vox--2020-05-29--Scientists are raising questions about a new study suggesting hydroxychloroquine is deadly

Does President Trump ’ s favored coronavirus treatment , the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine , make you more likely to die of Covid-19 ?
That was the finding in a recent study published in the medical journal The Lancet .
The study looked at more than 96,000 coronavirus patients across the world and found that , after controlling for age , sex , and how sick the patients were , patients receiving hydroxychloroquine or a variant were about twice as likely to die as those who did not .
The result quickly made headlines in top papers , may have spurred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of hydroxychloroquine in an ongoing drug trial , and may change the way tens of thousands of coronavirus patients worldwide are treated over the next few months .
Former leading Food and Drug Administration official Peter Lurie called the study “ another nail in the coffin for hydroxychloroquine — this time from the largest study ever.
” It wasn ’ t the first study to find that hydroxychloroquine doesn ’ t seem to improve outcomes for patients .
But The Lancet study was by far the most aggressive in its conclusions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ineffective , but outright dangerous .
However , as other researchers have looked more closely , they have discovered vexing problems with the study .
For instance , the reported effect of hydroxychloroquine on deaths is significantly larger than the effect found in other studies .
They claimed that the study includes more patients from Africa than is plausible given the numbers we ’ ve seen from Africa ’ s CDC ( a claim that the authors have rebutted as an “ inference ” ) .
And because the authors of the study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow them to share their data , other researchers have been forced to pore over the study trying to explain such anomalies .
To be clear , none of the confusing data problems that researchers are puzzling over mean that the study is necessarily wrong .
They ’ re not proof of fraud or malpractice , either .
When combining data from all around the world for a massive analysis like this one , some reporting errors are pretty likely .
But the resulting controversy around the study is less a vindication of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still points to it not being effective against the virus — and more a reminder that , urgent as this crisis is , people should try not to treat any one study as definitive , and should allow time for flaws and concerns to be discovered ( which will mostly happen post-publication ) .
Scientists are doing amazing things in response to this crisis .
But the new , fast scientific process ( and even the old , slow scientific process ) can produce errors — sometimes significant ones — to make it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re drinking from the fire hose of attention-grabbing coronavirus research , we should make sure to stay skeptical , ask questions , and remember how much we still don ’ t know .
Hydroxychloroquine is an antimalarial medication .
But since early in the coronavirus pandemic , there ’ s been interest in using it as a coronavirus treatment , for many reasons .
First , it shows significant antiviral action in petri dishes .
( Being bad for viruses in a petri dish doesn ’ t necessarily predict it ’ ll be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it ’ s a decent starting point . )
Second , it ’ s cheap , widely available , and generally considered safe ; that made it seem “ worth trying ” even before there was much data about how well it would work .
Doctors were trying the drug with sick patients in February and March .
It was one of many potentially promising treatments but early results were mixed .
Nonetheless , in late March , comments by Trump spurred a wave of intense interest in hydroxychloroquine , briefly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for patients who needed it for other conditions .
Since then , though , some data has started coming in — and it mostly hasn ’ t looked that promising .
Various randomized controlled trials ( RCTs ) have largely failed to detect benefits of hydroxychloroquine or its variants as a treatment protocol .
A few have found a small increase in deaths .
While hydroxychloroquine is generally considered a safe medication with well-known and fairly minimal side effects , that ’ s when it is prescribed to healthy people ; it might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already sick .
The gold standard for a study of disease treatment is an RCT , where patients are assigned at random to get a treatment or a placebo .
The study published in The Lancet was not an RCT .
Instead , it looked at 96,000 patients , what they were treated with , and what their outcomes were .
The authors — Mandeep Mehra , Sapan Desai , Frank Ruschitzka , and Amit Patel — looked at data from “ 671 hospitals in six continents , ” including 14,888 patients who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , it is entirely possible that hospitals mostly gave hydroxychloroquine to their sickest patients .
Alternatively , they could ’ ve mostly given it to healthier patients , disproportionately prescribed it for young people , or for patients without a history of heart problems .
Any tendency like that would mean that the study might find benefits or harms to hydroxychloroquine where none really existed .
The study attempts to fix this by controlling for differences between the treatment group and the control group in every confounding factor they could think of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or ethnicity , body-mass index , underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors , diabetes , underlying lung disease , smoking , immunosuppressed condition , and baseline disease severity.
” Their finding ?
Once you control for everything , hydroxychloroquine looks deadly .
The study finds mortality in the various hydroxychloroquine treatment groups between 16 percent and 24 percent , while mortality in the control groups was 9 percent — implying that treatment with hydroxychloroquine doubles the risk of death .
But there are some reasons to doubt that eye-popping number .
First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies , which have not been good for hydroxychloroquine but which have not detected negative effects anywhere near that scale .
A large study in the New England Journal of Medicine , for example , found no effects of hydroxychloroquine on mortality ( and used a more detailed method of controlling for disease severity than the one used in The Lancet study ) .
Second , the study authors don ’ t find a relationship between the dose given and the death rate ( different hospitals have prescribed the drug at different doses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chloroquine overdose-related deaths , higher doses strongly predict the death rate .
If the medication looks equally dangerous no matter how much of it is prescribed , that can be a sign that there ’ s some sort of statistical problem .
Third , there are some oddities in The Lancet study ’ s data .
Medical researcher Anthony Etyang posted on pubpeer , a site where scientists review each other ’ s published papers , “ The article reports 4,402 patients from Africa as at [ sic ] 14th April 2020 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by that date , according to the Africa CDC , there were a total of 15,738 cases reported among the 52 countries in Africa .
The majority of cases are asymptomatic and not hospitalized , so the pool of patients available to join this study would have been even smaller than the 15k.
” The authors contested Etyang ’ s inference that 4,402 enrolled patients from 15,738 cases is implausibly high .
“ There is sometimes a delay before public health agency reporting catches up to data at the hospital level , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the paper , told me in response to this concern .
“ Public health data could have been underreported early on during the pandemic , thus leading to the appearance that we are overreporting numbers when in actuality we are capturing the true total number of Covid-19 infections at the hospital level.
” The data from Australia has a similar problem : The study reports more deaths in hospitals than the Australian government does .
The researchers have since clarified that a hospital in Asia was mistakenly classified as one in Australia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they say it won ’ t change their conclusions .
But the error does raise a flag .
“ If they got this wrong , what else could be wrong ?
” Melbourne epidemiologist Allen Chang asked .
Furthermore , the listed average daily doses for the drug are higher than generally recommended anywhere in the world .
The study “ suffers from enough statistical bias to mask a beneficial effect of the drug , ” public health researcher Zoe McLaren argued .
