vox--2020-07-21--Facebook’s new label on a Trump post is an “abject failure,” says a Biden campaign spokesperson

On Tuesday , Facebook finally labeled President Trump ’ s misleading posts about voting — but it ’ s not the fact-check that people have been asking for .
Instead , the social media platform is enforcing a new policy to add a link to official voting information any time a Facebook user — whether an everyday user or a prominent politician — posts anything about voting in the US .
Democratic party leaders , including a Biden campaign spokesperson , have sharply criticized the move , arguing that it ’ s too little , too late .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to posts about voting regardless of whether they share accurate or inaccurate information .
It added a similar link to voting information to some of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden ’ s recent posts , including one that said , “ We have to vote Donald Trump out this November.
” The Trump post Facebook labeled on Tuesday makes an unsubstantiated claim that mail-in voting will lead to a “ corrupt ” and “ rigged ” election .
The label underneath Trump ’ s post doesn ’ t comment on the content at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on how voters can register to vote by mail .
Facebook ’ s new voting post policy is a part of its broader effort , first announced in June , to inform US voters about the upcoming presidential election .
The new policies came amid widespread criticism that Facebook isn ’ t doing enough to stop the dissemination of voter misinformation by President Trump — particularly after Twitter for the first time labeled a previous Trump tweet about mail-in voting as containing “ potentially misleading ” information in May .
Biden campaign spokesperson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an “ absolute , abject failure ” in a tweet on Tuesday morning , in one of two tweets criticizing Facebook ’ s implementation of the new labeling policy .
Russo did not return Recode ’ s request for further comment on the matter ; another spokesperson for the Biden campaign , Mike Gwin , declined Recode ’ s request for comment .
Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone declined to comment to Recode about Democratic party leaders ’ concerns about the labeling but noted that the recent labeling was part of Facebook ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Several other Democratic party leaders also weighed in on Twitter , arguing it was unfair for Facebook to label Biden in the same manner as Trump .
They said Biden ’ s post simply shared his opinion about whom to vote for while Trump ’ s post was denying the legitimacy of the US election process .
One Democratic operative who spoke with Recode on the condition of anonymity called Facebook ’ s labeling of Trump ’ s posts “ laughably inadequate.
” “ They [ Facebook ] are essentially just putting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not in any way saying the content of the information might be wrong or not widely trusted information , ” said the Democratize operative , who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they don ’ t have clearance to speak with the press .
“ You ’ re letting the president of the US go on your platform and say something that ’ s not correct about mail-in voting.
” In response to Facebook ’ s labeling of Trump ’ s posts , a spokesperson for the Trump campaign , Samantha Zager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ The President was absolutely correct .
Universal vote by mail is ripe for fraud and would lead to a corrupt election .
The same label has been applied to posts on Joe Biden ’ s page.
” Trump ’ s claims that voting by mail in the US will lead to fraud are unsubstantiated and widely disputed by leading political science and election integrity experts .
Aside from the labeling , Facebook has been pushing to register 4 million of its US users to vote — something Zuckerberg has previously framed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support democracy than by policing what politicians can say on the platform .
In recent days , Zuckerberg has also publicly denied being overly sympathetic to Trump and unwilling to moderate the president ’ s Facebook posts .
The tech CEO has also more publicly criticized Trump than he has in the past , speaking against his immigration policies and his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic .
But Facebook ’ s refusal to take a stand of any kind regarding the accuracy of Trump ’ s posts , and its continued insistence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , suggest it hasn ’ t learned much since 2016 .
( Back then , Zuckerberg said shortly after the election that it was “ crazy ” to suggest that Facebook had influenced its outcome — a statement he later apologized for . )
What has changed since the last US presidential election is the expectations that the public and politicians have for the platform — and for some , its new policies aren ’ t cutting it .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider making a contribution to Vox today .

On Tuesday, Facebook finally labeled President Trump’s misleading posts about voting — but it’s not the fact-check that people have been asking for.
Instead, the social media platform is enforcing a new policy to add a link to official voting information any time a Facebook user — whether an everyday user or a prominent politician — posts anything about voting in the US. Democratic party leaders, including a Biden campaign spokesperson, have sharply criticized the move, arguing that it’s too little, too late.
That’s because Facebook is adding the label to posts about voting regardless of whether they share accurate or inaccurate information. It added a similar link to voting information to some of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s recent posts, including one that said, “We have to vote Donald Trump out this November.”
The Trump post Facebook labeled on Tuesday makes an unsubstantiated claim that mail-in voting will lead to a “corrupt” and “rigged” election. The label underneath Trump’s post doesn’t comment on the content at all and instead links out to instructions on how voters can register to vote by mail.
Facebook’s new voting post policy is a part of its broader effort, first announced in June, to inform US voters about the upcoming presidential election. The new policies came amid widespread criticism that Facebook isn’t doing enough to stop the dissemination of voter misinformation by President Trump — particularly after Twitter for the first time labeled a previous Trump tweet about mail-in voting as containing “potentially misleading” information in May.
Biden campaign spokesperson Bill Russo called Facebook’s policy an “absolute, abject failure” in a tweet on Tuesday morning, in one of two tweets criticizing Facebook’s implementation of the new labeling policy.
Russo did not return Recode’s request for further comment on the matter; another spokesperson for the Biden campaign, Mike Gwin, declined Recode’s request for comment.
Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone declined to comment to Recode about Democratic party leaders’ concerns about the labeling but noted that the recent labeling was part of Facebook’s voter information plans announced last month.
Several other Democratic party leaders also weighed in on Twitter, arguing it was unfair for Facebook to label Biden in the same manner as Trump. They said Biden’s post simply shared his opinion about whom to vote for while Trump’s post was denying the legitimacy of the US election process.
Trump campaign taking full advantage of the false equivalency set up by @Facebook's spinelessness on voting misinformation.https://t.co/oFEM6Pi9Tp https://t.co/NY37aOcQyh pic.twitter.com/I507XcU7cT — Timothy Durigan (@timothydurigan) July 21, 2020
One Democratic operative who spoke with Recode on the condition of anonymity called Facebook’s labeling of Trump’s posts “laughably inadequate.”
“They [Facebook] are essentially just putting a link in the post for Trump and not in any way saying the content of the information might be wrong or not widely trusted information,” said the Democratize operative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they don’t have clearance to speak with the press. “You’re letting the president of the US go on your platform and say something that’s not correct about mail-in voting.”
In response to Facebook’s labeling of Trump’s posts, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, Samantha Zager, shared the following statement with Recode:
“The President was absolutely correct. Universal vote by mail is ripe for fraud and would lead to a corrupt election. The same label has been applied to posts on Joe Biden’s page.”
Trump’s claims that voting by mail in the US will lead to fraud are unsubstantiated and widely disputed by leading political science and election integrity experts.
Aside from the labeling, Facebook has been pushing to register 4 million of its US users to vote — something Zuckerberg has previously framed as a better way for his company to support democracy than by policing what politicians can say on the platform.
In recent days, Zuckerberg has also publicly denied being overly sympathetic to Trump and unwilling to moderate the president’s Facebook posts. The tech CEO has also more publicly criticized Trump than he has in the past, speaking against his immigration policies and his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.
But Facebook’s refusal to take a stand of any kind regarding the accuracy of Trump’s posts, and its continued insistence that it’s a neutral platform, suggest it hasn’t learned much since 2016. (Back then, Zuckerberg said shortly after the election that it was “crazy” to suggest that Facebook had influenced its outcome — a statement he later apologized for.) What has changed since the last US presidential election is the expectations that the public and politicians have for the platform — and for some, its new policies aren’t cutting it.


vox--2020-07-21--What Alexander Hamilton has to do with the EU’s $850 billion coronavirus stimulus plan

Facing a potentially ruinous recession caused by the coronavirus , the European Union seemingly drew inspiration from an unlikely figure : Alexander Hamilton .
Some of the political bloc ’ s biggest nations — France , Italy , and Spain — are projected to contract by around 10 percent this year alone .
That means widespread job losses , the decimation of industries , hungry families , and millions perhaps more vulnerable to Covid-19 .
To stave off such a calamity , the EU ’ s 27 leaders have for the last five days been haggling over the contours of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning in Brussels , they announced a dramatic deal — one that potentially signals a major shift in European politics .
The $ 857 billion stimulus will be split into roughly two parts : About $ 446 billion will be directly given as grants ( meaning the recipients won ’ t have to pay any interest whatsoever ) to the bloc ’ s hardest-hit states ; the remaining funds will be offered as loans to countries that may not require as much assistance .
Instead of having member states send their money directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to disburse — as it has in past decades — the European Commission ( the bloc ’ s executive arm ) will borrow from investors and lenders .
That ’ s why some dub this agreement “ Europe ’ s Hamiltonian Moment.
