vox--2020-07-29--America’s failures to test, trace, and isolate, explained

Three words explain why many developed countries have contained their coronavirus outbreaks more successfully than the United States : test , trace , and isolate .
The most effective containment strategy involves testing enough people to identify new cases , tracing all of their potential contacts , and isolating the people who may have been exposed before they can spread the virus to anybody else .
But today , six months into the pandemic , America is still struggling to stand up these basic features of an effective public health response .
In the states where infections have exploded in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their outbreaks are too big to have any hope of tracing all of the potential contacts of people testing positive for Covid-19 .
Even if and when the case numbers come down , they say they are dealing with antiquated technology and staffing shortages that will make it difficult to track new infections and prevent new outbreaks from flaring up .
Public health workers in areas with lower Covid-19 spread told me they are only now reaching a point where they feel confident in their abilities to conduct adequate contact tracing , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if spread accelerates again .
The federal government ’ s attitude toward contact tracing has been , at best , indifference and , at worst , active resistance .
The Trump White House has reportedly tried to block any new funding for testing and contact tracing in the latest Covid-19 relief legislation , though that was overruled by Congress .
And making matters worse , public health officials told me test results have been taking a week or longer to come back from the lab , severely limiting their usefulness in heading off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t test and get a test back quickly , you can ’ t contact trace in a period of time that makes sense .
You can ’ t count these cases in terms of what ’ s going on in real time , ” David Harvey , executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors , whose members run contact tracing programs , told me .
“ This is why we are failing.
” The United States is not going to be able to safely reopen schools and businesses without adequate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the crisis , the country appears to still be far behind its economic peers in establishing these capabilities .
Test : It ’ s taking too long to get Covid-19 test results back from the lab America ’ s coronavirus testing continues to fall short relative to the size of our outbreak .
Nationwide , 8.3 percent of the tests being conducted are coming back positive .
Experts have said the positive test rate should be 5 percent or less in order for public health authorities to feel confident they are tracking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a risk that the virus will continue to spread undetected and new clusters flare up .
Most European countries , by comparison , are seeing fewer than 3 percent of their tests come back positive .
Going by the number of tests conducted for every confirmed case , another metric of testing saturation relative to the size of the outbreak , the US also trails most of our economic peers in Europe .
The situation is especially dire in the state experiencing the worst coronavirus outbreaks right now .
In Florida , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 19 percent , essentially unchanged over the last two weeks .
In Texas , 12 percent of tests are coming back positive from the lab ; that ’ s down slightly from two weeks ago but still well above what experts say is necessary to effectively track the virus ’ s spread .
Other hot-spot states like Alabama , Arizona , Georgia , and South Carolina also have positive test rates well above 10 percent .
“ Even if we successfully trace every known contact , based on our percent positivity test , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Caitlin Wolfe , a public health doctoral student who has done contact tracing work in Florida , told me .
“ If we ’ re not testing enough , we ’ re not going to be tracing enough.
” And the number of tests being conducted isn ’ t the only problem .
Labs also need to be able to turn around the test results in a timely manner , but they have struggled to do that consistently .
Quest Diagnostics , one of the major commercial lab companies , said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has strained our testing capacity and extended delays for test results.
” They are currently turning around results in seven days for most patients .
It ’ s less , about two days , for hospitalized patients and other people considered a priority .
LabCorp , another major lab , said they ’ re getting results back in two to three days .
Public health agencies in Florida and Texas reported waiting as long as 10 days for results to come back .
The long delays in the hardest-hit states reflect America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy .
Wolfe told me that while contact tracing workers there are waiting a week or more for test results , she knew a public health worker in Connecticut , where the outbreak is currently much more contained , whose department is using tests that provide results in as little as 15 minutes .
Local officials in Washington state , also seeing a slight ebb in Covid-19 spread , also reported better turnaround times than the states currently more in need .
“ It ’ s a huge problem getting the results , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and human services director , told me .
“ That 8- to 10-day turnaround time is not helpful.
” Huang said his department has been asking the federal government to provide them with the chemical supplies necessary to run tests in the county labs and potentially get results much quicker , rather than relying on Quest and LabCorp .
But so far , the requests have gone unanswered .
“ We have been asking for that for weeks at least , ” he said .
