vox--2020-06-18--What Will Become of the Cruise Ship Smorgasbord?

In those early days of the novel coronavirus , as we all watched its terrifying spread from its point of origin , cruise ships dominated the headlines .
Reports of big numbers of cases on board were bandied first as a precautionary tale , then simply a precursory one .
In the eyes of the wider public , the Diamond Princess , the site of one of the first major outbreaks outside of China , with 712 infections , 14 dead , and thousands quarantined for weeks , demonstrated not just the highly contagious nature of COVID-19 , but a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — one often maligned as a source of disease outbreaks in general .
For many loyal customers and people within the industry , though , the illness ’ s strong sea legs represent bad timing and unfortunate coincidence — a function of nearly 4,000 people , more than a quarter of them staff , packed into a ship less than 1,000 feet long — more than a failure of procedures .
The virus caught cruise ships , hit hard and early , off guard and before epidemiologists and public health experts fully understood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no wonder , then , that the industry ’ s shockingly fast return to the stage leaves much of the American public wondering who in their right mind would go on a cruise right now — or , more precisely , in August , when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ’ s “ no sail ” order on large cruise ships expires .
The answer , logically , is people who go on cruises : For those who already prefer their vacations shipboard , confidence in the industry barely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Independent found that two-thirds of readers wouldn ’ t consider a cruise ; that ratio was inverted for readers who had previously been on one .
An industry survey in the U.K. similarly found that 75 percent of previous cruise customers would book again — down by only 4 percent from the previous year .
And as of April , the LA Times reported that cruise ship bookings actually increased since the same time last year .
None of these surveys asked if or how cruisers still planned to eat aboard , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the signature mile-long buffets or communal table-stacked dining halls — or if the presence or absence of these traditional setups would change their choice at all .
With its tightly packed lines , utensils used and reused , and massive numbers of strangers breathing directly over each other ’ s food , the classic cruise ship buffet and 1,000-person main dining room fall smack into the intersection of large gatherings and restaurants — two things that the novel coronavirus has turned into the stuff of horror movies .
But cruise companies come into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ A lot of this is things we do every day , ” says Wes Cort , the vice president of food and beverage operations for Norwegian Cruise Lines .
“ We have an advantage here because this is not a stretch for us.
” Due to size and strict tracking requirements , ships have long held reputations for spreading norovirus — so companies have fought both the floating-petri-dish image and actual contagious diseases for years .
“ I feel like they have a bad rap , ” says Kathy Casey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and beverage consultancy who has worked extensively on and with ships , and a cruiser herself .
But in her 20 years of experience in the industry , she trusts the sanitation and safety situation completely .
“ I always joke with my team that I would lick the floor if you asked me to.
” Few people who watched a Japanese video simulating viral spread at a cruise ship buffet would do the same .
The buffet seems like the first thing that ships should toss overboard , but so far few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ details of their new safety protocols for returning to service .
“ We ’ re doing all of this work now , ” says Susan Lomax , the associate vice president of public relations at Celebrity Cruises , saying they were working with “ a group of leading epidemiologists ” to dive into what best practices will be .
The hesitation by companies to put out concrete policies plays out like a game of chicken , with those who speak first risking getting picked apart by the media , customers , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about quite a bit now , ” says Cort .
“ I watch CNBC , they talk about us every day.
” Royal Caribbean ended up backtracking on their CEO ’ s comment that the famous Windjammer buffet won ’ t return : While most of the comments on Royal Caribbean ’ s blogpost on the topic support the company ’ s efforts — anything to get back on the board — a few voice hope that the changes are temporary .
“ Otherwise I may have to forgo cruising , ” one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in some sort of form , ” says Chris Gray Faust , the managing editor of Cruise Critic , confidently , noting that their readers are “ very passionate ” about them .
“ But it won ’ t be this sort of free-for-all where you ’ re getting your own food.
” The evolving nature of what we know about the virus keeps things unstable , as Gray Faust has heard from cruise line CEOs .
“ The thought is that every week they ’ re learning more about the disease , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be announced yet until they actually know what needs to be done.
” The first of the big lines , Norwegian , put out its new safety plan , called “ Peace of Mind , ” on June 1 .
Its plan includes a buffet , but not one that ’ s self-serve — food items will be dished out by staff .
Though he acknowledges this may mean meals might take a little longer , with sanitation , distancing , and serving , Cort says they plan to adjust staffing to expedite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what people care most about : “ We ’ re not planning on adjusting our menus right now.
” Cort compares changing guests ’ minds about self-serve to moving the opinion needle on plastic straws : When they explain it , it makes sense , and guests get it .
But he ’ s adamant the change is minimal , and overall , the goal is “ to provide exactly what [ guests ] have enjoyed in the past — albeit with masks on.
” That contrasts with the headline on The Points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Believe it or not , cruising is back — and it ’ s weirder than we expected.
” But the drastic headline belies the reality of the outlined safety procedures by Norwegian and smaller ships — which can return sooner than those over the CDC order ’ s 250-person limit .
Many of the changes already exist on ships , points out Casey .
“ There ’ s handwashing stations right there at buffets , ” along with sanitation stations outside dining rooms , and enthusiastic enforcement of personal use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ Washy Washy ” song and this “ Let It Go ” parody by Royal Caribbean employees .
But unlike norovirus , which mostly spreads by particles , the coronavirus significantly spreads through respiratory droplets that travel through the air , meaning even the cleanest of hands can ’ t contain its movement between people .
“ On most ships , dining rooms are usually full , ” says Sheri Doyle , the owner of Pacific Northwest Journeys , an independent affiliate of Travel Experts and a Virtuoso travel advisor .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to back ; you can barely squeeze between tables.
” She expects — and hopes for her own cruising and that of her clients — to see more spread out dining hours , and thus more social distancing .
Gray Faust says on a lot of the larger ships , a trend away from communal tables was already underway .
“ The idea of eating with strangers has kind of been decreasing in popularity anyway , ” leading ships to move toward smaller tables .
“ I think this will just accelerate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ served buffet ” style is already more common than most people realize , she explains .
“ Passengers weren ’ t actually reaching out and getting the food themselves ” on many upscale lines , nor on larger lines like Holland America during other virus outbreaks .
Cort says that normally when they switch to the served buffet , there ’ s pushback from guests .
“ I think people are going to be fully understanding , ” he says of the current situation .
And while the self-serve buffet has some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it disappears , Casey notes that staff tune in closely to what people want , asking how much , aiming to please , and keeping the biggest draw on offer : a little bit of everything .
“ People love a wide variety , ” she says .
“ They like to cruise because you don ’ t have to make a lot of decisions , ” and that includes on what to eat — the buffet means they don ’ t have to .
As ships moved away from the mega-dining rooms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more small specialty restaurants , where , conveniently for the current situation , numbers can be controlled more easily through reservations .
Cruisers want Indian food and French food ; they want fancy meals and barbecue .
They want the chance to eat food from Thomas Keller on Seabourn , Curtis Stone on Princess , and Edouardo Jordan on Holland America .
These days , says Gray Faust , “ some people never go to the buffet , never go to the main dining room.
” While the details about what cruise ship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months and years remain unknown , the major lines all emphasize the same thing : that they look to science and regulatory entities like the CDC and WHO for guidance .
In addition , Cort points out that Norwegian already has a full division of the company dedicated to health and safety and has brought on Dr. Scott Gottlieb , the former Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and an experienced public health and medical policy expert , as an advisor .
“ I would lick the floor if you asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ herself , Doyle hopes to see a vaccine or at least rapid tests administered to everyone at boarding before she gets back on , but she also wants to know more about one aspect that few CEOs seem to be addressing .
“ All the focus is on the guest , and not on worker safety , ” she says , stating that recent webinars and industry events have largely ignored the health and safety of the staff — one of the more egregious oversights during the Diamond Princess crisis — not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It ’ s been really upsetting to me , ” says Doyle .
Three-quarters of the infected crew members on the Diamond Princess were food-service workers , but for his part , Cort says with the pre-screening , quarantining , and testing , his staff will be safe , and that they are already pretty well distanced at their stations .
“ Food safety inside the kitchen is paramount .
I ’ m not sure if there ’ s anything we can do more there , really.
” The biggest changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in numbers to promote distancing — how many people in a dining room , how many people on a boat .
But Gray Faust discourages people from making the logical leap to considering this a sign of impending price hikes for a vacation format long seen as an affordable alternative to high-end resorts .
In a recent call with Royal Caribbean ’ s parent company , she learned that newer ships sailing with just 30 percent load factor ( of capacity ) break even , and that even older ones — which tend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50 percent to hit that mark .
On top of that , many ships gave customers of canceled cruises credits worth more than their original payment , meaning that plenty of customers have vacation money ready to spend .
Doyle ’ s customers , both those with credits in hand and without , are mostly looking at next year , rather than the immediate reopening .
They assume there will either be a vaccine , “ or that things will be better in some ways , ” she reports .
But with lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies , the minimal financial risk is tempting .
For her , reassurances about all safety measures — for guests and workers — are top priority in bringing her back .
“ Overall , it won ’ t be fundamentally different , ” she says of eating on cruise ships .
“ But new health and safety things might become normal , like how we wear masks in public.