” As history buffs and fans of the hit musical might know , the first treasury secretary worried Virginia wouldn ’ t absorb New York ’ s debts after the Revolutionary War .
As a fix , he had the US government take on the debts of all of America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a fiscal union .
Something similar happened Tuesday morning .
EU countries have historically been reluctant to take on the debts of their fellow member states , most famously when Germany didn ’ t want to lend to Greece during the eurozone crisis of the late 2000s .
But now , “ Brussels has the authority to borrow for the EU as a whole in response to the coronavirus-induced economic crisis , ” said Rachel Wellhausen , an international political economy expert at the University of Texas at Austin .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though it may not be as dramatic as those who want to draw a parallel with Hamilton ’ s vision claim .
“ This is not yet a Hamiltonian moment , but the fact that EU member states agree to borrow money in the markets to support European recovery and economic transition is a key signal , ” Daniela Schwarzer , the director of the German Council on Foreign Relations , told me .
The “ decisions pave the way towards a deeper fiscal union , ” she said .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EU ’ s leaders sound downright giddy about the agreement .
“ This is a good deal .
This is a strong deal .
And most importantly , this is the right deal for Europe , right now , ” European Council President Charles Michel , leader of the bloc ’ s major decision-making body , said in a Tuesday statement .
Still , the pact has significant drawbacks and hurdles the union needs to overcome .
First , Wellhausen warns it ’ s “ unlikely this EU deal is big enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” That means it ’ s unlikely EU countries will bounce back to pre-coronavirus economies , but they may weather the oncoming storm .
What ’ s more , it ’ s still unclear how the EU will pay back investors or how member states will raise enough funds to refill the bloc ’ s coffers .
And getting Poland and Hungary to approve the deal meant caving on measures tying funding to rule-of-law benchmarks , which may keep the accord from sailing through the European Parliament when it comes up for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , may end up more significant for what it represents than what it actually does to help individual economies that are suffering .
“ It is institutional evolution , ” said Nicolas Véron , a Europe-based senior fellow with the Peterson Institute for International Economics .
The room where it happened Striking a deal of this magnitude was never guaranteed , and it required two key compromises along the way .
Europe ’ s two most important leaders — German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron — along with the EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large economic rescue package .
In May , European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recommended about $ 575 billion be made available for no-interest grants to the continent ’ s heavily impacted countries like Italy and Spain .
But the sum received strong pushback from some member states , namely a five-nation group known as the “ frugals ” : the Netherlands , Sweden , Austria , Denmark , and Finland .
Their main concern was a lack of visibility into how the severely affected countries would spend the grants .
Dutch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by critics as “ Dr .
Superstrict ” or “ Mr .
No , ” had long been critical about centralizing too much power in Brussels .
He became the face of the frugals for pushing for the final deal to include an oversight mechanism and a lower grant total .
Rutte and his cohort ’ s opposition wasn ’ t popular with many other countries , though , and their demands had prolonged negotiations that were originally scheduled to last just two days .
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán , a hardline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dictator , was so upset by the delay that he openly lambasted Rutte as someone who ruled similarly to Hungary ’ s past communist leaders .
But Rutte and the frugals succeeded .
Simply put , the deal allows for any nation to call out another for poorly spending their grant from the $ 446 billion pot , and could even put a stop to their use of the funds .
However , the European Commission will get the final say on each individual case , not the accusing country .
Getting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a big win for the Rutte-led frugals .
“ This is most definitely a compromise in which we can see [ Rutte ’ s ] fingerprints all over the place , ” Adriaan Schout , a senior research fellow at the Dutch Clingendael think tank , told the Associated Press on Tuesday .
Merkel , Macron , and von der Leyen were also pressured from a different direction by Poland and Hungary , two nations that have for several years been steadily sliding away from the union ’ s democratic principles .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mechanism that would restrict countries in the bloc from receiving the economic relief if they failed to meet certain basic standards around rule of law and democracy at home .
Leaders from both countries balked at such a provision , knowing full well the EU couldn ’ t strike a deal unless all 27 nations agreed to it , and they ultimately got their way .
The final document signed Tuesday was toothless on democratic issues , merely noting that “ The European Council underlines the importance of the respect of the rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t really fault Europe ’ s leaders for making such compromises in the interest of moving forward , given the scale and immediacy of the economic crisis and the reality that forgoing a pact would have little to no impact on the state of democracy in Poland and Hungary .
“ It ’ s highly debatable how much the EU could actually do about it , ” Véron , the Peterson senior fellow , told me .
Kathleen McNamara , an EU expert at Georgetown University , also said the final product was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ this is an entity that is intensely politicized.
” Celebrations , though , would be premature .
The European Parliament , the union ’ s legislative body , still has to pass the measure .
Some experts say the weak democratic language may lead to its defeat , which could mean the EU has to go back to square one with a spiraling economic disaster even closer .
But von der Leyen , for her part , is content with the pact as it is .
“ Europe as a whole has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stronger from the crisis , ” she said on Tuesday .
“ We have taken a historic step we all can be proud of.
” Just how historic , though , depends on how closely the EU follows its new path .
Will Europe throw away its shot ?
This deal represents a substantial change in the way the bloc handles economic disasters .
During the 2008 eurozone crisis , several of Europe ’ s less-wealthy countries , particularly Greece , amassed large amounts of public debt and yawning deficits and needed serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Union to manage the crisis centrally from Brussels , fearing it would give the body too much power .
So Germany and several other wealthier European nations aimed to fix the problem themselves without involving the EU .
Basically , they provided relief as long as Greece agreed to aggressive reforms and austerity measures , keeping spending low so as to recoup what was lost over time .
But as Lehigh University trade and EU expert Mary Anne Madeira recounts , it didn ’ t go so well .
“ At that time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insisted on austerity , and these measures prolonged Europe ’ s recovery from the crisis and increased tensions between the northern states and the hard-hit southern states , ” she told me .
It backfired even further : Greece wound up in another economic crisis in 2015 , despite making extensive reforms , and Merkel suffered massive political costs during the whole ordeal .
After that fiasco , it ’ s not surprising Merkel — the top advocate for keeping Brussels far away from the recovery efforts — changed her tune this time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the present crisis to take on collective , EU-level debt in order to provide grants to those same hard-hit southern states is an incredibly important statement of solidarity and indicator of Germany ’ s commitment to European integration , ” Madeira said .
“ Symbolically , it marks a critical shift in Germany ’ s willingness to allow the EU to jointly borrow money , ” she added .
But it ’ s more than just a symbolic gesture .
Georgetown ’ s McNamara told me that “ collectivizing the debt allows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from markets in a way it never has before.
” That means the bloc may soon embark on a whole new way of dealing with a major economic crisis , providing investors with a safe , long-term investment for the coming decades .
Not all the details of this new path are worked out yet .
The EU ’ s leaders want to pay back all debts by 2058 , but how the organization will repay the borrowed money is anyone ’ s guess .
One idea is for member states , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget , to give Brussels their revenue from collected climate-related taxes .
Another option , proposed in the text of the agreement , is a “ digital levy ” on tech companies that work in member states .
Experts are waiting to see what the bloc ultimately decides .
“ We will hopefully see progress on EU tax policy and new resources for the EU budget at a later point in time , at the latest when the issue of reimbursement of the money the Commission borrows with EU bonds becomes salient , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Foreign Relations chief .
Until then , though , there is cautious excitement about the new , Hamiltonian-like path the EU has taken .
Merkel , Macron , and others insist it ’ s a singular emergency measure , one that was absolutely required with so many countries in such dire economic straits .
Soon , they say , the EU will go back to resisting further fiscal assimilation .
“ Europe has shown it is able to break new ground in a special situation .
Exceptional situations require exceptional measures , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference .
But Madeira expects Europe over time will get its Hamiltonian job done .
“ The history of the EU reveals a pattern in which crises serve as catalysts for deeper integration , ” she told me .
“ If this plan succeeds in mitigating a deep recession in Europe , I think it will indeed be used as a blueprint for future EU fiscal policies , if not permanently then at least in times of crisis.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Facing a potentially ruinous recession caused by the coronavirus, the European Union seemingly drew inspiration from an unlikely figure: Alexander Hamilton.
Some of the political bloc’s biggest nations — France, Italy, and Spain — are projected to contract by around 10 percent this year alone. That means widespread job losses, the decimation of industries, hungry families, and millions perhaps more vulnerable to Covid-19.
To stave off such a calamity, the EU’s 27 leaders have for the last five days been haggling over the contours of a rescue package. Early on Tuesday morning in Brussels, they announced a dramatic deal — one that potentially signals a major shift in European politics.
The $857 billion stimulus will be split into roughly two parts: About $446 billion will be directly given as grants (meaning the recipients won’t have to pay any interest whatsoever) to the bloc’s hardest-hit states; the remaining funds will be offered as loans to countries that may not require as much assistance. Instead of having member states send their money directly to the union’s executive body to disburse — as it has in past decades — the European Commission will borrow from investors and lenders.
