vox--2020-01-16--Wuhan pneumonia outbreak: What we know and don’t know

The mysterious virus causing dozens of people to fall sick with pneumonia in China has now popped up in Japan .
The patient — a Chinese man in his 30s — was returning to Tokyo , where he lives , after visiting Wuhan , the mainland Chinese city of 19 million that ’ s currently the center of the outbreak , according to Japan ’ s ministry of health .
This is the second case of international spread since the outbreak was announced on December 31 .
The first involved a 61-year-old Chinese woman in Thailand , who had traveled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s most significant about the two cases is that both travelers never visited the Wuhan food market that ’ s been linked to the outbreak .
This could mean the new virus has the potential to spread from person to person , instead of just from an animal carrying the virus to humans , as health authorities have been suggesting .
Or it may suggest there are animals at other food markets shedding the virus .
In the worst case , the virus could already be spreading more broadly in Wuhan — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that while there ’ s “ no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission , ” the precise way the virus is spreading “ has not yet been determined and human-to-human transmission is always a concern when patients have respiratory symptoms.
” With the first cases turning up outside of China , the WHO warned about the possibility of “ limited human-to-human transmission ” and said it was considering organizing an emergency committee meeting .
If such a meeting is called , a panel of independent experts would discuss whether the outbreak is dire enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of international concern , ” a rare designation the WHO gives to diseases that pose a global threat .
What we know about the cases in Thailand and Japan Right now , the outbreak centers on the the Huanan South China Seafood Market in Wuhan , the capital of Hubei , one of China ’ s most populous provinces .
Health officials in Wuhan have reported that the patients with the virus so far were “ mainly business staff and purchasers ” at the Huanan South China Seafood Market , where vendors peddle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birds and rabbits .
This pointed to the possibility that the new virus had spread to humans from one of the animals there .
But these new international cases raise the possibility that something else may be going on .
The woman in Thailand , according to the World Health Organization , “ reported a history of visiting [ other ] local markets in Wuhan on a regular basis ” before she fell ill on January 5 .
Sixteen people who sat near the woman on her flight have so far tested negative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now recovering at the Bamrasnaradura Infectious Diseases Institute outside Bangkok .
The man in Japan came down with a fever on January 3 , and went to see a doctor when he arrived in Tokyo on January 6 .
He was hospitalized a few days later , and then discharged on January 15 because his symptoms had resolved .
China is sharing information about the outbreak fast — a contrast to SARS Because health authorities are dealing with a new virus , the picture of this outbreak — and its seriousness — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wuhan was only declared on December 31 .
By January 9 , the state broadcaster China Central Television reported that 15 of the people who had become ill tested positive for the new virus .
By January 11 , scientists in China shared the genetic sequence of the new virus , and the WHO applauded China ’ s efforts .
“ WHO is reassured of the quality of the ongoing investigations and the response measures implemented in Wuhan , and the commitment to share information regularly , ” the agency said in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the SARS outbreak of 2003 , when China was heavily criticized for withholding information about the outbreak for too long .
But other aspects of the outbreak bear a startling resemblance to SARS , which also involved a then-new virus when it was discovered in 2003 .
The virus jumped from civet cats — a food delicacy in China — to humans , and went on to spread to two dozen countries .
It eventually killed 774 people and infected more than 8,000 .
The one patient death “ marks this virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , authorities in Wuhan have reported 41 patients with the novel coronavirus infection .
Of the 41 , seven are severely ill , and two have been discharged from the hospital .
One patient — a 61-year-old man with underlying health problems , including chronic liver disease — died on January 9 .
The man went into the hospital with respiratory failure and severe pneumonia .
He had bought food from the Wuhan market regularly and tested positive for the new virus .
The leading hypothesis is that the disease is the result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the same family of viruses as SARS .
Coronaviruses attack the respiratory system and can target the cells deep within the lungs .
“ There are tons of coronaviruses , ” said Vincent Munster , an emerging viral diseases researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases .
Most infect mammals , including bats .
Two of the six that are known to infect humans , SARS and MERS , can cause severe pneumonia and even death .
The rest lead to milder symptoms , like a common cold .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptoms reported are fever followed by difficulty breathing , the WHO said .
In chest X-rays , patients appear to have lesions in both lungs .
According to the Bangkok Post , the patient in Thailand had neither fever nor respiratory symptoms , and might be discharged in a few days .
The death of one patient “ marks this virus as a significant concern , ” said Peter Daszak , the president of EcoHealth Alliance , a US global health research organization working in China .
Researchers will need to confirm that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the driver of the outbreak , said Marion Koopmans , who studies emerging infectious diseases as director of the virology department at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam .
They ’ ll then need to figure out the range of illness the virus causes in the confirmed cases .
“ If [ the new virus ] is indeed the likely cause , and seeded at the market , a key question is how transmissible this is , ” Koopmans said .
Viruses that spill over from animals may not be very transmissible “ if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not shed easily , ” she added .
That would mean , Munster said , “ the epidemic potential of this virus might still be limited.
” But , again , the Japan and Thailand cases suggests the potential for human-to-human spread .
And it ’ s possible , Daszak said , that the virus was incubating in patients for a couple of weeks , and that the secondary cases — from people who were directly exposed to the animal carrying the virus — are only now going to start popping up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ the scope of this outbreak expands massively , ” he added .
“ We already have 40-plus cases in China and one is traveling .
I don ’ t understand why there are so many cases if there ’ s no human-to-human transmission.
” Health officials would also need to find out which animal is spreading the virus to humans — the “ natural reservoir ” of the virus — and how the virus made the jump , and then make sure that animal is contained .
“ We don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Daszak said .
“ We don ’ t know the geographic origin of the wildlife reservoir .
And it ’ s now known to be lethal.
” At the moment , the WHO is not recommending any measures for travelers , nor is it advising against travel or trade restrictions on China , even on the cusp of China ’ s Lunar New Year holiday , during which hundreds of millions of people are expected to travel .
( A new study found the top travel destinations out of Wuhan are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kong , Tokyo , and Taipei . )
The market that ’ s been linked to the outbreak has been closed for disinfection , and health investigators are following 739 close contacts of the patients , including 419 medical staff , to see if they develop symptoms .
Officials in Wuhan say there have been no new cases there since January 3 .

The US will start screening at three airports for passengers with the mysterious, new virus originating in Wuhan, China that’s caused three deaths and nearly 200 people to fall sick with pneumonia.
On Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection announced the new measure, which will begin on January 17. Travelers from Wuhan to three US airports — San Francisco (SFO), New York (JFK), and Los Angeles (LAX) airports — will be screened for symptoms, such as cough and fever.
“I expect that we’re going to see more cases, and I think it’s highly plausible that there will be at least a case in the United States,” said Nancy Messonnier, director of CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases in a press briefing Friday.
Following the move, Wuhan’s health authorities reported a spike in illness — 136 additional cases over the weekend, as well as a third death. And already, cases have popped up in travelers from Wuhan to Japan, Thailand, and Korea — as well as two major Chinese cities, Beijing and Shenzhen.
The big question the growing caseload and these travelers raise — arguably the most important question about this outbreak — is whether the virus is spreading from person to person.
So far, a leading theory has been that the virus, called 2019-nCoV, spread directly to people from animals at a Wuhan food market, which has been linked to some of the cases in the outbreak. If that’s true, and 2019-nCoV isn’t yet spreading from person to person, the outbreak should burn out quickly. (Once the animal shedding the virus is identified and contained, cases should stop turning up.)
But evidence is piling up to suggest the virus may already be spreading among humans. Several of the travelers never visited the market. Wuhan officials have also reported evidence of viral spread within one family: a husband who worked at the market got sick, followed by his wife, who hadn’t visited the market. Just the fact that travelers with the virus are showing up in other countries hints at at least some person-to-person spread, Neil Ferguson, an infectious diseases epidemiologist at Imperial College London, told the BBC.
If that’s the case, “the scope of this outbreak expands massively,” said Peter Daszak, the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a US global health research organization working in China. In the worst case, the virus could already be moving more broadly in China — and maybe further. That risk appears to be heightened as millions start to travel this week for China’s Lunar New Year on January 25th.
At least four people have traveled with the virus outside of China
Because health authorities are dealing with a new virus, the picture of this outbreak — and its seriousness — is shifting rapidly, and will continue to do so in the coming days.
The outbreak was only declared on December 31. By January 9, the state broadcaster China Central Television reported that 15 of the people who had become ill tested positive for the new virus. By January 11, scientists in China shared the genetic sequence of the new virus, and the WHO applauded China’s efforts.
“WHO is reassured of the quality of the ongoing investigations and the response measures implemented in Wuhan, and the commitment to share information regularly,” the agency said in a statement.
This was also a contrast to the SARS outbreak of 2003, when China was heavily criticized for withholding information about the outbreak for too long.
But other aspects of the outbreak bear a startling resemblance to SARS, which also involved a then-new virus when it was discovered in 2003. The virus jumped from civet cats — a food delicacy in China — to humans, and went on to spread to two dozen countries. It eventually killed 774 people and infected more than 8,000.
For now, the current outbreak has centered on the the Huanan South China Seafood Market in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei, one of China’s most populous provinces. Health officials in Wuhan originally reported that the patients with the virus so far were “mainly business staff and purchasers” at the Huanan South China Seafood Market, where vendors peddle seafood as well as animals such as birds and rabbits. This pointed to the possibility that the new virus had spread to humans from one of the animals there.
But the recent spike in cases, along with the growing number of travelers detected with the virus, mean something else may be going on.
On Monday, South Korea reported its first case of the virus — and the fourth example of international spread — in a 35-year-old woman who traveled from Wuhan. She never visited markets or had contact with animals, WHO reported.
Before that, a Chinese man in his 30s was diagnosed with the virus upon returning to Tokyo, where he lives. He’d also visited Wuhan, the mainland Chinese city of 19 million that’s currently the center of the outbreak, according to Japan’s Ministry of Health.
The other two cases were identified in Thailand. The first involved a 61-year-old Chinese woman, who had traveled to Bangkok from Wuhan. She came down with a fever on January 5, days before Chinese officials announced their finding that the outbreak is likely caused by a new coronavirus, of the same family of viruses as SARS. The second, also a Chinese woman, aged 74, arrived in Thailand on January 13, and had no relation to the first visitor who fell ill.
These developments caused the WHO to acknowledge on January 18th that “there is evidence of limited human-to-human transmission.”
Three patient deaths mark this virus “a significant concern”
As of January 19, authorities in China have reported 198 patients with the coronavirus infection. Among them, 170 are still in the hospital, 126 have mild illness, and 44 are in severe or critical condition. Three patients have died. All cases involve adults aged 25 to 89, and about half are male.
The leading hypothesis is that the disease is the result of the new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV. Coronaviruses attack the respiratory system and can target the cells deep within the lungs. “There are tons of coronaviruses,” said Vincent Munster, an emerging viral diseases researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Most infect mammals, including bats. Two of the six that are known to infect humans, SARS and MERS, can cause severe pneumonia and even death. The rest lead to milder symptoms, like a common cold.
In the current outbreak, the main symptoms reported are fever followed by difficulty breathing, the WHO said. In chest X-rays, patients appear to have lesions in both lungs. But a preliminary genetic analysis of the 2019-nCoV virus, by Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, found it’s closely related to SARS. It, along with the three deaths, “marks this virus as a significant concern,” said Daszak.
Big questions remain
Researchers will need to confirm that this new virus is without a doubt the driver of the outbreak, said Marion Koopmans, who studies emerging infectious diseases as director of the virology department at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam. They’ll then need to figure out the full spectrum of illness the virus causes in the confirmed cases.
“If [the new virus] is indeed the likely cause, and seeded at the market, a key question is how transmissible this is,” Koopmans said. Viruses that spill over from animals may not be very transmissible “if they sit deep in the lungs and are not shed easily,” she added. That would mean, Munster said, “the epidemic potential of this virus might still be limited.”
But, again, the Japan, Thailand, and Korea cases — along with the potential family spread in Wuhan — suggest the possibility for human-to-human viral transmission.
Health officials would also need to find out which animal is spreading the virus to humans — the “natural reservoir” of the virus — and how the virus made the jump, and then make sure that animal is contained.
“We don’t know where the virus came from,” Daszak said. “We don’t know the geographic origin of the wildlife reservoir. And it’s now known to be lethal.”
At the moment, the WHO is not recommending any measures for travelers, nor is it advising against travel or trade restrictions on China, even on the cusp of China’s Lunar New Year holiday, during which hundreds of millions of people are expected to travel. (A new study found the top travel destinations out of Wuhan are Asian megacities, including Bangkok, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Taipei.)
The CDC in the US has stated that “the risk from 2019-nCoV to the American public is deemed to be low.” They’ve said the new airport screening is a precautionary measure. The market that’s been linked to the outbreak has been closed for disinfection, and health investigators are have tracked at least 800 close contacts of the patients.
With the first cases turning up outside of China, the WHO said it was considering organizing an emergency committee meeting. If such a meeting is called, a panel of independent experts would discuss whether the outbreak is dire enough to constitute a “public health emergency of international concern,” a rare designation the WHO gives to diseases that pose a global threat.


