vox--2020-10-05--What Joe Biden was trying to say about the Green New Deal

The first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden was widely acknowledged to be , in the immortal words of CNN ’ s Dana Bash , a “ shitshow.
” Scarcely a full sentence or coherent thought was heard the entire night .
Trump interrupted so often and told so many lies that Fox News moderator Chris Wallace was rendered ornamental .
We should probably all just forget it as soon as possible — but before we do , it ’ s worth looking a little closer at one brief episode .
To everyone ’ s surprise ( it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of topics ) , Chris Wallace asked a question about climate change .
As is to be expected from a conservative , he framed it as a trade-off between the environment and the economy .
In the ensuing shouting , Trump accused Biden of supporting “ the radical Green New Deal , ” which he alleged would cost “ $ 100 trillion.
” ( For those who are wondering , that number is from a ludicrous “ study ” of the GND by the right-wing American Action Forum . )
Biden responded , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my plan.
” Then , just a few minutes later , he said , “ The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward.
” Then , minutes later , “ No , I don ’ t support the Green New Deal.
” He supports “ the Biden plan , which is different than what [ Trump ] calls the radical Green New Deal.
” Minutes later , sleuths on the right turned up language on Biden ’ s website calling the Green New Deal a “ crucial framework for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Right-wing media worked furiously to make this a story , trying to start an intra-left feud by saying that Biden was repudiating the radical left .
It doesn ’ t seem to have worked .
Climate activists , like Evan Weber , co-founder and political director of the Sunrise Movement , didn ’ t take the bait , perhaps because it was a little too obvious what Trump was trying to do .
Nonetheless , it ’ s worth spelling out exactly what ’ s going on here , because it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back decades — and may finally , at long last , be changing .
Republicans are working furiously to shore up the “ environment versus economy ” frame Around the time of Ronald Reagan and the ascendance of movement conservatism , the GOP began lumping environmental policy into the same big bucket as all progressive social or economic policy : pie-in-the-sky dreams that would raise taxes and damage the economy .
Thanks to decades of subsequent repetition — often echoed by defensive Clinton-era Democrats — the “ environment vs. economy ” frame has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics into popular culture .
Even people who claim to know very little about politics will have the impression , the feeling , that it ’ s true .
It was through that basic frame that climate change entered US politics .
I ’ ve argued for years ( 2010 , 2013 ) that climate is ill-suited to that frame , that calling it “ environmental ” serves to shrink and distort it in the public mind .
But despite my best efforts , that ’ s how it was discussed for most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocates beat their heads against the frame for years , talking about “ green jobs , ” new industries , and competing with China in global markets .
Then-Rep. Jay Inslee co-wrote a whole book about the green economy back in 2013 .
Thanks in no small part to the youth climate movement and the Green New Deal resolution , formally introduced by Sen. Ed Markey ( D-MA ) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) in February 2019 , that frame finally seems to be giving way , at least among Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Within the party , the center of gravity on climate has moved considerably to the left and there is more policy alignment than at any time in recent memory .
As conservative tropes lose their potency outside the bubble , those inside the bubble double and triple down on them .
So it is with the Green New Deal .
From the outset , the right has worked frantically to define the GND as the most unrealistic , socialist environmental plan yet .
As I wrote last April , in the months following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News discussed it more than CNN and MSNBC combined and its viewers evinced the highest awareness of it .
In the same poll , only 1 percent of Fox viewers were undecided about their opinion of the GND ; 91 percent opposed it .
The right seized on the GND and defined it in the most lurid terms — it would ban cows and planes , take away everyone ’ s SUVs , and cost “ one-hundred TRILLION dollars.
” They no longer have any particular need for sophistication or mainstream credibility outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has simply become a trigger for every moldy critique of environmentalism that the right had laying around , in its silliest possible terms .
“ They want to take out the cows !
” Trump said .
( Similarly , Joe Biden is going to destroy suburbs , the Second Amendment , the middle class , and God . )
The GND of the right-wing imagination bears virtually no resemblance to the spirit or language of the thing itself .
It has become a symbol , a vessel for stale resentments .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both sides now Of course , the GND has become a symbol on the left , too .
It was never a specific set of policy proposals , and there is , to this day , no “ official ” GND policy agenda .
Numerous nonprofit research and advocacy groups have released their own versions ; the Green Party has a version ; various international groups and groups in other countries have their own versions .
The GND is not a particular set of policy proposals but an idea : an ambitious effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , led by the generation that will suffer most from it , free of the political dogmas and self-imposed restraints of neoliberalism and focused on equity and justice .
Different groups and constituencies will fill in policy details based on their individual interests and concerns .
It ’ s the idea of the GND , the positive symbol , that has remained resilient in the face of concerted right-wing attacks .
And it is the idea that Biden cites as his inspiration .
But he can not , and should not , simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Green New Deal has given birth to a whole litter of policy proposals Insofar as the GND has any policy content , it suggests ambitious action in three areas : stringent standards to accelerate decarbonization in key sectors like electricity , buildings , and transportation ; large-scale , job-creating public investments in clean energy projects , green infrastructure , and vulnerable communities ; and an overall focus on justice , such that the communities most at risk , from either climate change or the clean energy transition , receive the most assistance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and justice ( SIJ ) — is what Biden refers to on his website as a “ crucial framework for meeting climate challenges.
” It is the framework that inspired , to one degree or another , virtually every climate plan released across the left over the past few years , from nonprofit green and environmental justice groups to union groups to Congress to presidential candidates .
It is the framework that inspired Biden ’ s beefed-up climate plan .
He didn ’ t take everything from the original GND — he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or food and housing guarantees — but he put together a credible version of the basic SIJ framework .
Nonetheless , he would rightly be seen as presumptuous and insincere if he simply called his plan the “ Green New Deal.
” The GND is , and ought to remain , its own thing .
Biden needs to steer between the symbols , toward policy Biden ’ s political challenge , in the debates and the race more broadly , is to steer clear of the symbol that the GND has become on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting tangled up with the dark , garish fantasy that Fox News has made of the GND — the one with no hamburgers , the one Trump kept yelling about onstage at the debate .
Believe it or not , there are wavering , undecided voters out there who might hold that against him .
It feeds the “ Biden is controlled by the radical left ” narrative being pushed so hard on conservative and social media right now .
He also needs to avoid being seen as appropriating what has become a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He needs to be seen charting his own path , not simply accepting what the left has offered .
That ’ s why he calls his plan ( or at least did at the debate ) the “ Biden Green Deal.
” He needs , and climate activists need , for there to be a symbol of ultimate progressive ambition that is too far for him to reach , something that he , as a moderate , can publicly opt against .
Activists need room on the left from which to push @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he needs to be seen sanding off the edges and producing a more sensible version of the progressive agenda .
Biden could pull off a political hat trick on climate Not many committed lefties wanted Joe Biden as their candidate , but looking back over the race so far , in light of the stability of the polls and Biden ’ s strength among key swing demographics ( like older people ) , there does seem to be a weird match of the man to the moment .
He might be just the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face on a bold left agenda .
A newly resurgent left is pushing ambitious policies on Biden , from Medicare-for-all to justice system reform to the Green New Deal .
He has room to welcome their spirit but to adopt more reasonable versions of his own , and because he is widely seen as a moderate , a party man , it ’ s plausible to voters .
But the thing is , those “ moderate ” versions Biden is crafting amount to the most ambitious progressive policy agenda a Democratic presidential candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , far more ambitious than anything Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton ever put forward ( and far more ambitious than anything Congress is likely to pass ) .
It ’ s true on health care , race , policing , and infrastructure — and it ’ s true on climate .
Biden ’ s climate plan is easily the most ambitious ever put forward by a presidential candidate .
It would target 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 , which is faster than even the most progressive states have pushed .
It would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of all federal green spending to vulnerable communities .
It would retrofit millions of buildings , ramp up federal research , reorient US foreign policy around climate , beef up EPA enforcement , and on and on .
It ’ s not the GND , but it ’ s a really good deal .
To have any hope of doing any of it , Biden needs to get elected , and to do that , he needs to walk a fine line : avoid appearing too closely aligned with the activist left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but remain closely enough aligned to keep the left on his side .
That , in a nutshell , is what he was trying to do at the debate , and what Trump was deliberately trying to prevent him from doing .
No one would ever accuse Biden of being rhetorically fleet of foot .
And on the debate stage he was up against a torrent of obnoxious , badgering bullshit , which would be difficult for anyone .
So his answers on the GND weren ’ t exactly clear , and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the story , such as it was , faded quickly and did not produce the hoped-for intramural fight on the left .
As much as it loves intramural fights , even the left isn ’ t that foolish .
Climate activists understand the stakes of this election all too well .
It is the most important of their lives .
They know that only a decisive Biden victory makes any kind of deal — new , green , Biden , or otherwise — possible .
Help keep Vox free for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden was widely acknowledged to be, in the immortal words of CNN’s Dana Bash, a “shitshow.” Scarcely a full sentence or coherent thought was heard the entire night. Trump interrupted so often and told so many lies that Fox News moderator Chris Wallace was rendered ornamental. We should probably all just forget it as soon as possible. But before we do, it’s worth looking a little closer at one brief episode — since the Green New Deal popped up again Wednesday in the vice presidential debate.
