motherjones--2020-09-24--Facebook Groups Sent Armed Vigilantes to Kenosha. Your Polling Place Could Be Next.

Three months after the 2016 election , in which Facebook facilitated the spread of fake news stories and disinformation from Russia , the company announced a pivot .
Under pressure , Facebook laid out plans to “ build a safe community that prevents harm ” and “ helps during crises , ” with “ common understanding ” and increased civic engagement .
The company said the path to this better world would go through the platform ’ s groups function , which Zuckerberg touted as a way to “ support our personal , emotional and spiritual needs ” and build @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ushering in a new era of community and safety , the social media giant ’ s decision to prioritize the discussion spaces bred disinformation and vigilantism .
Facebook groups have been used to organize armed responses to this summer ’ s protests that have turned deadly , a track record that suggests they could fuel chaos during or after this November ’ s election , catalyzing violent reactions and disseminating destabilizing false information .
Groups “ are the biggest vulnerability the platform has , ” says Nina Jankowicz , a fellow at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of her research into disinformation and democracy .
When using private groups , Facebook users are primed to think they are in safe , trusted spaces , which she says heightens their vulnerability to radicalization and disinformation .
Even inside the groups , Facebook ’ s algorithms prioritize sensational content .
Facebook made another fateful decision last year that made groups even more dangerous .
In April 2019 , the company announced a “ pivot to privacy , ” a response to both the increasing popularity of rival private chat forums like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cambridge Analytica scandal in which Facebook failed to protect user data .
As part of this reorientation , Facebook made groups even more prominent , redesigning its platform to push more of them to users .
“ Groups are now at the heart of the experience just as much as your friends and family are , ” CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained .
According to internal memo written this August and leaked to the Verge , posts to groups grew 31.9 percent over the previous year .
Taken together , the steps have created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unleash damage far worse than in 2016 .
Closed groups now exist as a largely unpoliced , private ecosystem , where users can quickly spread content that will largely remain off-the-radar—including from journalists and Facebook ’ s own moderators—who are not inside the spaces .
Both private and public groups can become spaces for planning and coordinating violence , which Facebook ’ s moderators and artificial intelligence tools have proven unable—and perhaps unwilling—to stop .
In July , Jankowicz co-authored an op-ed in Wired warning about the danger of Facebook groups and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jankowicz ’ s example maps closely to trends that arose after the first waves of stay at home orders in response to the coronavirus , which pushed American lives to migrate even further online .
Membership in Facebook groups about health began to circulate content about the coronavirus , including some skeptical of its existence or severity .
New groups arose to push to immediate re-opening after lockdowns , which included crossover to militia groups and white nationalists .
Some of these groups have also featured users pushing the QAnon conspiracy , whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children from a deep state sex-trafficking cabal , among other insane ideas .
Facebook ’ s recommendation algorithm plays a big role in this pipeline by recommending similar groups .
“ That ’ s where the bubble generation begins , ” a Facebook engineer who works on groups told the Verge , explaining how the company ’ s programming profiles and then isolates people .
“ A user enters one group , and Facebook essentially pigeonholes them into a lifestyle that they can never really get out of.
” Since the pandemic started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surged , often through this pipeline Facebook created .
One prominent recruit is the woman dubbed “ QAnon Karen , ” who went viral after an anti-mask meltdown in a Target .
As she later explained to NBC News , her QAnon journey started in new age wellness groups before the pandemic .
Once she was bored in lockdown , content algorithms and pandemic-induced doomscrolling led her to the conspiracy .
While Facebook announced in August that it would and remove 790 QAnon groups from the platform and limit the ability of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New York Times found that the conspiracy was still thriving on the platform .
After the restrictions were announced , the newspaper tracked 100 still-active groups , finding that they were adding an average of 13,500 members a week .
In some cases , the Times reported that Facebook algorithms continued to push users toward groups where the conspiracy was being discussed .
One of Jankowicz ’ s biggest fears about the upcoming election is the potential for groups to latch onto and share planted disinformation , whether from a Russian agent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US .
“ All they have to do is drop the link in a group , ” she says .
“ Then Facebook ’ s ready made engagement mechanisms will drive that content , the more outrageous or outlandish it is.
” Instead of having to purchase ads or create thousands of troll accounts to spread a message , now one person can drop an incendiary link in a Facebook group and the platform ’ s own algorithms will do the work of amplification .
This fall , Jankowicz is particularly worried that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots , and fraud will spread unchecked in groups .
“ People have been primed to listen to these narratives because of what the president has been saying , ” she says , noting that she ’ s already observed misinformation about voting gain traction in groups .
While Facebook has made a public commitment to remove misinformation about voting from its platform , this moderation often doesn ’ t reach into private groups .
A Facebook spokesperson touted the company ’ s artificial intelligence as a tool to combat voting misinformation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to identify potentially violating content so we can remove it before anyone reports it , ” the spokesperson said .
“ Once a piece of content has been fact-checked , our technology finds and labels identical content wherever it appears on the platform—including in private groups .
We also continue to remove groups that violate our policies , including hundreds of QAnon and militia groups in the past month.
” Along with the threat of election disinformation comes the threat of violence , plotted online but carried out on in the real world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Memetica , a digital investigations firm focussed on disinformation and extremism , fears that Facebook groups could become a place where people plan to bring weapons into the streets .
“ We don ’ t really use the term ‘ lone wolf ’ anymore , ” he says .
“ We ’ re talking about stochastic terrorism , in that there is this random unauthored incitement to violence without explicit organization.
” As Decker explains , the groups serve as forums where people put out calls to violence or echo calls for violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may answer , though it ’ s unpredictable who .
But those lone responders are finding each other online .
“ That stochastic threat is now becoming something that ’ s increasingly organized.
” What happened in Kenosha , Wisconsin last month is a prime example .
Multiple groups used Facebook to coordinate bringing guns to a Black Lives Matter protest staged in response to the police shooting of Jacob Blake .
A militia group called the Kenosha Guard used a Facebook event page to bring armed vigilantes to the protests on August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group was created to encourage an armed response to the protests called “ STAND UP KENOSHA !
!
!
!
TONIGHT WE COME TOGETHER.
” According to the Atlantic Council ’ s digital forensic research lab , members of this group used it throughout the night to coordinate , posting many comments encouraging lethal force against protesters .
One of the people drawn to Kenosha that night was Kyle Rittenhouse , a 17-year-old Trump supporter .
He shot three BLM protesters , killing two .
Facebook has repeatedly shown that even when violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is ill-equipped to respond .
The Kenosha Guard ’ s event page was public , allowing 455 people to report it to Facebook .
Despite the complaints , the company ’ s moderators and algorithms repeatedly determined the page did not violate its policies .
Facebook now says that it was a mistake to leave it up , blamed contracted moderators for the error , and said that militia groups are no longer allowed on the site , though many remain there .
( This week , four people sued Facebook , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ militias to plan to murder and terrorize protesters in Kenosha . )
But even if Facebook improves its ability to respond to troublesome public events and groups , activity can quickly move to new groups .
When Facebook removed QAnon groups , some sprouted up under new names , using slightly tweaked language to avoid detection .
Kenosha wasn ’ t the first time that Facebook has allowed armed protesters to organize on its platform .
As early as 2015 , Muslim Advocates , a civil rights non-profit , warned that Islamophobic groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed rallies .
In 2016 , the group met with Facebook policy chief Monika Bickert and showed her images of gun-bearing demonstrators assembled outside of mosques who had organized using on Facebook event pages .
Nothing changed , and in the following years the organization continued to see armed anti-Muslim groups organize on Facebook .
“ We ’ ve run into this problem again and again with Facebook , where they ’ ll point to some line or something in their very , very broad policies , saying like , ‘ Oh , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We take action against bigots here , ’ ” says Eric Naing , a spokesperson for the group .
“ But if you look at when the rubber meets the road , when Facebook actually is put into use by the public , it ’ s constantly being used to organize hate and violence.
” Facebook knew that groups were a problem even before it redesigned its systems to foreground them .
In 2016 , a company researcher found that extremist content was flourishing in a third of German political groups , most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups were growing thanks to Facebook ’ s own recommendation algorithms .
But rather than stop this trend , the next year they expanded on this model in the name of community and security .
In 2017 , Facebook was used to organize the fatal white supremacist rally in Charlottesville , Virginia , after which the company finally began to remove white hate groups .
But many evaded removal , while others have cropped up undeterred .
The boogaloo movement , which seeks to spark a civil war , thrived on the platform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several members with crimes , including murder and plotting to use violence at a Black Lives Matter protest .
In response , Facebook took down hundreds of affiliated groups , pages and accounts , although others have since risen to take their place .
Accustomed to a peaceful democratic process and transfer of power , it may seem alarmist to worry about chaos , armed riots , and mass disinformation this November .
But the stage for disaster is set , not just by the radicalizing channels Facebook and other social media platforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican allies .
Their message , coming with increasing frequency , is that if the president doesn ’ t win reelection it will have been stolen .
“ The only way we ’ re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged .
Remember that , ” Trump said in Wisconsin in August .