vox--2020-01-15--Bloomberg plans to make a secret pitch to Silicon Valley billionaires, showing he’s not afraid to sc

Bloomberg plans to make a secret pitch to Silicon Valley billionaires, showing he’s not afraid to schmooze Big Tech

Mike Bloomberg will ask tech billionaires to support his presidential campaign in a private reception with some of Silicon Valley ’ s biggest power brokers on Thursday evening , Recode has learned .
The briefing behind closed doors shows how Bloomberg is not shy about seeking the backing of Big Tech — a group whose favor with the public has fallen so low that candidates like Elizabeth Warren have said they ’ ll reject taking their money entirely .
The event is also a reminder of the support that Bloomberg , the world ’ s eighth-richest person , is drawing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the anti-billionaire rhetoric from Warren and Bernie Sanders .
Bloomberg ’ s event at a gallery in San Francisco ’ s SoMa neighborhood is billed as “ a private gathering of business and community leaders to hear directly from Mike on his path to victory , ” according to a copy of an invitation seen by Recode .
It will be Bloomberg ’ s most direct pitch yet to the tech industry , where he has strong financial and personal ties stretching back decades .
“ Mike is supporting Democrats and that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” a Bloomberg spokesperson said .
“ These are people who want to support the Democratic Party and we ’ re bringing them together to help candidates up and down the ballot .
As everyone knows , Mike has never taken a penny from special interests and as a tech entrepreneur himself , he appreciates the creativity , job creation , and ecosystem of innovation in this community.
” Some of the people that Bloomberg ’ s campaign has approached include Marc Benioff , the CEO of Salesforce , venture capitalist Ron Conway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veteran political fundraiser Susie Tompkins Buell .
Conway confirmed his attendance to Recode .
It ’ s unclear if Benioff , Hoffman or Buell are attending — a Benioff spokesperson declined to comment while Hoffman and Buell didn ’ t respond to requests for comment .
Several of those leaders have had strong ties to Cory Booker , who recently dropped out of the 2020 race , and so they are looking for a new 2020 candidate to back .
Hoffman has known Booker since college and hosted a fundraiser for him last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a major Booker fundraiser , and Benioff has also donated .
Buell , who is one of San Francisco ’ s most venerated fundraisers , ranks among the biggest bundlers for Pete Buttigieg .
Bloomberg has fans among Silicon Valley ’ s elite .
He has invested in many of its companies , primarily through backing every startup to graduate from Y Combinator , the tech industry ’ s most celebrated startup program .
Former Bloomberg aides from his tenure as mayor of New York City are littered across the ranks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And a pair of senior tech executives — former Foursquare CEO Jeff Glueck and Facebook ’ s former chief marketing officer Gary Briggs — are overseeing digital efforts for Bloomberg , who has said he will spend $ 1 billion on his campaign .
And as Recode has previously reported , one very prominent tech billionaire is a big fan of New York City ’ s former mayor : Amazon founder Jeff Bezos , who asked Bloomberg in a call last year if he ’ d consider running for president .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who thinks that tech billionaires already have too much influence in the political system .
Bloomberg , who only entered the race this fall , has not been asked directly for his thoughts about Big Tech — whether about its influence on society or questions about how it should or shouldn ’ t be regulated .
But he has consistently preached a more moderate , business-friendly politics , a stance that is endearing to many industry leaders who recoil at the more fire-and-brimstone anti-tech rhetoric of Warren and Bernie Sanders .
Bloomberg is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so his pitch on Thursday to these tech leaders , unlike most other candidates ’ , is not centered on a check .
But having their support could help burnish his reputation as an innovator and an admired entrepreneur .
Plus , Bloomberg has other reasons to be focusing on California : He is skipping the early voting states and has encircled the Golden State as a major priority .
His campaign , which already has 1,000 people on staff , has pledged to build the “ largest statewide operation in history to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a public event in Monterey , California on Friday , following the exclusive reception .

Mike Bloomberg will ask tech billionaires to support his presidential campaign in a private reception with some of Silicon Valley’s biggest power brokers on Thursday evening, Recode has learned.
The briefing behind closed doors shows how Bloomberg is not shy about seeking the backing of Big Tech — a group whose favor with the public has fallen so low that candidates like Sen. Elizabeth Warren have said they’ll reject taking their money entirely. The event is also a reminder of the support that Bloomberg, the world’s eighth-richest person, is drawing from the mega-wealthy who are concerned about the anti-billionaire rhetoric from Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Bloomberg’s event at a gallery in San Francisco’s SoMa neighborhood is billed as “a private gathering of business and community leaders to hear directly from Mike on his path to victory,” according to a copy of an invitation seen by Recode. It will be Bloomberg’s most direct pitch yet to the tech industry, where he has strong financial and personal ties stretching back decades.
“Mike is supporting Democrats and that’s what this event is about,” a Bloomberg spokesperson said. “These are people who want to support the Democratic Party and we’re bringing them together to help candidates up and down the ballot. As everyone knows, Mike has never taken a penny from special interests and as a tech entrepreneur himself, he appreciates the creativity, job creation, and ecosystem of innovation in this community.”
Some of the people Bloomberg’s campaign has approached include Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce; venture capitalist Ron Conway; LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman; and veteran political fundraiser Susie Tompkins Buell.
Conway confirmed his attendance to Recode. It’s unclear if Benioff, Hoffman, or Buell are attending; a Benioff spokesperson declined to comment while Hoffman and Buell didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Several of those leaders have had strong ties to Sen. Cory Booker, who recently dropped out of the 2020 race, and so they are looking for a new 2020 candidate to back. Hoffman has known Booker since college and hosted a fundraiser for him last year; Conway has also been listed as a major Booker fundraiser, and Benioff has also donated. Buell, who is one of San Francisco’s most venerated fundraisers, ranks among the biggest bundlers for former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
Bloomberg has fans among Silicon Valley’s elite. He has invested in many of its companies, primarily through backing every startup to graduate from Y Combinator, the tech industry’s most celebrated startup program. Former Bloomberg aides from his tenure as mayor of New York City are littered across the ranks of Big Tech and the startup world alike. And a pair of senior tech executives — former Foursquare CEO Jeff Glueck and Facebook’s former chief marketing officer Gary Briggs — are overseeing digital efforts for Bloomberg, who has said he will spend $1 billion on his campaign.
And as Recode has previously reported, one very prominent tech billionaire is a big fan of New York City’s former mayor: Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who asked Bloomberg in a call last year if he’d consider running for president. The news prompted the admonition of Warren, who thinks that tech billionaires already have too much influence in the political system.
Bloomberg, who only entered the race this fall, has not been asked directly for his thoughts about Big Tech — whether about its influence on society or questions about how it should or shouldn’t be regulated. But he has consistently preached a more moderate, business-friendly politics, a stance that is endearing to many industry leaders who recoil at the more fire-and-brimstone anti-tech rhetoric of Warren and Sanders.
Bloomberg is not raising money for his campaign, so his pitch on Thursday to these tech leaders, unlike most other candidates’, is not centered on a check. But having their support could help burnish his reputation as an innovator and an admired entrepreneur.
Plus, Bloomberg has other reasons to be focusing on California: He is skipping the early voting states and has encircled the Golden State as a major priority. His campaign, which already has 1,000 people on staff, has pledged to bring the “largest statewide operation in history to California.” Bloomberg is scheduled to appear at a public event in Monterey, California, on Friday, following the exclusive reception.


