vox--2020-09-22--It’s easier than ever to find out how your favorite websites are tracking you

If you ’ ve ever used the internet ( which I have to assume includes everyone reading this article on a news website ) , you ’ ve probably noticed that the things you do on one website tend to follow you around on others , or that certain social media platforms know a whole lot more about you than you thought you revealed .
Meanwhile , you likely have no idea who knows what about you , or how they got that information .
Data collection is the backbone of the internet ecosystem , but it ’ s largely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , until you see its end result : an ad so uniquely targeted to you and your interests that you swear Facebook must be listening to your conversations through your phone ( it probably isn ’ t ) .
Several companies and organizations are trying to make that world a little less opaque to users like you .
One of them is The Markup , a nonprofit investigative news site .
It just released a tool called Blacklight , and it ’ s designed to present all of this information in a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you want to know how the ad technology that knows everything about you works , it ’ s a great place to start .
If you just want to know who might find out that you visited a potentially embarrassing or deeply personal website before you go there , it ’ s good for that , too .
There are a few similar tools — Apple ’ s newly released Safari 14 browser update , for example , will tell you which trackers are on a website you visit .
But with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the site first , and its list of trackers doesn ’ t include context about which companies are associated with which trackers and what those companies do .
For instance , Safari will tell you that Vox has a tracker called “ agkn.com , ” but Blacklight will tell you agkn.com is owned by Neustar , which specializes in “ accurate targeting ” based on a “ wide range of attributes ” gleaned from your behavior both on- and offline .
And now that you know Neustar exists , you can make an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracked by it .
Blacklight serves more as an information tool than something you ’ d use in real time as you browse the internet because you have to go to Blacklight ’ s site and enter your desired website address in the prompt .
Blacklight then scans the site and tells you how many trackers are on it , what they do , and who they ’ re potentially sending your data to .
Some of those names you might recognize , like Oracle and Verizon .
Others you likely won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it ’ s safe to say that all of them know a lot about you .
I tried Blacklight out for myself to see what websites might be telling those companies about me .
Vox , the site you ’ re reading right now , is largely ad-supported .
Perhaps unsurprisingly , Blacklight found a lot of ad trackers ( 31 ) and third-party cookies ( 54 ) on it .
Vox also uses Facebook ’ s Pixel and Google ’ s analytics trackers , which tell those platforms that your device @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in particular are very common on websites , and allow Facebook and Google to connect your behavior across all of those sites to your user profile on their platforms , giving them lots of data about you and your interests for ad targeting purposes .
Vox is not unique in this regard .
Its tracker load is comparable to what Blacklight found on other ad-supported national news sites , including Slate ( 38 trackers , 6 cookies , Facebook ) , Mashable ( 24 trackers , 33 cookies , Facebook and Google ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 60 cookies , Facebook ) .
Some sites have more advanced tracking technology .
On Breitbart , for example , Blacklight found 26 trackers , 15 cookies , Facebook and Google trackers , as well as a script that enables what ’ s called “ canvas fingerprinting , ” which can be used to track you even if you block cookies .
Time magazine ’ s site has 14 trackers , 25 cookies , Facebook and Google trackers , and , Blacklight found , it uses a session recorder that can detect things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keystrokes , and page scrolls while you browse the site .
That might sound creepier than it actually is : Websites can use session trackers to get granular data about their visitors ’ behavior on their site to improve how the site itself looks and works .
But they can also watch a specific user ’ s interactions on their site and attach it to identifying information , if they have it , to make inferences about that user .
( The Markup , which is a nonprofit and relies on donations rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have any trackers . )
Maybe you don ’ t care if a national news website knows what you ’ re looking at and when , but you might feel differently when it ’ s a site that deals with more sensitive information .
On WebMD , Blacklight found 26 trackers , 31 cookies , and a Facebook tracker .
A website for a medication for autoimmune diseases sent data to a variety of companies , including Facebook .
A site that sells STD testing kits had 13 ad trackers , 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a session recorder .
Even if you trust those sites to respect and maintain your privacy , you ’ re also trusting the third parties they allow to collect your data on their website , and you ’ re trusting whatever companies those third parties might sell your data to .
You also probably have no idea who those companies even are .
The Markup pointed Recode to Airbnb and M & Ms ’ websites as examples of major websites with potentially concerning tracking behavior .
Blacklight found that Airbnb has canvas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in certain text fields .
It also uses Facebook ’ s “ advanced matching ” feature , which can share data with Facebook even if you ’ ve blocked Facebook ’ s cookies .
On M & Ms ’ site , Blacklight found 31 trackers , 67 cookies , Facebook and Google trackers , a session recorder , and that it was logging keystrokes in the email and password fields .
There may be legitimate reasons for these scripts ; canvas fingerprinting is sometimes used to detect fraud , so it makes sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Airbnb .
And the keystroke logger could be used to auto-complete the email and password fields , making logging into your M & Ms account easier .
But it also means the site may be recording what you type in submission fields before you click the “ submit ” button .
Either way , now you know it ’ s there .
Blacklight says not to take its scan as the final word on the trackers a website does or doesn ’ t have — there may well be some that evade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a guide to help you make more informed decisions about your internet experience .
So , now that you know how your favorite websites might be tracking you and which companies they might be sending your data to , what can you do to stop it ?
There are relatively simple ways to minimize the information websites can get about you , and they don ’ t require much technical know-how : • Turn off ad personalization wherever possible .
You can do this on Facebook , Google , and Twitter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privacy-conscious browser .
You should specifically look for a browser that rejects third-party cookies , which are often used to track you online .