” Which really forms the crux of the evolution of cruise ships and their dining rooms : It mirrors the changes we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We ’ re all grappling with life as we know it changing , ” says Gray Faust .
Really , cruisers considering whether to return to onboard dining rooms are no different from landlocked diners assessing the safety of returning to one of their favorite restaurants .
But everybody ’ s own equation of risk versus reward depends on personal preferences .
So while a certain kind of traveler — those for whom boutique hotels and Michelin restaurants are the norm — are unlikely to reassess their judgement of cruises , devoted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help them find old joys under new circumstances .

In those early days of the novel coronavirus, as we all watched its terrifying spread from its point of origin, cruise ships dominated the headlines.
Reports of big numbers of cases on board were bandied first as a precautionary tale, then simply a precursory one. In the eyes of the wider public, the Diamond Princess, the site of one of the first major outbreaks outside of China, with 712 infections, 14 dead, and thousands quarantined for weeks, demonstrated not just the highly contagious nature of COVID-19, but a failure on the part of the industry — one often maligned as a source of disease outbreaks in general.
For many loyal customers and people within the industry, though, the illness’s strong sea legs represent bad timing and unfortunate coincidence — a function of nearly 4,000 people, more than a quarter of them staff, packed into a ship less than 1,000 feet long — more than a failure of procedures. The virus caught cruise ships, hit hard and early, off guard and before epidemiologists and public health experts fully understood its nature and characteristics.
It’s no wonder, then, that the industry’s shockingly fast return to the stage leaves much of the American public wondering who in their right mind would go on a cruise right now — or, more precisely, in August, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “no sail” order on large cruise ships expires.
The answer, logically, is people who go on cruises: For those who already prefer their vacations shipboard, confidence in the industry barely wavered. An April survey by the Independent found that two-thirds of readers wouldn’t consider a cruise; that ratio was inverted for readers who had previously been on one. An industry survey in the U.K. similarly found that 75 percent of previous cruise customers would book again — down by only 4 percent from the previous year. And as of April, the LA Times reported that cruise ship bookings actually increased since the same time last year.
None of these surveys asked if or how cruisers still planned to eat aboard, if they’d still feel confident hitting the signature mile-long buffets or communal table-stacked dining halls — or if the presence or absence of these traditional setups would change their choice at all.
With its tightly packed lines, utensils used and reused, and massive numbers of strangers breathing directly over each other’s food, the classic cruise ship buffet and 1,000-person main dining room fall smack into the intersection of large gatherings and restaurants — two things that the novel coronavirus has turned into the stuff of horror movies.
As of April, the LA Times reported that cruise ship bookings actually increased since the same time last year.
But cruise companies come into the ring more prepared than many industries. “A lot of this is things we do every day,” says Wes Cort, the vice president of food and beverage operations for Norwegian Cruise Lines. “We have an advantage here because this is not a stretch for us.” Due to size and strict tracking requirements, ships have long held reputations for spreading norovirus — so companies have fought both the floating-petri-dish image and actual contagious diseases for years.
“I feel like they have a bad rap,” says Kathy Casey, a chef and owner of a food and beverage consultancy who has worked extensively on and with ships, and a cruiser herself. But in her 20 years of experience in the industry, she trusts the sanitation and safety situation completely. “I always joke with my team that I would lick the floor if you asked me to.”
Few people who watched a Japanese video simulating viral spread at a cruise ship buffet would do the same. The buffet seems like the first thing that ships should toss overboard, but so far few of the major cruise lines have released details of their new safety protocols for returning to service. “We’re doing all of this work now,” says Susan Lomax, the associate vice president of public relations at Celebrity Cruises, saying they were working with “a group of leading epidemiologists” to dive into what best practices will be.
The hesitation by companies to put out concrete policies plays out like a game of chicken, with those who speak first risking getting picked apart by the media, customers, and the public. “Cruise lines are talked about quite a bit now,” says Cort. “I watch CNBC, they talk about us every day.” Royal Caribbean ended up backtracking on their CEO’s comment that the famous Windjammer buffet won’t return: While most of the comments on Royal Caribbean’s blogpost on the topic support the company’s efforts — anything to get back on the board — a few voice hope that the changes are temporary. “Otherwise I may have to forgo cruising,” one cruiser posted.
“Buffets will exist in some sort of form,” says Chris Gray Faust, the managing editor of Cruise Critic, confidently, noting that their readers are “very passionate” about them. “But it won’t be this sort of free-for-all where you’re getting your own food.” The evolving nature of what we know about the virus keeps things unstable, as Gray Faust has heard from cruise line CEOs. “The thought is that every week they’re learning more about the disease, and so specific changes can’t be announced yet until they actually know what needs to be done.”
The first of the big lines, Norwegian, put out its new safety plan, called “Peace of Mind,” on June 1. Its plan includes a buffet, but not one that’s self-serve — food items will be dished out by staff. Though he acknowledges this may mean meals might take a little longer, with sanitation, distancing, and serving, Cort says they plan to adjust staffing to expedite the process. But he also knows what people care most about: “We’re not planning on adjusting our menus right now.”
Cort compares changing guests’ minds about self-serve to moving the opinion needle on plastic straws: When they explain it, it makes sense, and guests get it. But he’s adamant the change is minimal, and overall, the goal is “to provide exactly what [guests] have enjoyed in the past — albeit with masks on.” That contrasts with the headline on The Points Guy’s piece about boats returning. “Believe it or not, cruising is back — and it’s weirder than we expected.”
But the drastic headline belies the reality of the outlined safety procedures by Norwegian and smaller ships — which can return sooner than those over the CDC order’s 250-person limit. Many of the changes already exist on ships, points out Casey. “There’s handwashing stations right there at buffets,” along with sanitation stations outside dining rooms, and enthusiastic enforcement of personal use of them by crew members — like Norwegian’s “Washy Washy” song and this “Let It Go” parody by Royal Caribbean employees.
But unlike norovirus, which mostly spreads by particles, the coronavirus significantly spreads through respiratory droplets that travel through the air, meaning even the cleanest of hands can’t contain its movement between people. “On most ships, dining rooms are usually full,” says Sheri Doyle, the owner of Pacific Northwest Journeys, an independent affiliate of Travel Experts and a Virtuoso travel advisor. “People sit cheek to jowl, back to back; you can barely squeeze between tables.” She expects — and hopes for her own cruising and that of her clients — to see more spread out dining hours, and thus more social distancing. Gray Faust says on a lot of the larger ships, a trend away from communal tables was already underway. “The idea of eating with strangers has kind of been decreasing in popularity anyway,” leading ships to move toward smaller tables. “I think this will just accelerate that trend.”
Most notably, the “served buffet” style is already more common than most people realize, she explains. “Passengers weren’t actually reaching out and getting the food themselves” on many upscale lines, nor on larger lines like Holland America during other virus outbreaks. Cort says that normally when they switch to the served buffet, there’s pushback from guests. “I think people are going to be fully understanding,” he says of the current situation. And while the self-serve buffet has some avid fans who will be disappointed if it disappears, Casey notes that staff tune in closely to what people want, asking how much, aiming to please, and keeping the biggest draw on offer: a little bit of everything.
“People love a wide variety,” she says. “They like to cruise because you don’t have to make a lot of decisions,” and that includes on what to eat — the buffet means they don’t have to. As ships moved away from the mega-dining rooms, that variety also morphed — toward more small specialty restaurants, where, conveniently for the current situation, numbers can be controlled more easily through reservations. Cruisers want Indian food and French food; they want fancy meals and barbecue. They want the chance to eat food from Thomas Keller on Seabourn, Curtis Stone on Princess, and Edouardo Jordan on Holland America. These days, says Gray Faust, “some people never go to the buffet, never go to the main dining room.”
While the details about what cruise ship dining will look like in the coming months and years remain unknown, the major lines all emphasize the same thing: that they look to science and regulatory entities like the CDC and WHO for guidance. In addition, Cort points out that Norwegian already has a full division of the company dedicated to health and safety and has brought on Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the former Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and an experienced public health and medical policy expert, as an advisor.
“I would lick the floor if you asked me to.”
As a cruise customer herself, Doyle hopes to see a vaccine or at least rapid tests administered to everyone at boarding before she gets back on, but she also wants to know more about one aspect that few CEOs seem to be addressing. “All the focus is on the guest, and not on worker safety,” she says, stating that recent webinars and industry events have largely ignored the health and safety of the staff — one of the more egregious oversights during the Diamond Princess crisis — not to mention how staff health can affect guests.
“It’s been really upsetting to me,” says Doyle. Three-quarters of the infected crew members on the Diamond Princess were food-service workers, but for his part, Cort says with the pre-screening, quarantining, and testing, his staff will be safe, and that they are already pretty well distanced at their stations. “Food safety inside the kitchen is paramount. I’m not sure if there’s anything we can do more there, really.”
The biggest changes floated so far come in overall reduction in numbers to promote distancing — how many people in a dining room, how many people on a boat. But Gray Faust discourages people from making the logical leap to considering this a sign of impending price hikes for a vacation format long seen as an affordable alternative to high-end resorts. In a recent call with Royal Caribbean’s parent company, she learned that newer ships sailing with just 30 percent load factor (of capacity) break even, and that even older ones — which tend to be less expensive — only need 50 percent to hit that mark.