Trace : Outbreaks have gotten too big for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing problems , the coronavirus is currently too widespread in Florida and Texas for public health agencies to realistically expect they ’ ll be able to trace every possible Covid-19 contact .
Instead , they are concentrating for now on potential clusters , like in nursing homes or food processing plants , while waiting for the overall numbers to come down to a low enough level that they can hope to achieve comprehensive contact tracing .
But it will be a challenge to maintain these capabilities given the sheer number of infections , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bred distrust toward the work of contact tracing , and the risk that there won ’ t be adequate funding for the staffing and supplies that are necessary to do the work effectively .
“ The plan was : Get it down to numbers that you can manage .
Then when a case pops up , you can jump on it and snuff it out , ” Huang said .
“ But right now , we ’ re at case numbers that are at record levels.
” Huang ’ s department had developed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daily number of new cases would top out at about 200 cases .
Instead , they saw 18 consecutive days of 1,000 cases or more .
This is a nationwide problem : According to an NPR survey conducted last month , most states had not hired enough contact tracing workers to meet their expected need .
Johns Hopkins researchers estimated the US needs , at a minimum , 100,000 people to do contact tracing work .
As of last month , according to NPR , the actual number of hires was less than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracing , like disease intervention specialists and medical epidemiologists , are also underfilled , Harvey said .
Local health departments have been trying to set up programs that automate some of the contact tracing work .
In Dallas , for example , patients who test positive for Covid-19 are sent an online survey to fill out , in which they identify people they may have exposed and provide their contact information .
Those people are then sent an automated message urging them to self-quarantine and get tested .
About 40 percent of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that kind of participation reduces the caseload for contact tracing workers .
That is a positive development , an example of how local authorities have been able to improve their capabilities since the pandemic started .
But they still routinely run into structural problems that slow them down : for example , Huang said his department still relies on faxes from doctors ’ offices to be notified of new Covid-19 cases .
Other challenges are of a more social nature , with contact tracing workers finding some people are distrustful when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and asks for personal information .
Digital contact tracing apps , which would use a smartphone ’ s Bluetooth tech to anonymously track a person ’ s potential contacts , have been scuttled in the US because of the deep public skepticism about their privacy protections .
“ I ’ ve spoken to people who say , ‘ How did you find my information ?
Why is the state calling me ?
Why does the government want to talk to me ?
’ ” Wolfe said .
“ The level of mistrust in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who are like , ‘ I ’ m not going to give the government my information.
’ ” Some of the experts I spoke with blamed in the Trump administration ’ s hostility toward public health work for some of that resistance .
The White House reportedly wanted to block any new funding for testing and contact tracing in the new Covid-19 relief legislation , but Senate Republicans objected and inserted $ 16 billion for those programs into their version of the bill .
“ Without a robust national plan , national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve seen resistance to contact tracing by some communities and some jurisdictions , ” Harvey said .
“ If we had national leadership , we could break down some of those barriers.
” “ It is mind-boggling that there is a debate about whether there needs to be more money , ” he continued .
“ It ’ s a no-brainer .
We need these funds.
” Isolate : Health agencies are setting up programs to help people quarantine The last step in the pandemic response playbook is isolating .
Once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contacts have been identified , those people need to be notified of their potential exposure and asked to quarantine themselves to avoid infecting other people .
Research suggests that the three-pronged strategy is the most effective way to suppress Covid-19 .
According to a study published in The Lancet last month , written by researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine : “ Strategies that combined isolation of symptomatic cases with tracing and quarantine of their contacts reduced [ Covid-19 spread ] more than mass testing or self-isolation alone.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months ago .
As Scientific American reported , South Korea renovated existing public and private facilities so that people who needed to quarantine because of Covid-19 exposure could move in .
They receive regular check-ups from public health workers and amenities , like food deliveries , that help make it easier for them to stay isolated .
US jurisdictions have finally started to set up the same kind of programs .
In Dallas , Huang said the county has been working to identify alternative housing for people to quarantine in .
Matt Golden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health official , told me that his department is working with Safeway to provide groceries for people who are quarantining ; they receive a code from the government and use it to order a delivery online .
“ The best system is one that gives the people receiving the food the most options and involves the least touch by our staff , ” he said .