Safari and Firefox browsers block third-party cookies by default , and both feature “ privacy report ” functions that list what they ’ ve blocked for you ; you can find those by clicking on the little shield icon to the left of the browser bar .
Google ’ s Chrome has a setting that will allow you to block third-party cookies , and the company says it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Add tracker blocking extensions to your browser .
Privacy Badger , Ghostery , and DuckDuckGo ’ s Privacy Essentials are three good examples .
They ’ ll tell you how many trackers they blocked and what they are .
Ad blockers like uBlock Origin , AdBlock , and AdBlock Plus will also block trackers .
These extensions may compromise the functionality of some websites , and keep in mind that you are blocking the ads that many of them rely on for income .
These are just a start , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all tracking on the internet .
Again , some of these trackers will help you use the site you ’ re on ; others will help pay for its existence .
The best thing you can do is be as aware as possible of what websites can know about you and who else might be watching .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

If you’ve ever used the internet (which I have to assume includes everyone reading this article on a news website), you’ve probably noticed that the things you do on one website tend to follow you around on others, or that certain social media platforms know a whole lot more about you than you thought you revealed. Meanwhile, you likely have no idea who knows what about you, or how they got that information. Data collection is the backbone of the internet ecosystem, but it’s largely invisible to you, the average user, until you see its end result: an ad so uniquely targeted to you and your interests that you swear Facebook must be listening to your conversations through your phone (it probably isn’t).
Several companies and organizations are trying to make that world a little less opaque to users like you. One of them is The Markup, a nonprofit investigative news site. It just released a tool called Blacklight, and it’s designed to present all of this information in a way that’s easy to understand. If you want to know how the ad technology that knows everything about you works, it’s a great place to start. If you just want to know who might find out that you visited a potentially embarrassing or deeply personal website before you go there, it’s good for that, too.
There are a few similar tools — Apple’s newly released Safari 14 browser update, for example, will tell you which trackers are on a website you visit. But with Safari, you have to actually visit the site first, and its list of trackers doesn’t include context about which companies are associated with which trackers and what those companies do. For instance, Safari will tell you that Vox has a tracker called “agkn.com,” but Blacklight will tell you agkn.com is owned by Neustar, which specializes in “accurate targeting” based on a “wide range of attributes” gleaned from your behavior both on- and offline. And now that you know Neustar exists, you can make an informed decision to opt out of being tracked by it.
Blacklight serves more as an information tool than something you’d use in real time as you browse the internet because you have to go to Blacklight’s site and enter your desired website address in the prompt. Blacklight then scans the site and tells you how many trackers are on it, what they do, and who they’re potentially sending your data to. Some of those names you might recognize, like Oracle and Verizon. Others you likely won’t, like LiveRamp or Criteo. But it’s safe to say that all of them know a lot about you.
I tried Blacklight out for myself to see what websites might be telling those companies about me. Vox, the site you’re reading right now, is largely ad-supported. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Blacklight found a lot of ad trackers (31) and third-party cookies (54) on it. Vox also uses Facebook’s Pixel and Google’s analytics trackers, which tell those platforms that your device visited Vox. Facebook and Google trackers in particular are very common on websites, and allow Facebook and Google to connect your behavior across all of those sites to your user profile on their platforms, giving them lots of data about you and your interests for ad targeting purposes.
Vox is not unique in this regard. Its tracker load is comparable to what Blacklight found on other ad-supported national news sites, including Slate (38 trackers, 6 cookies, Facebook), Mashable (24 trackers, 33 cookies, Facebook and Google), and Politico (33 trackers, 60 cookies, Facebook).
Some sites have more advanced tracking technology. On Breitbart, for example, Blacklight found 26 trackers, 15 cookies, Facebook and Google trackers, as well as a script that enables what’s called “canvas fingerprinting,” which can be used to track you even if you block cookies. Time magazine’s site has 14 trackers, 25 cookies, Facebook and Google trackers, and, Blacklight found, it uses a session recorder that can detect things like mouse cursor movements, clicks, keystrokes, and page scrolls while you browse the site. That might sound creepier than it actually is: Websites can use session trackers to get granular data about their visitors’ behavior on their site to improve how the site itself looks and works. But they can also watch a specific user’s interactions on their site and attach it to identifying information, if they have it, to make inferences about that user. (The Markup, which is a nonprofit and relies on donations rather than ads for support, doesn’t have any trackers.)
Maybe you don’t care if a national news website knows what you’re looking at and when, but you might feel differently when it’s a site that deals with more sensitive information. On WebMD, Blacklight found 26 trackers, 31 cookies, and a Facebook tracker. A website for a medication for autoimmune diseases sent data to a variety of companies, including Facebook. A site that sells STD testing kits had 13 ad trackers, 25 cookies, Facebook and Google trackers, and a session recorder. Even if you trust those sites to respect and maintain your privacy, you’re also trusting the third parties they allow to collect your data on their website, and you’re trusting whatever companies those third parties might sell your data to. You also probably have no idea who those companies even are.
The Markup pointed Recode to Airbnb and M&Ms’ websites as examples of major websites with potentially concerning tracking behavior. Blacklight found that Airbnb has canvas fingerprinting and logs the keystrokes you type in certain text fields. It also uses Facebook’s “advanced matching” feature, which can share data with Facebook even if you’ve blocked Facebook’s cookies. On M&Ms’ site, Blacklight found 31 trackers, 67 cookies, Facebook and Google trackers, a session recorder, and that it was logging keystrokes in the email and password fields.
There may be legitimate reasons for these scripts; canvas fingerprinting is sometimes used to detect fraud, so it makes sense that it would be on a site like Airbnb. And the keystroke logger could be used to auto-complete the email and password fields, making logging into your M&Ms account easier. But it also means the site may be recording what you type in submission fields before you click the “submit” button. Either way, now you know it’s there.
