vox--2020-05-27--The pandemic could change air travel forever

Christopher Schaberg has been watching airlines evolve since he worked as an agent for United , checking bags and checking in passengers at Montana ’ s modest Bozeman airport .
He ’ s been noticing shifts in how air travel works over the years , especially the transformation in airport security that happened after the September 11 terrorist attacks .
That was only the beginning .
As airports got locked down , terminals transformed into malls full of bars , shops , and even spas so passengers could kill time without leaving the airport .
Restaurants filled with iPads replaced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with power outlets filled the areas around gates .
On board the aircraft , free cocktails and meals steadily gave way to vacuum-packed snacks and half cans of Coke .
Just as steadily , legroom disappeared , and those planes were full .
Then came the coronavirus pandemic .
Air travel is in the midst of another sea change , not just because of the public health crisis but also the corresponding economic collapse .
Schaberg , author of The End of Airports and several other books about air travel , believes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always remained the same — boarding at the gate , drinks on ice in the air , waiting at baggage claims — will never be the same .
Even as the effects of the pandemic ease , air travel as we know it probably wo n't ever come back .
“ Finally , this thing is kind of radically changing , in the sense that we ’ re not doing it , ” Schaberg told Recode .
He ’ s right .
The number of people flying has plummeted .
The Airports Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion passengers and nearly $ 100 billion for this year alone .
Airports have become ghost towns , and the American air giants are still weighing layoffs despite receiving a $ 25 billion bailout .
Now , the industry is trying to figure out what happens next and how the experience of flying must evolve .
Recode spoke nearly a dozen experts about the future of flying , and they collectively said travelers should anticipate a whole host of changes , including intensified focus on sanitation and air purification , health screenings at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boarding .
Some even mentioned surveillance technology that can measure how well people are social distancing throughout the terminals and boarding areas .
Whether those changes will be enough to bring passengers back to the skies is unclear .
It ’ s possible we might never return to the same frequency of air travel .
After all , even when people start planning long-distance trips , some might not feel comfortable crammed into a cabin breathing recycled air .
The Covid-19 crisis has also reminded everyone to consider the massive carbon footprint created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequent fliers , there ’ s even evidence that flying will be prohibitively expensive in the long-term .
Perhaps trips once deemed worthy of a flight , especially business-related ones , could just happen over Zoom .
“ If we all decide , ‘ What the hell — I ’ m not getting on an airplane , ’ we know what it ’ s gon na look like , ” Schaberg said .
“ It ’ s not gon na look like much at all.
” As the pandemic wears on , airlines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ contact with high-touch surfaces and exposure to airport staffers .
One hope is that deploying new contactless technologies will not only cut down on lines but also reduce our overall time in airports and our potential exposure to carriers of the virus .
This new , touch-free experience will likely start as soon as passengers arrive at the airport and need to drop off checked luggage .
At four different airports , United is already testing a contactless method of tagging bags that involves customers registering their bags before their flight and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ code and a smartphone at the airport .
Airlines could also opt to use biometrics , such as facial recognition , to confirm someone ’ s identity at baggage drop-off , in concert with a permanent , or RFID , bag tag .
Then there are the check-in kiosks , which no one will want to touch .
Instead , passengers might operate these machines with their phones and use facial recognition to confirm their identity , explained Andrew O ’ Connor , a vice president at SITA , which sells technology to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology company Elenium has debuted similar technology in its kiosks , which let people navigate with their voices and by moving their heads .
“ There ’ s going to be an acceleration in terms of touchless options to passengers , [ and ] biometric ID is definitely one of them , ” said Antoine Rostworowski , the world deputy director of programs and services for the Airports Council International .
“ There ’ s now an extra motivation from governments and regulators to look at this more rapidly and find solutions.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States airlines were installing biometrics-based check-ins for certain international flights .
This system uses a database maintained by US Customs and Border Protection along with an algorithm from the company NEC , a firm that the blog OneZero called “ the most important facial recognition company you ’ ve never heard of ” earlier this year .
While facial recognition might struggle to identify people when they ’ re wearing face masks , NEC told Recode that , anecdotally , despite some slight loss in accuracy , its system still works with masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic-era travel .
When travelers finally arrive at security , they should brace themselves for potential health screenings , including temperature checks and quizzes about possible symptoms .
Experts Recode spoke to were skeptical that fever detection alone could be a useful metric , and the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) has warned about the risks of fever detection systems that rely on technologies like thermal imaging or temperature-sceening guns .
Remember that there are also asymptomatic carriers of the coronavirus , and plenty of people have fevers who don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears some airports will check temperatures .
London ’ s Heathrow Airport recently announced trials of thermal-based temperature screenings , and the US Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) is expected to begin doing the same , according to the Wall Street Journal ’ s sources .
A TSA spokesperson told Recode that “ no decision has been made regarding specific health screening measures at airports.
” But fever detection — even if inaccurate — may just be the beginning .
On one Emirates flight , passengers actually had their blood tested for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president at Raytheon subsidiary Collins Aerospace , even suggested that the government might require “ triangulating vitals ” during screenings , collecting not only temperature but information like blood pressure and heart rate through various sensing technology .
Passengers themselves could also self-report health information before entering a country , Rostworowski explained .
There are several security companies already trying to streamline and standardize this whole health-screening process .
One widely used service comes from the biometrics ID company Clear , which lets its paying customers skip security lines after a scan confirms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced something called Health Pass .
This new service lets people upload the results of a health status quiz about possible Covid-19 symptoms and will soon let those customers link to their recent lab test results .
The idea is that people who have paid for the Health Pass service can scan a QR code at a Clear kiosk to confirm their Covid status .
It ’ s unclear if and when this new service will hit airports .
A spokesperson told Recode that the Health Pass technology is well suited for airports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with travel industry stakeholders .
The use of biometrics will probably extend beyond airport security , however .
Face scans can also help with contactless payments at airport shops and regulate who enters VIP lounges .
Airports already use tools like Lidar , a remote sensing technology that relies on lasers and artificial intelligence to monitor passenger flows .
A handful of airports , including those in Las Vegas and Miami , are reportedly repurposing these tools to measure social distancing , avoid large influxes of people , and potentially warn airport operators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form in any given area within the airport .
Planes will change too , but in ways you may not notice When you board your next flight , you ’ ll probably notice some changes , like blocked-off middle seats and mandatory face coverings .
Airlines might also decide to board economy-ticket holders first in an attempt to prevent any clogging of the aisles .
The coming months could bring even more dramatic shifts in the way things work in the cabin , especially as airlines look for ways to get passengers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas involve either removing middle seats or rearranging rows in order to minimize contact with other people .
Designers are already mocking up concepts .
Aircraft engineer Florian Barjot has sketched out something called PlanBay , which would feature transparent panels installed into the middle seat and extend upward from the seatbacks to create a sort of shield between the rows .
Barjot explains that the idea is to mitigate the spread of droplets while also ensuring that the flight crew can still see what ’ s going on throughout a cabin .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ another idea that would flip the middle seat backward and then use transparent panels to separate the space between passengers .
A downside of this design is that the person in the backward seat is then face-to-face with the passengers in the row behind .
Paolo Drago , the company ’ s CEO , told Recode that several airlines are already interested and considering prototypes of another model , which would use the pre-existing seat model but install transparent shields over and beside the seat .
That in mind , a more socially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new safety standard but also yet another way that experiences on board are separated by class .
