vox--2020-01-14--Why Amazon’s donation to the Australian wildfires provoked a backlash — but Facebook’s didn’t

On Sunday , Jeff Bezos announced that Amazon will donate $ 690,000 ( $ 1 million Australian ) in assistance to wildfire recovery after Australia ’ s devastating bushfires .
Twenty-eight people and more than one billion animals have died in the fires , which have burned an estimated 15.6 million acres of land .
All around the world , people have come together to raise money to help — from the band Metallica to Kylie Jenner to national governments to do-gooders on Twitter .
But the reaction to Bezos ’ s announcement has been ... unenthusiastic .
The donation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 minutes , ” Business Insider pointed out .
Amazon ’ s donation is “ insulting , ” said Vice .
Twitter was even angrier .
The furor over Amazon ’ s donation — a simple corporate gesture of the kind that big companies make all the time after natural disasters — is a sign of the changing times .
It used to be that donating to disaster relief was an easy way for companies to get some good PR and build rapport with their consumers .
The reaction to Bezos ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not necessarily true anymore .
Instead , Amazon ’ s donation reignited existing anger about Bezos ’ s astounding personal fortune , Amazon ’ s policies as they relate to climate , and the ways that philanthropy gets waved around in cases where it can ’ t really do that much good .
The first complaint about Amazon ’ s gift ?
Well , it ’ s just not really all that much money .
Bezos is personally worth $ 116 billion right now ( to be clear , the donation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s own pockets ) .
He has been criticized — rightly — for being one of the world ’ s stingiest billionaires .
Bezos donated just $ 200 million between 2000 and 2017 , though in recent years he ’ s pledged more .
( And when he does give to charity , he does so with arguably not the same rigor or clarity as he shows with running Amazon . )
Amazon has a market cap of nearly $ 1 trillion , which means the donation is effectively nothing to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , gave about twice as much — as did many celebrities and a few nude models on Twitter .
That left critics wondering if the positive coverage the Amazon gift earned in Australian news is really deserved .
The second complaint is that Amazon ’ s corporate policies have contributed to the conditions that made the wildfires so disastrous , and have left Australia less equipped to handle them .
Amazon ’ s core business — shipping consumer goods all around the world — is unavoidably a big greenhouse-gas emitter , a point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Moreover , the company has defended controversial partnerships with oil and gas companies .
And Amazon employees who ’ ve urged the company to do more about climate change have been reprimanded .
Amazon has compounded these issues with its approach to tax policy .
The company has taken advantage of various exemptions and loopholes in Australia ’ s tax code , paying just AU $ 20 million in taxes in Australia despite earning more than $ 1 billion in revenue ( it was worse in the US — Amazon paid $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a better tax regime , Amazon would pay higher taxes , reflecting the social costs of its carbon emissions , and Australia would be able to spend that money on disaster prevention , mitigation , and relief efforts .
Instead , Amazon pays barely any taxes and then donates some money to the resultant problem .
No wonder people find that frustrating .
A big change in how corporate philanthropy is received It used to be that corporate donations were an easy source of good PR .
As the backlash against Amazon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not as true anymore .
Some donations are still well-received ( Facebook , which donated about twice as much money , has avoided similar public anger ) , but many aren ’ t .
That ’ s a change that has been driven , in significant part , by critics of big philanthropy .
Over the past few years , prominent speakers have made the case that donations by the ultra-rich shouldn ’ t be uncritically lauded , that they ’ re part of a broken system where good PR prevents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of wealth — and the bad policies that result from them — from occurring in the first place .
Expectations for corporate social responsibility , too , have evolved .
While it used to be good enough for a company to donate to hospitals , schools , or disaster relief , now critics tend to emphasize how those companies create the social problems they donate to — whether it ’ s maintaining dangerous working conditions or lobbying for special exemptions and loopholes .
Will all this criticism end up discouraging corporate philanthropy ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ things like Amazon ’ s donation is much less of a loss than it might seem at first glance .
A donation of $ 690,000 in light of the wildfires is just very little money compared to the amount the Australian government will need to spend on recovery and mitigation in Australia — a multibillion dollar endeavor .
Furthermore , it ’ s hard to give to disaster relief in a useful way that actually makes things better .
More importantly , I ’ ve been watching the growing critique of philanthropy since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promising trends .
Even philanthropy ’ s most vociferous critics are open to acknowledging the merits of important philanthropic projects , and applauding the people who make them happen .
So far , it looks like the intensity of critiques of billionaire giving has been responsive to the facts on the ground — donations that are actually meaningful , impactful , and generous are criticized less than token or unhelpful ones .
Perhaps Amazon could have avoided the frustration it stoked this weekend by donating more money , and donating it to effectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when climate-driven disasters endanger billions of animals and thousands of homes , and when corporations that contributed considerably to the climate crisis make only token efforts to reduce its effects .
But it ’ s important to think about what sort of behavior the anger incentivizes .
Getting upset about token donations , but being supportive of real and substantive donations , hopefully creates pretty good incentives for corporate would-be philanthropists , rather than making them feel they ’ re stuck in a no-win situation .
The backlash also serves to remind policymakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t pay taxes , and that they should close the loopholes the company uses , while hopefully making it less likely that Amazon will aggressively lobby against those changes .
That ’ s exactly what we should be aiming for — balanced critiques that support good philanthropy , that don ’ t have much patience for bad philanthropy , and a robust conversation about which is which .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter .
Twice a week , you ’ ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decreasing human and animal suffering , easing catastrophic risks , and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good .
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions , grants , and sponsorships .
Learn more here .

On Sunday, Jeff Bezos announced that Amazon will donate $690,000 ($1 million Australian) in assistance to wildfire recovery after Australia’s devastating bushfires. Twenty-eight people and more than one billion animals have died in the fires, which have burned an estimated 15.6 million acres of land.
All around the world, people have come together to raise money to help — from the band Metallica to Kylie Jenner to national governments to do-gooders on Twitter.
But the reaction to Bezos’s announcement has been ... unenthusiastic. The donation is “less than he made every 5 minutes in 2018,” Business Insider pointed out. Amazon’s donation is “insulting,” said Vice. Twitter was even angrier.
The furor over Amazon’s donation — a simple corporate gesture of the kind that big companies make all the time after natural disasters — is a sign of the changing times. It used to be that donating to disaster relief was an easy way for companies to get some good PR and build rapport with their consumers. The reaction to Bezos’s announcement of wildfire relief contributions shows that’s not necessarily true anymore.
Instead, Amazon’s donation reignited existing anger about Bezos’s astounding personal fortune, Amazon’s policies as they relate to climate, and the ways that philanthropy gets waved around in cases where it can’t really do that much good.
the richest man on earth is donating roughly the same amount as three women raised in 12 hours selling nudes on twitter pic.twitter.com/jfH9F2jbKY — Jason Koebler (@jason_koebler) January 12, 2020
Three big complaints about Amazon’s wildfire giving
The first complaint about Amazon’s gift?
Well, it’s just not really all that much money. Bezos is personally worth $116 billion right now (to be clear, the donation is coming from Amazon, not Bezos’s own pockets). He has been criticized — rightly — for being one of the world’s stingiest billionaires. Bezos donated just $200 million between 2000 and 2017, though in recent years he’s pledged more. (And when he does give to charity, he does so with arguably not the same rigor or clarity as he shows with running Amazon.)
Amazon has a market cap of nearly $1 trillion, which means the donation is effectively nothing to the company. Other companies, like Facebook, gave about twice as much — as did many celebrities and a few nude models on Twitter. That left critics wondering if the positive coverage the Amazon gift earned in Australian news is really deserved.
The second complaint is that Amazon’s corporate policies have contributed to the conditions that made the wildfires so disastrous, and have left Australia less equipped to handle them. Amazon’s core business — shipping consumer goods all around the world — is unavoidably a big greenhouse-gas emitter, a point that Amazon employees have actually agitated against. Moreover, the company has defended controversial partnerships with oil and gas companies. And Amazon employees who’ve urged the company to do more about climate change have been reprimanded.
Amazon has compounded these issues with its approach to tax policy. The company has taken advantage of various exemptions and loopholes in Australia’s tax code, paying just AU$20 million in taxes in Australia despite earning more than $1 billion in revenue (it was worse in the US — Amazon paid $0 in corporate income tax).
In a better tax regime, Amazon would pay higher taxes, reflecting the social costs of its carbon emissions, and Australia would be able to spend that money on disaster prevention, mitigation, and relief efforts. Instead, Amazon pays barely any taxes and then donates some money to the resultant problem. No wonder people find that frustrating.
A big change in how corporate philanthropy is received
It used to be that corporate donations were an easy source of good PR. As the backlash against Amazon’s bushfires donation shows, that’s not as true anymore. Some donations are still well-received (Facebook, which donated about twice as much money, has avoided similar public anger), but many aren’t.
That’s a change that has been driven, in significant part, by critics of big philanthropy. Over the past few years, prominent speakers have made the case that donations by the ultra-rich shouldn’t be uncritically lauded, that they’re part of a broken system where good PR prevents policy changes that would stop such concentration of wealth — and the bad policies that result from them — from occurring in the first place.
Expectations for corporate social responsibility, too, have evolved. While it used to be good enough for a company to donate to hospitals, schools, or disaster relief, now critics tend to emphasize how those companies create the social problems they donate to — whether it’s maintaining dangerous working conditions or lobbying for special exemptions and loopholes.
Will all this criticism end up discouraging corporate philanthropy? That’s unclear — but discouraging things like Amazon’s donation is much less of a loss than it might seem at first glance. A donation of $690,000 in light of the wildfires is just very little money compared to the amount the Australian government will need to spend on recovery and mitigation in Australia — a multibillion dollar endeavor. Furthermore, it’s hard to give to disaster relief in a useful way that actually makes things better.
More importantly, I’ve been watching the growing critique of philanthropy since the beginning, and I see some promising trends. Even philanthropy’s most vociferous critics are open to acknowledging the merits of important philanthropic projects, and applauding the people who make them happen. So far, it looks like the intensity of critiques of billionaire giving has been responsive to the facts on the ground — donations that are actually meaningful, impactful, and generous are criticized less than token or unhelpful ones. Perhaps Amazon could have avoided the frustration it stoked this weekend by donating more money, and donating it to effectively combating climate change.
Anger is justified when climate-driven disasters endanger billions of animals and thousands of homes, and when corporations that contributed considerably to the climate crisis make only token efforts to reduce its effects. But it’s important to think about what sort of behavior the anger incentivizes. Getting upset about token donations, but being supportive of real and substantive donations, hopefully creates pretty good incentives for corporate would-be philanthropists, rather than making them feel they’re stuck in a no-win situation.
The backlash also serves to remind policymakers that people are angry Amazon doesn’t pay taxes, and that they should close the loopholes the company uses, while hopefully making it less likely that Amazon will aggressively lobby against those changes.
That’s exactly what we should be aiming for — balanced critiques that support good philanthropy, that don’t have much patience for bad philanthropy, and a robust conversation about which is which.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants, and sponsorships. Learn more here.