On top of that, many ships gave customers of canceled cruises credits worth more than their original payment, meaning that plenty of customers have vacation money ready to spend. Doyle’s customers, both those with credits in hand and without, are mostly looking at next year, rather than the immediate reopening.
They assume there will either be a vaccine, “or that things will be better in some ways,” she reports. But with lines requiring lower deposits and offering lenient cancellation policies, the minimal financial risk is tempting.
For her, reassurances about all safety measures — for guests and workers — are top priority in bringing her back. “Overall, it won’t be fundamentally different,” she says of eating on cruise ships. “But new health and safety things might become normal, like how we wear masks in public.”
Which really forms the crux of the evolution of cruise ships and their dining rooms: It mirrors the changes we’re seeing in restaurants on dry land. “We’re all grappling with life as we know it changing,” says Gray Faust.
Really, cruisers considering whether to return to onboard dining rooms are no different from landlocked diners assessing the safety of returning to one of their favorite restaurants. But everybody’s own equation of risk versus reward depends on personal preferences. So while a certain kind of traveler — those for whom boutique hotels and Michelin restaurants are the norm — are unlikely to reassess their judgement of cruises, devoted passengers are trusting in cruise companies to help them find old joys under new circumstances.
Naomi Tomky is a Seattle-based food and travel writer.


vox--2020-06-18--The Trump administration’s flawed plan to destroy the internet as we know it

Section 230 , the law that is often credited as the reason why the internet as we know it exists , could be facing its greatest threat yet .
A seemingly coordinated attack on the law is unfolding this week from the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress .
It follows complaints that platforms such as Facebook , Twitter , and YouTube unfairly censor conservative speech .
Though some are framing the efforts as a way to promote free speech , others say the result will be exactly the opposite .
Following President Trump ’ s executive order aimed at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-wing voices , the most direct actions taken against Section 230 arrived this week in the form of a new bill from Sen. Josh Hawley and a set of recommendations from Attorney General Bill Barr .
Hawley , a 40-year-old Republican from Missouri who has made no secret of his intentions regarding Section 230 , is proposing a bill that would require large platforms to enforce their rules equally to stop a perceived targeting of conservatives and conservative commentary .
Hawley is also rumored to be preparing another Section 230-related bill to add @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barr ’ s Department of Justice said it is calling for new legislation that , in certain cases , would remove the civil liability protections offered by Section 230 .
If platforms like Facebook , Google , and Twitter somehow encouraged content that violates federal law , these platforms would be treated as “ bad samaritans ” and would lose the immunity offered by Section 230 .
Like Hawley ’ s bill , the DOJ ’ s proposed rules would also force platforms to clearly define and equally enforce content rules .
Civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that some of these proposed measures may end up becoming law , leading to all sorts of unintended consequences and stifling speech — which will ultimately punish internet users far more than the websites .
“ I do think there is a very serious risk to Section 230 right now , ” Kathleen Ruane , senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) , told Recode .
“ And they all concern me , not for the platforms , but for users and online free expression.
” Section 230 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 1996 .
It says internet platforms that host third-party content are not civilly liable for that content .
There are a few exceptions , such as intellectual property or content related to sex trafficking , but otherwise the law allows platforms to be as hands-off as they want to be with user-generated content .
Here ’ s an example : If a Twitter user were to tweet something defamatory , the user could be sued for libel , but Twitter itself could not .
This law has allowed websites and services that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grow .
If these sites could be held responsible for the actions of their users , they would either have to strictly moderate everything those users produce — which is impossible at scale — or not host any third-party content at all .
Either way , the demise of Section 230 could be the end of sites like Facebook , Twitter , Reddit , YouTube , Yelp , forums , message boards , and basically any platform that ’ s based on user-generated content .
The law also gives those services that immunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is why , for instance , Twitter can take down tweets that it deems in violation of its terms of service .
Sen. Ron Wyden , who was one of the architects of Section 230 , has likened these provisions to a sword and shield for platforms .
But as some of these platforms have increased in size , scope , and power , there has been increasing support on both sides of the aisle to chip away at the law that allowed them to flourish free of much accountability .
Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ websites that facilitate sexual abuse .
The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act ( FOSTA ) and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act ( SESTA ) made platforms legally responsible for third-party content related to sex trafficking .
The two bills , known together as FOSTA-SESTA , overwhelmingly passed in the House and Senate , and President Trump signed them into law in 2018 .
More recently , there ’ s the bipartisan Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Internet Technologies Act ( EARN IT ) , which would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ best practices ” or else lose Section 230 immunity if third parties post child pornography on their platforms .
Civil rights advocates worry what those “ best practices ” will be and how they might stifle all speech .
Many Republicans see altering Section 230 as a way to force platforms to fit their definition of “ politically neutral.
” Typically , this translates into restricting a website or service ’ s ability to moderate content .
This seems to be the goal of Hawley ’ s bill , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Good Samaritans Act .
Cosponsored by Republican Sens .
Marco Rubio , Mike Braun , Tom Cotton , and Kelly Loeffler , the bill would force large tech companies — that is , companies that have 30 million American users or 300 million users worldwide , as well as $ 1.5 billion annual revenue — to act in “ good faith ” when enforcing their content rules .
Acting in “ good faith ” here means that platforms must clearly define what their rules are and enforce them consistently , rather than , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech , as some conservatives believe they currently do .
Users who feel that their content is being unfairly removed would also have a new tool for reprisal .
Hawley ’ s bill gives individual users who believe they ’ re being censored the right to sue companies for at least $ 5,000 as well as attorney ’ s fees .
You can imagine how many people would be happy to take advantage of that , which would give platforms a big incentive to comply lest they be flooded with millions of lawsuits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ user-generated content at scale perfectly , or even well , and this bill would weaponize mistakes , ” Aaron Mackey , staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation , told Recode .
“ There are legitimate concerns about the dominance of a handful of online platforms and their power to limit internet users ’ speech .
But rather than addressing those concerns , this bill bluntly encourages frivolous litigation and will lead to massive trolling.
” This isn ’ t Republicans ’ only recent attempt at limiting Section 230 .
In 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Censorship Act , which would have required the Federal Trade Commission to declare platforms unbiased to get Section 230 protections .
The same year , Rep. Louie Gohmert introduced the Biased Algorithm Deterrence Act , which would remove Section 230 protections from companies that moderated content using algorithms .
Both were responses to conservative complaints that companies including Facebook , Twitter , and Google were selectively enforcing their content guidelines , de-platforming , shadow banning , or otherwise censoring conservatives while mostly leaving liberals alone .
Sen. Ted Cruz has also been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , erroneously asserting that Section 230 includes some kind of political neutrality requirement even though the law doesn ’ t say anything to that effect .
Those complaints have gained steam recently .
Despite being one of the biggest beneficiaries of the influence and reach these platforms can afford , President Trump had a recent tantrum over Twitter ’ s decision to fact-check two of his tweets , which contained inaccurate information about mail-in ballots .
Soon after , Trump signed his executive order aimed at social media companies , which said platforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content moderation should not be entitled to Section 230 protections .
An executive order is not a law and therefore its impact on an actual law is likely limited , but the right ’ s intention to go after big tech companies was made very clear .
The Trump administration says , “ The time is ripe ” While recent bills in Congress have been markedly divisive , Barr ’ s proposed reforms manage to incorporate the issues that both Democrats and Republicans have raised with Section 230 .
The DOJ called this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the department ’ s proposals are simply suggestions for the laws Congress should enact that would actually change things , but they , like the executive order , signal how and why the Trump administration hopes to go after or control large platforms .
One of Barr ’ s recommendations is to withhold immunity from “ truly bad actors , ” which are defined as sites promoting , soliciting , or facilitating content that violates federal law .
Sites must also “ maintain the ability to assist government authorities to obtain content @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comprehensible , readable , and usable format.
” This would be the end of services that use end-to-end encryption , which Barr has a particular problem with , and which civil liberties advocates believe will be the ultimate effect of the EARN IT act .
There ’ s also a section that addresses “ open discourse and greater transparency.
” Here , Barr recommends something along the lines of Hawley ’ s bill — that platforms must have clear terms of service for what is and isn ’ t allowed on their platforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defining “ good faith , ” similar to Hawley ’ s bill , as well as removing the part of the law that says platforms can moderate content that is “ otherwise objectionable , ” as Barr believes the term is too vague and has given platforms the freedom to remove anything simply by saying it ’ s objectionable in some way .
Wyden was not impressed by the recommendations to change the law he helped create .
“ This jumbled mess of a proposal is yet another cynical attempt by the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letting the president and his cronies post lies and conspiracies on their sites , and is clearly not intended to become law , ” the Oregon senator told Recode .
“ Congress should stay far away from this disingenuous plan that would gut the ability of tech companies to take down hateful slime , spawn endless frivolous lawsuits , and chill Americans ’ free speech online.
” In the background of all of this is a growing public sentiment against powerful tech companies due , in part , to how they help spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal information about us they collect .
That has surely emboldened politicians to act accordingly .
Not only do we have multiple bills against Section 230 , but there are also ongoing efforts to break up the biggest tech companies through antitrust investigations both in the United States and the European Union .