“ Be poll watchers when you go there , ” he told a crowd in North Carolina earlier this month .
“ Watch all the thieving and stealing and robbing they do.
” In a Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump said people who would protest against him after the election are “ insurrectionists ” and endorsed lethal “ retribution ” against a figure in the Portland protests this summer , Michael Forest Reinoehl , who allegedly killed a far-right counter-protester .
This message has quickly filtered down to his allies .
On Facebook live last week , Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson and Trump loyalist Michael Caputo warned Trump would win in November but that violence would ensue .
“ When Donald Trump refuses to stand down at the inauguration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .
“ The drills that you ’ ve seen are nothing.
” ( Caputo ’ s rant prompted him to take a leave of absence from the agency . )
The message from these examples and others is to prepare for violence .
Late last year , a bipartisan group concerned about Trump ’ s norm-breaking presidency formed the Transition Integrity Project .
In June , they brought on experts in campaigns , polling , media , and government from both political parties to run through simulations of what might happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four potential outcomes : A Biden landslide , a narrow Biden win , Trump wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote , and a long period of uncertainty akin to 2000 .
The results were terrifying .
“ With the exception of the ‘ big Biden win ’ scenario , each of our exercises reached the brink of catastrophe , with massive disinformation campaigns , violence in the streets and a constitutional impasse , ” wrote Rosa Brooks , one of the project ’ s co-founders and a law professor at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this month .
The group ’ s findings put an emphasis on social media platforms , of which Facebook is by far the largest , and the importance of their moderation practices in the sensitive post-election period .
“ Social media in particular will undoubtedly play a heavy role in how the public perceives the outcome of the election , ” the report states .
“ Political operatives , both domestic and foreign , will very likely attempt to use social media to sow discord and even move people to violence .
Social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be consequential.
” Last week , Facebook announced new measures to combat disinformation and violence , including changes to its group recommendation algorithm .
The company says it will no longer recommend health-related groups , and that groups tied to violence—including QAnon and militia groups—will not only not be recommended , but will be removed from users ’ search results and soon have less of their content presented in users ’ news feeds .
Facebook also says it will remove groups that repeatedly feature content violating company rules , and will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ false by Facebook ’ s fact-checking partners .
While the promised steps could have an impact , Facebook ’ s struggles to stem the growth of QAnon over the past month demonstrate a limited ability to quickly and efficiently enforce new restrictions .
With voting already underway , experts fear the moves are too little and too late .
Even with new limits on their reach , Facebook groups already serve as a robust and radicalizing infrastructure .
Tweaks to the algorithms are ultimately small changes in an already dangerous ecosystem .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my breath for Facebook to change the infrastructure of how groups work ahead of the election , ” says Jankowicz .
Even if they wanted to , she says , “ unfortunately , there ’ s not much time left , and these big changes on platforms of this size take a really long time.
” Facebook has not indicated that it has any contingency plans in place should its platform , and groups in particular , become a hub for organizing violence and spreading disinformation after Election Day .
There are scenarios @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is clear on election night .
But Decker is thinking about what will happen in the more likely event that it takes days or weeks to count or recount decisive votes .
“ Who ’ s going to mobilize offline because of these group echo chambers , and how ?
” he wonders .
“ Facebook ’ s created an environment where this chaos theory can all play out .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Three months after the 2016 election, in which Facebook facilitated the spread of fake news stories and disinformation from Russia, the company announced a pivot. Under pressure, Facebook laid out plans to “build a safe community that prevents harm” and “helps during crises,” with “common understanding” and increased civic engagement. The company said the path to this better world would go through the platform’s groups function, which Zuckerberg touted as a way to “support our personal, emotional and spiritual needs” and build “social fabric.”
But instead of ushering in a new era of community and safety, the social media giant’s decision to prioritize the discussion spaces bred disinformation and vigilantism. Facebook groups have been used to organize armed responses to this summer’s protests that have turned deadly, a track record that suggests they could fuel chaos during or after this November’s election, catalyzing violent reactions and disseminating destabilizing false information.
Instead of ushering in community and safety, Facebook groups bred disinformation and vigilantism.
Groups “are the biggest vulnerability the platform has,” says Nina Jankowicz, a fellow at the Wilson Center who has studied them as part of her research into disinformation and democracy. When using private groups, Facebook users are primed to think they are in safe, trusted spaces, which she says heightens their vulnerability to radicalization and disinformation. Even inside the groups, Facebook’s algorithms prioritize sensational content.
Facebook made another fateful decision last year that made groups even more dangerous. In April 2019, the company announced a “pivot to privacy,” a response to both the increasing popularity of rival private chat forums like Discord, and a reaction to the Cambridge Analytica scandal in which Facebook failed to protect user data. As part of this reorientation, Facebook made groups even more prominent, redesigning its platform to push more of them to users. “Groups are now at the heart of the experience just as much as your friends and family are,” CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained. According to internal memo written this August and leaked to the Verge, posts to groups grew 31.9 percent over the previous year.
Taken together, the steps have created a radicalizing platform with the potential to unleash damage far worse than in 2016. Closed groups now exist as a largely unpoliced, private ecosystem, where users can quickly spread content that will largely remain off-the-radar—including from journalists and Facebook’s own moderators—who are not inside the spaces. Both private and public groups can become spaces for planning and coordinating violence, which Facebook’s moderators and artificial intelligence tools have proven unable—and perhaps unwilling—to stop.
In July, Jankowicz co-authored an op-ed in Wired warning about the danger of Facebook groups and the role they can play in radicalization:
If you were to join the Alternative Health Science News group, for example, Facebook would then recommend, based on your interests, that you join a group called Sheep No More, which uses Pepe the Frog, a white supremacist symbol, in its header, as well as Q-Anon Patriots, a forum for believers in the crackpot QAnon conspiracy theory. As protests in response to the death of George Floyd spread across the country, members of these groups claimed that Floyd and the police involved were “crisis actors” following a script.
Jankowicz’s example maps closely to trends that arose after the first waves of stay at home orders in response to the coronavirus, which pushed American lives to migrate even further online. Membership in Facebook groups about health began to circulate content about the coronavirus, including some skeptical of its existence or severity. New groups arose to push to immediate re-opening after lockdowns, which included crossover to militia groups and white nationalists. Some of these groups have also featured users pushing the QAnon conspiracy, whose adherents believe President Donald Trump is rescuing children from a deep state sex-trafficking cabal, among other insane ideas.
Facebook’s recommendation algorithm plays a big role in this pipeline by recommending similar groups. “That’s where the bubble generation begins,” a Facebook engineer who works on groups told the Verge, explaining how the company’s programming profiles and then isolates people. “A user enters one group, and Facebook essentially pigeonholes them into a lifestyle that they can never really get out of.”
Closed groups exist as a largely unpoliced, private ecosystem, where users can quickly spread content off-the-radar.
Since the pandemic started, membership in QAnon Facebook groups has surged, often through this pipeline Facebook created. One prominent recruit is the woman dubbed “QAnon Karen,” who went viral after an anti-mask meltdown in a Target. As she later explained to NBC News, her QAnon journey started in new age wellness groups before the pandemic. Once she was bored in lockdown, content algorithms and pandemic-induced doomscrolling led her to the conspiracy. While Facebook announced in August that it would and remove 790 QAnon groups from the platform and limit the ability of its followers to organize , a month later the New York Times found that the conspiracy was still thriving on the platform. After the restrictions were announced, the newspaper tracked 100 still-active groups, finding that they were adding an average of 13,500 members a week. In some cases, the Times reported that Facebook algorithms continued to push users toward groups where the conspiracy was being discussed.
One of Jankowicz’s biggest fears about the upcoming election is the potential for groups to latch onto and share planted disinformation, whether from a Russian agent or someone creating chaos from within the US. “All they have to do is drop the link in a group,” she says. “Then Facebook’s ready made engagement mechanisms will drive that content, the more outrageous or outlandish it is.” Instead of having to purchase ads or create thousands of troll accounts to spread a message, now one person can drop an incendiary link in a Facebook group and the platform’s own algorithms will do the work of amplification.
This fall, Jankowicz is particularly worried that false news about voter suppression, mail-in ballots, and fraud will spread unchecked in groups. “People have been primed to listen to these narratives because of what the president has been saying,” she says, noting that she’s already observed misinformation about voting gain traction in groups. While Facebook has made a public commitment to remove misinformation about voting from its platform, this moderation often doesn’t reach into private groups. A Facebook spokesperson touted the company’s artificial intelligence as a tool to combat voting misinformation. “We’ve trained our systems to identify potentially violating content so we can remove it before anyone reports it,” the spokesperson said. “Once a piece of content has been fact-checked, our technology finds and labels identical content wherever it appears on the platform—including in private groups. We also continue to remove groups that violate our policies, including hundreds of QAnon and militia groups in the past month.”
