .
`` I have to see .
I 'm not just going to say yes .
I 'm not going to say no , '' the president said .
On Facebook ’ s internal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election question remained civil prior to Thursday ’ s all-hands meeting .
Employees debated the merits of censoring a sitting president ’ s potentially false statements about election results with one person noting that “ it would be a really troubling policy to apply globally.
” `` America ca n't afford for Facebook to take a wait-and-see approach when it comes to the integrity of our democracy , ” said Jesse Lehrich , a former foreign policy spokesperson to Hillary Clinton and cofounder of Accountable Tech , a nonprofit advocacy group .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement mechanisms to safeguard the election , the platform will be weaponized to undermine it . ''
Do you work at Facebook or another technology company ?
We 'd love to hear from you .
Reach out at craig.silverman @ buzzfeed.com , ryan.mac @ buzzfeed.com , or via one of our tip line channels .
On Thursday , Zuckerberg told employees that the increased use of mail-in ballots due to the pandemic will likely lead to a situation where election results will not be available `` for days '' or `` for weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commentators may attempt to try to call an election early , in which case the company may label a post explaining that results are not yet final .
Zuckerberg did not have a clear answer for what the company would do should Trump declared the election results invalid .
`` This is where we 're in unprecedented territory with the president saying some of the things that he 's saying that I find quite troubling , '' he said .
`` We 're thinking through what policy may be appropriate here .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing to work through . ''
While there are signs Facebook will stand up to Trump in cases where he violates its rules — as on Wednesday when it removed a video post from the president in which he claimed that children are “ almost immune ” to COVID-19 — there are others who suggest the company is caving to critical voices on the right .
In another recent Workplace post , a senior engineer collected internal evidence that showed Facebook was giving preferential treatment to prominent conservative accounts to help them remove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responded by removing his post and restricting internal access to the information he cited .
On Wednesday the engineer was fired , according to internal posts seen by BuzzFeed News .
With heightened internal tensions and morale at a low point , concerns about how the company handles fact-checked content have exploded in an internal Workplace group dedicated to misinformation policy .
Last Friday , at another all-hands meeting , employees asked Zuckerberg how right-wing publication Breitbart News could remain a Facebook News partner after sharing a video that promoted unproven treatments and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ novel coronavirus .
The video racked up 14 million views in six hours before it was removed from Breitbart ’ s page , though other accounts continued to share it .
Zuckerberg danced around the question but did note that Breitbart could be removed from the company 's news tab if it were to receive two strikes for publishing misinformation within 90 days of each other .
( Facebook News partners , which include dozens of publications such as BuzzFeed News and the Washington Post , receive compensation and placement in a special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) “ This was certainly one strike against them for misinformation , but they do n't have others in the last 90 days , ” Zuckerberg said .
“ So by the policies that we have , which by the way I think are generally pretty reasonable on this , it does n't make sense to remove them.
” But some of Facebook ’ s own employees gathered evidence they say shows Breitbart — along with other right-wing outlets and figures including Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk , Trump supporters Diamond and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prager University — has received special treatment that helped it avoid running afoul of company policy .
They see it as part of a pattern of preferential treatment for right-wing publishers and pages , many of which have alleged that the social network is biased against conservatives .
“ We defer to third-party fact-checkers on the rating that a piece of content receives , '' Facebook spokesperson Liz Bourgeois said in a statement .
`` When a fact checker applies a rating , we apply a label and demotion .
But we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems for repeat offenders .
We apply additional system wide penalties for multiple false ratings , including demonetization and the inability to advertise , unless we determine that one or more of those ratings does not warrant additional consequences . ''
On July 22 , a Facebook employee posted a message to the company ’ s internal misinformation policy group noting that some misinformation strikes against Breitbart had been cleared by someone at Facebook seemingly acting on the publication 's behalf .
“ A Breitbart escalation marked ‘ urgent : end of day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with all misinformation strikes against Breitbart ’ s page and against their domain cleared without explanation , ” the employee wrote .
The same employee said a partly false rating applied to an Instagram post from Charlie Kirk was flagged for “ priority ” escalation by Joel Kaplan , the company ’ s vice president of global public policy .
Kaplan once served in George W. Bush ’ s administration and drew criticism for publicly supporting Brett Kavanaugh ’ s controversial nomination to the Supreme Court .
Aaron Sharockman , the executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a contact at Facebook did call to discuss Kirk ’ s post .
“ We had a call with them where they wanted to know how this post was aligned with the program , ” Sharockman said .
`` Was this just a minor inaccuracy or was it something that we thought was something that had potential harmful effects ? ''
PolitiFact did not change its rating on the post .
“ We stuck to our guns there , ” Sharockman said .
Past Facebook employees , including Yaël Eisenstat , Facebook 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have expressed concerns with Kaplan ’ s influence over content enforcement decisions .
She previously told BuzzFeed News a member of Kaplan 's Washington policy team attempted to influence ad enforcement decisions for an ad placed by a conservative organization .
Facebook did not respond to questions about why Kaplan would personally intervene in matters like this .
These and other interventions appear to be in violation of Facebook ’ s official policy , which requires publishers wishing to dispute a fact check rating to contact the Facebook fact-checking partner responsible .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intervening in fact-checks on behalf of *exclusively* right-wing publishers , to avoid them getting repeat-offender status , ” wrote another employee in the company ’ s internal “ misinformation policy ” discussion group .
Individuals that spoke out about the apparent special treatment of right-wing pages have also faced consequences .
In one case , a senior Facebook engineer collected multiple instances of conservative figures receiving unique help from Facebook employees , including those on the policy team , to remove fact-checks on their content .
His July post was removed because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communication policy.
” After the engineer ’ s post was removed , the related internal “ tasks ” he ’ d cited as examples of the alleged special treatment were made private and inaccessible to employees , according to a Workplace post from another employee .
