vox--2020-06-26--Working for Mark Zuckerberg’s philanthropy isn’t always easy since it means working for Mark Zuckerb

Working for Mark Zuckerberg’s philanthropy isn’t always easy since it means working for Mark Zuckerberg

At an emotional company town hall last week that blew past its hour-long time limit , one of Mark Zuckerberg ’ s engineers asked him to quit as CEO of Facebook .
But the appeal did not , as one might expect , come from an engineer at Facebook .
It came from an engineer at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative ( CZI ) , the education , science , and policy philanthropy Zuckerberg and his wife , Priscilla Chan , founded in 2015 .
“ You and Priscilla have emphasized that Facebook and CZI are two separate organizations .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same leader — you , ” the CZI employee said , according to a video of the remarks viewed by Recode .
“ The actions you take at Facebook reflect on you as a leader and your leadership skills and values .
It only reflects reality to say that our leader ’ s idea of free speech values calls to murder people for demonstrating over the political speech of the demonstrators themselves.
” That ’ s when the employee presented one of the richest people in the world with three choices : Either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , resign from Facebook , or resign from CZI .
“ I mean , no .
None of those things would make sense , ” said Zuckerberg , who seemed to be taken aback .
Then , a few minutes later , he flipped the tables on the resignation question : “ These organizations are different , but I do think that they come from some common sets of values .
And I think at the end of the day , you all need to make whatever decisions you think are right in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization that is associated with a leader who is making other decisions that you may disagree with.
” Zuckerberg ended with this plain matter of fact : “ Quite frankly , the idea that we would resign from CZI is ridiculous.
” Ridiculous or not , that one employee was speaking for a group of employees who over the past few years have found it difficult to work for the philanthropy that — although legally distinct from Facebook — is inextricably linked to a business empire they find disreputable .
And in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CZI have come spilling out , due to the ongoing protests in the US calling for an end to systemic racism after the killings of several Black Americans .
These CZI employees take particular issue with the unwillingness of their boss , Zuckerberg , to place restrictions on Trump ’ s Facebook posts about the protests , in which he wrote , “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts.
” The line between the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative , Zuckerberg ’ s $ 80 billion-plus charity , and Facebook , his $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , without a doubt .
But what happens at one affects what happens at the other , according to interviews with a dozen current and former employees at CZI , along with others close to it , granted anonymity due to nondisclosure agreements .
The stench from Facebook — which always seems to be mired in scandal or public scrutiny — has wafted over the civic-minded and starry-eyed workforce at CZI , where many employees wrestle with the ethics of working alongside a corporation they can not control .
At least one employee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The word they use between the two companies is that there ’ s a firewall — so they ’ re all very distinct and separate — which , in practice , doesn ’ t hold up , ” said one current CZI employee , pointing to the philanthropy ’ s source of money and leadership .
“ They can say whatever they want , but there ’ s a huge area of overlap there .
I think if they were just more honest about it , it would be good for everyone.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have affected not just how the nonprofit ’ s employees feel , but what they do : Recode has learned that CZI scrapped a voter data project over concerns that it would attract scrutiny for Zuckerberg , who was struggling with fallout over a Facebook user data scandal involving the 2016 election .
A civil rights nonprofit rejected funding CZI offered because the group didn ’ t want to be funded by money that it saw as tainted .
Others have hesitated to use CZI products because of concerns about Facebook ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just how far-reaching Facebook ’ s scandals have been for anybody even remotely associated with Zuckerberg ’ s brand .
Billionaires like Zuckerberg tend to point to their ambitious charities to push back against higher taxes , deflect scrutiny from their companies ’ corporate practices , or even justify why billionaires like them should exist .
But a new chorus of critics alleges that these donations are glorified tax avoidance meant primarily to burnish their public reputations , drawing a clear link between the business decisions and the philanthropy .
So how CZI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more how the good work fueled by a business empire is not easily segregable from the business empire itself — or at least not as easily as the billionaires would like it to be .
This long-simmering tension between the left hand and the right hand of Mark Zuckerberg Inc. spilled into public view this month when a group of CZI-backed scientists said that Facebook ’ s unwillingness to moderate posts from Trump was “ antithetical ” to the work the philanthropy was doing .
And CZI ’ s leadership is now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-simmering tension between the left hand and the right hand of Mark Zuckerberg Inc. spilled into public view this month “ Thank you especially to those who asked hard questions and spoke openly and honestly about how this moment , particularly CZI ’ s relationship with Facebook , is weighing on you , ” wrote Chan and Zuckerberg , CZI ’ s co-CEOs , to employees following the town hall last week , in an email obtained by Recode .
“ Although we are separate organizations with different missions and teams , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like your work is impacted by an organization you don ’ t work for.
” CZI largely reiterated this internal note in a statement to Recode , publicly recognizing this “ frustration ” even though it stressed Facebook and CZI are “ entirely separate.
” “ CZI ’ s strength is in its 400+ people from a diversity of backgrounds and areas of expertise , ” a CZI spokesperson said .
“ Four years in , we ’ re proud of our teammates and grantees , the risks we ’ ve taken , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and we ’ re ready to keep fighting for the systemic change and causes we believe in.
” How Mark Zuckerberg ’ s business affects what happens at his philanthropy It wasn ’ t always so hard to work there .
But Facebook ’ s run of controversies — none more damaging than its refusal to moderate Trump ’ s posts over the past few weeks — has agitated those who work at CZI , some of whom came to the charity specifically to pursue the mission of racial justice .
CZI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambitious philanthropies , dedicating $ 2 billion so far on tech-infused solutions for everything from coronavirus relief to what it describes as an attempt to “ cure , prevent or manage all diseases ” in this century .
Unlike other philanthropies , CZI has spent big on politics and policy and is among the biggest backers of criminal justice and immigration reform .
Even though they are distinct entities , if there were no Facebook , there would be no CZI .
Facebook staffers formed the core of CZI ’ s ranks after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a pledge to use 99 percent of their Facebook stock .
The philanthropy has ballooned in just a few years , pushing down the proportion of former Facebookers : About 10 percent of those who say on LinkedIn that they work at CZI also list Facebook as a previous employer , although sources told Recode that former Facebookers often feel like a greater percentage , given their prominence and CZI ’ s internal politics and culture .
This is especially true on its team that builds education software , which started out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Cambridge Analytica data scandal in the spring of 2018 , when 87 million Facebook users learned that their information had leaked , that truly changed things .
Just as that ushered in a new era of scrutiny for Facebook , it also ushered in a sea change at CZI , introducing drama , staff turnover , and concerns from some employees about leadership , making the hard work of philanthropy much harder .
After the news broke , CZI spent about half of its next town hall that spring talking not about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grantees reached out to the philanthropy in the aftermath of the scandal to ask if there was anything they should be concerned about , Chan told employees at the meeting .
And the precipitous drop in Facebook ’ s share price immediately after the scandal broke raised hushed — even if speculative — questions among CZI employees about whether it could affect its budget or growth plans , sources said .
( Facebook ’ s stock price eventually roared back . )
No incident better epitomizes how Facebook matters can sweep up seemingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a political startup that CZI acquired called Deck , according to sources .
In 2017 , CZI bought the company , which purchases consumer data , criminal justice data , and voter files to make predictive models about the likelihood of progressive candidates , primarily reform-friendly district attorney hopefuls , to win their races .
Then , just a few days before its planned public launch in April 2018 , with users already lined up , the Cambridge Analytica scandal exploded — and Zuckerberg and CZI ’ s leadership immediately paused the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people familiar with the matter , CZI ’ s leaders told some employees that a data-capturing program — even one at CZI — would be too touchy in the wake of Facebook ’ s data troubles .
The project was not outright canceled , at least not at first .
But the product never launched .
CZI employees working on it grew aggravated and eventually dispersed themselves across new CZI assignments , and all but one of the employees who worked on Deck have since left the nonprofit .
Deck relaunched as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with no public Zuckerberg backing .
Deck was not the only piece of CZI programming that would be affected by the scandals at Facebook .
Facebook ’ s controversies have caused some potential partners to question if they are willing to be associated with CZI .
A few scientists who receive funding from CZI have told the philanthropy in recent weeks that they are reexamining if they still want to work with CZI going forward , one source said .
Color of Change , a racial justice group that has been sharply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 2 million grant offer last year , according to sources , who said the group effectively saw it as “ dirty money ” because it came from Facebook .
Color of Change declined to comment .
Other groups that have paused at CZI offers include some public school systems , some of which were skittish about using its flagship education initiative : a personalized learning platform called Summit .