That’s why some dub this agreement “Europe’s Hamiltonian Moment.” As history buffs and fans of the hit musical might know, the first treasury secretary worried Virginia wouldn’t absorb New York’s debts after the Revolutionary War. As a fix, he had the US government take on the debts of all of America’s 13 states, bringing them closer into a fiscal union.
Something similar happened Tuesday morning. EU countries have historically been reluctant to take on the debts of their fellow member states, most famously when Germany didn’t want to lend to Greece during the eurozone crisis of the late 2000s. But now, “Brussels has the authority to borrow for the EU as a whole in response to the coronavirus-induced economic crisis,” said Rachel Wellhausen, an international political economy expert at the University of Texas at Austin.
That’s a noteworthy change, analysts say, though it may not be as dramatic as those who want to draw a parallel with Hamilton’s vision claim.
“This is not yet a Hamiltonian moment, but the fact that EU member states agree to borrow money in the markets to support European recovery and economic transition is a key signal,” Daniela Schwarzer, the director of the German Council on Foreign Relations, told me. The “decisions pave the way towards a deeper fiscal union,” she said.
It’s no wonder, then, that the EU’s leaders sound downright giddy about the agreement. “This is a good deal. This is a strong deal. And most importantly, this is the right deal for Europe, right now,” European Council President Charles Michel, leader of the bloc’s major decision-making body, said in a Tuesday statement.
Still, the pact has significant drawbacks and hurdles the union needs to overcome. First, Wellhausen warns it’s “unlikely this EU deal is big enough to really solve even the coronavirus-specific crisis.” That means it’s unlikely EU countries will bounce back to pre-coronavirus economies, but they may weather the oncoming storm.
What’s more, it’s still unclear how the EU will pay back investors or how member states will raise enough funds to refill the bloc’s coffers. And getting Poland and Hungary to approve the deal meant caving on measures tying funding to rule-of-law benchmarks, which may keep the accord from sailing through the European Parliament when it comes up for a vote.
The stimulus package, then, may end up more significant for what it represents than what it actually does to help individual economies that are suffering. “It is institutional evolution,” said Nicolas Véron, a Europe-based senior fellow with the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
The room where it happened
Striking a deal of this magnitude was never guaranteed, and it required two key compromises along the way.
Europe’s two most important leaders — German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron — along with the EU’s top officials pushed for a large economic rescue package. In May, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recommended about $575 billion be made available for no-interest grants to the continent’s heavily impacted countries like Italy and Spain.
But the sum received strong pushback from some member states, namely a five-nation group known as the “frugals”: the Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, and Finland. Their main concern was a lack of visibility into how the severely affected countries would spend the grants.
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, referred to by critics as “Dr. Superstrict” or “Mr. No,” had long been critical about centralizing too much power in Brussels. He became the face of the frugals for pushing for the final deal to include an oversight mechanism and a lower grant total.
Rutte and his cohort’s opposition wasn’t popular with many other countries, though, and their demands had prolonged negotiations that were originally scheduled to last just two days. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a hardline nationalist many say has essentially become a dictator, was so upset by the delay that he openly lambasted Rutte as someone who ruled similarly to Hungary’s past communist leaders.
But Rutte and the frugals succeeded. Simply put, the deal allows for any nation to call out another for poorly spending their grant from the $446 billion pot, and could even put a stop to their use of the funds. However, the European Commission will get the final say on each individual case, not the accusing country.
Getting that put into the final deal was seen as a big win for the Rutte-led frugals. “This is most definitely a compromise in which we can see [Rutte’s] fingerprints all over the place,” Adriaan Schout, a senior research fellow at the Dutch Clingendael think tank, told the Associated Press on Tuesday.
Merkel, Macron, and von der Leyen were also pressured from a different direction by Poland and Hungary, two nations that have for several years been steadily sliding away from the union’s democratic principles. Initial drafts of the agreement included a mechanism that would restrict countries in the bloc from receiving the economic relief if they failed to meet certain basic standards around rule of law and democracy at home.
Leaders from both countries balked at such a provision, knowing full well the EU couldn’t strike a deal unless all 27 nations agreed to it, and they ultimately got their way. The final document signed Tuesday was toothless on democratic issues, merely noting that “The European Council underlines the importance of the respect of the rule of law.”
Some experts didn’t really fault Europe’s leaders for making such compromises in the interest of moving forward, given the scale and immediacy of the economic crisis and the reality that forgoing a pact would have little to no impact on the state of democracy in Poland and Hungary. “It’s highly debatable how much the EU could actually do about it,” Véron, the Peterson senior fellow, told me.
Kathleen McNamara, an EU expert at Georgetown University, also said the final product was a “very good deal” considering “this is an entity that is intensely politicized.”
“What’s the alternative?” she asked rhetorically.
Celebrations, though, would be premature. The European Parliament, the union’s legislative body, still has to pass the measure. Some experts say the weak democratic language may lead to its defeat, which could mean the EU has to go back to square one with a spiraling economic disaster even closer.
But von der Leyen, for her part, is content with the pact as it is. “Europe as a whole has now a big chance to come out stronger from the crisis,” she said on Tuesday. “We have taken a historic step we all can be proud of.”
Just how historic, though, depends on how closely the EU follows its new path.
Will Europe throw away its shot?
This deal represents a substantial change in the way the bloc handles economic disasters.
During the 2008 eurozone crisis, several of Europe’s less-wealthy countries, particularly Greece, amassed large amounts of public debt and yawning deficits and needed serious economic help.
Few wanted the European Union to manage the crisis centrally from Brussels, fearing it would give the body too much power. So Germany and several other wealthier European nations aimed to fix the problem themselves without involving the EU. Basically, they provided relief as long as Greece agreed to aggressive reforms and austerity measures, keeping spending low so as to recoup what was lost over time.
But as Lehigh University trade and EU expert Mary Anne Madeira recounts, it didn’t go so well.
“At that time, Germany and other wealthy northern states insisted on austerity, and these measures prolonged Europe’s recovery from the crisis and increased tensions between the northern states and the hard-hit southern states,” she told me.
It backfired even further: Greece wound up in another economic crisis in 2015, despite making extensive reforms, and Merkel suffered massive political costs during the whole ordeal.
After that fiasco, it’s not surprising Merkel — the top advocate for keeping Brussels far away from the recovery efforts — changed her tune this time around. “Merkel’s willingness in the present crisis to take on collective, EU-level debt in order to provide grants to those same hard-hit southern states is an incredibly important statement of solidarity and indicator of Germany’s commitment to European integration,” Madeira said.
“Symbolically, it marks a critical shift in Germany’s willingness to allow the EU to jointly borrow money,” she added.
But it’s more than just a symbolic gesture. Georgetown’s McNamara told me that “collectivizing the debt allows [the EU] to get funds from markets in a way it never has before.” That means the bloc may soon embark on a whole new way of dealing with a major economic crisis, providing investors with a safe, long-term investment for the coming decades.
Not all the details of this new path are worked out yet. The EU’s leaders want to pay back all debts by 2058, but how the organization will repay the borrowed money is anyone’s guess.
One idea is for member states, which contribute money to the EU’s budget, to give Brussels their revenue from collected climate-related taxes. Another option, proposed in the text of the agreement, is a “digital levy” on tech companies that work in member states.
Experts are waiting to see what the bloc ultimately decides. “We will hopefully see progress on EU tax policy and new resources for the EU budget at a later point in time, at the latest when the issue of reimbursement of the money the Commission borrows with EU bonds becomes salient,” said Schwarzer, the German Council on Foreign Relations chief.
Until then, though, there is cautious excitement about the new, Hamiltonian-like path the EU has taken. Merkel, Macron, and others insist it’s a singular emergency measure, one that was absolutely required with so many countries in such dire economic straits. Soon, they say, the EU will go back to resisting further fiscal assimilation.
“Europe has shown it is able to break new ground in a special situation. Exceptional situations require exceptional measures,” Merkel said during a Tuesday news conference.
But Madeira expects Europe over time will get its Hamiltonian job done. “The history of the EU reveals a pattern in which crises serve as catalysts for deeper integration,” she told me. “If this plan succeeds in mitigating a deep recession in Europe, I think it will indeed be used as a blueprint for future EU fiscal policies, if not permanently then at least in times of crisis.”


vox--2020-07-21--How feds used a YouTube livestream to arrest a Portland protester

Social media and livestream feeds are being monitored and used against protesters in Portland , Oregon , as federal agents continue to patrol the city despite requests from local and state officials that they leave .
As President Trump threatens to send feds to protests across the country , what ’ s happening in Portland is a possible future for other American cities .