vox--2020-01-15--Why #NeverWarren should make you nervous about 2020

The brewing feud between 2020 contenders Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders came to a head this week on the Democratic debate stage and , inevitably , on Twitter .
But is the online brawl as widespread and as vitriolic as it seems ?
That ’ s actually a hard question to answer because when it comes to online political discourse , it can be very difficult to discern between manipulative disinformation and authentic , organically shared content .
Here ’ s the situation : Tensions between Warren and Sanders , longtime progressive allies , have been rising in recent days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s campaign reportedly gave supporters a script encouraging them to go negative on Warren when talking to voters , and CNN subsequently reported Sanders had told Warren that he believed a woman couldn ’ t win in 2020 at a private meeting between the pair in 2018 .
Sanders has vigorously denied the account , while Warren has confirmed that it happened .
During Tuesday ’ s debate , both Sanders and Warren repeated their accounts of the conversation , and the dynamic grew visibly tense between them .
After the debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibly frosty encounter between the pair .
The conflict spilled over onto Twitter and appeared to be magnified in a big way .
The hashtag # NeverWarren began to trend , and a wave of users flocked to Warren ’ s Twitter account to flood her replies with snake emojis .
As has been the case with so many viral hashtags and discussions on Twitter , the incident has again shown that when it comes to what ’ s gaining traction on the internet , we still have a hard time telling what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fake , and what ’ s being spread by whom .
How much of the activity around # NeverWarren is generated by bots ?
How much of it comes from the so-called Bernie bros , the online army behind the Vermont senator ?
And how much of it comes from Warren supporters trying to combat the # NeverWarren hashtag , or reporters tweeting about it , who are inadvertently causing it to trend higher on Twitter ?
“ It certainly harkens back to what we saw in 2016 , and what we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was a lot of fuckery going on .
And there ’ s no reason for us to think that the same disinformation efforts that happened in 2016 aren ’ t happening right now , ” said Syracuse University professor Whitney Phillips , who studies media literacy and online ethics .
“ And so it creates this low level of paranoia with what you ’ re even looking at.
” Given how early it is in the 2020 presidential race — the Iowa caucuses are still about three weeks away , and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic nominee — this doesn ’ t bode well for the social media conversations to come , including potential disinformation , manipulation , and questions about whether what ’ s happening online is and isn ’ t real .
“ Every single event of this nature is going to be proving ground for something worse the following day , ” Phillips said .
What we know — and what we don ’ t know — about why # NeverWarren started trending We ’ ll never get an exact picture of where the # @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off , and who spread it .
Because of the opacity of Twitter ’ s inner workings , we don ’ t really know what exactly causes a topic to gain traction on the platform .
Usually , it ’ s a mix of both bot-generated engagement and organic engagement .
“ The bots work as amplifiers .
...
They manipulate the platform so that more humans will talk about [ a topic ] ” Often , a news story or hashtag will originate with a specific website or person , and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helping it take off and make it look like a lot of people are talking about it right away , explained Filippo Menczer , a professor of informatics and computer science at Indiana University .
So , for example , a hashtag starts with a specific user , and then the bots start to spread it , and then more actual people pick up on it .
Twitter ’ s trending algorithm then picks up on that and spreads it even further .
“ The bots work as amplifiers , ” said Menczer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hoaxy , a tool that tracks how information spreads on social media .
“ They ’ re used to manipulate the platform so that more humans will talk about [ a topic ] .
By the time something goes viral or goes trending , a lot of humans are probably talking about it.
” And in the case of # NeverWarren , it ’ s not just people who are promoting the hashtag , but also those who are trying to combat it , who are making it spread .
As NBC News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of the top tweets about the # NeverWarren hashtag actually came from people denouncing it .
In other words , Warren ’ s supporters are accidentally making the situation worse .
The issue is , Twitter ’ s algorithm doesn ’ t distinguish sentiment when it identifies what ’ s trending — it ’ s only looking at engagement .
This makes it difficult to parse the motivations of the people who are posting a hashtag and helping it trend .
Online battles like these have ramifications in real life : In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Sanders supporters feel like their conflict is worse than it may actually be .
“ They ’ re being told both implicitly and explicitly that they ’ re in a fight with each other , ” Phillips said .
“ When you ’ re told that you ’ re in a fight , and you ’ re told that you ’ re mad at the other side , it ’ s really easy to fall into that .
It ’ s life imitating the hashtag , basically.
” This is hardly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cycle .
After the second round of Democratic debates in July , the # KamalaHarrisDestroyed hashtag caused a similar dust-up between supporters of Kamala Harris and of Tulsi Gabbard .
Conservative commentator Terrence K. Williams started the hashtag , and as the Wall Street Journal reported , a lot of accounts with “ questionable characteristics ” — probably bots — shared it .
People on Twitter started to see it spreading , and then they started to share it because it struck a nerve with some of them .
The bots are used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topics , narratives , and hashtags , but they wouldn ’ t work if they weren ’ t evoking a reaction in real people on Twitter .
“ It ’ s the combination of the abuse and the biases of the algorithm and the biases of humans on the platform , ” Menczer said .
We ’ re still struggling to deal with disinformation The confusion surrounding # NeverWarren is just the latest instance in an ongoing problem : We ’ re still really confused about social media manipulation , and we don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it responsibly .
Disinformation in and of itself sows division .
People don ’ t have a clear idea of what social media manipulation is or how it works , and they struggle to identify it when they encounter it .
In the wake of revelations that Russians used Facebook , Twitter , and other platforms to deepen partisan discord and spread polarized political messages during the 2016 election , people are hyper suspicious about whether what they ’ re seeing is real or fake .
You like what you ’ re seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t ?
It ’ s a bot .
You ’ re ready for a fight ?
You got one .
And it also depends what people want to believe .
So with the # KamalaHarrisDestroyed hashtag , if you were in the California senator ’ s corner , you had reason to argue that it ’ s trending because of bots and manipulation .
If you weren ’ t , then you had a reason to say it ’ s all organic .
A similar thing happened around the death of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As conspiracy theories about what happened floated around on Twitter , both # ClintonBodyCount and # TrumpBodyCount trended — with conservatives and liberals each tweeting the hashtag that reflected their politics .
President Donald Trump ’ s son , Donald Trump Jr. , suggested that the latter was trending because of manipulation by Twitter itself .
There ’ s no evidence to support that claim .
“ It ’ s not only that we don ’ t know what Twitter ’ s algorithm is doing — we don ’ t know what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are doing , or why they ’ re doing it .
So that ’ s why it becomes really easy to project an explanation that fits your worldview , ” Phillips said .
Because of the confusion , people then fill in the gaps on their own and create narratives around what ’ s happening online according to what they want to believe .
You like what you ’ re seeing ?
It ’ s organic .
You don ’ t ?
It ’ s a bot .
You ’ re ready for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s really important not to fall into singular explanations .
What is true is that you don ’ t know what is happening , ” Phillips said .
“ A hashtag is only not true or real if nobody engages with it.
” Amid questions over the # NeverWarren hashtag on Wednesday , former Facebook executive Alex Stamos laid out some advice on how to approach similar situations on Twitter .
“ 1 ) Don ’ t use a hashtag to criticize that hashtag .
2 ) Stop quote-tweeting small-follower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t believe that the population of ‘ people ’ on Twitter is reflective of anything , including ‘ candidate X ’ s followers.
’ ” Part of the issue is that we don ’ t really know how Twitter ’ s algorithm works There ’ s no single solution to this complex problem .
Social media companies probably aren ’ t going to start telling us how their algorithms work anytime soon , and part of their argument for doing so is that if they did , their platforms would be even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as there ’ s a tendency to blame bots for everything , it ’ s basic human nature that ’ s the bigger culprit .
Like a lot of tech platforms , Twitter ’ s algorithm is largely a black box .
The company publicly gives some information about what makes certain topics and hashtags trend and why individual people see certain content in their feeds more than other kinds , but it won ’ t say much more .
The explanation from its website leaves a lot to be desired : Basically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to trend when they become more popular than they have been in the past , and that what you see depends on what Twitter thinks you might be interested in .
( Which it ’ s , um , not always great at . )
The rest is up to the mysterious algorithm .
That ’ s why when there are allegations flying about social media manipulation by bots , or when conservatives make unfounded claims about social media bias , they ’ re so hard to definitively respond to .
“ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these companies don ’ t want to show their receipts .
We don ’ t really know how they work , ” said Phillips .