In other words , omitting just a couple of confounding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results entirely .
There are reasonable explanations for the minor oddities in the study .
It ’ s entirely possible that hospitals in Africa saw more coronavirus patients than national governments reported because of complications or delays in reporting .
It ’ s possible the Australian government ’ s numbers are a little off .
It ’ s possible hospitals were routinely giving higher doses than the guidelines recommended .
But since none of the data is available , the significance of questions like these is hard to evaluate , and researchers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internet .
It doesn ’ t help that The Lancet , in particular , has erred badly in the past ( for example , by publishing a fraudulent paper claiming that vaccines cause autism and taking more than 10 years to retract it ) or that the rushed publication process left some glaring , easy-to-notice errors in the data ( like the Australian deaths not adding up ) .
For their part , the authors stand by their work , arguing that their results are largely in line with other research .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the FDA , as well as several other observational studies reported in the NEJM , JAMA , and the BMJ , each of which have pointed to either no benefit of drug regimens using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine or even a signal of potential harm in a hospitalized population , ” Desai told me .
Science is hard — and speeding it up lays bare many of the challenges All of the challenges associated with this study are actually quite normal .
Lots of research has confusing data that isn ’ t public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past peer review even as other specialists in the field have doubts about it .
Richard Horton , editor of The Lancet , said in 2015 , “ Much of the scientific literature , perhaps half , may simply be untrue.
” Much discussion of mistakes and misinformation in the age of the coronavirus has focused on preprints , studies published online before peer review .
But learning what research is right is much more complicated than just waiting for peer review .
Peer-reviewed research is also “ provisional knowledge — maybe true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statistician and research watchdog Andrew Gelman argued in an article about the hydroxychloroquine Lancet study , playing off a quote from a New York Times op-ed .
“ As we ’ ve learned in recent years , lots of peer-reviewed research is really bad .
Not just wrong , as in , hey , the data looked good but it was just one of those things , but wrong , as in , we could ’ ve or should ’ ve realized the problems with this paper before anyone even tried to replicate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than just the formal peer-review process to notice and correct problems in papers .
It requires a large , engaged scientific community that keeps asking questions before and after formal publication , and it takes engaged original authors who take those criticisms to heart and work to explain and address concerns .
Those things are all the more true during the pandemic , when studies are discussed around the world — and in the headlines — the instant they ’ re published , and often treated as more definitive than they should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was published , with new concerns about it coming out every day , other research has already been canceled since its release partially on the basis of its strong claims .
We should keep in mind that many parts of the scientific process can and should be hurried , but that it takes time and discussion to arrive at the truth .
While that ’ s underway , all our knowledge is provisional .
And figuring out the truth takes data sharing .
When data is public , concerns can be quickly addressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sets that I couldn ’ t just go look at , I wouldn ’ t have been able to look and see that this was clearly wrong , ” one researcher told me after discovering a glaring error in behavioral scientist Paul Dolan ’ s book about human happiness last year .
The higher the stakes , the more important it is that researchers step up and take an active role in uncovering any flaws in their research .
They should engage with criticisms and concerns from other researchers .
They should engage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re explaining their research correctly .
Often , in these wild times , we have to move ahead with the best information we have , even if it ’ s suboptimal .
But being honest about what we know and what we don ’ t will serve us well .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Does President Trump’s favored coronavirus treatment, the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, make you more likely to die of Covid-19? That was the finding in a recent study published in the medical journal The Lancet. The study looked at more than 96,000 coronavirus patients across the world and found that, after controlling for age, sex, and how sick the patients were, patients receiving hydroxychloroquine or a variant were about twice as likely to die as those who did not.
The result quickly made headlines in top papers, may have spurred the World Health Organization to discontinue the use of hydroxychloroquine in an ongoing drug trial, and may change the way tens of thousands of coronavirus patients worldwide are treated over the next few months. Former leading Food and Drug Administration official Peter Lurie called the study “another nail in the coffin for hydroxychloroquine — this time from the largest study ever.”
It wasn’t the first study to find that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t seem to improve outcomes for patients. But The Lancet study was by far the most aggressive in its conclusions, finding that hydroxychloroquine wasn’t just ineffective, but outright dangerous.
However, as other researchers have looked more closely, they have discovered vexing problems with the study. For instance, the reported effect of hydroxychloroquine on deaths is significantly larger than the effect found in other studies. They claimed that the study includes more patients from Africa than is plausible given the numbers we’ve seen from Africa’s CDC (a claim that the authors have rebutted as an “inference”). And because the authors of the study have said their data-sharing agreements do not allow them to share their data, other researchers have been forced to pore over the study trying to explain such anomalies.
To be clear, none of the confusing data problems that researchers are puzzling over mean that the study is necessarily wrong. They’re not proof of fraud or malpractice, either. When combining data from all around the world for a massive analysis like this one, some reporting errors are pretty likely.
But the resulting controversy around the study is less a vindication of hydroxychloroquine — the weight of the evidence still points to it not being effective against the virus — and more a reminder that, urgent as this crisis is, people should try not to treat any one study as definitive, and should allow time for flaws and concerns to be discovered (which will mostly happen post-publication).
Scientists are doing amazing things in response to this crisis. But the new, fast scientific process (and even the old, slow scientific process) can produce errors — sometimes significant ones — to make it through peer review. When we’re drinking from the fire hose of attention-grabbing coronavirus research, we should make sure to stay skeptical, ask questions, and remember how much we still don’t know.
The Lancet’s hydroxychloroquine study, explained
Hydroxychloroquine is an antimalarial medication. But since early in the coronavirus pandemic, there’s been interest in using it as a coronavirus treatment, for many reasons.
First, it shows significant antiviral action in petri dishes. (Being bad for viruses in a petri dish doesn’t necessarily predict it’ll be effective against them in the human body, but it’s a decent starting point.) Second, it’s cheap, widely available, and generally considered safe; that made it seem “worth trying” even before there was much data about how well it would work.
Doctors were trying the drug with sick patients in February and March. It was one of many potentially promising treatments but early results were mixed. Nonetheless, in late March, comments by Trump spurred a wave of intense interest in hydroxychloroquine, briefly leading to mass off-label prescribing and shortages for patients who needed it for other conditions.
Since then, though, some data has started coming in — and it mostly hasn’t looked that promising. Various randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have largely failed to detect benefits of hydroxychloroquine or its variants as a treatment protocol. A few have found a small increase in deaths. While hydroxychloroquine is generally considered a safe medication with well-known and fairly minimal side effects, that’s when it is prescribed to healthy people; it might stress the systems of people who are already sick.