“ The Department of Justice has concluded that the time is ripe to realign the scope of Section 230 with the realities of the modern internet , ” the recommendations say .
This all adds up to a very real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we know it , won ’ t be around for much longer .
Hawley ’ s bill , which has no bipartisan support as of now , might go the way his past bills did — that is to say , nowhere .
But the EARN IT Act does have bipartisan support and , like FOSTA-SESTA which did pass , targets child sexual abuse .
Few politicians may want to vote against a law that says it ’ s meant to combat child porn , regardless of any unintended consequences .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change the internet and what we ’ re allowed to do on it .
Ruane , from the ACLU , points to the impact of FOSTA-SESTA , which she says “ has been a complete and total disaster , ” and its unintended consequences as a guide for what we can expect .
Faced with the new law , online platforms didn ’ t seek to target specific content that might relate to or facilitate sex trafficking ; they simply took down everything sex or sex work-related to ensure they wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only supposed to apply to advertisements for sex trafficking .
That is absolutely not what happened , ” Ruane said .
“ All platforms adopted much broader content moderation policies that applied to a lot of LGBTQ-related speech , sex education-related speech , and ... sites where [ sex workers ] built communities where they shared information to maintain safety.
” She added , “ It is astonishing to me that that law is being used as an example of what we should do in the future because of all the clear harms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has caused.
” As for Wyden , he wrote in a recent op-ed that laws that force platforms to be “ politically neutral ” may not encourage more speech , as conservatives who favor those laws claim , but rather suppress it .
Facebook has taken a similar stance , saying on Wednesday that changing Section 230 ’ s liability protections would “ mean less speech of all kinds appearing online.
” Section 230 won ’ t change tomorrow , if it changes at all .
But a series of seemingly coordinated attacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government certainly shows some momentum toward the possibility of change .
On one hand , the internet has profoundly changed since the law was introduced 25 years ago and it ’ s not unreasonable to believe that the law should change with it .
On the other , those changes likely won ’ t have the impact on the companies they ’ re targeting that lawmakers and the administration seem to desire .
The impact will largely fall on the people who use the platforms those companies run : You .
Every day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Section 230, the law that is often credited as the reason why the internet as we know it exists, could be facing its greatest threat yet. A seemingly coordinated attack on the law is unfolding this week from the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress. It follows complaints that platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube unfairly censor conservative speech. Though some are framing the efforts as a way to promote free speech, others say the result will be exactly the opposite.
Following President Trump’s executive order aimed at social media companies he thinks are censoring right-wing voices, the most direct actions taken against Section 230 arrived this week in the form of a new bill from Sen. Josh Hawley and a set of recommendations from Attorney General Bill Barr.
Hawley, a 40-year-old Republican from Missouri who has made no secret of his intentions regarding Section 230, is proposing a bill that would require large platforms to enforce their rules equally to stop a perceived targeting of conservatives and conservative commentary. Hawley is also rumored to be preparing another Section 230-related bill to add to his growing collection.
Meanwhile, Barr’s Department of Justice said it is calling for new legislation that, in certain cases, would remove the civil liability protections offered by Section 230. If platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter somehow encouraged content that violates federal law, these platforms would be treated as “bad samaritans” and would lose the immunity offered by Section 230. Like Hawley’s bill, the DOJ’s proposed rules would also force platforms to clearly define and equally enforce content rules.
Civil rights advocates say they’re concerned that some of these proposed measures may end up becoming law, leading to all sorts of unintended consequences and stifling speech — which will ultimately punish internet users far more than the websites.
“I do think there is a very serious risk to Section 230 right now,” Kathleen Ruane, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told Recode. “And they all concern me, not for the platforms, but for users and online free expression.”
Section 230, briefly explained
Section 230 is part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. It says internet platforms that host third-party content are not civilly liable for that content. There are a few exceptions, such as intellectual property or content related to sex trafficking, but otherwise the law allows platforms to be as hands-off as they want to be with user-generated content.
Here’s an example: If a Twitter user were to tweet something defamatory, the user could be sued for libel, but Twitter itself could not. This law has allowed websites and services that rely on user-generated content to exist and grow. If these sites could be held responsible for the actions of their users, they would either have to strictly moderate everything those users produce — which is impossible at scale — or not host any third-party content at all. Either way, the demise of Section 230 could be the end of sites like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, Yelp, forums, message boards, and basically any platform that’s based on user-generated content.
The law also gives those services that immunity even if they moderate certain content. This is why, for instance, Twitter can take down tweets that it deems in violation of its terms of service. Sen. Ron Wyden, who was one of the architects of Section 230, has likened these provisions to a sword and shield for platforms.
But as some of these platforms have increased in size, scope, and power, there has been increasing support on both sides of the aisle to chip away at the law that allowed them to flourish free of much accountability.
Democrats have supported laws that crack down on websites that facilitate sexual abuse. The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) made platforms legally responsible for third-party content related to sex trafficking. The two bills, known together as FOSTA-SESTA, overwhelmingly passed in the House and Senate, and President Trump signed them into law in 2018.
More recently, there’s the bipartisan Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Internet Technologies Act (EARN IT), which would require companies to follow a yet-to-be-defined set of “best practices” or else lose Section 230 immunity if third parties post child pornography on their platforms. Civil rights advocates worry what those “best practices” will be and how they might stifle all speech.
Josh Hawley’s crusade for a different internet
Many Republicans see altering Section 230 as a way to force platforms to fit their definition of “politically neutral.” Typically, this translates into restricting a website or service’s ability to moderate content.
This seems to be the goal of Hawley’s bill, which is called the Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act. Cosponsored by Republican Sens. Marco Rubio, Mike Braun, Tom Cotton, and Kelly Loeffler, the bill would force large tech companies — that is, companies that have 30 million American users or 300 million users worldwide, as well as $1.5 billion annual revenue — to act in “good faith” when enforcing their content rules. Acting in “good faith” here means that platforms must clearly define what their rules are and enforce them consistently, rather than, say, targeting certain types of political speech, as some conservatives believe they currently do.
Users who feel that their content is being unfairly removed would also have a new tool for reprisal. Hawley’s bill gives individual users who believe they’re being censored the right to sue companies for at least $5,000 as well as attorney’s fees. You can imagine how many people would be happy to take advantage of that, which would give platforms a big incentive to comply lest they be flooded with millions of lawsuits.
“It is impossible to moderate user-generated content at scale perfectly, or even well, and this bill would weaponize mistakes,” Aaron Mackey, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Recode. “There are legitimate concerns about the dominance of a handful of online platforms and their power to limit internet users’ speech. But rather than addressing those concerns, this bill bluntly encourages frivolous litigation and will lead to massive trolling.”
This isn’t Republicans’ only recent attempt at limiting Section 230. In 2019, Hawley introduced the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, which would have required the Federal Trade Commission to declare platforms unbiased to get Section 230 protections. The same year, Rep. Louie Gohmert introduced the Biased Algorithm Deterrence Act, which would remove Section 230 protections from companies that moderated content using algorithms. Both were responses to conservative complaints that companies including Facebook, Twitter, and Google were selectively enforcing their content guidelines, de-platforming, shadow banning, or otherwise censoring conservatives while mostly leaving liberals alone. Sen. Ted Cruz has also been a vocal critic of platforms in this regard, erroneously asserting that Section 230 includes some kind of political neutrality requirement even though the law doesn’t say anything to that effect.
Those complaints have gained steam recently. Despite being one of the biggest beneficiaries of the influence and reach these platforms can afford, President Trump had a recent tantrum over Twitter’s decision to fact-check two of his tweets, which contained inaccurate information about mail-in ballots. Soon after, Trump signed his executive order aimed at social media companies, which said platforms that go beyond “good faith” content moderation should not be entitled to Section 230 protections. An executive order is not a law and therefore its impact on an actual law is likely limited, but the right’s intention to go after big tech companies was made very clear.
The Trump administration says, “The time is ripe”
While recent bills in Congress have been markedly divisive, Barr’s proposed reforms manage to incorporate the issues that both Democrats and Republicans have raised with Section 230. The DOJ called this a “productive middle ground.” Note that the department’s proposals are simply suggestions for the laws Congress should enact that would actually change things, but they, like the executive order, signal how and why the Trump administration hopes to go after or control large platforms.
One of Barr’s recommendations is to withhold immunity from “truly bad actors,” which are defined as sites promoting, soliciting, or facilitating content that violates federal law. Sites must also “maintain the ability to assist government authorities to obtain content (i.e. evidence) in a comprehensible, readable, and usable format.” This would be the end of services that use end-to-end encryption, which Barr has a particular problem with, and which civil liberties advocates believe will be the ultimate effect of the EARN IT act.
There’s also a section that addresses “open discourse and greater transparency.” Here, Barr recommends something along the lines of Hawley’s bill — that platforms must have clear terms of service for what is and isn’t allowed on their platforms and moderate content accordingly. This includes defining “good faith,” similar to Hawley’s bill, as well as removing the part of the law that says platforms can moderate content that is “otherwise objectionable,” as Barr believes the term is too vague and has given platforms the freedom to remove anything simply by saying it’s objectionable in some way.
Wyden was not impressed by the recommendations to change the law he helped create.