King County health workers also send text messages to people who have been asked to isolate , urging them to stay in quarantine .
The US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spring .
When and if case numbers come down to a manageable level , local officials I talked to sounded confident they would be able to trace the potential Covid-19 contacts in their area .
But it will require sustained investment and there will continue to be challenges as long as test results are delayed and Americans remain dubious about contact tracing .
This strategy is how other countries have managed to reopen more of their economies without the debilitating spike in cases the United States experienced .
Our ability to contain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these programs .
That will be difficult to do in the middle of the crisis , but it ’ s the only choice we have .
“ We are absolutely flying the plane as we build it , ” Wolfe said .
“ Maybe we ’ ve now built the windshield so we can see what ’ s coming .
But we are not fully encased.
” This story appears in VoxCare , a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America ’ s health care debate .
Sign up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with more health care stats and news .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 .

Three words explain why many developed countries have contained their coronavirus outbreaks more successfully than the United States: test, trace, and isolate.
The most effective containment strategy involves testing enough people to identify new cases, tracing all of their potential contacts, and isolating the people who may have been exposed before they can spread the virus to anybody else. But today, six months into the pandemic, America is still struggling to stand up these basic features of an effective public health response.
In the states where infections have exploded in the last month, officials say that their outbreaks are too big to have any hope of tracing all of the potential contacts of people testing positive for Covid-19. Even if and when the case numbers come down, they say they are dealing with antiquated technology and staffing shortages that will make it difficult to track new infections and prevent new outbreaks from flaring up. Public health workers in areas with lower Covid-19 spread told me they are only now reaching a point where they feel confident in their abilities to conduct adequate contact tracing, and they worry they could quickly become overwhelmed if spread accelerates again.
And making matters worse, public health officials told me test results have been taking a week or longer to come back from the lab, severely limiting their usefulness in heading off new outbreaks.
“If you can’t test and get a test back quickly, you can’t contact trace in a period of time that makes sense. You can’t count these cases in terms of what’s going on in real time,” David Harvey, executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors, whose members run contact tracing programs, told me. “This is why we are failing.”
The federal government’s attitude toward contact tracing has been, at best, indifference and, at worst, active resistance. The Trump White House has reportedly tried to block any new funding for testing and contact tracing in the latest Covid-19 relief legislation, though that was overruled by Congress.
The United States is not going to be able to safely reopen schools and businesses without adequate test-trace-isolate programs in place. But deep into the crisis, the country appears to still be far behind its economic peers in establishing these capabilities.
Test: It’s taking too long to get Covid-19 test results back from the lab
America’s coronavirus testing continues to fall short relative to the size of our outbreak.
Nationwide, 8.3 percent of the tests being conducted are coming back positive. Experts have said the positive test rate should be 5 percent or less in order for public health authorities to feel confident they are tracking most infections. Otherwise, there is a risk that the virus will continue to spread undetected and new clusters flare up.
Most European countries, by comparison, are seeing fewer than 3 percent of their tests come back positive. Going by the number of tests conducted for every confirmed case, another metric of testing saturation relative to the size of the outbreak, the US also trails most of our economic peers in Europe.
The situation is especially dire in the state experiencing the worst coronavirus outbreaks right now. In Florida, for example, the positive test rate is 19 percent, essentially unchanged over the last two weeks. In Texas, 12 percent of tests are coming back positive from the lab; that’s down slightly from two weeks ago but still well above what experts say is necessary to effectively track the virus’s spread. Other hot-spot states like Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, and South Carolina also have positive test rates well above 10 percent.
“Even if we successfully trace every known contact, based on our percent positivity in tests, we’re missing a lot,” Caitlin Wolfe, a public health doctoral student who has done contact tracing work in Florida, told me. “If we’re not testing enough, we’re not going to be tracing enough.”
And the number of tests being conducted isn’t the only problem. Labs also need to be able to turn around the test results in a timely manner, but they have struggled to do that consistently. Quest Diagnostics, one of the major commercial lab companies, said in a statement that “persistent high demand has strained our testing capacity and extended delays for test results.” They are currently turning around results in seven days for most patients. It’s less, about two days, for hospitalized patients and other people considered a priority. LabCorp, another major lab, said they’re getting results back in two to three days.