The Trump administration deployed law enforcement officers from multiple federal agencies under the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) to Portland in early July , and they set up shop in the Mark O. Hatfield @ @ @ @ @ @ @ site of demonstrations and the target of vandalism since May .
From there , the federal agents have been accused of firing pepper spray and less-lethal munitions at protesters , severely injuring at least one of them .
They ’ ve also started patrolling the city in unmarked cars , pulling people off the street and throwing them into vans while refusing to identify themselves .
And a recent DHS directive has authorized agents to conduct surveillance of Americans to protect federal buildings as well as statues and monuments .
Federal officials have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrations but that they are trying to quell civil unrest and violence .
State and local officials as well as civil rights groups have decried their presence and methods .
The state ’ s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) called it a “ constitutional crisis , ” and governor Kate Brown said they were “ adding gasoline to the fire.
” Portland protests are now attracting significantly larger crowds than they were before .
President Trump , on the other hand , has threatened to expand this use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Chicago and New York .
Many believe that Trump is using the unrest to push his “ law and order ” campaign strategy as election day approaches , positioning himself as a president who cracks down on crime when Democrat-led cities don ’ t .
“ Donald Trump did not send in this paramilitary force to keep people safe , ” Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden said the Senate floor on Tuesday .
“ Trump is doing this to create images of chaos , to air them on far-right television and in campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reelecting him.
” Court records reveal some of their surveillance methods , including undercover agents stationed within the protesters , visual surveillance from the upper floors of the courthouse , and monitoring journalists ’ livestreams for illegal activity in lieu of security cameras , which the court documents state have been damaged or stolen .
In the early hours of July 13 , agents of the Federal Protective Service ( FPS ) , a division of the DHS charged with guarding federal courthouses , surveilled protesters through citizen journalists ’ livestreams , whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesters ’ messages and as evidence against them .
According to an affidavit from an FPS agent , law enforcement officers were watching a YouTube livestream when they saw a protester take a flaming wooden board and place it against the exterior wall of the courthouse .
The footage appears to show the protester wedge the board between the stone courthouse wall and the wooden boards installed over a courthouse window to protect it from protester damage .
A second protester appears to pick up the board and lean it against the wooden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third person removes the board and extinguishes the fire .
The first protester ’ s face is almost entirely covered and can ’ t be identified .
But the second protester , whose face is unobscured , turns toward the camera as he walks away from the courthouse .
According to court documents , a DHS Intelligence Operations Specialist “ analyzed ” the livestream , took screenshots of the second protester ’ s face , and sent them back to agents inside the courthouse .
The federal agents then “ maintained surveillance ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the courthouse for several hours before arresting Kevin Benjamin Weier , who they say is the second protester .
According to the affidavit , Weier told investigators that he was on the scene when the flaming board was placed against the courthouse but denied that he placed the board himself or even touched it .
Weier did not respond to request for comment , nor did the DHS .
Weier has been charged with attempted arson of a federal building .
If convicted , he faces between five and 20 years in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court documents for Weier ’ s case came from a YouTube channel that combines several live feeds into one stream .
The videos , branded with a “ LIVE : From The End Of The World ” banner , are also hosted on Twitch .
One of the feeds came from Tre Stewart , who was streaming from his Facebook page , and it is his footage , seen via the YouTube channel , that was used as evidence to charge Weier .
Stewart did not respond to request for comment , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ channel , did .
“ Though we recognize we have no legal authority to demand that the federal government cease to use ours or anyone else ’ s feeds , ” Oberon told Recode , “ we do denounce the practice by law enforcement and call upon them to adjust their standards and practices in such a way as to not endanger journalists and citizens exercising their constitutionally protected rights around the nation.
” Oberon added that people can opt out of having their feeds included in the LIVE : From The End @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s case is not the only example of federal agents using social media and livestreams to collect evidence against Hatfield courthouse protesters .
Jacob Michael Gaines was arrested and charged with assaulting a federal officer , and part of the evidence against him was screenshots from a video embedded in a tweet , which sourced that footage from an account called “ Portland Independent Documentarians.
” But those screenshots were not the basis of the charges against him ; Gaines was arrested as he allegedly hit an officer with a hammer .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ footage was the only evidence cited as probable cause to arrest him .
Both cases illustrate how law enforcement is using social media and livestreams to monitor protests and collect evidence of alleged crimes .
As protests against police brutality spread across the country this summer , organizers have repeatedly warned protesters not to post images or videos that show people ’ s faces and requested that the media do the same .
This has occasionally caused tension between protesters , who do not want law enforcement to use their images to identify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media , which is charged with covering the protests as they happen and typically doesn ’ t make such concessions .
In a statement , Oberon acknowledged that concerns that the media is putting protesters at risk are “ valid ” but thought it was safer to have documentation of the protests than allow law enforcement to work free of accountability .
“ In my own view , to be quite honest , I fear the moments when we are offline , when streamers are not showing what is happening , ” Oberon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and time again that , as soon as our feeds go down , the protestors face fresh assaults from law enforcement.
” The cases in Portland show a possible result of the DHS ’ s recent authorization for its officers to use public information sources , including social media , to gather intelligence on people or groups who may be planning to damage monuments and statues .
According to Lawfare reporters Steve Vladeck and Benjamin Wittes , who first reported the authorization document , DHS officials are instructed to use the “ least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans but “ are not permitted to engage in electronic surveillance or unconsented physical searches.
” “ Protestors can reasonably expect that there will be ongoing DHS collection and analysis of public source information about — and likely the social media postings of — people involved in protests , ” Vladeck and Wittes wrote .
From the beginning of his presidency , Trump has repeatedly threatened to deploy federal agencies to cities that he believes are not sufficiently enforcing the law , but the protests have finally given him enough of an excuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these cities have said that federal forces are neither desired nor needed doesn ’ t seem to matter .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Social media and livestream feeds are being monitored and used against protesters in Portland, Oregon, as federal agents continue to patrol the city despite requests from local and state officials that they leave. As President Trump threatens to send feds to protests across the country, what’s happening in Portland is a possible future for other American cities.
The Trump administration deployed law enforcement officers from multiple federal agencies under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to Portland in early July, and they set up shop in the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse, which has been the site of demonstrations and the target of vandalism since May. From there, the federal agents have been accused of firing pepper spray and less-lethal munitions at protesters, severely injuring at least one of them. They’ve also started patrolling the city in unmarked cars, pulling people off the street and throwing them into vans while refusing to identify themselves. And a recent DHS directive has authorized agents to conduct surveillance of Americans to protect federal buildings as well as statues and monuments. Federal officials have said that they are not targeting peaceful demonstrations but that they are trying to quell civil unrest and violence.
State and local officials as well as civil rights groups have decried their presence and methods. The state’s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called it a “constitutional crisis,” and governor Kate Brown said they were “adding gasoline to the fire.” Portland protests are now attracting significantly larger crowds than they were before. President Trump, on the other hand, has threatened to expand this use of federal forces to other cities, including Chicago and New York. Many believe that Trump is using the unrest to push his “law and order” campaign strategy as election day approaches, positioning himself as a president who cracks down on crime when Democrat-led cities don’t.
“Donald Trump did not send in this paramilitary force to keep people safe,” Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden said the Senate floor on Tuesday. “Trump is doing this to create images of chaos, to air them on far-right television and in campaign ads, and scare the country into reelecting him.”
Court records reveal some of their surveillance methods, including undercover agents stationed within the protesters, visual surveillance from the upper floors of the courthouse, and monitoring journalists’ livestreams for illegal activity in lieu of security cameras, which the court documents state have been damaged or stolen.
In the early hours of July 13, agents of the Federal Protective Service (FPS), a division of the DHS charged with guarding federal courthouses, surveilled protesters through citizen journalists’ livestreams, whose footage is being used both to amplify protesters’ messages and as evidence against them.
According to an affidavit from an FPS agent, law enforcement officers were watching a YouTube livestream when they saw a protester take a flaming wooden board and place it against the exterior wall of the courthouse. The footage appears to show the protester wedge the board between the stone courthouse wall and the wooden boards installed over a courthouse window to protect it from protester damage. A second protester appears to pick up the board and lean it against the wooden boards instead. Shortly afterward, a third person removes the board and extinguishes the fire. The first protester’s face is almost entirely covered and can’t be identified. But the second protester, whose face is unobscured, turns toward the camera as he walks away from the courthouse.
According to court documents, a DHS Intelligence Operations Specialist “analyzed” the livestream, took screenshots of the second protester’s face, and sent them back to agents inside the courthouse. The federal agents then “maintained surveillance” of the protester from inside and outside of the courthouse for several hours before arresting Kevin Benjamin Weier, who they say is the second protester. According to the affidavit, Weier told investigators that he was on the scene when the flaming board was placed against the courthouse but denied that he placed the board himself or even touched it. Weier did not respond to request for comment, nor did the DHS.