“This jumbled mess of a proposal is yet another cynical attempt by the Trump administration to bully the tech companies into letting the president and his cronies post lies and conspiracies on their sites, and is clearly not intended to become law,” the Oregon senator told Recode. “Congress should stay far away from this disingenuous plan that would gut the ability of tech companies to take down hateful slime, spawn endless frivolous lawsuits, and chill Americans’ free speech online.”
In the background of all of this is a growing public sentiment against powerful tech companies due, in part, to how they help spread fake news and the incredible amounts of personal information about us they collect. That has surely emboldened politicians to act accordingly. Not only do we have multiple bills against Section 230, but there are also ongoing efforts to break up the biggest tech companies through antitrust investigations both in the United States and the European Union.
“The Department of Justice has concluded that the time is ripe to realign the scope of Section 230 with the realities of the modern internet,” the recommendations say.
This all adds up to a very real possibility that Section 230, at least as we know it, won’t be around for much longer. Hawley’s bill, which has no bipartisan support as of now, might go the way his past bills did — that is to say, nowhere. But the EARN IT Act does have bipartisan support and, like FOSTA-SESTA which did pass, targets child sexual abuse. Few politicians may want to vote against a law that says it’s meant to combat child porn, regardless of any unintended consequences.
The consequences of changing Section 230 will inevitably change the internet and what we’re allowed to do on it. Ruane, from the ACLU, points to the impact of FOSTA-SESTA, which she says “has been a complete and total disaster,” and its unintended consequences as a guide for what we can expect. Faced with the new law, online platforms didn’t seek to target specific content that might relate to or facilitate sex trafficking; they simply took down everything sex or sex work-related to ensure they wouldn’t get in trouble.
“It was only supposed to apply to advertisements for sex trafficking. That is absolutely not what happened,” Ruane said. “All platforms adopted much broader content moderation policies that applied to a lot of LGBTQ-related speech, sex education-related speech, and ... sites where [sex workers] built communities where they shared information to maintain safety.”
She added, “It is astonishing to me that that law is being used as an example of what we should do in the future because of all the clear harms that censoring a broad amount of speech has caused.”
As for Wyden, he wrote in a recent op-ed that laws that force platforms to be “politically neutral” may not encourage more speech, as conservatives who favor those laws claim, but rather suppress it. Facebook has taken a similar stance, saying on Wednesday that changing Section 230’s liability protections would “mean less speech of all kinds appearing online.”
Section 230 won’t change tomorrow, if it changes at all. But a series of seemingly coordinated attacks from two of the three branches of government certainly shows some momentum toward the possibility of change.
On one hand, the internet has profoundly changed since the law was introduced 25 years ago and it’s not unreasonable to believe that the law should change with it. On the other, those changes likely won’t have the impact on the companies they’re targeting that lawmakers and the administration seem to desire. The impact will largely fall on the people who use the platforms those companies run: You.


vox--2020-06-18--Facebook takes down another Trump campaign ad, this time for Nazi imagery

Another day , another potentially racist dog whistle from our president and his representatives .
This time , Facebook — which has been reluctant to take on problematic content from Trump , unlike social media peer Twitter — is taking action and removing it from the platform .
On Wednesday , the Trump campaign placed 88 ads on Facebook — 88 is a number with Nazi connotations — that featured a symbol used by Nazis to denote political prisoners in concentration camps .
The Trump campaign denied the reference to any Nazi symbols was intentional and deactivated the ads on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they could still be seen on the pages of Trump and others , but Facebook was no longer placing the ads in users ’ timelines . )
Following tweets and reports about the ads , Facebook removed them on Thursday for violating its policy against “ using a banned hate group ’ s symbol , ” the company told Recode .
The symbol in question is an upside-down red triangle , which accompanies text about “ dangerous mobs ” of “ far-left groups ” causing mayhem in cities .
The ad then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against antifa .
It ran on pages for Trump , Vice President Pence , and Trump ’ s official campaign .
Nazis used different colors of upside-down triangles sewn onto clothing to categorize concentration camp prisoners .
The pink triangle , used to denote gay people , is perhaps the best known of these , as it was later reclaimed by the LGTBQ community .
Red triangles were used for political prisoners , such as people believed to be communists or social democrats .
The Auschwitz Memorial tweeted its own explanation of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a camp uniform .
Though the use of red triangles was , as the tweet says , very common , it ’ s not very well-known .
But the use of a red triangle as an antifa symbol , which is what the Trump campaign claimed it was meant to be , is even more obscure .
Though the campaign said on Twitter that the upside-down red triangle is “ widely used ” by antifa , it ’ s not .
The image most closely associated with the group is of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , author of Antifa : The Anti-Fascist Handbook , told the New York Times that the triangle was not an antifa symbol , adding that its Nazi origins actually represented a “ death threat against leftists.
” When asked for evidence of widespread use of the upside-down red triangle , the Trump campaign pointed to a poster being sold on a website that specializes in merchandise with user-submitted images on it .
The campaign also pointed out that there is an upside-down red triangle emoji .
But that ’ s not all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ symbol was deliberate is the fact that the campaign ran exactly 88 ads featuring the symbol .
The number 88 is a known code for “ Heil Hitler.
” According to Facebook ’ s ad library , the campaign placed 30 red triangle ads on the Team Trump page , 30 on Trump ’ s page , and 28 on Pence ’ s page .
Those add up to 88 .
It ’ s certainly possible that the Trump campaign ’ s decision to go with a very specific number of ads — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nazi connections — is a coincidence .
Facebook clearly doesn ’ t think so .
It should be noted that the Trump campaign also placed ads with the same wording but with different symbols attached .
These symbols , which include a stop sign , a “ slow ” sign , and other shapes with warning exclamation points in them , do not appear to have any immediate Nazi reference built in .
Similar numbers of those ads were placed on the three pages .
“ Whether aware of the history or meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a symbol — one which is practically identical to that used by the Nazi regime to classify political prisoners in concentration camps — to attack his opponents is offensive and deeply troubling , ” Jonathan Greenblatt , the chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League , said in a statement .
“ It is not difficult for one to criticize their political opponent without using Nazi-era imagery .
We implore the Trump campaign to take greater caution and familiarize themselves with the historical context before doing so.
” While Facebook has given Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past , they have run afoul of its ad rules before .
In March , the platform removed ads that promoted a “ census ” ( it was a campaign survey ) that some users could mistake for the official US census .
This was part of Facebook ’ s big push against census misinformation .
Facebook also took down a campaign ad that contained copyrighted music .
Trump and his surrogates have been caught using more obvious dog whistles in the past .
Some of these references were so blatant that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whistles at all .
Most famous among them might be the image showing a Star of David next to a picture of Hillary Clinton and money .
( Trump claimed the symbol was meant to be a sheriff star , but later replaced it with a circle . )
Trump has also retweeted accounts associated with Nazism and claims of “ white genocide , ” including one literally called WhiteGenocideTM .
He also tweeted an image of supposed crime statistics that said 81 percent of murders of white people were committed by black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were committed by black people .
These statistics were inaccurate and attributed to a “ crime statistics bureau ” that doesn ’ t exist .
The image also showed a dark-skinned man holding a gun .
It ’ s possible that the symbol and the number of ads were a coincidence , given the obscurity of the triangle and the fact that the number of ads was spread across three accounts .
But given Trump ’ s past with racist , anti-Muslim , and anti-Semitic imagery on social media , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit of the doubt now .
Facebook didn ’ t .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Another day, another potentially racist dog whistle from our president and his representatives. This time, Facebook — which has been reluctant to take on problematic content from Trump, unlike social media peer Twitter — is taking action and removing it from the platform.
On Wednesday, the Trump campaign placed 88 ads on Facebook — 88 is a number with Nazi connotations — that featured a symbol used by Nazis to denote political prisoners in concentration camps. The Trump campaign denied the reference to any Nazi symbols was intentional and deactivated the ads on Wednesday. (Deactivating the ads meant that they could still be seen on the pages of Trump and others, but Facebook was no longer placing the ads in users’ timelines.) Following tweets and reports about the ads, Facebook removed them on Thursday for violating its policy against “using a banned hate group’s symbol,” the company told Recode.
The symbol in question is an upside-down red triangle, which accompanies text about “dangerous mobs” of “far-left groups” causing mayhem in cities. The ad then asks readers to stand with President Trump against antifa. It ran on pages for Trump, Vice President Pence, and Trump’s official campaign.
Nazis used different colors of upside-down triangles sewn onto clothing to categorize concentration camp prisoners. The pink triangle, used to denote gay people, is perhaps the best known of these, as it was later reclaimed by the LGTBQ community. Red triangles were used for political prisoners, such as people believed to be communists or social democrats.
The Auschwitz Memorial tweeted its own explanation of the symbol, including an image of it on a camp uniform.
A red triangle that marked 'political prisoners' was the most common category of prisoners registered at the German Nazi #Auschwitz camp.
In August 1944, political prisoners constituted 95 percent of camp prisoners'. A letter inside the triangle could mark the nationality. pic.twitter.com/jBuNn0xmL1 — Auschwitz Memorial (@AuschwitzMuseum) June 18, 2020
Though the use of red triangles was, as the tweet says, very common, it’s not very well-known. But the use of a red triangle as an antifa symbol, which is what the Trump campaign claimed it was meant to be, is even more obscure.