Public health agencies in Florida and Texas reported waiting as long as 10 days for results to come back. The long delays in the hardest-hit states reflect America’s failure to establish a national testing strategy. Wolfe told me that while contact tracing workers there are waiting a week or more for test results, she knew a public health worker in Connecticut, where the outbreak is currently much more contained, whose department is using tests that provide results in as little as 15 minutes. Local officials in Washington state, also seeing a slight ebb in Covid-19 spread, also reported better turnaround times than the states currently more in need.
“It’s a huge problem getting the results,” Phil Huang, Dallas County health and human services director, told me. “That 8- to 10-day turnaround time is not helpful.”
Huang said his department has been asking the federal government to provide them with the chemical supplies necessary to run tests in the county labs and potentially get results much quicker, rather than relying on Quest and LabCorp.
But so far, the requests have gone unanswered. “We have been asking for that for weeks at least,” he said.
Trace: Outbreaks have gotten too big for comprehensive contact tracing
On top of those testing problems, the coronavirus is currently too widespread in Florida and Texas for public health agencies to realistically expect they’ll be able to trace every possible Covid-19 contact. Instead, they are concentrating for now on potential clusters, like in nursing homes or food processing plants, while waiting for the overall numbers to come down to a low enough level that they can hope to achieve comprehensive contact tracing.
But it will be a challenge to maintain these capabilities given the sheer number of infections, the lack of political leadership that has bred distrust toward the work of contact tracing, and the risk that there won’t be adequate funding for the staffing and supplies that are necessary to do the work effectively.
“The plan was: Get it down to numbers that you can manage. Then when a case pops up, you can jump on it and snuff it out,” Huang said. “But right now, we’re at case numbers that are at record levels.”
Huang’s department had developed a contact tracing plan that anticipated the daily number of new cases would top out at about 200 cases. Instead, they saw 18 consecutive days of 1,000 cases or more.
This is a nationwide problem: According to an NPR survey conducted last month, most states had not hired enough contact tracing workers to meet their expected need. Johns Hopkins researchers estimated the US needs, at a minimum, 100,000 people to do contact tracing work. As of last month, according to NPR, the actual number of hires was less than 40,000. Other important positions for contact tracing, like disease intervention specialists and medical epidemiologists, are also underfilled, Harvey said.
Local health departments have been trying to set up programs that automate some of the contact tracing work. In Dallas, for example, patients who test positive for Covid-19 are sent an online survey to fill out, in which they identify people they may have exposed and provide their contact information. Those people are then sent an automated message urging them to self-quarantine and get tested. About 40 percent of people fill out the survey, Huang said, and that kind of participation reduces the caseload for contact tracing workers.
That is a positive development, an example of how local authorities have been able to improve their capabilities since the pandemic started. But they still routinely run into structural problems that slow them down: for example, Huang said his department still relies on faxes from doctors’ offices to be notified of new Covid-19 cases.
Other challenges are of a more social nature, with contact tracing workers finding some people are distrustful when an agent of the government calls them and asks for personal information. Digital contact tracing apps, which would use a smartphone’s Bluetooth tech to anonymously track a person’s potential contacts, have been scuttled in the US because of the deep public skepticism about their privacy protections.
“I’ve spoken to people who say, ‘How did you find my information? Why is the state calling me? Why does the government want to talk to me?’” Wolfe said. “The level of mistrust in governments is quite high. There are people who are like, ‘I’m not going to give the government my information.’”
Some of the experts I spoke with blamed in the Trump administration’s hostility toward public health work for some of that resistance. The White House reportedly wanted to block any new funding for testing and contact tracing in the new Covid-19 relief legislation, but Senate Republicans objected and inserted $16 billion for those programs into their version of the bill.
“Without a robust national plan, national leadership around testing and contact tracing, we’ve seen resistance to contact tracing by some communities and some jurisdictions,” Harvey said. “If we had national leadership, we could break down some of those barriers.”
“It is mind-boggling that there is a debate about whether there needs to be more money,” he continued. “It’s a no-brainer. We need these funds.”
Isolate: Health agencies are setting up programs to help people quarantine
The last step in the pandemic response playbook is isolating. Once a person has tested positive and their contacts have been identified, those people need to be notified of their potential exposure and asked to quarantine themselves to avoid infecting other people. Research suggests that the three-pronged strategy is the most effective way to suppress Covid-19.