Some school leaders have told CZI officials they have concerns about the tech because of Facebook ’ s missteps in handling its users @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The most public blow-up happened in 2018 at a school in Brooklyn , where students and parents protested Summit on account of its ties to Facebook .
But former CZI employees told Recode it was not uncommon for them to encounter similar hesitations elsewhere when signing data privacy agreements or renewing contracts with Summit , for instance .
“ How do we know that our personal information will be any better protected than it has been by you and Facebook in the past ?
” the group of Brooklyn students wrote Zuckerberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of concerns around Facebook : Some employees told Recode they felt it made CZI oversensitive to public relations .
They have suspicions that CZI is skittish about funding groups that would reflect poorly on Zuckerberg or would create conflict for Facebook — especially if it involved backing a grassroots , unabashedly liberal agenda .
While this type of messaging is rarely explicit — Chan and Zuckerberg do speak openly of the desire to have a “ big tent ” and be bipartisan in their political work , even working with the Koch brothers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have worked at CZI said that after Cambridge Analytica , they feel that there is implicit messaging from leadership to not pursue too sensitive projects that could somehow boomerang back on Zuckerberg or Facebook , messaging that one current employee referred to as “ guardrails.
” Zuckerberg has trod lightly in politics amid unsupported accusations from the right that Facebook is biased against conservatives .
“ Basically anything that we did at CZI was gated by whether it would drastically affect Facebook or not , ” claimed a former employee .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was Facebook ’ s PR machine.
” “ Basically anything that we did at CZI was gated by whether it would drastically affect Facebook or not ” Another source said the Cambridge Analytica scandal affected what CZI might have otherwise done in the policy arena , primarily out of concern that a gift from Zuckerberg could jeopardize the grantee and make them vulnerable to attack .
“ Things where we might have leaned in that had a policy or a political edge to them , post-Cambridge the idea of doing that was much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Over the past year , for instance , CZI was preparing to give away $ 1 million directly and indirectly to progressive groups after issuing a public call for applications .
But late in the process , CZI decided against directly funding some particularly controversial racial justice groups outside its normal scope of work , three sources said .
The nonprofits involved had expected to receive the money from CZI soon and were startled , the sources said .
CZI did , in general , want to route some of these grants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are more specifically focused on this long-term work , a fairly normal practice .
But one source said that the decision was also born out of a concern — explicitly expressed to some people — to manage any possible blowback to Zuckerberg from right-leaning critics of Facebook .
CZI instead chose to route that $ 500,000 in intended grants through an outside organization , Solidaire , and recommended that they regrant that money to the racial justice groups that CZI had already chosen , two sources said .
Solidaire has yet to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that its decision to work any grants through Solidaire was an effort to manage political blowback .
CZI also pushed back on the idea that it shies away from these progressive donations more broadly .
It provided a list of more than a dozen grants it had made to liberal groups , in addition to backing efforts like the immigration group FWD.US and a California ballot initiative to overturn a landmark tax law that conservatives tend to defend .
“ To be clear , a core part of our approach has always been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political spectrum to make real reform possible — from our work in criminal justice reform to immigration , and that is clearly reflected in our grantmaking , ” a CZI spokesperson said .
Inside the frustration at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative What happens at Facebook casts a shadow over CZI ’ s workforce , too .
Just as some of the philanthropy ’ s possible partners are uneasy about its ties to Facebook , so are some of the philanthropy ’ s own employees .
It ’ s hard to tell precisely how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees , in a fairly siloed work culture , feel this way ; sources who are troubled by their employer ’ s obvious connection to Facebook argue this concern is widespread and that most of their colleagues feel similarly , while some others see it as merely a “ vocal minority.
” But most employees wrestle with this tension to some extent .
Over dinners or drinks , coworkers sometimes debate the role they play in boosting Zuckerberg ’ s reputation , in what one current employee called “ a constant struggle.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , after Cambridge Analytica , Facebook matters began “ regularly ” coming up at events that are supposed to be focused on CZI , sources say .
Zuckerberg is , these days , far less visible in the charity ’ s day-to-day affairs than Chan .
But at CZI ’ s roughly biweekly all-hands or its monthly town halls — Zuckerberg usually attends the latter — questions about Facebook come up most of the time , especially when Facebook is in the headlines .
At one town hall , for instance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ penned a viral post in late 2018 saying that the company had “ a Black people problem , ” a CZI employee confronted Zuckerberg about whether Facebook was doing enough to support its Black employees .
Some Facebook employees are still unhappy with Zuckerberg ’ s race record .
Issues of race have also gripped CZI , where employees last week sent a letter to management saying it had to do better in how it deals with race .
Zuckerberg tends to give the same answers that he offers publicly about any Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the day , sources say .
But while that might have worked before a corporate audience like Facebook employees — at least until recently — it can be frustrating to some of the diverse group of people that came to CZI to try to change the world .
“ It ’ s never fully satisfying , but it always evened out — in terms of the good we do here will not be counteracted by the evil that Facebook does , ” said one current employee .
That was until George Floyd .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ This situation feels different.
” Some feel more strongly about Facebook than others .
One employee said they quit in large part due to these concerns about their complicity and a lack of confidence in Zuckerberg .
“ I could no longer put aside this feeling of shame and almost guilt , of being part of an organization where I don ’ t think Mark has a moral compass ” “ One of the reasons I ended up leaving was that I could no longer put aside this feeling of shame and almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization where I don ’ t think Mark has a moral compass , ” said one former employee .
“ I could no longer deny my gut feeling that this wasn ’ t important to him , that it was [ an ] about-face to save his reputation .
“ I tried to push that gut feeling that I had : You shouldn ’ t be working here .
You shouldn ’ t be working here.
” Those who do stay often share similar qualms about Zuckerberg .
But they have reasons for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s financial success gives them stability , which enables them to do far more ambitious work than they would elsewhere in the penny-pinching world of nonprofits .
Others point to the role played by Chan , who is far more involved in day-to-day operations than Zuckerberg and is seen as much more proactive in grappling with the shadow of Facebook .
Others cling to the “ long game , ” the possibility of enacting change at CZI from within .
And yet another group is more fit to intellectually compartmentalize .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sensitive about this .
Whether we like it or not , we would not exist without Facebook .
That is the hard truth , ” said one current employee of Zuckerberg ’ s decisions .
“ It doesn ’ t matter whether I agree or not .
If I worked at Facebook , then that would matter .
But I don ’ t work for Facebook , so it ’ s not particularly relevant.
” All of these tensions crescendoed last Tuesday at the town hall , the first after racial protests began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost the entire 80-minute session defending himself and Facebook ’ s decisions not to moderate Trump ’ s posts .
One of those defenses even included a reference to how the American Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of neo-Nazis to protest out of the ACLU ’ s principled commitment to free speech , sources said .
CZI employees pressed him on how he could reconcile the philanthropy ’ s motto — “ A Future for Everyone ” — with what some consider to be Trump ’ s encouragement of racial violence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ future for someone who ’ s dead , ” one person told him , sources recall .
“ Trump is going to be judged by what he said , ” Zuckerberg said at one point .
“ And it ’ s not going to be judged well , from my opinion.
” “ Trump is going to be judged by what he said , ” Zuckerberg said at one point .
“ And it ’ s not going to be judged well , from my opinion.
” Still , one current employee described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Another said they felt that Zuckerberg ’ s argument about Facebook and CZI treated them “ like we ’ re not that intelligent.
” “ It really is highlighting for me how much power he has , ” one of the employees said .
“ And the fact that , even as his direct employees , we are powerless to have our voices heard.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox @ @

At an emotional company town hall last week that blew past its hour-long time limit, one of Mark Zuckerberg’s engineers asked him to quit as CEO of Facebook.
But the appeal did not, as one might expect, come from an engineer at Facebook. It came from an engineer at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), the education, science, and policy philanthropy Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, founded in 2015.
“You and Priscilla have emphasized that Facebook and CZI are two separate organizations. This is true, but we have the same leader — you,” the CZI employee said, according to a video of the remarks viewed by Recode. “The actions you take at Facebook reflect on you as a leader and your leadership skills and values. It only reflects reality to say that our leader’s idea of free speech values calls to murder people for demonstrating over the political speech of the demonstrators themselves.”
That’s when the employee presented one of the richest people in the world with three choices: Either moderate these inflammatory posts of Donald Trump, resign from Facebook, or resign from CZI.
“I mean, no. None of those things would make sense,” said Zuckerberg, who seemed to be taken aback. Then, a few minutes later, he flipped the tables on the resignation question: “These organizations are different, but I do think that they come from some common sets of values. And I think at the end of the day, you all need to make whatever decisions you think are right in terms of wanting to work in an organization that is associated with a leader who is making other decisions that you may disagree with.”