Along with the threat of election disinformation comes the threat of violence, plotted online but carried out on in the real world. Ben Decker, the founder of Memetica, a digital investigations firm focussed on disinformation and extremism, fears that Facebook groups could become a place where people plan to bring weapons into the streets. “We don’t really use the term ‘lone wolf’ anymore,” he says. “We’re talking about stochastic terrorism, in that there is this random unauthored incitement to violence without explicit organization.” As Decker explains, the groups serve as forums where people put out calls to violence or echo calls for violence from figures like President Trump that someone may answer, though it’s unpredictable who. But those lone responders are finding each other online. “That stochastic threat is now becoming something that’s increasingly organized.”
“We’re talking about stochastic terrorism…incitement to violence without explicit organization.”
What happened in Kenosha, Wisconsin last month is a prime example. Multiple groups used Facebook to coordinate bringing guns to a Black Lives Matter protest staged in response to the police shooting of Jacob Blake. A militia group called the Kenosha Guard used a Facebook event page to bring armed vigilantes to the protests on August 25. Meanwhile, a public Facebook group was created to encourage an armed response to the protests called “STAND UP KENOSHA!!!! TONIGHT WE COME TOGETHER.” According to the Atlantic Council’s digital forensic research lab, members of this group used it throughout the night to coordinate, posting many comments encouraging lethal force against protesters. One of the people drawn to Kenosha that night was Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old Trump supporter. He shot three BLM protesters, killing two.
Facebook has repeatedly shown that even when violence is being organized on its platform, it is ill-equipped to respond. The Kenosha Guard’s event page was public, allowing 455 people to report it to Facebook. Despite the complaints, the company’s moderators and algorithms repeatedly determined the page did not violate its policies. Facebook now says that it was a mistake to leave it up, blamed contracted moderators for the error, and said that militia groups are no longer allowed on the site, though many remain there. (This week, four people sued Facebook, saying it provided a platform for right-wing militias to plan to murder and terrorize protesters in Kenosha.) But even if Facebook improves its ability to respond to troublesome public events and groups, activity can quickly move to new groups. When Facebook removed QAnon groups, some sprouted up under new names, using slightly tweaked language to avoid detection.
Kenosha wasn’t the first time that Facebook has allowed armed protesters to organize on its platform. As early as 2015, Muslim Advocates, a civil rights non-profit, warned that Islamophobic groups were using Facebook event pages to stage armed rallies. In 2016, the group met with Facebook policy chief Monika Bickert and showed her images of gun-bearing demonstrators assembled outside of mosques who had organized using on Facebook event pages. Nothing changed, and in the following years the organization continued to see armed anti-Muslim groups organize on Facebook. “We’ve run into this problem again and again with Facebook, where they’ll point to some line or something in their very, very broad policies, saying like, ‘Oh, we prevent hate here’ or ‘We take action against bigots here,’” says Eric Naing, a spokesperson for the group. “But if you look at when the rubber meets the road, when Facebook actually is put into use by the public, it’s constantly being used to organize hate and violence.”
Facebook knew that groups were a problem even before it redesigned its systems to foreground them. In 2016, a company researcher found that extremist content was flourishing in a third of German political groups, most of them private, and that the groups were growing thanks to Facebook’s own recommendation algorithms. But rather than stop this trend, the next year they expanded on this model in the name of community and security.
“We’ve run into this problem again and again with Facebook.”
In 2017, Facebook was used to organize the fatal white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, after which the company finally began to remove white hate groups. But many evaded removal, while others have cropped up undeterred. The boogaloo movement, which seeks to spark a civil war, thrived on the platform until this summer after federal prosecutors charged several members with crimes, including murder and plotting to use violence at a Black Lives Matter protest. In response, Facebook took down hundreds of affiliated groups, pages and accounts, although others have since risen to take their place.
Accustomed to a peaceful democratic process and transfer of power, it may seem alarmist to worry about chaos, armed riots, and mass disinformation this November. But the stage for disaster is set, not just by the radicalizing channels Facebook and other social media platforms provide, but by Trump and his Republican allies. Their message, coming with increasing frequency, is that if the president doesn’t win reelection it will have been stolen. “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged. Remember that,” Trump said in Wisconsin in August. “Be poll watchers when you go there,” he told a crowd in North Carolina earlier this month. “Watch all the thieving and stealing and robbing they do.” In a Fox News interview a few days later, Trump said people who would protest against him after the election are “insurrectionists” and endorsed lethal “retribution” against a figure in the Portland protests this summer, Michael Forest Reinoehl, who allegedly killed a far-right counter-protester.
This message has quickly filtered down to his allies. On Facebook live last week, Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson and Trump loyalist Michael Caputo warned Trump would win in November but that violence would ensue. “When Donald Trump refuses to stand down at the inauguration, the shooting will begin,” he said. “The drills that you’ve seen are nothing.” (Caputo’s rant prompted him to take a leave of absence from the agency.) The message from these examples and others is to prepare for violence.
Late last year, a bipartisan group concerned about Trump’s norm-breaking presidency formed the Transition Integrity Project. In June, they brought on experts in campaigns, polling, media, and government from both political parties to run through simulations of what might happen after the election. The group explored four potential outcomes: A Biden landslide, a narrow Biden win, Trump wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote, and a long period of uncertainty akin to 2000. The results were terrifying. “With the exception of the ‘big Biden win’ scenario, each of our exercises reached the brink of catastrophe, with massive disinformation campaigns, violence in the streets and a constitutional impasse,” wrote Rosa Brooks, one of the project’s co-founders and a law professor at Georgetown University, in the Washington Post this month.
“Political operatives, both domestic and foreign, will very likely attempt to use social media to sow discord and even move people to violence.”
The group’s findings put an emphasis on social media platforms, of which Facebook is by far the largest, and the importance of their moderation practices in the sensitive post-election period. “Social media in particular will undoubtedly play a heavy role in how the public perceives the outcome of the election,” the report states. “Political operatives, both domestic and foreign, will very likely attempt to use social media to sow discord and even move people to violence. Social media companies’ policy and enforcement decisions will be consequential.”
Last week, Facebook announced new measures to combat disinformation and violence, including changes to its group recommendation algorithm. The company says it will no longer recommend health-related groups, and that groups tied to violence—including QAnon and militia groups—will not only not be recommended, but will be removed from users’ search results and soon have less of their content presented in users’ news feeds. Facebook also says it will remove groups that repeatedly feature content violating company rules, and will not recommend groups that repeatedly share information judged false by Facebook’s fact-checking partners. While the promised steps could have an impact, Facebook’s struggles to stem the growth of QAnon over the past month demonstrate a limited ability to quickly and efficiently enforce new restrictions.
With voting already underway, experts fear the moves are too little and too late. Even with new limits on their reach, Facebook groups already serve as a robust and radicalizing infrastructure. Tweaks to the algorithms are ultimately small changes in an already dangerous ecosystem. “I’m just really not holding my breath for Facebook to change the infrastructure of how groups work ahead of the election,” says Jankowicz. Even if they wanted to, she says, “unfortunately, there’s not much time left, and these big changes on platforms of this size take a really long time.” Facebook has not indicated that it has any contingency plans in place should its platform, and groups in particular, become a hub for organizing violence and spreading disinformation after Election Day.
There are scenarios in which the outcome of the election is clear on election night. But Decker is thinking about what will happen in the more likely event that it takes days or weeks to count or recount decisive votes. “Who’s going to mobilize offline because of these group echo chambers, and how?” he wonders. “Facebook’s created an environment where this chaos theory can all play out.”


motherjones--2020-09-24--It’s Not Anti-Catholic to Ask Amy Coney Barrett About Her Religious Group “People of Praise”

Members of the Christian right are lobbying hard for President Trump to tap 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court .
A current Notre Dame law school professor , 48-year-old Barrett is a devout Catholic and mother of seven children , two of whom were adopted from Haiti and one who is a child with Down syndrome—all attributes that conservatives see as evidence that she will help overturn Roe v. Wade if confirmed .
But Barrett brings another resume entry to the table that , while possibly enhancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unusual candidate for the job .
She ’ s a member of People of Praise , a charismatic covenant community in South Bend , Indiana , that has been criticized by former members for being a religious cult .
Though most of its members are Catholic , its practices , including speaking in tongues and faith healing , draw more from fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity than the Vatican .
One of its most notable features is the submissive role played by women , some of whom were called “ handmaids ” —at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aired in 2017 , At that point , the group started referring to them as “ women leaders.
” Barrett has written and spoken publicly about being a devout Catholic lawyer , even saying that during her confirmation hearing that she would not enter an order of execution if she were a federal trial judge because it would conflict with Catholic Church teaching .
In 2006 , she gave a commencement speech at Notre Dame law school in which she told the grads , “ Always keep in mind that your legal career @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and…that end is building the kingdom of God.
” But Barrett has not publicly addressed her involvement with People of Praise .
That hasn ’ t kept reporters from writing about it .
Recent news stories about Barrett ’ s unorthodox religious community have prompted Republican supporters to go on the offensive .
“ These ugly smears against Judge Barrett are a combination of anti-Catholic bigotry and QAnon-level stupidity , ” Sen. Ben Sasse ( R-Neb . )
complained on Tuesday , suggesting that Democrats were spreading their bias through the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Bible study—and just like billions of Christians around the world , Judge Barrett reads the Bible , prays , and tries to serve her community .