The brewing feud between 2020 contenders Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders came to a head this week on the Democratic debate stage and, inevitably, on Twitter. But is the online brawl as widespread and vitriolic as it seems? That’s actually a hard question to answer because when it comes to online political discourse, it can be very difficult to discern between manipulative disinformation and authentic, organically shared content.
Here’s the situation: Tensions between Warren and Sanders, longtime progressive allies, have been rising in recent days as 2020 primary voting approaches. Sanders’s campaign reportedly gave supporters a script encouraging them to go negative on Warren when talking to voters, and CNN subsequently reported that Sanders had told Warren he believed a woman couldn’t win in 2020 at a private meeting between the pair in 2018. Sanders has vehemently denied the account, while Warren has stated that it happened. During Tuesday’s debate, both Sanders and Warren repeated their accounts of the conversation, and the dynamic between them grew visibly tense. After the debate, CNN captured a video of a possibly frosty encounter between the pair.
The conflict spilled over onto Twitter and appeared to be magnified in a big way. The hashtag #NeverWarren began to trend, and a wave of users flocked to Warren’s Twitter account to flood her replies with snake emojis. As has been the case with so many viral hashtags and discussions on Twitter, the incident has again shown that when it comes to what’s gaining traction on the internet, we still have a hard time telling what’s real, what’s fake, and what’s being spread by whom. How much of the activity around #NeverWarren is generated by bots? How much of it comes from the so-called Bernie Bros, the online army behind the Vermont senator? And how much of it comes from Warren supporters trying to combat the #NeverWarren hashtag, or reporters tweeting about it, who are inadvertently causing it to trend higher on Twitter?
“It certainly harkens back to what we saw in 2016, and what we know happened in 2016. ... And there’s no reason for us to think that the same disinformation efforts that happened in 2016 aren’t happening right now,” said Whitney Phillips, a Syracuse University professor who studies media literacy and online ethics. “And so it creates this low level of paranoia with what you’re even looking at.”
Given how early it is in the 2020 presidential race — the Iowa caucuses are still about three weeks away, and we’re months away from having a Democratic nominee — this doesn’t bode well for the social media conversations to come, including potential disinformation, manipulation, and questions about whether what’s happening online is and isn’t real. “Every single event of this nature is going to be proving ground for something worse the following day,” Phillips said.
What we know — and what we don’t know — about why #NeverWarren started trending
We’ll never get an exact picture of where the #NeverWarren hashtag started, how it took off, and who spread it. Because of the opacity of Twitter’s inner workings, we don’t know what exactly causes a topic to gain traction on the platform. Usually, it’s a mix of both bot-generated and organic engagement.
“The bots work as amplifiers. ... They manipulate the platform so that more humans will talk about [a topic].”
Often, a news story or hashtag will originate with a specific website or person, and then the bots serve almost as middlemen in helping it take off and make it look like a lot of people are talking about it right away, explained Filippo Menczer, a professor of informatics and computer science at Indiana University. So, for example, a hashtag starts with a specific user, and then the bots start to spread it, and then more actual people pick up on it. Twitter’s trending algorithm then picks up on that and spreads it even further.
“The bots work as amplifiers,” said Menczer, who is also the creator of Hoaxy, a tool that tracks how information spreads on social media. “They’re used to manipulate the platform so that more humans will talk about [a topic]. By the time something goes viral or goes trending, a lot of humans are probably talking about it.”
And in the case of #NeverWarren, it’s not just people who are promoting the hashtag, but also those who are trying to combat it, who are making it spread. As NBC News reporter Ben Collins noted on Wednesday, many of the top tweets about the #NeverWarren hashtag came from people denouncing it. In other words, Warren’s supporters are accidentally making the situation worse.
FASCINATING data here about #NeverWarren, the No. 1 trend in the United States right now.
The top three tweets about the hashtag in the world—from @johnpavlovitz, @mehdirhasan, @deetwocents—all denounce people using it.
The algorithm is generating an opposite reality. pic.twitter.com/lAOyiS5S7G — Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) January 15, 2020
The issue is that Twitter’s algorithm doesn’t distinguish sentiment when it identifies what’s trending — it’s only looking at engagement. This makes it difficult to parse the motivations of the people who are posting a hashtag and helping it trend.
Online battles like these have ramifications in real life: In this case, it makes both Warren and Sanders supporters feel like their conflict is worse than it may actually be. “They’re being told both implicitly and explicitly that they’re in a fight with each other,” Phillips said. “When you’re told that you’re in a fight, and you’re told that you’re mad at the other side, it’s really easy to fall into that. It’s life imitating the hashtag, basically.”
This is hardly the first time this has happened this election cycle. After the second round of Democratic debates in July, the #KamalaHarrisDestroyed hashtag caused a similar dustup between supporters of Kamala Harris and of Tulsi Gabbard. Conservative commentator Terrence K. Williams started the hashtag, and as the Wall Street Journal reported, a lot of accounts with “questionable characteristics” — probably bots — shared it. People on Twitter started to see it spreading, and then they started to share it because it struck a nerve with some of them. The bots are used to inject, feed, and amplify topics, narratives, and hashtags, but they wouldn’t work if they weren’t evoking a reaction in real people on Twitter.
“It’s the combination of the abuse and the biases of the algorithm and the biases of humans on the platform,” Menczer said.
We’re still struggling to deal with disinformation
The confusion surrounding #NeverWarren is just the latest instance in an ongoing problem: We’re still really confused about social media manipulation, and we don’t know how to deal with it responsibly.
Disinformation in and of itself sows division. People don’t have a clear idea of what social media manipulation is or how it works, and they struggle to identify it when they encounter it. In the wake of revelations that Russians used Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms to deepen partisan discord and spread polarized political messages during the 2016 election, people are hyper suspicious about whether what they’re seeing is real or fake.
You like what you’re seeing? It’s organic. You don’t? It’s a bot. You’re ready for a fight? You got one.
It also depends on what people want to believe. So with the #KamalaHarrisDestroyed hashtag, if you were in the California senator’s corner, you had reason to argue it was trending because of bots and manipulation. If you weren’t, you had a reason to say it was all organic. A similar thing happened around the death of financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. As conspiracy theories about what happened floated around Twitter, both #ClintonBodyCount and #TrumpBodyCount trended — with conservatives and liberals each tweeting the hashtag that reflected their politics. Donald Trump Jr. suggested that the latter was trending because of manipulation by Twitter itself. There’s no evidence to support that claim.
Twitter allowing “Trump Body Count” to trend while “Clinton Body Count” has WAY more tweets (but isn’t trending) is peak Twitter. — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) August 11, 2019
“It’s not only that we don’t know what Twitter’s algorithm is doing — we don’t know what people who are participating in the hashtags are doing, or why they’re doing it. So that’s why it becomes really easy to project an explanation that fits your worldview,” Phillips said.
Because of the confusion, people then fill in the gaps on their own and create narratives around what’s happening online according to what they want to believe. You like what you’re seeing? It’s organic. You don’t? It’s a bot. You’re ready for a fight? You got one.
“It’s really important not to fall into singular explanations. What is true is that you don’t know what is happening,” Phillips said. “A hashtag is only not true or real if nobody engages with it.”
Amid questions over the #NeverWarren hashtag on Wednesday, former Facebook executive Alex Stamos laid out some advice on how to approach similar situations on Twitter. “1) Don’t use a hashtag to criticize that hashtag. 2) Stop quote-tweeting small-follower accounts as criticism. 3) Don’t believe that the population of ‘people’ on Twitter is reflective of anything, including ‘candidate X’s followers.’”
In an email to Recode, Twitter said it had not found evidence of bot activity amplifying the #NeverWarren hashtag. The company noted that when people tweet a hashtag they disagree with, its trends feature neutrally clocks it as a trending topic — that’s not the same thing as inauthentic activity.
Part of the issue is that we don’t really know how Twitter’s algorithm works
There’s no single solution to this complex problem. Social media companies probably aren’t going to start telling us how their algorithms work anytime soon, and part of their argument for why is that if they did, their platforms would be even easier to manipulate. And as much as there’s a tendency to blame bots for everything, it’s basic human nature that’s the bigger culprit.
Like a lot of tech platforms, Twitter’s algorithm is largely a black box. The company publicly gives some information about what makes certain topics and hashtags trend and why individual people see certain content in their feeds more than other kinds, but it won’t say much more. The explanation from its website leaves a lot to be desired:
Trends are determined by an algorithm and, by default, are tailored for you based on who you follow, your interests, and your location. This algorithm identifies topics that are popular now, rather than topics that have been popular for a while or on a daily basis, to help you discover the hottest emerging topics of discussion on Twitter.
Basically, that means topics and hashtags start to trend when they become more popular than they have been in the past, and that what you see depends on what Twitter thinks you might be interested in. (Which it’s, um, not always great at.) The rest is up to the mysterious algorithm.
That’s why when there are allegations flying about social media manipulation by bots, or when conservatives make unfounded claims about social media bias, they’re so hard to definitively respond to. “You can’t show the receipts because these companies don’t want to show their receipts. We don’t really know how they work,” said Phillips.
Update: Story updated with comment from Twitter.


vox--2020-01-17--Why Bernie Sanders is right and wrong about female presidential candidates