According to a study published in The Lancet last month, written by researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine: “Strategies that combined isolation of symptomatic cases with tracing and quarantine of their contacts reduced [Covid-19 spread] more than mass testing or self-isolation alone.”
Other countries ramped up their isolation protocols months ago. As Scientific American reported, South Korea renovated existing public and private facilities so that people who needed to quarantine because of Covid-19 exposure could move in. They receive regular check-ups from public health workers and amenities, like food deliveries, that help make it easier for them to stay isolated.
US jurisdictions have finally started to set up the same kind of programs. In Dallas, Huang said the county has been working to identify alternative housing for people to quarantine in. Matt Golden, a King County, Washington, public health official, told me that his department is working with Safeway to provide groceries for people who are quarantining; they receive a code from the government and use it to order a delivery online.
“The best system is one that gives the people receiving the food the most options and involves the least touch by our staff,” he said. King County health workers also send text messages to people who have been asked to isolate, urging them to stay in quarantine.
The US has undeniably improved its test-trace-isolate capabilities since the spring. When and if case numbers come down to a manageable level, local officials I talked to sounded confident they would be able to trace the potential Covid-19 contacts in their area. But it will require sustained investment and there will continue to be challenges as long as test results are delayed and Americans remain dubious about contact tracing.
This strategy is how other countries have managed to reopen more of their economies without the debilitating spike in cases the United States experienced. Our ability to contain the coronavirus is contingent on building out these programs. That will be difficult to do in the middle of the crisis, but it’s the only choice we have.
“We are absolutely flying the plane as we build it,” Wolfe said. “Maybe we’ve now built the windshield so we can see what’s coming. But we are not fully encased.”
This story appears in VoxCare, a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America’s health care debate. Sign up to get VoxCare in your inbox along with more health care stats and news.


vox--2020-07-29--Why it matters that TikTok wants to reveal its algorithms

Hours before the House antitrust subcommittee hearing featuring testimony from the CEOs of Facebook , Google , Amazon , and Apple , a blog post from TikTok chief executive Kevin Mayer proclaimed that all platforms should “ disclose their algorithms , moderation policies , and data flows to regulators ” and challenged the app ’ s competitors to follow suit .
This is quite a call to arms — and one that was obviously carefully timed .
In the post , Mayer makes a broad call for competition between social media companies and argued that TikTok could be a positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would protect its user data , with or without new regulation .
And along those lines , Mayer also promised that TikTok would be more upfront about its algorithms and content moderation .
Ultimately , he said , TikTok would be a model for how other social media companies could be more transparent , a commitment that echoed recent calls for TikTok to become this very example .
The post comes as TikTok faces concerns over potential security risks related to its parent company , the Beijing-based company ByteDance .
Earlier this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even threatened to “ ban ” TikTok , though it ’ s unlikely the Trump administration could actually do this on its own ; Joe Biden ’ s presidential campaign also recently instructed its staff to delete the TikTok app from their phones .
Meanwhile , assessing the true risk of the app remains difficult .
As Shira Ovide wrote at the New York Times earlier this month , “ politicians , like American tech bosses , engage in fear-mongering about Chinese tech so often that it ’ s hard to know when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its part , says that no foreign government plays a role in its moderation .
“ Our content and moderation policies are led by our US-based team in California and aren ’ t influenced by any foreign government , ” a TikTok spokesperson told Recode .
“ At our virtual Transparency and Accountability Center , guests can see firsthand how we moderate and recommend content.
” After all , other US social media companies stand to benefit from action against TikTok .
Facebook is currently preparing to fully launch a music-based product called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reportedly recruiting TikTok stars to promote the competing service .
In his recent blog post , Mayer accused Facebook of making attacks “ disguised as patriotism and designed to put an end to our very presence in the US.
” Meanwhile , influencers who ’ ve gained massive audiences on the app are being wooed away to other rivals , like the Los Angeles-based music app Triller .
But now , in an apparent effort to allay concerns over its platform , TikTok is on a quest to prove that it is transparent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mayer ’ s request for all social media companies to disclose their algorithms , it ’ s obvious that TikTok wants to appear more transparent than Facebook and others .