Weier has been charged with attempted arson of a federal building. If convicted, he faces between five and 20 years in prison.
The footage cited in the court documents for Weier’s case came from a YouTube channel that combines several live feeds into one stream. The videos, branded with a “LIVE: From The End Of The World” banner, are also hosted on Twitch. One of the feeds came from Tre Stewart, who was streaming from his Facebook page, and it is his footage, seen via the YouTube channel, that was used as evidence to charge Weier. Stewart did not respond to request for comment, but Anteros Oberon, who runs the YouTube channel, did.
“Though we recognize we have no legal authority to demand that the federal government cease to use ours or anyone else’s feeds,” Oberon told Recode, “we do denounce the practice by law enforcement and call upon them to adjust their standards and practices in such a way as to not endanger journalists and citizens exercising their constitutionally protected rights around the nation.”
Oberon added that people can opt out of having their feeds included in the LIVE: From The End Of The World livestream.
Weier’s case is not the only example of federal agents using social media and livestreams to collect evidence against Hatfield courthouse protesters. Jacob Michael Gaines was arrested and charged with assaulting a federal officer, and part of the evidence against him was screenshots from a video embedded in a tweet, which sourced that footage from an account called “Portland Independent Documentarians.” But those screenshots were not the basis of the charges against him; Gaines was arrested as he allegedly hit an officer with a hammer. In Weier’s case, the livestream footage was the only evidence cited as probable cause to arrest him.
Both cases illustrate how law enforcement is using social media and livestreams to monitor protests and collect evidence of alleged crimes. As protests against police brutality spread across the country this summer, organizers have repeatedly warned protesters not to post images or videos that show people’s faces and requested that the media do the same. This has occasionally caused tension between protesters, who do not want law enforcement to use their images to identify and further target them, and the media, which is charged with covering the protests as they happen and typically doesn’t make such concessions.
In a statement, Oberon acknowledged that concerns that the media is putting protesters at risk are “valid” but thought it was safer to have documentation of the protests than allow law enforcement to work free of accountability.
“In my own view, to be quite honest, I fear the moments when we are offline, when streamers are not showing what is happening,” Oberon said. “We have seen time and time again that, as soon as our feeds go down, the protestors face fresh assaults from law enforcement.”
The cases in Portland show a possible result of the DHS’s recent authorization for its officers to use public information sources, including social media, to gather intelligence on people or groups who may be planning to damage monuments and statues. According to Lawfare reporters Steve Vladeck and Benjamin Wittes, who first reported the authorization document, DHS officials are instructed to use the “least intrusive collection techniques feasible” when surveilling Americans but “are not permitted to engage in electronic surveillance or unconsented physical searches.”
“Protestors can reasonably expect that there will be ongoing DHS collection and analysis of public source information about — and likely the social media postings of — people involved in protests,” Vladeck and Wittes wrote.
From the beginning of his presidency, Trump has repeatedly threatened to deploy federal agencies to cities that he believes are not sufficiently enforcing the law, but the protests have finally given him enough of an excuse to do it. That the mayors of these cities have said that federal forces are neither desired nor needed doesn’t seem to matter.
Shirin Ghaffary contributed reporting to this story.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-07-21--Trump is using the census to undermine immigrants’ political power

President Donald Trump issued a memorandum on Tuesday aiming to exclude unauthorized immigrants living in the US from census population counts for the purposes of redrawing congressional districts — a transparent bid to erode their political power and that of their communities .
States currently draw congressional districts , determining the areas that each elected official represents based on total population , including unauthorized immigrants .
Current maps are due to be redrawn across the country in 2021 after the results of the 2020 census come in , and the stakes are high : Each redistricting has a lasting influence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which communities will be represented in Congress , and , ultimately , what laws will will be passed .
Trump ’ s attempt to exclude unauthorized immigrants would reduce the counts in areas where foreign-born populations have traditionally settled — primarily Democrat-run cities — and therefore undermine their political power relative to more rural , Republican-run areas .
But it could also impact red states with large immigrant populations , including Texas .
The White House has argued that by law , the president has the final say over who must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Tuesday said that unauthorized immigrants should not be counted because it would undermine American representative democracy and create “ perverse incentives ” for those seeking to come to the US .
“ There used to be a time when you could proudly declare , ‘ I am a citizen of the United States , ’ ” Trump said in a statement .
“ But now , the radical left is trying to erase the existence of this concept and conceal the number of illegal aliens in our country .
This is all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ erode the rights of Americans citizens , and I will not stand for it.
” Beyond its impact on apportionment and redistricting , the memorandum could also indirectly discourage immigrants who have yet to respond to the census from doing so .
That could hurt communities with large immigrant populations , as federal funding is usually determined by census counts .
The memorandum is likely to be swiftly challenged in court .
Legal experts say that it clearly flouts the US Constitution , which requires that every person in the US — not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the census .
Trump can not “ pick and choose , ” Dale Ho , director of the ACLU ’ s Voting Rights Project , said in a statement .
“ His latest attempt to weaponize the census for an attack on immigrant communities will be found unconstitutional , ” he said .
“ We ’ ll see him in court , and win , again.
” Trump has tried to politicize the census before This isn ’ t the first time that Trump has used the census to target immigrants .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put a question about citizenship status on the 2020 census at the Supreme Court .
Several states , including California and New York , said the question would depress response rates among immigrant communities and cost their governments critical federal funding .
Trump , on the other hand , had argued that citizenship data would aid the Department of Justice ’ s enforcement of the prohibitions against racial discrimination in voting .
But that rationale was just a pretext , introduced after the fact to justify the question and meant to obscure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the justices found .
Had the administration decided to continue pursuing the citizenship question , it would have had to race to support its decision with more valid reasoning in order to print the census forms on time .
Trump ultimately decided against doing so , instead issuing an executive order in July 2019 that instructed the US Census Bureau to estimate citizenship data using enhanced state administrative records .
Trump suggested at the time that the data could be used to draw electoral districts in 2021 based on where eligible voters live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Missouri , and Nebraska had already sought .
Trump has facilitated the creation of that data , though it ’ s not clear just how accurate it is .
The executive order authorized the Census Bureau to collect more data from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement , US Customs and Border Protection , and US Citizenship and Immigration Services in an attempt to identify the citizenship status of more people .
The bureau later started asking states to voluntarily turn over driver ’ s license records , which typically include citizenship data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US population .
Tuesday ’ s memorandum represents the culmination of those efforts , which immigrant advocates see as a blatant attempt to strip resources and political power from brown and Black communities .
“ This odious memorandum reaffirms what we already knew : this White House does not see immigrants as people , ” Krish O ’ Mara Vignarajah , president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service , said in a statement .
“ Does the DACA recipient treating COVID-19 patients in the ICU not count ?
Do the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are quite literally putting food on our tables not count ?
The inhumanity alone is astounding.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to review its policy excluding unauthorized immigrants living in the US from census population counts for the purposes of redrawing congressional districts in 2021 — a transparent attack on their political power that was struck down by a New York federal court earlier this month.
Most states currently draw congressional districts, determining the areas that each elected official represents based on total population, including unauthorized immigrants. Current maps are due to be redrawn across the country in 2021 after the results of the 2020 census come in, and the stakes are high: Each redistricting has a lasting influence on who is likely to win elections, which communities will be represented in Congress, and, ultimately, what laws will be passed.
President Donald Trump’s attempt to exclude unauthorized immigrants would reduce the counts in areas where foreign-born populations have traditionally settled — primarily Democrat-run cities — and therefore undermine their political power relative to more rural, Republican-run areas. But it could also impact red states with large immigrant populations, including Texas.
The administration argued Tuesday that by law, the president has the final say over who must be counted in the census.
It also asked the justices to expedite the case such that they would hear oral arguments in December and issue a decision prior to December 31, the federal deadline for sending the population counts to Congress for purposes of redistricting. (The current deadline to respond to the census is September 30, though an ongoing lawsuit demands the Trump administration push back that deadline on account of the pandemic.)
Whoever Trump nominates to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could cast a deciding vote in the case. Trump has indicated that he will announce his nominee as early as Saturday, and they will likely have the votes to be confirmed by the Republican-led Senate by year’s end in spite of the upcoming election.
In a written statement issued after he signed the memorandum in July, Trump said that allowing unauthorized immigrants to be counted would undermine American representative democracy and create “perverse incentives” for those seeking to come to the US.
“There used to be a time when you could proudly declare, ‘I am a citizen of the United States,’” Trump said in the statement. “But now, the radical left is trying to erase the existence of this concept and conceal the number of illegal aliens in our country. This is all part of a broader left-wing effort to erode the rights of Americans citizens, and I will not stand for it.”
But on September 10, a panel of three federal judges found that Trump’s memorandum skirted the federal government’s constitutional obligation to count every person, no matter their immigration status, in the census every 10 years.