The feud between Sens .
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders — and their supporters — over whether Sanders really questioned if the US would elect a woman president is now in its fourth day .
Before the debate , the Sanders campaign encouraged supporters to go negative on Warren , partly out of fear that she can ’ t win over “ disaffected working-class voters.
” Later , CNN reported that Sanders told Warren privately in 2018 that a woman likely couldn ’ t defeat President Donald Trump in 2020 , something Sanders has denied .
During Tuesday ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderator why he said he “ did not believe that a woman could win the election.
” “ How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States ?
” he responded .
Meanwhile , Warren affirmed her original account of the conversation with Sanders , and after the debate there was an awkward encounter between the two .
“ I think you called me a liar on national TV , ” she told Sanders .
Let ’ s set aside for the moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
The dispute between them touches on an important question that doesn ’ t admit any easy answers .
Is it true that it would be difficult for a woman to win a presidential election , especially against a misogynist like Trump ?
If so , what is unique about a presidential race that makes it different from congressional elections — where women candidates triumphed in 2018 ?
To get some answers , I reached out to Cornell University philosopher Kate Manne , author of Down Girl : The Logic of Misogyny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested that Sanders should have owned the implications of his remarks and admitted what we all know is likely true : sexism will be weaponized against a female candidate .
We discussed what she meant by that , and arguably an even more pressing question : How can we acknowledge this reality in a way that doesn ’ t reinforce it or turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy ?
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows .
Let ’ s assume Sanders told Warren that a woman can ’ t defeat Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think he is wrong , but it ’ s not an unreasonable claim .
And I should say that even if he said something much weaker than that , he has admitted to saying that Trump would weaponize sexism and misogyny against Warren , which is an odd thing to bring up unless you ’ re claiming that a woman wouldn ’ t have a realistic shot at the presidency .
But leaving that aside , I think he ’ s wrong for subtle reasons .
It ’ s true that women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we have anecdotal evidence from the last election where we had a far stronger female candidate beaten out by a terribly weak , incompetent , and immoral male candidate .
And there ’ s just a wealth of empirical evidence from social psychology that when a man and a woman go head to head for a masculine-coded leadership position , there tends to be a market bias in favor of the male candidate and against the female candidate .
I say Sanders is wrong because there is also evidence that highly communal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do you mean by that ?
Well , there are some excellent studies by Madeline Heilman of NYU and her colleagues investigating whether the market bias I ’ m talking about can be mitigated if a woman is shown to be super compassionate , or more accurately perceived as super compassionate , caring , empathetic , nurturing , and kind .
When that happens , the bias against women seems to disappear , or at least it ’ s reduced significantly .
So if Sanders is wrong , I think it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretty good shot because she ’ s perceived as hyper-communal .
What is it about Trump , in particular , that makes the gender bias such a pressing issue ?
It seems like he ’ s the kind of candidate that would bring out a lot of people who want to vote for a strong man , or a perceived strong man , over a female candidate .
He ’ s going to be a lightning rod for the sexist and misogynistic voter , whether they ’ re driven by implicit biases or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be sufficiently competent to be president .
You ’ d have to be very optimistic about gender egalitarian progress not to think that he ’ s someone who would enable and empower the sexist and misogynistic voters .
In other words , because he ’ s a misogynist , Trump puts misogyny on the table and therefore activates misogynist voters .
Yes , that ’ s a really good way of putting it .
Are the dynamics for women candidates different in a presidential race ?
What makes the presidency different from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we should be more attentive to the empirical evidence on this .
There are some really nice studies showing that when it comes to races even for the Senate , men and women who are similarly described , there ’ s not necessarily a strong bias against women .
But there ’ s a study in which researchers manipulated the key variable and found that this changed as soon as you described a woman as power-seeking .
So in one of the manipulations , they described the woman as “ one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who always “ had a strong will to power ” and has always been “ hungry.
” Now these are all keys to success in politics .
And when men were described in these terms , they weren ’ t penalized .
But when women were described this way , it became an issue .
So perceived power-seeking is a problem for women , and the presidency is probably the most powerful position in the world , so it ’ s not surprising that this would be problem .
I ’ m curious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this in any way .
If , for instance , an extremely hawkish conservative woman was running against Trump , does that play out any differently ?
Or does gender bias trump party politics ?
That ’ s a great question .
So this is somewhat speculative , but my hunch is that there is a kind of mediating factor here that ’ s related to the perceived communality .
So if a woman is perceived on the left as a hawk , she ’ ll be perceived as not communal and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her .
I think that ’ s especially true for center-left women .
People who would otherwise vote for them are probably more suspicious of them than they would be of a male counterpart because they ’ re perceived as not empathetic and compassionate enough .
On the other hand , if you ’ re a right-wing woman , the way to be perceived as communal is to be more conservative , more emphatic on so-called family values , more inclined to defend the status quo when it comes to American interests abroad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find , and again , this would need empirical verification , is that perceptions of communality require different behavior depending on whether you ’ re on the left or right .
There ’ s a tension here that I find difficult to navigate .
How do we acknowledge the reality that sexism exists and that women face an enormous electoral disadvantage , at least in some circumstances , while at the same time fighting against it effectively ?
That ’ s the big question .
I struggle with it , too .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do with the spirit in which these questions are raised .
One reason people are suspicious of Sanders is that telling a female potential presidential candidate about these biases , at that stage , doesn ’ t seem diplomatic or helpful .
But I do think there ’ s a way of acknowledging these biases that actually increases the chance of combating them successfully by saying , “ Look , a woman would be really up against it in certain ways and we ’ re going to have to be vigilant in fighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the best candidate.
” That ’ s what I ’ ve tried to say with respect to Elizabeth Warren .
I think we have to be very careful about certain stories getting unwarranted traction or of double standards being applied .
And maybe even more importantly , we have to be careful not to celebrate her on the wrong grounds .
The research about hyper-communal women with power being acceptable worries me because it feeds into gender biases about how women are supposed to be — perfectly empathetic , perfectly compassionate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acknowledge that the biases really make this tough for women , but not impossible , and that there may be female candidates who are really worth fighting for , and then we have to go out and do that work .
I don ’ t think it works to just live in denial about the biases .
In the end , it feels like there just isn ’ t a good way to talk about this , especially if you ’ re a female candidate .
If you bring it up , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” or the victim card .
If you ignore it , it never goes away .
It ’ s an inescapable trap .
I completely agree with that .
There ’ s no good way for Warren to bring this up that won ’ t hurt her with a significant number of people who share a very common implicit bias against women drawing moral attention to their own predicament .
So I think this is true not only of politicians , but women generally , trying to draw attention to ways in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to attract more of it .
The only solution I can see is for her supporters and backers to bring up the fact that she is going to face a lot of these biases , that we have a moral responsibility not to be complacent in the face of them , but rather to fight against them .
Otherwise , we ’ ll have a self-fulfilling prophecy on our hands where women can never win political office at this level , and instead of relying on her to bring up these factors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be really clear about the biases that she ’ s facing and then to emphasize the fact that that doesn ’ t mean we should give up .
It means we should double down and fight harder if we believe she ’ s the best person for the job .

The feud between Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders — and their supporters — over whether Sanders really questioned if the US would elect a woman president is now in its fourth day.
Before the debate, the Sanders campaign reportedly encouraged supporters to go negative on Warren, partly out of fear that she can’t win over “disaffected working-class voters.” Later, CNN reported that Sanders told Warren privately in 2018 that a woman likely couldn’t defeat President Donald Trump in 2020 — a report based on two people Warren spoke to after the meeting and two sources “familiar” with it.
Sanders, meanwhile, denies he ever said such a thing. Asked by a moderator at Tuesday’s debate why he said he “did not believe that a woman could win the election,” Sanders flatly denied it: “I didn’t say it,” he said. “Anybody knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I think that a woman couldn’t be president of the United States. How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States?”
Meanwhile, Warren affirmed her original account of the conversation with Sanders, and after the debate there was an awkward encounter between the two. “I think you called me a liar on national TV,” she told Sanders.
Let’s set aside for the moment whether Sanders said what Warren says he said. The dispute between them touches on an important question that doesn’t admit any easy answers.
Is it true that it would be difficult for a woman to win a presidential election, especially against a misogynist like Trump? If so, what is unique about a presidential race that makes it different from congressional elections — where women candidates triumphed in 2018?
To get some answers, I reached out to Cornell University philosopher Kate Manne, author of Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny. In a Twitter thread, Manne suggested that Sanders should have owned the implications of his remarks and admitted what we all know is likely true: sexism will be weaponized against a female candidate.
We discussed what she meant by that, and arguably an even more pressing question: How can we acknowledge this reality in a way that doesn’t reinforce it or turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy?
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Sean Illing
Let’s assume Sanders told Warren that a woman can’t defeat Trump in 2020 for the sake of this conversation. Is he right?
Kate Manne
I think he is wrong, but it’s not an unreasonable claim. And I should say that even if he said something much weaker than that, he has admitted to saying that Trump would weaponize sexism and misogyny against Warren, which is an odd thing to bring up unless you’re claiming that a woman wouldn’t have a realistic shot at the presidency.
But leaving that aside, I think it’s wrong for subtle reasons. It’s true that women are up against it in political races and we have anecdotal evidence from the last election where we had a far stronger female candidate beaten out by a terribly weak, incompetent, and immoral male candidate. And there’s just a wealth of empirical evidence from social psychology that when a man and a woman go head to head for a masculine-coded leadership position, there tends to be a marked bias in favor of the male candidate and against the female candidate.
I say this idea is wrong because there is also evidence that highly communal women can overcome that bias.
Sean Illing
What do you mean by that?
Kate Manne
Well, there are some excellent studies by Madeline Heilman of NYU and her colleagues investigating whether the marked bias I’m talking about can be mitigated if a woman is shown to be super compassionate, or more accurately perceived as super compassionate, caring, empathetic, nurturing, and kind. When that happens, the bias against women seems to disappear, or at least it’s reduced significantly. So if Sanders is wrong, I think it’s because someone like Warren actually has a pretty good shot because she’s perceived as hyper-communal.
Sean Illing
What is it about Trump, in particular, that makes the gender bias such a pressing issue?
Kate Manne
It seems like he’s the kind of candidate that would bring out a lot of people who want to vote for a strong man, or a perceived strong man, over a female candidate. He’s going to be a lightning rod for the sexist and misogynistic voter, whether they’re driven by implicit biases or explicit beliefs that a woman can’t be sufficiently competent to be president. You’d have to be very optimistic about gender egalitarian progress not to think that he’s someone who would enable and empower the sexist and misogynistic voters.
Sean Illing
In other words, because he’s a misogynist, Trump puts misogyny on the table and therefore activates misogynist voters.
Kate Manne
Yes, that’s a really good way of putting it.
Sean Illing
Are the dynamics for women candidates different in a presidential race? What makes the presidency different from congressional or gubernatorial races?
Kate Manne
I think we should be more attentive to the empirical evidence on this. There are some really nice studies showing that when it comes to races even for the Senate, men and women who are similarly described, there’s not necessarily a strong bias against women.
But there’s a study in which researchers manipulated the key variable and found that this changed as soon as you described a woman as power-seeking. So in one of the manipulations, they described the woman as “one of the most ambitious politicians in a state” who always “had a strong will to power” and has always been “hungry.” Now, these are all keys to success in politics. And when men were described in these terms, they weren’t penalized. But when women were described this way, it became an issue.
So perceived power-seeking is a problem for women, and the presidency is probably the most powerful position in the world, so it’s not surprising that this would be problem.
Sean Illing
I’m curious if you think partisanship alters the logic of this in any way. If, for instance, an extremely hawkish conservative woman was running against Trump, does that play out any differently? Or does gender bias trump party politics?
Kate Manne
That’s a great question. So this is somewhat speculative, but my hunch is that there is a kind of mediating factor here that’s related to the perceived communality. So if a woman is perceived on the left as a hawk, she’ll be perceived as not communal and that’s going to really cost her. I think that’s especially true for center-left women. People who would otherwise vote for them are probably more suspicious of them than they would be of a male counterpart because they’re perceived as not empathetic and compassionate enough.
On the other hand, if you’re a right-wing woman, the way to be perceived as communal is to be more conservative, more emphatic on so-called family values, more inclined to defend the status quo when it comes to American interests abroad. So I think what you might find, and again, this would need empirical verification, is that perceptions of communality require different behavior depending on whether you’re on the left or right.
Sean Illing
There’s a tension here that I find difficult to navigate. How do we acknowledge the reality that sexism exists and that women face an enormous electoral disadvantage, at least in some circumstances, while at the same time fighting against it effectively?
Kate Manne
That’s the big question. I struggle with it, too. I think a lot of it has to do with the spirit in which these questions are raised. One reason people are suspicious of Sanders is that telling a female potential presidential candidate about these biases, at that stage, doesn’t seem diplomatic or helpful. But I do think there’s a way of acknowledging these biases that actually increases the chance of combating them successfully by saying, “Look, a woman would be really up against it in certain ways and we’re going to have to be vigilant in fighting for her if we believe she’s the best candidate.”
That’s what I’ve tried to say with respect to Elizabeth Warren. I think we have to be very careful about certain stories getting unwarranted traction or of double standards being applied. And maybe even more importantly, we have to be careful not to celebrate her on the wrong grounds. The research about hyper-communal women with power being acceptable worries me because it feeds into gender biases about how women are supposed to be — perfectly empathetic, perfectly compassionate, perfectly safe.
So we have to acknowledge that the biases really make this tough for women, but not impossible, and that there may be female candidates who are really worth fighting for, and then we have to go out and do that work. I don’t think it works to just live in denial about the biases.
Sean Illing
In the end, it feels like there just isn’t a good way to talk about this, especially if you’re a female candidate. If you bring it up, you’re playing “identity politics,” or the victim card. If you ignore it, it never goes away. It’s an inescapable trap.
Kate Manne
I completely agree with that. There’s no good way for Warren to bring this up that won’t hurt her with a significant number of people who share a very common implicit bias against women drawing moral attention to their own predicament. So I think this is true not only of politicians, but women generally, trying to draw attention to ways in which she faced sexism, and misogyny tends to attract more of it.
The only solution I can see is for her supporters and backers to bring up the fact that she is going to face a lot of these biases, that we have a moral responsibility not to be complacent in the face of them, but rather to fight against them. Otherwise, we’ll have a self-fulfilling prophecy on our hands where women can never win political office at this level, and instead of relying on her to bring up these factors, my preferred strategy is to try to be really clear about the biases that she’s facing and then to emphasize the fact that that doesn’t mean we should give up.
It means we should double down and fight harder if we believe she’s the best person for the job.