Zuckerberg ended with this plain matter of fact: “Quite frankly, the idea that we would resign from CZI is ridiculous.”
If you have a tip about something going on in Silicon Valley philanthropy, please feel free to email Teddy Schleifer at teddyschleifer@protonmail.com to reach him confidentially. You can also find him on Twitter at @teddyschleifer. He would be happy to provide his number for messaging apps like Signal, too.
Ridiculous or not, that one employee was speaking for a group of employees who over the past few years have found it difficult to work for the philanthropy that — although legally distinct from Facebook — is inextricably linked to a business empire they find disreputable. And in recent weeks, years of built-up angst at CZI have come spilling out, due to the ongoing protests in the US calling for an end to systemic racism after the killings of several Black Americans. These CZI employees take particular issue with the unwillingness of their boss, Zuckerberg, to place restrictions on Trump’s Facebook posts about the protests, in which he wrote, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
The line between the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Zuckerberg’s $80 billion-plus charity, and Facebook, his $600 billion-plus public company, legally exists, without a doubt. But what happens at one affects what happens at the other, according to interviews with a dozen current and former employees at CZI, along with others close to it, granted anonymity due to nondisclosure agreements.
The stench from Facebook — which always seems to be mired in scandal or public scrutiny — has wafted over the civic-minded and starry-eyed workforce at CZI, where many employees wrestle with the ethics of working alongside a corporation they cannot control. At least one employee has quit over the qualms.
“The word they use between the two companies is that there’s a firewall — so they’re all very distinct and separate — which, in practice, doesn’t hold up,” said one current CZI employee, pointing to the philanthropy’s source of money and leadership. “They can say whatever they want, but there’s a huge area of overlap there. I think if they were just more honest about it, it would be good for everyone.”
The sweep of Facebook’s crises have affected not just how the nonprofit’s employees feel, but what they do: Recode has learned that CZI scrapped a voter data project over concerns that it would attract scrutiny for Zuckerberg, who was struggling with fallout over a Facebook user data scandal involving the 2016 election. A civil rights nonprofit rejected funding CZI offered because the group didn’t want to be funded by money that it saw as tainted. Others have hesitated to use CZI products because of concerns about Facebook’s security lapses.
All of this shows just how far-reaching Facebook’s scandals have been for anybody even remotely associated with Zuckerberg’s brand.
Billionaires like Zuckerberg tend to point to their ambitious charities to push back against higher taxes, deflect scrutiny from their companies’ corporate practices, or even justify why billionaires like them should exist. But a new chorus of critics alleges that these donations are glorified tax avoidance meant primarily to burnish their public reputations, drawing a clear link between the business decisions and the philanthropy. So how CZI is being impacted by Facebook drama shows even more how the good work fueled by a business empire is not easily segregable from the business empire itself — or at least not as easily as the billionaires would like it to be.
This long-simmering tension between the left hand and the right hand of Mark Zuckerberg Inc. spilled into public view this month when a group of CZI-backed scientists said that Facebook’s unwillingness to moderate posts from Trump was “antithetical” to the work the philanthropy was doing. And CZI’s leadership is now giving voice to that tension.
This long-simmering tension between the left hand and the right hand of Mark Zuckerberg Inc. spilled into public view this month
“Thank you especially to those who asked hard questions and spoke openly and honestly about how this moment, particularly CZI’s relationship with Facebook, is weighing on you,” wrote Chan and Zuckerberg, CZI’s co-CEOs, to employees following the town hall last week, in an email obtained by Recode. “Although we are separate organizations with different missions and teams, we know it must be frustrating to feel like your work is impacted by an organization you don’t work for.”
CZI largely reiterated this internal note in a statement to Recode, publicly recognizing this “frustration” even though it stressed Facebook and CZI are “entirely separate.”
“CZI’s strength is in its 400+ people from a diversity of backgrounds and areas of expertise,” a CZI spokesperson said. “Four years in, we’re proud of our teammates and grantees, the risks we’ve taken, and the progress we’ve made — and we’re ready to keep fighting for the systemic change and causes we believe in.”
How Mark Zuckerberg’s business affects what happens at his philanthropy
It wasn’t always so hard to work there. But Facebook’s run of controversies — none more damaging than its refusal to moderate Trump’s posts over the past few weeks — has agitated those who work at CZI, some of whom came to the charity specifically to pursue the mission of racial justice.
CZI is one the country’s most ambitious philanthropies, dedicating $2 billion so far on tech-infused solutions for everything from coronavirus relief to what it describes as an attempt to “cure, prevent or manage all diseases” in this century. Unlike other philanthropies, CZI has spent big on politics and policy and is among the biggest backers of criminal justice and immigration reform.
Even though they are distinct entities, if there were no Facebook, there would be no CZI. Facebook staffers formed the core of CZI’s ranks after Zuckerberg and Chan announced its creation, with a pledge to use 99 percent of their Facebook stock. The philanthropy has ballooned in just a few years, pushing down the proportion of former Facebookers: About 10 percent of those who say on LinkedIn that they work at CZI also list Facebook as a previous employer, although sources told Recode that former Facebookers often feel like a greater percentage, given their prominence and CZI’s internal politics and culture. This is especially true on its team that builds education software, which started out as a Facebook project.
It was the Cambridge Analytica data scandal in the spring of 2018, when 87 million Facebook users learned that their information had leaked, that truly changed things. Just as that ushered in a new era of scrutiny for Facebook, it also ushered in a sea change at CZI, introducing drama, staff turnover, and concerns from some employees about leadership, making the hard work of philanthropy much harder.
After the news broke, CZI spent about half of its next town hall that spring talking not about CZI but about Cambridge Analytica. Some grantees reached out to the philanthropy in the aftermath of the scandal to ask if there was anything they should be concerned about, Chan told employees at the meeting. And the precipitous drop in Facebook’s share price immediately after the scandal broke raised hushed — even if speculative — questions among CZI employees about whether it could affect its budget or growth plans, sources said. (Facebook’s stock price eventually roared back.)
No incident better epitomizes how Facebook matters can sweep up seemingly unrelated work at CZI than what happened to a political startup that CZI acquired called Deck, according to sources. In 2017, CZI bought the company, which purchases consumer data, criminal justice data, and voter files to make predictive models about the likelihood of progressive candidates, primarily reform-friendly district attorney hopefuls, to win their races. Then, just a few days before its planned public launch in April 2018, with users already lined up, the Cambridge Analytica scandal exploded — and Zuckerberg and CZI’s leadership immediately paused the project’s launch.
According to people familiar with the matter, CZI’s leaders told some employees that a data-capturing program — even one at CZI — would be too touchy in the wake of Facebook’s data troubles.
The project was not outright canceled, at least not at first. But the product never launched. CZI employees working on it grew aggravated and eventually dispersed themselves across new CZI assignments, and all but one of the employees who worked on Deck have since left the nonprofit. Deck relaunched as an independent entity for Democrats late last year, with no public Zuckerberg backing.
Deck was not the only piece of CZI programming that would be affected by the scandals at Facebook.
Facebook’s controversies have caused some potential partners to question if they are willing to be associated with CZI. A few scientists who receive funding from CZI have told the philanthropy in recent weeks that they are reexamining if they still want to work with CZI going forward, one source said.
Color of Change, a racial justice group that has been sharply critical of Facebook, turned down a $2 million grant offer last year, according to sources, who said the group effectively saw it as “dirty money” because it came from Facebook. Color of Change declined to comment.
Other groups that have paused at CZI offers include some public school systems, some of which were skittish about using its flagship education initiative: a personalized learning platform called Summit. Some school leaders have told CZI officials they have concerns about the tech because of Facebook’s missteps in handling its users’ data privacy, according to sources.
The most public blow-up happened in 2018 at a school in Brooklyn, where students and parents protested Summit on account of its ties to Facebook. But former CZI employees told Recode it was not uncommon for them to encounter similar hesitations elsewhere when signing data privacy agreements or renewing contracts with Summit, for instance.
“How do we know that our personal information will be any better protected than it has been by you and Facebook in the past?” the group of Brooklyn students wrote Zuckerberg and Summit in 2018.
Another impact of concerns around Facebook: Some employees told Recode they felt it made CZI oversensitive to public relations. They have suspicions that CZI is skittish about funding groups that would reflect poorly on Zuckerberg or would create conflict for Facebook — especially if it involved backing a grassroots, unabashedly liberal agenda.