Blacklight says not to take its scan as the final word on the trackers a website does or doesn’t have — there may well be some that evade detection. It’s really more of a guide to help you make more informed decisions about your internet experience. So, now that you know how your favorite websites might be tracking you and which companies they might be sending your data to, what can you do to stop it?
There are relatively simple ways to minimize the information websites can get about you, and they don’t require much technical know-how:
Turn off ad personalization wherever possible. You can do this on Facebook, Google, and Twitter, for instance.
You can do this on Facebook, Google, and Twitter, for instance. Use a more privacy-conscious browser. You should specifically look for a browser that rejects third-party cookies, which are often used to track you online. Safari and Firefox browsers block third-party cookies by default, and both feature “privacy report” functions that list what they’ve blocked for you; you can find those by clicking on the little shield icon to the left of the browser bar. Google’s Chrome has a setting that will allow you to block third-party cookies, and the company says it will be blocking third-party cookies entirely by 2022.
You should specifically look for a browser that rejects third-party cookies, which are often used to track you online. Safari and Firefox browsers block third-party cookies by default, and both feature “privacy report” functions that list what they’ve blocked for you; you can find those by clicking on the little shield icon to the left of the browser bar. Google’s Chrome has a setting that will allow you to block third-party cookies, and the company says it will be blocking third-party cookies entirely by 2022. Add tracker blocking extensions to your browser. Privacy Badger, Ghostery, and DuckDuckGo’s Privacy Essentials are three good examples. They’ll tell you how many trackers they blocked and what they are. Ad blockers like uBlock Origin, AdBlock, and AdBlock Plus will also block trackers. These extensions may compromise the functionality of some websites, and keep in mind that you are blocking the ads that many of them rely on for income.
These are just a start, and there is no foolproof way to prevent all tracking on the internet. Again, some of these trackers will help you use the site you’re on; others will help pay for its existence. The best thing you can do is be as aware as possible of what websites can know about you and who else might be watching.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.
ntribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-09-21--After 6 months and $1.8 billion, Quibi wants a new owner. That will be a hard sell.

Quibi was supposed to be revolutionary : A video service that was supposed to fill the gap between YouTube and HBO by bringing short , “ premium ” clips starring celebrities like Liam Hemsworth and Chrissy Teigen to your phone , for a price .
But that was in the spring .
Now , Quibi might be headed to a fire sale : Just six months after launching — and after raising $ 1.8 billion — Quibi has started looking for a buyer .
It ’ s a stunning admission that the high-profile service hasn ’ t found enough traction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CEO Meg Whitman and Quibi founder Jeffrey Katzenberg have already pitched at least one potential acquirer in the last week , industry sources told Recode .
The Wall Street Journal previously reported that Quibi was considering options including a sale , raising more money , or going public by backing into a shell company .
Katzenberg declined to answer questions via email .
His company insists , via a statement from a PR rep and in its pitch to would-be acquirers , that the service has had a successful launch , despite well-documented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s trying to find a buyer undercuts those arguments .
But the more practical question about Quibi now is what exactly a buyer would get .
There ’ s some cash — a source familiar with the pitch says the company has said it has more than $ 200 million on-hand — as well as the tech Quibi built to bring its video to your phone .
It ’ s particularly proud of what it calls its “ turnstyle ” system , where viewers can rotate their phone 90 degrees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video they were watching .
Quibi ’ s engineering team might also be valuable to a certain kind of buyer .
Okay .
But what about all those shows Quibi has ?
Those should be worth ... something , right ?
Even if people didn ’ t watch them on Quibi , it ’ s possible to imagine they might watch them on a different service that already has lots of viewers .
Netflix , for instance , has demonstrated that once it takes a show and makes it available to its 200 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very popular , even if it wasn ’ t popular on its home network .
Schitt ’ s Creek , the show that won seven Emmys , including for best comedy , last night , used to be on something called the Pop network , which you have likely never heard of — but Netflix made it a hit .
Ditto for Cobra Kai , the Karate Kid spinoff which started out on YouTube but jumped to Netflix this summer and took off .
But the problem with that pitch when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases , Quibi doesn ’ t actually own the shows it has paid for : It has licenses that last several years , at which point they go back to the companies that made them .
( Disclosure : Vox Media produces shows for Quibi . )
So if you ’ re buying Quibi because you want to get your hands on The Most Dangerous Game , you ’ re going to have to take advantage of it in the near future .
Which means you ’ re unlikely to value Quibi has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like .
All of which is an astonishing place for Quibi to be in .
There was a lot of skepticism in advance of the service ’ s launch in April — mostly because there hasn ’ t been a successful example of a paid , mobile-only video-streaming service .
And also because there ’ s no shortage of other video options these days .
And also because , contrary to Quibi ’ s marketing pitch — which argued that Quibi would help people pass the time while they waited in line for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brew — people have plenty of other things they can do on their phones .
Still , it would have been hard to find someone who thought Quibi would be looking for a way out just a few months after it started .
Katzenberg , a Hollywood veteran , is a famously relentless networker and promoter who had spent years putting this together .
If he ’ s eyeing the exit this soon , something has gone very wrong .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Quibi was supposed to be revolutionary: A video service that was supposed to fill the gap between YouTube and HBO by bringing short, “premium” clips starring celebrities like Liam Hemsworth and Chrissy Teigen to your phone, for a price.
But that was in the spring. Now, Quibi might be headed to a fire sale: Just six months after launching — and after raising $1.8 billion — Quibi has started looking for a buyer. It’s a stunning admission that the high-profile service hasn’t found enough traction to continue on its own.