vox--2020-01-14--Russians reportedly hacked Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company tied to Hunter Biden

Is the Russian government trying to help President Donald Trump ’ s electoral chances yet again ?
Burisma — the Ukrainian natural gas company whose board Hunter Biden served on — was hacked by the Russian military late last year , the New York Times ’ s Nicole Perlroth and Matthew Rosenberg reported Monday , citing a security firm that attributed the hack .
Trump has long been obsessed with the idea that there is some sort of corruption involving Burisma and the Bidens , though he ’ s had no evidence to prove it .
And he tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topic earlier this year , a request that spurred a whistleblower complaint from a government official and , eventually , Trump ’ s impeachment .
The security firm , Area 1 , found that the hacking attempts began in early November , around when public testimony in the impeachment inquiry was beginning .
A spokesperson for the Biden campaign , Andrew Bates , said in an emailed statement that the news shows that Russian President Vladimir Putin “ sees Joe Biden as a threat.
” He added : “ Any American president who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this kind would immediately condemn this attack on the sovereignty of our elections.
” This isn ’ t the first time Moscow has hacked organizations in a way designed to affect American elections .
During the 2016 campaign , hackers for the GRU , Russia ’ s foreign military intelligence agency , infamously targeted leading Democratic officials ( such as Clinton campaign chair John Podesta ) and organizations ( such as the Democratic National Committee ) .
Foreign hackings targeting top political players is nothing new , but what the Russians did with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They strategically released stolen emails and documents , having many given to WikiLeaks and posting others through their own online persona “ Guccifer 2.0 ” and on a site called “ DCLeaks.
” The US media then covered the releases , and Trump touted them on the campaign trail .
Much of the information released wasn ’ t particularly scandalous — but some caused controversy .
For instance , DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned after some DNC staffers ’ private comments criticizing Bernie Sanders were posted on WikiLeaks .
Special counsel Robert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes related to the hacks — but since all of them reside in Russia , none were ever arrested or brought into custody .
Trump and his campaign associates were never accused of any involvement in the hacks or any conspiracy with the Russian government , though questions still remain about whether some Trump associates coordinated with WikiLeaks .
The Burisma hack poses the prospect that , once again , the Russians may have obtained unflattering information about someone close to the potential Democratic presidential nominee : Hunter Biden .
Now , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden forced out Ukraine ’ s prosecutor general Viktor Shokin to protect Burisma and his son from an investigation — seems to make little sense , as it was the consensus position of the US government and Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund to oust Shokin due to his own corruption and ineffectiveness .
Still , Hunter ’ s lucrative position on Burisma ’ s board doesn ’ t look great .
Hunter had no expertise in the field or the region , and his main qualification for the gig appeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president and involved in Ukraine policy at the time .
We of course don ’ t know what material the Russian hackers may have obtained about Hunter and the Bidens from Burisma , exactly — or what they plan to do with it .
Is it damaging ?
Can it be made to look damning , even if it isn ’ t ?
Will it be released at key moments in the 2020 campaign , like last time around ?
The news also poses a challenge for the US media — about whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Russian hackers trying to interfere with the election .
This piece was updated with a statement from the Biden campaign .

Is the Russian government trying to help President Donald Trump’s electoral chances yet again?
Burisma — the Ukrainian natural gas company whose board Hunter Biden served on — was hacked by the Russian military late last year, the New York Times’s Nicole Perlroth and Matthew Rosenberg reported Monday, citing a security firm that attributed the hack.
Trump has long been obsessed with the idea that there is some sort of corruption involving Burisma and the Bidens, though he’s had no evidence to prove it. And he tried to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the topic earlier this year, a request that spurred a whistleblower complaint from a government official and, eventually, Trump’s impeachment.
The security firm, Area 1, found that the hacking attempts began in early November, around when public testimony in the impeachment inquiry was beginning.
A spokesperson for the Biden campaign, Andrew Bates, said in an emailed statement that the news shows that Russian President Vladimir Putin “sees Joe Biden as a threat.” He added: “Any American president who had not repeatedly encouraged foreign interventions of this kind would immediately condemn this attack on the sovereignty of our elections.”
This isn’t the first time Moscow has hacked organizations in a way designed to affect American elections. During the 2016 campaign, hackers for the GRU, Russia’s foreign military intelligence agency, infamously targeted leading Democratic officials (such as Clinton campaign chair John Podesta) and organizations (such as the Democratic National Committee).
Foreign hackings targeting top political players is nothing new, but what the Russians did with the information was surprising and innovative. They strategically released stolen emails and documents, having many given to WikiLeaks and posting others through their own online persona “Guccifer 2.0” and on a site called “DCLeaks.” The US media then covered the releases, and Trump touted them on the campaign trail. Much of the information released wasn’t particularly scandalous — but some caused controversy. For instance, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned after some DNC staffers’ private comments criticizing Bernie Sanders were posted on WikiLeaks.
Special counsel Robert Mueller eventually indicted 12 GRU officials for crimes related to the hacks — but since all of them reside in Russia, none were ever arrested or brought into custody. Trump and his campaign associates were never accused of any involvement in the hacks or any conspiracy with the Russian government, though questions still remain about whether some Trump associates coordinated with WikiLeaks.
The Burisma hack poses the prospect that, once again, the Russians may have obtained unflattering information about someone close to the potential Democratic presidential nominee: Hunter Biden.
Now, Trump’s unfounded conspiracy theory — that Joe Biden forced out Ukraine’s prosecutor general Viktor Shokin to protect Burisma and his son from an investigation — seems to make little sense, as it was the consensus position of the US government and Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund to oust Shokin due to his own corruption and ineffectiveness.
Still, Hunter’s lucrative position on Burisma’s board doesn’t look great. Hunter had no expertise in the field or the region, and his main qualification for the gig appeared to be that his father was vice president and involved in Ukraine policy at the time.
We of course don’t know what material the Russian hackers may have obtained about Hunter and the Bidens from Burisma, exactly — or what they plan to do with it. Is it damaging? Can it be made to look damning, even if it isn’t? Will it be released at key moments in the 2020 campaign, like last time around?
The news also poses a challenge for the US media — about whether journalistic outlets will again cover information released by Russian hackers trying to interfere with the election.
This piece was updated with a statement from the Biden campaign.