vox--2020-01-17--Mike Bloomberg’s ad strategy is kind of working

Michael Bloomberg momentum isn ’ t exactly happening — but it ’ s not not happening , either .
The billionaire philanthropist and former New York City mayor has been gradually ticking upward in state and national polls since launching his presidential bid in November .
A RealClearPolitics average of polls shows him in fifth place with about 6.6 percent support nationally , just behind former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , at 7.2 percent .
Recent polls out of Wisconsin , Florida , and North Carolina show Bloomberg in mid-to-high single digits .
One poll out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ edge in a head-to-head match-up with President Donald Trump in Michigan , better than former Vice President Joe Biden , Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , and Buttigieg .
And a national Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday evening showed Bloomberg ahead of Buttigieg .
While Bloomberg isn ’ t a top-tier candidate , he ’ s also outperforming a lot of the candidates have been for the race for much longer than him , or who have already dropped out .
And he ’ s doing it with an unconventional approach : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first four primary states , focusing instead on Super Tuesday ( when many states vote ) and beyond , and inundating television airwaves with ads , for which he ’ s paying millions upon millions of dollars of his own money .
“ I think we have to acknowledge that we ’ re in kind of uncharted territory here , ” said Kyle Kondik , a veteran pollster and managing editor of Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball .
“ While I ’ m not going to sit here and tell you that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Bloomberg out there , he is ticking up a little bit.
” “ The gobs of money he ’ s spending on advertising is certainly having some effect , ” said Quinnipiac University polling analyst Mary Snow .
“ He is trailing the frontrunner in our national poll , which is Joe Biden , but if you put it in context , he ’ s not far behind Pete Buttigieg in our national poll , and he is doing better than some of the other candidates who have been campaigning for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t really a contender for the nomination at this point , and it ’ s not clear if he ’ ll ever get there .
Moreover , many candidates aren ’ t yet spending a lot of time or money on later states , and it ’ s not clear whether Bloomberg ’ s support will hold once that changes , or once voting begins .
But he does appear to be registering with voters .
The question is , where does he go from here ?
You ( probably ) can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can buy yourself your way to some good polls Bloomberg ’ s campaign strategy hinges on one thing : money .
He ’ s got a lot of it — by Forbes ’ s estimation , nearly $ 60 billion ) — and he ’ s willing to spend it on his entirely self-funded campaign .
“ For Democratic operatives , it ’ s like the New Deal , ” said Kondik .
Bloomberg ’ s campaign now totals about 1,000 staffers across nearly three dozen states .
He has signaled he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running through November , whoever the Democratic nominee is .
The former mayor isn ’ t going to be on the debate stage because he ’ s not accepting donations and the Democratic National Committee has an individual donor threshold ( on the night of the January debate , he appeared on Late Night with Stephen Colbert ) .
But he is hitting the campaign trail , often in states that generally don ’ t get a lot of attention until later in the primary season , if at all .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but he has the backing of multiple mayors across the country and just picked up his first congressional endorser .
He ’ s also got Judge Judy in his corner , and on the campaign trail with him .
But perhaps the most notable thing that Bloomberg is doing with his money is spending it on ads .
According to Politico , he has spent more than $ 200 million on television advertising already , and data from Democratic consultancy Bully Pulpit Interactive indicates he has spent more than $ 26 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his campaign .
Bloomberg and Trump both plan to air multimillion-dollar ads during the Super Bowl .
In other words , if you feel like you ’ ve seen a lot of Bloomberg ads lately , it ’ s because you probably have .
All that spending hasn ’ t catapulted him to the top of the field , but it ’ s helped .
Michigan State political scientist Matt Grossmann noted that beyond Bloomberg ’ s bump in the polls , his favorability and unfavorability numbers have improved , and he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
“ That ’ s quite a bit of movement , ” he said .
Tom Steyer , another billionaire and former financier in the race , is testing out the same ad carpet bomb strategy as Bloomberg , and showing that it can be at least moderately effective .
Two polls out of early states Nevada and South Carolina , where Steyer has been bombarding the airwaves , got him onto the debate stage in January .
“ You can really show that , despite what people say , they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
It ’ s still going to be a while before we see how this works Because Bloomberg isn ’ t even trying to play in the early states , we won ’ t know whether his unconventional strategy works until March , or even April .
The last major candidate to try skipping early states was another former New York City mayor , Rudy Giuliani , in 2008 .
And that wasn ’ t successful .
Hanna Trudo at the Daily Beast recently reported that despite his enormous ad spend , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a single delegate on Super Tuesday .
Under the DNC ’ s primary rules , candidates have to get 15 percent of the vote statewide or 15 percent by any congressional district in order to pick up delegates , and Bloomberg isn ’ t there yet .
“ Depending on how February goes , maybe he would stand to capitalize if the race is really muddy , but I think it would be wrong to say that there ’ s been some big surge for Bloomberg , particularly because he has essentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of the country , but the results aren ’ t particularly dramatic , ” Kondik said .
Would it have been different if Bloomberg jumped into the race earlier ?
It ’ s impossible to know , though Steyer ’ s performance shows that there may be some limitations to this ad wave strategy , no matter how long you ’ re on the air .
Also , Bloomberg isn ’ t generating the free media many other competitors in the race are getting , so his own ad dollars only get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team ’ s odd Twitter tactics during the January debate turned some heads . )
We also don ’ t know what will happen if Bloomberg starts to go negative on other candidates — besides , of course , Trump .
He has been able to make at least a moderate difference in his own polling numbers with positive advertising .
Could he make a dent in another Democrat ’ s support if he starts to run ads against them ?
“ “ The [ Bloomberg ] campaign so far has been overwhelmingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Grossmann said .
“ If you start spending that much money on nationwide anti-Sanders advertising , for example , that could have a big impact , even if it does not help Michael Bloomberg .
But they ’ ve shown no sign that they ’ re doing that.
” One person who ’ s taking note of Bloomberg — and his ad spend — is apparently President Trump , who fired off a tweet about it on Friday morning .