Though the campaign said on Twitter that the upside-down red triangle is “widely used” by antifa, it’s not. The image most closely associated with the group is of a red and black flag. Mark Bray, author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, told the New York Times that the triangle was not an antifa symbol, adding that its Nazi origins actually represented a “death threat against leftists.”
When asked for evidence of widespread use of the upside-down red triangle, the Trump campaign pointed to a poster being sold on a website that specializes in merchandise with user-submitted images on it. The campaign also pointed out that there is an upside-down red triangle emoji.
But that’s not all. Adding to claims that using a Nazi symbol was deliberate is the fact that the campaign ran exactly 88 ads featuring the symbol. The number 88 is a known code for “Heil Hitler.” According to Facebook’s ad library, the campaign placed 30 red triangle ads on the Team Trump page, 30 on Trump’s page, and 28 on Pence’s page. Those add up to 88. It’s certainly possible that the Trump campaign’s decision to go with a very specific number of ads — a number that also happens to have Nazi connections — is a coincidence. Facebook clearly doesn’t think so.
It should be noted that the Trump campaign also placed ads with the same wording but with different symbols attached. These symbols, which include a stop sign, a “slow” sign, and other shapes with warning exclamation points in them, do not appear to have any immediate Nazi reference built in. Similar numbers of those ads were placed on the three pages.
“Whether aware of the history or meaning, for the Trump campaign to use a symbol — one which is practically identical to that used by the Nazi regime to classify political prisoners in concentration camps — to attack his opponents is offensive and deeply troubling,” Jonathan Greenblatt, the chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League, said in a statement. “It is not difficult for one to criticize their political opponent without using Nazi-era imagery. We implore the Trump campaign to take greater caution and familiarize themselves with the historical context before doing so.”
While Facebook has given Trump and his campaign a long leash in the past, they have run afoul of its ad rules before. In March, the platform removed ads that promoted a “census” (it was a campaign survey) that some users could mistake for the official US census. This was part of Facebook’s big push against census misinformation. Facebook also took down a campaign ad that contained copyrighted music.
Trump and his surrogates have been caught using more obvious dog whistles in the past. Some of these references were so blatant that they don’t really qualify as dog whistles at all. Most famous among them might be the image showing a Star of David next to a picture of Hillary Clinton and money. (Trump claimed the symbol was meant to be a sheriff star, but later replaced it with a circle.)
Trump has also retweeted accounts associated with Nazism and claims of “white genocide,” including one literally called WhiteGenocideTM. He also tweeted an image of supposed crime statistics that said 81 percent of murders of white people were committed by black people and 97 percent of black murders were committed by black people. These statistics were inaccurate and attributed to a “crime statistics bureau” that doesn’t exist. The image also showed a dark-skinned man holding a gun.
It’s possible that the symbol and the number of ads were a coincidence, given the obscurity of the triangle and the fact that the number of ads was spread across three accounts. But given Trump’s past with racist, anti-Muslim, and anti-Semitic imagery on social media, it’s pretty tough to give his campaign the benefit of the doubt now. Facebook didn’t.


vox--2020-06-18--Why the US has failed in its coronavirus response, in one Trump interview

President Donald Trump suggested in a new interview that some Americans may be wearing masks not to prevent the spread of Covid-19 but to spite him — and that testing for the deadly coronavirus is “ overrated.
” That bewildering pair of comments , delivered during his wide-ranging Wall Street Journal interview that covered everything from Trump ’ s upcoming campaign rally on Juneteenth to newly reported details from former National Security Adviser John Bolton ’ s upcoming book , managed to both needlessly politicize basic health precautions and dismiss the importance of surveilling through testing a disease that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said explicitly that , even if there is a worrying reemergence of the virus , he would not pursue the kind of dramatic increase in testing that China did when it tested an entire city after the coronavirus appeared to be spreading widely through the community again .
“ I personally think testing is overrated , even though I created the greatest testing machine in history , ” Trump said , arguing that more tests means more confirmed cases .
“ In many ways , it makes us look bad.
” Let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is overrated , Trump created the greatest testing machine of all time , and testing makes us look bad — one at a time .
Whatever the president says , Covid-19 is not “ overrated.
” Here ’ s why .
First of all , public health experts say the opposite : Testing is essential to monitoring the spread of the disease and containing new outbreaks .
As Vox ’ s Umair Irfan wrote in April : You need tests to identify people with mild symptoms , so they can isolate and avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You need tests to conduct contact tracing : the tedious work of interviewing people who test positive for Covid-19 , finding out with whom they ’ ve been in close contact , and then informing those people of their potential exposure and asking them to self-isolate and — you guessed it — get tested .
With many essential workers unable to maintain social distancing , we would ideally test those people as often as possible .
“ Health care professionals , police officers , EMTs — you may need to actually test them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early enough to make sure they are not spreading it to their colleagues , ” Paul Romer , a New York University economist , told Irfan .
“ What I would say right now is a good target would be 35 million per day .
You can test everybody every two weeks , and then you ’ ve got 10 million front-line occupations that you can test every single day.
” So testing is important .
So is it true , as Trump claims despite dismissing the value of testing , that America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
For starters , recall that federal health agencies bore much of the blame for America ’ s poor testing in the early weeks of the pandemic .
Faulty kits were sent out to labs across the country , and regulatory hurdles slowed the expansion of testing as well .
Researchers in Washington state quietly came up with their own test to circumvent the slow federal response .
The US testing numbers have dramatically improved , thankfully .
But America ’ s testing capacity is merely “ good ’ by international standards — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is necessary given the scale of our outbreak .
The US has conducted about 72 tests per 1,000 people , according to Our World In Data .
That ’ s a lower rate than Portugal or Russia or Iceland and about the same as Australia and Italy .
Good but hardly warranting “ greatest of all time ” designations .
The number of tests in the US that are coming back positive also suggests we are still not adequately surveilling Covid-19 compared to European countries .
Which brings us to the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US ( read : him ) look bad .
It is true that more testing means more cases will be found , adding to the total case numbers .
But that isn ’ t why experts are concerned right now .
When you conduct more tests , you would expect the positive test rate to go down , because along with some more positive tests , you would get many more negative ones .
So experts are concerned because in states like Arizona and Florida and Texas , the positive test rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggests increased spread of Covid-19 is behind some of rising case numbers — not simply more tests being conducted .
Trump also baselessly claimed people are wearing masks to spite him , not to stop Covid-19 On the matter of masks , there is not much to say .
This is what Trump told the Wall Street Journal : According to a recent AP/NORC survey , 90 percent of Americans said they have been wearing masks at least some of the time .
There is no reason to believe , with widespread adoption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , most people seem to be following the advice of public health experts — which is to wear a mask to curb Covid-19 ’ s spread .
Trump , of course , has refused to wear a mask in public , introducing a political dynamic to what should have been nonpartisan public health guidance .
He is right , however , that people should be careful to not impede the effectiveness of masks by fiddling while wearing one .
Trump managed to accidentally dispense a modicum of useful advice for WSJ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only unsubstantiated claim Trump made regarding the Covid-19 pandemic : He also suggested China might have allowed the coronavirus to spread as some kind of economic bioweapon , even as he admitted he had nothing but intuition to back the assertion : You might recall that Trump was very complimentary to China ’ s handling of the Covid-19 outbreak in the early days — and that , according to Bolton ’ s book , he has asked the Chinese government to help him win reelection by supporting his trade policies .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and baseless assertions was , oddly but appropriately enough , an excellent encapsulation of all the ways in which the US ’ s Covid-19 response has gone wrong .
Whatever Trump might claim , America has categorically failed to contain its outbreak like its peers in Europe have .
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 .

President Donald Trump suggested in a new interview that some Americans may be wearing masks not to prevent the spread of Covid-19 but to spite him — and that testing for the deadly coronavirus is “overrated.”
That bewildering pair of comments, delivered during his wide-ranging Wall Street Journal interview that covered everything from Trump’s upcoming campaign rally on Juneteenth to newly reported details from former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s upcoming book, managed to both needlessly politicize basic health precautions and dismiss the importance of surveilling through testing a disease that has killed at least 118,000 Americans.
Trump said explicitly that, even if there is a worrying reemergence of the virus, he would not pursue the kind of dramatic increase in testing that China did when it tested an entire city after the coronavirus appeared to be spreading widely through the community again.
“I personally think testing is overrated, even though I created the greatest testing machine in history,” Trump said, arguing that more tests means more confirmed cases. “In many ways, it makes us look bad.”
Let’s take these three claims — testing is overrated, Trump created the greatest testing machine of all time, and testing makes us look bad — one at a time.
Whatever the president says, Covid-19 is not “overrated.” Here’s why.
First of all, public health experts say the opposite: Testing is essential to monitoring the spread of the disease and containing new outbreaks. As Vox’s Umair Irfan wrote in April:
Controlling the spread of the pandemic demands finding the infected and isolating them until they can no longer spread the disease, alongside broader measures like social distancing. With an untold number of asymptomatic carriers, the only option to find out who truly has the virus is to test. Meanwhile, a lack of testing hampers the response to the virus. Health officials can’t preempt outbreaks in new regions. The threat then silently persists, infecting, killing, and draining resources.