To everyone’s surprise (it wasn’t on the advance list of topics), Chris Wallace asked a question about climate change. As is to be expected from a conservative, he framed it as a trade-off between the environment and the economy.
In the ensuing shouting, Trump accused Biden of supporting “the radical Green New Deal,” which he alleged would cost “$100 trillion.” (For those who are wondering, that number is from a ludicrous “study” of the GND by the right-wing American Action Forum.)
Biden responded, “The Green New Deal is not my plan.”
Then, just a few minutes later, he said, “The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward.”
Then, minutes later, “No, I don’t support the Green New Deal.” He supports “the Biden plan, which is different than what [Trump] calls the radical Green New Deal.”
Minutes later, sleuths on the right turned up language on Biden’s website calling the Green New Deal a “crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.”
The media won’t Fact Check @JoeBiden’s lies.
His website says he supports the Green New Deal. @realDonaldTrump is right. pic.twitter.com/tFkop9FiXU — Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) September 30, 2020
Right-wing media worked furiously to make this a story, trying to start an intra-left feud by saying that Biden was repudiating the radical left.
It doesn’t seem to have worked. Climate activists, like Evan Weber, co-founder and political director of the Sunrise Movement, didn’t take the bait, perhaps because it was a little too obvious what Trump was trying to do.
“The Green New Deal is not a bad deal, but it’s not the plan I have—that’s the ‘Biden Green Deal’”—@JoeBiden
Seems right! Lol
Conversely, the Biden Green Deal is not a bad deal, it’s not the plan we have, but it’s a damn good start. pic.twitter.com/ws7wktkgW1 — Evan Weber (@evanlweber) October 1, 2020
Nonetheless, it’s worth spelling out exactly what’s going on here, because it’s part of a political dynamic that goes back decades — and may finally, at long last, be changing.
Republicans are working furiously to shore up the “environment versus economy” frame
Around the time of Ronald Reagan and the ascendance of movement conservatism, the GOP began lumping environmental policy into the same big bucket as all progressive social or economic policy: pie-in-the-sky dreams that would raise taxes and damage the economy.
Thanks to decades of subsequent repetition — often echoed by defensive Clinton-era Democrats — the “environment vs. economy” frame has become ubiquitous enough to seep out of politics into popular culture. Even people who claim to know very little about politics will have the impression, the feeling, that it’s true.
It was through that basic frame that climate change entered US politics. I’ve argued for years (2010, 2013) that climate is ill-suited to that frame, that calling it “environmental” serves to shrink and distort it in the public mind. But despite my best efforts, that’s how it was discussed for most of the 2000s and 2010s.
Climate advocates beat their heads against the frame for years, talking about “green jobs,” new industries, and competing with China in global markets. Then-Rep. Jay Inslee co-wrote a whole book about the green economy back in 2013.
Thanks in no small part to the youth climate movement and the Green New Deal resolution, formally introduced by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in February 2019, that frame finally seems to be giving way, at least among Democrats, at least on climate change. Within the party, the center of gravity on climate has moved considerably to the left and there is more policy alignment than at any time in recent memory.
As conservative tropes lose their potency outside the bubble, those inside the bubble double and triple down on them. So it is with the Green New Deal.
From the outset, the right has worked frantically to define the GND as the most unrealistic, socialist environmental plan yet. As I wrote last April, in the months following the introduction of the GND, Fox News discussed it more than CNN and MSNBC combined and its viewers evinced the highest awareness of it.
In the same poll, only 1 percent of Fox viewers were undecided about their opinion of the GND; 91 percent opposed it.
The right seized on the GND and defined it in the most lurid terms — it would ban cows and planes, take away everyone’s SUVs, and cost “one-hundred TRILLION dollars.” They no longer have any particular need for sophistication or mainstream credibility outside their echo chamber, so the GND has simply become a trigger for every moldy critique of environmentalism that the right had laying around, in its silliest possible terms. “They want to take out the cows!” Trump said. (Similarly, Joe Biden is going to destroy suburbs, the Second Amendment, the middle class, and God.)
During the vice presidential debate, Vice President Mike Pence brought it up, saying: “Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want to raise taxes, bury our economy over a $2 trillion Green New Deal.” Later, he added, “They would impose the Green New Deal, which would crush American energy, would increase the energy costs of American families in their homes and literally would crush American jobs.”
The GND of the right-wing imagination bears virtually no resemblance to the spirit or language of the thing itself. It has become a symbol, a vessel for stale resentments.
The Green New Deal is a symbol on both sides now
Of course, the GND has become a symbol on the left, too. It was never a specific set of policy proposals, and there is, to this day, no “official” GND policy agenda. Numerous nonprofit research and advocacy groups have released their own versions; the Green Party has a version; various international groups and groups in other countries have their own versions.
The GND is not a particular set of policy proposals but an idea: an ambitious effort equal to the challenge of climate change, led by the generation that will suffer most from it, free of the political dogmas and self-imposed restraints of neoliberalism and focused on equity and justice. Different groups and constituencies will fill in policy details based on their individual interests and concerns.
It’s the idea of the GND, the positive symbol, that has remained resilient in the face of concerted right-wing attacks. And it is the idea that Biden cites as his inspiration.
But he cannot, and should not, simply adopt it as his own.
The Green New Deal has given birth to a whole litter of policy proposals
Insofar as the GND has any policy content, it suggests ambitious action in three areas: stringent standards to accelerate decarbonization in key sectors like electricity, buildings, and transportation; large-scale, job-creating public investments in clean energy projects, green infrastructure, and vulnerable communities; and an overall focus on justice, such that the communities most at risk, from either climate change or the clean energy transition, receive the most assistance.
This basic recipe — standards, investments, and justice (SIJ) — is what Biden refers to on his website as a “crucial framework for meeting climate challenges.” It is the framework that inspired, to one degree or another, virtually every climate plan released across the left over the past few years, from nonprofit green and environmental justice groups to union groups to Congress to presidential candidates.
It is the framework that inspired Biden’s beefed-up climate plan. He didn’t take everything from the original GND — he’s not offering a job guarantee or food and housing guarantees — but he put together a credible version of the basic SIJ framework.
Nonetheless, he would rightly be seen as presumptuous and insincere if he simply called his plan the “Green New Deal.” The GND is, and ought to remain, its own thing.
Biden needs to steer between the symbols, toward policy
Biden’s political challenge, in the debates and the race more broadly, is to steer clear of the symbol that the GND has become on both sides.
He needs to avoid getting tangled up with the dark, garish fantasy that Fox News has made of the GND — the one with no hamburgers, the one Trump kept yelling about onstage at the debate. Believe it or not, there are wavering, undecided voters out there who might hold that against him. It feeds the “Biden is controlled by the radical left” narrative being pushed so hard on conservative and social media right now.
He also needs to avoid being seen as appropriating what has become a kind of North Star to climate activists. He needs to be seen charting his own path, not simply accepting what the left has offered. That’s why he calls his plan (or at least did at the debate) the “Biden Green Deal.”
He needs, and climate activists need, for there to be a symbol of ultimate progressive ambition that is too far for him to reach, something that he, as a moderate, can publicly opt against. Activists need room on the left from which to push him when he takes office. And he needs to be seen sanding off the edges and producing a more sensible version of the progressive agenda.
Fact check: Biden says the "Green New Deal is not my plan." His plan borrows heavily from it. https://t.co/WpDAvcRlN5 — NBC News (@NBCNews) September 30, 2020
Biden could pull off a political hat trick on climate
Not many committed lefties wanted Joe Biden as their candidate, but looking back over the race so far, in light of the stability of the polls and Biden’s strength among key swing demographics (like older people), there does seem to be a weird match of the man to the moment. He might be just the guy to put a genial, moderate face on a bold left agenda.
A newly resurgent left is pushing ambitious policies on Biden, from Medicare-for-all to justice system reform to the Green New Deal. He has room to welcome their spirit but to adopt more reasonable versions of his own, and because he is widely seen as a moderate, a party man, it’s plausible to voters.
But the thing is, those “moderate” versions Biden is crafting amount to the most ambitious progressive policy agenda a Democratic presidential candidate has run on in the modern era, far more ambitious than anything Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton ever put forward (and far more ambitious than anything Congress is likely to pass). It’s true on health care, race, policing, and infrastructure — and it’s true on climate.
Biden’s climate plan is easily the most ambitious ever put forward by a presidential candidate. It would target 100 percent clean electricity by 2035, which is faster than even the most progressive states have pushed. It would invest $2 trillion and channel 40 percent of all federal green spending to vulnerable communities. It would retrofit millions of buildings, ramp up federal research, reorient US foreign policy around climate, beef up EPA enforcement, and on and on.
It’s not the GND, but it’s a really good deal.
To have any hope of doing any of it, Biden needs to get elected, and to do that, he needs to walk a fine line: avoid appearing too closely aligned with the activist left, to avoid spooking swing voters, but remain closely enough aligned to keep the left on his side. That, in a nutshell, is what he was trying to do at the debate, and what Trump was deliberately trying to prevent him from doing.