Michael Bloomberg momentum isn’t exactly happening — but it’s not not happening, either.
The billionaire philanthropist and former New York City mayor has been gradually ticking upward in state and national polls since launching his presidential bid in November. A RealClearPolitics average of polls shows him in fifth place with about 6.6 percent support nationally, just behind former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, at 7.2 percent.
Recent polls out of Wisconsin, Florida, and North Carolina show Bloomberg in mid-to-high single digits. One poll out this week shows Bloomberg with a 7-point edge in a head-to-head match-up with President Donald Trump in Michigan, better than former Vice President Joe Biden, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and Buttigieg. And a national Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday evening showed Bloomberg ahead of Buttigieg.
While Bloomberg isn’t a top-tier candidate, he’s also outperforming a lot of the candidates have been for the race for much longer than him, or who have already dropped out. And he’s doing it with an unconventional approach: He’s skipping campaigning in the first four primary states, focusing instead on Super Tuesday (when many states vote) and beyond, and inundating television airwaves with ads, for which he’s paying millions upon millions of dollars of his own money.
“I think we have to acknowledge that we’re in kind of uncharted territory here,” said Kyle Kondik, a veteran pollster and managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball. “While I’m not going to sit here and tell you that there is some big groundswell of support for Michael Bloomberg out there, he is ticking up a little bit.”
“The gobs of money he’s spending on advertising is certainly having some effect,” said Quinnipiac University polling analyst Mary Snow. “He is trailing the frontrunner in our national poll, which is Joe Biden, but if you put it in context, he’s not far behind Pete Buttigieg in our national poll, and he is doing better than some of the other candidates who have been campaigning for a good part of 2019.”
Bloomberg isn’t really a contender for the nomination at this point, and it’s not clear if he’ll ever get there. Moreover, many candidates aren’t yet spending a lot of time or money on later states, and it’s not clear whether Bloomberg’s support will hold once that changes, or once voting begins. But he does appear to be registering with voters. The question is, where does he go from here?
You (probably) can’t buy the presidency, but you can buy yourself your way to some good polls
Bloomberg’s campaign strategy hinges on one thing: money. He’s got a lot of it — by Forbes’s estimation, nearly $60 billion) — and he’s willing to spend it on his entirely self-funded campaign.
“For Democratic operatives, it’s like the New Deal,” said Kondik.
Bloomberg’s campaign now totals about 1,000 staffers across nearly three dozen states. He has signaled he’ll keep the operation up and running through November, whoever the Democratic nominee is.
The former mayor isn’t going to be on the debate stage because he’s not accepting donations and the Democratic National Committee has an individual donor threshold (on the night of the January debate, he appeared on Late Night with Stephen Colbert). But he is hitting the campaign trail, often in states that generally don’t get a lot of attention until later in the primary season, if at all. He’s not leading the field in endorsements, but he has the backing of multiple mayors across the country and just picked up his first congressional endorser. He’s also got Judge Judy in his corner, and on the campaign trail with him.
But perhaps the most notable thing that Bloomberg is doing with his money is spending it on ads. According to Politico, he has spent more than $200 million on television advertising already, and data from Democratic consultancy Bully Pulpit Interactive indicates he has spent more than $26 million on Facebook and Google ads since launching his campaign. Bloomberg and Trump both plan to air multimillion-dollar ads during the Super Bowl. In other words, if you feel like you’ve seen a lot of Bloomberg ads lately, it’s because you probably have.
All that spending hasn’t catapulted him to the top of the field, but it’s helped. Michigan State political scientist Matt Grossmann noted that beyond Bloomberg’s bump in the polls, his favorability and unfavorability numbers have improved, and he’s doing better in head-to-head matchups with Trump. “That’s quite a bit of movement,” he said.
Tom Steyer, another billionaire and former financier in the race, is testing out the same ad carpet bomb strategy as Bloomberg, and showing that it can be at least moderately effective. Two polls out of early states Nevada and South Carolina, where Steyer has been bombarding the airwaves, got him onto the debate stage in January. “You can really show that, despite what people say, they are affected by political advertising,” Grossman said.
It’s still going to be a while before we see how this works
Because Bloomberg isn’t even trying to play in the early states, we won’t know whether his unconventional strategy works until March, or even April. The last major candidate to try skipping early states was another former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani, in 2008. And that wasn’t successful.
Hanna Trudo at the Daily Beast recently reported that despite his enormous ad spend, Bloomberg may not be on track to get a single delegate on Super Tuesday. Under the DNC’s primary rules, candidates have to get 15 percent of the vote statewide or 15 percent by any congressional district in order to pick up delegates, and Bloomberg isn’t there yet.
“Depending on how February goes, maybe he would stand to capitalize if the race is really muddy, but I think it would be wrong to say that there’s been some big surge for Bloomberg, particularly because he has essentially unchallenged control of the political airwaves in much of the country, but the results aren’t particularly dramatic,” Kondik said.
Would it have been different if Bloomberg jumped into the race earlier? It’s impossible to know, though Steyer’s performance shows that there may be some limitations to this ad wave strategy, no matter how long you’re on the air. Also, Bloomberg isn’t generating the free media many other competitors in the race are getting, so his own ad dollars only get him so far. (Though his team’s odd Twitter tactics during the January debate turned some heads.)
Test your political knowledge:
SPOT THE MEATBALL THAT LOOKS LIKE MIKE. pic.twitter.com/CkzdgwpzdI — Team Bloomberg (@Mike2020) January 15, 2020
We also don’t know what will happen if Bloomberg starts to go negative on other candidates — besides, of course, Trump. He has been able to make at least a moderate difference in his own polling numbers with positive advertising. Could he make a dent in another Democrat’s support if he starts to run ads against them? “
“The [Bloomberg] campaign so far has been overwhelmingly positive in comparison to other campaigns,” Grossmann said. “If you start spending that much money on nationwide anti-Sanders advertising, for example, that could have a big impact, even if it does not help Michael Bloomberg. But they’ve shown no sign that they’re doing that.”
One person who’s taking note of Bloomberg — and his ad spend — is apparently President Trump, who fired off a tweet about it on Friday morning.


vox--2020-01-17--Netflix’s The Goop Lab pushes flimsy wellness trends. But it’s strong on vulvas.

When we first saw the trailer for the new Netflix series The Goop Lab , we couldn ’ t help thinking Gwyneth Paltrow was trolling her critics .
For years , Goop — her lifestyle and wellness media brand — has been accused of misusing science and misleading the public .
In the show ’ s trailer , Goop promised to lean in to “ dangerous ” and “ unregulated ” treatments , like energy healing and cold therapy .
When we watched the actual show , we found it was generally less edgy than the trailer suggested — some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ health-span plan ” about dieting for longevity ) , while others contained useful health messages ( such as caring for and loving your body ) .
Yes , there were detoxes , energy healers , and smatterings of woo-woo — but what could have been more dangerous claims were watered down , and presented with numerous warnings to consult with your doctor .
The episode topics range from the benefits of psychedelic therapy , to psychic intuition , and women ’ s sexual health .
Each one featured Paltrow and Goop ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a couple of experts on a health-related topic and intervention , mixed with scenes of Goop ’ s ( attractive , young , diverse ) staffers — and sometimes Paltrow and Loehnen — experimenting for themselves .
Watching the series helped us understand why Goop ’ s lifestyle brand is so compelling to its audience .
Here are three things to know about the show .
1 ) Goop isn ’ t afraid to show us lots of female genitalia .
It feels revolutionary .
In the episode about female sexuality , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell women they need to buy stuff to make their vaginas sexier , better-smelling , even cleaner .
Goop , after all , once sold the infamous jade eggs for vaginas , which it said could do everything from fix your hormone levels to help with bladder control — “ unsubstantiated ” marketing claims that got the company fined by the state of California .
The site also boosted vaginal steam-cleaning — another activity gynecologists , such as Paltrow ’ s arch-nemesis Jen Gunter , railed against as unnecessary .
But The Goop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empowering women with knowledge about their vaginas .
In the episode , called “ The Pleasure Is Ours , ” we meet feminist sex educators Betty Dodson and Carlin Ross , who have coached thousands of women on orgasms .
One Goop staff member participates in their workshop , while others take a crash course in body positivity , learning to celebrate their sexuality in ways that are meaningful to them , not just their partners .
Along the way , Dodson and Ross extol messages about the need for women to understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crucial difference between the vulva and vagina .
( The vulva is external — the part you can easily see ; the vagina is the internal part , where a tampon might go . )
In a scene showing a series of vulvas in many different shapes and sizes , we get a genuinely educational look at women ’ s anatomy .
And these are the vulvas of real women , not just the touched up , pink ones showcased in pornography .
The point is that there ’ s lots of variation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The , er , climax , though , comes later — when Dodson coaches Ross through achieving an on-camera orgasm .
It ’ s provocative , and potentially groundbreaking , television .
And for a brand that has promoted $ 15,000 dildos , the episode is framed in a surprisingly sensitive manner .
Instead of telling women to steam clean and insert foreign objects into their lady bits to make them better , it emphasizes the message that vulvas and vaginas are great , just the way they are .
But , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Two episodes focus a lot of attention on “ energy , ” and how working with it and letting it flow can heal our bodies , help us resolve trauma , and even give us psychic powers .
“ Energy ” is uncritically presented as an amorphous catch-all cause , and treatment for , so many our ailments .
Have a bum foot ?
Energy is being trapped in the ligaments and fascia , we ’ re told .
Feeling psychological distress ?
Stuck energy is storing that distress in particular parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power of clairvoyance ?
You can , if only you let the energy flow .
The psychic element is fun , and probably pretty harmless .
The energy healing show , however , doesn ’ t really discuss the research on the efficacy of this treatment , or point out when it might be better to see a mental health counselor for psychological distress before going to see an energy healer .
We ’ re told to take it for granted that a vague form of energy ( a physicist might ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) lies at the root of ailments and stubborn mental trauma .
Evidence for energy healing is presented purely through testimonials , anecdotes , and showy demonstrations .
“ If you just change the frequency of vibration of the body itself , it changes the way the cells regrow , it changes the way the sensory system processes , ” an energy healer says on screen , though admitting it ’ s just a “ hypothesis.
” The energy healing sessions seem to induce real catharsis on the show .
But a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What are other explanations for what ’ s going on ?
The scientific evidence on reiki ( a commonly practiced form of energy healing ) is inconclusive about whether it can help people cope with anxiety or depression .
And a randomized control trial comparing found that reiki is as effective as a sham form of it ( i.e .
reiki conducted by an unskilled practitioner ) in helping cancer patients deal with chemotherapy .
Which is to say , it ’ s a placebo effect .
( That said : Placebo effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to wink at the notion this is all very woo-woo .
“ Could you get any Goopier ?
” she asks a Goop staffer after they described an exorcism-like experience while working with an energy healer .
No , you could not .
3 ) The show effectively exposes the pain and frustration of being unwell in America There ’ s crying on The Goop Lab .
A lot .
People cry about their experiences with panic attacks .
They cry about their histories of trauma and their relationships with their parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ send “ energy ” from their body into a coworker .
This pain and frustration are relatable : Many of us have had conditions that aren ’ t always adequately treated by mainstream medicine — depression , anxiety , or postpartum mood changes .
On the one hand , Paltrow is wonderfully empathetic , getting cozy on a couch with wellness gurus , and exploring potential solutions .
But instead of highlighting evidence-based approaches , the show features fringe therapies with limited evidence as treatments for serious mental health issues .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-described “ ice man ” named Wim Hof appears , suggesting people can overcome emotional struggles and even sickness by taking regular plunges in the cold .
One Goopster with panic attacks proudly declares she stopped having them after his cold therapy .
In the midst of hawking an unproven treatment , an important truth goes unexplored : The causes for many people ’ s pain simply aren ’ t understood , even by the best researchers in the world .
This doesn ’ t mean , however , that we should lean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t seem to want to acknowledge that uncertainty ; instead she wants us to believe there are fixes out there for everyone .
And surely , many of them can be purchased on the Goop website .
This type of television is entertaining at times .
It ’ s compelling to watch people say they overcame terribly wrenching emotional hurdles in the course of a psychedelic trip , or with a jump in a cold lake .
We ’ d all like to believe how we age has nothing to do with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we can instead take “ biological years ” off our lives by just changing our diets .
The Goop Lab points out that big lifestyle changes related to your health should be done in consultation with a doctor , or clinician .
But the overall implication is that your doctor probably won ’ t help you as much as an alternative healer who knows the truth about health , like the ice man .
Mainstream doctors write off the benefits of cold therapy and energy healing , the show insists .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the form of pharmaceuticals , it declares ( though Goop ’ s alternative , psychedelics , are also drugs , and the show glosses over the potential side effects ) .
The pain is real , and should not discounted .
But the alternative treatments Goop celebrates ought to be looked at with a more skeptical eye .