While this type of messaging is rarely explicit — Chan and Zuckerberg do speak openly of the desire to have a “big tent” and be bipartisan in their political work, even working with the Koch brothers at one point — multiple people who have worked at CZI said that after Cambridge Analytica, they feel that there is implicit messaging from leadership to not pursue too sensitive projects that could somehow boomerang back on Zuckerberg or Facebook, messaging that one current employee referred to as “guardrails.” Zuckerberg has trod lightly in politics amid unsupported accusations from the right that Facebook is biased against conservatives.
“Basically anything that we did at CZI was gated by whether it would drastically affect Facebook or not,” claimed a former employee. “I eventually left the company thinking that CZI was Facebook’s PR machine.”
“Basically anything that we did at CZI was gated by whether it would drastically affect Facebook or not”
Another source said the Cambridge Analytica scandal affected what CZI might have otherwise done in the policy arena, primarily out of concern that a gift from Zuckerberg could jeopardize the grantee and make them vulnerable to attack.
“Things where we might have leaned in that had a policy or a political edge to them, post-Cambridge the idea of doing that was much less feasible,” the source said.
Over the past year, for instance, CZI was preparing to give away $1 million directly and indirectly to progressive groups after issuing a public call for applications. But late in the process, CZI decided against directly funding some particularly controversial racial justice groups outside its normal scope of work, three sources said. The nonprofits involved had expected to receive the money from CZI soon and were startled, the sources said.
CZI did, in general, want to route some of these grants indirectly, working through outside intermediaries that are more specifically focused on this long-term work, a fairly normal practice. But one source said that the decision was also born out of a concern — explicitly expressed to some people — to manage any possible blowback to Zuckerberg from right-leaning critics of Facebook. CZI instead chose to route that $500,000 in intended grants through an outside organization, Solidaire, and recommended that they regrant that money to the racial justice groups that CZI had already chosen, two sources said. Solidaire has yet to make the grants. A CZI spokesperson disputed that its decision to work any grants through Solidaire was an effort to manage political blowback.
CZI also pushed back on the idea that it shies away from these progressive donations more broadly. It provided a list of more than a dozen grants it had made to liberal groups, in addition to backing efforts like the immigration group FWD.US and a California ballot initiative to overturn a landmark tax law that conservatives tend to defend.
“To be clear, a core part of our approach has always been bringing together unlikely allies from across the political spectrum to make real reform possible — from our work in criminal justice reform to immigration, and that is clearly reflected in our grantmaking,” a CZI spokesperson said.
Inside the frustration at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
What happens at Facebook casts a shadow over CZI’s workforce, too. Just as some of the philanthropy’s possible partners are uneasy about its ties to Facebook, so are some of the philanthropy’s own employees.
It’s hard to tell precisely how many of the 400 or so CZI employees, in a fairly siloed work culture, feel this way; sources who are troubled by their employer’s obvious connection to Facebook argue this concern is widespread and that most of their colleagues feel similarly, while some others see it as merely a “vocal minority.” But most employees wrestle with this tension to some extent. Over dinners or drinks, coworkers sometimes debate the role they play in boosting Zuckerberg’s reputation, in what one current employee called “a constant struggle.”
The anxiety about this is acute enough that, after Cambridge Analytica, Facebook matters began “regularly” coming up at events that are supposed to be focused on CZI, sources say. Zuckerberg is, these days, far less visible in the charity’s day-to-day affairs than Chan. But at CZI’s roughly biweekly all-hands or its monthly town halls — Zuckerberg usually attends the latter — questions about Facebook come up most of the time, especially when Facebook is in the headlines.
At one town hall, for instance, after a Facebook employee named Mark Luckie penned a viral post in late 2018 saying that the company had “a Black people problem,” a CZI employee confronted Zuckerberg about whether Facebook was doing enough to support its Black employees. Some Facebook employees are still unhappy with Zuckerberg’s race record. Issues of race have also gripped CZI, where employees last week sent a letter to management saying it had to do better in how it deals with race.
Zuckerberg tends to give the same answers that he offers publicly about any Facebook controversy when asked about the news of the day, sources say. But while that might have worked before a corporate audience like Facebook employees — at least until recently — it can be frustrating to some of the diverse group of people that came to CZI to try to change the world.
“It’s never fully satisfying, but it always evened out — in terms of the good we do here will not be counteracted by the evil that Facebook does,” said one current employee. That was until George Floyd. Now, said that employee, “This situation feels different.”
Some feel more strongly about Facebook than others. One employee said they quit in large part due to these concerns about their complicity and a lack of confidence in Zuckerberg.
“I could no longer put aside this feeling of shame and almost guilt, of being part of an organization where I don’t think Mark has a moral compass”
“One of the reasons I ended up leaving was that I could no longer put aside this feeling of shame and almost guilt, of being part of an organization where I don’t think Mark has a moral compass,” said one former employee. “I could no longer deny my gut feeling that this wasn’t important to him, that it was [an] about-face to save his reputation.
“I tried to push that gut feeling that I had: You shouldn’t be working here. You shouldn’t be working here.”
Those who do stay often share similar qualms about Zuckerberg. But they have reasons for staying: Some employees say that Facebook’s financial success gives them stability, which enables them to do far more ambitious work than they would elsewhere in the penny-pinching world of nonprofits. Others point to the role played by Chan, who is far more involved in day-to-day operations than Zuckerberg and is seen as much more proactive in grappling with the shadow of Facebook. Others cling to the “long game,” the possibility of enacting change at CZI from within. And yet another group is more fit to intellectually compartmentalize.
“I think many CZI employees are overly sensitive about this. Whether we like it or not, we would not exist without Facebook. That is the hard truth,” said one current employee of Zuckerberg’s decisions. “It doesn’t matter whether I agree or not. If I worked at Facebook, then that would matter. But I don’t work for Facebook, so it’s not particularly relevant.”
All of these tensions crescendoed last Tuesday at the town hall, the first after racial protests began gripping the country, when Zuckerberg spent almost the entire 80-minute session defending himself and Facebook’s decisions not to moderate Trump’s posts. One of those defenses even included a reference to how the American Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of neo-Nazis to protest out of the ACLU’s principled commitment to free speech, sources said.
CZI employees pressed him on how he could reconcile the philanthropy’s motto — “A Future for Everyone” — with what some consider to be Trump’s encouragement of racial violence. “You can’t create a future for someone who’s dead,” one person told him, sources recall.
“Trump is going to be judged by what he said,” Zuckerberg said at one point. “And it’s not going to be judged well, from my opinion.”
“Trump is going to be judged by what he said,” Zuckerberg said at one point. “And it’s not going to be judged well, from my opinion.”
Still, one current employee described the whole meeting as “deeply unsatisfying.” Another said they felt that Zuckerberg’s argument about Facebook and CZI treated them “like we’re not that intelligent.”
“It really is highlighting for me how much power he has,” one of the employees said. “And the fact that, even as his direct employees, we are powerless to have our voices heard.”


vox--2020-06-26--The effect of Black Lives Matter protests on coronavirus cases, explained

As the Black Lives Matter protests against systemic racism and police brutality picked up in late May and early June , public health experts acknowledged there was a risk the large demonstrations could lead to a rise in coronavirus cases .
Nearly a month later , Covid-19 diagnoses are climbing , hitting an all-time high on Thursday , with the US arguably in the midst of a second wave of coronavirus cases .
But multiple analyses suggest the protests are not to blame , according to what we know so far .
Initial data , reported in the Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Covid-19 cases in cities with major protests .
And a recent working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research ( NBER ) found that there was “ no significant divergence in the [ Covid-19 ] trends after the protests ” in counties with protests and those without .
“ There really hasn ’ t been an overwhelming amount of data to say we saw spikes as a result ” of protests , Saskia Popescu , an infectious disease epidemiologist , told me .
“ That ’ s a good thing.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ uptick in Covid-19 cases , which led to the US hitting its highest number of daily new cases ever this week ?
Experts pointed to states reopening , particularly allowing indoor gatherings — at bars , restaurants , barbershops , workplaces , and so on — in which the coronavirus is more likely to spread .
Studies show that previous measures to close down such gatherings likely helped lower Covid-19 cases .
The protests themselves , however , do not seem to be a major source , at least so far .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their rights to free speech and assembly without contributing to the ongoing pandemic .
It could even mean large gatherings outside , with proper precautions like masks and hand-washing , may be safer than we originally thought , bolstering the case for allowing people to socialize outdoors even as restrictions on large indoor settings continue .
It ’ s good news .
But it ’ s not what many people , myself included , expected .
I asked public health experts and epidemiologists why it might be the case .
They mentioned some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incubation period can take up to two weeks , and people coming back from protests who get sick can take a while to infect their communities , so it ’ s possible an increase in cases could be linked to the protests down the line .