Quibi CEO Meg Whitman and Quibi founder Jeffrey Katzenberg have already pitched at least one potential acquirer in the last week, industry sources told Recode. The Wall Street Journal previously reported that Quibi was considering options including a sale, raising more money, or going public by backing into a shell company.
Katzenberg declined to answer questions via email. His company insists, via a statement from a PR rep and in its pitch to would-be acquirers, that the service has had a successful launch, despite well-documented failures to attract users. The fact that it’s trying to find a buyer undercuts those arguments.
But the more practical question about Quibi now is what exactly a buyer would get. There’s some cash — a source familiar with the pitch says the company has said it has more than $200 million on-hand — as well as the tech Quibi built to bring its video to your phone. It’s particularly proud of what it calls its “turnstyle” system, where viewers can rotate their phone 90 degrees to see a different version of the video they were watching. Quibi’s engineering team might also be valuable to a certain kind of buyer.
Okay. But what about all those shows Quibi has? Those should be worth ... something, right? Even if people didn’t watch them on Quibi, it’s possible to imagine they might watch them on a different service that already has lots of viewers.
Netflix, for instance, has demonstrated that once it takes a show and makes it available to its 200 million users, that show can become very popular, even if it wasn’t popular on its home network. Schitt’s Creek, the show that won seven Emmys, including for best comedy, last night, used to be on something called the Pop network, which you have likely never heard of — but Netflix made it a hit. Ditto for Cobra Kai, the Karate Kid spinoff which started out on YouTube but jumped to Netflix this summer and took off.
But the problem with that pitch when it comes to Quibi is that, in most cases, Quibi doesn’t actually own the shows it has paid for: It has licenses that last several years, at which point they go back to the companies that made them. (Disclosure: Vox Media produces shows for Quibi.)
So if you’re buying Quibi because you want to get your hands on The Most Dangerous Game, you’re going to have to take advantage of it in the near future. Which means you’re unlikely to value Quibi has highly as its managers and investors would like.
All of which is an astonishing place for Quibi to be in. There was a lot of skepticism in advance of the service’s launch in April — mostly because there hasn’t been a successful example of a paid, mobile-only video-streaming service. And also because there’s no shortage of other video options these days. And also because, contrary to Quibi’s marketing pitch — which argued that Quibi would help people pass the time while they waited in line for a sandwich or for their coffee to brew — people have plenty of other things they can do on their phones.
Still, it would have been hard to find someone who thought Quibi would be looking for a way out just a few months after it started. Katzenberg, a Hollywood veteran, is a famously relentless networker and promoter who had spent years putting this together. If he’s eyeing the exit this soon, something has gone very wrong.


vox--2020-09-22--How the coming fight over Ginsburg’s SCOTUS replacement could shape the Senate elections

A looming US Supreme Court confirmation battle to fill the seat of former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has added a new level of urgency to the battle over control of the US Senate .
Democratic Senate campaigns in more than 10 competitive races have seen a surge of campaign cash since Ginsburg ’ s death on Friday .
Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue smashed its own records last weekend , raising close to $ 100 million for Democratic candidates by Saturday night , an ActBlue spokesperson told Vox ( that number has since grown to over $ 160 million ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in , ” said Shaniqua McClendon , Crooked Media ’ s political director and one of the people overseeing the group ’ s “ Get Mitch or Die Trying Fund , ” which fundraises specifically for Democratic Senate candidates .
“ At first it was , ‘ Oh wow , people are giving , ’ and then it was , ‘ Oh wow , we raised another million.
’ ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s subsequently announced that Senate Republicans would move forward with the process to replace Ginsburg with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choosing .
McConnell ’ s announcement is a reversal of his and the GOP ’ s position in 2016 , when the Senate refused to even start the confirmation process for Obama nominee Judge Merrick Garland .
WinRed , the Republican counterpart to ActBlue , did not respond to a request for comment from Vox on how much it raised last weekend .
Though the Republican base has gotten fired up about Supreme Court appointments in the 2016 presidential election and 2018 midterms alike , there are plenty of signs that Democrats are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a liberal justice and an icon for equal rights .
Fundraising is just one sign of enthusiasm , though , and it ’ s still too early to tell whether this could have a noticeable impact on what ’ s already promising to be high voter turnout for both the presidential and Senate races .
Democrats and Republicans each think a SCOTUS opening could help them As Republicans refused to confirm Garland in the year leading up to the 2016 election , analysis and data following that election showed that the prospect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court was especially motivating for Republican voters .
Another Supreme Court confirmation battle played out in the weeks before the 2018 midterms , and while Democrats swept US House races that year , Republicans were able to flip a number of Senate seats in red-leaning states including Indiana , North Dakota , and Missouri .
This year , the Senate map gives Democrats a slight advantage .
Republicans are defending more turf : 23 seats ( mostly in red states ) , compared to the 12 Senate Democrats who are up for reelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and North Carolina are considered most competitive for Democrats , but several other seats are now in play , including Montana , Iowa , Georgia , and even South Carolina .
Republicans are on offense in just Alabama and Michigan , and most political observers believe Michigan will be tough for them to pull off , even as the race there is tightening .
Because many of these races are incredibly close , even a slight impact on key subsets of voters could have an impact , Cook Political Report Senate editor Jessica @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevertheless , both sides see the new Supreme Court battle as motivating to their voters .
“ This puts Democrat candidates in the uncomfortable position of having to disclose to voters they are controlled entirely by Chuck Schumer and the insurgent wing of liberal extremists that have hijacked the Democratic Party , ” National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesperson Jesse Hunt told Vox in a statement .