Senators should condemn this wacky McCarthyism.
” But according to accounts of former members , People of Praise involves much more than studying the Bible .
Indeed , some are deeply troubled by the possibility of one of the group winning a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court .
Two years ago , when Barrett ’ s name was floated as a potential candidate to replace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeared in a Facebook group of ex-members of charismatic Christian communities .
“ I don ’ t want a current member of this cult to be sitting on the Supreme Court , ” the onetime People of Praise member wrote .
“ And it was not very many years ago that I admired them very much and was almost seduced into thinking they had something spiritually real and rich going for them.
” More recently , another ex-member wrote , “ I think we better start now fighting her nomination .
I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Supreme Court.
” People of Praise emerged in 1971 after the post-Second Vatican Council efforts by Pope John XXIII to bring the church into the 20th century .
The council , which took place from 1962 until 1965 , led to a loosening of the rules : Latin mass became optional , nuns could toss the habit , and the Vatican encouraged Catholics to engage with other faiths .
Encouraged by Vatican II , the founders of People of Praise embraced the idea of creating a new faith community that drew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ churches .
But after a few years , the group ’ s focus evolved in much the same way as those of other American evangelical churches , and leaders grew to emphasize the community as a bulwark against sin and the social upheaval in the rest of the country .
Most of its members are Catholic , but People of Praise is ecumenical , and any Christian can join .
But joining the group requires a major commitment and a willingness to submit to a lay spiritual adviser known as a “ head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in one ’ s life and relationships .
After several years of exploration , prospective members must agree to a formal covenant and pledge to attend to each other ’ s spiritual , material , and financial needs—as well as attend many meetings , even as they still go to Mass or otherwise remain active in their regular churches .
Members are supposed to consult their head on nearly every aspect of their lives—from raising children to buying a car .
A woman ’ s personal head is her husband , and women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top leadership roles in the community .
People of Praise often live close together and unmarried people sometimes live with a married couple .
There are specific courtship rituals—dating isn ’ t allowed until a member has been thoroughly counseled by a head .
It ’ s positively socialist in many ways , as members are required to tithe at least 5 percent of their earnings , share property , and submit their family budgets to their head .
Former members have described it as oppressive to women , and one woman has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for controlling and abusive men .
Coral Anika Theill , who wrote a memoir called BONSHEA : Making Light of the Dark , discusses her time with People of Praise and her sense that it had a role in facilitating the domestic violence she says she suffered .
Her story highlights another feature of the community : Once in , it ’ s tough to exit .
“ When I left the community in 1984 , ” she writes , “ I was threatened and told that they would put me in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the ‘ authorities God had placed over me.
’ ” Perhaps the most prominent voice regarding the problems with People of Praise is Adrian Reimers , a longtime Notre Dame university professor who was one of the group ’ s original founders in 1971 .
In an article published in the Cultic Studies Journal in 1986 , he said the tight psychological and social controls over it maintains over its members led his family to leave the community , which he believed had strayed from its Catholic roots .
At one point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discouraged him from seeking spiritual advice from priests , suggesting that the church was secondary to the covenant community .
Reimers provides some insight into the work of the handmaids in reinforcing the group ’ s traditional gender roles .
“ Besides working with women who want to help or whose husbands feel they need it , the handmaids try to foster a particular model of womanliness within the community , ” he writes .
“ There is a strong emphasis on the manly , occasionally to the point of ridiculing the ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People of Praise teaching also provided some pretty sexist counseling for its male leaders on how to deal with women .
“ According to a teaching that has been circulating among the community heads , women are by nature manipulative , ” he recounts .
“ This is one of the effects of Original Sin on them .
The wise husband will factor this into his relationship with his wife , recognizing that much of what she does is insincere .
To deal with this , the husband should distrust her motives and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the men in his men ’ s group.
” Women , he notes , were discouraged from having independent ideas .
“ At a women ’ s retreat one handmaid taught ( with the approval of the coordinators ) that one manifestation of the sin of pride is the failure to submit one ’ s thoughts and opinions to the heads of the community for correction , ” Reimers writes .
People of Praise has pushed back against these characterizations , particularly as it has come under scrutiny because of Barrett ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2018 , after Justice Kennedy retired , the group issued a statement responding to some of the media coverage , particularly on the role of women .
“ The People of Praise recognizes that men and women share a fundamental equality as bearers of God ’ s image and sons of God in Christ , ” it said .
But Reimers isn ’ t the only former member who has characterized the group as oppressively patriarchal .
In 2008 , many years after Reimers first started publishing his critiques , Eric Stone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minnesota , wrote an article in a campus publication about his time in the campus chapter .
Like Reimers , he reported that the organization took a dim view of LGBT people and women .
“ After some time in the POP , ” he writes .
“ I started to realize that the revolution of Jesus Christ that was prophesied by the group was actually a revolution of oppression and control .
The POP is comprised almost entirely of white upper-middle class Americans .
Of the hundreds of members I met during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met only one that was Black .
I later found out that he was merely a guest at one of the community meetings and not affiliated with the POP .
Furthermore , no active homosexuals are allowed , and if they ‘ come out ’ they are encouraged to undergo conversion therapy or are forced to leave.
” What ’ s notable about the defection stories is that People of Praise has never had very many members to begin with—only about 1,700 nationally , with a few hundred congregating with Judge Barrett in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was its spiritual hub .
But Barrett has stuck it out , a sign that she is likely a true believer .
Her ties to Praise of People run deep .
Her parents are members ; her father Mike Coney has been a member of its top leadership , serving on the board of governors , and her mother was reportedly a handmaid .
She has six siblings , many of whom are also in the group , have done missionary work for it , and are married to other members .
Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a fellow Notre Dame law school grad , former assistant US attorney , and a lawyer in private practice—and a member of People of Praise .
Barrett has also served on the board of the Trinity School at Greenlawn , a People of Praise school for grades 6 through 12 in South Bend , where she reportedly has sent her own children , who range in age from 8 to 19 .
While co-ed , Trinity strictly segregates students by gender in the classroom .
Students are discouraged from getting too close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handbook explicitly frowns on dating , and any promiscuity seems to be grounds for expulsion .
“ Though it is natural and consistent with human development that students , experience sexual attraction , we discourage the formation of exclusive relationships , ” the handbook says .
And pity the poor Barrett child who might come out as gay or trans .
“ At this age , some students may also experience same-sex attraction .
We believe that it is unwise , however , for teens to prematurely interpret any particular emotional experience as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We believe that such self-identification at a young age can lead to students being labeled based solely upon sexuality , generate distraction , create confusion , and prevent students from experiencing true freedom within the culture of the school.
” ( The school handbook also outlines a strict ban on pranks in any form , suggesting a serious lack of a sense of humor . )
It ’ s not anti-Catholic for Senate Democrats to ask Barrett to explain her relationship with or role in People of Praise .
Wondering if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean in a Supreme Court justice—is a far cry from asking John F. Kennedy whether he had more loyalty to the Pope than the United States .
As she told Notre Dame ’ s Class of 2006 , “ First , before you take any job , particularly one that requires a move , pray about it .
St. Ignatius of Loyala observed that when presented with options , most people choose what they want to do first , and it ’ s only after the choice is already made that they go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can I serve You in the Situation I ’ m in ?
’ It ’ s the rare person who consults God before making a choice .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Members of the Christian right are lobbying hard for President Trump to tap 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. A current Notre Dame law school professor, 48-year-old Barrett is a devout Catholic and mother of seven children, two of whom were adopted from Haiti and one who is a child with Down syndrome—all attributes that conservatives see as evidence that she will help overturn Roe v. Wade if confirmed. But Barrett brings another resume entry to the table that, while possibly enhancing her appeal to evangelicals, makes her an unusual candidate for the job.
She’s a member of People of Praise, a charismatic covenant community in South Bend, Indiana, that has been criticized by former members for being a religious cult. Though most of its members are Catholic, its practices, including speaking in tongues and faith healing, draw more from fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity than the Vatican. One of its most notable features is the submissive role played by women, some of whom were called “handmaids”—at least until the Handmaid’s Tale aired in 2017, At that point, the group started referring to them as “women leaders.”
Barrett has written and spoken publicly about being a devout Catholic lawyer, even saying that during her confirmation hearing that she would not enter an order of execution if she were a federal trial judge because it would conflict with Catholic Church teaching. In 2006, she gave a commencement speech at Notre Dame law school in which she told the grads, “Always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and…that end is building the kingdom of God.” But Barrett has not publicly addressed her involvement with People of Praise.
“Always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and … that end is building the kingdom of God.”
That hasn’t kept reporters from writing about it. Recent news stories about Barrett’s unorthodox religious community have prompted Republican supporters to go on the offensive. “These ugly smears against Judge Barrett are a combination of anti-Catholic bigotry and QAnon-level stupidity,” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) complained on Tuesday, suggesting that Democrats were spreading their bias through the media. “People of Praise is basically a Bible study—and just like billions of Christians around the world, Judge Barrett reads the Bible, prays, and tries to serve her community. Senators should condemn this wacky McCarthyism.”