You need tests to identify people with mild symptoms, so they can isolate and avoid spreading the virus to other people. You need tests to conduct contact tracing: the tedious work of interviewing people who test positive for Covid-19, finding out with whom they’ve been in close contact, and then informing those people of their potential exposure and asking them to self-isolate and — you guessed it — get tested.
With many essential workers unable to maintain social distancing, we would ideally test those people as often as possible.
“Health care professionals, police officers, EMTs — you may need to actually test them every single day to catch an infection early enough to make sure they are not spreading it to their colleagues,” Paul Romer, a New York University economist, told Irfan. “What I would say right now is a good target would be 35 million per day. You can test everybody every two weeks, and then you’ve got 10 million front-line occupations that you can test every single day.”
So testing is important. So is it true, as Trump claims despite dismissing the value of testing, that America has built a historically great testing regiment?
For starters, recall that federal health agencies bore much of the blame for America’s poor testing in the early weeks of the pandemic. Faulty kits were sent out to labs across the country, and regulatory hurdles slowed the expansion of testing as well. Researchers in Washington state quietly came up with their own test to circumvent the slow federal response.
The US testing numbers have dramatically improved, thankfully. But America’s testing capacity is merely “good’ by international standards — and may still be falling short of what is necessary given the scale of our outbreak.
The US has conducted about 72 tests per 1,000 people, according to Our World In Data. That’s a lower rate than Portugal or Russia or Iceland and about the same as Australia and Italy. Good but hardly warranting “greatest of all time” designations. The number of tests in the US that are coming back positive also suggests we are still not adequately surveilling Covid-19 compared to European countries.
Which brings us to the last point: Trump says more testing makes the US (read: him) look bad. It is true that more testing means more cases will be found, adding to the total case numbers.
But that isn’t why experts are concerned right now. When you conduct more tests, you would expect the positive test rate to go down, because along with some more positive tests, you would get many more negative ones. So experts are concerned because in states like Arizona and Florida and Texas, the positive test rate is actually increasing. That is what suggests increased spread of Covid-19 is behind some of rising case numbers — not simply more tests being conducted.
Trump also baselessly claimed people are wearing masks to spite him, not to stop Covid-19
On the matter of masks, there is not much to say. This is what Trump told the Wall Street Journal:
The president ... allowed for the possibility that some Americans wore facial coverings not as a preventative measure but as a way to signal disapproval of him. Mr. Trump said his bigger problem with masks was that many people fidget with the coverings, which he said made them more likely to be infected. The federal government guidelines stipulate that wearing cloth face coverings helps slow the spread of Covid-19 and recommends washing hands before putting on the mask. “They put their finger on the mask, and they take them off, and then they start touching their eyes and touching their nose and their mouth,” Mr. Trump said. “And then they don’t know how they caught it?”
According to a recent AP/NORC survey, 90 percent of Americans said they have been wearing masks at least some of the time. There is no reason to believe, with widespread adoption, that there is any political motivation. Instead, most people seem to be following the advice of public health experts — which is to wear a mask to curb Covid-19’s spread. Trump, of course, has refused to wear a mask in public, introducing a political dynamic to what should have been nonpartisan public health guidance.
He is right, however, that people should be careful to not impede the effectiveness of masks by fiddling while wearing one. Trump managed to accidentally dispense a modicum of useful advice for WSJ readers.
The masks riff was not the only unsubstantiated claim Trump made regarding the Covid-19 pandemic: He also suggested China might have allowed the coronavirus to spread as some kind of economic bioweapon, even as he admitted he had nothing but intuition to back the assertion:
The president said he had no intelligence to support that claim, only an internal sense. He said there was a better chance it was incompetence or a mistake. “I don’t think they would do that,” Mr. Trump said about the possibility of Beijing letting coronavirus spread beyond China. “But you never know. But it has had an impact.”
You might recall that Trump was very complimentary to China’s handling of the Covid-19 outbreak in the early days — and that, according to Bolton’s book, he has asked the Chinese government to help him win reelection by supporting his trade policies.
The smattering of non sequiturs, misleading spin, and baseless assertions was, oddly but appropriately enough, an excellent encapsulation of all the ways in which the US’s Covid-19 response has gone wrong. Whatever Trump might claim, America has categorically failed to contain its outbreak like its peers in Europe have.


vox--2020-06-19--Juneteenth should remind America what it owes black citizens

This Juneteenth , a rallying cry has taken hold as uprisings around the world take place .
“ Defund the police ” has become the signature demand of those marching for racial justice , and is about more than just taking money from the city budget lines devoted to law enforcement .
It is about investing in low-income black communities in a real and substantive way .
Responding to congressional Democrats announcement on police reform legislation , activist and scholar Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor tweeted that next , “ we want the package that deals with the racial economy that pins Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hierarchy .
We must destroy the economic conditions that predispose Black people to violent , racist policing.
” Those marching have certainly captured the public imagination .
Nearly every company has taken it upon themselves to issue a statement condemning racism , putting up black squares on Instagram , and investing in anti-racist trainings for its employees .
Many companies , including Vox Media , Vox ’ s parent company , have made Juneteenth a company holiday .
Meanwhile , the reformers are looking for ways to rein in the violent behavior of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a difference , others are merely symbolic , but none of them truly address the demands to invest — heavily — in righting the economic wrongs that have plagued America since its inception .
This isn ’ t the first time America has wrestled with whether to address this problem .
The country has failed time and again to put real money into its racial inequalities , from failed reparations after the civil war to Martin Luther King Jr. ’ s unfinished business of economic investment to the resurgent popularity of reparations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America again debates how far to go when addressing the raw pain exposed by George Floyd ’ s death , it will have to come at a cost .
After all , chokehold bans are free — closing the racial wealth gap is not .
Congress had an opportunity to address economic pain in civil rights era legislation .
It failed .
Near the end of the civil rights movement , Martin Luther King Jr. grew disheartened with reluctance to adopt comprehensive financial measures to remedy years of racial discrimination , slavery , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activism accomplished a lot , but he wasn ’ t merely content with desegregation , citizenship , and voting rights .
He and many civil rights leaders pushed for policies that would enable black people to participate as full equals in the American economy .
King deplored how when black people searched for a “ realization of equality , they found that many of their white allies had quietly disappeared.
” “ The practical cost of change for the nation up to this point has been cheap .
The limited reforms have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no expenses , and no taxes are required , for Negroes to share lunch counters , libraries , parks , hotels and other facilities with whites , ” he wrote in 1967 ’ s Where Do We Go From Here : Chaos or Community ?
“ The real cost lies ahead , ” King continued .
“ The stiffening of white resistance is a recognition of that fact .
The discount education given Negroes will , in the future , have to be purchased at full price if quality education is to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to create than voting rolls .
The eradication , of slums housing millions , is complex far beyond integrating buses and lunch counters.
” King planned a movement to accomplish this , with the Poor People ’ s Campaign , which he envisioned as “ a new kind of Selma or Birmingham to dramatize the economic plight of the Negro , and compel the government to act.
” Acting in this sense meant funding “ an economic Bill of Rights ” that would address issues around housing , income , and employment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be carried out , and his prophetic pessimism about American resistance toward enacting economic policy addressing racism proved prudent .
The campaign failed .
The legislation never saw meaningful action .
The broader aims of creating economic solutions fell by the wayside — just as the “ jobs ” portion of the 1963 March on Washington was disregarded , just as the sweeping reforms of the Freedom Budget were ignored , just as the calls for reparations since Reconstruction were ridiculed .
Contrary to the “ racial progress narrative ” that most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil rights movement ’ s objective — ending racial economic inequality — was left unaddressed .
As CUNY political scientist Frances Fox Piven co-wrote , summarizing the incomplete work of the civil rights movement , “ the black struggle was waged for two main goals .
One was to secure formal political rights in the South , especially the right to the franchise ; the other was to secure economic advances .
In retrospect , it is clear that the main victory was the extension of political rights to Southern blacks.
” America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea again Just a year ago , for the first time , Congress considered a bill to compose a commission to study reparations proposals for slavery and to weigh a national apology for the ensuing problems the institution caused .
The idea has been repopularized thanks to the work of activists , writers like Ta-Nehisi Coates , and the Democratic primary , when Sen. Elizabeth Warren and others said it was time for the country to consider the idea .
During that historic congressional hearing , Republicans scoffed at reparations the way a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the same meal .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rebuffed the idea .
“ I don ’ t think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago when none of us currently living are responsible is a good idea , ” he told reporters .
“ We ’ ve tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a civil war , by passing landmark civil rights legislation .
We ’ ve elected an African American president.
” Most Americans agreed — 68 percent , according to the 2019 AP-NORC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in part , from the premise that no significant debt exists to be paid .
In our political imagination , the United States lives as a racially egalitarian country .
However , Americans underestimate the black-white racial wealth gap ’ s vastness by 80 percent , according to a 2019 Yale study .
“ The American racial-progress narrative leads people to make overly optimistic estimates regarding the state of racial economic equality in the nation , ” the authors write , explaining that “ Americans of all races and economic circumstances falsely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in closing racial economic gaps over the past 50 years or so.
” In other words , citizens think that since the civil rights era , the United States successfully redressed the economic ills created by American slavery and Jim Crow .
It did not .