“ What had been a poorly kept secret will now be thrust into open view , hurting Democrats ’ chances to appeal to independent voters in key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan to focus on the fact that Republicans charging ahead with a conservative Supreme Court nominee dovetails with one of the first major cases the court is expected to hear after the November election : the Trump administration ’ s and conservative state attorneys general challenge to the Affordable Care Act , which could invalidate the entire law .
“ Republicans have been dragged down all cycle by their records of refusing to stand up to the president for what ’ s right and voting to gut health care protections for preexisting conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lauren Passalacqua said in a statement .
“ The question of filling this vacancy shines an even brighter spotlight on these vulnerabilities.
” Health care and the aftermath of Senate Republicans ’ attempted Obamacare repeal vote was a hugely motivating issue for Democratic and independent voters in the 2018 midterms .
And Democrats are betting it will be again in 2020 .
“ The fact the health care lawsuit is at stake after the election and that ’ s the highest-profile case ...
I think is problematic ” for Republicans , a Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a massive liability and toxic with swing voters.
” Progressive fundraising groups told Vox that voter “ enthusiasm ” isn ’ t the right word for the fundraising deluge they ’ re experiencing right now .
“ I think people are more scared than anything , ” said Crooked Media ’ s McClendon .
“ Merrick Garland frustrated a lot of people , [ but ] Brett Kavanaugh scared a lot of people .
I think we ’ re seeing a lot of what the justices can actually do .
Congress can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ACA was saved once , but it might not be saved this time if we have different justices.
” The Senate-focused “ Get Mitch or Die Trying Fund ” has been raising money to divert to Democratic and independent candidates in 13 races : Colorado , Maine , North Carolina , Montana , Iowa , both Georgia seats , Alabama , Michigan , Alaska , South Carolina , Texas , and Kansas .
Since Friday night , the fund raised more than $ 12 million , accounting for about 25 percent of total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s death .
For context , McClendon told Vox the fund was hoping to raise $ 5 million by the end of the Senate cycle .
“ It was amazing to see on Friday , the numbers would not stop increasing , ” she said .
McClendon said those donations will be spread to Democratic campaigns , especially prioritizing those that have fundraised less on their own .
The idea is to help Democratic candidates be competitive in states where they otherwise might not compete .
On Saturday , Democratic donors set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised on ActBlue , raising $ 70.6 million in a day and breaking an hourly fundraising record with $ 6.3 million raised from 10 pm to 11 pm on Friday night .
“ The record-breaking response we ’ ve seen from small-dollar donors shows that the left is eager to fulfill her final wish and is ready to fight back against Trump and McConnell ’ s vow to push through a Supreme Court nominee , ” said ActBlue Executive Director Erin Hill in a statement .
Will you help keep Vox free for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

A looming US Supreme Court confirmation battle to fill the seat of former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has added a new level of urgency to the battle over control of the US Senate.
Democratic Senate campaigns in more than 10 competitive races have seen a surge of campaign cash since Ginsburg’s death on Friday. Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue smashed its own records last weekend, raising close to $100 million for Democratic candidates by Saturday night, an ActBlue spokesperson told Vox (that number has since grown to over $160 million).
“It’s just been rolling in,” said Shaniqua McClendon, Crooked Media’s political director and one of the people overseeing the group’s “Get Mitch or Die Trying Fund,” which fundraises specifically for Democratic Senate candidates. “At first it was, ‘Oh wow, people are giving,’ and then it was, ‘Oh wow, we raised another million.’”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s subsequently announced that Senate Republicans would move forward with the process to replace Ginsburg with a nominee of President Donald Trump’s choosing. McConnell’s announcement is a reversal of his and the GOP’s position in 2016, when the Senate refused to even start the confirmation process for Obama nominee Judge Merrick Garland. WinRed, the Republican counterpart to ActBlue, did not respond to a request for comment from Vox on how much it raised last weekend.
Though the Republican base has gotten fired up about Supreme Court appointments in the 2016 presidential election and 2018 midterms alike, there are plenty of signs that Democrats are particularly motivated after the loss of Ginsburg, a liberal justice and an icon for equal rights.
Fundraising is just one sign of enthusiasm, though, and it’s still too early to tell whether this could have a noticeable impact on what’s already promising to be high voter turnout for both the presidential and Senate races.
Democrats and Republicans each think a SCOTUS opening could help them
As Republicans refused to confirm Garland in the year leading up to the 2016 election, analysis and data following that election showed that the prospect of having a conservative justice on the court was especially motivating for Republican voters.
Another Supreme Court confirmation battle played out in the weeks before the 2018 midterms, and while Democrats swept US House races that year, Republicans were able to flip a number of Senate seats in red-leaning states including Indiana, North Dakota, and Missouri.
This year, the Senate map gives Democrats a slight advantage. Republicans are defending more turf: 23 seats (mostly in red states), compared to the 12 Senate Democrats who are up for reelection. Colorado, Arizona, Maine, and North Carolina are considered most competitive for Democrats, but several other seats are now in play, including Montana, Iowa, Georgia, and even South Carolina. Republicans are on offense in just Alabama and Michigan, and most political observers believe Michigan will be tough for them to pull off, even as the race there is tightening.
Because many of these races are incredibly close, even a slight impact on key subsets of voters could have an impact, Cook Political Report Senate editor Jessica Taylor wrote in a recent analysis.
Because over a half dozen races are simply that close right now, a shift in either some Republicans coming home or in college-aged suburban white women — who were the GOP’s Achilles heel in 2018 congressional elections — moving toward Democrats could be a critical factor. The Supreme Court issue boosted Senate Republicans two years ago in the wake of the Kavanaugh hearings, but the GOP had an overwhelmingly favorable map with Democratic incumbents in deep-red states like North Dakota and Indiana. Now, the inverse is true.