The gold standard for a study of disease treatment is an RCT, where patients are assigned at random to get a treatment or a placebo. The study published in The Lancet was not an RCT. Instead, it looked at 96,000 patients, what they were treated with, and what their outcomes were. The authors — Mandeep Mehra, Sapan Desai, Frank Ruschitzka, and Amit Patel — looked at data from “671 hospitals in six continents,” including 14,888 patients who received hydroxychloroquine or a variant.
Of course, it is entirely possible that hospitals mostly gave hydroxychloroquine to their sickest patients. Alternatively, they could’ve mostly given it to healthier patients, disproportionately prescribed it for young people, or for patients without a history of heart problems. Any tendency like that would mean that the study might find benefits or harms to hydroxychloroquine where none really existed.
The study attempts to fix this by controlling for differences between the treatment group and the control group in every confounding factor they could think of: “age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity.”
Their finding? Once you control for everything, hydroxychloroquine looks deadly. The study finds mortality in the various hydroxychloroquine treatment groups between 16 percent and 24 percent, while mortality in the control groups was 9 percent — implying that treatment with hydroxychloroquine doubles the risk of death.
But there are some reasons to doubt that eye-popping number. First, it’s inconsistent with other studies, which have not been good for hydroxychloroquine but which have not detected negative effects anywhere near that scale. A large study in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, found no effects of hydroxychloroquine on mortality (and used a more detailed method of controlling for disease severity than the one used in The Lancet study).
Second, the study authors don’t find a relationship between the dose given and the death rate (different hospitals have prescribed the drug at different doses). Research has found that in chloroquine overdose-related deaths, higher doses strongly predict the death rate. If the medication looks equally dangerous no matter how much of it is prescribed, that can be a sign that there’s some sort of statistical problem.
Third, there are some oddities in The Lancet study’s data. Medical researcher Anthony Etyang posted on pubpeer, a site where scientists review each other’s published papers, “The article reports 4,402 patients from Africa as at [sic] 14th April 2020, which looks rather high, given that by that date, according to the Africa CDC, there were a total of 15,738 cases reported among the 52 countries in Africa. The majority of cases are asymptomatic and not hospitalized, so the pool of patients available to join this study would have been even smaller than the 15k.”
The authors contested Etyang’s inference that 4,402 enrolled patients from 15,738 cases is implausibly high. “There is sometimes a delay before public health agency reporting catches up to data at the hospital level,” Sapan Desai, one of the co-authors of the paper, told me in response to this concern. “Public health data could have been underreported early on during the pandemic, thus leading to the appearance that we are overreporting numbers when in actuality we are capturing the true total number of Covid-19 infections at the hospital level.”
The data from Australia has a similar problem: The study reports more deaths in hospitals than the Australian government does. The researchers have since clarified that a hospital in Asia was mistakenly classified as one in Australia and are correcting the data, though they say it won’t change their conclusions. But the error does raise a flag. “If they got this wrong, what else could be wrong?” Melbourne epidemiologist Allen Chang asked.
Furthermore, the listed average daily doses for the drug are higher than generally recommended anywhere in the world.
The study “suffers from enough statistical bias to mask a beneficial effect of the drug,” public health researcher Zoe McLaren argued. In other words, omitting just a couple of confounding variables would be enough to change the results entirely.
There are reasonable explanations for the minor oddities in the study. It’s entirely possible that hospitals in Africa saw more coronavirus patients than national governments reported because of complications or delays in reporting. It’s possible the Australian government’s numbers are a little off. It’s possible hospitals were routinely giving higher doses than the guidelines recommended. But since none of the data is available, the significance of questions like these is hard to evaluate, and researchers are stuck asking one another questions on the internet.
It doesn’t help that The Lancet, in particular, has erred badly in the past (for example, by publishing a fraudulent paper claiming that vaccines cause autism and taking more than 10 years to retract it) or that the rushed publication process left some glaring, easy-to-notice errors in the data (like the Australian deaths not adding up).
For their part, the authors stand by their work, arguing that their results are largely in line with other research. “With these findings, we join agencies including the FDA, as well as several other observational studies reported in the NEJM, JAMA, and the BMJ, each of which have pointed to either no benefit of drug regimens using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine or even a signal of potential harm in a hospitalized population,” Desai told me.
Science is hard — and speeding it up lays bare many of the challenges
All of the challenges associated with this study are actually quite normal. Lots of research has confusing data that isn’t public, and lots of research makes it past peer review even as other specialists in the field have doubts about it. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, said in 2015, “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”
Much discussion of mistakes and misinformation in the age of the coronavirus has focused on preprints, studies published online before peer review. But learning what research is right is much more complicated than just waiting for peer review.
Peer-reviewed research is also “provisional knowledge — maybe true, maybe not,” Columbia University statistician and research watchdog Andrew Gelman argued in an article about the hydroxychloroquine Lancet study, playing off a quote from a New York Times op-ed. “As we’ve learned in recent years, lots of peer-reviewed research is really bad. Not just wrong, as in, hey, the data looked good but it was just one of those things, but wrong, as in, we could’ve or should’ve realized the problems with this paper before anyone even tried to replicate it.”
It takes a lot more than just the formal peer-review process to notice and correct problems in papers. It requires a large, engaged scientific community that keeps asking questions before and after formal publication, and it takes engaged original authors who take those criticisms to heart and work to explain and address concerns.
Those things are all the more true during the pandemic, when studies are discussed around the world — and in the headlines — the instant they’re published, and often treated as more definitive than they should be. Only a week after this study was published, with new concerns about it coming out every day, other research has already been canceled since its release partially on the basis of its strong claims. We should keep in mind that many parts of the scientific process can and should be hurried, but that it takes time and discussion to arrive at the truth. While that’s underway, all our knowledge is provisional.
And figuring out the truth takes data sharing. When data is public, concerns can be quickly addressed and corrected. “With proprietary data sets that I couldn’t just go look at, I wouldn’t have been able to look and see that this was clearly wrong,” one researcher told me after discovering a glaring error in behavioral scientist Paul Dolan’s book about human happiness last year.
The higher the stakes, the more important it is that researchers step up and take an active role in uncovering any flaws in their research. They should engage with criticisms and concerns from other researchers. They should engage with journalists to make sure we’re explaining their research correctly. Often, in these wild times, we have to move ahead with the best information we have, even if it’s suboptimal. But being honest about what we know and what we don’t will serve us well.


vox--2020-05-29--Feds flew an unarmed Predator drone over Minneapolis protests to provide “situational awareness”

On Friday , a Predator surveillance drone operated by United States Customs and Border Patrol ( CBP ) diverted from its normal route along the Canadian border in order to circle the skies over Minneapolis .