But according to accounts of former members, People of Praise involves much more than studying the Bible. Indeed, some are deeply troubled by the possibility of one of the group winning a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Two years ago, when Barrett’s name was floated as a potential candidate to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, a post appeared in a Facebook group of ex-members of charismatic Christian communities. “I don’t want a current member of this cult to be sitting on the Supreme Court,” the onetime People of Praise member wrote. “And it was not very many years ago that I admired them very much and was almost seduced into thinking they had something spiritually real and rich going for them.” More recently, another ex-member wrote, “I think we better start now fighting her nomination. I can’t quite imagine People of Praise on the Supreme Court.”
People of Praise emerged in 1971 after the Second Vatican Council efforts initiated by Pope John XXIII to bring the church into the 20th century. The council, which took place from 1962 until 1965, led to a loosening of the rules: Latin mass became optional, nuns could toss the habit, and the Vatican encouraged Catholics to engage with other faiths. Encouraged by Vatican II, the founders of People of Praise embraced the idea of creating a new faith community that drew on practices more common in Protestant evangelical churches. But after a few years, the group’s focus evolved in much the same way as those of other American evangelical churches, and leaders grew to emphasize the community as a bulwark against sin and the social upheaval in the rest of the country.
Most of its members are Catholic, but People of Praise is ecumenical, and any Christian can join. But joining the group requires a major commitment and a willingness to submit to a lay spiritual adviser known as a “head,” who has an outsized role in one’s life and relationships. After several years of exploration, prospective members must agree to a formal covenant and pledge to attend to each other’s spiritual, material, and financial needs—as well as attend many meetings, even as they still go to Mass or otherwise remain active in their regular churches. Members are supposed to consult their head on nearly every aspect of their lives—from raising children to buying a car. A woman’s personal head is her husband, and women aren’t allowed into serve in top leadership roles in the community.
People of Praise often live close together and unmarried people sometimes live with a married couple. There are specific courtship rituals—dating isn’t allowed until a member has been thoroughly counseled by a head. It’s positively socialist in many ways, as members are required to tithe at least 5 percent of their earnings, share property, and submit their family budgets to their head.
Former members have described it as oppressive to women, and one woman has suggested that it creates a hospitable environment for controlling and abusive men. Coral Anika Theill, who wrote a memoir called BONSHEA: Making Light of the Dark, discusses her time with People of Praise and her sense that it had a role in facilitating the domestic violence she says she suffered. Her story highlights another feature of the community: Once in, it’s tough to exit. “When I left the community in 1984,” she writes, “I was threatened and told that they would put me in a mental institution if I did not submit to the ‘authorities God had placed over me.’”
Perhaps the most prominent voice regarding the problems with People of Praise is Adrian Reimers, a longtime Notre Dame university professor who was one of the group’s original founders in 1971. In an article published in the Cultic Studies Journal in 1986, he said the tight psychological and social controls over it maintains over its members led his family to leave the community, which he believed had strayed from its Catholic roots. At one point, he writes, other leaders even discouraged him from seeking spiritual advice from priests, suggesting that the church was secondary to the covenant community.
Reimers provides some insight into the work of the handmaids in reinforcing the group’s traditional gender roles. “Besides working with women who want to help or whose husbands feel they need it, the handmaids try to foster a particular model of womanliness within the community,” he writes. “There is a strong emphasis on the manly, occasionally to the point of ridiculing the ‘wimp.’”
According to Reimers, People of Praise teaching also provided some pretty sexist counseling for its male leaders on how to deal with women. “According to a teaching that has been circulating among the community heads, women are by nature manipulative,” he recounts. “This is one of the effects of Original Sin on them. The wise husband will factor this into his relationship with his wife, recognizing that much of what she does is insincere. To deal with this, the husband should distrust her motives and instead draw closer to his head and the men in his men’s group.”
“Women are by nature manipulative. This is one of the effects of Original Sin on them. The wise husband will factor this into his relationship with his wife, recognizing that much of what she does is insincere.”
Women, he notes, were discouraged from having independent ideas. “At a women’s retreat one handmaid taught (with the approval of the coordinators) that one manifestation of the sin of pride is the failure to submit one’s thoughts and opinions to the heads of the community for correction,” Reimers writes.
People of Praise has pushed back against these characterizations, particularly as it has come under scrutiny because of Barrett’s possible elevation to the Supreme Court. In 2018, after Justice Kennedy retired, the group issued a statement responding to some of the media coverage, particularly on the role of women. “The People of Praise recognizes that men and women share a fundamental equality as bearers of God’s image and sons of God in Christ,” it said.
But Reimers isn’t the only former member who has characterized the group as oppressively patriarchal. In 2008, many years after Reimers first started publishing his critiques, Eric Stone, a student at the University of Minnesota, wrote an article in a campus publication about his time in the campus chapter. Like Reimers, he reported that the organization took a dim view of LGBT people and women.
“After some time in the POP,” he writes. “I started to realize that the revolution of Jesus Christ that was prophesied by the group was actually a revolution of oppression and control. The POP is comprised almost entirely of white upper-middle class Americans. Of the hundreds of members I met during my time with the POP, I met only one that was Black. I later found out that he was merely a guest at one of the community meetings and not affiliated with the POP. Furthermore, no active homosexuals are allowed, and if they ‘come out’ they are encouraged to undergo conversion therapy or are forced to leave.”
What’s notable about the defection stories is that People of Praise has never had very many members to begin with—only about 1,700 nationally, with a few hundred congregating with Judge Barrett in South Bend, where Notre Dame University was its spiritual hub. But Barrett has stuck it out, a sign that she is likely a true believer. Her ties to Praise of People run deep. Her parents are members; her father Mike Coney has been a member of its top leadership, serving on the board of governors, and her mother was reportedly a handmaid. She has six siblings, many of whom are also in the group, have done missionary work for it, and are married to other members. Barrett’s husband, Jesse Barrett, is a fellow Notre Dame law school grad, former assistant US attorney, and a lawyer in private practice—and a member of People of Praise.
Barrett has also served on the board of the Trinity School at Greenlawn, a People of Praise school for grades 6 through 12 in South Bend, where she reportedly has sent her own children, who range in age from 8 to 19. While co-ed, Trinity strictly segregates students by gender in the classroom. Students are discouraged from getting too close to the opposite sex; the school handbook explicitly frowns on dating, and any promiscuity seems to be grounds for expulsion. “Though it is natural and consistent with human development that students, experience sexual attraction, we discourage the formation of exclusive relationships,” the handbook says. And pity the poor Barrett child who might come out as gay or trans.
“At this age, some students may also experience same-sex attraction. We believe that it is unwise, however, for teens to prematurely interpret any particular emotional experience as identity-defining,” the Trinity handbook states. “We believe that such self-identification at a young age can lead to students being labeled based solely upon sexuality, generate distraction, create confusion, and prevent students from experiencing true freedom within the culture of the school.” (The school handbook also outlines a strict ban on pranks in any form, suggesting a serious lack of a sense of humor.)
It’s not anti-Catholic for Senate Democrats to ask Barrett to explain her relationship with or role in People of Praise. Wondering if she was a handmaid—and what that might mean in a Supreme Court justice—is a far cry from asking John F. Kennedy whether he had more loyalty to the Pope than the United States. As she told Notre Dame’s Class of 2006, “First, before you take any job, particularly one that requires a move, pray about it. St. Ignatius of Loyala observed that when presented with options, most people choose what they want to do first, and it’s only after the choice is already made that they go to God and say, ‘How can I serve You in the Situation I’m in?’ It’s the rare person who consults God before making a choice.”


motherjones--2020-09-24--Facebook Is Restricting Its Workers’ Political Speech and They’re Pissed

Facebook employees are furious after the company announced a new rule on Thursday prohibiting them from using their profile pictures to display political messages .
The new rule bars certain kinds of profile pictures on Workplace , a private version of Facebook for internal use among company employees .
The full text of the rule was shared with Mother Jones : Personal expression is a valuable part of our culture , and our hope is to preserve the ability for you to share your thoughts on different issues , including social issues , in moderated groups or within the space @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that doesn ’ t mean you should broadcast your beliefs into all of your work interactions without any context .
Profile pictures are meant to be a tool to help us identify who we ’ re speaking to online .
Some people are using it to express support for a social , political , or personal cause—which doesn ’ t give colleagues the choice to opt-in to that personal expression—so we ’ re going to require everyone to use a photo of themselves or the default of their initials as their profile picture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for causes on their profile or appropriate group .
Workplace has profile photo frames that will still be available to express ally ship and identity , particularly around FRBG [ Facebook Resource Business Group ] related initiatives like Pride , Black History Month , and Latinx and Hispanic Heritage Month , but you won ’ t be able to create your own frames .
Incensed Facebook workers littered the comment section of rules update post with frustrated messages .
“ What happens when we go back to the office ?
Will my appearance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include clothing , signage or language that are connected to a social or political issue ’ ?
” one employee wrote , quoting a clarification of the new rule by a member of Facebook ’ s internal communications team .