No one would ever accuse Biden of being rhetorically fleet of foot. And on the debate stage he was up against a torrent of obnoxious, badgering bullshit, which would be difficult for anyone. So his answers on the GND weren’t exactly clear, and they were easy for the right to demagogue.
But the story, such as it was, faded quickly and did not produce the hoped-for intramural fight on the left. As much as it loves intramural fights, even the left isn’t that foolish. Climate activists understand the stakes of this election all too well. It is the most important of their lives. They know that only a decisive Biden victory makes any kind of deal — new, green, Biden, or otherwise — possible.


vox--2020-10-05--Scientists say the coronavirus is airborne. Here’s what that means.

Since the beginning of the pandemic , the World Health Organization has stressed that Covid-19 primarily spreads through very close personal contact .
The virus-laden droplets exhaled from a sick person ’ s mouth and nose , the thinking goes , are heavy , and fall to the ground before they can get much farther than 6 feet .
But as the pandemic has unfolded , contact tracing studies have shown this isn ’ t always the case .
In China , an air conditioner pushed virus-laden air across three tables in a restaurant , infecting people seated at each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restaurant and saw many of these patrons were more than 6 feet apart from one another , suggesting that the virus traveled through the air .
In Washington state , another study showed one person at a choir practice infected 52 of the other participants ; it ’ s thought the singing could have led more virus to linger in the air .
Carefully controlled laboratory studies are also suggesting that under the right indoor conditions , SARS-CoV-2 , the virus that causes Covid-19 , can float in the air and , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In July , the WHO changed its language to recognize that fact .
“ Short-range aerosol transmission , particularly in specific indoor locations , such as crowded and inadequately ventilated spaces over a prolonged period of time with infected persons can not be ruled out , ” the WHO now states .
Previously , the organization maintained that airborne transmission was unlikely to occur outside the hospital setting , where some procedures can generate super-small particles that linger in the air longer than large respiratory drops .
Then , on October 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that “ Covid-19 can sometimes be spread by airborne transmission , ” explaining that “ there is evidence that under certain conditions , people with COVID-19 seem to have infected others who were more than 6 feet away.
” With recognition of this mode of transmission , scientists hope , communities can think more about the ventilation of indoor spaces and perhaps engineer solutions to make these spaces safer .
The CDC had posted a similar update on September 20 , which it quickly took down ( the agency claimed the update @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Overall , it ’ s been clear for quite some time that the 6 feet guidance was insufficient to explain all the facets of the risk in catching Covid-19 .
Overall , the public communications on the aerosol issue have been something of a mess .
It turns out scientists have been debating whether respiratory diseases like the flu and coronavirus should be labeled “ airborne ” for a century .
The “ airborne ” designation is more commonly applied to extremely contagious diseases , like measles .
A lot of these terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , and they don ’ t answer the question laypeople care about : Which air is safe to breathe during the Covid-19 pandemic , and which air is not safe ?
To answer that question , it ’ s helpful to understand two different scientific perspectives on the matter .
One is : What physically happens when a sick person breathes , sneezes , or coughs in a room ?
The other is : What patterns have epidemiologists observed in the way people are exposed to the virus and get sick ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s a relatively simple , if outdated , way of thinking about how respiratory diseases can spread .
It starts like this : When you exhale , sneeze , or cough , you release a cloud of gas and liquid droplets .
If those droplets are relatively big , they ’ re heavy and fall to the ground before evaporating , like raindrops do .
Others are smaller , and made smaller still by evaporation .
These smaller droplets can linger in the air longer , drifting on air currents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is small enough , the moisture in it evaporates before it has the chance to reach the ground ( provided the humidity in the room is average ) .
If there ’ s stuff like germs in that droplet , they become light enough to float on air currents , like the dust you can see suspended in the air .
These particles are often called aerosols .
This framework is old , and it comes from William Wells , a scientist who studied tuberculosis transmission in the 1930s .
In a 1934 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears , therefore , that transmission of infection through air may take one of two forms depending upon the size of the infected droplet.
” When it comes to Covid-19 , one of the first questions epidemiologists tried to answer was : Is the virus spread in the dust that floats or the big drops that fall ?
If it ’ s the small dust , alarm bells go off .
These are the prototypical airborne diseases .
They include measles , chickenpox , and tuberculosis , and they are extremely contagious .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ measles will infect 12 to 18 others .
If it ’ s the big drops , it ’ s still concerning .
Diseases like the flu , whooping cough , the common cold , and coronaviruses are primarily large droplet-borne .
With these diseases , only the closest contacts to an infected person get infected because large droplets quickly fall to the ground ( within 6 feet or so ) .
It ’ s also possible for these big drops to fall on surfaces , and those surfaces can become contaminated too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there ’ s a growing consensus that getting sick from touching contaminated surfaces is rare .
But keep washing your hands !
A part of why the terminology here is so confusing , and there ’ s so much debate about it , is that the words “ aerosol ” and “ droplet ” mean different things to different scientific disciplines .
“ An aerosol is a particle in the air , ” said Lidia Morawska , an engineer and the director of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ droplet is a liquid aerosol.
” To her , the distinction between droplets and aerosols doesn ’ t make any sense .
To her , they are all aerosols .
Wells ’ s droplet versus airborne distinction is still used today .
It ’ s outdated .
Wells outlined a clear distinction between droplets and aerosols according to their size .
Big drops fall , and little aerosolized drops float .
It ’ s now appreciated that the actual picture is a lot more complicated .
“ We ’ re always exhaling , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contains within it a continuum spectrum of droplet sizes , ” Lydia Bourouiba , an MIT researcher who studies the fluid dynamics of infections , said in a July interview .
And , as she explained in a March paper in JAMA , the conditions of the cloud itself can affect the range of some of the droplets .
If propelled by a cough or sneeze , Bourouiba finds , droplets can travel upward of 20 feet .
“ The cloud mixture , not the drop sizes , determines the initial range of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environments.
” The speed of the cloud , the temperature and humidity of the environment , and the individual droplet makeup of each cloud determine how long the droplets persist in the air , Bourouiba explained in JAMA .
Which is to say : There are conditions ( coughing and sneezing ) under which large drops don ’ t immediately fall to the floor and can spread more than 6 feet away from a person , and they can linger in the air for longer .
( It ’ s also possible SARS-CoV-2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , floatier drops expelled by our breath too . )
There ’ s growing theoretical evidence for the airborne spread of the coronavirus .
Lab studies , in idealized conditions , also show that the virus can live in an aerosolized form for up to 16 hours ( the scientists in this case intentionally created aerosolized droplets with a machine ) .
Another study tracked with lasers the various droplets expelled from a human mouth during speech .
It found “ normal speech generates airborne droplets that can remain suspended for tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of transmitting disease in confined spaces.
” Multiple studies have found evidence of the virus ’ s RNA in the air of hospital rooms .
But the WHO notes “ no studies have found viable virus in air samples , ” meaning the virus was either incapable of infecting others or was in very small quantities unlikely to infect others .
“ What we are trying to say is , well , let ’ s not worry about whether you call it aerosol or whether you call it a droplet , ” Morawska @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imploring the WHO and others to address airborne transmission of Covid-19 , said that month .
“ It is in the air , ” she says , “ and you inhale it .
It ’ s coming from our nose from our mouths .
It ’ s lingering in the air and others can inhale it.
” That the WHO updated its language is a sign that it ’ s starting to appreciate this perspective .
( That said : The WHO still defines a droplet as a particle larger than 5 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smaller , despite many scientists arguing the cutoff is meaningless . )
But this perspective is limited .
These lab studies can ’ t perfectly generalize to the real-world conditions in which the virus spreads and infects others .
Just because a virus travels far in a drop doesn ’ t mean it can infect people across great distances .
Viruses can degrade quickly outside the body .
Also , dose matters .
Small exposures to the virus may not be enough to get a person sick .
So to find out how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need contact tracing studies .
Contact tracing studies show airborne transmission may be possible in confined indoor spaces Lab studies note the theoretical possibility of airborne transmission .
But that ’ s only one part of the answer to the question of which air is safe to breathe .
Epidemiologists come at this question from another angle , looking at patterns of virus spread observed in the real world and working backward to determine if airborne spread factors in .
Contact tracing studies show us that while droplets being inhaled by people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explain most of the transmission of Covid-19 , there are limited times and environments in which SARS-CoV-2 can behave a bit like an airborne virus .
“ So we need to define which types of contact , which type of environments , lead to that type of transmission , ” Muge Cevik , a physician and virology expert at the University of St. Andrews , said in a July interview .
In households , she says , an infected person can be isolated in one room and not spread the virus to others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isolated ) .
A systematic review of studies in The Lancet of both SARS-CoV-2 and similar viruses found large reductions in risk if people just stay 1 meter ( 3 feet ) away from one another .
This suggests a lot of the risk of catching Covid-19 is from the large drops that fall quickly to the ground .