Hours earlier , a third night of protests had escalated as thousands demonstrated following the death of George Floyd , a black man who died after a police officer held his knee to Floyd ’ s neck for several minutes .
( The officer has since been fired and charged with third-degree murder . )
And while federal authorities say the unarmed drone was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the presence of a military-grade aircraft watching protesters in Minnesota added to an already anxious day in America .
A couple of hours before reports about the Predator drone over Minneapolis , President Trump tweeted , “ When the looting starts , the shooting starts.
” Though his use of this charged phrase with racist origins suggests a threat against the protesters , Trump later tried to walk back his statement , and it seems unlikely that his rhetoric had anything to do with the drone flight .
Still , to know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the president was making these charged remarks is unsettling .
According to CBP , however , the Predator drone that flew over Minneapolis was there to help the police .
“ Earlier today a US Customs and Border Protection , Air and Marine Operations unmanned aircraft system was preparing to provide live video to aid in situational awareness at the request of our federal law enforcement partners in Minneapolis , ” a spokesperson for CBP told Recode in an email .
“ The unmanned aircraft system provides live video feed to ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , maximizing public safety , while minimizing the threat to personnel and assets.
” The spokesperson said that “ arriving in Minneapolis airspace , the requesting agency determined that the aircraft was no longer needed for operational awareness and departed back to Grand Forks.
” The CPB spokesperson also added that the agency “ routinely conducts operations with other federal , state , and local law enforcement entities to assist law enforcement and humanitarian relief efforts.
” The specific law enforcement agency that requested the drone was not named .
Here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The drone CPB 104 , which is an unarmed version of a Predator drone , departed from Grand Forks , North Dakota , around 9 am CT , according to data collected from the flight-tracking tool ADS-B Exchange .
Flying at around 20,000 feet , it made a loose hexagon-shaped route around Minneapolis and then began to fly away from the city .
The drone flight might have gone unnoticed if it hadn ’ t been spotted by Jason Paladino , an investigative reporter with the Project on Government Oversight , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Motherboard followed up with a fuller report .
“ No government agency should be facilitating the over-policing of the Black community , period .
And CBP has no role in what ’ s happening in Minneapolis at all , ” said Neema Singh Guliani , senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union , in a statement .
“ This rogue agency ’ s use of military technology to surveil protesters inside US borders is deeply disturbing , especially given CBP ’ s lack of clear and strong policies to protect privacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the drone ’ s deployment is part of a larger trend in which government agencies , including police , are using increasingly powerful surveillance tools for monitoring activists .
The use of the military-grade drone technology also raises concerns about the federal government deploying sophisticated drone technology typically only used in war zones and along the border — an already highly alarming practice — to conduct surveillance operations inside the US .
“ This is what happens when leaders sign blank check after blank check to militarize police , CBP , etc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in response to news of the drone flight .
“ We need answers .
And we need to defund.
” Surveillance tech deployed at the border is coming into the US The technology used to monitor the US border has become increasingly high tech , and members of both parties have become interested in the idea of a “ smart wall ” along the border .
While Donald Trump has called for a physical border wall , officials have come to look at , and sometimes use , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ artificial intelligence-powered cameras , facial recognition , and cellphone data monitoring to regulate people near or crossing the border .
Human rights advocates and civil liberties advocates have strongly opposed the use of such technologies , pointing out that they can exacerbate racial inequities and privacy violations .
But drones have been used at the border for more than a decade .
As Recode ’ s Shirin Ghaffary reported , CBP has been using Predator B aircraft at the border since 2006 .
The CBP 104 drone has been in use since October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 2007 report from Government Technology magazine that described how the new unmanned aerial system had been used to find people suspected of crossing the US border without authorization .
Meanwhile , CBP documents from 2012 identify the CBP 104 as a Predator drone equipped with radar and satellite communication links , not to mention radio communications with law enforcement .
As the Washington Post reported in 2014 , flight logs show how CBP has historically allowed its drones to be used by other federal agencies , such as the Coast Guard and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Recode ’ s request for comment , the CBP spokesperson also said that its air and marine operations aircraft is used throughout the country , not just at the border , and that it regularly works with federal , state , and local law enforcement .
The spokesperson claimed that the drone has been used in humanitarian relief efforts as well as to help agencies like FEMA .
The US has a long history of surveilling protesters The fact that the government uses a range of technology to surveil protesters , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new .
Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were both surveilled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) .
But the technology that police departments and federal authorities now have access to is much more powerful than what was around in the 1960s .
Some of these tools , like Predator drones , would not be out of place on foreign espionage missions , and now they ’ re increasingly deployed to monitor activists and protesters inside US borders .
Examples from recent years are especially alarming .
Following the 2014 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Homeland Security kept tabs on the Black Lives Matter movement through organizers ’ social media accounts , according to an Intercept investigation .
Just a year later , the American Civil Liberties Union released a report detailing how companies , including Facebook and Twitter , provided social media data for a surveillance product that was marketed to law enforcement agencies as a way to track activists and protesters .
The New York Police Department , specifically , has deployed a variety of tools over the years to surveil activists , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Movement and Occupy Wall Street .
Aerial surveillance is also not a new tactic being used by cops , either .
During the 2015 Baltimore protests following the death of Freddie Gray , the FBI used a spy plane to record the protests as well as smaller gatherings , according to the ACLU .
Since then , the Baltimore police have fought — and won — the ability to regularly use surveillance planes that are armed with cameras , despite the objections of activists and civil liberties advocates .
The Minneapolis Police Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surveillance technology .
BuzzFeed reviewed the many types of surveillance the department likely has at its disposal .
They include Clearview AI ’ s facial recognition software , automatic license plate readers , audio-based gunshot detection tools , and other data aggregation tools .
Still , as Friday ’ s Predator drone flight suggests , it can be incredibly difficult to understand just how much technology law enforcement actually has access to at any point in time .
Many of these tools are often hidden from public view , leading journalists and advocates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lawsuits to learn more about how they ’ re used .
While CBP says the drone has been directed away from Minneapolis , it is possible to track where the drone is now ; its flight path is documented on this website .
As of early Friday evening , the drone appeared to still be in flight , traveling a hexagon-shaped route close to the Canadian border .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a @ @ @ @ @

Members of Congress want more information on the deployment of surveillance resources and technologies amid ongoing anti-police brutality demonstrations across the country.
In a Tuesday letter sent to leaders at several federal agencies, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the FBI, officials demanded that those agencies “cease any and all surveilling of Americans engaged in peaceful protests.” They pointed to several instances in which the press has documented federal agencies using concerning surveillance tactics in major American cities, pointing to aircraft that flew over Washington, DC, and temporarily expanded authority granted to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to conduct surveillance over protesters.