“ This policy is asking to be broken.
” “ It ’ s never been a better time to unionize , ” another chimed in .
The move comes after a summer of frustration for employees .
In August , Buzzfeed News reported that employees were upset that the company had refused to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ militia group planning to attend a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha , Wisconsin .
Kyle Rittenhouse ended up fatally shooting two protestors at the event .
Facebook employees have also expressed their frustration over the company ’ s inaction on posts by Donald Trump , including a misleading one about mail-in voting , as reported by BuzzFeed News .
“ We deeply value expression , open discussion , and a company culture built on respect and inclusivity , ” Joe Osborne , a Facebook spokesman , said in a statement .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that they want the option to join debates on social and political issues rather than see them unexpectedly in their work feed .
So we ’ re updating our policies and work tools to make sure our people have both voice , and choice .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Facebook employees are furious after the company announced a new rule on Thursday prohibiting them from using their profile pictures to display political messages.
The new rule bars certain kinds of profile pictures on Workplace, a private version of Facebook for internal use among company employees. The full text of the rule was shared with Mother Jones:
Personal expression is a valuable part of our culture, and our hope is to preserve the ability for you to share your thoughts on different issues, including social issues, in moderated groups or within the space of your own profile. However, that doesn’t mean you should broadcast your beliefs into all of your work interactions without any context. Profile pictures are meant to be a tool to help us identify who we’re speaking to online. Some people are using it to express support for a social, political, or personal cause—which doesn’t give colleagues the choice to opt-in to that personal expression—so we’re going to require everyone to use a photo of themselves or the default of their initials as their profile picture and ask people to express their support for causes on their profile or appropriate group. Workplace has profile photo frames that will still be available to express ally ship and identity, particularly around FRBG [Facebook Resource Business Group] related initiatives like Pride, Black History Month, and Latinx and Hispanic Heritage Month, but you won’t be able to create your own frames.
Incensed Facebook workers littered the comment section of rules update post with frustrated messages.
“What happens when we go back to the office? Will my appearance have to be neutral and ‘not include clothing, signage or language that are connected to a social or political issue’?” one employee wrote, quoting a clarification of the new rule by a member of Facebook’s internal communications team. “This policy is asking to be broken.”
“It’s never been a better time to unionize,” another chimed in.
The move comes after a summer of frustration for employees. In August, Buzzfeed News reported that employees were upset that the company had refused to delete the event page of a right-wing militia group planning to attend a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Kyle Rittenhouse ended up fatally shooting two protestors at the event.
Facebook employees have also expressed their frustration over the company’s inaction on posts by Donald Trump, including a misleading one about mail-in voting, as reported by BuzzFeed News.
“We deeply value expression, open discussion, and a company culture built on respect and inclusivity,” Joe Osborne, a Facebook spokesman, said in a statement. “What we have heard from our employees is that they want the option to join debates on social and political issues rather than see them unexpectedly in their work feed. So we’re updating our policies and work tools to make sure our people have both voice, and choice.”


motherjones--2020-09-24--Bernie Sanders Is Warning That American Democracy Is in Danger

Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) set aside the ambitious progressive policies that animated his two presidential candidacies on Thursday to warn the country about something more basic : that America faces an existential threat .
President Donald Trump ’ s increasingly bold rhetoric about not counting ballots and refusing to promise a peaceful transition of power have convinced Sanders that future of American democracy is on the line this November .
“ This is not just an election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden , ” he said in an address given at George Washington University in DC .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump and democracy—and democracy must win.
” The prospect that this election is fundamentally different from all that preceded it has become an increasing part of the conversation in recent weeks among academics , journalists , and political strategists .
The more Trump insists that mail-in ballots will be a source of fraud , refuses to say he will accept the outcome and urges his supporters to take it upon themselves to watch the polls and prevent supposed fraud , the more the threat emerges .
This week in the Atlantic , Barton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign and prominent state-level Republicans are planning ways to ignore the will of the people and have state legislatures select pro-Trump electors .
In Slate , election law expert Rick Hasen , known as an even-keeled nonpartisan , wrote that “ I ’ ve never been more worried about American democracy than I am right now.
” Sanders is not newly fearful .
Last month , at the Democratic National Convention , Sanders similarly warned that our system of government itself is at stake .
“ At its most basic , this election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said then .
“ Under this administration , authoritarianism has taken root in country.
” On Thursday , Sanders made the urgency of this message clear .
With this speech , he not only signaled his concern , but put himself forward as the ambassador for these fears .
By bridging between the wonks on Twitter and the voters , and using his own popularity among the party ’ s left to ring alarm bells , Sanders is setting himself up to hold those in power accountable with—he hopes—a mass of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s own strategy for subverting the election—a strategy that is not really secret , but in fact a public campaign regularly messaged by the president : make it harder for people to vote , use false claims of fraud to dismiss unfavorable results , and create an aura of illegitimacy over the process that can be exploited to remain in power .
Sanders offered a dark summation of Trump ’ s view of the 2020 contest : “ Heads I win , tails you lose.
” To explain , Sanders laid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the in-person vote on election night and declares victory before mail-in ballots , cast disproportionately by Democrats , can be counted .
The president then claims mail-in ballots are somehow fraudulent and calls for them not to be counted .
Allied state legislatures then side with Trump by picking electors to the Electoral College that defy the will of the state ’ s voters .
The gambit is aided by Trump rushing a Supreme Court nomination to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a goal of ensuring , should the election end up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go his way .
This , Sanders warned , is an “ unprecedented moment.
” Sanders is an influential figure on the left , but he went out of his way to demonstrate that he was not playing an ideological game by quoting Ronald Reagan along with prominent living Republicans who have criticized Trump ’ s anti-democratic instincts to bring home the point that his fear is not a partisan fever dream .
Sanders ended by urging action on the part of Congress , state-level officials , social media companies , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
But Sanders , who based his own campaigns on the hope for a groundswell of grassroots support , seemed to put more faith in steps average voters could take to ensure a peaceful transition of power .
“ Too many people have fought and died to defend American democracy and you are not going to destroy it , ” Sanders said , dressing Trump .
“ The American people will not allow that to happen.
” Making sure he ’ s right is Sanders ’ s new mission .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) set aside the ambitious progressive policies that animated his two presidential candidacies on Thursday to warn the country about something more basic: that America faces an existential threat. President Donald Trump’s increasingly bold rhetoric about not counting ballots and refusing to promise a peaceful transition of power have convinced Sanders that future of American democracy is on the line this November.
“This is not just an election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden,” he said in an address given at George Washington University in DC. “This is an election between Donald Trump and democracy—and democracy must win.”
“This is an election between Donald Trump and democracy—and democracy must win.”
The prospect that this election is fundamentally different from all that preceded it has become an increasing part of the conversation in recent weeks among academics, journalists, and political strategists. The more Trump insists that mail-in ballots will be a source of fraud, refuses to say he will accept the outcome and urges his supporters to take it upon themselves to watch the polls and prevent supposed fraud, the more the threat emerges. This week in the Atlantic, Barton Gellman reported that that Trump’s campaign and prominent state-level Republicans are planning ways to ignore the will of the people and have state legislatures select pro-Trump electors. In Slate, election law expert Rick Hasen, known as an even-keeled nonpartisan, wrote that “I’ve never been more worried about American democracy than I am right now.”
Sanders is not newly fearful. Last month, at the Democratic National Convention, Sanders similarly warned that our system of government itself is at stake. “At its most basic, this election is about preserving our democracy,” he said then. “Under this administration, authoritarianism has taken root in country.” On Thursday, Sanders made the urgency of this message clear. With this speech, he not only signaled his concern, but put himself forward as the ambassador for these fears. By bridging between the wonks on Twitter and the voters, and using his own popularity among the party’s left to ring alarm bells, Sanders is setting himself up to hold those in power accountable with—he hopes—a mass of Americans mobilized behind him.
Sanders laid out Trump’s own strategy for subverting the election—a strategy that is not really secret, but in fact a public campaign regularly messaged by the president: make it harder for people to vote, use false claims of fraud to dismiss unfavorable results, and create an aura of illegitimacy over the process that can be exploited to remain in power. Sanders offered a dark summation of Trump’s view of the 2020 contest: “Heads I win, tails you lose.”
To explain, Sanders laid out a feared scenario wherein Trump wins the in-person vote on election night and declares victory before mail-in ballots, cast disproportionately by Democrats, can be counted. The president then claims mail-in ballots are somehow fraudulent and calls for them not to be counted. Allied state legislatures then side with Trump by picking electors to the Electoral College that defy the will of the state’s voters. The gambit is aided by Trump rushing a Supreme Court nomination to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a goal of ensuring, should the election end up before the high court, it will go his way. This, Sanders warned, is an “unprecedented moment.”
“Too many people have fought and died to defend American democracy.”
Sanders is an influential figure on the left, but he went out of his way to demonstrate that he was not playing an ideological game by quoting Ronald Reagan along with prominent living Republicans who have criticized Trump’s anti-democratic instincts to bring home the point that his fear is not a partisan fever dream.