“ Personally this makes me so angry and ashamed of this company , ” wrote the employee in support of their colleague .
The engineer joined the company in 2016 and most recently worked on Instagram .
He left the company on Wednesday .
One employee on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that they received permission from the engineer to say that the dismissal “ was not voluntary.
” In an internal post before his dismissal , the engineer said he was “ told to expect to be contacted by legal and HR if my post is found to be violating other policies in addition to Respectful Comms.
” Facebook denied the employee had been terminated for the post but said it was because `` they broke the company 's rules . ''
“ We have an open culture and encourage employees to speak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bourgeois said .
News of his firing caused some Facebook employees to say that they now fear speaking critically about the company in internal discussions .
One person said they were deleting old posts and comments , while another said this was “ hardly the first time the respectful workplace guidelines have been used to snipe a prominent critic of company policies/ethics.
” “ [ He ] was a conscience of this company , and a tireless voice for us doing the right thing , ” said another employee .
The terminated employee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be named for fear of repercussions .
The internal evidence gathered by the engineer aligns with the experience of a journalist who works for one of Facebook ’ s US fact-checking partners .
They told BuzzFeed News that conservative pages often complain directly to the company .
“ Of the publishers that don ’ t follow the procedure , it seems to be mostly ones on the right .
Instead of appealing to the fact-checker they immediately call their rep at Facebook , ” said the journalist , who declined to be named @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publicly .
“ They jump straight up and say ‘ censorship , First Amendment , freedom.
’ ” “ I think Facebook is a bit afraid of them because of the Trump administration , ” they added .
Facebook typically assigns dedicated partner managers to pages with large followings or big ad budgets .
They help their clients maximize their use of the platform .
But in the cases identified in the engineer 's post , partner reps appear to have sought preferential treatment for right-wing publishers .
This resulted in phone calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and instances where misinformation strikes appear to have been removed from content without a fact-checker ’ s knowledge or involvement .
A Facebook employee ’ s July 22 post restating the engineer ’ s findings identified multiple cases in which a fact-check complaint from a right-wing page was escalated and in some cases resolved in the account ’ s favor the same day .
According to the post , Joel Kaplan flagged a fact check of a Charlie Kirk Instagram post for resolution “ ASAP/before 12 p.m.
ET ” .
This same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of a “ two weeks long effort ” to prevent the site from being given Repeat Offender status , a designation that would have limited its reach and advertising privileges .
Citing “ partner sensitivity , '' the rep noted that PragerU runs a lot of ads , and argued that the content in question qualified as opinion and was therefore exempt from being fact-checked .
Facebook did not answer questions about why a partner manager would cite ad volume as a reason for not acting against a group of pages .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook have never asked them to change a rating .
But Facebook reps do reach out to discuss whether a post is opinion or otherwise outside of the scope of the program .
“ We have had discussions where our partners have asked us , ‘ Why did you fact check this ?
Why did you come to this conclusion ?
How do you think it fits within the scope of Facebook 's rules or regulations within fact-checking ?
’ ” he said .
`` We sometimes reach out to fact-checkers to clarify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Bourgeois said .
Mark Provost manages multiple large progressive Facebook pages , including The Other 98 % , one of the biggest on the platform .
He said his Facebook partner manager is far less responsive than what the Facebook employee documented for Provost ’ s counterparts on the right .
And he ’ s not aware of any case where Facebook contacted a fact-checker on his behalf .
“ We do n't get a message back for 10 days , ” Provost said of Facebook .
“ I imagine the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal.
” His Other 98 % page is currently at risk of deletion because it has three strikes .
Provost said one strike is for a hate speech violation three months ago , though as of now no one at Facebook has told him what the offending post was .
His partner representative said they would look into it , according to Provost .
That was last week and he says he still hasn ’ t received an update .
“ I 'm getting so frustrated with this , ” Provost said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook were as responsive as the fact-checking companies that they 've assigned.
” Provost said Facebook ’ s fact-checking partners are easy to deal with when he contacts them to dispute a rating .
In some cases , he provided additional proof of his claim to get a rating changed ; in other cases , he corrected the offending post and the false rating was removed .
The fact-checker who spoke to BuzzFeed News said most page owners follow the policy and contact them to dispute a rating .
But in some cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partner manager assigned to work with fact-checkers .
“ They will ask us , ‘ Could you take a look at this again ?
Are you sure ?
’ ” the checker said .
In other cases , Facebook itself will quietly remove a fact-check applied by one of its partners .
That appears to be what happened with a March 25 post from Diamond and Silk .
The duo wrote on Facebook , “ How the hell is allocating 25 million dollars in order to give a raise to house members , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans , going to help stimulate America 's economy ?
Tell me how ?
# PutAmericansBackToWorkNow.
” Lead Stories , a Facebook fact-checking partner , rated the post false .
Diamond and Silk initially followed the proper procedure and appealed directly to Lead Stories .
“ They were detailed in their appeal and we replied promptly , ” Alan Duke , the editor-in-chief of Lead Stories , told BuzzFeed News .
“ The result was that we decided that a false rating initially given their content should be revised downward to ‘ partly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rating apparently didn ’ t satisfy Diamond and Silk , who reportedly lost their online Fox News show after spreading coronavirus misinformation .
As detailed in the July 22 internal Facebook post , Diamond and Silk appealed to their partner manager , who opened an internal ticket for the issue .
The Facebook rep argued the post was opinion and warned that the duo “ is extremely sensitive and has not hesitated going public about their concerns around alleged conservative bias on Facebook.
” While the partly false fact-check is still visible on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the strike against their account internally .
The Facebook employee said “ someone described on the task as ‘ Policy/Leadership ’ made the call to not only completely remove this strike , but also the one from January.
” PolitiFact ’ s Sharockman said he does n't know what goes on inside Facebook when it comes to applying or removing strikes for misinformation .
All the Facebook fact-checking partners can do is try to be honest , even if the other parties involved aren ’ t .
`` We 're trying to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open and transparent .
And no one else is .
Everyone else is using the system to their personal benefit . ''
●