Trump has tried to politicize the census before
This wasn’t the first time that Trump has used the census to target immigrants. In June 2019, Trump lost his bid to put a question about citizenship status on the 2020 census at the Supreme Court. Several states, including California and New York, said the question would depress response rates among immigrant communities and cost their governments critical federal funding.
Trump, on the other hand, had argued that citizenship data would aid the Department of Justice’s enforcement of the prohibitions against racial discrimination in voting. But that rationale was just a pretext, introduced after the fact to justify the question and meant to obscure the administration’s actual reasoning, the justices found.
Had the administration decided to continue pursuing the citizenship question, it would have had to race to support its decision with more valid reasoning in order to print the census forms on time.
Trump ultimately decided against doing so, instead issuing an executive order in July 2019 that instructed the US Census Bureau to estimate citizenship data using enhanced state administrative records. Trump suggested at the time that the data could be used to draw electoral districts in 2021 based on where eligible voters live, as legislators in Texas, Arizona, Missouri, and Nebraska had already sought.
Trump has facilitated the creation of that data, though it’s not clear just how accurate it is. The executive order authorized the Census Bureau to collect more data from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Customs and Border Protection, and US Citizenship and Immigration Services in an attempt to identify the citizenship status of more people. The bureau later started asking states to voluntarily turn over driver’s license records, which typically include citizenship data, to determine the citizenship status of the US population.
The White House memorandum represents the culmination of those efforts, which immigrant advocates saw as a blatant attempt to strip resources and political power from brown and Black communities. Beyond its impact on apportionment and redistricting, they had feared the memorandum would indirectly discourage immigrants who had yet to respond to the census from doing so. It could have also hurt communities with large immigrant populations, as federal funding is usually determined by census counts.


vox--2020-07-21--Why masks are (still) politicized in America

More than five months into the Covid-19 pandemic , the evidence for masks keeps getting stronger .
One study in Germany found that mask mandates reduced the growth of infections by about 40 percent .
Another estimated that mask rules in 15 US states and Washington , DC , may have prevented as many as 230,000 to 450,000 cases .
Meanwhile , evidence suggests protests against police brutality and racism in many cities this summer did not lead to big spikes in case counts , which some attribute to the fact that the demonstrations were outdoors and many participants were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more , many public health experts have been encouraging Americans to wear masks .
When it comes to Covid-19 , “ the best treatment is prevention , and there are very good data to show how effective masks are , ” Murtaza Akhter , an ER doctor in Phoenix and professor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine , told Vox .
In response to scientific findings — and the continued deadly march of the virus around the country — leaders from California to Pennsylvania have issued or strengthened mask requirements in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the opposite direction .
Gov .
Brian Kemp of Georgia on Thursday sued Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms for issuing an order requiring masks in her city .
Gov .
Kim Reynolds of Iowa has also barred cities from introducing mask mandates , even as cases in her state spike .
Meanwhile , President Trump wore a mask at Walter Reed Medical Center in mid-July , after months of being photographed maskless — only to suggest that masks are only important in hospitals .
In other words , despite the growing scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to play in limiting the spread of the coronavirus , this seemingly small public health step remains intensely politicized .
The words of Trump and other public figures appear to be having an impact on the behavior of ordinary people , whose mask-wearing habits break down along party , racial , and gender lines .
The result is that one of the cheapest and simplest ways to curb the spread of Covid-19 has been turned into a political football — and it ’ s costing people their lives .
“ We just really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ This isn ’ t even a debate in other places.
” Masks have been political in America from the beginning Mask-wearing had become politicized in the US even before much of the country went into lockdown earlier this spring .
Masks have been common for years in East Asian countries , where they ’ re seen as a simple way to protect yourself ( and others ) from disease , as Refinery29 ’ s Connie Wang wrote in March .
Wuhan , China , where the coronavirus outbreak began , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the US , mask-wearing quickly became stigmatized .
Asian Americans wearing masks were targeted for racist attacks , as Wang notes , and their images became a go-to choice to illustrate American media stories about the coronavirus , even though the virus was by no means confined to Asian American communities .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) and many health experts initially also cautioned against mask-wearing , citing a lack of evidence for their use and seemingly fearing shortages of personal protective equipment .
Eventually , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change in messaging likely sowed distrust .
Rather than looking to Asian countries — which had already been through the SARS epidemic in 2003 — for guidance on masks , Trump relied on anti-Asian rhetoric in the early months of the pandemic , blaming China and using a racist name for the virus .
“ The way in which the US administration has addressed the pandemic from the beginning was simply to relegate Asians , China in particular , as the source of the pandemic , ” Jasmin Zine , a sociology professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada , told Vox .
Even as the virus claimed more and more American lives over the course of the spring , Trump , Vice President Mike Pence , and others in the administration routinely appeared in public without masks .
For Trump in particular , refusing to wear a mask became part of a larger message that ignoring the risks of the coronavirus was the tough or strong thing to do .
For example , despite warnings from public health experts about the dangers of reopening the country too early , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ the people of our country should think of themselves as warriors ” because “ our country has to open.
” He made that statement at a mask factory in Arizona — where he appeared without a mask .
Since then , there ’ s been more research to support the use of masks , as Vox ’ s German Lopez reports .
A June study found that regional mask mandates in Germany brought down the number of Covid-19 cases between 2.3 percent and 13 percent over a period of 10 days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US , also published in June , found that the requirements were associated with drops in the growth rate of the virus and may have prevented hundreds of thousands of cases .
Incidents in recent months have appeared to reinforce the importance of masks .
For example , two hairstylists in Missouri interacted with more than 100 customers while infected with Covid-19 but did not pass the virus on to anyone — perhaps because everyone wore masks .
And protests against police violence in American cities do not appear to have caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were attended by thousands of people , perhaps in part because most protesters wore masks .
Public health experts are quick to point out that masks are not a panacea , nor a replacement for physical distancing , testing , or other tools for Covid-19 containment .
“ Masks help , ” Lindsay Wiley , a law professor at American University who specializes in public health law , told Vox .
“ You should wear them , but they are not enough by themselves.
” Still , wearing a mask is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very small children and people with certain health conditions ) can take , and most experts agree it can help slow the spread of the virus .
Masks are a big reason why other countries , including those more densely populated than the US , have done a better job than America at controlling the virus , Akhter said .
The face coverings are both very effective and “ very cheap compared to the drugs that we ’ re trying to invent ” to treat the virus , he explained .
“ Masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence has grown , Trump and others have continued to politicize masks And yet this simple activity remains heavily politicized .
Trump himself is still one of the biggest culprits .
In May , he was photographed touring a Ford plant in Michigan without a mask , despite being told by state authorities he had a “ legal responsibility ” to wear one .
He later said that he had put on a mask behind the scenes but removed it because he “ didn ’ t want to give the press the pleasure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June , he told the Wall Street Journal that some people wear masks just to show that they don ’ t like him , and not because they actually care about fighting Covid-19 — thus sending a loud-and-clear message that masks are about partisan politics , not public health .
In July , he began to soften his stance on masks and was even photographed wearing one at Walter Reed .
But even that day , he downplayed the importance of masks for the general public , saying that the face coverings “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” such as “ when you ’ re in a hospital.
” Trump ’ s cavalier stance on masks also ignores the fact that , unlike most Americans , he reportedly exists in something of a bubble , with people around him constantly tested and monitored for symptoms .
It ’ s not just Trump .
Republican governors around the country have hamstrung local officials ’ efforts to require masks .
Gov .
Kim Reynolds of Iowa has refused to mandate masks statewide and has said that cities can not mandate them either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ document shows that nearly half the state is in a “ red zone ” for dangerous viral transmission and recommended that face masks be required there .
Gov .
Brian Kemp of Georgia last week took the step of suing Atlanta Mayor Bottoms for requiring masks and trying to move the city back to an earlier phase of reopening .
As of last week , cases of the virus in Georgia were surging , with an average of 3,100 cases a day , 1,100 of those in the Atlanta area , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has tested positive for the virus .
But Kemp cast her restrictions as the real danger to Georgians , saying her “ disastrous policies threaten the lives and livelihood of our citizens.
” When it comes to mask-wearing , the words of leaders matter , experts say .
“ Not everybody can pore through papers like I can as a physician and a researcher , ” Akhter said .
For many laypeople , “ they ’ re going to listen to what their president says , even if their own experts are saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health threats , like smoking , has shown that “ when you see someone you respect model a behavior , it influences your own views about that behavior , ” Wiley said .
And today , “ when people we admire and respect and trust wear masks and model responsible behavior , it really has a big effect.
” By the same token , when people like Trump don ’ t wear masks and make wearing masks a political issue , their supporters are less likely to wear them .
When the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of showing their disapproval of him , “ that ’ s a pretty clear signal , not just that he ’ s not modeling responsible behavior , but that he views it as a sign of disloyalty , ” Wiley said .