Sanders ended by urging action on the part of Congress, state-level officials, social media companies, and the media to prevent Trump from usurping the election. But Sanders, who based his own campaigns on the hope for a groundswell of grassroots support, seemed to put more faith in steps average voters could take to ensure a peaceful transition of power.
“Too many people have fought and died to defend American democracy and you are not going to destroy it,” Sanders said, adressing Trump. “The American people will not allow that to happen.” Making sure he’s right is Sanders’ new mission.


motherjones--2020-09-24--Trump Gets Pummeled by a Wave of Boos While Visiting RBG’s Casket

For the second time in nearly a week , President Trump on Thursday stepped outside of the bubble of his fawning rallies to join thousands of mourners paying their respects to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg outside the Supreme Court .
There , Trump was pummeled by a steady stream of jeers , as well as chants of “ Vote him out !
” and “ Honor her wish !
” —a nod to the president ’ s deliberate effort to disregard Ginsburg ’ s final plea , as her granddaughter told NPR , for the winner of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Though he was wearing a mask , Trump ’ s displeasure and uneasiness , as he fidgeted while taking in the sea of loud boos , could not be concealed .
Trump ’ s visit comes days after he claimed , without evidence , that Ginsburg ’ s final wish—which was relayed in a note to her granddaughter—had been invented by the Democrats for political purposes .
“ I don ’ t know that she said that or if that was written out by Adam Schiff , and Schumer and Pelosi , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It sounds so beautiful , but that sounds like a Schumer deal , or maybe Pelosi or Shifty Schiff .
”

“A VOICE OF REASON.” “A DAILY DOSE OF SANITY.”
“A daily dose of sanity.” “Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
“Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
Close Thank you for subscribing!
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from Mother Jones and our partners.


motherjones--2020-09-25--What Ginsburg’s Death Means for Upcoming Fights Against Sex Discrimination

Just a few months ago , 86-year-old Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was deftly smacking down oral arguments by supporters of a Louisiana abortion restriction , demonstrating the meticulous approach to the law and women ’ s rights that had earned her canonical status among feminists .
Since her death last Friday , the existential threat to reproductive rights from an expanded conservative majority on the court has come into sharp relief .
Yet while access to abortion is a cornerstone of gender equality— ” central to a woman ’ s life , to her dignity , ” as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1993—it ’ s far from the only issue where her absence will be felt .
The broader fight against discrimination based on sex , which defined Ginsburg ’ s career prior to her appointment to the federal bench , remains riddled with unsettled legal questions , some of which will come before the Supreme Court in short order .
“ A lot is on the line , ” says Emily Martin , vice president for education and workplace justice at the National Women ’ s Law Center .
“ There are a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law mean when it prohibits sex discrimination , and who has to follow that law.
” Legal experts and gender justice litigators say one of the most immediate fights is a religious freedom case scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court the day after the presidential election .
The case , Fulton v. City of Philadelphia , began in 2018 , after a Catholic foster care agency told a newspaper reporter it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents .
In response , the city of Philadelphia stopped referring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Social Services , which in turn sued the city .
The agency , along with some foster families , argues that it has a First Amendment right to be exempt from local laws and contractual requirements that it not discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation .
The outcome of the case could affect the ability of same-sex couples to become foster parents , and children to find foster homes , anywhere local governments contract with religious agencies for foster care services .
But depending how the court rules , its effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws across the country , says Diana Flynn , litigation director of Lambda Legal , an LGBTQ legal advocacy organization that has filed a brief supporting the city ’ s position .
Catholic Social Services is asking the court to reconsider a 1990 decision , Employment Division v. Smith , that said an individual ’ s religious beliefs don ’ t exempt them from “ generally applicable ” state laws .
If the court decides to overrule that precedent , it could become much easier for religious organizations to argue they should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these binders are off , I don ’ t think we could safely rule out any attack on various individuals that the administration and their allies have shown hostility to , ” Flynn says .
“ LGBTQ people , certainly .
But in other contexts , it could be women , it could be racial minorities.
” Ginsburg was considered “ a very likely vote for enforcement of the civil rights laws at issue ” in Fulton , Flynn says .
Three years ago , when the Supreme Court ruled that a baker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a wedding cake for a same-sex couple due to his religious beliefs , she was one of two justices who dissented .
“ Her voice of dissent has been so powerful because we need someone on the court to be able to tell the story of real people ’ s lives and what the decisions mean for real people , ” says Ria Tabacco Mar , director of the ACLU ’ s Women ’ s Rights Project , which Ginsburg cofounded in 1972 .
In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case , Ginsburg “ really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to live your life as who you are—free from the fear that you ’ re going to be turned away because of who you are , free from the fear of being told your dollar isn ’ t good enough , free from being told , ‘ Your kind is not welcome here , ' ” Tabacco Mar says .
“ She knew that fear all too well because , of course , that ’ s exactly what she experienced when she graduated from Columbia Law School and found she was unemployable.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in November is “ exactly the kind of case where , I think , Justice Ginsburg would see that of course it ’ s about nondiscrimination in an abstract sense , ” Tabacco Mar adds .
“ But it ’ s also about being told , essentially , ‘ We just think a child is better off with no parents at all than parents like you . '
” ( The ACLU is representing two other respondents in the case , Support Center for Child Advocates and Philadelphia Family Pride . )
Amy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals , is considered to be Trump ’ s top choice to take Ginsburg ’ s seat .
Lambda Legal is opposing her prospective nomination , in part due to a letter she signed in 2015 affirming the Catholic Church ’ s teachings on the “ significance of sexual difference and the complementarity of men and women ” and that “ marriage and family is founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman.
” And her membership in the charismatic covenant community People of Praise , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relationships , opens up questions about how she views matters of sex equality .
Beyond Fulton , experts in gender and the law are looking ahead to brewing battles over Title IX , which bans sex discrimination in federally funded education .
This summer , in the landmark ruling Bostock v. Clayton County , the Supreme Court ruled that employers could not fire someone for being gay or transgender under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act , which bans employment discrimination on the basis of sex , as well as race , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Despite that ruling , the Trump administration claims that anti-trans discrimination in schools is allowed under Title IX—even threatening to withhold funding from Connecticut school districts that allow trans girls to compete in girls ’ sports .
While lawsuits over trans student athletes play out in the lower courts , two cases involving the Title IX rights of transgender students to access school bathrooms that match their gender could soon be appealed up to the Supreme Court .
Flynn , who represents one of the teenaged plaintiffs , Drew Adams , says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Adams ’ case as soon as next fall .
More difficult to predict is whether the court will take up any of the high-profile legal questions around schools ’ handling of sexual misconduct under Title IX .
Four current federal lawsuits take aim against Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her new Title IX regulations , which narrow the definition of sexual harassment and reduce schools ’ responsibilities to respond to it .
The cases include lawsuits brought by the ACLU , National Women ’ s Law Center , and 19 attorneys general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assault and harassment have been suing their schools for not protecting them or mishandling their reports ; at least one is petitioning the Supreme Court to hear her case .
Accused students have also filed hundreds of lawsuits of their own , claiming school sexual misconduct proceedings violated their right to due process and discriminated against them as men .
It ’ s not clear how Ginsburg would have come down on these questions ; in 2018 , she told the Atlantic that it was valid to criticize some school codes for being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is definitely more likely , with a large majority of conservatives on the Supreme Court , that if a case actually ever got to that level , it is unlikely to go in the favor of sexual harassment victims and unlikely to be more protective of sexual harassment victims ’ rights , ” says Nancy Chi Cantalupo , a professor at California Western School of Law .
Barrett , for her part , gave a boost to these lawsuits last year when she authored an influential opinion allowing one case to go forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school had been biased against the accused student as a man .
“ Barrett ’ s decision in that case raises concerns that on the Supreme Court she might seek to reshape Title IX so that schools could more easily be liable for holding harassers accountable than for failing to respond to sexual harassment , ” says Martin of the National Women ’ s Law Center .
In the long term , Martin is concerned that legal fights over sexual harassment—what kind of behavior it includes , whether banning it violates freedom of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-male discrimination—could move from schools to workplaces .
She ’ s also keeping an eye on a disagreement about equal pay in the federals appeals courts over whether employers can use women ’ s salary history as justification for paying them less than men .
“ I am a little depressed , ” Martin says with a laugh .
But even with Ginsburg gone , she ’ s determined to continue the fight .
“ It is fair to say that her legacy is under threat , ” she says .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ note that a lot of her legacy is planting seeds for the future , even when she lost a particular battle .
That legacy definitely continues , no matter what happens in this immediate fight—the belief that even if a battle is lost , that there is a broader arc of justice that we have the power to bend .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Just a few months ago, 86-year-old Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was deftly smacking down oral arguments by supporters of a Louisiana abortion restriction, demonstrating the meticulous approach to the law and women’s rights that had earned her canonical status among feminists. Since her death last Friday, the existential threat to reproductive rights from an expanded conservative majority on the court has come into sharp relief. Yet while access to abortion is a cornerstone of gender equality—“central to a woman’s life, to her dignity,” as Ginsburg put it in her confirmation hearings in 1993—it’s far from the only issue where her absence will be felt.