On Facebook’s internal message boards, discussion about the Trump election question remained civil prior to Thursday’s all-hands meeting. Employees debated the merits of censoring a sitting president’s potentially false statements about election results with one person noting that “it would be a really troubling policy to apply globally.”
"America can't afford for Facebook to take a wait-and-see approach when it comes to the integrity of our democracy,” said Jesse Lehrich, a former foreign policy spokesperson to Hillary Clinton and cofounder of Accountable Tech, a nonprofit advocacy group. “Unless they proactively outline clear policies and enforcement mechanisms to safeguard the election, the platform will be weaponized to undermine it."
Do you work at Facebook or another technology company? We'd love to hear from you. Reach out at craig.silverman@buzzfeed.com, ryan.mac@buzzfeed.com, or via one of our tip line channels.
On Thursday, Zuckerberg told employees that the increased use of mail-in ballots due to the pandemic will likely lead to a situation where election results will not be available "for days" or "for weeks." He noted political figures and commentators may attempt to try to call an election early, in which case the company may label a post explaining that results are not yet final.
Zuckerberg did not have a clear answer for what the company would do should Trump declared the election results invalid.
"This is where we're in unprecedented territory with the president saying some of the things that he's saying that I find quite troubling," he said. "We're thinking through what policy may be appropriate here. This is obviously going to be a sensitive thing to work through."
While there are signs Facebook will stand up to Trump in cases where he violates its rules — as on Wednesday when it removed a video post from the president in which he claimed that children are “almost immune” to COVID-19 — there are others who suggest the company is caving to critical voices on the right. In another recent Workplace post, a senior engineer collected internal evidence that showed Facebook was giving preferential treatment to prominent conservative accounts to help them remove fact-checks from their content.
The company responded by removing his post and restricting internal access to the information he cited. On Wednesday the engineer was fired, according to internal posts seen by BuzzFeed News.
“Intervening in Fact-Checks”
With heightened internal tensions and morale at a low point, concerns about how the company handles fact-checked content have exploded in an internal Workplace group dedicated to misinformation policy.
Last Friday, at another all-hands meeting, employees asked Zuckerberg how right-wing publication Breitbart News could remain a Facebook News partner after sharing a video that promoted unproven treatments and said masks were unnecessary to combat the novel coronavirus. The video racked up 14 million views in six hours before it was removed from Breitbart’s page, though other accounts continued to share it.
Zuckerberg danced around the question but did note that Breitbart could be removed from the company's news tab if it were to receive two strikes for publishing misinformation within 90 days of each other. (Facebook News partners, which include dozens of publications such as BuzzFeed News and the Washington Post, receive compensation and placement in a special news tab on the social network.)
“This was certainly one strike against them for misinformation, but they don't have others in the last 90 days,” Zuckerberg said. “So by the policies that we have, which by the way I think are generally pretty reasonable on this, it doesn't make sense to remove them.”
But some of Facebook’s own employees gathered evidence they say shows Breitbart — along with other right-wing outlets and figures including Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, Trump supporters Diamond and Silk, and conservative video production nonprofit Prager University — has received special treatment that helped it avoid running afoul of company policy. They see it as part of a pattern of preferential treatment for right-wing publishers and pages, many of which have alleged that the social network is biased against conservatives.
“We defer to third-party fact-checkers on the rating that a piece of content receives," Facebook spokesperson Liz Bourgeois said in a statement. "When a fact checker applies a rating, we apply a label and demotion. But we are responsible for how we manage our internal systems for repeat offenders. We apply additional system wide penalties for multiple false ratings, including demonetization and the inability to advertise, unless we determine that one or more of those ratings does not warrant additional consequences."
On July 22, a Facebook employee posted a message to the company’s internal misinformation policy group noting that some misinformation strikes against Breitbart had been cleared by someone at Facebook seemingly acting on the publication's behalf.
“A Breitbart escalation marked ‘urgent: end of day’ was resolved on the same day, with all misinformation strikes against Breitbart’s page and against their domain cleared without explanation,” the employee wrote.
The same employee said a partly false rating applied to an Instagram post from Charlie Kirk was flagged for “priority” escalation by Joel Kaplan, the company’s vice president of global public policy. Kaplan once served in George W. Bush’s administration and drew criticism for publicly supporting Brett Kavanaugh’s controversial nomination to the Supreme Court.
Aaron Sharockman, the executive director of PolitiFact, told BuzzFeed News a contact at Facebook did call to discuss Kirk’s post.
“We had a call with them where they wanted to know how this post was aligned with the program,” Sharockman said. "Was this just a minor inaccuracy or was it something that we thought was something that had potential harmful effects?"
PolitiFact did not change its rating on the post. “We stuck to our guns there,” Sharockman said.
Past Facebook employees, including Yaël Eisenstat, Facebook's former global election ads integrity lead, have expressed concerns with Kaplan’s influence over content enforcement decisions. She previously told BuzzFeed News a member of Kaplan's Washington policy team attempted to influence ad enforcement decisions for an ad placed by a conservative organization.
Facebook did not respond to questions about why Kaplan would personally intervene in matters like this.