“ You could imagine an airplane that has the front half for first class , and the seats are truly like six feet apart .
And the back is really crammed in , but everyone ’ s wearing masks and spraying each other with disinfectant , ” Schaberg , the author , tells Recode .
“ Everyone ’ s just crossing their fingers and hoping you don ’ t get sick.
” At the same time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are already making are ones that may not be as noticeable .
Airlines have beefed up sanitation efforts , using electrostatic spray guns and antimicrobial coatings in between flights .
Passengers might look to use their mobile phones for entertainment rather than in-seat entertainment screens , which some airlines started phasing out a couple of years ago .
And passengers should also expect to hear more about hospital-grade HEPA filters installed in the air-filtration systems , though many aircraft had these systems long before the pandemic arrived .
While air filters can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect you from the droplets of a nearby passenger who coughs or sneezes .
Some airlines might consider changing the materials used inside the aircraft , explained Grant West , a vice president for Collins Aerospace Interiors products and aftermarket services , in an email to Recode .
Currently , his team is looking into materials that could suppress pathogens , including some coverings that would be single-use , that could coat high-touch areas like seats , belts , meal trays , and armrests .
During the pandemic , airlines have limited or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ onboard food and drinks service .
American Airlines , for one , eliminated alcohol sales in economy class , although it ’ s still offering it in first class .
Delta has limited its beverage options to bottled water .
United did away with refills .
( Weirdly , one grocery delivery company is selling excess snack trays from airlines like JetBlue to nostalgic travelers customers . )
Still , it ’ s not clear how service will change long-term , but alterations made now could reset our expectations for good .
Schaberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service could ultimately become more expensive .
Things will never be the same Some say the Covid-19 pandemic could usher a new era for surveillance and air travel , one that rivals the transformation seen after the September 11 attacks .
The more radical shifts likely won ’ t happen overnight .
“ How much of a new world it will be in the airports really is back in the government ’ s lap , ” said Johnathan Tal , a security and risk management consultant .
We might have to make new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s bound to invite new forms of discrimination .
Existing forms of screening , for instance , disproportionately impact passengers of color .
People who are or who are perceived to be Muslim , for instance , have been particularly subject to religious and racial profiling at the airport .
The ACLU has now warned that the inaccuracies of remote fever detection could lead to “ harassment or selective enforcement against people because of their appearance or political views.
” Will the TSA be proactive in limiting this type of discrimination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now .
While we don ’ t yet know exactly how long measures taken during the Covid-19 pandemic will impact everyone ’ s experience of air travel , leaders in the industry say that in the short-term , at the very least , some sort of health screenings will probably become a part of the security process .
That will be a new and potentially very significant addition .
And even if all these measures make air travel safer from a public health point of view , it will take time for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Airports Council International is estimating that it will be years before the commercial flight returns to its 2019 levels .
“ After 9/11 , there were all sorts of concerns about terrorism , weapons of mass destruction , ” said Benji Hutchinson , a vice president at NEC .
“ A pandemic is so much harder , in my opinion , for people to grasp .
It ’ s so abstract and spaceless.
” Meanwhile , we ’ ll be forced to reconsider what airports themselves are actually for .
Recent years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transforming airports into dazzling arcades of experience where travelers are encouraged to show up for flights earlier and earlier , as that would give them more time to spend money on food , entertainment , and clothing in the terminal shopping malls .
Schaberg , the English professor , points to his own airport in New Orleans , which opened a $ 1.3 billion terminal a few months ago and became the third airport in the country to allow people without a boarding pass to enjoy its amenities , which were designed as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culture and history .
“ That ’ s completely changed now , ” Schaberg said .
“ Even if we like return cautiously to travel , I still think that we ’ re not going to see airport bars teeming with revelry.
” Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 today @

Christopher Schaberg has been watching airlines evolve since he worked as an agent for United, checking bags and checking in passengers at Montana’s modest Bozeman Yellowstone Airport. He’s been noticing shifts in how air travel works over the years, especially the transformation in airport security that happened after 9/11. That was only the beginning.
As airports got locked down, terminals transformed into malls full of bars, shops, and even spas so passengers could kill time without leaving the airport. Restaurants filled with iPads replaced crowded food courts, and seats loaded with power outlets filled the areas around the gates. On board the aircraft, free cocktails and meals steadily gave way to vacuum-packed snacks and half cans of Coke. Just as steadily, legroom disappeared, and those planes were full. Then came the coronavirus pandemic.
Air travel is in the midst of another sea change, not just because of the public health crisis but also the corresponding economic collapse. Schaberg, author of The End of Airports and several other books about air travel, believes that even the essential elements of flying have always remained the same — boarding at the gate, drinks on ice in the air, waiting at baggage claims — will never be the same. Even as the effects of the pandemic ease, air travel as we know it probably won't ever return.
“Finally, this thing is kind of radically changing, in the sense that we’re not doing it,” Schaberg told Recode.
He’s right. The number of people flying has plummeted. The Airports Council International estimates the industry has lost 4.6 billion passengers and nearly $100 billion for this year alone. Airports have become ghost towns, and the American air giants are still weighing layoffs despite receiving a $25 billion bailout.
Now, the industry is trying to figure out what happens next and how the experience of flying must evolve. Recode spoke to nearly a dozen experts about the future of flying, and they collectively said travelers should anticipate a whole host of changes, including an intensified focus on sanitation and air purification, health screenings at security, and even more facial recognition-based boarding. Some even mentioned surveillance technology that can measure how well people are social distancing throughout the terminals and boarding areas.
Whether those changes will be enough to bring passengers back to the skies is unclear. It’s possible we might never return to the same frequency of air travel. After all, even when people start planning long-distance trips, some might not feel comfortable crammed into a cabin breathing recycled air. The Covid-19 pandemic has also reminded everyone to consider the massive carbon footprint created by the airline industry. Unfortunately for frequent fliers, there’s even evidence that flying will be prohibitively expensive in the long-term. Perhaps trips once deemed worthy of a flight, especially business-related ones, could just happen over Zoom.
“If we all decide, ‘What the hell — I’m not getting on an airplane,’ we know what it’s gonna look like,” Schaberg said. “It’s not gonna look like much at all.”
Expect more contactless interactions and fewer humans
As the pandemic wears on, airlines and airports will want to limit passengers’ contact with high-touch surfaces and exposure to airport staffers. One hope is that deploying new contactless technologies will not only cut down on lines but also reduce our overall time in airports and potential exposure to carriers of the virus.
This new, touch-free experience will likely start as soon as passengers arrive at the airport and need to drop off checked luggage. At four different airports, United is already testing a contactless method of tagging bags that involves customers registering their bags before their flight and then confirming that bag with a QR code and a smartphone at the airport. Airlines could also opt to use biometrics, such as facial recognition, to confirm someone’s identity at baggage drop-off, in concert with a permanent, or RFID, bag tag.
Then there are the check-in kiosks, which no one will want to touch. Instead, passengers might operate these machines with their phones and use facial recognition to confirm their identity, explained Andrew O’Connor, a vice president at SITA, which sells technology to airports and airlines. The Australian airport technology company Elenium has debuted similar technology in its kiosks, which let people navigate with their voices and by moving their heads.
“There’s going to be an acceleration in terms of touchless options to passengers, [and] biometric ID is definitely one of them,” said Antoine Rostworowski, the world deputy director of programs and services for the Airports Council International. “There’s now an extra motivation from governments and regulators to look at this more rapidly and find solutions.”