But then there are cases where people are packed together in an enclosed space — like a church , with singing or shouting — where the transmission looks a little more like airborne transmission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state is an example of where airborne transmission might have happened .
But what made this event so risky was the convergence of many risk factors : the singing activity ( during which the infected person released viral particles into the air ) , the time spent together ( the practice was 2.5 hours ) , and the interaction between the choir members in an enclosed space ( not only did they all practice together , they also split up into smaller groups and shared cookies and tea ) .
Another study from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Buddhist temple event , tracing much of the spread to the confines of one of the buses transporting people to the function .
The bus had one sick person aboard , and 24 out of 67 people on that bus got sick , possibly indicating airborne transmission .
Those who sat by the windows fared better , indicating the importance of ventilation .
“ I think we just need to get away from this terminology and give much more clear definitions , ” Cevik says .
For her , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which situations are riskier than others .
“ Risk is a spectrum .
It ’ s not only the distance , but it ’ s about timing , what type of activities you ’ re involved in .
I know it ’ s a bit complex , but that ’ s the reality.
” “ Airborne ” transmission means something very specific for doctors and health care workers One possible reason the CDC and the WHO have been slow to address the airborne transmission of Covid-19 : In a health care setting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing .
Though infection prevention experts know there ’ s a fuzzy boundary between drops that fall and specks that float , the dichotomy between airborne and droplet-borne is baked into how health care workers are trained to respond to outbreaks .
“ We ’ ve trained [ health care workers ] for decades to say , airborne is tuberculosis , measles , chickenpox , droplet is flu and pertussis and meningitis , ” Saskia Popescu , a hospital epidemiologist in Arizona , said over the summer .
“ And that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that ’ s how we ’ ve always done it.
” They do it because there are very specific sets of guidelines in place to deal with extremely contagious airborne diseases in a hospital setting .
For instance , a patient with a dangerous airborne disease often needs to be put in a room with an air pressure lower than the rest of the rooms in the building .
That way , no virus in the air of that room can escape it ( since air flows from high pressure to low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care workers can be a little more lax ; they can wear simple surgical masks during routine care and can save high-filtration ( and sometimes scarce ) respirators for the most dangerous procedures and cases .
In this light , it makes some sense that the WHO has been hesitant to label Covid-19 an “ airborne ” infection .
It ’ s not an airborne infection like measles is .
It is not as contagious .
Contact tracing studies consistently find that Covid-19 is spread most readily among people in the closest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Airborne ” means something very specific , very resource-intensive , and very scary for hospitals and the people who work in them .
And Covid-19 doesn ’ t match that definition .
“ The debate often isn ’ t very nuanced because of these rigid categories , ” Daniel Diekema , an infectious diseases physician and epidemiologist at the University of Iowa , says .
“ As soon as you say ‘ airborne ’ in the hospital infection prevention world , it brings to mind pathogens like tuberculosis , measles , chickenpox .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , influenza , coronaviruses , are not airborne in the same way that the measles , varicella [ chickenpox ] become airborne.
” But at the same time , with Covid-19 and other respiratory viruses , “ there definitely are small-particle aerosols produced , ” he says .
“ And in the right setting , where there ’ s poor ventilation , indoors , and a crowded environment , there is a risk for transmission among individuals , even if they may be more than 6 feet apart.
” So what do we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracing studies nor lab studies can perfectly answer the question of “ which air is safe ?
” But that ’ s science for you .
Scientists use imperfect methods , attacking from many angles , to try to arrive at the truth , which can take a while to nail down precisely .
Overall , the recognition that Covid-19 can spread through the air shouldn ’ t really change how we , individually , protect ourselves and others against it .
Six feet of distance between people is still a good barrier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mask-wearing could help prevent both large drops and small drops from being released in the first place .
Time matters too : The longer we spend in an enclosed , poorly ventilated space with others , the greater the chances of being exposed to an infectious dose of the virus .
The bottom line , as a trio of engineers from Clarkson University writes in the Conversation , is that “ while staying six feet from other people reduces exposure , it might not be sufficient in all situations , such as in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still need to think about the environments we ’ re in : Indoors is much riskier than outdoors ( where greater airflow can disperse drops and aerosols more quickly , and where the environment is less conducive to SARS-CoV-2 survival ) .
And indoors , ventilation can make a big difference .
An indoor space where the air is constantly refreshed with air from the outdoors is better than one where the air is stagnant .
( The American Society of Heating , Refrigerating , and Air-Conditioning Engineers has published extensive guidelines on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the pandemic . )
We also still need to think about the activity we ’ re engaging in .
Shouting , singing , and other such activities produce more droplets ( of any size ) than just sitting quietly .
Morawska hopes that in bringing attention to airborne spread of Covid-19 , there can be more attention paid to engineering solutions for indoor spaces to mitigate the spread of the pandemic .
Public health officials have continually stressed social distancing , mask-wearing , and hand-washing as ways to stop the spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard a restaurant reopening announce they ’ ve improved ventilation or increased ventilation ?
No .
This is really the point , ” Morawska says .
If Covid-19 is in indoor air , we should also be doing something about the air .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the World Health Organization has stressed that Covid-19 primarily spreads through very close personal contact. The virus-laden droplets exhaled from a sick person’s mouth and nose, the thinking goes, are heavy, and fall to the ground before they can get much farther than 6 feet.
But as the pandemic has unfolded, contact tracing studies have shown this isn’t always the case. In China, an air conditioner pushed virus-laden air across three tables in a restaurant, infecting people seated at each one. Researchers reviewed video from the restaurant and saw many of these patrons were more than 6 feet apart from one another, suggesting that the virus traveled through the air.
In Washington state, another study showed one person at a choir practice infected 52 of the other participants; it’s thought the singing could have led more virus to linger in the air. Carefully controlled laboratory studies are also suggesting that under the right indoor conditions, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, can float in the air and, to a certain degree, spread that way.
In July, the WHO changed its language to recognize that fact. “Short-range aerosol transmission, particularly in specific indoor locations, such as crowded and inadequately ventilated spaces over a prolonged period of time with infected persons cannot be ruled out,” the WHO now states. Previously, the organization maintained that airborne transmission was unlikely to occur outside the hospital setting, where some procedures can generate super-small particles that linger in the air longer than large respiratory drops.
Then, on October 5, the CDC updated its guidance to say that “Covid-19 can sometimes be spread by airborne transmission,” explaining that “there is evidence that under certain conditions, people with COVID-19 seem to have infected others who were more than 6 feet away.” With recognition of this mode of transmission, scientists hope, communities can think more about the ventilation of indoor spaces and perhaps engineer solutions to make these spaces safer.
The CDC had posted a similar update on September 20, which it quickly took down (the agency claimed the update had been posted in error). Overall, it’s been clear for quite some time that the 6 feet guidance was insufficient to explain all the facets of the risk in catching Covid-19.
Overall, the public communications on the aerosol issue have been something of a mess. It turns out scientists have been debating whether respiratory diseases like the flu and coronavirus should be labeled “airborne” for a century. The “airborne” designation is more commonly applied to extremely contagious diseases, like measles.
A lot of these terms are confusing (even to the scientists), and they don’t answer the question laypeople care about: Which air is safe to breathe during the Covid-19 pandemic, and which air is not safe?
To answer that question, it’s helpful to understand two different scientific perspectives on the matter. One is: What physically happens when a sick person breathes, sneezes, or coughs in a room? The other is: What patterns have epidemiologists observed in the way people are exposed to the virus and get sick?
Let’s start with the first.
Big drops versus little drops
There’s a relatively simple, if outdated, way of thinking about how respiratory diseases can spread.
It starts like this: When you exhale, sneeze, or cough, you release a cloud of gas and liquid droplets.
If those droplets are relatively big, they’re heavy and fall to the ground before evaporating, like raindrops do. Others are smaller, and made smaller still by evaporation. These smaller droplets can linger in the air longer, drifting on air currents for perhaps hours. If a droplet is small enough, the moisture in it evaporates before it has the chance to reach the ground (provided the humidity in the room is average). If there’s stuff like germs in that droplet, they become light enough to float on air currents, like the dust you can see suspended in the air. These particles are often called aerosols.
This framework is old, and it comes from William Wells, a scientist who studied tuberculosis transmission in the 1930s. In a 1934 paper, Wells concluded: “It appears, therefore, that transmission of infection through air may take one of two forms depending upon the size of the infected droplet.”
When it comes to Covid-19, one of the first questions epidemiologists tried to answer was: Is the virus spread in the dust that floats or the big drops that fall?
If it’s the small dust, alarm bells go off. These are the prototypical airborne diseases. They include measles, chickenpox, and tuberculosis, and they are extremely contagious. On average, one person infected with measles will infect 12 to 18 others.
If it’s the big drops, it’s still concerning. Diseases like the flu, whooping cough, the common cold, and coronaviruses are primarily large droplet-borne. With these diseases, only the closest contacts to an infected person get infected because large droplets quickly fall to the ground (within 6 feet or so). It’s also possible for these big drops to fall on surfaces, and those surfaces can become contaminated too. Luckily, in the case of Covid-19, there’s a growing consensus that getting sick from touching contaminated surfaces is rare. But keep washing your hands!