Nevertheless, both sides see the new Supreme Court battle as motivating to their voters.
“This puts Democrat candidates in the uncomfortable position of having to disclose to voters they are controlled entirely by Chuck Schumer and the insurgent wing of liberal extremists that have hijacked the Democratic Party,” National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesperson Jesse Hunt told Vox in a statement. “What had been a poorly kept secret will now be thrust into open view, hurting Democrats’ chances to appeal to independent voters in key Senate races.”
Democrats, meanwhile, plan to focus on the fact that Republicans charging ahead with a conservative Supreme Court nominee dovetails with one of the first major cases the court is expected to hear after the November election: the Trump administration’s and conservative state attorneys general challenge to the Affordable Care Act, which could invalidate the entire law.
“Republicans have been dragged down all cycle by their records of refusing to stand up to the president for what’s right and voting to gut health care protections for preexisting conditions,” Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesperson Lauren Passalacqua said in a statement. “The question of filling this vacancy shines an even brighter spotlight on these vulnerabilities.”
Health care and the aftermath of Senate Republicans’ attempted Obamacare repeal vote was a hugely motivating issue for Democratic and independent voters in the 2018 midterms. And Democrats are betting it will be again in 2020.
“The fact the health care lawsuit is at stake after the election and that’s the highest-profile case ... I think is problematic” for Republicans, a Democratic strategist told Vox. “It’s a massive liability and toxic with swing voters.”
Democrats are on a fundraising blitz
Progressive fundraising groups told Vox that voter “enthusiasm” isn’t the right word for the fundraising deluge they’re experiencing right now.
“I think people are more scared than anything,” said Crooked Media’s McClendon. “Merrick Garland frustrated a lot of people, [but] Brett Kavanaugh scared a lot of people. I think we’re seeing a lot of what the justices can actually do. Congress can pass a lot of bills — the ACA was saved once, but it might not be saved this time if we have different justices.”
The Senate-focused “Get Mitch or Die Trying Fund” has been raising money to divert to Democratic and independent candidates in 13 races: Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, Montana, Iowa, both Georgia seats, Alabama, Michigan, Alaska, South Carolina, Texas, and Kansas. Since Friday night, the fund raised more than $12 million, accounting for about 25 percent of total ActBlue fundraising during the weekend following Ginsburg’s death. For context, McClendon told Vox the fund was hoping to raise $5 million by the end of the Senate cycle.
“It was amazing to see on Friday, the numbers would not stop increasing,” she said. McClendon said those donations will be spread to Democratic campaigns, especially prioritizing those that have fundraised less on their own. The idea is to help Democratic candidates be competitive in states where they otherwise might not compete.
On Saturday, Democratic donors set a record for the amount of money raised on ActBlue, raising $70.6 million in a day and breaking an hourly fundraising record with $6.3 million raised from 10 pm to 11 pm on Friday night.
“The record-breaking response we’ve seen from small-dollar donors shows that the left is eager to fulfill her final wish and is ready to fight back against Trump and McConnell’s vow to push through a Supreme Court nominee,” said ActBlue Executive Director Erin Hill in a statement.


vox--2020-09-22--At the UN, China’s Xi showed he understands the system better than Trump

President Donald Trump spent most of his United Nations speech blasting China — for its handling of the coronavirus , for its contributions to pollution , for its trade policy .
China ’ s President Xi Jinping , who spoke shortly afterward , did not mention the United States directly .
Instead , he talked about Beijing ’ s commitment to global cooperation and the humanitarian response to the Covid-19 pandemic .
Both speeches misrepresented the realities of their countries , and the world , right now .
But 75 years after the United Nations was founded , China , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it knows how to work the multilateral system to its advantage .
Trump ’ s dismissiveness of international cooperation has been a theme of his presidency , culminating in his fourth ( and maybe final ) United Nations speech , where he once again revisited the greatest hits of “ America First.
” Or as Trump put it in his short , prerecorded address : “ But only when you take care of your own citizens will you find a true basis for cooperation .
As president , I have rejected the failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am proudly putting America first , just as you should be putting your countries first.
” Even if expected , Trump ’ s tone was at odds with the UN ’ s 75th anniversary , which is all about member states renewing their commitment to multilateralism .
His attacks on China were in sharp contrast to the warnings from UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres , who warned earlier Tuesday morning against the start of a “ new Cold War ” and a world where “ the two largest economies split the globe in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accountable the nation which unleashed this plague onto the world : China , ” Trump said , referring to the coronavirus .
“ In the earliest days of the virus , China locked down travel domestically while allowing flights to leave China — and infect the world.
” He accused the World Health Organization , which the Trump administration announced this summer it was withdrawing from , of being too greatly influenced by China .
He demanded the “ United Nations must hold China accountable for their actions.
” A representative for China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rejected the US ’ s characterizations , but in contrast to Trump ’ s adversarial tone , China tried to paint a picture where they were the good guys just trying to defeat the pandemic responsibly .
“ We should follow the guidance of science , give full play to the leading role of the World Health Organization , and launch a joint international response to beat this pandemic , ” Xi said in his address , through an interpreter .
“ Any attempt of politicizing the issue of stigmatization must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whistleblowers who spoke out in the early days of the pandemic , it delayed reporting the outbreak , and there are still questions about China ’ s level of cooperation with the WHO investigation into the origins of the virus .
China has also deployed propaganda to try to blame the US for the coronavirus , too .
“ We will never seek hegemonic expansion or sphere of influence , ” Xi said in his speech , clearly a nod to Trump ’ s accusations .