Even before the coronavirus hit, some United States airlines were installing biometrics-based check-ins for certain international flights. This system uses a database maintained by US Customs and Border Protection along with an algorithm from the company NEC, a firm that the blog OneZero earlier this year called “the most important facial recognition company you’ve never heard of.” While facial recognition might struggle to identify people when they’re wearing face masks, NEC told Recode that, anecdotally, despite some slight loss in accuracy, its system still works with masks, so it could carry over into pandemic-era travel.
Get ready for invasive health screenings
When travelers finally arrive at security, they should brace themselves for potential health screenings, including temperature checks and questions about possible symptoms. Experts Recode spoke to were skeptical that fever detection alone could be a useful metric, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has warned about the risks of fever detection systems that rely on technologies like thermal imaging or temperature-screening guns. Remember that there are also asymptomatic carriers of the coronavirus, and plenty of people have fevers who don’t have Covid-19. But it still appears some airports will check temperatures.
London’s Heathrow Airport recently announced trials of thermal-based temperature screenings, and the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is expected to begin doing the same, according to the Wall Street Journal’s sources. A TSA spokesperson told Recode that “no decision has been made regarding specific health screening measures at airports.”
But fever detection — even if inaccurate — may just be the beginning. On one Emirates flight, passengers actually had their blood tested for Covid-19. LeAnn Ridgeway, a vice president at Raytheon subsidiary Collins Aerospace, even suggested that the government might require “triangulating vitals” during screenings, collecting not only temperature but information like blood pressure and heart rate through various sensing technology. Passengers themselves could also self-report health information before entering a country, Rostworowski explained.
There are several security companies already trying to streamline and standardize this health-screening process. One widely used service comes from the biometrics ID company Clear, which lets its paying customers skip security lines after a scan confirms their identity. The company also recently announced something called Health Pass. This new service lets people upload the results of a health status quiz about possible Covid-19 symptoms and will soon let those customers link to their recent lab test results. The idea is that people who have paid for the Health Pass service can scan a QR code at a Clear kiosk to confirm their Covid-19 status. It’s unclear if and when this new service will hit airports. A spokesperson told Recode that the Health Pass technology is well-suited for airports and that the company is in talks with travel industry stakeholders.
The use of biometrics will probably extend beyond airport security, however. Face scans can also help with contactless payments at airport shops and regulate who enters VIP lounges. Airports already use tools like Lidar, a remote sensing technology that relies on lasers and artificial intelligence to monitor passenger flows. A handful of airports, including those in Las Vegas and Miami, are reportedly repurposing these tools to measure social distancing, avoid large influxes of people, and potentially warn airport operators ahead of time of crowds that could form in any given area within the airport.
Planes will also change, but in ways you might not notice
When you board your next flight, you’ll probably notice some changes, like blocked-off middle seats and mandatory face coverings. Airlines might also decide to board economy-ticket holders first in an attempt to prevent any clogging of the aisles. The coming months could bring even more dramatic shifts in the way things work in the cabin, especially as airlines look for ways to get passengers to feel more comfortable while flying. Several ideas involve either removing middle seats or rearranging rows in order to minimize contact with other people. Designers are already mocking up concepts.
Aircraft engineer Florian Barjot has sketched out something called PlanBay, which would feature transparent panels installed into the middle seat and extend upward from the seatbacks to create a sort of shield between the rows. Barjot explains that the idea is to mitigate the spread of droplets while also ensuring that the flight crew can still see what’s going on throughout a cabin.
Italian airplane interiors manufacturer Aviointeriors has proposed another idea that would flip the middle seat backward and then use transparent panels to separate the space between passengers. A downside of this design is that the person in the backward seat is then face-to-face with the passengers in the row behind. Paolo Drago, the company’s CEO, told Recode that several airlines are already interested and considering prototypes of another model, which would use the preexisting seat model but install transparent shields over and beside the seat.
With that in mind, a more socially distanced flight may become not only a new safety standard but also yet another way that experiences on board are separated by class.
“You could imagine an airplane that has the front half for first-class, and the seats are truly like 6 feet apart. And the back is really crammed in, but everyone’s wearing masks and spraying each other with disinfectant,” Schaberg, the author, tells Recode. “Everyone’s just crossing their fingers and hoping you don’t get sick.”
At the same time, many of the changes that airlines are already making are ones that might not be as noticeable. Airlines have beefed up sanitation efforts, using electrostatic spray guns and antimicrobial coatings in between flights. Passengers might look to use their mobile phones for entertainment rather than in-seat entertainment screens, which some airlines started phasing out a couple of years ago. And passengers should also expect to hear more about hospital-grade HEPA filters installed in the air-filtration systems, though many aircraft had these systems long before the pandemic. While air filters can be helpful, they won’t necessarily protect you from the droplets of a nearby passenger who coughs or sneezes.
Some airlines might consider changing the materials used inside the aircraft, explained Grant West, a vice president for Collins Aerospace Interiors products and aftermarket services, in an email to Recode. Currently, his team is looking into materials that could suppress pathogens, including some coverings that would be single-use, that could coat high-touch areas like seats, belts, meal trays, and armrests.
During the pandemic, airlines have limited or in some cases eliminated onboard food and drinks service. American Airlines, for one, eliminated alcohol sales in economy class, although it’s still offering it in first class. Delta has limited its beverage options to bottled water. United did away with refills. (Weirdly, one grocery delivery company is selling excess snack trays from airlines like JetBlue to nostalgic travelers customers.) Still, it’s not clear how service will change long-term, but alterations made now could reset our expectations for good. Schaberg, for one, warns that in-flight service could ultimately become more expensive.
Things will never be the same
Some say the Covid-19 pandemic could usher in a new era for surveillance and air travel, one that rivals the transformation seen after 9/11. The more radical shifts likely won’t happen overnight.
“How much of a new world it will be in the airports really is back in the government’s lap,” said Johnathan Tal, a security and risk management consultant.
We might have to make new privacy sacrifices when we fly, and that’s bound to invite new forms of discrimination. Existing forms of screening, for instance, disproportionately impact passengers of color. People who are or who are perceived to be Muslim, for instance, have been particularly subject to religious and racial profiling at airports. The ACLU has now warned that the inaccuracies of remote fever detection could lead to “harassment or selective enforcement against people because of their appearance or political views.”
Will the TSA be proactive in limiting this type of discrimination? It’s hard to say right now. While we don’t yet know exactly how long measures taken during the pandemic will impact people’s air travel experience, leaders in the industry say that in the short-term, at the very least, some sort of health screenings will probably become a part of the security process. That will be a new and potentially very significant addition. And even if all these measures make air travel safer from a public health point of view, it will take time for people to feel comfortable flying again. The Airports Council International is estimating that it will be years before commercial flight returns to its 2019 levels.
“After 9/11, there were all sorts of concerns about terrorism, weapons of mass destruction,” said Benji Hutchinson, a vice president at NEC. “A pandemic is so much harder, in my opinion, for people to grasp. It’s so abstract and spaceless.”
Meanwhile, we’ll be forced to reconsider what airports themselves are actually for. Recent years have seen billions of dollars poured into transforming airports into dazzling arcades of experience where travelers are encouraged to show up for flights earlier and earlier, as that would give them more time to spend money on food, entertainment, and clothing in the terminal shopping malls.