(Interestingly, there’s no one reason a new virus, like SARS-CoV-2, would go one route or the other. It’s possible, says University of Leicester virologist Julian Tang, that there may be a difference in the immune response with these airborne diseases that makes saliva and mucous less viscous, leading to more virus in small drops. Also, Tang writes in an email, “it is possible (though no one has studied this yet) that exhaled breath from measles/chickenpox cases may just be shedding much more virus (maybe millions of virus per minute) compared to respiratory viruses, which only exhale 100s to 1000s of viruses per minute.”)
A part of why the terminology here is so confusing, and there’s so much debate about it, is that the words “aerosol” and “droplet” mean different things to different scientific disciplines.
“An aerosol is a particle in the air,” said Lidia Morawska, an engineer and the director of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at Queensland University of Technology. “A droplet is a liquid aerosol.” To her, the distinction between droplets and aerosols doesn’t make any sense. To her, they are all aerosols.
Wells’s droplet versus airborne distinction is still used today. It’s outdated.
Wells outlined a clear distinction between droplets and aerosols according to their size. Big drops fall, and little aerosolized drops float. It’s now appreciated that the actual picture is a lot more complicated.
“We’re always exhaling, in fact, a gas cloud that contains within it a continuum spectrum of droplet sizes,” Lydia Bourouiba, an MIT researcher who studies the fluid dynamics of infections, said in a July interview. And, as she explained in a March paper in JAMA, the conditions of the cloud itself can affect the range of some of the droplets. If propelled by a cough or sneeze, Bourouiba finds, droplets can travel upward of 20 feet. “The cloud mixture, not the drop sizes, determines the initial range of the drops and their fate in indoor environments.”
The speed of the cloud, the temperature and humidity of the environment, and the individual droplet makeup of each cloud determine how long the droplets persist in the air, Bourouiba explained in JAMA.
Which is to say: There are conditions (coughing and sneezing) under which large drops don’t immediately fall to the floor and can spread more than 6 feet away from a person, and they can linger in the air for longer. (It’s also possible SARS-CoV-2 may be in some of the smaller, floatier drops expelled by our breath too.)
There’s growing theoretical evidence for the airborne spread of the coronavirus. Lab studies, in idealized conditions, also show that the virus can live in an aerosolized form for up to 16 hours (the scientists in this case intentionally created aerosolized droplets with a machine).
Another study tracked with lasers the various droplets expelled from a human mouth during speech. It found “normal speech generates airborne droplets that can remain suspended for tens of minutes or longer and are eminently capable of transmitting disease in confined spaces.”
Multiple studies have found evidence of the virus’s RNA in the air of hospital rooms. But the WHO notes “no studies have found viable virus in air samples,” meaning the virus was either incapable of infecting others or was in very small quantities unlikely to infect others.
“What we are trying to say is, well, let’s not worry about whether you call it aerosol or whether you call it a droplet,” Morawska, the co-author of a July commentary imploring the WHO and others to address airborne transmission of Covid-19, said that month. “It is in the air,” she says, “and you inhale it. It’s coming from our nose from our mouths. It’s lingering in the air and others can inhale it.”
That the WHO updated its language is a sign that it’s starting to appreciate this perspective. (That said: The WHO still defines a droplet as a particle larger than 5 to 10 microns and an aerosol as something smaller, despite many scientists arguing the cutoff is meaningless.)
But this perspective is limited. These lab studies can’t perfectly generalize to the real-world conditions in which the virus spreads and infects others. Just because a virus travels far in a drop doesn’t mean it can infect people across great distances. Viruses can degrade quickly outside the body. Also, dose matters. Small exposures to the virus may not be enough to get a person sick.
So to find out how people actually get sick with Covid-19, we need contact tracing studies.
Contact tracing studies show airborne transmission may be possible in confined indoor spaces
Lab studies note the theoretical possibility of airborne transmission. But that’s only one part of the answer to the question of which air is safe to breathe. Epidemiologists come at this question from another angle, looking at patterns of virus spread observed in the real world and working backward to determine if airborne spread factors in.
Contact tracing studies show us that while droplets being inhaled by people within 6 feet of an infected person explain most of the transmission of Covid-19, there are limited times and environments in which SARS-CoV-2 can behave a bit like an airborne virus.
“So we need to define which types of contact, which type of environments, lead to that type of transmission,” Muge Cevik, a physician and virology expert at the University of St. Andrews, said in a July interview. In households, she says, an infected person can be isolated in one room and not spread the virus to others in the home (if they remain isolated). A systematic review of studies in The Lancet of both SARS-CoV-2 and similar viruses found large reductions in risk if people just stay 1 meter (3 feet) away from one another. This suggests a lot of the risk of catching Covid-19 is from the large drops that fall quickly to the ground.
But then there are cases where people are packed together in an enclosed space — like a church, with singing or shouting — where the transmission looks a little more like airborne transmission.
The infamous choir practice in Washington state is an example of where airborne transmission might have happened. But what made this event so risky was the convergence of many risk factors: the singing activity (during which the infected person released viral particles into the air), the time spent together (the practice was 2.5 hours), and the interaction between the choir members in an enclosed space (not only did they all practice together, they also split up into smaller groups and shared cookies and tea).
Another study from China investigated an outbreak that started at a Buddhist temple event, tracing much of the spread to the confines of one of the buses transporting people to the function. The bus had one sick person aboard, and 24 out of 67 people on that bus got sick, possibly indicating airborne transmission. Those who sat by the windows fared better, indicating the importance of ventilation.
“I think we just need to get away from this terminology and give much more clear definitions,” Cevik says. For her, it’s about getting people to think critically about which situations are riskier than others. “Risk is a spectrum. It’s not only the distance, but it’s about timing, what type of activities you’re involved in. I know it’s a bit complex, but that’s the reality.”
“Airborne” transmission means something very specific for doctors and health care workers
One possible reason the CDC and the WHO have been slow to address the airborne transmission of Covid-19: In a health care setting, “airborne” means a very specific thing.
Though infection prevention experts know there’s a fuzzy boundary between drops that fall and specks that float, the dichotomy between airborne and droplet-borne is baked into how health care workers are trained to respond to outbreaks. “We’ve trained [health care workers] for decades to say, airborne is tuberculosis, measles, chickenpox, droplet is flu and pertussis and meningitis,” Saskia Popescu, a hospital epidemiologist in Arizona, said over the summer. “And that’s, unfortunately, kind of antiquated. But that’s how we’ve always done it.”
They do it because there are very specific sets of guidelines in place to deal with extremely contagious airborne diseases in a hospital setting. For instance, a patient with a dangerous airborne disease often needs to be put in a room with an air pressure lower than the rest of the rooms in the building. That way, no virus in the air of that room can escape it (since air flows from high pressure to low pressure).
For droplet transmission, health care workers can be a little more lax; they can wear simple surgical masks during routine care and can save high-filtration (and sometimes scarce) respirators for the most dangerous procedures and cases.
In this light, it makes some sense that the WHO has been hesitant to label Covid-19 an “airborne” infection. It’s not an airborne infection like measles is. It is not as contagious. Contact tracing studies consistently find that Covid-19 is spread most readily among people in the closest physical contact to one another. “Airborne” means something very specific, very resource-intensive, and very scary for hospitals and the people who work in them. And Covid-19 doesn’t match that definition.
“The debate often isn’t very nuanced because of these rigid categories,” Daniel Diekema, an infectious diseases physician and epidemiologist at the University of Iowa, says. “As soon as you say ‘airborne’ in the hospital infection prevention world, it brings to mind pathogens like tuberculosis, measles, chickenpox. It’s clear the respiratory viruses, influenza, coronaviruses, are not airborne in the same way that the measles, varicella [chickenpox] become airborne.”
But at the same time, with Covid-19 and other respiratory viruses, “there definitely are small-particle aerosols produced,” he says. “And in the right setting, where there’s poor ventilation, indoors, and a crowded environment, there is a risk for transmission among individuals, even if they may be more than 6 feet apart.”
So what do we do with this information?
Neither contact tracing studies nor lab studies can perfectly answer the question of “which air is safe?” But that’s science for you. Scientists use imperfect methods, attacking from many angles, to try to arrive at the truth, which can take a while to nail down precisely.
Overall, the recognition that Covid-19 can spread through the air shouldn’t really change how we, individually, protect ourselves and others against it. Six feet of distance between people is still a good barrier to prevent spread via large drops. Mask-wearing could help prevent both large drops and small drops from being released in the first place. Time matters too: The longer we spend in an enclosed, poorly ventilated space with others, the greater the chances of being exposed to an infectious dose of the virus.
The bottom line, as a trio of engineers from Clarkson University writes in the Conversation, is that “while staying six feet from other people reduces exposure, it might not be sufficient in all situations, such as in enclosed, poorly ventilated rooms.”