buzzfeed--2020-08-08--Instagram Displayed Negative Related Hashtags For Biden, But Hid Them For Trump

“ A technical error caused a number of hashtags to not show related hashtags .
We 've disabled this feature while we investigate.
” For at least the last two months , a key Instagram feature , which algorithmically pushes users toward supposedly related content , has been treating hashtags associated with President Donald Trump and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in very different ways .
Searches for Biden also return a variety of pro-Trump messages , while searches for Trump-related topics only returned the specific hashtags , like # MAGA or # Trump — which means searches for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those for Trump do not .
Earlier this week , a search on Instagram for # JoeBiden would have surfaced nearly 390,000 posts tagged with the former vice president ’ s name along with related hashtags selected by the platform ’ s algorithm .
Users searching Instagram for # JoeBiden might also see results for # joebiden2020 , as well as pro-Trump hashtags like # trump2020landslide and # democratsdestroyamerica .
A similar search for # DonaldTrump on the platform , however , provided a totally different experience .
Besides showing 7 million posts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Instagram did not present any related hashtags that would have pushed users toward different content or promoted alternative viewpoints .
The difference between these two results , which an Instagram spokesperson told BuzzFeed News was a “ bug , ” prevented hashtags including # Trump and # MAGA from being associated with potentially negative content .
Meanwhile , Instagram hashtags associated with the Democratic presidential candidate — # JoeBiden and # Biden , for example — were presented alongside content that included overtly pro-Trump content and attacks on the former vice president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates are treated by the platform raises more questions about how prepared Instagram and its parent company Facebook are for a pivotal US presidential election this November .
After acknowledging it hadn ’ t done enough to prevent election interference during the 2016 presidential race , Facebook has invested heavily in security and get-out-the-vote initiatives for 2020 , an election that CEO Mark Zuckerberg said will “ be unlike any other.
” The Instagram bug , which was first noticed by the Tech Transparency Project , a nonpartisan tech watchdog group , suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential candidates have been treated differently since at least June .
In most cases , algorithmically derived related hashtags are displayed to people who search for or click on a given hashtag , pointing them to more content that Instagram believes they might be interested in .
“ What we ’ ve seen with the related hashtags with Biden is that there is so much vitriol , that it appears to be benefitting President Trump , ” said Katie Paul , a director with the Tech Transparency Project .
The fact that related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump-related phrases also “ removes any possibility that negative hashtags could be associated with his name or campaign slogans , ” she added .
Instagram spokesperson Raki Wane described the issue as a bug on Tuesday .
She pointed out that thousands of hashtags including # artofdrinks and # menshair had also been prevented from populating with related hashtags .
She did not explain why the issue affected Trump hashtags and not those associated with Biden , or how long the problem had persisted .
“ A technical error caused a number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Wane said in a statement Tuesday afternoon .
“ We 've disabled this feature while we investigate.
” Hashtags , which are used regularly on Instagram posts , allow users to group posts into easily searchable categories that can also be followed as one would an account on the platform .
An examination by BuzzFeed News found that Instagram prevented related hashtags from populating for # Trump , which had been used on 14.6 million posts ; # Trump2020 , which had 2.5 million posts ; and # MAGA , which had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hashtag # JoeBiden , which has been used on 390,000 posts , appeared alongside negative hashtags including # creepyjoebiden and # neverbiden , as well as seemingly pro-Biden content like # joebidenforpresident .
A spokesperson for the Biden campaign declined to comment .
While Instagram shielded many Trump-focused hashtags from surfacing related content , some lesser-used hashtags , including # MAGA2020 , which has been placed on 373,000 posts , did bring up related hashtags , among them # trumpderangementsyndrome .
Some Democrat-related hashtags , including # democrats and # pelosi , were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although # NancyPelosi did have related hashtags — including # clintonbodycount and # qdrops , two taglines associated with known conspiracy theories .
Reached for comment , a Trump campaign spokesperson used the bug as an opportunity to lambaste social media platforms for alleged anti-conservative bias .
“ Social media companies ’ biases consistently make the strongest arguments for the President ’ s Executive Order on Section 230 reform , ” said Ken Farnaso , a Trump 2020 deputy national press secretary , referring to the president ’ s push to end a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for what users post to their platforms .
“ It ’ s preposterous that Silicon Valley , the bastion of diversity and liberalism , is terrified of intellectual diversity and conservative voices.
” Nina Jankowicz , a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars who studies disinformation , said Instagram ’ s admission of a bug shows the company understands its suggestion algorithm impacts the content people consume .
Related hashtags have also been used to spread conspiracy theories on the platform , and has been gamed by bad actors and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t just benignly increase engagement , ” she said of related hashtags .
“ It can lead to a tipping of scales in terms of equitable discourse.
” Instagram is believed to have been the target of foreign influence campaigns in the past .
In 2018 , third-party researchers compiled two reports for the Senate outlining the yearslong campaigns used by Russia ’ s Internet Research Agency to spread disinformation and sow discord .
“ Instagram was perhaps the most effective platform for the Internet Research Agency , ” one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a key battleground on an ongoing basis.
” While Facebook and Instagram have ramped up investment to protect against election interference and check for disinformation , researchers like Jankowicz believe there ’ s still more to be done .
She advocated for more human review , particularly around political hashtags .
“ In times of crisis or volatile times ahead of an election , this stuff should be going under constant human review , ” she said .
“ It shouldn ’ t be left up to a computer code to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time like this .
”