Schaberg points to his own airport in New Orleans, which opened a $1.3 billion terminal a few months ago and became the third airport in the country to allow people without a boarding pass to enjoy its amenities, which were designed as an homage to the city’s culture and history.
“That’s completely changed now,” Schaberg said. “Even if we like return cautiously to travel, I still think that we’re not going to see airport bars teeming with revelry.”
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-05-27--Trump is threatening to close down social media companies. Can he actually do that?

President Donald Trump has built his political brand by posting a steady stream of misleading information , conspiracy theories , and personal attacks on Twitter .
Now that Twitter did something unprecedented and fact-checked two of his tweets , he ’ s escalating his typical behavior .
On Tuesday after Twitter called out Trump ’ s false statements about vote-by-mail ballots , the President fired back , tweeting that social media platforms “ totally silence conservatives voices ” [ sic ] and threatening to “ strongly regulate ” social media companies or “ close them down ” altogether .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans to sign an executive order pertaining to social media as soon as Thursday .
We don ’ t know the details of exactly what the executive order would do — but if it ’ s an attempt to “ close them down , ” as he threatened , it ’ s likely to be immediately challenged in court .
So , does this mean Trump can actually shut down Twitter and other social media platforms ?
It ’ s unlikely .
Despite Trump ’ s indications to the contrary , Twitter is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up his tweets .
Unlike the government , Twitter is a private company that can moderate its users ’ speech as it pleases , without legal penalty .
But Trump can still make things harder for these platforms , particularly bigger companies like Facebook and Google that have become targets of antitrust scrutiny .
Trump can also use Twitter ’ s fact-check of his tweets to bolster the unfounded claim he and other Republicans have pushed that Big Tech has an anti-conservative bias and is an enemy of the people .
And beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sow confusion and distract the public from larger issues at hand : the persistent spread of coronavirus , the crashing job market , and how economic inequality in the US was a growing problem even before the pandemic .
Conservatives like Trump have long argued , without evidence , that they ’ re being silenced on social media — despite the fact that some of the most popular Facebook , Twitter , and YouTube accounts are run by conservative political and media figures .
The complaints usually arise when a social media company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or takes action against their account for violating the rules — for example , when Twitter , Facebook , and YouTube eventually booted conservative conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in 2018 after multiple violations of their policies .
But Twitter ’ s recent fact-check of Trump ’ s tweets isn ’ t really “ silencing ” Trump .
The company hasn ’ t deleted any of his tweets ; it merely placed a label underneath two of his posts and linked to fact-checked information that corrects his inaccurate claims .
And even if Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has every legal right to do that — though , as my colleague Peter Kaka wrote this week , it ’ s hard to imagine it ever would .
Public figures and world leaders whose posts are considered “ newsworthy ” are granted exceptions to Twitter ’ s usual rules .
Regardless , the First Amendment does not limit to Twitter , Facebook , Google , or any social media platform .
It limits the government , not private companies , from infringing on people ’ s freedom to say what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t go to jail for say , blogging unfounded conspiracy theories about the illuminati , but you can get kicked off a social network — just like you could get fired from your job for lying , or for saying something racist to a colleague .
Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe breaks it down well : Ironically , it ’ s actually Trump — not Twitter — who is wading into unconstitutional territory here .
If Trump were to actually try to shut down social media companies in retaliation for Twitter ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be a clear violation of the First Amendment .
It would be sure to invite a fierce legal challenge and would signal an alarming attempt by the President of the United States to yield his executive power against one of the most fundamental rights in this country .
One thing Trump can do is try to regulate tech companies like Twitter in other ways .
He could press for a repeal of Section 230 , a law that ’ s part of the internet ’ s foundation and which shields tech platforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post on their sites .
Some , like Senator Josh Hawley , have called on Congress to repeal Section 230 , which would allow anyone people who feels they are victims of anti-conservative discrimination on these platforms to take legal action against the platforms themselves .
So far , those efforts have failed to garner significant bipartisan congressional support .
Trump could also try to use his feud with social media platforms as political ammo in supporting the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission ’ s antitrust investigations into major social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are obvious targets for antitrust regulation , Twitter has less to worry about .
It ’ s hard to argue that Twitter , which is a much smaller company than Facebook or Google , has monopolistic power on social media , as former spokesperson Nu Wexler pointed out .
That may be part of the reason why Twitter has been more willing , at least in this scenario , to fact-check Trump than its social media peers .
While Trump may not be able to do much legally to Twitter , he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter , Facebook , and Google .
The morning after Twitter ’ s fact-check , Trump surrogate Kellyanne Conway appeared on Fox News and slammed a Twitter executive named Yoel Roth for tweets he ’ d posted over the years that criticized the President and suggested there are Nazis in the White House .
During the interview , she suggested viewers would follow his account and give him a piece of their mind — and after the clip aired , hundreds of users began hounding Roth ’ s account , posting angry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has said Roth wasn ’ t the one making the final call on Trump ’ s fact-check .
But it doesn ’ t matter .
Roth is just the latest target for the Trump administration to paint a caricature of Big Tech as being purportedly biased against conservative users .
This has all been part of Trump ’ s campaign playbook since the beginning , and he ’ s leaning into it even harder with the presidential election less than six months away : Create political boogeymen ( in this case , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up support among prospective voters by promising to be the candidate who will fight for them .

President Donald Trump has built his political brand by posting a steady stream of misleading information, conspiracy theories, and personal attacks on Twitter. Now that Twitter did something unprecedented and fact-checked two of his tweets, he’s escalating his typical behavior.
After Twitter called out Trump’s false statements about vote-by-mail ballots, the president fired back, tweeting that social media platforms “totally silence conservatives voices” [sic] and threatening to “strongly regulate” social media companies or “close them down” altogether.
Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can’t let a more sophisticated version of that.... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 27, 2020
And on Wednesday, reports indicated that Trump plans to sign an executive order pertaining to social media as soon as Thursday. We don’t know the details of what the executive order would do, but if it’s an attempt to “close them down,” as he threatened, it’s likely to be immediately challenged in court.
So, does this mean Trump can actually shut down Twitter and other social media platforms?
It’s unlikely. Despite Trump’s indications to the contrary, Twitter is not violating the First Amendment by marking up his tweets. Unlike the government, Twitter is a private company that can moderate its users’ speech as it pleases, without legal penalty.
But Trump can still make things harder for these platforms, particularly bigger companies like Facebook and Google that have become targets of antitrust scrutiny. Trump can also use Twitter’s fact-check of his tweets to bolster the unfounded claim he and other Republicans have pushed that Big Tech has an anti-conservative bias. And beyond that, his anti-tech crusades serve to sow confusion and distract the public from larger issues at hand: the persistent spread of the coronavirus, the crashing job market, and how economic inequality in the US was a growing problem even before the pandemic.
The freedom of speech argument
Conservatives like Trump have long argued, without evidence, that they’re being silenced on social media despite the fact that some of the most popular Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube accounts are run by conservative political and media figures.
The complaints usually arise when a social media company deletes a conservative figure’s tweets or takes action against their account for violating the rules — for example, when Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube eventually booted conservative conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in 2018 after multiple violations of their policies.
But Twitter’s recent fact-check of Trump’s tweets isn’t really “silencing” Trump.
The company hasn’t deleted any of his tweets; it merely placed a label underneath two of his posts and linked to fact-checked information that corrects his inaccurate claims.