We still need to think about the environments we’re in: Indoors is much riskier than outdoors (where greater airflow can disperse drops and aerosols more quickly, and where the environment is less conducive to SARS-CoV-2 survival). And indoors, ventilation can make a big difference. An indoor space where the air is constantly refreshed with air from the outdoors is better than one where the air is stagnant. (The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers has published extensive guidelines on how to reopen buildings with increased ventilation during the pandemic.)
We also still need to think about the activity we’re engaging in. Shouting, singing, and other such activities produce more droplets (of any size) than just sitting quietly.
Morawska hopes that in bringing attention to airborne spread of Covid-19, there can be more attention paid to engineering solutions for indoor spaces to mitigate the spread of the pandemic.
Public health officials have continually stressed social distancing, mask-wearing, and hand-washing as ways to stop the spread of Covid-19. “But have you ever heard a restaurant reopening announce they’ve improved ventilation or increased ventilation? No. This is really the point,” Morawska says. If Covid-19 is in indoor air, we should also be doing something about the air.


vox--2020-10-06--The Big Tech antitrust report has one big conclusion: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google are anti-c

The Big Tech antitrust report has one big conclusion: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google are anti-competitive

A long-awaited report from top Democratic Congressional lawmakers about the dominance of the four biggest tech giants had a clear message on Tuesday : Amazon , Apple , Facebook , and Google engage in a range of anti-competitive behavior , and US antitrust laws need an overhaul to allow for more competition in the US internet economy .
“ To put it simply , companies that once were scrappy , underdog startups that challenged the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons , ” the report ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report , written by the majority staff of the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust , is the result of a 16-month investigation into whether these corporate giants abuse their power , and whether the country ’ s antitrust laws need to be reworked to rein them in .
The report released Tuesday cites numerous examples of each tech titan engaging in acts that the lawmakers believe have hurt innovation and impede competition .
While the anti-competitive behaviors the report cites vary from company to company , they are all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giants abuse their gatekeeper status in various internet industries to secure and grow their market power in those sectors and others .
So what ’ s the solution ?
The report from Democratic lawmakers recommends creating new laws that would potentially break up tech companies and make it harder for them to pursue acquisitions ; it also calls for clarifying existing antitrust laws with the goal of making them easier to enforce , particularly for tech companies .
For now , the report ’ s recommendations are only high-level guidance to Congress for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t lead to immediate action against these companies .
The release of the report was complicated on Tuesday by news that the Republican lawmakers in the house antitrust committee refused at the last minute to sign the report with their Democratic colleagues .
Instead , Rep. Ken Buck ( R-CO ) and Jim Jordan ( R-OH ) each plan to release their own reports .
Buck ’ s report , a draft of which Politico published on Monday , largely agrees with the Democrat ’ s conclusion that the big four tech firms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he disagrees with Democrats on how to fix the problem : Instead of creating new laws , Buck ’ s memo calls on Congress to fund and empower regulatory agencies and government departments like the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) and Department of Justice ( DOJ ) to go after Big Tech under existing laws .
Jordan ’ s report hasn ’ t yet been released , but Reuters coverage indicates it will focus on so-far unproven claims of tech companies ’ supposed anti-conservative bias , which he has shouted over his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partisan divides are somewhat besides the point : Regardless of the specifics of how they advise to go after Big Tech , the fact that Republicans and Democrats agree that these companies pose a threat to the free market is significant .
“ This is the first time since the 1970s that a congressional committee has devoted this kind of attention to dominant firms … and changing the structure of a major American industry , ” former FTC Commissioner William Kovacic , who was appointed by George W. Bush , told Recode .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the key claims the report makes about each of the four major tech giants : With Amazon accounting for nearly 40 percent of all e-commerce sales in the US — making it more than seven times larger in this arena than No .
2 Walmart — the Democratic report argues that the tech giant has used its powerful position in anti-competitive ways .
( The report also alleges that Amazon ’ s US e-commerce market share is closer to 50 percent or more in the US , rather than the near-40 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the research firm eMarketer ) .
The report argues that the company unfairly gleans data and information from its third-party sellers that it uses to strengthen the retail side of its business , including by favoring its own product brands over those of competitors , giving this merchandise exclusive merchandising space on its virtual shelves , and prioritizing it in search results .
Another criticism is that Amazon can charge sellers ever-increasing fees because of its dominant position , and that most sellers and brands have practically no negotiating power because of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amazon also penalizes sellers for selling their merchandise for lower prices on other retail sites .
Amazon released a company blog post in response to Tuesday ’ s report , calling it “ flawed thinking ” that Amazon is engaging in anti-competitive business practices , and that antitrust regulatory action “ would have the primary effect of forcing millions of independent retailers out of online stores.
” “ All large organizations attract the attention of regulators , and we welcome that scrutiny .
But large companies are not dominant by definition , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the result of anti-competitive behavior is simply wrong , ” reads the post .
The report from Democrats argues that Facebook has expanded its monopolistic power in the social media industry by using a “ copy , acquire , kill ” strategy against its competitors and by unfairly hurting rival companies like Instagram ( which the company purchased in 2012 ) .
Specifically , the report argues that Facebook ’ s acquisition of Instagram was a blatant attempt to “ neutralize a nascent competitive threat.
” The report alleges that after Facebook bought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ app ’ s success so that it wouldn ’ t compete with Facebook internally .
The report cites a slew of internal emails , memos , and testimony from senior-level Facebook employees , including CEO Mark Zuckerberg , which support the argument that Facebook crushed Instagram by exerting monopoly power .
In one email , Zuckerberg told Facebook ’ s former CTO that “ that he had “ been thinking about ... how much [ Facebook ] should be willing to pay to acquire mobile app companies like Instagram ... that are building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The report argues this proves that Zuckerberg had anti-competitive interests from the beginning .
The report also cites a former senior-level Instagram employee who told Congress that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg oversaw “ brutal infighting between Instagram and Facebook ” after the acquisition , with Zuckerberg slowing down Instagram ’ s natural growth to benefit Facebook proper .
The Instagram whistleblower went so far as to call it “ collusion , but within an internal monopoly .
… It ’ s unclear to me why this should not be illegal.
” As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found an internal Facebook document called “ The Cunningham Memo , ” written in 2018 by Thomas Cunningham , a senior data scientist and economist at Facebook , which allegedly shows that Facebook has knowingly “ tipped ” its company toward becoming a monopoly , acknowledging that social media apps have tipping points where “ either everyone uses them , or no-one uses them , ” according to the memo .
This memo was a key part of Zuckerberg ’ s acquisition strategy ahead of the Instagram purchase , according to internal documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a former Facebook employee involved with the project .
In a statement to Recode on Tuesday , Christopher Sgro , a spokesperson for Facebook , disagreed with the report ’ s conclusions .
“ Facebook is an American success story .
We compete with a wide variety of services with millions , even billions , of people using them .
Acquisitions are part of every industry , and just one way we innovate new technologies to deliver more value to people .
Instagram and WhatsApp have reached new heights of success because Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A strongly competitive landscape existed at the time of both acquisitions and exists today .
Regulators thoroughly reviewed each deal and rightly did not see any reason to stop them at the time , ” Sgro wrote .
The Democrats ’ report argues that Google has a monopoly in the online search and marketing industry , creating an “ ecosystem of interlocking monopolies ” — which it has maintained through anti-competitive practices in two key ways .
The first is by launching an “ aggressive campaign to undermine ” what the report calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are search engines for specific topics , such as Yelp for restaurants , or Expedia for travel .
The report says Google uses its dominance to “ boost Google ’ s own inferior ” content over some of these other companies ’ content in its search results .
The second major way , that Google has demonstrated anti-competitive behavior , the report argues , is through “ a series of anti competitive contracts ” that pushed people to rely on Google search when using phones with the Android operating system ( Google purchased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show that Google required smartphone manufacturers to pre-install and give default status to Google ’ s own apps , ” the report states .
Unsurprisingly , Google told Recode it disagreed with Tuesday ’ s reports , saying that they “ feature outdated and inaccurate allegations from commercial rivals about Search and other services .
Americans simply don ’ t want Congress to break Google ’ s products or harm the free services they use every day , ” read a statement in part from Julie McAlister , a spokesperson for Google .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday , Apple exerts monopoly power through its oversight of software that ’ s downloaded on half of all mobile phones in the US .
That ’ s a direct reference to Apple ’ s App Store — if you have an iPhone , you can only use apps that you download from the company ’ s tightly controlled Store .
The subcommittee staff investigating Apple say in the report that the company has exploited its dominance to exclude some rivals from its store , unfairly favor its own apps , and charge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subcommittee are “ exorbitantly high.
” Such a battle between Apple and developers over in-app fees exploded into public spotlight earlier this year when the maker of Fortnite , Epic Games , told its users they could buy the game ’ s virtual currency directly from Epic rather than through the Apple iOS version of the app .
The reason ?
Epic wanted to avoid the 30 percent fee Apple charges for such in-app purchases .
Dueling lawsuits ensued , and Apple even banned the game from the App Store .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this that the report cites .
Apple , of course , refuted the conclusions in Tuesday ’ s report , telling Recode in a statement , “ Our company does not have a dominant market share in any category where we do business .