The difference between these two results, which an Instagram spokesperson told BuzzFeed News was a “bug,” prevented hashtags including #Trump and #MAGA from being associated with potentially negative content. Meanwhile, Instagram hashtags associated with the Democratic presidential candidate — #JoeBiden and #Biden, for example — were presented alongside content that included overtly pro-Trump content and attacks on the former vice president.
The difference in how the presidential candidates are treated by the platform raises more questions about how prepared Instagram and its parent company Facebook are for a pivotal US presidential election this November. After acknowledging it hadn’t done enough to prevent election interference during the 2016 presidential race, Facebook has invested heavily in security and get-out-the-vote initiatives for 2020, an election that CEO Mark Zuckerberg said will “be unlike any other.”
The Instagram bug, which was first noticed by the Tech Transparency Project, a nonpartisan tech watchdog group, suggests that hashtags associated with the two main presidential candidates have been treated differently since at least June. In most cases, algorithmically derived related hashtags are displayed to people who search for or click on a given hashtag, pointing them to more content that Instagram believes they might be interested in.
“What we’ve seen with the related hashtags with Biden is that there is so much vitriol, that it appears to be benefitting President Trump,” said Katie Paul, a director with the Tech Transparency Project. The fact that related hashtags didn’t surface for many Trump-related phrases also “removes any possibility that negative hashtags could be associated with his name or campaign slogans,” she added.
Instagram spokesperson Raki Wane described the issue as a bug on Tuesday. She pointed out that thousands of hashtags including #artofdrinks and #menshair had also been prevented from populating with related hashtags. She did not explain why the issue affected Trump hashtags and not those associated with Biden, or how long the problem had persisted.
“A technical error caused a number of hashtags to not show related hashtags,” Wane said in a statement Tuesday afternoon. “We've disabled this feature while we investigate.”
Hashtags, which are used regularly on Instagram posts, allow users to group posts into easily searchable categories that can also be followed as one would an account on the platform.


buzzfeed--2020-08-07--Young Latino Voters Say They’re Excited To Vote. But They’re Nervous Trump Supporters Will Cheat.

In a new national survey of Latino voters between the ages of 18 and 34 , a majority of respondents said that they would definitely be voting in the upcoming election and that they ’ re fired up but nervous about the outcome of the race between President Donald Trump and former vice president Joe Biden .
The survey conducted by Telemundo and BuzzFeed News found that 64 % of young Latino voters said they would definitely vote in the upcoming election .
The voters told surveyors that they ’ re feeling enthusiastic and nervous about the upcoming race — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were feeling “ fired up ” about the race and 52 % said that they were feeling nervous .
The poll also found that nonwhite young voters overwhelmingly support Biden ’ s campaign .
Sixty percent of young Latino voters , 75 % of young non-Hispanic Black voters , and 72 % of young non-Hispanic Asian voters said that they would vote for Biden , compared to the respective 19 % , 12 % , and 16 % who said they would vote for Trump .
Forty percent of young non-Hispanic white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , compared to the 48 % who said they would vote for Biden .
While young Latino voters said that they were more likely to vote for Biden in the upcoming election , they are still unsure about what the result will be .
Biden and Trump are separated by just 1 % when the voters were asked who is likely to win the presidential election — 53 % of voters said they believe Biden will win and 52 % said that they think Trump will be reelected .
A large majority — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters said they believed that Trump supporters would cheat to win the election , while 51 % of Trump supporters said Biden supporters would cheat to win the election .
The poll also asked young Latino voters to name a politician who had “ shown up ” for the Latino community .
The most consistent answer to the question was “ nobody , ” with 33 % , followed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Biden , and Sen. Bernie Sanders each at 6 % .
The survey questioned 638 people who identified as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ages of 18 and 34 and was conducted from June 5 to June 22 .

The poll also found that nonwhite young voters overwhelmingly support Biden’s campaign. Sixty percent of young Latino voters, 75% of young non-Hispanic Black voters, and 72% of young non-Hispanic Asian voters said that they would vote for Biden, compared to the respective 19%, 12%, and 16% who said they would vote for Trump. Forty percent of young non-Hispanic white people said they would vote for Trump, compared to the 48% who said they would vote for Biden.
While young Latino voters said that they were more likely to vote for Biden in the upcoming election, they are still unsure about what the result will be. Biden and Trump are separated by just 1% when the voters were asked who is likely to win the presidential election — 53% of voters said they believe Biden will win and 52% said that they think Trump will be reelected. A large majority — 73% — of young Latino Biden supporters said they believed that Trump supporters would cheat to win the election, while 51% of Trump supporters said Biden supporters would cheat to win the election.


buzzfeed--2020-08-07--An Elite Group Of Scientists Tried To Warn Trump Against Lockdowns In March