And even if Twitter did delete Trump’s tweets, it has every legal right to do that — though, as my colleague Peter Kafka wrote this week, it’s hard to imagine it ever would. Public figures and world leaders whose posts are considered “newsworthy” are granted exceptions to Twitter’s usual rules.
Regardless, the First Amendment does not limit Twitter, Facebook, Google, or any social media platform. It limits the government, not private companies, from infringing on people’s freedom to say what they please. That means you can’t go to jail for, say, blogging unfounded conspiracy theories about the Illuminati, but you can get kicked off a social network — just like you could get fired from your job for lying or for saying something racist to a colleague.
Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe breaks it down well:
Just to be clear: Trump’s statement that Twitter, a private company, is abridging his First Amendment freedom of speech by tagging his wild tweets about write-in voter fraud as misleading is totally absurd and legally illiterate. This thread explains why: — Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) May 27, 2020
Ironically, it’s actually Trump — not Twitter — who is wading into unconstitutional territory here. If Trump were to try to shut down social media companies in retaliation for Twitter’s fact-check of his tweets, that would be a clear violation of the First Amendment. It would be sure to invite a fierce legal challenge and would signal an alarming attempt by the president of the United States to wield his executive power against one of the most fundamental rights in this country.
One thing Trump can do is try to regulate tech companies like Twitter in other ways. He could press for a repeal of Section 230, a law that’s part of the internet’s foundation and which shields tech platforms from being sued over content that users post on their sites.
Some, like Sen. Josh Hawley, have called on Congress to repeal Section 230, which would allow anyone who feels they are victims of anti-conservative discrimination on these platforms to take legal action against the platforms themselves. So far, the repeal efforts have failed to garner significant bipartisan congressional support.
Trump could also try to use his feud with social media platforms as political ammo in supporting the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust investigations into major social media companies.
But while Facebook and Google are obvious targets for antitrust regulation, Twitter has less to worry about. It’s hard to argue that Twitter, which is a much smaller company than Facebook or Google, has monopolistic power on social media, as former spokesperson Nu Wexler pointed out.
Note that Trump has much less leverage over Twitter than other companies. Twitter don’t sell political ads, they’re not big enough for an antitrust threat, and he’s clearly hooked on the platform. — Nu Wexler (@wexler) May 27, 2020
That may be part of the reason why Twitter has been more willing, at least in this scenario, to fact-check Trump than its social media peers.
Social media vs. the people?
While Trump may not be able to do much legally to Twitter, he can and certainly is escalating his optics assault on Twitter, Facebook, and Google.
The morning after Twitter’s fact-check, Trump surrogate Kellyanne Conway appeared on Fox News and slammed a Twitter executive named Yoel Roth for tweets he’d posted over the years that criticized the president and suggested there are Nazis in the White House. During the interview, she suggested viewers would follow his account and give him a piece of their mind — and after the clip aired, hundreds of users began hounding Roth’s account, posting angry and at times threatening replies.
Twitter has said Roth wasn’t the one making the final call on Trump’s fact-check. But it doesn’t matter. Roth is just the latest target for the Trump administration to paint a caricature of Big Tech as being purportedly biased against conservative users.
This has all been part of Trump’s campaign playbook since the beginning, and he’s leaning into it even harder with the presidential election less than six months away: create political boogeymen (in this case, the liberals running social media) and rile up support among prospective voters by promising to be the candidate who will fight for them.


vox--2020-05-27--Pompeo told Congress Hong Kong is no longer autonomous from China. Here’s what that means.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared Wednesday that Hong Kong is no longer autonomous from China — a dramatic step that could transform the US ’ s relationship with the territory .
Pompeo ’ s announcement comes one day before China is expected to pass a controversial national security law that will criminalize “ treason , secession , sedition ( and ) subversion ” against the government in Beijing , CNN reports .
It will also allow Chinese security forces to operate in Hong Kong “ to fulfill relevant duties to safeguard national security in accordance with the law.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ target not just protesters but also the media , international businesses , and anyone else in Hong Kong who tries to challenge Beijing ’ s authority .
And it may be what triggered Pompeo to decline to certify Hong Kong ’ s autonomy .
“ Beijing ’ s disastrous decision is only the latest in a series of actions that fundamentally undermine Hong Kong ’ s autonomy and freedoms and China ’ s own promises to the Hong Kong people under the Sino-British Joint Declaration , a UN-filed international treaty , ” Pompeo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referring to China ’ s national security law .
The Sino-British Joint Declaration refers to a treaty between the United Kingdom and China that mapped out the future of Hong Kong , a former British colony .
Britain agreed to return the territory to China on July 1 , 1997 , on the promise that China would give Hong Kong a “ high degree of autonomy ” for 50 years , until 2047 .
Pompeo , in his certification , is saying Beijing has reneged on this binding promise .
“ After careful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I certified to Congress today that Hong Kong does not continue to warrant treatment under United States laws in the same manner as US laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1997 , ” Pompeo ’ s statement continued .
“ No reasonable person can assert today that Hong Kong maintains a high degree of autonomy from China , given facts on the ground.
” Pompeo is required to assess Hong Kong ’ s autonomy annually to determine whether it still merits the special trading and economic benefits it enjoys from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extended to mainland China .
The State Department had to make this assessment as part of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act signed by President Donald Trump late last year , an attempt by Congress to signal its support for the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong .
( The bill also includes provisions to sanction those who violate human rights in Hong Kong . )
But Beijing has increasingly encroached on Hong Kong ’ s semi-autonomy , trying to bring it closer under its control and stamp out dissent .
Last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose chief executive , Carrie Lam , is closely tied to Beijing — introduced an extradition bill that set off months of pro-democracy protests by Hongkongers who interpreted the legislation as another attempt to curtail Hong Kong ’ s freedoms and rule of law .
The Covid-19 outbreak tamped down the public resistance , but China ’ s attempt to impose this national security law reignited tensions .
Thousands of protesters demonstrated against the law this weekend .
Activists flooded the streets again on Wednesday , surrounding government buildings to agitate against a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Chinese national anthem , which pro-democracy groups see as yet another attempt to cripple Hong Kong ’ s autonomy and stifle dissent .
Pompeo cited some of these points in the official certification he sent to Congress .
In it , Pompeo says that Beijing has slowly been eroding freedoms , but that since his last report , “ China has shed any pretense that the people of Hong Kong enjoy the high degree of autonomy , democratic institutions , and civil liberties guaranteed to them by the Sino-British Joint Declaration and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s declaration doesn ’ t trigger any actions directly ; it ’ s up to Trump to decide what steps to take and whether to formally revoke Hong Kong ’ s special status .
Such a move could have unpredictable consequences .
The US could risk tens of billions in trade , and it could jeopardize Hong Kong ’ s standing as a global financial hub .
“ That status is really critical to Hong Kong ’ s economy , and that ’ s obviously very related to Hong Kong ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Jacob Stokes , a China analyst at the US Institute of Peace told me last week , before Pompeo ’ s decision .
Hong Kong — and its relatively strong rule of law — is a gateway for foreign companies who want to do business in China but without some of the risks .
That ’ s also a boon to China that could go away if the Trump administration pursues this “ nuclear option , ” as Ho-Fung Hung , professor of political economy at Johns Hopkins , described it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the status entirely might send the wrong signal , too : that Hong Kong is too far gone — something that could actually undermine the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong if the US sends the message that the territory is a lost cause .
Which is why the Trump administration is likely weighing several different options .