They also pointed to an instance when, during the first week of protests, a Predator surveillance drone operated by CBP diverted from its normal route along the Canadian border in order to circle the skies above Minneapolis. Before the drone flight, a third night of protests had escalated as thousands demonstrated following the death of George Floyd, a black man who died after a police officer pinned Floyd by the neck with his knee for several minutes. (The officer has since been fired and charged with second-degree murder ) And while federal authorities said the unarmed drone was there “to provide situational awareness,” the presence of a military-grade aircraft watching protesters in Minnesota added to an already anxious day in America.
A couple of hours before reports about the Predator drone over Minneapolis, President Trump had tweeted, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Though his use of this charged phrase with racist origins suggests a threat against the protesters, Trump later tried to walk back his statement — which was also hidden by Twitter for glorifying violence — and it seems unlikely that his rhetoric had anything to do with the drone flight. Still, to know that a drone was circling the protesters as the president was making these charged remarks is unsettling.
Since news of that drone’s flight of Minneapolis broke, Motherboard also uncovered that the drone, in particular, had been sent to fly over Minneapolis before. And earlier this month, members of Congress, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security demanding more information about the use of CBP aircraft and personnel to surveil protests. The agency said at the time that Predator drone that flew over Minneapolis was there to help the police.
“Earlier today a US Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Operations unmanned aircraft system was preparing to provide live video to aid in situational awareness at the request of our federal law enforcement partners in Minneapolis,” a spokesperson for CBP told Recode in an email. “The unmanned aircraft system provides live video feed to ground law enforcement, giving them situational awareness, maximizing public safety, while minimizing the threat to personnel and assets.”
The spokesperson said that “arriving in Minneapolis airspace, the requesting agency determined that the aircraft was no longer needed for operational awareness and departed back to Grand Forks.” The CPB spokesperson also added that the agency “routinely conducts operations with other federal, state, and local law enforcement entities to assist law enforcement and humanitarian relief efforts.” The specific law enforcement agency that requested the drone was not named.
Here’s what else we learned about the flight. The drone CPB 104, which is an unarmed version of a Predator drone, departed from Grand Forks, North Dakota, around 9 am CT, according to data collected from the flight-tracking tool ADS-B Exchange. Flying at around 20,000 feet, it made a loose hexagon-shaped route around Minneapolis and then began to fly away from the city. The drone flight might have gone unnoticed if it hadn’t been spotted by Jason Paladino, an investigative reporter with the Project on Government Oversight, who shared the news in a tweet. Motherboard followed up with a fuller report.
“No government agency should be facilitating the over-policing of the Black community, period. And CBP has no role in what’s happening in Minneapolis at all,” said Neema Singh Guliani, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement. “This rogue agency’s use of military technology to surveil protesters inside US borders is deeply disturbing, especially given CBP’s lack of clear and strong policies to protect privacy and constitutional rights.”
As Guliani suggests, the drone’s deployment is part of a larger trend in which government agencies, including police, are using increasingly powerful surveillance tools for monitoring activists. The use of the military-grade drone technology also raises concerns about the federal government deploying sophisticated drone technology typically only used in war zones and along the border — an already highly alarming practice — to conduct surveillance operations inside the US.
“This is what happens when leaders sign blank check after blank check to militarize police, CBP, etc while letting violence go unchecked,” tweeted Ocasio-Cortez in response to news of the drone flight on that day. “We need answers. And we need to defund.”
Surveillance tech deployed at the border is coming into the US
The technology used to monitor the US border has become increasingly high tech, and members of both parties have become interested in the idea of a “smart wall” along the border. While Trump has called for a physical border wall, officials have come to look at, and sometimes use, all sorts of technology, including lidar, artificial intelligence-powered cameras, facial recognition, and cellphone data monitoring to regulate people near or crossing the border.
Human rights advocates and civil liberties advocates have strongly opposed the use of such technologies, pointing out that they can exacerbate racial inequities and privacy violations.
But drones have been used at the border for more than a decade. As Recode’s Shirin Ghaffary reported, CBP has been using Predator B aircraft at the border since 2006. The CBP 104 drone has been in use since October of that year, according to a March 2007 report from Government Technology magazine that described how the new unmanned aerial system had been used to find people suspected of crossing the US border without authorization.
Meanwhile, CBP documents from 2012 identify the CBP 104 as a Predator drone equipped with radar and satellite communication links, not to mention radio communications with law enforcement. As the Washington Post reported in 2014, flight logs show how CBP has historically allowed its drones to be used by other federal agencies, such as the Coast Guard and the DEA.
In response to Recode’s request for comment, the CBP spokesperson also said that its air and marine operations aircraft is used throughout the country, not just at the border, and that it regularly works with federal, state, and local law enforcement. The spokesperson claimed that the drone has been used in humanitarian relief efforts as well as to help agencies like FEMA.
But the letter sent from Congress to DHS in June seeks more context, and lawmakers have requested a complete list of jurisdictions where DHS conducted or helped in the surveillance of protests, information about what DHS plans to do with the data collects about protesters, and details about whether any local police departments are working with facial recognition.
The US has a long history of surveilling protesters
The fact that the government uses a range of technology to surveil protesters, including black activists, is by no means new. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were both surveilled by the FBI. But the technology that police departments and federal authorities now have access to is much more powerful than what was around in the 1960s. Some of these tools, like Predator drones, would not be out of place on foreign espionage missions, and now they’re increasingly deployed to monitor activists and protesters inside US borders.
Examples from recent years are especially alarming. Following the 2014 protests in Ferguson, Missouri, the Department of Homeland Security kept tabs on the Black Lives Matter movement through organizers’ social media accounts, according to an Intercept investigation. Just a year later, the ACLU released a report detailing how companies, including Facebook and Twitter, provided social media data for a surveillance product that was marketed to law enforcement agencies as a way to track activists and protesters. The New York Police Department, specifically, has deployed a variety of tools over the years to surveil activists, including those involved in the Black Lives Matter Movement and Occupy Wall Street.
Aerial surveillance is also not a new tactic being used by cops, either. During the 2015 Baltimore protests following the death of Freddie Gray, the FBI used a spy plane to record the protests as well as smaller gatherings, according to the ACLU. Since then, the Baltimore police have fought for — and won — the ability to regularly use surveillance planes that are armed with cameras, despite the objections of activists and civil liberties advocates.
The Minneapolis Police Department is not different in its affinity toward surveillance technology. BuzzFeed reviewed the many types of surveillance the department likely has at its disposal. They include Clearview AI’s facial recognition software, automatic license plate readers, audio-based gunshot detection tools, and other data aggregation tools.