“ We have no intention to fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one with any country .
We will continue to narrow differences and resolve disputes with others through dialogue and negotiation.
” Xi is framing China as a sort of responsible global partner and humble participant in the global order ; he didn ’ t try to go tit-for-tat with the US .
Instead , the leader of a country that is interning 1 million of its Uighur Muslim minority population , and has stifled democracy in Hong Kong , talked about the need “ to join hands to uphold the values of peace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy , and freedom shared by all of us.
” The Trump administration isn ’ t wrong to call out China its misdeeds .
( Trump did not mention Hong Kong or the Uighurs directly , though he warned against “ religious persecution , and the ethnic cleansing of religious minorities.
” ) But the US also failed to offer an alternative vision of global leadership other than everyone looking out for themselves .
In rejecting global institutions , Trump then wants these global institutions to change — a proposition that seems doomed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States .
China ’ s influence in multilateral institutions is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy The UN and its agencies like the WHO are really the sum of their parts , which is a collective of member states .
That makeup is also reflective of the geopolitical realities of the world : The richest and most powerful states tend to have the most leverage .
That is , still , the United States , even as it doesn ’ t always claim to have that role .
The United States , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donor to the UN .
While China ’ s contributions are increasing , in fiscal year 2019 , the US ’ s commitments to the UN ’ s regular budget were nearly double China ’ s .
( China is the biggest donor to UN peacekeeping missions . )
As for the World Health Organization , in 2018 and 2019 , the US ’ s contributions dwarfed China ’ s in both assessed and voluntary contributions .
There ’ s no doubt China ’ s influence is growing , but it is slightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walks away from cooperative bodies — from the Paris climate accord to the WHO — it leaves behind a vacuum .
China has hastened to fill it , and that , more than anything , is bolstering Beijing ’ s rise and influence .
It gives China a chance to be a good guy — say , pledging $ 30 million to the WHO when the US threatened to withdraw , a fraction of the money the US provides annually .
The Trump administration , in abandoning institutions for being too China-centric , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s a self-fulfilling prophecy .
Again , this is not to say the US doesn ’ t have legitimate criticisms of the WHO , or China .
But by refusing to work within the system , it is actively ceding leverage and losing credibility .
Last week , in a discussion with reporters about the implications of the US leaving the WHO , Elizabeth Cousens , the president and CEO of the UN Foundation , said that even as the US is trying to push the WHO to reform , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that conversation because they ’ ve stepped off the field.
” The US can ’ t officially withdraw from the WHO until July 2021 because it must fulfill certain financial commitments through then .
But that undermines trust in the United States as a reliable partner .
China is happy to try to fill that gap .
And Trump ’ s anger at some of these multilateral institutions is somewhat misplaced .
For all his “ America is the best ” rhetoric , he ’ s suggesting the United Nation has powers that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in part because powerful member states don ’ t want it to .
It ’ s not as though the US likes supranational bodies getting involved in its affairs .
The UN system is far from perfect .
But as Stewart Patrick , an expert on global governance at the Council on Foreign Relations , told me before Trump ’ s speech , past presidents used to criticize the United Nations “ more in sorrow than in anger ” — in other words , this body is imperfect and needs to be reformed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t achieve those ends .
If America wants UN bodies to work for its interests , then it has to work within them , rally support , defend , and make the case for them .
That ’ s what China tried to do on Tuesday .
China might not succeed in this because global cooperation is as much a means to an end , in this case to build up China as a great power .
Take the quest for an effective and safe Covid-19 vaccine .
In Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We will distribute a vaccine .
We will defeat the virus .
We will end the pandemic .
And we will enter a new era of unprecedented prosperity , cooperation , and peace.
” What he notably didn ’ t mention were any specific commitments to the rest of the world .
Alternatively , Xi claimed China had a “ safe and effective vaccine , ” then added that “ there is a particular need in terms of leadership for the leaders of this movement to cooperate and collaborate with the most vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million to help the UN ’ s Covid-19 humanitarian response .
But here ’ s the thing : Neither the United States nor China is among the 156 countries participating in a WHO-linked initiative to invest in Covid-19 treatments and vaccines and distribute them equitably around the world .
You might understand that from Trump ’ s speech , but not necessarily China ’ s .
And that ’ s the point : Actions matter .
If the US wanted to make the case that China isn ’ t a good global partner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ project would show China isn ’ t the responsible actor it claims to be .
It would also be using multilateral institutions in the US ’ s interests .
But the Trump administration has not done so — and it ’ s not stopping China from doing it , either .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

President Donald Trump spent most of his United Nations speech blasting China — for its handling of the coronavirus, for its contributions to pollution, for its trade policy.
China’s President Xi Jinping, who spoke shortly afterward, did not mention the United States directly. Instead, he talked about Beijing’s commitment to global cooperation and the humanitarian response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Both speeches misrepresented the realities of their countries, and the world, right now. But 75 years after the United Nations was founded, China, not the United States, has shown it knows how to work the multilateral system to its advantage.
Trump’s dismissiveness of international cooperation has been a theme of his presidency, culminating in his fourth (and maybe final) United Nations speech, where he once again revisited the greatest hits of “America First.” Or as Trump put it in his short, prerecorded address: “But only when you take care of your own citizens will you find a true basis for cooperation. As president, I have rejected the failed approaches of the past, and I am proudly putting America first, just as you should be putting your countries first.”
Even if expected, Trump’s tone was at odds with the UN’s 75th anniversary, which is all about member states renewing their commitment to multilateralism. His attacks on China were in sharp contrast to the warnings from UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who warned earlier Tuesday morning against the start of a “new Cold War” and a world where “the two largest economies split the globe in a great fracture.”