The New York Times reports that the Trump administration is considering applying tariffs to goods coming from Hong Kong , taxes from which it had previously been exempt .
But Pompeo ’ s announcement is still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beijing , particularly as the Trump administration has vowed to punish China for its role in the pandemic .
The declaration that Hong Kong is no longer autonomous is a powerful acknowledgment of the erosion of the territory ’ s freedoms under China ’ s control .
And it ’ s a clear show of support to the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong , which has decried China ’ s encroachment even as pro-Beijing Hong Kong officials have dismissed concerns that it will diminish the territory ’ s freedoms .
China ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the remaining pretension of ‘ one country , two systems ’ ” Pompeo has previously described China ’ s new proposed national security law as a “ death knell ” for Hong Kong .
Chinese officials claim the law is meant to target the alleged “ foreign influence ” China says is driving the unrest in Hong Kong .
But that is largely disinformation ; China has blamed outsiders for fueling violence in Hong Kong to deny the grassroots resistance .
The reality is that the law is very clearly targeted as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beijing ’ s authority .
China has , at least rhetorically , honored the “ one country , two systems ” rule .
In practice , though , it has sought greater and greater control over Hong Kong .
The national security law is merely a much more direct and obvious step toward what Beijing has been trying to accomplish for years : one country , one system .
That ’ s because this law is coming directly from Chin , rather than from the Hong Kong government , which would at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ho-Fung Hung , a professor of political economy at Johns Hopkins University , told me last week that Beijing may have stepped in directly because it learned a lesson from the 2019 anti-extradition bill protests , which ultimately defeated the legislation and embarrassed China .
“ It will be a huge embarrassment if it tried to push through the local legislature that is eventually shelved because of local protests , ” Hung said .
“ Beijing didn ’ t want to reach that event .
Beijing even didn ’ t trust the local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of extreme route to directly legislate.
” “ And it is a big , risky move , ” he added , “ because it tears down all the remaining pretension of ‘ one country , two systems.
’ ” China ’ s dramatic escalation also comes as the whole world — and the media , which had devoted a lot of attention to the Hong Kong protests — is distracted by the pandemic and as Hong Kong itself is under social distancing restrictions .
The imposition of those rules gave Hong Kong some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helping to successfully control the outbreak there ) .
But China had long made it clear it had no tolerance for the protesters or even more peaceful challenges to its authority , such as when pro-democracy candidates in Hong Kong dominated local elections .
And now China has at least hinted at how it plans to consolidate its control .
The introduction of the law has still sparked resistance in Hong Kong , with protesters congregating and defying social distancing rules that ban large gatherings last weekend .
Police cracked down on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But what happens when China implements the law — which could happen as soon as August , per CBS News — is still unclear .
Whether the US ’ s decision will have ramifications for China ’ s power grab is also uncertain .
China has previously resisted any interference by the State Department into what it considers its internal affairs .
“ As to the erroneous foreign interference in Hong Kong affairs , we will take necessary measures to fight back , ” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US might “ do something ” about Hong Kong .
How China responds will depend on what the Trump administration does following this certification .
Some lawmakers have cautioned the administration against trying to use Hong Kong as a cudgel in its separate battle with China .
“ The U.S. response to the Chinese government ’ s actions must be decisive , clear , and taken to protect U.S. national interests and to support autonomy and democratic freedoms in Hong Kong provided under international law , ” House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement .
“ US policy toward Hong Kong should not be a pawn in whatever games Secretary Pompeo or President Trump is playing with Beijing.
” But Pompeo ’ s announcement today risks further souring relations between Washington and Beijing , with Hong Kong caught in the precarious middle .
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 .

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared Wednesday that Hong Kong is no longer autonomous from China — a dramatic step that could transform the US’s relationship with the territory.
Pompeo’s announcement comes one day before China is expected to pass a controversial national security law that will criminalize “treason, secession, sedition (and) subversion” against the government in Beijing, CNN reports. It will also allow Chinese security forces to operate in Hong Kong “to fulfill relevant duties to safeguard national security in accordance with the law.”
Critics fear it will be used to target not just protesters but also the media, international businesses, and anyone else in Hong Kong who tries to challenge Beijing’s authority.
And it may be what triggered Pompeo to decline to certify Hong Kong’s autonomy.
“Beijing’s disastrous decision is only the latest in a series of actions that fundamentally undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedoms and China’s own promises to the Hong Kong people under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a UN-filed international treaty,” Pompeo said in a statement on Wednesday, referring to China’s national security law.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration refers to a treaty between the United Kingdom and China that mapped out the future of Hong Kong, a former British colony. Britain agreed to return the territory to China on July 1, 1997, on the promise that China would give Hong Kong a “high degree of autonomy” for 50 years, until 2047. Pompeo, in his certification, is saying Beijing has reneged on this binding promise.
“After careful study of developments over the reporting period, I certified to Congress today that Hong Kong does not continue to warrant treatment under United States laws in the same manner as US laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1997,” Pompeo’s statement continued. “No reasonable person can assert today that Hong Kong maintains a high degree of autonomy from China, given facts on the ground.”
Pompeo is required to assess Hong Kong’s autonomy annually to determine whether it still merits the special trading and economic benefits it enjoys from the US, which aren’t extended to mainland China.
The State Department had to make this assessment as part of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act signed by President Donald Trump late last year, an attempt by Congress to signal its support for the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong. (The bill also includes provisions to sanction those who violate human rights in Hong Kong.)
But Beijing has increasingly encroached on Hong Kong’s semi-autonomy, trying to bring it closer under its control and stamp out dissent. Last year, the Hong Kong government — whose chief executive, Carrie Lam, is closely tied to Beijing — introduced an extradition bill that set off months of pro-democracy protests by Hongkongers who interpreted the legislation as another attempt to curtail Hong Kong’s freedoms and rule of law.
The Covid-19 outbreak tamped down the public resistance, but China’s attempt to impose this national security law reignited tensions. Thousands of protesters demonstrated against the law this weekend. Activists flooded the streets again on Wednesday, surrounding government buildings to agitate against a Hong Kong law that would criminalize disrespecting the Chinese national anthem, which pro-democracy groups see as yet another attempt to cripple Hong Kong’s autonomy and stifle dissent.
Pompeo cited some of these points in the official certification he sent to Congress. In it, Pompeo says that Beijing has slowly been eroding freedoms, but that since his last report, “China has shed any pretense that the people of Hong Kong enjoy the high degree of autonomy, democratic institutions, and civil liberties guaranteed to them by the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.”
The secretary of state’s declaration doesn’t trigger any actions directly; it’s up to Trump to decide what steps to take and whether to formally revoke Hong Kong’s special status.
Such a move could have unpredictable consequences. The US could risk tens of billions in trade, and it could jeopardize Hong Kong’s standing as a global financial hub. “That status is really critical to Hong Kong’s economy, and that’s obviously very related to Hong Kong’s ability to protect that separate identity,” Jacob Stokes, a China analyst at the US Institute of Peace told me last week, before Pompeo’s decision.
Hong Kong — and its relatively strong rule of law — is a gateway for foreign companies who want to do business in China but without some of the risks. That’s also a boon to China that could go away if the Trump administration pursues this “nuclear option,” as Ho-Fung Hung, professor of political economy at Johns Hopkins, described it to NPR’s Marketplace.