The broader fight against discrimination based on sex, which defined Ginsburg’s career prior to her appointment to the federal bench, remains riddled with unsettled legal questions, some of which will come before the Supreme Court in short order. “A lot is on the line,” says Emily Martin, vice president for education and workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center. “There are a lot of active fights about what does the law mean when it prohibits sex discrimination, and who has to follow that law.”
Legal experts and gender justice litigators say one of the most immediate fights is a religious freedom case scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court the day after the presidential election. The case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, began in 2018, after a Catholic foster care agency told a newspaper reporter it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. In response, the city of Philadelphia stopped referring foster children to the agency, Catholic Social Services, which in turn sued the city. The agency, along with some foster families, argues that it has a First Amendment right to be exempt from local laws and contractual requirements that it not discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.
The outcome of the case could affect the ability of same-sex couples to become foster parents, and children to find foster homes, anywhere local governments contract with religious agencies for foster care services. But depending how the court rules, its effects could also be far broader—potentially weakening anti-discrimination laws across the country, says Diana Flynn, litigation director of Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ legal advocacy organization that has filed a brief supporting the city’s position. Catholic Social Services is asking the court to reconsider a 1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith, that said an individual’s religious beliefs don’t exempt them from “generally applicable” state laws. If the court decides to overrule that precedent, it could become much easier for religious organizations to argue they should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.
“It is fair to say that her legacy is under threat.”
“Once these binders are off, I don’t think we could safely rule out any attack on various individuals that the administration and their allies have shown hostility to,” Flynn says. “LGBTQ people, certainly. But in other contexts, it could be women, it could be racial minorities.”
Ginsburg was considered “a very likely vote for enforcement of the civil rights laws at issue” in Fulton, Flynn says. Three years ago, when the Supreme Court ruled that a baker in Colorado was not obligated to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple due to his religious beliefs, she was one of two justices who dissented. “Her voice of dissent has been so powerful because we need someone on the court to be able to tell the story of real people’s lives and what the decisions mean for real people,” says Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, which Ginsburg cofounded in 1972. In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, Ginsburg “really understood that this is about being able to live your life as who you are—free from the fear that you’re going to be turned away because of who you are, free from the fear of being told your dollar isn’t good enough, free from being told, ‘Your kind is not welcome here,'” Tabacco Mar says. “She knew that fear all too well because, of course, that’s exactly what she experienced when she graduated from Columbia Law School and found she was unemployable.”
The Philadelphia foster care case being argued in November is “exactly the kind of case where, I think, Justice Ginsburg would see that of course it’s about nondiscrimination in an abstract sense,” Tabacco Mar adds. “But it’s also about being told, essentially, ‘We just think a child is better off with no parents at all than parents like you.'” (The ACLU is representing two other respondents in the case, Support Center for Child Advocates and Philadelphia Family Pride.)
Amy Coney Barrett, a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, is considered to be Trump’s top choice to take Ginsburg’s seat. Lambda Legal is opposing her prospective nomination, in part due to a letter she signed in 2015 affirming the Catholic Church’s teachings on the “significance of sexual difference and the complementarity of men and women” and that “marriage and family is founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman.” And her membership in the charismatic covenant community People of Praise, which emphasizes traditional gender roles in married relationships, opens up questions about how she views matters of sex equality.
Beyond Fulton, experts in gender and the law are looking ahead to brewing battles over Title IX, which bans sex discrimination in federally funded education. This summer, in the landmark ruling Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court ruled that employers could not fire someone for being gay or transgender under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bans employment discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as race, color, religion, and national origin. Despite that ruling, the Trump administration claims that anti-trans discrimination in schools is allowed under Title IX—even threatening to withhold funding from Connecticut school districts that allow trans girls to compete in girls’ sports.
While lawsuits over trans student athletes play out in the lower courts, two cases involving the Title IX rights of transgender students to access school bathrooms that match their gender could soon be appealed up to the Supreme Court. Flynn, who represents one of the teenaged plaintiffs, Drew Adams, says that the court could consider that question in Adams’ case as soon as next fall.
More difficult to predict is whether the court will take up any of the high-profile legal questions around schools’ handling of sexual misconduct under Title IX. Four current federal lawsuits take aim against Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her new Title IX regulations, which narrow the definition of sexual harassment and reduce schools’ responsibilities to respond to it. The cases include lawsuits brought by the ACLU, National Women’s Law Center, and 19 attorneys general. Meanwhile, student survivors of sexual assault and harassment have been suing their schools for not protecting them or mishandling their reports; at least one is petitioning the Supreme Court to hear her case.
Accused students have also filed hundreds of lawsuits of their own, claiming school sexual misconduct proceedings violated their right to due process and discriminated against them as men. It’s not clear how Ginsburg would have come down on these questions; in 2018, she told the Atlantic that it was valid to criticize some school codes for being unfair to accused students. “It is definitely more likely, with a large majority of conservatives on the Supreme Court, that if a case actually ever got to that level, it is unlikely to go in the favor of sexual harassment victims and unlikely to be more protective of sexual harassment victims’ rights,” says Nancy Chi Cantalupo, a professor at California Western School of Law. Barrett, for her part, gave a boost to these lawsuits last year when she authored an influential opinion allowing one case to go forward because it was “plausible” the school had been biased against the accused student as a man. “Barrett’s decision in that case raises concerns that on the Supreme Court she might seek to reshape Title IX so that schools could more easily be liable for holding harassers accountable than for failing to respond to sexual harassment,” says Martin of the National Women’s Law Center.
In the long term, Martin is concerned that legal fights over sexual harassment—what kind of behavior it includes, whether banning it violates freedom of speech, and whether addressing it is anti-male discrimination—could move from schools to workplaces. She’s also keeping an eye on a disagreement about equal pay in the federals appeals courts over whether employers can use women’s salary history as justification for paying them less than men.
“I am a little depressed,” Martin says with a laugh. But even with Ginsburg gone, she’s determined to continue the fight. “It is fair to say that her legacy is under threat,” she says. “I think it’s also important to note that a lot of her legacy is planting seeds for the future, even when she lost a particular battle. That legacy definitely continues, no matter what happens in this immediate fight—the belief that even if a battle is lost, that there is a broader arc of justice that we have the power to bend.”


motherjones--2020-09-25--Court Shoots Down Trump’s Effort to End the Census Early, Deadline Extended to October 31

A federal court has ordered the Census Bureau to continue counting United States residents through October 31 , reversing a move by the Trump administration to halt census outreach efforts on Sept. 30 , NPR reports .
To make up for delays caused by the coronavirus pandemic , the Census Bureau had initially extended the enumeration period—in which the agency attempts to count every US household that has not already responded to the census on its own—until Oct. 31 .
But in July , following the Trump administration ’ s addition of several political appointees to the Census Bureau , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the enumeration period short to Oct. 31 , leaving census organizers scrambling to get everyone in their communities counted and adding further confusion to a census that has been riddled with controversy and uncertainty .
The US district judge who issued the preliminary injunction mandating the extension Thursday noted that those most likely to be harmed by a shortened enumeration period are people of color and immigrants , who are often among the hardest populations to count .
Native Americans , for example , are the most chronically undercounted ethnic group , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of traditional mailing addresses , and in part because of a distrust of the government stemming from hundreds of years of marginalization .
Meanwhile , organizers in Mexican–American communities in Texas near the state ’ s southern border are struggling to overcome the confusion caused by Trump ’ s failed efforts to add a citizenship question to the census .
The restoration of the Oct. 31 deadline will give community organizers a precious extra month to ensure that these populations receive the political representation and federal funding that come with an accurate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t an unconditional victory : The Justice Department is expected to appeal the court ’ s decision .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A federal court has ordered the Census Bureau to continue counting United States residents through October 31, reversing a move by the Trump administration to halt census outreach efforts on Sept. 30, NPR reports.
To make up for delays caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the Census Bureau had initially extended the enumeration period—in which the agency attempts to count every US household that has not already responded to the census on its own—until October 31. But in July, following the Trump administration’s addition of several political appointees to the Census Bureau, the agency announced that it would cut the enumeration period short to September 30, leaving census organizers scrambling to get everyone in their communities counted and adding further confusion to a census that has been riddled with controversy and uncertainty.
The US district judge who issued the preliminary injunction mandating the extension Thursday noted that those most likely to be harmed by a shortened enumeration period are people of color and immigrants, who are often among the hardest populations to count. Native Americans, for example, are the most chronically undercounted ethnic group, in part because of logistical constraints like the lack of traditional mailing addresses, and in part because of a distrust of the government stemming from hundreds of years of marginalization. Meanwhile, organizers in Mexican–American communities in Texas near the state’s southern border are struggling to overcome the confusion caused by Trump’s failed efforts to add a citizenship question to the census.
The restoration of the October 31 deadline will give community organizers a precious extra month to ensure that these populations receive the political representation and federal funding that come with an accurate count. Still, this isn’t an unconditional victory: The Justice Department is expected to appeal the court’s decision.