vox--2020-01-14--A modest proposal to save American democracy

We have a president who lost the popular vote , a Senate where the “ majority ” represents about 15 million fewer people than the “ minority , ” and a Supreme Court where two justices were nominated by that president and confirmed by that unrepresentative Senate .
An unsigned note , entitled “ Pack the Union : A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation ” and published in the Harvard Law Review , offers an entirely constitutional way out of this dilemma : Add new states — a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bloc of states to rewrite the Constitution so that the United States has an election system “ where every vote counts equally.
” To create a system where every vote counts equally , the Constitution must be amended .
To do this , Congress should pass legislation reducing the size of Washington , D.C. , to an area encompassing only a few core federal buildings and then admit the rest of the District ’ s 127 neighborhoods as states .
These states — which could be added with a simple congressional majority — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ratify four amendments : ( 1 ) a transfer of the Senate ’ s power to a body that represents citizens equally ; ( 2 ) an expansion of the House so that all citizens are represented in equal-sized districts ; ( 3 ) a replacement of the Electoral College with a popular vote ; and ( 4 ) a modification of the Constitution ’ s amendment process that would ensure future amendments are ratified by states representing most Americans .
Under the Constitution , new states may be admitted by an ordinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote .
The Constitution does , however , prevent new states from being carved out of an existing state unless the legislature of that state consents .
Chopping up the District of Columbia gets around this problem because Washington , DC , is not a state .
One can quarrel with the details of the Harvard proposal .
Ratifying a constitutional amendment , for example , requires the consent of three-fourths of the states .
So it makes more sense to divide the District of Columbia into 150 states , rather than 127 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will actually be ratified .
( Under the Harvard proposal , there would be 177 states , so 133 of them would have to agree to a new amendment .
That means that six existing states would need to play along . )
It also would be a good idea to draw the boundaries of those new states to ensure that the electorate within each of the new states supports such amendments .
Similarly , the Constitution effectively prohibits amendments that eliminate Senate malapportionment .
The Harvard note proposes getting around this problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to another body .
“ The Senate ’ s duties , ” it argues , “ could be changed without modifying its composition.
” Fair enough .
But a more straightforward solution might be ratifying two separate amendments : one to eliminate the restriction on amendments eliminating Senate malapportionment , and a second to actually eliminate Senate malapportionment .
Details aside , however , the wild thing about this Harvard Law Review proposal is that it is absolutely , 100 percent constitutional .
The Constitution provides that “ new states may be admitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” but it places no limits on the size of a state either in terms of population or in terms of physical space .
Literally nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from admitting the Obama family ’ s personal DC residence as a state — a state which would then be entitled to two senators , one member of the House , and exactly as much say on whether the Constitution should be amended as the entire state of Texas .
Congress could then follow up this move by adding the personal DC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as states , each of which would then get two senators of their very own .
Indeed , there is a long history of partisans selectively admitting new states in order to pack the Senate with their own fellow partisans .
In 1864 , for example , Republicans admitted the state of Nevada — then a desert wasteland with only several thousand residents — giving themselves two extra Senate seats in the process .
Similarly , the reason why there are two Dakotas is because Republicans celebrated their victory in the 1888 election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into two states , thereby giving themselves four senators instead of only two .
So let ’ s be frank .
The Harvard note ’ s proposal is ridiculous , but it is no more ridiculous than a system where the nearly 40 million people in California have no more Senate representation than the 578,759 people in Wyoming .
As the Harvard note says of its own pitch , “ radical as this proposal may sound , it is no more radical than a nominally democratic system of government that gives citizens widely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live .
”

American democracy is broken.
We have a president who lost the popular vote, a Senate where the “majority” represents about 15 million fewer people than the “minority,” and a Supreme Court where two justices were nominated by that president and confirmed by that unrepresentative Senate.
An unsigned note, entitled “Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation” and published in the Harvard Law Review, offers an entirely constitutional way out of this dilemma: Add new states — a lot of new states — then use this bloc of states to rewrite the Constitution so that the United States has an election system “where every vote counts equally.”
To create a system where every vote counts equally, the Constitution must be amended. To do this, Congress should pass legislation reducing the size of Washington, D.C., to an area encompassing only a few core federal buildings and then admit the rest of the District’s 127 neighborhoods as states. These states — which could be added with a simple congressional majority — would add enough votes in Congress to ratify four amendments: (1) a transfer of the Senate’s power to a body that represents citizens equally; (2) an expansion of the House so that all citizens are represented in equal-sized districts; (3) a replacement of the Electoral College with a popular vote; and (4) a modification of the Constitution’s amendment process that would ensure future amendments are ratified by states representing most Americans.
Under the Constitution, new states may be admitted by an ordinary act of Congress with a simple majority vote. The Constitution does, however, prevent new states from being carved out of an existing state unless the legislature of that state consents. Chopping up the District of Columbia gets around this problem because Washington, DC, is not a state.
One can quarrel with the details of the Harvard proposal. Ratifying a constitutional amendment, for example, requires the consent of three-fourths of the states. So it makes more sense to divide the District of Columbia into 150 states, rather than 127 states, to ensure that pro-democracy amendments will actually be ratified. (Under the Harvard proposal, there would be 177 states, so 133 of them would have to agree to a new amendment. That means that six existing states would need to play along.)
It also would be a good idea to draw the boundaries of those new states to ensure that the electorate within each of the new states supports such amendments.
Similarly, the Constitution effectively prohibits amendments that eliminate Senate malapportionment. The Harvard note proposes getting around this problem by transferring the Senate’s powers to another body. “The Senate’s duties,” it argues, “could be changed without modifying its composition.”
Fair enough. But a more straightforward solution might be ratifying two separate amendments: one to eliminate the restriction on amendments eliminating Senate malapportionment, and a second to actually eliminate Senate malapportionment.
Details aside, however, the wild thing about this Harvard Law Review proposal is that it is absolutely, 100 percent constitutional. The Constitution provides that “new states may be admitted by the Congress into this union,” but it places no limits on the size of a state either in terms of population or in terms of physical space.
Literally nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from admitting the Obama family’s personal DC residence as a state — a state which would then be entitled to two senators, one member of the House, and exactly as much say on whether the Constitution should be amended as the entire state of Texas.
Congress could then follow up this move by adding the personal DC residences of 149 other staunch Democratic families as states, each of which would then get two senators of their very own.
Indeed, there is a long history of partisans selectively admitting new states in order to pack the Senate with their own fellow partisans. In 1864, for example, Republicans admitted the state of Nevada — then a desert wasteland with only several thousand residents — giving themselves two extra Senate seats in the process.
Similarly, the reason why there are two Dakotas is because Republicans celebrated their victory in the 1888 election by dividing the Republican Dakota Territory up into two states, thereby giving themselves four senators instead of only two.
So let’s be frank. The Harvard note’s proposal is ridiculous, but it is no more ridiculous than a system where the nearly 40 million people in California have no more Senate representation than the 578,759 people in Wyoming. As the Harvard note says of its own pitch, “radical as this proposal may sound, it is no more radical than a nominally democratic system of government that gives citizens widely disproportionate voting power depending on where they live.”