Still, as last month’s Predator drone flight suggests, it can be incredibly difficult to understand just how much technology law enforcement actually has access to at any point in time. Many of these tools are often hidden from public view, leading journalists and advocates to turn to require public records requests and lawsuits to learn more about how they’re used.
While CBP says the drone was directed away from Minneapolis, it is possible to track where the drone is now; its flight path is documented on this website. In the hours after lawmakers requested more information about how technology was being used to surveil Americans, the drone appeared to still be in flight, traveling a hexagon-shaped route close to the Canadian border.


vox--2020-05-29--Why Big Tech isn’t fighting Trump in public this time

Earlier this week , the president of the United States signed an order that ’ s meant to cripple many of America ’ s most powerful internet companies .
Or , at the very least , punish them .
So what do America ’ s most powerful internet companies have to say about that ?
Not very much .
Or , at least , not much publicly .
Which may mean they don ’ t take Donald Trump ’ s threat very seriously .
Or they don ’ t want to anger Donald Trump .
Or both .
Yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advance of Donald Trump ’ s executive order to criticize Twitter for fact-checking Trump .
It was a gambit to speak directly to Trump , as many Fox News hosts and guests try to do .
And Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey — currently the focus of Trump ’ s anti-tech focus — spoke out on Twitter .
But the rest of Big Tech ?
Barely a peep .
Yesterday , Google sent out a muted statement to reporters who asked the company for comment : “ We have clear content policies and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our platforms have empowered a wide range of people and organizations from across the political spectrum , giving them a voice and new ways to reach their audiences .
Undermining Section 230 in this way would hurt America ’ s economy and its global leadership on internet freedom.
” Not a stirring call to arms .
But at least it was ... something .
Other tech giants , including Microsoft , Amazon , and Apple , haven ’ t uttered a word about the order .
That order , again , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Communications Decency Act — one of the key legal pillars of the internet as we know it .
Tl ; dr : Section 230 says tech companies can ’ t be held liable for most things their users put on their platforms .
Section 230 is crucial to your business if you ’ re a “ platform ” company like Twitter , Facebook , or Google ’ s YouTube , which all depend on user-generated content .
It ’ s also potentially important for Amazon , which effectively runs its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it ’ s just generally important for anyone who uses the internet to say or find whatever they want .
So , everyone .
This week ’ s order and tech ’ s nonreaction to it is a striking change from the early days of the Trump presidency in January 2017 , when seemingly every tech company loudly announced their fierce opposition to a Trump executive order that banned travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries .
Tech leaders lined up to denounce the travel ban and promised their employees and customers that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court .
Google co-founder Sergey Brin even joined anti-ban protestors at the San Francisco airport .
A few things , according to tech executives I ’ ve talked to .
Here are some of the rationales I ’ ve heard , which aren ’ t necessarily mutually exclusive : • The most straightforward explanation : Many big tech companies — along with most legal observers — think this executive order won ’ t survive the legal challenges it will immediately face .
Some of them also think Trump knows this and doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fight with the tech companies ( either because he thinks it ’ s a fight a portion of his base wants to see or it ’ s a distraction from a pandemic that has killed more than 100,000 Americans , or both ) .
• Tech executives , like the rest of us , have also picked up on the fact that Trump says all kinds of things he doesn ’ t believe or has no intention of doing .
This one is different in that he signed something , but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to expend much effort trying to make it happen .
Says one executive I talked to today : “ There ’ s a lot of things that when [ Trump ] started , we believed were real things , with real power behind it .
We ’ ve learned.
” • The 2017 travel ban had a direct and immediate impact on tech companies , their employees , and their families .
This week ’ s executive order could theoretically do that , but not right away .
• While this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter , Facebook , and YouTube — the three platforms at the center of debates about political content and speech — many executives think it ’ s really aimed at Twitter since that ’ s the platform that started fact-checking and flagging Trump ’ s messages this week .
So if you ’ re not Twitter , this reasoning goes , why step into a pointless fight ?
One argument I didn ’ t hear but am happy to serve up myself : Tech executives , like other business leaders , have figured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stuff done in the Trump administration — or to not have things done to you — is to not publicly fight with Trump and then get his ear in private .
Apple ’ s Tim Cook , for instance , seems to walk that line quite effectively .
But all of this seems to be varying ways of saying the same thing : After three-plus years , tech executives don ’ t take the president of the United States very seriously anymore .
And they ’ re willing to endure Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t think they ’ re going to turn into something more serious .
If you ’ re someone who would still like to see leaders stand up in public and denounce Bad Ideas on the record because it ’ s important to oppose Bad Ideas before they become Popular Ideas — and I ’ m one of those — then this stance is disappointing .
And worrisome .
Because if we ’ ve learned one thing from the Trump era , it ’ s that unimaginable things become real things much quicker , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would ever dream of .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Earlier this week, the president of the United States signed an order that’s meant to cripple many of America’s most powerful internet companies. Or, at the very least, punish them.
So what do America’s most powerful internet companies have to say about that?
Not very much. Or, at least, not much publicly.
Which may mean they don’t take Donald Trump’s threat very seriously. Or they don’t want to anger Donald Trump. Or both.
Yes, Mark Zuckerberg went on Fox News in advance of Donald Trump’s executive order to criticize Twitter for fact-checking Trump. It was a gambit to speak directly to Trump, as many Fox News hosts and guests try to do. And Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey — currently the focus of Trump’s anti-tech focus — spoke out on Twitter.
But the rest of Big Tech? Barely a peep.
Yesterday, Google sent out a muted statement to reporters who asked the company for comment: “We have clear content policies and we enforce them without regard to political viewpoint. Our platforms have empowered a wide range of people and organizations from across the political spectrum, giving them a voice and new ways to reach their audiences. Undermining Section 230 in this way would hurt America’s economy and its global leadership on internet freedom.”
Not a stirring call to arms. But at least it was ... something. Other tech giants, including Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple, haven’t uttered a word about the order.
That order, again, is aimed at neutering or abolishing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — one of the key legal pillars of the internet as we know it. Tl;dr: Section 230 says tech companies can’t be held liable for most things their users put on their platforms.
Section 230 is crucial to your business if you’re a “platform” company like Twitter, Facebook, or Google’s YouTube, which all depend on user-generated content. It’s also potentially important for Amazon, which effectively runs its own platform that connects buyers and sellers. And it’s just generally important for anyone who uses the internet to say or find whatever they want. So, everyone.
This week’s order and tech’s nonreaction to it is a striking change from the early days of the Trump presidency in January 2017, when seemingly every tech company loudly announced their fierce opposition to a Trump executive order that banned travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Tech leaders lined up to denounce the travel ban and promised their employees and customers that they’d fight the ban in court. Google co-founder Sergey Brin even joined anti-ban protestors at the San Francisco airport.