Chance also plays a major role in where outbreaks worsen , and it ’ s possible protesters simply got lucky in some sense .
“ I ’ ve seen some people say that this means social distancing and these stay-at-home orders were wrong .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from this at all , ” Popescu said .
“ I really think this is a great example of when you follow public health guidance and you follow harm reduction efforts in activities , you can help break that chain of transmission.
” Here are six reasons the protests may not have led to a big spike in coronavirus cases — and what we can learn from that .
1 ) The protests were mostly outdoors Even before this year ’ s Black Lives Matter demonstrations took off in earnest , experts had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemed , in general , much safer than the cramped indoor spaces that have been the dominant source of big Covid-19 outbreaks .
The coronavirus spreads through airborne droplets and droplets that land on surfaces , which people subsequently pick up with their hands , and the outdoors mitigates these vectors of spread in several ways .
First , the open air is going to make it harder for airborne droplets to reach other people .
Second , it ’ s easier to maintain distance from others while outside compared to inside .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that sunny , warm , and humid weather hurts the coronavirus .
Based on the early research so far , heat and UV light appear to kill the virus , while humidity might block airborne droplets from blowing from person to person .
The weather isn ’ t enough to stop the coronavirus — as major Covid-19 outbreaks in sunny and warm Ecuador , Louisiana , Singapore , and , more recently , Arizona demonstrate — but it at least seems to help .
The research into coronavirus and the outdoors , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Kelsey Piper explained for Vox : Indeed , the vast majority of superspreading events were indoors .
“ We have yet to trace many major outbreaks back to outdoor events , ” Abraar Karan , a doctor at Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital and Harvard , told me .
“ Most of what we ’ ve traced back … has been indoors.
” That almost all the Black Lives Matter protests were in marches and rallies outside , then , likely protected demonstrators and their peers from the coronavirus .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing as much as you can outside over inside during this pandemic .
2 ) Protesters wore masks , washed their hands , and took other precautions In talking to protesters , there seemed to be a lot of awareness about the risk of Covid-19 at demonstrations .
Participants were asked to wear masks and wash their hands , and in some cases masks and hand sanitizer were given out at the protests .
People were advised to take steps to avoid infecting others — to get tested , stay home if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days after the demonstrations were over .
“ People who participated in these protests , it ’ s not that they didn ’ t see this pandemic as a public health problem .
They understood the risks , ” Jaime Slaughter-Acey , an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota , told me .
“ At the same time , they also saw the risk of staying silent with respect to police brutality and systemic racism.
” So they tried to strike a balance : protests , but with precautions against Covid-19 .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests ] were very clear about the potential risk for Covid-19 , ” Greg Millett , an epidemiologist and vice president and director of public policy at the HIV/AIDS advocacy group amfAR , told me .
“ Despite the fact there wasn ’ t social distancing , they were still taking other precautionary measures.
” In some ways , the precautions reflect a broader shift in the US in the past few months .
As the pandemic has gone on , Americans as a whole have become more likely to rigorously wash their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , wear masks , and avoid going out when they ’ re sick .
For example , polls show the great majority of Americans wear masks sometimes if not always when they go out .
There ’ s a growing body of evidence suggesting this has a significant effect on reducing Covid-19 transmission .
With masks alone , several recent studies have found they reduce transmission .
Some experts hypothesize — and early research suggests — masks played a significant role in containing Covid-19 outbreaks in several Asian countries where their use is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To put it another way : It seems the things recommended by this public health advice are actually effective — perhaps more effective than many experts and officials initially thought .
So maybe these kinds of protests would have led to some spread of the coronavirus a few months ago — if people didn ’ t wear masks , aggressively wash their hands , and try to stay apart when possible .
But now those changes we ’ ve made may be keeping us safe from the disease , at least in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took place in .
That , too , has implications beyond the context of protests : It means that when you do go out , you can stay relatively safe if you wear a mask , wash your hands , avoid touching your face , and keep your distance from others .
3 ) The protesters were relatively young The Black Lives Matter protests were overwhelmingly led by young people , who are less likely to die or become gravely ill from the coronavirus .
It ’ s not necessarily that young people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( The science is still out on that . )
It ’ s also not that young people aren ’ t susceptible to the virus — there are examples of young people getting seriously sick and dying of Covid-19 , with minority communities and people with preexisting conditions hit especially hard by the virus .
But the research shows that young people , especially those without preexisting conditions , are much less likely to suffer the worst complications and die from the coronavirus .
That could reduce the chance that Covid-19 cases among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who contracted the coronavirus but had few to no symptoms are overall less likely to get tested or hospitalized .
“ If young people get infected , they ’ re not going to necessarily get symptomatic disease , ” Gregg Gonsalves , an epidemiologist at Yale , told me .
“ There could have been a lot of asymptomatic or mild infections among the protesters that we ’ ll never hear about.
” That ’ s a reason for caution : If protesters were transmitting the virus to one another and didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still end up having it and transmitting it to their broader communities — parents , grandparents , teachers , employers , and so on — when they get back to their non-protest lives .
Those transmissions could take weeks longer to show up in the data , particularly for protesters who traveled outside their state or county to take part .
At the same time , many local and state governments and public health officials strongly encouraged protesters to get tested — even in some cases building pop-up test sites near the protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected .
In Massachusetts , for example , 2.5 percent of protesters ’ tests came back positive , which the governor described as “ reasonably consistent ” with statewide numbers .
So perhaps there just wasn ’ t that much transmission to begin with .
4 ) The protesters made up a small portion of the overall population Although hundreds of thousands or millions of people taking part in a protest makes for an impressive demonstration , it ’ s still a small fraction of the population overall — about 6 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a survey from the Pew Research Center .
Such a relatively small population is simply less likely to cause a major outbreak .
It ’ s not that an individual or small group can ’ t cause an outbreak .
There have been a few superspreading events that began with one infected individual ending up at the wrong place at the wrong time .
As one example , an outbreak in Jordan that wound up infecting more than 70 people appeared to begin with one person — the bride ’ s father @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was sick .
All else held equal , though , there ’ s simply a lower chance of an outbreak if there are fewer segments of the population involved .
This is one reason experts believe that states reopening , not protests , has played the dominant role in the recent spike in Covid-19 cases : While the protests involved a relatively small number of people , states reopening is leading large segments of the population back out — whether due to their workplaces reopening or simply because they now have places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s simply going to overwhelm protests that a fraction of the population was involved in .
“ The more people that are going out in the community , and the more contacts they have , the more likely that they hit the right steps for that perfect storm , ” Karan said .
5 ) The protests pushed other people to stay home One surprising possibility is the Black Lives Matter protests may have led to more social distancing .
This idea comes from a study looking at US cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The idea goes like this : While it ’ s almost certain that the protests led demonstrators to reduce their social distancing , the protests may have pushed non-demonstrators back to their homes .
Maybe non-protesters feared the demonstrations would become violent ( as some did ) , assumed that businesses would be shut down and traffic would be too congested to go out due to the protests , or worried that the protests could lead to the spread of Covid-19 .
Using cellphone tracking data , that ’ s what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of social distancing — particularly the number of people staying home — actually increased where there were protests .
That seemed to be especially true in areas where the media reported on violence at protests , the study concluded : “ We generally find increases in the percent of residents staying at home full-time and time spent at home for both sets of protests [ peaceful or violent ] , though effects are expectedly stronger when protests are accompanied by media reports of violence.
” As a result , the study didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases .
“ We went in not knowing if we would find an increase in cases , a decrease in cases , or no effect , ” Dhaval Dave , an author of the study , told me .
“ It was somewhat surprising to us.
” If anything , there may have been a decrease in Covid-19 cases due to the protests , the study found .
But Dave cautioned against making too much of that finding , since it wasn ’ t statistically powerful .
This is where the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population makes a difference .
If the protests pushed even a small share of the overall non-protesting population back to their homes , that could still have a bigger impact than the protests themselves , on net .
This is just one study ; maybe future research with different data or methodology could produce different findings , or more weeks of data will contradict it .
The NBER study also couldn ’ t tease out whether Covid-19 cases increased among the demonstrators themselves .
But the study provided an important takeaway in interpreting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the paper concluded , “ the most visible portion of the population is not always the primary driver of the outcome of interest.
” It ’ s an important caveat to just about any coronavirus story : There ’ s an element of chance that ’ s involved in determining whether any event leads to a lot of new coronavirus cases or few to none .
So it ’ s entirely possible that protesters got , in a sense , lucky — and future large outdoor gatherings could still lead to superspreading events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gonsalves said .