In defense of Twitter

Almost everyone agrees that social media is bad .
Depending on who you ask , Twitter is either the world ’ s largest outrage machine or a brain-hacking addiction device or just a den of time-wasting frivolity .
Our perceptions of social media have evolved a ton in a relatively short amount of time .
At the beginning of the previous decade , as the Arab Spring was unfolding , social media was seen as a liberating tool for democratic activists .
By the end of the decade , against the backdrop of Brexit and Trump ’ s election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian bots and political provocateurs .
But the tide may be shifting once again .
Sarah Jackson , a communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania , has what is now a contrarian take .
In a recent article for the New York Times ( and a forthcoming book ) , she defends social media as a force for positive change over the last decade or so .
“ As we enter 2020 , powerful individuals and societal problems can no longer avoid public scrutiny , ” Jackson writes .
“ Many people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the young and members of marginalized groups in particular — are speaking up , insisting on being heard.
” My views on Twitter ( and social media in general ) are mixed , so I reached out to Jackson to hear her case .
We discussed how Twitter has helped democratize society , why the elevation of marginal voices is important , and what , if anything , she would do to change the role of Twitter in public life .
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows .
Is Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the things that I attempted to do in that New York Times piece and in all my work on social activism is clarify that I don ’ t actually believe technologies are good or evil .
I think technologies are tools .
So it is not that I think that Twitter as a platform is inherently good or bad .
My focus is on the good that people have done with media tools like Twitter , and the good people could do with it .
So when I argue that Twitter has made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giving Twitter , the corporation , credit for anything .
And in fact , Twitter , as a company , could do many , many things better .
But the point I ’ m making is that ordinary people have used Twitter to challenge us to think differently , to tell their stories , people who have typically not been heard through other media channels or platforms .
So the extent that it ’ s opened up the public space to new voices and new perspective , it ’ s made us better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get to the social impact , but I ’ ll just ask up front : On a more individual level , do you worry that technologies like Twitter are just bad for our brains and basically addiction-generating machines .
Do you think the social or political benefits of Twitter outweigh that ?
It ’ s an important question , but it ’ s just not something I ’ ve done much research on .
The cognitive impacts are definitely real , though .
One thing I would say is that we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in history when new media technologies were introduced .
From the printing press to television , there was always lots of panic about the psychological or cultural implications .
So I tend to be a little skeptical that digital technologies are going to be any worse for us than previous technologies .
Fair enough .
Let ’ s get back to the core of your argument .
The elevation of marginal voices seems like the best case for Twitter , but is there any evidence that this has translated into concrete political victories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voice ?
I think the answer depends on how you define a concrete victory .
Consider something like the Me Too movement .
What was the concrete impact ?
Did it change our laws ?
Did it make it easier to hold people accountable ?
Did it change the platforms of people running for office ?
Did it change how companies hire and train people ?
It certainly had an impact on many of these fronts , but it ’ s very difficult to measure .
How do you measure the impact of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cosby accountable ?
It ’ s very difficult .
And yet there ’ s no doubt that the cultural significance is incredibly important .
We ’ re now having more public conversations about issues we never did before .
So it has changed the way society recognizes and deals with these issues .
I ’ d call that a “ concrete ” victory .
I ’ d say the same thing about the Black Lives Matter movement .
Social media was crucial to this project and we ’ ve seen some very concrete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activism , like the increasing deployment of body cameras on police officers .
And politicians and mainstream media have been forced to grapple with the underlying grievances , and the result has been more people held accountable for crimes that were largely ignored in years past .
And so again , we can ’ t say and I wouldn ’ t say that a hashtag directly caused X .
But what we can say is the conversation that the nation started having and the shift of attention that led presidential candidates and media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this question of police brutality contributed to the X or to the Y. I recently interviewed Jen Schradie , author of The Revolution that Wasn ’ t .
Her argument is that social media was initially a boon for democratic activists , but that the gap in resources and organizational capacity have gradually undercut working-class movements and marginal voices and instead bolstered authoritarian groups and people with more power .
Is she missing something ?
I ’ m aware of Jen ’ s book , and it ’ s quite good .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s absolutely true that those with power and resources are able to leverage technology in their favor .
That ’ s always been true , and it ’ s still true today .
What I would say is that despite the fact that those in power can and do stifle dissenting voices , those who are creating the dissent are still doing it , and they ’ re doing it more effectively than before .
They ’ re creating the dissenting discourse and it ’ s having an impact .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think my work and Schradie ’ s work are contradictory at all .
I actually think that our work can be read alongside each other and we can be nuanced about the full impact of these platforms .
These technological tools are abused , and powerful people are constantly getting better at exploiting them .
But ordinary people , despite the odds , are exploiting these tools at the same time .
They ’ re challenging power and altering the discourse in all kinds of ways .
I guess I see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the one hand , you ’ re right : It offers a platform to more people and opens up the public sphere to more voices .
On the other hand , it creates more chaos in the information space and empowers bad-faith actors looking to exploit it .
Is that a trade-off you think we should accept because , in the end , it at least offers the potential to mobilize against power or injustice ?
I wouldn ’ t say it ’ s an acceptable trade-off .
The problem of online harassment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is real , and Twitter and other technological platforms haven ’ t done enough to protect users .
The question of trolling and fake accounts and manipulation and all that kind of stuff is something we have to address .
At the same time , there are limitations to what these companies will do .
They exist to make money , not to serve democratic ideals .
They want more people using their platforms and everything else is secondary .
So we can ’ t expect Twitter to be altruistic or just .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own platforms , we could have more and better good stuff and less toxicity .
I ’ d say we ’ re making very slow progress , and a lot of it is because ordinary people are making demands of the companies and forcing them to change their policies .
But in the meantime , I continue to believe that it ’ s a good thing that Twitter , totally by accident , became a place where African Americans are overrepresented as compared to other media outlets .
And as a result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and learn about a world and a culture in a different framework , and that diversity is a huge gain for society .
I think one case for having a less saturated information space is that it ’ s just easier to navigate our shared reality .
As you said , for all the positive voices Twitter has elevated , it ’ s also empowered racists and trolls and provocateurs and authoritarian governments .
In the end , though , if we want to live in a genuine democracy , we have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has the ability to speak .
It may just be that the transition from a world of gatekeepers to a world of wide open communication will be bumpy and difficult .
I think that ’ s absolutely right .
Journalism is crucial to democracy .
But my point is always that we need more nuance in these public conversations .
And I think it ’ s important to say that allowing ordinary people to tell their own stories and report their version of news isn ’ t a threat to journalism .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential .
We need a public space where ordinary people can come together face and build communal understandings , debate the ethics and values and norms of the society with one another , without it having to be mediated by an institution or by someone in power .
This is good for democracy , and Twitter , at its best , is part of this .
If you could change anything about how Twitter works , what would it be ?
This isn ’ t specifically about Twitter , but one of my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want people to be able to continue to use technology towards democratic ends , we have to have net neutrality because otherwise only the wealthy can afford the best internet , only corporations can control what you see in search results .
And that ’ s just bad for democracy and it only paves the way for more disinformation and corruption .
As for Twitter specifically , I would just repeat that they ’ ve been very slow to ban Nazis from the platform .
People will say , “ Well , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say what they want.
” But Twitter is a private media corporation , not the government .
They can absolutely determine what ’ s acceptable on their platform and what isn ’ t .
So these tech companies need to figure out where they stand in terms of their values on these issues .
One thing I wish is that these companies weren ’ t such technological determinists .
I wish they didn ’ t believe that they could use algorithms and more technology to solve these sorts of problems .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They have to decide what they stand for and not hide behind “ free speech ” or technical excuses .