“ That does definitely further politicize the decision to wear a mask or not.
” The effects of this politicization can be seen in recent polling on mask use .
In a Pew poll conducted June 4-10 , 76 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters said they wear a mask in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just 53 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters said the same .
Men are also less likely to prioritize mask-wearing than women — in another Pew poll , conducted in mid-June , 42 percent of men said people in their community should wear masks in public places , while 53 percent of women said the same .
The disconnect could reflect the fact that more men identify as Republican , as well as the fact that Trump and others have implicitly or explicitly linked a refusal to wear a mask with toughness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less likely than other racial groups to routinely wear masks , according to the early June Pew data .
In that poll , 78 percent of white people said they wear masks in stores at least some of the time , compared with 86 percent of Black respondents , 87 percent of Latinx respondents , and 89 percent of those of Asian descent .
While there are many possible reasons for the racial gaps , including party affiliation and the fact that many Black and Latinx communities have been especially hard-hit by Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may play a role in convincing some white people not to wear masks .
Eschewing a mask has become associated in America with a particular brand of white manliness , Jonathan Metzl , a professor of sociology and psychiatry at Vanderbilt University and the author of Dying of Whiteness : How the Politics of Racial Resentment Is Killing America ’ s Heartland , told Vox in May .
You can see it in the unmasked men who protested stay-at-home orders in Michigan earlier this year .
“ There ’ s an assumption of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this idea of white masculinity , ” Metzl said at the time .
But ending the politicization of masks could still save lives Still , it ’ s not too late for things to change .
Republican governors in states like Alabama and Arkansas have issued mask orders in recent days as coronavirus cases surge around the country .
Even the president on Monday tweeted that “ many people say that it is Patriotic to wear a face mask when you can ’ t socially distance , ” alongside a photo of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he also used the same racist name for the virus that he ’ s been using for months .
And even if he and others are truly committed to undoing the politicization of masks , it will take time to get ordinary Americans on board .
Some people may oppose masks “ regardless of what the president says , because to them it ’ s become a political issue , ” Akhter said .
Still , experts say it ’ s not too late to save lives .
“ I do think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around , ” Wiley said , noting that more leaders are moving to depoliticize masking .
“ Almost every public health initiative to change people ’ s behavior has been very controversial at the start , ” she said .
And despite opposition to masks , “ from a public health perspective , I ’ m impressed by how rapidly people are getting on board.
” And while wearing masks won ’ t bring back the many thousands of lives that have already been lost , it can help the many who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans ’ attitude toward masks “ played a big role in why the curves went the opposite direction of what we wanted , but it also can play a big role in stopping what may be coming , ” he said .
He urges Americans to wear masks , if nothing else , as a sign of support for one another .
“ It can save lives , it does save lives , ” he said , “ and even if you don ’ t believe that , as a sign of solidarity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

More than five months into the Covid-19 pandemic, the evidence for masks keeps getting stronger.
One study in Germany found that mask mandates reduced the growth of infections by about 40 percent. Another estimated that mask rules in 15 US states and Washington, DC, may have prevented as many as 230,000 to 450,000 cases. Meanwhile, evidence suggests protests against police brutality and racism in many cities this summer did not lead to big spikes in case counts, which some attribute to the fact that the demonstrations were outdoors and many participants were masked.
For all these reasons and more, many public health experts have been encouraging Americans to wear masks. When it comes to Covid-19, “the best treatment is prevention, and there are very good data to show how effective masks are,” Murtaza Akhter, an ER doctor in Phoenix and professor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, told Vox.
In response to scientific findings — and the continued deadly march of the virus around the country — leaders from California to Pennsylvania have issued or strengthened mask requirements in recent weeks. But others are going in the opposite direction.
Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia on Thursday sued Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms for issuing an order requiring masks in her city. Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa has also barred cities from introducing mask mandates, even as cases in her state spike. Meanwhile, President Trump wore a mask at Walter Reed Medical Center in mid-July, after months of being photographed maskless — only to suggest that masks are only important in hospitals.
Trump has begun to change his tune on masks in recent days, saying in a Tuesday press conference that the face coverings “have an impact.” But this admission came only after more than 100,000 Americans had already died — and after Trump had sent the opposite message with his words and actions for months. And despite the growing scientific consensus that masks have an important role to play in limiting the spread of the coronavirus, this seemingly small public health step remains intensely politicized.
The words of Trump and other public figures appear to be having an impact on the behavior of ordinary people, whose mask-wearing habits break down along party, racial, and gender lines. The result is that one of the cheapest and simplest ways to curb the spread of Covid-19 has been turned into a political football — and it’s costing people their lives. “We just really need a cultural shift,” Akhter said. “This isn’t even a debate in other places.”
Masks have been political in America from the beginning
Mask-wearing had become politicized in the US even before much of the country went into lockdown earlier this spring. Masks have been common for years in East Asian countries, where they’re seen as a simple way to protect yourself (and others) from disease, as Refinery29’s Connie Wang wrote in March. Wuhan, China, where the coronavirus outbreak began, started requiring them in January.
But in the US, mask-wearing quickly became stigmatized. Asian Americans wearing masks were targeted for racist attacks, as Wang notes, and their images became a go-to choice to illustrate American media stories about the coronavirus, even though the virus was by no means confined to Asian American communities.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and many health experts initially also cautioned against mask-wearing, citing a lack of evidence for their use and seemingly fearing shortages of personal protective equipment. Eventually, the CDC reversed its stance, but the change in messaging likely sowed distrust.
Rather than looking to Asian countries — which had already been through the SARS epidemic in 2003 — for guidance on masks, Trump relied on anti-Asian rhetoric in the early months of the pandemic, blaming China and using a racist name for the virus. “The way in which the US administration has addressed the pandemic from the beginning was simply to relegate Asians, China in particular, as the source of the pandemic,” Jasmin Zine, a sociology professor at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, Canada, told Vox.
Even as the virus claimed more and more American lives throughout the spring, Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and others in the administration routinely appeared in public without masks. For Trump in particular, refusing to wear a mask became part of a larger message that ignoring the risks of the coronavirus was the tough or strong thing to do.
For example, despite warnings from public health experts about the dangers of reopening the country too early, he said during a public appearance in May that “the people of our country should think of themselves as warriors” because “our country has to open.” He made that statement at a mask factory in Arizona — where he appeared without a mask.
Since then, there’s been more research to support the use of masks, as Vox’s German Lopez reports. A June study found that regional mask mandates in Germany brought down the number of Covid-19 cases between 2.3 percent and 13 percent over a period of 10 days. A study of mask requirements around the US, also published in June, found that the requirements were associated with drops in the growth rate of the virus and may have prevented hundreds of thousands of cases.
Incidents in recent months have appeared to reinforce the importance of masks. For example, two hairstylists in Missouri interacted with more than 100 customers while infected with Covid-19 but did not pass the virus on to anyone — perhaps because everyone wore masks. And protests against police violence in American cities do not appear to have caused an uptick in cases, even though they were attended by thousands of people, perhaps in part because most protesters wore masks.
Public health experts are quick to point out that masks are not a panacea, nor a replacement for physical distancing, testing, or other tools for Covid-19 containment. “Masks help,” Lindsay Wiley, a law professor at American University who specializes in public health law, told Vox. “You should wear them, but they are not enough by themselves.”
Still, wearing a mask is a simple action that almost anyone (excluding very small children and people with certain health conditions) can take, and most experts agree it can help slow the spread of the virus. Masks are a big reason why other countries, including those more densely populated than the US, have done a better job than America at controlling the virus, Akhter said. The face coverings are both very effective and “very cheap compared to the drugs that we’re trying to invent” to treat the virus, he explained. “Masks clearly save lives.”
Even as the evidence has grown, Trump and others have continued to politicize masks
Yet this simple activity remains heavily politicized. Trump himself is still one of the biggest culprits. In May, he was photographed touring a Ford plant in Michigan without a mask, despite being told by state authorities he had a “legal responsibility” to wear one. He later said that he had put on a mask behind the scenes but removed it because he “didn’t want to give the press the pleasure of seeing it.” Then in June, he told the Wall Street Journal that some people wear masks just to show that they don’t like him, and not because they actually care about fighting Covid-19 — thus sending a loud and clear message that masks are about partisan politics, not public health.
In July, he began to soften his stance on masks and was even photographed wearing one at Walter Reed. Still, that day, he downplayed the importance of masks for the general public, saying that the face coverings “have a time and a place,” such as “when you’re in a hospital.” Trump’s cavalier stance on masks also ignores the fact that, unlike most Americans, he reportedly exists in something of a bubble, with people around him constantly tested and monitored for symptoms.