What’s different now?
A few things, according to tech executives I’ve talked to. Here are some of the rationales I’ve heard, which aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive:
The most straightforward explanation: Many big tech companies — along with most legal observers — think this executive order won’t survive the legal challenges it will immediately face. Some of them also think Trump knows this and doesn’t really care: He just wants a fight with the tech companies (either because he thinks it’s a fight a portion of his base wants to see or it’s a distraction from a pandemic that has killed more than 100,000 Americans, or both).
Tech executives, like the rest of us, have also picked up on the fact that Trump says all kinds of things he doesn’t believe or has no intention of doing. This one is different in that he signed something, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to expend much effort trying to make it happen. Says one executive I talked to today: “There’s a lot of things that when [Trump] started, we believed were real things, with real power behind it. We’ve learned.”
The 2017 travel ban had a direct and immediate impact on tech companies, their employees, and their families. This week’s executive order could theoretically do that, but not right away.
While this week’s order is theoretically aimed at Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube — the three platforms at the center of debates about political content and speech — many executives think it’s really aimed at Twitter since that’s the platform that started fact-checking and flagging Trump’s messages this week. So if you’re not Twitter, this reasoning goes, why step into a pointless fight?
One argument I didn’t hear but am happy to serve up myself: Tech executives, like other business leaders, have figured out that the best way to get stuff done in the Trump administration — or to not have things done to you — is to not publicly fight with Trump and then get his ear in private. Apple’s Tim Cook, for instance, seems to walk that line quite effectively.
But all of this seems to be varying ways of saying the same thing: After three-plus years, tech executives don’t take the president of the United States very seriously anymore. And they’re willing to endure Trump’s tantrums as long as they don’t think they’re going to turn into something more serious.
If you’re someone who would still like to see leaders stand up in public and denounce Bad Ideas on the record because it’s important to oppose Bad Ideas before they become Popular Ideas — and I’m one of those — then this stance is disappointing. And worrisome. Because if we’ve learned one thing from the Trump era, it’s that unimaginable things become real things much quicker, and much more often, than we would ever dream of.


vox--2020-05-29--Facebook and Twitter have the same policies. But only Twitter is fighting Trump.

Twitter ’ s decision to fact-check President Donald Trump on Tuesday around misleading statements about voting by mail has been followed by an unprecedented escalation of Trump ’ s war on social media .
In just a few days , the president ’ s administration has singled out an individual Twitter employee in apparent retaliation , issued a largely unenforceable executive order that attempts to undo fundamental rules of the internet , and tweeted “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts ” in response to protests of the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis , Minnesota .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter added a disclaimer on it , saying it violated the platform ’ s rules for “ glorifying violence.
” In labeling Trump ’ s tweets , Twitter has incrementally but meaningfully taken a stand in enforcing its policies on misleading and violent speech , even when the person tweeting is a world leader .
In doing so , Twitter has opened a Pandora ’ s box that means it will be under incredible opposing pressure in the coming months about when and whether it should make or not make more of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peers — most notably Facebook — have taken a different approach .
Despite having very similar policies around content moderation as Twitter , Facebook hasn ’ t applied any of its standard fact-checking labels to Trump ’ s posts ( identical to the recent ones on Twitter ) , and it doesn ’ t plan to .
In fact , Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg ’ s immediate response to Twitter ’ s decision to fact-check was to imply that it was the wrong call .
Zuckerberg appeared on Fox News on Thursday — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — to declare , as he has for years , that Facebook is not in the business of being an “ arbiter of truth.
” On Friday afternoon , amid mounting public criticism and reports of internal unrest among Facebook employees over its inaction around Trump ’ s “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts ” post , Zuckerberg addressed his rationale for not taking it down .
In a post on her personal Facebook page , he wrote that he personally found Trump ’ s post “ deeply offensive , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violate Facebook ’ s policies about inciting violence .
He said the company saw it as “ as a warning about state action , ” and that “ people need to know if the government is planning to deploy force.
” He also took another dig at his social media competitor : “ Unlike Twitter , we do not have a policy of putting a warning in front of posts that may incite violence because we believe that if a post incites violence , it should be removed regardless of whether it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook has insisted that it ’ s not an “ arbiter of truth ” on Trump ’ s posts or any other political speech — it does has specific policies to arbitrate speech on plenty of thorny topics : nudity , violence , and , notably , voter misinformation ( which is exactly what Twitter first marked up Trump for ) .
On Fox host Dana Perino ’ s show , Zuckerberg was reiterating his long-standing defense that Facebook is merely a platform for expression , not a media company , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that pass judgment on political speech , which he believes should be up to outside parties to litigate .
It also served to position Silicon Valley tech companies , some of the most powerful companies in the world , as a divided bunch .
Zuckerberg did briefly critique Trump ’ s push to regulate social media ’ s content moderation , saying that “ government choosing to censor a platform because they ’ re worried about censorship doesn ’ t exactly strike me as the right reflex.
” But the resounding message of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this battle alone .
Trump quickly exploited this discord , directly quoting Zuckerberg ’ s Fox comments in a tweet that further pitted the company against Twitter .
Trump and his supporters have for a while now been pushing the unfounded allegation that Silicon Valley elites are trying to brainwash the wider public by censoring conservative speech on their platforms .
Now he ’ s predictably using Twitter ’ s fact-check of his tweets to amplify and escalate that argument leading up to the 2020 elections .
In his responses after Twitter ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump didn ’ t just threaten retaliatory action against Twitter , he referred to all social media companies .
But it seems Twitter won ’ t be getting reinforcements in this complex fight , at least for now .
If they have them , Facebook and Google seem to be keeping their criticisms about Trump ’ s attacks on Twitter behind closed doors or through the filter of lobbying groups , legal teams , and industry associations .
This isn ’ t surprising .
As I wrote previously , Twitter may be uniquely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderating Trump because it ’ s nowhere near being the behemoth that Google or Facebook is .
It doesn ’ t face the same government scrutiny over antitrust .
It also doesn ’ t rely on government contracts or advertising dollars to make up a sizable chunk of its revenue .
But Dorsey is still a reluctant challenger to Trump , and he seems to have gotten himself into what will surely be a complex and drawn-out feud with implications for the future of speech on the internet .
It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For years , Twitter has let the president post tweets that are inaccurate , implicitly threatening , and arguably encouraging insurrection without taking any action against them or his account .
That ’ s because of a Twitter policy ( Facebook has a similar one ) that exempts world leaders ’ tweets from being deleted in many of these situations since their tweets are deemed “ newsworthy.