Almost everyone agrees that social media is bad.
Depending on who you ask, Twitter is either the world’s largest outrage machine or a brain-hacking addiction device or just a den of time-wasting frivolity.
Our perceptions of social media have evolved a ton in a relatively short amount of time.
At the beginning of the previous decade, as the Arab Spring was unfolding, social media was seen as a liberating tool for democratic activists. By the end of the decade, against the backdrop of Brexit and Trump’s election, it was seen as a playground for Russian bots and political provocateurs.
But the tide may be shifting once again.
Sarah Jackson, a communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has what is now a contrarian take. In a recent article for the New York Times (and a forthcoming book), she defends social media as a force for positive change over the last decade or so.
“As we enter 2020, powerful individuals and societal problems can no longer avoid public scrutiny,” Jackson writes. “Many people who lacked public platforms 10 years ago — the young and members of marginalized groups in particular — are speaking up, insisting on being heard.”
My views on Twitter (and social media in general) are mixed, so I reached out to Jackson to hear her case. We discussed how Twitter has helped democratize society, why the elevation of marginal voices is important, and what, if anything, she would do to change the role of Twitter in public life.
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Sean Illing
Is Twitter actually good for us?
Sarah Jackson
One of the things that I attempted to do in that New York Times piece and in all my work on social activism is clarify that I don’t actually believe technologies are good or evil. I think technologies are tools. So it is not that I think that Twitter as a platform is inherently good or bad.
My focus is on the good that people have done with media tools like Twitter, and the good people could do with it. So when I argue that Twitter has made us better, I’m not giving Twitter, the corporation, credit for anything. And in fact, Twitter, as a company, could do many, many things better.
But the point I’m making is that ordinary people have used Twitter to challenge us to think differently, to tell their stories, people who have typically not been heard through other media channels or platforms. So the extent that it’s opened up the public space to new voices and new perspective, it’s made us better and more democratic.
Sean Illing
We’ll get to the social impact, but I’ll just ask up front: On a more individual level, do you worry that technologies like Twitter are just bad for our brains and basically addiction-generating machines. Do you think the social or political benefits of Twitter outweigh that?
Sarah Jackson
It’s an important question, but it’s just not something I’ve done much research on. The cognitive impacts are definitely real, though. One thing I would say is that we’ve heard similar fears at virtually every point in history when new media technologies were introduced. From the printing press to television, there was always lots of panic about the psychological or cultural implications. So I tend to be a little skeptical that digital technologies are going to be any worse for us than previous technologies.
Sean Illing
Fair enough. Let’s get back to the core of your argument. The elevation of marginal voices seems like the best case for Twitter, but is there any evidence that this has translated into concrete political victories for the people who now have a voice?
Sarah Jackson
I think the answer depends on how you define a concrete victory. Consider something like the Me Too movement. What was the concrete impact? Did it change our laws? Did it make it easier to hold people accountable? Did it change the platforms of people running for office? Did it change how companies hire and train people?
It certainly had an impact on many of these fronts, but it’s very difficult to measure. How do you measure the impact of holding people like Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby accountable? It’s very difficult. And yet there’s no doubt that the cultural significance is incredibly important. We’re now having more public conversations about issues we never did before. So it has changed the way society recognizes and deals with these issues. I’d call that a “concrete” victory.
I’d say the same thing about the Black Lives Matter movement. Social media was crucial to this project and we’ve seen some very concrete policy results that came out of this activism, like the increasing deployment of body cameras on police officers. And politicians and mainstream media have been forced to grapple with the underlying grievances, and the result has been more people held accountable for crimes that were largely ignored in years past.
And so again, we can’t say and I wouldn’t say that a hashtag directly caused X. But what we can say is the conversation that the nation started having and the shift of attention that led presidential candidates and media elites and others to be suddenly focused on this question of police brutality contributed to the X or to the Y.
Sean Illing
I recently interviewed Jen Schradie, author of The Revolution That Wasn’t. Her argument is that social media was initially a boon for democratic activists, but that the gap in resources and organizational capacity have gradually undercut working-class movements and marginal voices and instead bolstered authoritarian groups and people with more power.
Is she missing something?
Sarah Jackson
I’m aware of Jen’s book, and it’s quite good. My response is pretty nuanced. It’s absolutely true that those with power and resources are able to leverage technology in their favor. That’s always been true, and it’s still true today. What I would say is that despite the fact that those in power can and do stifle dissenting voices, those who are creating the dissent are still doing it, and they’re doing it more effectively than before. They’re creating the dissenting discourse and it’s having an impact. That’s worth celebrating.
So I don’t think my work and Schradie’s work are contradictory at all. I actually think that our work can be read alongside each other and we can be nuanced about the full impact of these platforms. These technological tools are abused, and powerful people are constantly getting better at exploiting them.
But ordinary people, despite the odds, are exploiting these tools at the same time. They’re challenging power and altering the discourse in all kinds of ways.
Sean Illing
I guess I see Twitter as a double-edged sword. On the one hand, you’re right: It offers a platform to more people and opens up the public sphere to more voices. On the other hand, it creates more chaos in the information space and empowers bad-faith actors looking to exploit it.
Is that a trade-off you think we should accept because, in the end, it at least offers the potential to mobilize against power or injustice?
Sarah Jackson
I wouldn’t say it’s an acceptable trade-off. The problem of online harassment and hate speech, for example, is real, and Twitter and other technological platforms haven’t done enough to protect users. The question of trolling and fake accounts and manipulation and all that kind of stuff is something we have to address.
At the same time, there are limitations to what these companies will do. They exist to make money, not to serve democratic ideals. They want more people using their platforms and everything else is secondary. So we can’t expect Twitter to be altruistic or just.
If these companies get better at policing their own platforms, we could have more and better good stuff and less toxicity. I’d say we’re making very slow progress, and a lot of it is because ordinary people are making demands of the companies and forcing them to change their policies.
But in the meantime, I continue to believe that it’s a good thing that Twitter, totally by accident, became a place where African Americans are overrepresented as compared to other media outlets. And as a result, you can now log onto Twitter and learn about a world and a culture in a different framework, and that diversity is a huge gain for society.
Sean Illing
I think one case for having a less saturated information space is that it’s just easier to navigate our shared reality. As you said, for all the positive voices Twitter has elevated, it’s also empowered racists and trolls and provocateurs and authoritarian governments.
In the end, though, if we want to live in a genuine democracy, we have to build a free society in which everyone has the ability to speak. It may just be that the transition from a world of gatekeepers to a world of wide open communication will be bumpy and difficult.
Sarah Jackson
I think that’s absolutely right. Journalism is crucial to democracy. But my point is always that we need more nuance in these public conversations. And I think it’s important to say that allowing ordinary people to tell their own stories and report their version of news isn’t a threat to journalism.
In a democracy, a public sphere is essential. We need a public space where ordinary people can come together and build communal understandings, debate the ethics and values and norms of the society with one another, without it having to be mediated by an institution or by someone in power. This is good for democracy, and Twitter, at its best, is part of this.
Sean Illing
If you could change anything about how Twitter works, what would it be?
Sarah Jackson
This isn’t specifically about Twitter, but one of my greatest concerns is access. If we want people to be able to continue to use technology towards democratic ends, we have to have net neutrality because otherwise only the wealthy can afford the best internet, only corporations can control what you see in search results. And that’s just bad for democracy and it only paves the way for more disinformation and corruption.
As for Twitter specifically, I would just repeat that they’ve been very slow to ban Nazis from the platform. People will say, “Well, it’s free speech. People can say what they want.” But Twitter is a private media corporation, not the government. They can absolutely determine what’s acceptable on their platform and what isn’t. So these tech companies need to figure out where they stand in terms of their values on these issues.
One thing I wish is that these companies weren’t such technological determinists. I wish they didn’t believe that they could use algorithms and more technology to solve these sorts of problems. This is a question of values, not technology. They have to decide what they stand for and not hide behind “free speech” or technical excuses.