John Ioannidis ’ s controversial studies claim that the coronavirus isn ’ t that big a threat .
Before the Stanford scientist did any of them , he wanted to take that message to the White House .
Stanford University scientist John Ioannidis has declared in study after study that the coronavirus is not that big of a threat , emboldening opponents of economic shutdowns — and infuriating critics who see fundamental errors in his work .
But even before the epidemiologist had any of that data in hand , he and an elite group of scientists tried to convince @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country would be the real danger .
In late March , as COVID-19 cases overran hospitals overseas , Ioannidis tried to organize a meeting at the White House where he and a small band of colleagues would caution the president against “ shutting down the country for [ a ] very long time and jeopardizing so many lives in doing this , ” according to a statement Ioannidis submitted on the group ’ s behalf .
Their goal , the statement said , was “ to both save more lives and avoid serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most reliable data.
” Although the meeting did not happen , Ioannidis believed their message had reached the right people .
Within a day of him sending it to the White House , Trump announced that he wanted the country reopened by Easter .
“ I think our ideas have inflitrated [ sic ] the White House regardless , ” Ioannidis told his collaborators on March 28 , in one of dozens of emails that BuzzFeed News obtained through public records requests .
But at this critical juncture , many other public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have the luxury of waiting for perfect data .
In the face of a life-threatening pandemic , they wanted states to order residents to stay at home , immediately , to prevent health care systems from getting crushed .
Ioannidis ’ s ideas “ were scientifically untenable at that time , and untenable from the perspective of decision-making especially , ” Marc Lipsitch , a Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health epidemiologist , told BuzzFeed News .
If you have tips about the coronavirus , reach out to this reporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protonmail.com .
And the group ’ s attempt to convey these preliminary ideas directly to the White House is highly unusual for scientists , said Sheila Jasanoff , a Harvard Kennedy School professor who studies the role of science in politics .
“ It creates the impression that the work that the scientists are intending to do will be shaped by a political purpose , maybe even before they have started doing the work , ” Jasanoff said .
Their decision to push an untested theory to influence federal policy , she added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science.
” Ioannidis assembled at least eight scientists to try to meet the president .
Two of them told BuzzFeed News that , if a meeting did happen , they would make it clear they did not oppose widespread lockdowns .
But others , including a Nobel laureate , feared that their consequences would be greater than the threat of the virus .
Several were already harnessing their prominent platforms to sound the alarm in media appearances and meetings with politicians .
Their leader , Ioannidis , would go on to conclude in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posed a low risk to most people , and hold them up as evidence that lockdowns are an overreaction .
Some of that work has been fiercely called into question , however , and observers have wondered if the iconoclast , lionized for his pioneering critiques of biased and overhyped science , is trying to prove a predetermined conclusion .
Now , the emails reveal that before Ioannidis had collected any data , he was so assured about the dangers of lockdowns that he felt compelled to personally warn the president .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the group that he had submitted their letter to the White House .
His pitch for a meeting — either in DC , or over videoconference — reiterated what he had been saying publicly for days .
“ Dr Ioannidis ( bio below ) is assembling a group of world renowned scientists who can contribute insights to help solve the major challenge of COVID-19 , by intensifying efforts to understand the denominator of infected people ( much larger than what is documented to-date ) and having a science- and data-informed , targeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for very long time and jeopardizing so many lives in doing this , ” the statement read .
It continued : “ The aim is to identify the best way to both save more lives and avoid serious damage to the US economy using the most reliable data , since the infection rate may be off by a very large factor versus the number of currently documented cases.
” This statement didn ’ t capture each member ’ s full views of how the country should proceed .
Klausner , for instance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orders should have lasted no more than 10 days while the hardest-hit local areas prepared , and Katz said that , prior to implementing his strategy , shutdowns would likely still be “ fairly ” widespread .
But both of them said they stood by the statement ’ s opposition to a “ one-size-fits-all ” approach .
Bhattacharya , Levitt , and Fowler , who did not return requests for comment , appear to have been keen participants .
As Ioannidis relayed in one email , “ All three of them had wrtten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how they enthusiastically agreed with what I proposed.
” In contrast , two other members told BuzzFeed News they were not in the anti-lockdown camp .
Arthur Reingold , head of UC Berkeley ’ s epidemiology and biostatistics division , said that he was recruited because he “ did not agree with the underlying premise regarding ‘ shelter in place ’ as being unwise in the context of the pandemic in the US.
” Sten Vermund , dean of the Yale School of Public Health , said , “ I ’ ve been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this pandemic.
” He cowrote a letter to the New York Times lambasting Katz ’ s endorsement of herd immunity , and went on a podcast to debate Ioannidis over the importance of lockdowns .
“ That I was part of the group will be interpreted by some that I supported their point of view , which I did not , ” Vermund said .
“ Not in March or April or now.
” He agreed to join , he said , to ensure Trump got accurate guidance .
“ I just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re inviting me and they know how I feel , I ought to go because their point of view is not nuanced and I don ’ t think it ’ s going to be good advice for the president to take , ’ ” Vermund said .
“ I was going to tell him to do it intelligently and to definitely do lockdowns.
” What did unite the group — “ the one thing all of us could agree on , ” as Vermund put it — was a desire for more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the group he sent in the statement , there were signs the White House was backing away from lockdowns : Trump announced that he wanted the country “ raring to go by Easter , ” or April 12 .
( Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s top infectious disease expert , hastened to add that the timeline was “ really very flexible.
” ) But as European nations issued extended lockdown orders and UK government officials warned they could last for up to six months , Trump changed course , extending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of April .
By the end of March , 32 states were telling people to stay at home .
“ Given the about face yet again from the White House with new the [ sic ] 30 day plus national shut down , seems like our thoughts may have hit a wall and bounced back ?
” Klausner asked over email .
“ Frustrating indeed , ” Ioannidis replied .
“ I am still struggling to see whether we can find a way to get in the White House.
” But as days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the highly anticipated meeting was not going to happen .
The email thread died off .
White House spokesperson Sarah Matthews said that Trump “ has always acted on the recommendations of his top public health experts throughout this crisis as evidenced by the many bold , data-driven decisions he has made to save millions of lives.
” She added , “ As the President has also said , the cure can not be worse than the disease and it ’ s well-documented the impact staying shut down would have , including suicide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She did not answer questions about whether Ioannidis ’ s theories influenced the president ’ s decision-making .
As March turned to April , Ioannidis began collecting data to test the theory he ’ d been putting forward for weeks .
On April 3 and 4 , more than 3,000 Silicon Valley residents lined up to have their blood drawn for a study overseen by Ioannidis , Bhattacharya , and other Stanford researchers .
The goal was to look for antibodies indicating if they ’ d already been infected by the coronavirus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their results , some of the team went on the Fox News show The Next Revolution to promote a “ science-based ” plan to reopen “ safely , but soon.
” Also on air with them that night was David Neeleman , the founder of JetBlue and a vocal opponent of lockdowns .
Later , a whistleblower complaint filed to Stanford would reveal that he was an undisclosed sponsor of the research , and allege that he “ potentially used financial incentives to secure cooperation from ” an external scientist concerned about the @ @ @ @ @