” That ’ s why Twitter ’ s moves this week were still quite limited in scope : It hasn ’ t deleted Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many have called for .
Meanwhile , on Facebook , Trump ’ s post saying that “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts , ” which is identical to the one he posted on Twitter — has been shared over 4,000 times and has nearly 40,000 thumbs up “ Likes ” as of Thursday afternoon .
Trump ’ s post on voting by mail , which Twitter fact-checked , has also been shared on Facebook over 20,000 times and has over 200,000 reactions .
A spokesperson for Twitter declined to comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s handling of Trump ’ s tweets .
Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
Google has stayed noticeably silent on Twitter ’ s battle over fact-checking Trump , although the company regularly deals with similar issues around moderating political content because of its video-sharing platform , YouTube .
In a statement to Recode , a spokesperson for Google sent a statement saying that undermining Section 230 would “ hurt America ’ s economy and its global leadership on internet freedom.
” A spokesperson for Facebook sent a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not respond to a request for comment about whether they defend Twitter , specifically , on the issue .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Twitter’s decision to fact-check President Donald Trump on Tuesday around misleading statements about voting by mail has been followed by an unprecedented escalation of Trump’s war on social media.
In just a few days, the president’s administration has singled out an individual Twitter employee in apparent retaliation, issued a largely unenforceable executive order that attempts to undo fundamental rules of the internet, and tweeted “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” in response to protests of the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota. A few hours after that tweet, Twitter added a disclaimer on it, saying it violated the platform’s rules for “glorifying violence.”
In labeling Trump’s tweets, Twitter has incrementally but meaningfully taken a stand in enforcing its policies on misleading and violent speech, even when the person tweeting is a world leader. In doing so, Twitter has opened a Pandora’s box that means it will be under incredible opposing pressure in the coming months about when and whether it should make, or not make, more of these calls.
But Twitter’s tech peers — most notably Facebook — have taken a different approach. Despite having very similar policies around content moderation to Twitter, Facebook hasn’t applied any of its standard fact-checking labels to Trump’s posts (identical to the recent ones on Twitter), and it doesn’t plan to.
In fact, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s immediate response to Twitter’s decision to fact-check was to imply it was the wrong call. Zuckerberg appeared on Fox News Thursday — the Trump administration’s favorite outlet — to declare, as he has for years, that Facebook is not in the business of being an “arbiter of truth.”
On Friday afternoon, amid mounting public criticism and reports of internal unrest among Facebook employees over its inaction around Trump’s “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” post, Zuckerberg addressed his rationale for not taking it down.
In a post on his personal Facebook page, he wrote that he found Trump’s post “deeply offensive,” but that it didn’t violate Facebook’s policies about inciting violence. He said the company saw it “as a warning about state action,” and that “people need to know if the government is planning to deploy force.”
He also took another dig at his social media competitor: “Unlike Twitter, we do not have a policy of putting a warning in front of posts that may incite violence because we believe that if a post incites violence, it should be removed regardless of whether it is newsworthy,” wrote Zuckerberg.
Although Facebook has insisted that it’s not an “arbiter of truth” on Trump’s posts or any other political speech — it does have specific policies to arbitrate speech on plenty of thorny topics: nudity, violence, and, notably, voter misinformation (which is exactly what Twitter first marked up Trump for). On Fox host Dana Perino’s show, Zuckerberg was reiterating his long-standing defense that Facebook is merely a platform for expression, not a media company, and that it should stay away from making decisions that pass judgment on political speech, which he believes should be up to outside parties to litigate.
It also served to position Silicon Valley tech companies, some of the most powerful companies in the world, as a divided bunch. Zuckerberg did briefly critique Trump’s push to regulate social media’s content moderation, saying that “government choosing to censor a platform because they’re worried about censorship doesn’t exactly strike me as the right reflex.” But the resounding message of his interview was that Twitter was in this battle alone.
Trump quickly exploited this discord, directly quoting Zuckerberg’s Fox comments in a tweet that further pitted the company against Twitter.
.@Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is today criticizing Twitter. “We have a different policy than Twitter on this. I believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.” Did Twitter criticize Obama for his “you can keep your Dr.”? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2020
Trump and his supporters have for a while now been pushing the unfounded allegation that Silicon Valley elites are trying to brainwash the wider public by censoring conservative speech on their platforms. Now he’s predictably using Twitter’s fact-check of his tweets to amplify and escalate that argument leading up to the 2020 elections.
In his responses after Twitter’s initial fact-check earlier this week, Trump didn’t just threaten retaliatory action against Twitter, he referred to all social media companies. But it seems Twitter won’t be getting reinforcements in this complex fight, at least for now.
If they have them, Facebook and Google seem to be keeping their criticisms about Trump’s attacks on Twitter behind closed doors or through the filter of lobbying groups, legal teams, and industry associations. This isn’t surprising. As I wrote previously, Twitter may be uniquely suited to stick its neck out in moderating Trump because it’s nowhere near being the behemoth that Google or Facebook is. It doesn’t face the same government scrutiny over antitrust. It also doesn’t rely on government contracts or advertising dollars to make up a sizable chunk of its revenue.
But Dorsey is still a reluctant challenger to Trump, and he seems to have gotten himself into what will surely be a complex and drawn-out feud with implications for the future of speech on the internet. It’s a battle Dorsey has worked hard to avoid. For years, Twitter has let the president post tweets that are inaccurate, implicitly threatening, and arguably encouraging insurrection without taking any action against them or his account. That’s because of a Twitter policy (Facebook has a similar one) that exempts world leaders’ tweets from being deleted in many of these situations since their tweets are deemed “newsworthy.” That’s why Twitter’s moves this week were still quite limited in scope: It hasn’t deleted Trump’s tweets or account altogether, which many have called for.
Meanwhile, on Facebook, Trump’s post saying that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” identical to the one he posted on Twitter — has been shared over 4,000 times and has nearly 40,000 thumbs-up “Likes” as of Thursday afternoon. Trump’s post on voting by mail, which Twitter fact-checked, has also been shared on Facebook over 20,000 times and has over 200,000 reactions.
A spokesperson for Twitter declined to comment on Facebook’s critique of Twitter’s handling of Trump’s tweets. Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Google has stayed noticeably silent on Twitter’s battle over fact-checking Trump, although the company regularly deals with similar issues around moderating political content because of its video-sharing platform, YouTube.
In a statement to Recode, a spokesperson for Google sent a statement saying that undermining Section 230, as Trump’s new executive order attempts to do, would “hurt America’s economy and its global leadership on internet freedom.” A spokesperson for Facebook sent a similar statement on Thursday. Both companies did not respond to a request for comment about whether they defend Twitter, specifically, on the issue.