vox--2020-01-14--The coming Supreme Court showdown over birth control

As soon as Friday , the Supreme Court could announce that it will hear Trump v. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania , two consolidated cases examining the Trump administration ’ s rules allowing virtually any employer to deny birth control coverage to its employees .
The cases reignite a legal conflict over the rights of employers who object to contraception on religious grounds .
This conflict raged throughout much of the Obama administration , then briefly simmered down after Justice Antonin Scalia ’ s death temporarily stripped conservatives of the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights of religious employers .
The core question in the Pennsylvania cases , however , is not whether the Constitution gives such religious objectors a right to deny contraceptive coverage to their employees .
Rather , it ’ s whether the Trump administration acted properly when it wrote a sweeping exemption into regulations requiring employers to include birth control coverage in employee health plans .
The Trump administration ’ s rules permit many employers to ignore the requirement to provide birth control coverage to their employees if the employer expresses either a religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contraception .
A federal appeals court struck down these rules .
It is likely , though not certain , that the Court will agree to hear the Pennsylvania cases .
But even if it doesn ’ t , a Supreme Court showdown on birth control is all but inevitable .
Not long after Scalia ’ s death , the Court ’ s three most conservative members complained that they lacked the votes to hear a case brought by pharmacy owners who object to birth control on religious grounds .
With two Trump judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court ’ s right flank almost certainly has the votes it needs not just to take up such a case — but to win .
How we got here Until fairly recently , the general rule in “ religious liberty ” cases was that people of faith may sometimes seek exemptions from laws they object to on religious grounds , but they could not claim an exemption that would undercut the rights of a third party .
This was especially true in the business context .
As the Supreme Court held in United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ when followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice , the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.
” That changed with Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ( 2014 ) , which held that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act ( RFRA ) allows many employers that object to birth control to offer health plans that do not include contraceptive coverage .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — erasing the old rule that religious objectors may not undercut the rights of people who do not share their beliefs — the opinion itself was fairly limited in scope .
Much of the Court ’ s reasoning rested on the fact that , rather than requiring all employers to provide birth control coverage directly to their employees , the Obama administration could have achieved the same goal more indirectly .
Under this indirect approach , an employer could “ self-certify that it opposes providing coverage for particular contraceptive services.
” After this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a separate arrangement with the company that runs that employer ’ s health plan to ensure the employer ’ s workers still receive contraceptive coverage .
Yet after the Obama administration took up the Supreme Court on its suggestion that it use this more indirect method of providing birth control coverage , some religious employers objected to this indirect process as well .
That kicked off a second round of litigation that ultimately fizzled in the Supreme Court ’ s decision in Zubik v. Burwell ( 2016 ) .
Short one justice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower courts — most likely because the justices were divided 4-4 on who should prevail .
The Trump administration gave the religious right all it asked the courts for and more President Trump ’ s election , and the appointment of archconservative Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court ’ s vacant seat , seemed to ensure that conservatives would prevail as soon as a case like Zubik reached the justices again .
Rather than wait for such a decision , however , the Trump administration decided to act on its own to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the requirement to provide birth control coverage .
In May 2017 , Trump issued an executive order instructing his administration to “ consider issuing amended regulations , consistent with applicable law , to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate.
” A few months later , the administration pushed out new rules granting a broad exemption to employers with moral or religious objections to birth control .
Among other things , these rules exempt both nonprofit employers and for-profit employers that are not publicly traded , if those employers object “ based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contraception .
Last July , however , a federal appeals court struck down the Trump administration ’ s rules .
The court concluded that the administration did not follow the appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules , and that federal law does not authorize the broad exemptions described by the Trump administration ’ s rule .
As a general rule , proposed regulations must undergo a process known as “ notice and comment , ” where the text of the proposed rule is released to the public so that anyone with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on it .
The Trump administration bypassed notice and comment , although it did put the rule through this process retroactively after it was already in effect .
According to the lower court , that ’ s not allowed .
Among other things , the administration claimed it could bypass notice and comment because of “ the urgent need to alleviate harm to those with religious objections to the current regulations.
” But , according to Judge Patty Shwartz , who wrote the lower court opinion , that claim would allow too much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reducing harm in some manner , ” she explained in her opinion .
So if harm reduction were sufficient reason to bypass ordinary procedures , those procedures would largely cease to exist .
More significantly , Shwartz wrote that no federal statute authorizes the Trump administration ’ s rules .
Though many federal laws permit agencies to issue binding regulations , agencies can not act on their own — they can only regulate when Congress has given them the power to do so .
Judge Shwartz ’ s opinion doesn ’ t rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administration exempt some religious objectors from some federal rules .
But the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act .
It ’ s not the Moral Freedom Restoration Act .
As Shwartz points out in a footnote , the Trump administration didn ’ t even attempt to argue that “ RFRA authorizes or requires the Moral Exemption.
” So what happens now ?
Should the Supreme Court ultimately agree with Shwartz that the administration needed to conduct notice and comment before this rule takes effect , that would temporarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practical matter , however , the administration could eventually revive it by jumping through the appropriate procedural hoops .
Meanwhile , it is probably inevitable that , one way or another , the Supreme Court will determine that religious objectors should enjoy broad exemptions from the requirement to provide birth control coverage .
There were almost certainly four votes for this outcome when the Court heard Zubik , and Gorsuch , who occupies the seat that was vacant in 2016 , is a staunch conservative in religion cases .
But the question of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ moral ” exemption to a federal regulation is novel .
And , as Shwartz notes , it ’ s hard to find statutory support for such an exemption .
It ’ s possible this “ moral ” exemption will be a bridge too far even for the current Supreme Court .

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear Trump v. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, two consolidated cases examining the Trump administration’s rules allowing virtually any employer to deny birth control coverage to its employees.
The cases reignite a legal conflict over the rights of employers who object to contraception on religious grounds. This conflict raged throughout much of the Obama administration, then briefly simmered down after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death temporarily stripped conservatives of the Supreme Court majority they needed to expand the rights of religious employers.
The core question in the Pennsylvania cases, however, is not whether the Constitution gives such religious objectors a right to deny contraceptive coverage to their employees. Rather, it’s whether the Trump administration acted properly when it wrote a sweeping exemption into regulations requiring employers to include birth control coverage in employee health plans.
The Trump administration’s rules permit many employers to ignore the requirement to provide birth control coverage to their employees if the employer expresses either a religious or a “moral” objection to contraception. A federal appeals court struck down these rules.
How we got here
Until fairly recently, the general rule in “religious liberty” cases was that people of faith may sometimes seek exemptions from laws they object to on religious grounds, but they could not claim an exemption that would undercut the rights of a third party. This was especially true in the business context. As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Lee (1982), “when followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”
That changed with Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), which held that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) allows many employers that object to birth control to offer health plans that do not include contraceptive coverage.
Yet while Hobby Lobby was a doctrinal earthquake — erasing the old rule that religious objectors may not undercut the rights of people who do not share their beliefs — the opinion itself was fairly limited in scope. Much of the Court’s reasoning rested on the fact that, rather than requiring all employers to provide birth control coverage directly to their employees, the Obama administration could have achieved the same goal more indirectly.
Under this indirect approach, an employer could “self-certify that it opposes providing coverage for particular contraceptive services.” After this happens, the government could then make a separate arrangement with the company that runs that employer’s health plan to ensure the employer’s workers still receive contraceptive coverage.
Yet after the Obama administration took up the Supreme Court on its suggestion that it use this more indirect method of providing birth control coverage, some religious employers objected to this indirect process as well. That kicked off a second round of litigation that ultimately fizzled in the Supreme Court’s decision in Zubik v. Burwell (2016).
Short one justice, the Court punted Zubik back to the lower courts — most likely because the justices were divided 4-4 on who should prevail.
The Trump administration gave the religious right all it asked the courts for and more
President Trump’s election, and the appointment of archconservative Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court’s vacant seat, seemed to ensure that conservatives would prevail as soon as a case like Zubik reached the justices again.
Rather than wait for such a decision, however, the Trump administration decided to act on its own to give religious objectors a broad exemption from the requirement to provide birth control coverage. In May 2017, Trump issued an executive order instructing his administration to “consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate.”
A few months later, the administration pushed out new rules granting a broad exemption to employers with moral or religious objections to birth control. Among other things, these rules exempt both nonprofit employers and for-profit employers that are not publicly traded, if those employers object “based on its sincerely held moral convictions” to contraception.
Last July, however, a federal appeals court struck down the Trump administration’s rules. The court concluded that the administration did not follow the appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules, and that federal law does not authorize the broad exemptions described by the Trump administration’s rule.
As a general rule, proposed regulations must undergo a process known as “notice and comment,” where the text of the proposed rule is released to the public so that anyone with an interest in that regulation may comment on it. The Trump administration bypassed notice and comment, although it did put the rule through this process retroactively after it was already in effect.
According to the lower court, that’s not allowed. Among other things, the administration claimed it could bypass notice and comment because of “the urgent need to alleviate harm to those with religious objections to the current regulations.” But, according to Judge Patty Shwartz, who wrote the lower court opinion, that claim would allow too much.
“All regulations are directed toward reducing harm in some manner,” she explained in her opinion. So if harm reduction were sufficient reason to bypass ordinary procedures, those procedures would largely cease to exist.
More significantly, Shwartz wrote that no federal statute authorizes the Trump administration’s rules. Though many federal laws permit agencies to issue binding regulations, agencies cannot act on their own — they can only regulate when Congress has given them the power to do so.
Judge Shwartz’s opinion doesn’t rule out the possibility that RFRA might let the administration exempt some religious objectors from some federal rules. But the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It’s not the Moral Freedom Restoration Act. As Shwartz points out in a footnote, the Trump administration didn’t even attempt to argue that “RFRA authorizes or requires the Moral Exemption.”
So what happens now?
Should the Supreme Court ultimately agree with Shwartz that the administration needed to conduct notice and comment before this rule takes effect, that would temporarily strike down the rule. As a practical matter, however, the administration could eventually revive it by jumping through the appropriate procedural hoops.
Meanwhile, it is probably inevitable that, one way or another, the Supreme Court will determine that religious objectors should enjoy broad exemptions from the requirement to provide birth control coverage. There were almost certainly four votes for this outcome when the Court heard Zubik, and Gorsuch, who occupies the seat that was vacant in 2016, is a staunch conservative in religion cases.
But the question of whether the administration can create a freestanding “moral” exemption to a federal regulation is novel. And, as Shwartz notes, it’s hard to find statutory support for such an exemption. It’s possible this “moral” exemption will be a bridge too far even for the current Supreme Court.