3. The Statement
On the evening of March 24, Ioannidis told the group that he had submitted their letter to the White House. His pitch for a meeting — either in DC, or over videoconference — reiterated what he had been saying publicly for days.
“Dr Ioannidis (bio below) is assembling a group of world renowned scientists who can contribute insights to help solve the major challenge of COVID-19, by intensifying efforts to understand the denominator of infected people (much larger than what is documented to-date) and having a science- and data-informed, targeted approach rather than shutting down the country for very long time and jeopardizing so many lives in doing this,” the statement read.
It continued: “The aim is to identify the best way to both save more lives and avoid serious damage to the US economy using the most reliable data, since the infection rate may be off by a very large factor versus the number of currently documented cases.”
This statement didn’t capture each member’s full views of how the country should proceed. Klausner, for instance, told BuzzFeed News that he thought shelter-in-place orders should have lasted no more than 10 days while the hardest-hit local areas prepared, and Katz said that, prior to implementing his strategy, shutdowns would likely still be “fairly” widespread. But both of them said they stood by the statement’s opposition to a “one-size-fits-all” approach.
Bhattacharya, Levitt, and Fowler, who did not return requests for comment, appear to have been keen participants. As Ioannidis relayed in one email, “All three of them had wrtten [sic] to me to say how they enthusiastically agreed with what I proposed.”
In contrast, two other members told BuzzFeed News they were not in the anti-lockdown camp. Arthur Reingold, head of UC Berkeley’s epidemiology and biostatistics division, said that he was recruited because he “did not agree with the underlying premise regarding ‘shelter in place’ as being unwise in the context of the pandemic in the US.”
Sten Vermund, dean of the Yale School of Public Health, said, “I’ve been arguing with this crowd from the beginning of this pandemic.” He cowrote a letter to the New York Times lambasting Katz’s endorsement of herd immunity, and went on a podcast to debate Ioannidis over the importance of lockdowns.
“That I was part of the group will be interpreted by some that I supported their point of view, which I did not,” Vermund said. “Not in March or April or now.”
He agreed to join, he said, to ensure Trump got accurate guidance. “I just thought, ‘Look, if they’re inviting me and they know how I feel, I ought to go because their point of view is not nuanced and I don’t think it’s going to be good advice for the president to take,’” Vermund said. “I was going to tell him to do it intelligently and to definitely do lockdowns.”
What did unite the group — “the one thing all of us could agree on,” as Vermund put it — was a desire for more comprehensive testing.
On the day Ioannidis told the group he sent in the statement, there were signs the White House was backing away from lockdowns: Trump announced that he wanted the country “raring to go by Easter,” or April 12. (Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, hastened to add that the timeline was “really very flexible.”)
But as European nations issued extended lockdown orders and UK government officials warned they could last for up to six months, Trump changed course, extending the social distancing guidelines to the end of April. By the end of March, 32 states were telling people to stay at home.
“Given the about face yet again from the White House with new the [sic] 30 day plus national shut down, seems like our thoughts may have hit a wall and bounced back?” Klausner asked over email.
“Frustrating indeed,” Ioannidis replied. “I am still struggling to see whether we can find a way to get in the White House.”


buzzfeed--2020-08-08--19 Celebrities Who Are Brutally Honest About How Hard Breastfeeding Is

`` [ I ] felt so lucky to be so close to her and give her that start .
I know many women are not able to and for that I am sympathetic and very grateful that I could .
For six wonderful months , '' Hilary wrote on Instagram about breastfeeding her daughter , Banks .
`` But I needed a break .
I was going to break .
With the stress of a dropping milk supply and a baby that was getting bored or not caring about nursing when I was available to , I was sad and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the time .
When really I ’ m a badass rock star ...
I wasn ’ t myself at all .
Something scary was hovering over my brain and my heart ... the part of me that I know is smart and rational .
The lows felt horrible ...
I am happy to say that I haven ’ t fed or pumped in three days and it ’ s crazy how fast you can come out on the other side .
I feel fine and happy and relieved and silly that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Banks is thriving and I get even more time with her and daddy gets to do more feeds !
And mommy gets a tiny bit more sleep ! ''

For many, the image of breastfeeding is one of total serenity: a glowing mom peacefully feeding her baby with a smile. But, in reality, it's a lot less pretty, at least most of the time, and especially in the beginning. Breastfeeding can be really, really hard — and it doesn't help that the stigma of "breast is best" is still rampant over the thought that "a fed baby is a well-fed baby." So it might be reassuring that even the moms with every resource at their disposal can struggle.


buzzfeed--2020-08-08--A Former Bernie Sanders Campaign Staffer Is Stuck In A Belarus Jail Cell, Charged With Disrupting Th

A Former Bernie Sanders Campaign Staffer Is Stuck In A Belarus Jail Cell, Charged With Disrupting The Peace