Removing the status entirely might send the wrong signal, too: that Hong Kong is too far gone — something that could actually undermine the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong if the US sends the message that the territory is a lost cause.
Which is why the Trump administration is likely weighing several different options. The New York Times reports that the Trump administration is considering applying tariffs to goods coming from Hong Kong, taxes from which it had previously been exempt.
But Pompeo’s announcement is still an incredibly strong signal from Washington to Beijing, particularly as the Trump administration has vowed to punish China for its role in the pandemic. The declaration that Hong Kong is no longer autonomous is a powerful acknowledgment of the erosion of the territory’s freedoms under China’s control.
And it’s a clear show of support to the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong, which has decried China’s encroachment even as pro-Beijing Hong Kong officials have dismissed concerns that it will diminish the territory’s freedoms.
China’s new national security law “tears down all the remaining pretension of ‘one country, two systems’”
Pompeo has previously described China’s new proposed national security law as a “death knell” for Hong Kong. Chinese officials claim the law is meant to target the alleged “foreign influence” China says is driving the unrest in Hong Kong. But that is largely disinformation; China has blamed outsiders for fueling violence in Hong Kong to deny the grassroots resistance.
The reality is that the law is very clearly targeted as a catchall against dissent and anyone challenging Beijing’s authority.
China has, at least rhetorically, honored the “one country, two systems” rule. In practice, though, it has sought greater and greater control over Hong Kong. The national security law is merely a much more direct and obvious step toward what Beijing has been trying to accomplish for years: one country, one system.
That’s because this law is coming directly from China, rather than from the Hong Kong government, which would at least give it the veneer of legitimacy. Ho-Fung Hung, a professor of political economy at Johns Hopkins University, told me last week that Beijing may have stepped in directly because it learned a lesson from the 2019 anti-extradition bill protests, which ultimately defeated the legislation and embarrassed China.
“It will be a huge embarrassment if it tried to push through the local legislature that is eventually shelved because of local protests,” Hung said. “Beijing didn’t want to reach that event. Beijing even didn’t trust the local legislature, so it adopted this kind of extreme route to directly legislate.”
“And it is a big, risky move,” he added, “because it tears down all the remaining pretension of ‘one country, two systems.’”
China’s dramatic escalation also comes as the whole world — and the media, which had devoted a lot of attention to the Hong Kong protests — is distracted by the pandemic and as Hong Kong itself is under social distancing restrictions. The imposition of those rules gave Hong Kong some cover to quell protests (while also helping to successfully control the outbreak there).
But China had long made it clear it had no tolerance for the protesters or even more peaceful challenges to its authority, such as when pro-democracy candidates in Hong Kong dominated local elections. And now China has at least hinted at how it plans to consolidate its control.
The introduction of the law has still sparked resistance in Hong Kong, with protesters congregating and defying social distancing rules that ban large gatherings last weekend. Police cracked down on the protests, arresting more than 100 people. But what happens when China implements the law — which could happen as soon as August, per CBS News — is still unclear.
Whether the US’s decision will have ramifications for China’s power grab is also uncertain. China has previously resisted any interference by the State Department into what it considers its internal affairs. “As to the erroneous foreign interference in Hong Kong affairs, we will take necessary measures to fight back,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said on Wednesday, after Trump said Tuesday that the US might “do something” about Hong Kong.
How China responds will depend on what the Trump administration does following this certification. Some lawmakers have cautioned the administration against trying to use Hong Kong as a cudgel in its separate battle with China. “The U.S. response to the Chinese government’s actions must be decisive, clear, and taken to protect U.S. national interests and to support autonomy and democratic freedoms in Hong Kong provided under international law,” House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-NY) said in a statement. “US policy toward Hong Kong should not be a pawn in whatever games Secretary Pompeo or President Trump is playing with Beijing.”
But Pompeo’s announcement today risks further souring relations between Washington and Beijing, with Hong Kong caught in the precarious middle.
Alex Ward contributed reporting to this story.


vox--2020-05-27--Photos capture the stark contrast in police response to George Floyd protests vs. anti-lockdown prot

Photos capture the stark contrast in police response to George Floyd protests vs. anti-lockdown protests

Share All sharing options for : These photos capture the stark contrast in police response to the George Floyd protests and the anti-lockdown protests In Minneapolis on Tuesday , thousands of people gathered to condemn the police violence against George Floyd , a 46-year-old black man who died Monday after an officer knelt on his neck for more than seven minutes .
The protest , which included chants of “ It could have been me , ” was met at times with tear gas and rubber bullets .
It ’ s a response that was incredibly harsh — and one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement has reacted to lockdown protests , several of which have included armed white men .
Tuesday ’ s protest was prompted by officers ’ violence toward Floyd , actions that were captured on camera by bystanders who urged the police to stop hurting him .
Floyd was arrested in connection with a forgery report on Monday ; shortly after , officers pinned him to the ground , with one putting his knee on his neck to keep him down .
In a video that circulated widely on social media , Floyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can ’ t breathe !
I can ’ t breathe !
” a statement reminiscent of the last words of Eric Garner , who died in New York in 2014 after a police officer put him in a chokehold .
Following his transport to a medical center , Floyd died later in the day .
Floyd ’ s death has spurred massive outcry over the police ’ s excessive use of force during his arrest and the long pattern of police violence that ’ s resulted in the killing of black men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been multiple incidents in recent years that have raised national attention , including the shooting of Philando Castile , who was killed by a police officer during a traffic stop in 2016 .
Unlike many officer-involved shootings , though , there have been some swift repercussions to Floyd ’ s death : The four police officers who were involved in the incident were fired , and the FBI has now opened an investigation .
“ Being black in America should not be a death sentence , ” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now calling for the officers to be charged with murder , a sentiment that ’ s been echoed by advocates around the country .
Yet despite the steps taken toward justice , the treatment of protesters during a Tuesday march in Minneapolis underscored how police continue to use violence against people of color .
Although the march was predominantly peaceful , at one point a group of protesters began to throw rocks and vandalize police cars , according to CBS Minnesota .
When protesters approached the location of the precinct where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some broke a window of the police station , while others tagged the outside of a car with graffiti .
Around that time , police began firing tear gas at the crowd and using flash grenades , CNN reports .
Andy Maddix , a Star-Tribune journalist who was on the scene , also noted that he was shot by a rubber bullet .
“ It ’ s real ugly .
The police have to understand that this is the climate they have created , this is the climate they created , ” a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from police is an example of how open law enforcement can be to using violence against a crowd composed heavily of people of color .
“ This is where police have to become better at deescalating , ” Rashad Robinson , the president of advocacy group Color of Change , told Vox .
“ It illustrates very clearly the ways controlling , harming , and mistreating black people are an acceptable course for police in America.
” Images from these protests — including protesters dousing their faces with milk in order to temper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underscore not only the intensity of the response , but a major contrast with the lack of force that ’ s been used in anti-lockdown protests at state capitols around the country , when the protesters were armed white men .
As Vox ’ s Katelyn Burns reported , white men equipped with assault weapons were among those who protested Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ’ s lockdown restrictions in Michigan in late April , prompting some lawmakers to wear bulletproof vests to work .
In St. Paul , too , an overwhelmingly white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier this month , with some showcasing firearms .
“ Unarmed people , many of whom are people of color , protest police brutality and are met with police brutality — flash grenades , tear gas , and rubber bullets , ” says Georgetown Law professor Paul Butler , the author of Chokehold : Policing Black Men .