... Last year in the United States alone , the App Store facilitated $ 138 billion in commerce with over 85 % of that amount accruing solely to third-party developers .
Apple ’ s commission rates are firmly in the mainstream of those charged by other app stores and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the November election , Democrats may not need Republicans ’ support on antitrust legislation — if Democrats sweep Congress and win the White House .
( The latest polls show Democrats and Biden currently have an edge , but poll-based predictions are far from certain . )
If Biden does win the presidency , “ this [ report ] is a roadmap for how you would tackle this under a President Joe Biden … administration , ” a staff member for a Democratic member of the subcommittee told Recode .
Rep. Pramila @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the subcommittee , told Recode in an interview on Tuesday , “ I do anticipate ... that we will have signed pieces of legislation pass the House of Representatives next year.
” The bi-partisan subcommittee will meet later this year to debate and potentially amend the report .
And Tuesday ’ s congressional reports are just the beginning of upcoming antitrust regulatory proceedings against Big Tech .
The Department of Justice is imminently expected to file a lawsuit against Google for anti-competitive business practices , which several state attorney generals may sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also investigating the business practices of the tech giants over antitrust concerns .

A long-awaited report from top Democratic congressional lawmakers about the dominance of the four biggest tech giants had a clear message on Tuesday: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google engage in a range of anti-competitive behavior, and US antitrust laws need an overhaul to allow for more competition in the US internet economy.
“To put it simply, companies that once were scrappy, underdog startups that challenged the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons,” the report’s introduction states.
The 400-plus page report, written by the majority staff of the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, is the result of a 16-month investigation into whether these corporate giants abuse their power, and whether the country’s antitrust laws need to be reworked to rein them in. The report released Tuesday cites numerous examples of each tech titan engaging in acts that the lawmakers believe have hurt innovation and impede competition. While the anti-competitive behaviors cited vary from company to company, they are all linked by the allegation that the four giants abuse their gatekeeper status in various internet industries to secure and grow their market power in those sectors and others.
So what’s the solution? The report recommends creating new laws that would potentially break up tech companies and make it harder for them to pursue acquisitions; it also calls for clarifying existing antitrust laws with the goal of making them easier to enforce, particularly for tech companies. For now, the report’s recommendations are only high-level guidance to Congress for potential future legislation; it won’t lead to immediate action against these companies.
The release of the report was complicated on Tuesday by news that the Republican lawmakers in the House Antitrust Committee refused at the last minute to sign the report with their Democratic colleagues. Instead, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) each plan to release their own reports. Buck’s report, a draft of which Politico published on Monday, largely agrees with the Democrats’ conclusion that the big four tech firms have amassed too much power. But he disagrees with Democrats on how to fix the problem: Instead of creating new laws, Buck’s memo calls on Congress to fund and empower regulatory agencies and government departments like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) to go after Big Tech under existing laws. Jordan’s report hasn’t yet been released, but Reuters coverage indicates it will focus on so-far unproven claims of tech companies’ supposed anti-conservative bias, which he has shouted over his colleagues about in previous hearings.
These partisan divides are somewhat besides the point: Regardless of the specifics of how they advise to go after Big Tech, the fact that Republicans and Democrats agree that these companies pose a threat to the free market is significant.
“This is the first time since the 1970s that a congressional committee has devoted this kind of attention to dominant firms … and changing the structure of a major American industry,” said William Kovacic, the Republican former chairman of the FTC.
Here’s a breakdown of some of the key claims the report makes about each of the four major tech giants:
Amazon
With Amazon accounting for nearly 40 percent of all e-commerce sales in the US — making it more than seven times larger in this arena than No. 2 Walmart — the Democrats’ report argues that the tech giant has used its powerful position in anti-competitive ways. (The report also alleges that Amazon’s US e-commerce market share is closer to 50 percent or more in the country, rather than the near-40 percent figure commonly cited based on estimates from the research firm eMarketer). The report argues that the company unfairly gleans data and information from its third-party sellers that it uses to strengthen the retail side of its business, including favoring its own product brands over those of competitors, giving this merchandise exclusive merchandising space on its virtual shelves, and prioritizing it in search results.
Another criticism is that Amazon can charge sellers ever-increasing fees because of its dominant position, and that most sellers and brands have practically no negotiating power due to their reliance on the Amazon sales channel. Amazon also penalizes sellers for selling their merchandise for lower prices on other retail sites.
Amazon released a company blog post in response to Tuesday’s report, calling it “flawed thinking” that Amazon is engaging in anti-competitive business practices, and that antitrust regulatory action “would have the primary effect of forcing millions of independent retailers out of online stores.”
“All large organizations attract the attention of regulators, and we welcome that scrutiny. But large companies are not dominant by definition, and the presumption that success can only be the result of anti-competitive behavior is simply wrong,” reads the post.
Facebook
Tuesday’s report argues that Facebook has expanded its monopolistic power in the social media industry by using a “copy, acquire, kill” strategy against its competitors, and by unfairly hurting rival companies like Instagram (which the company purchased in 2012).
Specifically, the report argues that Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram was a blatant attempt to “neutralize a nascent competitive threat.” The report alleges that after Facebook bought Instagram, it intentionally stymied the photo-sharing app’s success so that it wouldn’t compete with Facebook internally.
The report cites a slew of internal emails, memos, and testimony from senior-level Facebook employees, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, which support the argument that Facebook crushed Instagram by exerting monopoly power.
In one email, Zuckerberg told Facebook’s former CTO that “ that he had “been thinking about ... how much [Facebook] should be willing to pay to acquire mobile app companies like Instagram ... that are building networks that are competitive with our own.” The report argues this proves that Zuckerberg had anti-competitive interests from the beginning.
The report also cites a former senior-level Instagram employee who told Congress that Zuckerberg oversaw “brutal infighting between Instagram and Facebook” after the acquisition, with Zuckerberg slowing down Instagram’s natural growth to benefit Facebook proper. The Instagram whistleblower went so far as to call it “collusion, but within an internal monopoly. … It’s unclear to me why this should not be illegal.”
As part of their investigation, the subcommittee found an internal Facebook document called “The Cunningham Memo,” written in 2018 by Thomas Cunningham, a senior data scientist and economist at Facebook, which allegedly shows that Facebook has knowingly “tipped” its company toward becoming a monopoly, acknowledging that social media apps have tipping points where “either everyone uses them, or no-one uses them,” according to the memo. This memo was a key part of Zuckerberg’s acquisition strategy ahead of the Instagram purchase, according to internal documents and an interview the subcommittee conducted with a former Facebook employee involved with the project.
In a statement to Recode on Tuesday, Christopher Sgro, a spokesperson for Facebook, disagreed with the report’s conclusions. “Facebook is an American success story. We compete with a wide variety of services with millions, even billions, of people using them. Acquisitions are part of every industry, and just one way we innovate new technologies to deliver more value to people. Instagram and WhatsApp have reached new heights of success because Facebook has invested billions in those businesses. A strongly competitive landscape existed at the time of both acquisitions and exists today. Regulators thoroughly reviewed each deal and rightly did not see any reason to stop them at the time,” Sgro wrote.
Google
The Democrats’ report argues that Google has a monopoly in the online search and marketing industry, creating an “ecosystem of interlocking monopolies” — which it has maintained through anti-competitive practices in two key ways.
The first is by launching an “aggressive campaign to undermine” what the report calls “vertical search providers” — which are search engines for specific topics, such as Yelp for restaurants, or Expedia for travel. The report says Google uses its dominance to “boost Google’s own inferior” content over some of these other companies’ content in its search results.
The second major way that Google has demonstrated anti-competitive behavior, the report argues, is through “a series of anti competitive contracts” that pushed people to rely on Google search when using phones with the Android operating system (Google purchased Android in 2005).
“Documents show that Google required smartphone manufacturers to pre-install and give default status to Google’s own apps,” the report states.
Unsurprisingly, Google told Recode it disagreed with Tuesday’s reports, saying they “feature outdated and inaccurate allegations from commercial rivals about Search and other services.”
Americans simply don’t want Congress to break Google’s products or harm the free services they use every day,” read a statement in part from Julie McAlister, a spokesperson for Google.
Apple
According to Tuesday’s report, Apple exerts monopoly power through its oversight of software that’s downloaded on half of all mobile phones in the US. That’s a direct reference to Apple’s App Store — if you have an iPhone, you can only use apps that you download from the company’s tightly controlled store. The subcommittee staff investigating Apple say in the report that the company has exploited its dominance to exclude some rivals from its store, unfairly favor its own apps, and charge fees that some app developers told the subcommittee are “exorbitantly high.”
Such a battle between Apple and developers over in-app fees exploded into public spotlight earlier this year when the maker of Fortnite, Epic Games, told its users they could buy the game’s virtual currency directly from Epic rather than through the Apple iOS version of the app. The reason? Epic wanted to avoid the 30 percent fee Apple charges for such in-app purchases. Dueling lawsuits ensued, and Apple even banned the game from the App Store. This is just one example of many cases like this that the report cites.