“ It ’ s not absolute.
” During a pandemic , there ’ s always going to be a risk for a significant outbreak in any event in which people are interacting for hours .
That ’ s going to be true until a vaccine or similar treatment is discovered .
What the protests may show is that the risk can be mitigated — with proper hygiene , mask-wearing , and other recommended steps .
“ If you invest in public health communication and education messaging , and you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to listen and want to be safe while engaging in something , that ’ s a huge piece of this , ” Popescu said .
But , again , experts say even these steps can ’ t get the risk down to zero .
So while someone may determine that a cause is worth the risk of breaking social distancing , it ’ s important to acknowledge that the risk is always there — and it ’ s a roll of the die whether the next march , rally , or other large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I do think the protests could have had an opportunity to do that , ” Millett said , referring to superspreading events .
“ But thankfully , because of the public health measures that many of the protesters took , we ’ re just not seeing that spike.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

As the Black Lives Matter protests against systemic racism and police brutality picked up in late May and early June, public health experts acknowledged there was a risk the large demonstrations could lead to a rise in coronavirus cases.
Nearly a month later, Covid-19 diagnoses are climbing, hitting an all-time high on Thursday, with the US arguably in the midst of a second wave of coronavirus cases.
But multiple analyses suggest the protests are not to blame, according to what we know so far. Initial data, reported in the Wall Street Journal and BuzzFeed, found no uptick in Covid-19 cases in cities with major protests. And a recent working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) found that there was “no significant divergence in the [Covid-19] trends after the protests” in counties with protests and those without.
“There really hasn’t been an overwhelming amount of data to say we saw spikes as a result” of protests, Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease epidemiologist, told me. “That’s a good thing.”
So what is causing the recent uptick in Covid-19 cases, which led to the US hitting its highest number of daily new cases ever this week? Experts pointed to states reopening, particularly allowing indoor gatherings — at bars, restaurants, barbershops, workplaces, and so on — in which the coronavirus is more likely to spread. Studies show that previous measures to close down such gatherings likely helped lower Covid-19 cases.
The protests themselves, however, do not seem to be a major source, at least so far. That suggests that people were able to practice their rights to free speech and assembly without contributing to the ongoing pandemic. It could even mean large gatherings outside, with proper precautions like masks and hand-washing, may be safer than we originally thought, bolstering the case for allowing people to socialize outdoors even as restrictions on large indoor settings continue.
It’s good news. But it’s not what many people, myself included, expected. I asked public health experts and epidemiologists why it might be the case.
They mentioned some important caveats. The coronavirus’s incubation period can take up to two weeks, and people coming back from protests who get sick can take a while to infect their communities, so it’s possible an increase in cases could be linked to the protests down the line. Chance also plays a major role in where outbreaks worsen, and it’s possible protesters simply got lucky in some sense.
“I’ve seen some people say that this means social distancing and these stay-at-home orders were wrong. That’s not the message you should be taking from this at all,” Popescu said. “I really think this is a great example of when you follow public health guidance and you follow harm reduction efforts in activities, you can help break that chain of transmission.”
Here are six reasons the protests may not have led to a big spike in coronavirus cases — and what we can learn from that.
1) The protests were mostly outdoors
Even before this year’s Black Lives Matter demonstrations took off in earnest, experts had already begun advising people that the outdoors seemed, in general, much safer than the cramped indoor spaces that have been the dominant source of big Covid-19 outbreaks.
The coronavirus spreads through airborne droplets and droplets that land on surfaces, which people subsequently pick up with their hands, and the outdoors mitigates these vectors of spread in several ways. First, the open air is going to make it harder for airborne droplets to reach other people. Second, it’s easier to maintain distance from others while outside compared to inside.
Third, there’s some evidence that sunny, warm, and humid weather hurts the coronavirus. Based on the early research so far, heat and UV light appear to kill the virus, while humidity might block airborne droplets from blowing from person to person. The weather isn’t enough to stop the coronavirus — as major Covid-19 outbreaks in sunny and warm Ecuador, Louisiana, Singapore, and, more recently, Arizona demonstrate — but it at least seems to help.
The research into coronavirus and the outdoors, while still very early, backs this up, Kelsey Piper explained for Vox:
One study from China (which has not yet been peer-reviewed) examined 318 outbreaks with three or more people across the country. Only one happened outdoors, and only two people got sick: Every outbreak with three or more cases happened indoors. A different study (also not peer-reviewed) in Japan found that “the odds that a primary case transmitted COVID-19 in a closed environment was 18.7 times greater compared to an open-air environment.”
Indeed, the vast majority of superspreading events were indoors. “We have yet to trace many major outbreaks back to outdoor events,” Abraar Karan, a doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard, told me. “Most of what we’ve traced back … has been indoors.”
That almost all the Black Lives Matter protests were in marches and rallies outside, then, likely protected demonstrators and their peers from the coronavirus. It’s another piece of evidence supporting doing as much as you can outside over inside during this pandemic.
2) Protesters wore masks, washed their hands, and took other precautions
In talking to protesters, there seemed to be a lot of awareness about the risk of Covid-19 at demonstrations. Participants were asked to wear masks and wash their hands, and in some cases masks and hand sanitizer were given out at the protests. People were advised to take steps to avoid infecting others — to get tested, stay home if they were sick, and quarantine for 14 days after the demonstrations were over.
“People who participated in these protests, it’s not that they didn’t see this pandemic as a public health problem. They understood the risks,” Jaime Slaughter-Acey, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota, told me. “At the same time, they also saw the risk of staying silent with respect to police brutality and systemic racism.”
So they tried to strike a balance: protests, but with precautions against Covid-19.
“A lot of individuals [at the protests] were very clear about the potential risk for Covid-19,” Greg Millett, an epidemiologist and vice president and director of public policy at the HIV/AIDS advocacy group amfAR, told me. “Despite the fact there wasn’t social distancing, they were still taking other precautionary measures.”
In some ways, the precautions reflect a broader shift in the US in the past few months. As the pandemic has gone on, Americans as a whole have become more likely to rigorously wash their hands, keep 6 feet from others, wear masks, and avoid going out when they’re sick. For example, polls show the great majority of Americans wear masks sometimes if not always when they go out.
Related 8 ways to go out and stay safe during the coronavirus pandemic
There’s a growing body of evidence suggesting this has a significant effect on reducing Covid-19 transmission. With masks alone, several recent studies have found they reduce transmission. Some experts hypothesize — and early research suggests — masks played a significant role in containing Covid-19 outbreaks in several Asian countries where their use is widespread, like South Korea and Japan.
To put it another way: It seems the things recommended by this public health advice are actually effective — perhaps more effective than many experts and officials initially thought.
So maybe these kinds of protests would have led to some spread of the coronavirus a few months ago — if people didn’t wear masks, aggressively wash their hands, and try to stay apart when possible. But now those changes we’ve made may be keeping us safe from the disease, at least in the outdoor settings that the protests mostly took place in.
That, too, has implications beyond the context of protests: It means that when you do go out, you can stay relatively safe if you wear a mask, wash your hands, avoid touching your face, and keep your distance from others.
3) The protesters were relatively young
The Black Lives Matter protests were overwhelmingly led by young people, who are less likely to die or become gravely ill from the coronavirus.
It’s not necessarily that young people transmit the coronavirus at lower rates. (The science is still out on that.) It’s also not that young people aren’t susceptible to the virus — there are examples of young people getting seriously sick and dying of Covid-19, with minority communities and people with preexisting conditions hit especially hard by the virus.
But the research shows that young people, especially those without preexisting conditions, are much less likely to suffer the worst complications and die from the coronavirus. That could reduce the chance that Covid-19 cases among younger populations are counted — since young people who contracted the coronavirus but had few to no symptoms are overall less likely to get tested or hospitalized.
“If young people get infected, they’re not going to necessarily get symptomatic disease,” Gregg Gonsalves, an epidemiologist at Yale, told me. “There could have been a lot of asymptomatic or mild infections among the protesters that we’ll never hear about.”
That’s a reason for caution: If protesters were transmitting the virus to one another and didn’t know it, they could still end up having it and transmitting it to their broader communities — parents, grandparents, teachers, employers, and so on — when they get back to their non-protest lives. Those transmissions could take weeks longer to show up in the data, particularly for protesters who traveled outside their state or county to take part.
At the same time, many local and state governments and public health officials strongly encouraged protesters to get tested — even in some cases building pop-up test sites near the protests — and not many demonstrators were seemingly infected. In Massachusetts, for example, 2.5 percent of protesters’ tests came back positive, which the governor described as “reasonably consistent” with statewide numbers. So perhaps there just wasn’t that much transmission to begin with.