It’s not just Trump. Republican governors around the country have hamstrung local officials’ efforts to require masks. Gov. Reynolds of Iowa has refused to mandate masks statewide and has said that cities cannot mandate them either — even though a leaked White House document shows that nearly half the state is in a “red zone” for dangerous viral transmission and recommended that face masks be required there.
Gov. Kemp of Georgia last week took the step of suing Atlanta Mayor Bottoms for requiring masks and trying to move the city back to an earlier phase of reopening. As of last week, cases of the virus in Georgia were surging, with an average of 3,100 cases a day, 1,100 of those in the Atlanta area, according to the New York Times. Bottoms herself has tested positive for the virus. But Kemp cast her restrictions as the real danger to Georgians, saying her “disastrous policies threaten the lives and livelihood of our citizens.”
The actions of politicians influence ordinary people’s mask-wearing habits
When it comes to mask-wearing, the words of leaders matter, experts say. “Not everybody can pore through papers like I can as a physician and a researcher,” Akhter said. For many laypeople, “they’re going to listen to what their president says, even if their own experts are saying otherwise.”
The history of other public health threats, like smoking, has shown that “when you see someone you respect model a behavior, it influences your own views about that behavior,” Wiley said. And today, “when people we admire and respect and trust wear masks and model responsible behavior, it really has a big effect.”
By the same token, when people like Trump don’t wear masks and make wearing masks a political issue, their supporters are less likely to wear them. When the president says people wear masks as a way of showing their disapproval of him, “that’s a pretty clear signal, not just that he’s not modeling responsible behavior, but that he views it as a sign of disloyalty,” Wiley said. “That does definitely further politicize the decision to wear a mask or not.”
The effects of this politicization can be seen in recent polling on mask use. In a Pew poll conducted June 4 to 10, 76 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters said they wear a mask in stores all or most of the time. Just 53 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters said the same. Men are also less likely to prioritize mask-wearing than women — in another Pew poll, conducted in mid-June, 42 percent of men said people in their community should wear masks in public places, while 53 percent of women said the same. The disconnect could reflect the fact that more men identify as Republican, as well as the fact that Trump and others have implicitly or explicitly linked a refusal to wear a mask with toughness and masculinity.
White Americans are also less likely than other racial groups to routinely wear masks, according to the early June Pew data. In that poll, 78 percent of white people said they wear masks in stores at least some of the time, compared with 86 percent of Black respondents, 87 percent of Latinx respondents, and 89 percent of those of Asian descent. While there are many possible reasons for the racial gaps, including party affiliation and the fact that many Black and Latinx communities have been especially hard hit by Covid-19, racist rhetoric by Trump and others may play a role in convincing some white people not to wear masks.
Eschewing a mask has become associated in America with a particular brand of white manliness, Jonathan Metzl, a professor of sociology and psychiatry at Vanderbilt University and the author of Dying of Whiteness: How the Politics of Racial Resentment Is Killing America’s Heartland, told Vox in May. You can see it in the unmasked men who protested stay-at-home orders in Michigan earlier this year. “There’s an assumption of a kind of invincibility that is tied to this idea of white masculinity,” Metzl said at the time.
But ending the politicization of masks could still save lives
It’s not too late for things to change. Republican governors in states like Alabama and Arkansas have issued mask orders in recent days as coronavirus cases surge around the country. Even the president on Monday tweeted that “many people say that it is Patriotic to wear a face mask when you can’t socially distance,” alongside a photo of himself wearing a mask.
And during a Tuesday press conference, Trump told Americans, “we’re asking everybody that when you are not able to socially distance, wear a mask. Get a mask.
“Whether you like the mask or not, they have an impact,” he added. “They’ll have an effect, and we need everything we can get.”
But he has continued to use a racist name for the virus that he’s been repeating for months. And even if he and others are truly committed to undoing the politicization of masks, it will take time to get ordinary Americans on board. Some people may oppose masks “regardless of what the president says, because to them it’s become a political issue,” Akhter said.
Still, experts say lives can be saved. “I do think it’s possible to turn things around,” Wiley said, noting that more leaders are moving to depoliticize masking. “Almost every public health initiative to change people’s behavior has been very controversial at the start,” she said. And despite opposition to masks, “from a public health perspective, I’m impressed by how rapidly people are getting on board.”
And while wearing masks won’t bring back the many thousands of lives that have already been lost, it can help the many who are still at risk, Akhter said. Americans’ attitude toward masks “played a big role in why the curves went the opposite direction of what we wanted, but it also can play a big role in stopping what may be coming,” he said.
He urges Americans to wear masks, if nothing else, as a sign of support for one another. “It can save lives; it does save lives,” he said, “and even if you don’t believe that, as a sign of solidarity, please wear a mask.”


vox--2020-07-21--How Hollywood accidentally built Netflix

When Netflix started streaming TV shows and movies back in 2007 , it had the market more or less to itself .
At the time , video on the internet meant YouTube , where you could see dogs on skateboards or short SNL clips .
Now , everyone is racing to catch up to Netflix and launching their own streaming services .
But the big media companies are far behind .
That ’ s their own fault .
They watched Netflix build its streaming powerhouse right in front of their noses — and even worse , with their assistance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we tell in this week ’ s episode of Land of the Giants : The Netflix Effect , which focuses on the impact Netflix has had on Hollywood and on the people who run it and work in it .
It ’ s a story that kicks off with a ride down Sunset Boulevard , where Netflix ’ s presence manifests physically .
Billboards that used to advertise movies and TV shows from a variety of studios and networks are now dedicated solely to Netflix products because Netflix purchased the billboards outright .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when Netflix broke into streaming in a big way , through a backdoor : It purchased the digital streaming rights to movies from Disney and Sony — that is , movies you ’ ve heard of , like Pirates of the Caribbean — from Starz , the pay TV channel .
Starz had ambitions for its own streaming service , but those fizzled , which is why you have probably never heard of Vongo .
And that ’ s why Netflix got those movies for a song — around $ 30 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good streaming service almost overnight .
For context : In 2012 , when Netflix wanted to make a new streaming deal for content from Disney , which by then had realized that streaming was a real thing , Netflix paid an estimated $ 300 million a year .
A contractual loophole let Netflix get Disney ’ s and Sony ’ s stuff without cutting deals with Disney and Sony .
But soon enough , media companies were scrambling to sell their stuff directly to Netflix : They saw Netflix as an easy source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hastings and company wanted to pay them for old shows and movies they were already selling other places , then they ’ d be happy to do it .
But that free money wasn ’ t really free : Netflix took the stuff Hollywood considered its leftovers and built a giant business with it — and ended up competing directly with the established media players , using their own content .
Which leads us to today , where the biggest media companies in the world find themselves years behind what used to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a fascinating story , and you can hear it now .
Subscribe to Land of the Giants on Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , or wherever you listen to podcasts .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

When Netflix started streaming TV shows and movies back in 2007, it had the market more or less to itself. At the time, video on the internet meant YouTube, where you could see dogs on skateboards or short SNL clips.
Now, everyone is racing to catch up to Netflix and launching their own streaming services. But the big media companies are far behind.
That’s their own fault. They watched Netflix build its streaming powerhouse right in front of their noses — and even worse, with their assistance.
That’s one of the stories we tell in this week’s episode of Land of the Giants: The Netflix Effect, which focuses on the impact Netflix has had on Hollywood and on the people who run it and work in it.
It’s a story that kicks off with a ride down Sunset Boulevard, where Netflix’s presence manifests physically. Billboards that used to advertise movies and TV shows from a variety of studios and networks are now dedicated solely to Netflix products because Netflix purchased the billboards outright.
But the story really starts in 2008, when Netflix broke into streaming in a big way, through a backdoor: It purchased the digital streaming rights to movies from Disney and Sony — that is, movies you’ve heard of, like Pirates of the Caribbean — from Starz, the pay TV channel. Starz had ambitions for its own streaming service, but those fizzled, which is why you have probably never heard of Vongo.
And that’s why Netflix got those movies for a song — around $30 million a year — while becoming a pretty good streaming service almost overnight. For context: In 2012, when Netflix wanted to make a new streaming deal for content from Disney, which by then had realized that streaming was a real thing, Netflix paid an estimated $300 million a year.
A contractual loophole let Netflix get Disney’s and Sony’s stuff without cutting deals with Disney and Sony. But soon enough, media companies were scrambling to sell their stuff directly to Netflix: They saw Netflix as an easy source of nearly free money — if Reed Hastings and company wanted to pay them for old shows and movies they were already selling other places, then they’d be happy to do it.
But that free money wasn’t really free: Netflix took the stuff Hollywood considered its leftovers and built a giant business with it — and ended up competing directly with the established media players, using their own content. Which leads us to today, where the biggest media companies in the world find themselves years behind what used to be a Silicon Valley upstart.
It’s a fascinating story, and you can hear it now.
Subscribe to Land of the Giants on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.