In his first communication with Western media since his detention , Shkliarov denied the charges and told BuzzFeed News through Gashinsky that he believes the charges are retaliation for his public criticism of President Alexander Lukashenko .
If convicted , Shkliarov could be fined or imprisoned for up to three years , or both , according to the criminal code under which he ’ s charged .
The lawyer , Anton Gashinsky , said that authorities also allege Shkliarov violated the “ legitimate demands of government officials , resulting in disruption of transport , enterprises , institutions , and organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Belarusian citizen who as the spouse of a US diplomat holds an American diplomatic passport , is being held because of “ group actions that grossly violate public order , '' according to Shkliarov 's lawyer .
KYIV — Belarus on Friday charged a former campaign staffer for Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama with allegedly organizing an illegal political rally for the candidate running against the country ’ s authoritarian president in Sunday ’ s election , his lawyer told BuzzFeed News .
The jailing and indictment of Shkliarov is the latest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavy-handed authorities ahead of Sunday ’ s presidential election .
Neither the State Department nor the Belarusian authorities responded immediately to requests for comment .
More than 1,300 people , including journalists and election monitors , have been detained ahead of the poll , according to the Viasna human rights group .
Thirty-three Russian military contractors accused of trying to destabilize the country have also been detained .
Authorities allege that Shkliarov is responsible for organizing a May 29 event in the western Belarusian city of Grodno where popular vlogger Sergei Tikhanovsky was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to run for president .
Tikhanovsky was detained at the event and remains in jail , while his wife has gone on to build an extraordinary campaign that has rallied Belarusians who told BuzzFeed News they are hungry for change after 26 years under the iron-fisted rule of President Alexander Lukashenko .
Lukashenko has been accused by international watchdogs of human rights abuses over the course of his five terms in office .
International election monitors have deemed all but his first election victory rigged .
This year , the government has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Shkliarov runs a popular Telegram channel where he publishes analysis about political events in the US , Russia , Ukraine , and Belarus .
A week before he was detained , he also blasted Lukashenko for his use of “ populism and brute force ” in a column published with Forbes Russia .
Shkliarov , a fluent English speaker and a self-described political junkie , is based along with his wife in Washington but makes frequent trips to Eastern Europe .
His most recent campaign work came in 2018 , when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Russian socialite who went on to lose the election to President Vladimir Putin .
Shkliarov worked on the 2016 presidential campaign of Sanders as director of mobilization for Nevada and on President Obama ’ s 2012 reelection campaign , during which he ran a team of some 40 organizers , according to CNN .
Shkliarov told BuzzFeed news through his lawyer that he was in his hometown of Gomel with his son to visit his mother , who has cancer , and his father when he was detained on July 29 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s home to buy a watermelon .
He said he didn ’ t get far before agents from Belarus ’ s KGB security service “ kidnapped ” him and hauled him to a pretrial detention center in Minsk .
He had only enough time to send one word to followers of his Telegram social media channel : “ Arrested.
” On July 31 , the country ’ s deputy prosecutor general ordered Shkliarov to remain in pretrial detention , according to Gashinsky .
Since then , Shkliarov said through his lawyer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and endured horrific conditions .
In one case , he said he was crammed into an overcrowded cell inside a damp basement with mold and cockroaches , as well as inmates who were constantly smoking .
Gashinsky has filed complaints about Shkliarov ’ s detention and the conditions in which he is being held but said they have been ignored by authorities .
Little had been mentioned publicly about Shkliarov in Belarus until Thursday , when Lukashenko in public remarks carried by the Belta news agency spoke about a US passport holder who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some people were detained with American passports , married to Americans , working in the State Department , ” Lukashenko said , likely alluding to Shkliarov .

The jailing and indictment of Shkliarov is the latest in a crackdown by Belarus’s notoriously heavy-handed authorities ahead of Sunday’s presidential election.
Neither the State Department nor the Belarusian authorities responded immediately to requests for comment.
More than 1,300 people, including journalists and election monitors, have been detained ahead of the poll, according to the Viasna human rights group. Thirty-three Russian military contractors accused of trying to destabilize the country have also been detained.
Authorities allege that Shkliarov is responsible for organizing a May 29 event in the western Belarusian city of Grodno where popular vlogger Sergei Tikhanovsky was collecting signatures for his wife, Svetlana, to run for president.
Tikhanovsky was detained at the event and remains in jail, while his wife has gone on to build an extraordinary campaign that has rallied Belarusians who told BuzzFeed News they are hungry for change after 26 years under the iron-fisted rule of President Alexander Lukashenko.
Lukashenko has been accused by international watchdogs of human rights abuses over the course of his five terms in office. International election monitors have deemed all but his first election victory rigged. This year, the government has banned outside monitors from observing the vote.
Shkliarov runs a popular Telegram channel where he publishes analysis about political events in the US, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. A week before he was detained, he also blasted Lukashenko for his use of “populism and brute force” in a column published with Forbes Russia.
Shkliarov, a fluent English speaker and a self-described political junkie, is based along with his wife in Washington but makes frequent trips to Eastern Europe. His most recent campaign work came in 2018, when he served as senior adviser for Ksenia Sobchak, a Russian socialite who went on to lose the election to President Vladimir Putin.
Shkliarov worked on the 2016 presidential campaign of Sanders as director of mobilization for Nevada and on President Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, during which he ran a team of some 40 organizers, according to CNN.
Shkliarov told BuzzFeed news through his lawyer that he was in his hometown of Gomel with his son to visit his mother, who has cancer, and his father when he was detained on July 29; he had just left the family’s home to buy a watermelon.
He said he didn’t get far before agents from Belarus’s KGB security service “kidnapped” him and hauled him to a pretrial detention center in Minsk. He had only enough time to send one word to followers of his Telegram social media channel: “Arrested.”
On July 31, the country’s deputy prosecutor general ordered Shkliarov to remain in pretrial detention, according to Gashinsky.
Since then, Shkliarov said through his lawyer, he has changed jail cells several times and endured horrific conditions. In one case, he said he was crammed into an overcrowded cell inside a damp basement with mold and cockroaches, as well as inmates who were constantly smoking.
Gashinsky has filed complaints about Shkliarov’s detention and the conditions in which he is being held but said they have been ignored by authorities.
Little had been mentioned publicly about Shkliarov in Belarus until Thursday, when Lukashenko in public remarks carried by the Belta news agency spoke about a US passport holder who had been taken into custody. “Some people were detained with American passports, married to Americans, working in the State Department,” Lukashenko said, likely alluding to Shkliarov.