4) The protesters made up a small portion of the overall population
Although hundreds of thousands or millions of people taking part in a protest makes for an impressive demonstration, it’s still a small fraction of the population overall — about 6 percent of adults participated in the protests, based on a survey from the Pew Research Center. Such a relatively small population is simply less likely to cause a major outbreak.
It’s not that an individual or small group can’t cause an outbreak. There have been a few superspreading events that began with one infected individual ending up at the wrong place at the wrong time. As one example, an outbreak in Jordan that wound up infecting more than 70 people appeared to begin with one person — the bride’s father — going to an indoor wedding while he was sick.
All else held equal, though, there’s simply a lower chance of an outbreak if there are fewer segments of the population involved.
This is one reason experts believe that states reopening, not protests, has played the dominant role in the recent spike in Covid-19 cases: While the protests involved a relatively small number of people, states reopening is leading large segments of the population back out — whether due to their workplaces reopening or simply because they now have places and businesses to go back out to. That’s simply going to overwhelm protests that a fraction of the population was involved in.
“The more people that are going out in the community, and the more contacts they have, the more likely that they hit the right steps for that perfect storm,” Karan said.
5) The protests pushed other people to stay home
One surprising possibility is the Black Lives Matter protests may have led to more social distancing.
This idea comes from a study looking at US cities and counties before and after the protests. The idea goes like this: While it’s almost certain that the protests led demonstrators to reduce their social distancing, the protests may have pushed non-demonstrators back to their homes. Maybe non-protesters feared the demonstrations would become violent (as some did), assumed that businesses would be shut down and traffic would be too congested to go out due to the protests, or worried that the protests could lead to the spread of Covid-19.
Using cellphone tracking data, that’s what the study found: On net, the amount of social distancing — particularly the number of people staying home — actually increased where there were protests.
That seemed to be especially true in areas where the media reported on violence at protests, the study concluded: “We generally find increases in the percent of residents staying at home full-time and time spent at home for both sets of protests [peaceful or violent], though effects are expectedly stronger when protests are accompanied by media reports of violence.”
As a result, the study didn’t detect an increase in Covid-19 cases.
“We went in not knowing if we would find an increase in cases, a decrease in cases, or no effect,” Dhaval Dave, an author of the study, told me. “It was somewhat surprising to us.”
If anything, there may have been a decrease in Covid-19 cases due to the protests, the study found. But Dave cautioned against making too much of that finding, since it wasn’t statistically powerful.
This is where the number of protesters relative to a city’s population makes a difference. If the protests pushed even a small share of the overall non-protesting population back to their homes, that could still have a bigger impact than the protests themselves, on net.
This is just one study; maybe future research with different data or methodology could produce different findings, or more weeks of data will contradict it. The NBER study also couldn’t tease out whether Covid-19 cases increased among the demonstrators themselves.
But the study provided an important takeaway in interpreting the effects of these events. As the paper concluded, “the most visible portion of the population is not always the primary driver of the outcome of interest.”
6) There’s an element of chance
It’s an important caveat to just about any coronavirus story: There’s an element of chance that’s involved in determining whether any event leads to a lot of new coronavirus cases or few to none. So it’s entirely possible that protesters got, in a sense, lucky — and future large outdoor gatherings could still lead to superspreading events.
“Risk is probabilistic,” Gonsalves said. “It’s not absolute.”
During a pandemic, there’s always going to be a risk for a significant outbreak in any event in which people are interacting for hours. That’s going to be true until a vaccine or similar treatment is discovered.
What the protests may show is that the risk can be mitigated — with proper hygiene, mask-wearing, and other recommended steps. “If you invest in public health communication and education messaging, and you have a group of people who are willing to listen and want to be safe while engaging in something, that’s a huge piece of this,” Popescu said.
But, again, experts say even these steps can’t get the risk down to zero. So while someone may determine that a cause is worth the risk of breaking social distancing, it’s important to acknowledge that the risk is always there — and it’s a roll of the die whether the next march, rally, or other large gathering leads to the spread of Covid-19.
“I do think the protests could have had an opportunity to do that,” Millett said, referring to superspreading events. “But thankfully, because of the public health measures that many of the protesters took, we’re just not seeing that spike.”


vox--2020-06-26--Trump’s DOJ asks the Supreme Court to strip health care from 23 million people

The Trump administration filed a brief in the Supreme Court late Thursday night claiming that the “ entire [ Affordable Care Act ] must fall ” in the middle of a pandemic that has killed more than 120,000 people in the United States and sickened more than 2 million .
If the administration succeeds in its effort to kill Obamacare , approximately 23 million Americans will lose health coverage — and that number is likely to grow as the economic downturn triggered by the coronavirus pandemic pushes more and more Americans out of work .
The plaintiffs in this case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two individuals .
The United States is actually the defendant in this lawsuit , but the Trump administration refused to defend the Affordable Care Act and instead cast its lot with the plaintiffs .
The Court plans to hear this case in the fall .
This case , which is now known as California v. Texas , involves Congress ’ s decision to repeal Obamacare ’ s individual mandate .
As originally enacted , the Affordable Care Act requires most Americans to either obtain health insurance or pay higher taxes .
The tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the amount of that tax to zero .
Because the Supreme Court upheld the fully functional mandate as a valid exercise of Congress ’ s power to tax in 2012 , the Texas plaintiffs argue that the zeroed-out version of the mandate is unconstitutional — on the theory that something can not be a valid tax if it raises no money at all .
They also claim that the entire Affordable Care Act must fall if the deactivated mandate is unconstitutional .
This claim that Obamacare must be repealed by judicial decree is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal experts who backed prior efforts to convince the Supreme Court to gut Obamacare .
Jonathan Adler , a leading proponent for an earlier lawsuit seeking to undercut the Affordable Care Act , labeled many of the anti-Obamacare arguments in Texas “ implausible , ” “ hard to justify , ” and “ surprisingly weak.
” Yuval Levin , a prominent conservative policy wonk , wrote in the National Review that the lawsuit “ doesn ’ t even merit being called silly .
It ’ s ridiculous.
” How we got to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Care Act originally required most Americans to either carry insurance or pay higher taxes .
The Supreme Court famously upheld this provision , known as the “ individual mandate , ” as a valid exercise of Congress ’ s power to levy taxes in NFIB v. Sebelius ( 2012 ) .
Congressional Republicans spent much of 2017 debating various plans to repeal Obamacare , but they ultimately did not have the votes for a broad repeal .
They did , however , manage to repeal the individual mandate in the 2017 tax legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contains Obamacare ’ s language requiring individuals to pay a tax penalty if they do not have insurance , the amount of that penalty is now zero dollars .
The Texas plaintiffs and the Trump administration claim that this shell of a mandate is unconstitutional .
The fully functional mandate was constitutional because it is a tax , but a zero dollar tax is no tax at all .
So the Texas plaintiffs argue that it must be unconstitutional .
That ’ s not a frivolous argument .
But the zeroed mandate already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a provision of the law that literally does nothing at all is constitutional or not ?
To achieve anything meaningful , Obamacare ’ s opponents don ’ t just need to convince the Supreme Court that a nothingburger mandate is unconstitutional .
They also have to get a majority of the justices to embrace two other arguments : a claim that the Texas plaintiffs may challenge a legal provision that does nothing and a claim that the entire Affordable Care Act must fall .
No federal court should be allowed to hear this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a law in federal court , they must show that they ’ ve been injured in some way by that law — a requirement known as “ standing.
” That alone should be enough to doom the Texas litigation .
Because the plaintiffs challenge a provision that does nothing at all , no one is injured by it .
So no one has standing .
The plaintiffs argue they can get around this problem by pointing to the way Obamacare ’ s language laying out the individual mandate is structured .
The first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals “ shall ” carry health insurance ; the second says that people who don ’ t buy insurance pay a tax penalty ; the third sets the amount of that penalty — which , again , is now zero dollars .
Although the penalty for not buying insurance is nothing , the plaintiffs claim that individuals are still bound by the language saying that they “ shall ” carry insurance — and therefore are injured by a law that commands them to do something they don ’ t want to do .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it runs counter to the Supreme Court ’ s decision in NFIB , the decision upholding the fully functional individual mandate .
As Chief Justice Roberts explained : Thus , the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the Texas plaintiffs ’ argument that they are bound by a command to buy insurance .
There are no “ negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance ” except having to pay a tax penalty .
Anyone who pays that penalty has “ fully complied with the law.
” And the amount of that penalty , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear , is now zero dollars .
Notably , the Trump administration does not even attempt to defend the plaintiffs ’ standing arguments .