Apple, of course, refuted the conclusions in Democrats’ report, telling Recode in a statement, “Our company does not have a dominant market share in any category where we do business. ... Last year in the United States alone, the App Store facilitated $138 billion in commerce with over 85% of that amount accruing solely to third-party developers. Apple’s commission rates are firmly in the mainstream of those charged by other app stores and gaming marketplaces.”
So what’s next?
Depending on the results of the November election, Democrats may not need Republicans’ support on antitrust legislation — if Democrats sweep Congress and win the White House. (The latest polls show Democrats and Biden currently have an edge, but poll-based predictions are far from certain.)
If Joe Biden does win the presidency, “this [report] is a roadmap for how you would tackle this under a President Joe Biden … administration,” a staff member for a Democratic member of the subcommittee told Recode.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), a member of the subcommittee, told Recode in an interview on Tuesday, “I do anticipate ... that we will have signed pieces of legislation pass the House of Representatives next year.” The bipartisan subcommittee will meet later this year to debate and potentially amend the report.
Tuesday’s congressional reports are just the beginning of upcoming antitrust regulatory proceedings against Big Tech. The DOJ is imminently expected to file a lawsuit against Google for anti-competitive business practices, which several state attorneys general may sign on to. Separately, the FTC is also investigating the business practices of the tech giants over antitrust concerns.


vox--2020-10-06--Facebook bans QAnon (again)

Facebook bans QAnon (again)

Facebook said in a Tuesday press release that it “ will remove any Facebook Pages , Groups and Instagram accounts representing QAnon ” from its platforms .
Although it ’ s unclear how Facebook is defining affiliations with QAnon accounts , this announcement appears to be one of the broadest bans Facebook has ever has imposed .
The new ban expands on the social network ’ s previous actions against the conspiracy theory and its followers .
In August , Facebook announced that it had removed hundreds of QAnon Facebook groups and pages for “ discussions of potential violence.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such pages and groups “ even if they contain no violent content.
” The announcement also comes after Facebook ’ s announcement last week that will promote credible information about child safety , after QAnon hijacked related hashtags like # SaveTheChildren .
“ We ’ ve been vigilant in enforcing our policy and studying its impact on the platform but we ’ ve seen several issues that led to today ’ s update , ” the company explained in a Tuesday statement .
“ For example , while we ’ ve removed QAnon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve seen other QAnon content tied to different forms of real world harm , including recent claims that the west coast wildfires were started by certain groups , which diverted attention of local officials from fighting the fires and protecting the public.
” Recode has reached out to Facebook for comment .
Facebook has in the past struggled to enforce its rules against accounts that promote the QAnon conspiracy theory .
However , in today ’ s press release , Facebook noted that QAnon frequently changes its messaging strategies in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will take time for the social network to fully scale up enforcement of this latest policy update .
“ We expect renewed attempts to evade our detection , both in behavior and content shared on our platform , so we will continue to study the impact of our efforts and be ready to update our policy and enforcement as necessary , ” said the statement .
The New York Times reported that , as of Tuesday night , almost 100 Qanon accounts had already been affected , according to an analysis from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcement also comes less than a week after members of the United States House of Representatives voted to formally condemn the theory .
As the November 3 election draws ever closer , the social media company has faced growing criticism over its handling of misinformation and potentially violent groups that can organize on its platforms .
QAnon has factored into some of those the concerns , as it ’ s been linked to violence in the past and its adherents have at times spread dangerous misinformation , including about the recent , West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a role in controlling the spread of QAnon , but that the company ’ s updated policy comes way too late .
As Recode ’ s Shirin Ghaffary has reported , before its latest announcement , Facebook seemed unwilling to take simple steps to remove groups and pages that promoted Qnon , therefore people could easily find content about the conspiracy theory .
Others question whether Facebook ’ s updated approach will have much impact .
Adam Enders , a political scientist at the University of Louisville who studies conspiracy theories , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how many followers of the QAnon theory there actually are , since many who might be sympathetic to QAnon are generally sympathetic to other vague conspiratorial thoughts about “ the Deep State.
” “ There ’ s not much movement on the needle to be had , ” Enders told Recode .
“ The people that are part of these groups that are down the rabbit hole — true believers— they ’ re just going to find a different platform.
” “ Removing some QAnon groups that people are pretty unlikely to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t going to impact those people very much , ” he added .
“ It ’ s just going to be , probably , a minor annoyance to the actual true believer , ” Other groups that have been critical of Facebook , including Accountable Tech , Media Matters , and the Anti-Defamation League ( which helped organized the advertising boycott of Facebook earlier this year ) , emphasized that the impact of the move will depend on how well the company actually finds and removes QAnon content .
“ Their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement at the individual post level can not counter hate and disinformation ; that content need not explicitly support violence to bring about real-world harms ; and that without aggressive deterrence , these platforms will continue to serve as critical organizing and recruitment tools for extremist movements , ” said Accountable Tech ’ s co-founder Jesse Lehrich in a statement .
It will take time for the impact of this shift in Facebook ’ s policies around QAnon to come into focus .
In the meantime , many doubt the company is truly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clamp down on the theory , especially with a high-stakes election just weeks away .
Update 8:00pm October 6 , 2020 : This article has been updated to include additional commentary from experts and an advocacy groups .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Facebook said in a Tuesday press release that it “will remove any Facebook Pages, Groups and Instagram accounts representing QAnon” from its platforms. Although it’s unclear how Facebook is defining affiliations with QAnon accounts, this announcement appears to be one of the broadest bans Facebook has ever imposed.
The new ban expands on the social network’s previous actions against the conspiracy theory and its followers. In August, Facebook announced that it had removed hundreds of QAnon Facebook Groups and Pages for “discussions of potential violence.” The company now says it will remove such Pages and Groups “even if they contain no violent content.” The announcement also comes after Facebook’s announcement last week that it will promote credible information about child safety, after QAnon hijacked related hashtags like #SaveTheChildren.
“We’ve been vigilant in enforcing our policy and studying its impact on the platform but we’ve seen several issues that led to today’s update,” the company explained in a Tuesday statement. “For example, while we’ve removed QAnon content that celebrates and supports violence, we’ve seen other QAnon content tied to different forms of real world harm, including recent claims that the west coast wildfires were started by certain groups, which diverted attention of local officials from fighting the fires and protecting the public.”
Recode has contacted Facebook for comment.
Facebook has in the past struggled to enforce its rules against accounts that promote the QAnon conspiracy theory. However, in today’s press release, Facebook noted that QAnon frequently changes its messaging strategies in order to evade content moderators and that it will take time for the social network to fully scale up enforcement of this latest policy update.
“We expect renewed attempts to evade our detection, both in behavior and content shared on our platform, so we will continue to study the impact of our efforts and be ready to update our policy and enforcement as necessary,” said the statement. The New York Times reported that, as of Tuesday night, almost 100 QAnon accounts had already been affected, according to an analysis from the Facebook-owned tool CrowdTangle.
Facebook’s announcement also comes less than a week after members of the US House of Representatives voted to formally condemn the conspiracy theory. As the November 3 election draws ever closer, the social media company has faced growing criticism over its handling of misinformation and potentially violent groups that can organize on its platforms. QAnon has factored into some of those concerns, as it’s been linked to violence in the past and its adherents have at times spread dangerous misinformation, including about the recent West Coast wildfires.
Some feel that Facebook has a role in controlling the spread of QAnon but that the company’s updated policy comes way too late. As Recode’s Shirin Ghaffary has reported, before its latest announcement, Facebook seemed unwilling to take simple steps to remove Groups and Pages that promoted QAnon, meaning people could easily find content about the conspiracy theory.
Others question whether Facebook’s updated approach will have much impact. Adam Enders, a political scientist at the University of Louisville who studies conspiracy theories, says it’s not clear how many followers of QAnon there actually are, since many who might be sympathetic to QAnon are generally sympathetic to other vague conspiratorial thoughts about the “deep state.”
“There’s not much movement on the needle to be had,” Enders told Recode. “The people that are part of these groups that are down the rabbit hole — true believers — they’re just going to find a different platform.”
“Removing some QAnon groups that people are pretty unlikely to be incidentally exposed to in the first place isn’t going to impact those people very much,” he added. “It’s just going to be, probably, a minor annoyance to the actual true believer.”
Other groups that have been critical of Facebook, including Accountable Tech, Media Matters, and the Anti-Defamation League (which helped organized the advertising boycott of Facebook earlier this year), emphasized that the impact of the move will depend on how effective the company is at finding and removing QAnon content.
“Their announcement acknowledged several important truths — that enforcement at the individual post level cannot counter hate and disinformation; that content need not explicitly support violence to bring about real-world harms; and that without aggressive deterrence, these platforms will continue to serve as critical organizing and recruitment tools for extremist movements,” said Accountable Tech’s co-founder Jesse Lehrich in a statement.
It will take time for the impact of this shift in Facebook’s policies around QAnon to come into focus. In the meantime, many doubt the company is truly invested in or would be able to clamp down on the theory, especially with a high-stakes election just weeks away.
Update, October 6, 8 pm: Updated to include additional commentary from experts and advocacy groups.