“We must hold accountable the nation which unleashed this plague onto the world: China,” Trump said, referring to the coronavirus. “In the earliest days of the virus, China locked down travel domestically while allowing flights to leave China — and infect the world.”
He accused the World Health Organization, which the Trump administration announced this summer it was withdrawing from, of being too greatly influenced by China. He demanded the “United Nations must hold China accountable for their actions.”
A representative for China, speaking to introduce his leader Xi, rejected the US’s characterizations, but in contrast to Trump’s adversarial tone, China tried to paint a picture where they were the good guys just trying to defeat the pandemic responsibly. “We should follow the guidance of science, give full play to the leading role of the World Health Organization, and launch a joint international response to beat this pandemic,” Xi said in his address, through an interpreter. “Any attempt of politicizing the issue of stigmatization must be rejected.”
Of course, China silenced whistleblowers who spoke out in the early days of the pandemic, it delayed reporting the outbreak, and there are still questions about China’s level of cooperation with the WHO investigation into the origins of the virus. China has also deployed propaganda to try to blame the US for the coronavirus, too.
“We will never seek hegemonic expansion or sphere of influence,” Xi said in his speech, clearly a nod to Trump’s accusations. “We have no intention to fight either a cold war or a hot one with any country. We will continue to narrow differences and resolve disputes with others through dialogue and negotiation.”
Xi is framing China as a sort of responsible global partner and humble participant in the global order; he didn’t try to go tit-for-tat with the US. Instead, the leader of a country that is interning 1 million of its Uighur Muslim minority population, and has stifled democracy in Hong Kong, talked about the need “to join hands to uphold the values of peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom shared by all of us.”
The Trump administration isn’t wrong to call out China its misdeeds. (Trump did not mention Hong Kong or the Uighurs directly, though he warned against “religious persecution, and the ethnic cleansing of religious minorities.”) But the US also failed to offer an alternative vision of global leadership other than everyone looking out for themselves.
In rejecting global institutions, Trump then wants these global institutions to change — a proposition that seems doomed to fail. At least for the United States.
China’s influence in multilateral institutions is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy
The UN and its agencies like the WHO are really the sum of their parts, which is a collective of member states. That makeup is also reflective of the geopolitical realities of the world: The richest and most powerful states tend to have the most leverage. That is, still, the United States, even as it doesn’t always claim to have that role.
The United States, for example, is far and away the largest donor to the UN. While China’s contributions are increasing, in fiscal year 2019, the US’s commitments to the UN’s regular budget were nearly double China’s. (China is the biggest donor to UN peacekeeping missions.) As for the World Health Organization, in 2018 and 2019, the US’s contributions dwarfed China’s in both assessed and voluntary contributions.
There’s no doubt China’s influence is growing, but it is slightly overblown. But when the United States walks away from cooperative bodies — from the Paris climate accord to the WHO — it leaves behind a vacuum. China has hastened to fill it, and that, more than anything, is bolstering Beijing’s rise and influence. It gives China a chance to be a good guy — say, pledging $30 million to the WHO when the US threatened to withdraw, a fraction of the money the US provides annually. The Trump administration, in abandoning institutions for being too China-centric, is allowing them to become just that. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Again, this is not to say the US doesn’t have legitimate criticisms of the WHO, or China. But by refusing to work within the system, it is actively ceding leverage and losing credibility. Last week, in a discussion with reporters about the implications of the US leaving the WHO, Elizabeth Cousens, the president and CEO of the UN Foundation, said that even as the US is trying to push the WHO to reform, it’s “losing influence in that conversation because they’ve stepped off the field.”
The US can’t officially withdraw from the WHO until July 2021 because it must fulfill certain financial commitments through then. But that undermines trust in the United States as a reliable partner. China is happy to try to fill that gap.
And Trump’s anger at some of these multilateral institutions is somewhat misplaced. For all his “America is the best” rhetoric, he’s suggesting the United Nation has powers that it just doesn’t have, in part because powerful member states don’t want it to. It’s not as though the US likes supranational bodies getting involved in its affairs.
The UN system is far from perfect. But as Stewart Patrick, an expert on global governance at the Council on Foreign Relations, told me before Trump’s speech, past presidents used to criticize the United Nations “more in sorrow than in anger” — in other words, this body is imperfect and needs to be reformed. But Trump’s wholesale rejection doesn’t achieve those ends. If America wants UN bodies to work for its interests, then it has to work within them, rally support, defend, and make the case for them. That’s what China tried to do on Tuesday.
China might not succeed in this because global cooperation is as much a means to an end, in this case to build up China as a great power.
Take the quest for an effective and safe Covid-19 vaccine. In Trump’s speech, he said: “We will distribute a vaccine. We will defeat the virus. We will end the pandemic. And we will enter a new era of unprecedented prosperity, cooperation, and peace.” What he notably didn’t mention were any specific commitments to the rest of the world.
Alternatively, Xi claimed China had a “safe and effective vaccine,” then added that “there is a particular need in terms of leadership for the leaders of this movement to cooperate and collaborate with the most vulnerable countries.” He also pledged $50 million to help the UN’s Covid-19 humanitarian response.
But here’s the thing: Neither the United States nor China is among the 156 countries participating in a WHO-linked initiative to invest in Covid-19 treatments and vaccines and distribute them equitably around the world. You might understand that from Trump’s speech, but not necessarily China’s.
And that’s the point: Actions matter. If the US wanted to make the case that China isn’t a good global partner, putting its weight behind a vaccine project would show China isn’t the responsible actor it claims to be. It would also be using multilateral institutions in the US’s interests. But the Trump administration has not done so — and it’s not stopping China from doing it, either.