Instead , its brief argues that these plaintiffs may challenge the zeroed-out mandate because they are injured by some other provision of Obamacare — “ namely , various provisions regulating health-insurance plans that limit the range and terms of plans the individual plaintiffs may obtain and that increase their costs of obtaining coverage.
” But that ’ s simply not how standing works .
To bring a federal lawsuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is unconstitutional , a plaintiff must be able to show that they are injured by that specific provision of law .
Because these plaintiffs only claim that one provision of Obamacare — the ex-mandate — is unconstitutional , they must show that they ’ ve been injured by that provision .
But let ’ s assume , for a moment , that these plaintiffs have the standing to challenge a law that does nothing .
Let ’ s also assume that the ex-mandate is unconstitutional .
What then ?
When a court strikes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it often must ask whether other provisions of the statute must fall along with it .
This inquiry is called “ severability , ” and it ’ s typically a speculative inquiry .
Courts ask which hypothetical law Congress would have enacted if it had known that a particular provision was invalid .
There ’ s no need to speculate in Texas , however , because Congress already answered this question .
Lawmakers spent most of 2017 debating how much of the Affordable Care Act to repeal .
Ultimately , they only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the individual mandate , while leaving the rest of the law intact .
So we know that Congress would have enacted a law that eliminated the individual mandate and kept the rest of the law because Congress enacted a law that eliminated the individual mandate and kept the rest of the law .
This conclusion is bolstered by the Supreme Court ’ s decision in Murphy v. NCAA ( 2018 ) , which held that courts should apply a very strong presumption against striking additional provisions of a law when one provision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for other ... provisions to fall , ” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court in Murphy , “ it must be ‘ evident that [ Congress ] would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power , independently of [ those ] which [ are ] not.
’ ” The question facing the Supreme Court now , in other words , is whether the Court will apply its ordinary standing rules as well as the rule it announced in Murphy , in a politically charged case involving a law that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has twice signaled that he is not willing to embrace dubious legal claims in order to undercut Obamacare , so the Texas plaintiffs and the Trump administration are unlikely to prevail .
But if Trump gets to fill another Supreme Court seat , all bets are off .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The Trump administration filed a brief in the Supreme Court late Thursday night claiming that the “entire [Affordable Care Act] must fall” in the middle of a pandemic that has killed more than 120,000 people in the United States and sickened more than 2 million.
If the administration succeeds in its effort to kill Obamacare, approximately 23 million Americans will lose health coverage — and that number is likely to grow as the economic downturn triggered by the coronavirus pandemic pushes more and more Americans out of work.
The plaintiffs in this case include a bloc of red states and two individuals. The United States is actually the defendant in this lawsuit, but the Trump administration refused to defend the Affordable Care Act and instead cast its lot with the plaintiffs. The Court plans to hear this case in the fall.
This case, which is now known as California v. Texas, involves Congress’s decision to repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate. As originally enacted, the Affordable Care Act requires most Americans to either obtain health insurance or pay higher taxes. The tax law President Trump signed in 2017 reduces the amount of that tax to zero.
Because the Supreme Court upheld the fully functional mandate as a valid exercise of Congress’s power to tax in 2012, the Texas plaintiffs argue that the zeroed-out version of the mandate is unconstitutional — on the theory that something cannot be a valid tax if it raises no money at all. They also claim that the entire Affordable Care Act must fall if the deactivated mandate is unconstitutional.
This claim that Obamacare must be repealed by judicial decree is widely viewed as ridiculous even by conservative legal experts who backed prior efforts to convince the Supreme Court to gut Obamacare.
Jonathan Adler, a leading proponent for an earlier lawsuit seeking to undercut the Affordable Care Act, labeled many of the anti-Obamacare arguments in Texas “implausible,” “hard to justify,” and “surprisingly weak.” Yuval Levin, a prominent conservative policy wonk, wrote in the National Review that the lawsuit “doesn’t even merit being called silly. It’s ridiculous.”
How we got to this point
As noted above, the Affordable Care Act originally required most Americans to either carry insurance or pay higher taxes. The Supreme Court famously upheld this provision, known as the “individual mandate,” as a valid exercise of Congress’s power to levy taxes in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012).
Congressional Republicans spent much of 2017 debating various plans to repeal Obamacare, but they ultimately did not have the votes for a broad repeal. They did, however, manage to repeal the individual mandate in the 2017 tax legislation. Though the United States Code still contains Obamacare’s language requiring individuals to pay a tax penalty if they do not have insurance, the amount of that penalty is now zero dollars.
The Texas plaintiffs and the Trump administration claim that this shell of a mandate is unconstitutional. The fully functional mandate was constitutional because it is a tax, but a zero dollar tax is no tax at all. So the Texas plaintiffs argue that it must be unconstitutional.
That’s not a frivolous argument. But the zeroed mandate already does nothing. So who cares if a provision of the law that literally does nothing at all is constitutional or not?
To achieve anything meaningful, Obamacare’s opponents don’t just need to convince the Supreme Court that a nothingburger mandate is unconstitutional. They also have to get a majority of the justices to embrace two other arguments: a claim that the Texas plaintiffs may challenge a legal provision that does nothing and a claim that the entire Affordable Care Act must fall.
No federal court should be allowed to hear this case
Before anyone is allowed to challenge a law in federal court, they must show that they’ve been injured in some way by that law — a requirement known as “standing.” That alone should be enough to doom the Texas litigation. Because the plaintiffs challenge a provision that does nothing at all, no one is injured by it. So no one has standing.
The plaintiffs argue they can get around this problem by pointing to the way Obamacare’s language laying out the individual mandate is structured. The first subsection of that language says that most individuals “shall” carry health insurance; the second says that people who don’t buy insurance pay a tax penalty; the third sets the amount of that penalty — which, again, is now zero dollars.
Although the penalty for not buying insurance is nothing, the plaintiffs claim that individuals are still bound by the language saying that they “shall” carry insurance — and therefore are injured by a law that commands them to do something they don’t want to do.
The biggest problem with this argument is that it runs counter to the Supreme Court’s decision in NFIB, the decision upholding the fully functional individual mandate. As Chief Justice Roberts explained:
Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law.
Thus, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the Texas plaintiffs’ argument that they are bound by a command to buy insurance. There are no “negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance” except having to pay a tax penalty. Anyone who pays that penalty has “fully complied with the law.” And the amount of that penalty, in case this isn’t already clear, is now zero dollars.
Notably, the Trump administration does not even attempt to defend the plaintiffs’ standing arguments. Instead, its brief argues that these plaintiffs may challenge the zeroed-out mandate because they are injured by some other provision of Obamacare — “namely, various provisions regulating health-insurance plans that limit the range and terms of plans the individual plaintiffs may obtain and that increase their costs of obtaining coverage.”
But that’s simply not how standing works. To bring a federal lawsuit alleging that a particular provision of law is unconstitutional, a plaintiff must be able to show that they are injured by that specific provision of law. Because these plaintiffs only claim that one provision of Obamacare — the ex-mandate — is unconstitutional, they must show that they’ve been injured by that provision.
The “severability” problem
But let’s assume, for a moment, that these plaintiffs have the standing to challenge a law that does nothing. Let’s also assume that the ex-mandate is unconstitutional. What then?
When a court strikes down one provision of a broader statute, it often must ask whether other provisions of the statute must fall along with it. This inquiry is called “severability,” and it’s typically a speculative inquiry. Courts ask which hypothetical law Congress would have enacted if it had known that a particular provision was invalid.
There’s no need to speculate in Texas, however, because Congress already answered this question. Lawmakers spent most of 2017 debating how much of the Affordable Care Act to repeal. Ultimately, they only had the votes to repeal one provision, the individual mandate, while leaving the rest of the law intact. So we know that Congress would have enacted a law that eliminated the individual mandate and kept the rest of the law because Congress enacted a law that eliminated the individual mandate and kept the rest of the law.
This conclusion is bolstered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. NCAA (2018), which held that courts should apply a very strong presumption against striking additional provisions of a law when one provision is declared unconstitutional. “In order for other ... provisions to fall,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court in Murphy, “it must be ‘evident that [Congress] would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of [those] which [are] not.’”
The question facing the Supreme Court now, in other words, is whether the Court will apply its ordinary standing rules as well as the rule it announced in Murphy, in a politically charged case involving a law that Republicans hate above all others. Roberts has twice signaled that he is not willing to embrace dubious legal claims in order to undercut Obamacare, so the Texas plaintiffs and the Trump administration are unlikely to prevail.
But if Trump gets to fill another Supreme Court seat, all bets are off.