“ But when armed , mainly white protesters storm the Michigan state capitol , the police just let them be.
” There ’ s a major difference in how unarmed black protesters were treated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The protests that took place in Minneapolis over Floyd ’ s death and those that have occurred in state capitols have many differences — including , in some cases , their size .
Still , the contrast in how police reacted to protesters at these respective gatherings was evident , and several journalists and activists have called out the disparity on social media .
“ There are different sets of rules , there are different sets of consequences , ” says Robinson , regarding the way law enforcement reacted in these different scenarios @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tear gas and rubber bullets against protesters in Ferguson , Missouri , when they pushed back on the police killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown in 2014 .
Meanwhile , armed protesters in Michigan were met simply with pointed stares from the officers on the scene during a lockdown protest that itself drew attention to the racial disparities exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic .
“ Armed men with guns have been showing up in capitols across the country , in essence , demanding that things open back up , ” Robinson notes .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are places where black and brown people work.
” As advocates note , this is not to say that there should have been more force used in the protests at the state capitols , or in any protests , but to highlight the uneven response — and note that police shouldn ’ t be disproportionately using violence when these protests involve people of color .
Ultimately , both Robinson and Brown say that Floyd ’ s death — and the treatment of the protesters who were trying to raise awareness about it — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of police in many cities .
Robinson notes that more policies focused on transparency and taking responsibility , coupled with a fundamental rethinking of why the criminal justice system is so central to American life , need to be implemented in order to advance long-term change .
“ We put everything in our police departments instead of investing in communities to make them home .
Literally , we put our knee on people ’ s necks instead of lifting them up , ” he said .
Every day at Vox , we aim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Share All sharing options for: These photos capture the stark contrast in police response to the George Floyd protests and the anti-lockdown protests
In Minneapolis on Tuesday, thousands of people gathered to condemn the police violence against George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man who died Monday after an officer pinned him by the neck with his knee for more than seven minutes. The protest, which included chants of “It could have been me,” was met at times with tear gas and rubber bullets. It’s a response that was incredibly harsh — and one that marks a stark contrast with how law enforcement has reacted to lockdown protests, several of which have included armed white men.
Tuesday’s protest was prompted by officers’ violence toward Floyd, actions that were captured on camera by bystanders who urged the police to stop hurting him. Floyd was arrested in connection with a forgery report on Monday; shortly after, officers pinned him to the ground, with one putting his knee on his neck to keep him down.
In a video that circulated widely on social media, Floyd can be heard repeatedly saying, “I can’t breathe! I can’t breathe!” a statement reminiscent of the last words of Eric Garner, who died in New York in 2014 after a police officer put him in a chokehold. Following his transport to a medical center, Floyd was pronounced dead.
Floyd’s death has spurred massive outcry over the police’s excessive use of force during his arrest and the long pattern of police violence that’s resulted in the killing of black men. In Minnesota alone, there have been multiple incidents in recent years that have raised national attention, including the shooting of Philando Castile, who was killed by a police officer during a traffic stop in 2016.
Unlike many officer-involved shootings, though, there have been some swift repercussions to Floyd’s death: The four police officers who were involved in the incident were fired, and the FBI has now opened an investigation. “Being black in America should not be a death sentence,” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said in a statement. Floyd’s family is now calling for the officers to be charged with murder, a sentiment that’s been echoed by advocates around the country.
Yet despite the steps taken toward justice, the treatment of protesters during a Tuesday march in Minneapolis underscored how police continue to use violence against people of color.
Although the march was predominantly peaceful, at one point a group of protesters began to throw rocks and vandalize police cars, according to CBS Minnesota. When protesters approached the location of the precinct where the officers who hurt Floyd supposedly worked, some broke a window of the police station, while others tagged the outside of a car with graffiti. Around that time, police began firing tear gas at the crowd and using flash grenades, CNN reports. Andy Maddix, a Star-Tribune journalist who was on the scene, also noted that he was shot by a rubber bullet.
“It’s real ugly. The police have to understand that this is the climate they have created, this is the climate they created,” a protester told CBS Minnesota.
The escalation from police is an example of how open law enforcement can be to using violence against a crowd composed heavily of people of color. “This is where police have to become better at deescalating,” Rashad Robinson, the president of advocacy group Color of Change, told Vox. “It illustrates very clearly the ways controlling, harming, and mistreating black people are an acceptable course for police in America.”
Images from these protests — including protesters dousing their faces with milk in order to temper the sting of the tear gas — underscore not only the intensity of the response, but a major contrast with the lack of force that’s been used in anti-lockdown protests at state capitols around the country, when the protesters were armed white men. As Vox’s Katelyn Burns reported, white men equipped with assault weapons were among those who protested Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s lockdown restrictions in Michigan in late April, prompting some lawmakers to wear bulletproof vests to work. In St. Paul, too, an overwhelmingly white crowd pushed to “liberate Minnesota” earlier this month, with some showcasing firearms.
“Unarmed people, many of whom are people of color, protest police brutality and are met with police brutality — flash grenades, tear gas, and rubber bullets,” says Georgetown Law professor Paul Butler, the author of Chokehold: Policing Black Men. “But when armed, mainly white protesters storm the Michigan state capitol, the police just let them be.”
There’s a major difference in how unarmed black protesters were treated in Minneapolis, compared to armed white protesters
The protests that took place in Minneapolis over Floyd’s death and those that have occurred in state capitols have many differences — including, in some cases, their size. Still, the contrast in how police reacted to protesters at these respective gatherings was evident, and several journalists and activists have called out the disparity on social media.
the stark — and sickening— differences in police response to the George Floyd protests vs. armed anti-lockdown protests // via @therecount pic.twitter.com/HqcwD8nPZy — j.d. durkin (@jiveDurkey) May 27, 2020
A tale of two protests shows America’s ugly race problem:
Michigan - white protestors WITH GUNS yell and threaten armed insurrection AGAINST fellow citizens’ safety, nothing done
Minneapolis- diverse, yet mainly black people protesting FOR fellow citizens’ safety, tear gassed pic.twitter.com/ieDvJOFSDn — (@exavierpope) May 27, 2020
“There are different sets of rules, there are different sets of consequences,” says Robinson, regarding the way law enforcement reacted in these different scenarios. He recalls police using tactics like tear gas and rubber bullets against protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, when they pushed back on the police killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown in 2014.
Meanwhile, armed protesters in Michigan were met simply with pointed stares from the officers on the scene during a lockdown protest that itself drew attention to the racial disparities exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic. “Armed men with guns have been showing up in capitols across the country, in essence, demanding that things open back up,” Robinson notes. “What’s been opening back up are places where black and brown people work.”
As advocates note, this is not to say that there should have been more force used in the protests at the state capitols, or in any protests, but to highlight the uneven response — and note that police shouldn’t be disproportionately using violence when these protests involve people of color.
Ultimately, both Robinson and Brown say that Floyd’s death — and the treatment of the protesters who were trying to raise awareness about it — draws attention to the lack of accountability of police in many cities.
Robinson notes that more policies focused on transparency and taking responsibility, coupled with a fundamental rethinking of why the criminal justice system is so central to American life, need to be implemented in order to advance long-term change. “We put everything in our police departments instead of investing in communities to make them home. Literally, we put our knee on people’s necks instead of lifting them up,” he said.
Updated May 28 to clarify that Floyd was pronounced dead at the hospital he was transferred to by paramedics.