As Harvard sociologist Lawrence D. Bobo writes : Today , protests continue to roil nationwide , demanding investment to close these gaping racial chasms because , as a country , America has never made a full-fledged effort to address these disparities in the first place .
Incubated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flourished in the free market Inequalities established during centuries of discrimination were allowed to settle and fester into American life .
This leads to what Harvard ’ s Bobo calls our modern age of “ laissez-faire racism ” — a type of racial inequality predicated “ on the market and informal racial bias to recreate , and in some instances sharply worsen , structured racial inequality.
” Vox ’ s Netflix , Explained series describes how this process continues to churn in markets , allowing racism ’ s past effects to justify more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to set up shops in black neighborhoods but make Juneteenth a company holiday .
Healthy restaurants avoid entering neighborhoods because the incomes are too low .
Home values only start to rise in gentrifying neighborhoods when enough white people move in .
All this is tied to a legacy of redlining and divestment stretching decades back .
And it ’ s getting worse , as the racial wealth gap continues to expand over time .
According to a 2019 analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies , “ between 1983 and 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drop by more than half after inflation , compared to a 33 % increase for the median White household.
” Tragically , most people strain to remember how we got here .
In America , the civil rights movement is hardly taught in schools , and when it is , it is projected as the triumphant narrative where citizenship is won .
Economic equality is either assumed or forgotten .
Yet as James Baldwin writes , the impact of American racism is not subject to our recollections .
“ It is not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Oedipus did not remember the thongs that bound his feet ; nevertheless marks they left testified to that doom toward which his feet were leading him .
The man does not remember the hand that struck him , the darkness that frightened him , as a child ; nevertheless , the hand and the darkness remain with him , indivisible from himself forever , part of the passion that drives him wherever he thinks to take flight.
” Juneteenth is an occasion to remember what we have forgotten .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far African Americans have come in the United States since slavery , but how much , particularly on economic policy , they are still owed .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — 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 .

This Juneteenth, a rallying cry has taken hold as uprisings around the world take place. “Defund the police” has become the signature demand of those marching for racial justice, and is about more than just taking money from the city budget lines devoted to law enforcement. It is about investing in low-income black communities in a real and substantive way.
Responding to congressional Democrats’ announcement on police reform legislation, activist and scholar Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor tweeted that next, “we want the package that deals with the racial economy that pins Black people to the bottom of the US hierarchy. We must destroy the economic conditions that predispose Black people to violent, racist policing.”
Those marching have certainly captured the public imagination. Nearly every company has taken it upon themselves to issue a statement condemning racism, put up black squares on Instagram, and invest in anti-racist trainings for their employees. Many companies, including Vox Media, Vox’s parent company, have made Juneteenth a company holiday. Meanwhile, the reformers are looking for ways to rein in the violent behavior of police.
Some of these changes will make a difference, others are merely symbolic, but none of them truly address the demands to invest — heavily — in righting the economic wrongs that have plagued America since its inception.
This isn’t the first time America has wrestled with whether to address this problem. The country has failed time and again to put real money into its racial inequalities, from failed reparations after the Civil War to Martin Luther King Jr.’s unfinished business of economic investment to the resurgent popularity of reparations in recent years. Now, as America again debates how far to go when addressing the raw pain exposed by George Floyd’s death, it will have to come at a cost.
After all, chokehold bans are free — closing the racial wealth gap is not.
Congress had an opportunity to address economic pain in civil rights era legislation. It failed.
Near the end of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr. grew disheartened with reluctance to adopt comprehensive financial measures to remedy years of racial discrimination, slavery, and Jim Crow. King’s activism accomplished a lot, but he wasn’t merely content with desegregation, citizenship, and voting rights. He and many civil rights leaders pushed for policies that would enable black people to participate as full equals in the American economy. King deplored how when black people searched for a “realization of equality, they found that many of their white allies had quietly disappeared.”
“The practical cost of change for the nation up to this point has been cheap. The limited reforms have been obtained at bargain rates. There are no expenses, and no taxes are required, for Negroes to share lunch counters, libraries, parks, hotels and other facilities with whites,” he wrote in 1967’s Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?
“The real cost lies ahead,” King continued. “The stiffening of white resistance is a recognition of that fact. The discount education given Negroes will, in the future, have to be purchased at full price if quality education is to be realized. Jobs are harder and costlier to create than voting rolls. The eradication, of slums housing millions, is complex far beyond integrating buses and lunch counters.”
King planned a movement to accomplish this, with the Poor People’s Campaign, which he envisioned as “a new kind of Selma or Birmingham to dramatize the economic plight of the Negro, and compel the government to act.” Acting in this sense meant funding “an economic Bill of Rights” that would address issues around housing, income, and employment. Yet King was killed before the campaign could be carried out, and his prophetic pessimism about American resistance toward enacting economic policy addressing racism proved prudent.
The campaign failed. The legislation never saw meaningful action. The broader aims of creating economic solutions fell by the wayside — just as the “jobs” portion of the 1963 March on Washington was disregarded, just as the sweeping reforms of the Freedom Budget were ignored, just as the calls for reparations since Reconstruction were ridiculed.
Contrary to the “racial progress narrative” that most Americans receive, fully half of the civil rights movement’s objective — ending racial economic inequality — was left unaddressed.
As CUNY political scientist Frances Fox Piven co-wrote, summarizing the incomplete work of the civil rights movement, “the black struggle was waged for two main goals. One was to secure formal political rights in the South, especially the right to the franchise; the other was to secure economic advances. In retrospect, it is clear that the main victory was the extension of political rights to Southern blacks.”
America is just beginning to think about this idea again
Just a year ago, for the first time, Congress considered a bill to compose a commission to study reparations proposals for slavery and to weigh a national apology for the ensuing problems the institution caused. The idea has been repopularized thanks to the work of activists, writers like Ta-Nehisi Coates, and the Democratic primary, when Sen. Elizabeth Warren and others said it was time for the country to consider the idea.
During that historic congressional hearing, Republicans scoffed at reparations the way a customer might sneer after being charged twice for the same meal. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rebuffed the idea. “I don’t think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago when none of us currently living are responsible is a good idea,” he told reporters. “We’ve tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a civil war, by passing landmark civil rights legislation. We’ve elected an African American president.” Most Americans agreed — 68 percent, according to the 2019 AP-NORC Center poll.
This popular opposition flows, in part, from the premise that no significant debt exists to be paid. In our political imagination, the United States lives as a racially egalitarian country. However, Americans underestimate the black-white racial wealth gap’s vastness by 80 percent, according to a 2019 Yale study.
“The American racial-progress narrative leads people to make overly optimistic estimates regarding the state of racial economic equality in the nation,” the authors write, explaining that “Americans of all races and economic circumstances falsely believe that there has been substantial progress in closing racial economic gaps over the past 50 years or so.”
In other words, citizens think that since the civil rights era, the United States successfully redressed the economic ills created by American slavery and Jim Crow. It did not. As Harvard sociologist Lawrence D. Bobo writes:
Although monumental accomplishments, the Brown decision, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 primarily secured the basic citizenship rights of African Americans. The successes of the civil rights movement...did not eradicate sharp black-white differences in social and economic status; and they did not undo nationwide patterns of racial residential segregation. That is, the enormous and far-reaching gains of the civil rights movement did not eliminate stark patterns of racial domination and inequality that existed above, beyond, and irrespective of the specific dictates of the distinctly Southern Jim Crow system.
Today, protests continue to roil nationwide, demanding investment to close these gaping racial chasms because, as a country, America has never made a full-fledged effort to address these disparities in the first place.
Incubated in American slavery and apartheid, inequality flourished in the free market
Inequalities established during centuries of discrimination were allowed to settle and fester into American life. This leads to what Harvard’s Bobo calls our modern age of “laissez-faire racism” — a type of racial inequality predicated “on the market and informal racial bias to recreate, and in some instances sharply worsen, structured racial inequality.”
Vox’s Netflix, Explained series describes how this process continues to churn in markets, allowing racism’s past effects to justify more racism. Today, employers remain hesitant to set up shops in black neighborhoods but make Juneteenth a company holiday. Healthy restaurants avoid entering neighborhoods because the incomes are too low. Home values only start to rise in gentrifying neighborhoods when enough white people move in. All this is tied to a legacy of redlining and divestment stretching decades back. And it’s getting worse, as the racial wealth gap continues to expand over time. According to a 2019 analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies, “between 1983 and 2016, the median Black family saw their wealth drop by more than half after inflation, compared to a 33% increase for the median White household.”
Tragically, most people strain to remember how we got here. In America, the civil rights movement is hardly taught in schools, and when it is, it is projected as the triumphant narrative where citizenship is won. Economic equality is either assumed or forgotten.
Yet as James Baldwin writes, the impact of American racism is not subject to our recollections. “It is not a question of memory,” he writes. “Oedipus did not remember the thongs that bound his feet; nevertheless marks they left testified to that doom toward which his feet were leading him. The man does not remember the hand that struck him, the darkness that frightened him, as a child; nevertheless, the hand and the darkness remain with him, indivisible from himself forever, part of the passion that drives him wherever he thinks to take flight.”
Juneteenth is an occasion to remember what we have forgotten. It is a time to remember not just how far African Americans have come in the United States since slavery, but how much, particularly on economic policy, they are still owed.