When we first saw the trailer for the new Netflix series The Goop Lab, we couldn’t help thinking Gwyneth Paltrow was trolling her critics. For years, Goop — her lifestyle and wellness media brand — has been accused of misusing science and misleading the public. In the show’s trailer, Goop promised to lean in to “dangerous” and “unregulated” treatments, like energy healing and cold therapy.
When we watched the actual show, we found it was generally less edgy than the trailer suggested — some episodes were downright boring (like the “health-span plan” about dieting for longevity), while others contained useful health messages (such as caring for and loving your body).
Yes, there were detoxes, energy healers, and smatterings of woo-woo — but what could have been more dangerous claims were watered down, and presented with numerous warnings to consult with your doctor.
The episode topics range from the benefits of psychedelic therapy, to psychic intuition, and women’s sexual health. Each one featured Paltrow and Goop’s chief content officer Elise Loehnen interviewing a couple of experts on a health-related topic and intervention, mixed with scenes of Goop’s (attractive, young, diverse) staffers — and sometimes Paltrow and Loehnen — experimenting for themselves. Watching the series helped us understand why Goop’s lifestyle brand is so compelling to its audience.
Here are three things to know about the show, which premieres on January 24.
1) Goop isn’t afraid to show us lots of female genitalia. It feels revolutionary.
In the episode about female sexuality, we thought Paltrow and her Goop cronies might tell women they need to buy stuff to make their vaginas sexier, better-smelling, even cleaner. Goop, after all, once sold the infamous jade eggs for vaginas, which it said could do everything from fix your hormone levels to help with bladder control — “unsubstantiated” marketing claims that got the company fined by the state of California. The site also boosted vaginal steam-cleaning — another activity gynecologists, such as Paltrow’s arch-nemesis Jen Gunter, railed against as unnecessary.
But The Goop Lab takes an entirely different tact: empowering women with knowledge about their vaginas.
In the episode, called “The Pleasure Is Ours,” we meet feminist sex educators Betty Dodson and Carlin Ross, who have coached thousands of women on orgasms. One Goop staff member participates in their workshop, while others take a crash course in body positivity, learning to celebrate their sexuality in ways that are meaningful to them, not just their partners.
Along the way, Dodson and Ross extol messages about the need for women to understand their own bodies, and explain the crucial difference between the vulva and vagina. (The vulva is external — the part you can easily see; the vagina is the internal part, where a tampon might go.)
In a scene showing a series of vulvas in many different shapes and sizes, we get a genuinely educational look at women’s anatomy. And these are the vulvas of real women, not just the touched up, pink ones showcased in pornography. The point is that there’s lots of variation, and no single ideal form.
The, er, climax, though, comes later — when Dodson coaches Ross through achieving an on-camera orgasm. It’s provocative, and potentially groundbreaking, television. And for a brand that has promoted $15,000 dildos, the episode is framed in a surprisingly sensitive manner. Instead of telling women to steam clean and insert foreign objects into their lady bits to make them better, it emphasizes the message that vulvas and vaginas are great, just the way they are.
2) Goop is remarkably uncritical of energy healing
But, to be sure, this is still Goop. Two episodes focus a lot of attention on “energy,” and how working with it and letting it flow can heal our bodies, help us resolve trauma, and even give us psychic powers. “Energy” is uncritically presented as an amorphous catch-all cause, and treatment for, so many our ailments.
Have a bum foot? Energy is being trapped in the ligaments and fascia, we’re told.
Feeling psychological distress? Stuck energy is storing that distress in particular parts of your body.
Wish you had the power of clairvoyance? You can, if only you let the energy flow.
The psychic element is fun, and probably pretty harmless. The energy healing show, however, doesn’t really discuss the research on the efficacy of this treatment, or point out when it might be better to see a mental health counselor for psychological distress before going to see an energy healer. We’re told to take it for granted that a vague form of energy (a physicist might ask the simple question: which kind?) lies at the root of ailments and stubborn mental trauma. Evidence for energy healing is presented purely through testimonials, anecdotes, and showy demonstrations.
“If you just change the frequency of vibration of the body itself, it changes the way the cells regrow, it changes the way the sensory system processes,” an energy healer says on screen, though admitting it’s just a “hypothesis.”
The energy healing sessions seem to induce real catharsis on the show. But a more curious show would ask the question: What are other explanations for what’s going on?
The scientific evidence on reiki (a commonly practiced form of energy healing) is inconclusive about whether it can help people cope with anxiety or depression. And a randomized control trial comparing found that reiki is as effective as a sham form of it (i.e. reiki conducted by an unskilled practitioner) in helping cancer patients deal with chemotherapy. Which is to say, it’s a placebo effect. (That said: Placebo effects are hardly useless.)
Paltrow herself seems to wink at the notion this is all very woo-woo. “Could you get any Goopier?” she asks a Goop staffer after they described an exorcism-like experience while working with an energy healer.
No, you could not.
3) The show effectively exposes the pain and frustration of being unwell in America
There’s crying on The Goop Lab. A lot. People cry about their experiences with panic attacks. They cry about their histories of trauma and their relationships with their parents. And they cry when attempting to send “energy” from their body into a coworker.
This pain and frustration are relatable: Many of us have had conditions that aren’t always adequately treated by mainstream medicine — depression, anxiety, or postpartum mood changes.
On the one hand, Paltrow is wonderfully empathetic, getting cozy on a couch with wellness gurus, and exploring potential solutions. But instead of highlighting evidence-based approaches, the show features fringe therapies with limited evidence as treatments for serious mental health issues.
In the “Cold Therapy” episode, a self-described “ice man” named Wim Hof appears, suggesting people can overcome emotional struggles and even sickness by taking regular plunges in the cold. One Goopster with panic attacks proudly declares she stopped having them after his cold therapy.
In the midst of hawking an unproven treatment, an important truth goes unexplored: The causes for many people’s pain simply aren’t understood, even by the best researchers in the world. This doesn’t mean, however, that we should lean on pseudoscience and gurus. Paltrow doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge that uncertainty; instead she wants us to believe there are fixes out there for everyone. And surely, many of them can be purchased on the Goop website.
This type of television is entertaining at times. It’s compelling to watch people say they overcame terribly wrenching emotional hurdles in the course of a psychedelic trip, or with a jump in a cold lake. We’d all like to believe how we age has nothing to do with our genes or life circumstances, but that we can instead take “biological years” off our lives by just changing our diets.
The Goop Lab points out that big lifestyle changes related to your health should be done in consultation with a doctor, or clinician. But the overall implication is that your doctor probably won’t help you as much as an alternative healer who knows the truth about health, like the ice man. Mainstream doctors write off the benefits of cold therapy and energy healing, the show insists. And too much mental health care is delivered in the form of pharmaceuticals, it declares (though Goop’s alternative, psychedelics, are also drugs, and the show glosses over the potential side effects).
The pain is real, and should not discounted. But the alternative treatments Goop celebrates ought to be looked at with a more skeptical eye.