vox--2020-01-14--TikTok lights, keto-friendly bread, beauty fridges: how old products get rebranded for the internet

Phoebe Daltrey wanted multicolored LED lights for her bedroom mostly because her friend had them , and because she thought they looked cool .
This was in January 2017 ; Daltrey had a modest following on YouTube at the time ( about 500 subscribers ) , and the video app Musical.ly wouldn ’ t merge with what is now TikTok for another 18 months .
Once Daltrey procured an LED light strip off Amazon , she posted a YouTube video of herself hanging the lights up to her channel with the caption “ INSANE CEILING LED SETUP.
” “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video was posted ] , it started to get more views , ” Daltrey , 17 , told me .
“ It got into the thousands and from then on it was probably getting closer to 1,000 views a day .
Everyone was messaging me asking where I got them from.
” Today , the video has garnered over 600,000 views and Daltrey ’ s following has jumped to over 18,500 subscribers .
Daltry claims the video was one of the first posts that “ helped her go viral ” — her friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Daltrey was ahead of her peers in adopting LED lights as a bedroom accessory to give online videos a color-changing effect , but LED light strips , which serve up a rainbow palette of neon colors , now run rampant among the set of Gen Zers who want to become “ TikTok famous.
” The lights are often used to create optical illusions , like say , an evil clown alter-ego or a simple skittle challenge .
As a result , searches , sales and discussions for ‘ TikTok lights ’ have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a trend driven by TikTok users who want better lighting in their videos .
Behind the scenes , these LED strips are controlled by a remote control that comes with the lights .
They let users change the background colors in videos while they ’ re shooting , and have triggered a subset of TikTok accounts that give instructions on how to install and use the lights .
TikTok advertising is currently in its “ Wild West ” days , but already users are crediting Amazon with their purchases as if they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Led Lights from Amazon , ” one user wrote in their bio .
“ Oh yeah , Amazon Prime members get 10 percent off , ” another mentioned in a video .
The rise of searches and sales for “ TikTok lights ” is indicative of a trend happening on TikTok , sure , but it also reflects a broader pattern happening in e-commerce .
The smartest online sellers are taking old products and simply describing them differently in order to get ahead of a new wave of customers , and they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appliances to bread .
“ Consumer preferences and the products that people want are changing all the time , but the products themselves actually don ’ t have to change much , ” said Noah Fram-Schwartz , CEO of Glimpse , a software startup that analyzes millions of consumer behavior signals to identify fast-growing trends .
“ For e-commerce brands , they can do less doing by doing more thinking .
They don ’ t have to go and spend a bunch of money on buying new lights or doing R & D @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the better position the company is in to spot the wave early and ride the wave as it makes its way through time — they ’ re just going to ride all of that volume.
” This proverbial “ wave ” came up a lot as I talked to different folks for this story .
Fram-Schwartz mentioned “ the wave ” more than 10 times in our conversation , and even compared finding consumer trends to surfing at one point .
But the phenomenon around riding the wave of a product @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a wallpaper cleaner before it was putty for preschoolers , today ’ s outdoorsy Nalgene bottles used to function as lab equipment and bubble wrap was first invented as three-dimensional wallpaper .
The Magic Wand , one of the most iconic vibrators , was initially marketed as a general “ body massager ” for sore muscles before it became a talisman for the sex-positive feminist movement of the 1970s .
And Pedialyte , a flu remedy for toddlers , is now a targeted , widespread hangover fix .
More recently , mini @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fridges ” and “ makeup fridges ” in response to the rise of preservative-free beauty products .
The little refrigerators are cute but mostly unnecessary — at best they keep your face creams cool , at worst they run up your electric bill .
For small e-commerce brands , a rise in search interest like this presents a golden opportunity as Amazon continues to change the way we shop .
As Nick Statt wrote in his Verge piece on the subject , Amazon is the most-liked and trusted technology brand by most .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ product search on Amazon , and to sell well on Amazon , e-commerce brands don ’ t need to have name brand recognition .
Why ?
Because brand has little to no value on the platform .
“ Smaller companies are able to move faster , ” Fram-Schwartz said .
“ If you were a small company and you saw this trend , you could adapt your product to fit the trend in minutes .
If you ’ re a bigger company , you would need to get it approved and go through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ideal online distributor for Cooluli , a mini refrigerator company that launched its first product in 2016 .
By 2018 , the company got a few pieces of feedback from customers who wanted mini refrigerators to store their natural beauty products , so Cooluli decided it would create a trend .
The company didn ’ t change their products at all , and now comes up as Amazon ’ s Choice when you search “ makeup fridge ” or “ beauty fridge.
” “ We realized there was a big potential in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tapping into , but we didn ’ t realize how far it would go , ” said Avi Kraminer , the CEO of Cooluli .
“ We always offered designs [ of fridges ] that work for everyone .
It happens that it works very well for beauty.
” Cooluli started by tapping beauty influencers like Allure editor-in-chief Michelle Lee ; Vogue later speculated that beauty fridges as a trend started when Lee shared hers on Instagram .
The company also partnered with skincare brands like Dr. Jart and Avon , which would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Cooluli ’ s mini fridges .
To show up first in search results on Amazon , the company ’ s approach included a mix of adjusted keywords and sponsored ads .
“ We run some sponsored campaigns to be able to show more of our products when people are looking for certain keywords , ” said Kraminer .
“ As an online seller , if you want to keep your position [ in search results ] , you always need to use sponsored keywords.
” Today , mini fridges intended for makeup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but many have the same specs as regular old mini fridges .
Hundreds of fridges can also be found on Alibaba under the terms “ makeup fridge ” and “ cosmetics fridge , ” waiting for dropshippers to swoop in .
The rise of beauty fridges is a decent-sized trend that has primarily taken off on Instagram , with the hashtags # makeupfridge , # beautyfridge , # skincarefridge and # minifridgeshelfie used nearly 15,000 times collectively .
According to Fram-Schwartz , “ TikTok lights ” currently has “ thousands ” of monthly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relative infancy compared to , say , “ keto bread , ” which has monthly searches in the “ tens of thousands.
” Sanda Pulida , a marketing manager at low-carb bread brand SOLA , says that the company ’ s decision to lean in to “ keto-friendly ” branding was originally driven by offline distributors .
SOLA was started by a chef who specializes in low-carb diets , but when the company started selling its products in grocery stores about a year ago , it was continuously placed in sections reserved for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those things where we struggled a little bit to come to terms with whether or not we wanted to brand ourselves as keto , ” Pulida said .
“ Obviously it ’ s a diet that took off , but we were worried that it would put us in this niche area of the market that ’ s not going to be sustainable long-term.
” Today , SOLA ’ s low-carb bread loaf is an Amazon best-seller in “ frozen bread & dough ” and is one of the first items shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When I asked Pulida if she thought SOLA ’ s foray into keto branding boosted sales , she postulated that it had — because people on the keto diet love to broadcast exactly what they eat .
Pulida also mentioned that SOLA resonates particularly well among “ dirty keto ” dieters , which are people on the keto diet who let themselves eat processed and fast foods .
“ Obviously the search term aspect of it became a big priority in terms of social media and digital advertising , ” Pulida said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amazon listings and from there it just kind of blew up .
It really turned into one of those things where we wanted to make sure that we were catching that wave.
” In Rebecca Jennings ’ s piece about how trends get huge fast , Temple University advertising professor Devon Powers says that technology has caused an influx of new product launches , which in turn expedites the process of a trend taking off .
But do new products need to be invented to make rising trends become huge trends ?
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ product from a little-known brand will do just fine .
Some of the most interesting product opportunities come from watching how consumers use existing products in unintended ways , and the savviest retailers are building exactly what consumers are reaching for .
While lights to make selfie-style videos brighter are not new , the color-changing effects of the LED lights strips give TikTok users a leg up in the quest to go viral ; the lights might make teen bedrooms look like strip clubs , but they also create the illusion of having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time of writing , the hashtags # LEDlights and # LEDlightstrip have over 138 million views combined , or enough traction to make a wave .
Sign up for The Goods newsletter .
Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .

Phoebe Daltrey wanted multicolored LED lights for her bedroom mostly because her friend had them, and because she thought they looked cool. This was in January 2017; Daltrey had a modest following on YouTube at the time (about 500 subscribers), and the video app Musical.ly wouldn’t merge with what is now TikTok for another 18 months.
Once Daltrey procured an LED light strip off Amazon, she posted a YouTube video of herself hanging the lights up to her channel with the caption “INSANE CEILING LED SETUP.” “I remember a few months after [the video was posted], it started to get more views,” Daltrey, 17, told me. “It got into the thousands and from then on it was probably getting closer to 1,000 views a day. Everyone was messaging me asking where I got them from.”
Today, the video has garnered over 600,000 views and Daltrey’s following has jumped to over 18,500 subscribers. Daltry claims the video was one of the first posts that “helped her go viral” — her friends now call her “the LED queen.”
Daltrey was ahead of her peers in adopting LED lights as a bedroom accessory to give online videos a color-changing effect, but LED light strips, which serve up a rainbow palette of neon colors, now run rampant among the set of Gen Zers who want to become “TikTok famous.” The lights are often used to create optical illusions, like say, an evil clown alter-ego or a simple skittle challenge. As a result, searches, sales and discussions for ‘TikTok lights’ have surged over the past six months, a trend driven by TikTok users who want better lighting in their videos.
Behind the scenes, these LED strips are controlled by a remote control that comes with the lights. They let users change the background colors in videos while they’re shooting, and have triggered a subset of TikTok accounts that give instructions on how to install and use the lights. TikTok advertising is currently in its “Wild West” days, but already users are crediting Amazon with their purchases as if they were sponsored. “I use the Suyoo Led Lights from Amazon,” one user wrote in their bio. “Oh yeah, Amazon Prime members get 10 percent off,” another mentioned in a video.
The rise of searches and sales for “TikTok lights” is indicative of a trend happening on TikTok, sure, but it also reflects a broader pattern happening in e-commerce. The smartest online sellers are taking old products and simply describing them differently in order to get ahead of a new wave of customers, and they’re doing it with everything from home appliances to bread.
“Consumer preferences and the products that people want are changing all the time, but the products themselves actually don’t have to change much,” said Noah Fram-Schwartz, CEO of Glimpse, a software startup that analyzes millions of consumer behavior signals to identify fast-growing trends. “For e-commerce brands, they can do less doing by doing more thinking. They don’t have to go and spend a bunch of money on buying new lights or doing R&D. They’re just LED lights. But the better position the company is in to spot the wave early and ride the wave as it makes its way through time — they’re just going to ride all of that volume.”
This proverbial “wave” came up a lot as I talked to different folks for this story. Fram-Schwartz mentioned “the wave” more than 10 times in our conversation, and even compared finding consumer trends to surfing at one point.
But the phenomenon around riding the wave of a product has been around for decades; Play-Doh was a wallpaper cleaner before it was putty for preschoolers, today’s outdoorsy Nalgene bottles used to function as lab equipment and bubble wrap was first invented as three-dimensional wallpaper. The Magic Wand, one of the most iconic vibrators, was initially marketed as a general “body massager” for sore muscles before it became a talisman for the sex-positive feminist movement of the 1970s. And Pedialyte, a flu remedy for toddlers, is now a targeted, widespread hangover fix.
More recently, mini fridges have been rebranded to “beauty fridges” and “makeup fridges” in response to the rise of preservative-free beauty products. The little refrigerators are cute but mostly unnecessary — at best they keep your face creams cool, at worst they run up your electric bill.
For small e-commerce brands, a rise in search interest like this presents a golden opportunity as Amazon continues to change the way we shop. As Nick Statt wrote in his Verge piece on the subject, Amazon is the most-liked and trusted technology brand by most. Two-thirds of US shoppers typically start their product search on Amazon, and to sell well on Amazon, e-commerce brands don’t need to have name brand recognition. Why? Because brand has little to no value on the platform.
“Smaller companies are able to move faster,” Fram-Schwartz said. “If you were a small company and you saw this trend, you could adapt your product to fit the trend in minutes. If you’re a bigger company, you would need to get it approved and go through a process of reviews.”
Amazon was the ideal online distributor for Cooluli, a mini refrigerator company that launched its first product in 2016. By 2018, the company got a few pieces of feedback from customers who wanted mini refrigerators to store their natural beauty products, so Cooluli decided it would create a trend. The company didn’t change their products at all, and now comes up as Amazon’s Choice when you search “makeup fridge” or “beauty fridge.”
“We realized there was a big potential in a market that people weren’t tapping into, but we didn’t realize how far it would go,” said Avi Kraminer, the CEO of Cooluli. “We always offered designs [of fridges] that work for everyone. It happens that it works very well for beauty.”
Cooluli started by tapping beauty influencers like Allure editor-in-chief Michelle Lee; Vogue later speculated that beauty fridges as a trend started when Lee shared hers on Instagram. The company also partnered with skincare brands like Dr. Jart and Avon, which would promote their new product collections in tandem with Cooluli’s mini fridges. To show up first in search results on Amazon, the company’s approach included a mix of adjusted keywords and sponsored ads.
“We run some sponsored campaigns to be able to show more of our products when people are looking for certain keywords,” said Kraminer. “As an online seller, if you want to keep your position [in search results], you always need to use sponsored keywords.”
Today, mini fridges intended for makeup are blatantly rebranded for beauty aficionados, but many have the same specs as regular old mini fridges. Hundreds of fridges can also be found on Alibaba under the terms “makeup fridge” and “cosmetics fridge,” waiting for dropshippers to swoop in.
The rise of beauty fridges is a decent-sized trend that has primarily taken off on Instagram, with the hashtags #makeupfridge, #beautyfridge, #skincarefridge and #minifridgeshelfie used nearly 15,000 times collectively. According to Fram-Schwartz, “TikTok lights” currently has “thousands” of monthly searches across Google, a trend in relative infancy compared to, say, “keto bread,” which has monthly searches in the “tens of thousands.”
Sanda Pulida, a marketing manager at low-carb bread brand SOLA, says that the company’s decision to lean in to “keto-friendly” branding was originally driven by offline distributors. SOLA was started by a chef who specializes in low-carb diets, but when the company started selling its products in grocery stores about a year ago, it was continuously placed in sections reserved for keto-friendly foods.
“It was one of those things where we struggled a little bit to come to terms with whether or not we wanted to brand ourselves as keto,” Pulida said. “Obviously it’s a diet that took off, but we were worried that it would put us in this niche area of the market that’s not going to be sustainable long-term.”
Today, SOLA’s low-carb bread loaf is an Amazon best-seller in “frozen bread & dough” and is one of the first items shown when you search “keto bread.” When I asked Pulida if she thought SOLA’s foray into keto branding boosted sales, she postulated that it had — because people on the keto diet love to broadcast exactly what they eat. Pulida also mentioned that SOLA resonates particularly well among “dirty keto” dieters, which are people on the keto diet who let themselves eat processed and fast foods.
“Obviously the search term aspect of it became a big priority in terms of social media and digital advertising,” Pulida said. “We did incorporate that into our Amazon listings and from there it just kind of blew up. It really turned into one of those things where we wanted to make sure that we were catching that wave.”
In Rebecca Jennings’s piece about how trends get huge fast, Temple University advertising professor Devon Powers says that technology has caused an influx of new product launches, which in turn expedites the process of a trend taking off.
But do new products need to be invented to make rising trends become huge trends? In the age of Amazon, an old product from a little-known brand will do just fine. Some of the most interesting product opportunities come from watching how consumers use existing products in unintended ways, and the savviest retailers are building exactly what consumers are reaching for.
While lights to make selfie-style videos brighter are not new, the color-changing effects of the LED lights strips give TikTok users a leg up in the quest to go viral; the lights might make teen bedrooms look like strip clubs, but they also create the illusion of having a personal lighting crew. As of the time of writing, the hashtags #LEDlights and #LEDlightstrip have over 138 million views combined, or enough traction to make a wave.
Sign up for The Goods newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.