However , it ’ s not entirely clear that these efforts will address the many other concerns about TikTok .
“ TikTok has become the latest target , but we are not the enemy , ” Mayer wrote in the post .
“ The bigger move is to use this moment to drive deeper conversations around algorithms , transparency , and content moderation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the road.
” As evidence , Meyer pointed to the TikTok Transparency Center , which was announced back in March .
The center in Los Angeles will purportedly provide some experts “ the actual code that drives our algorithms , ” Mayer said , and also let them observe content moderation in real time .
Mayer argues that this new initiative puts TikTok “ a step ahead of the industry.
” That announcement was followed by a blog post in June that explained some of the basics of the company ’ s For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the popular parts of the TikTok app .
The company is also opening another transparency center in Washington , DC , and hiring for positions meant to interface with the federal government .
It ’ s unclear if TikTok ’ s recent efforts will be enough to quell apprehensions about the platform .
Several experts told Recode that they questioned whether TikTok ’ s pledge to disclose how its algorithms work will actually reveal much meaningful information , such as what type of content the company ’ s system chooses to amplify .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly more than other platforms have shared in the past , ” said Kelley Cotter , a postdoctoral scholar at Arizona State University who studies public understanding of algorithms .
“ Revealing the code will not , in itself , tell us if the algorithm has an influence.
” Others wondered if TikTok can reveal details about its algorithms without exposing the personal data of its users .
According to Nicolas Kayser-Bril , a journalist at AlgorithmWatch , the machine learning algorithms used by social media platforms are dependent not only on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ training data that can influence how they operate .
“ In the case of TikTok ’ s algorithms , the training data probably contains highly personal information from users , which should not be revealed as such , even to researchers , ” said Kayser-Bril .
Alongside its push for greater transparency around its algorithms and content moderation , TikTok is also working hard to distance itself from ByteDance and the Chinese government .
TikTok made this case in a recent statement to Vox : However , not everyone is convinced that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assuage worries that TikTok might be used as a tool for foreign influence .
After all , regardless of how much we know about how TikTok recommends content , the company is also collecting massive amounts of data about millions of users in an effort , some say , to make its AI even more powerful for a variety of purposes .
“ From a national security perspective , there ’ s concern around using that data for espionage purposes , blackmail , ” Kiersten Todt , a scholar at the University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Recode .
“ Artificial intelligence is only as good as the data that goes into it .
So if the Chinese government has the most data of any other country in the world , then what it can produce from an AI perspective could potentially give it a tremendous advantage.
” But regardless of the true security risks of TikTok , fear over the app may have prompted a new standard for what it means for a social media company to be transparent with its users .
If TikTok lives up to its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may very well feel pressure to follow suit .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Hours before the House antitrust subcommittee hearing featuring testimony from the CEOs of Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple, a blog post from TikTok chief executive Kevin Mayer proclaimed that all platforms should “disclose their algorithms, moderation policies, and data flows to regulators” and challenged the app’s competitors to follow suit. This is quite a call to arms — and one that was obviously carefully timed.
In the post, Mayer makes a broad call for competition between social media companies and argued that TikTok could be a positive force for the United States, one that would protect its user data, with or without new regulation. And along those lines, Mayer also promised that TikTok would be more upfront about its algorithms and content moderation. Ultimately, he said, TikTok would be a model for how other social media companies could be more transparent, a commitment that echoed recent calls for TikTok to become this very example.
The post comes as TikTok faces concerns over potential security risks related to its parent company, the Beijing-based company ByteDance. Earlier this month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo even threatened to “ban” TikTok, though it’s unlikely the Trump administration could actually do this on its own; Joe Biden’s presidential campaign also recently instructed its staff to delete the TikTok app from their phones. Meanwhile, assessing the true risk of the app remains difficult. As Shira Ovide wrote at the New York Times earlier this month, “politicians, like American tech bosses, engage in fear-mongering about Chinese tech so often that it’s hard to know when to believe them.”
TikTok, for its part, says that no foreign government plays a role in its moderation.
“Our content and moderation policies are led by our US-based team in California and aren’t influenced by any foreign government,” a TikTok spokesperson told Recode. “At our virtual Transparency and Accountability Center, guests can see firsthand how we moderate and recommend content.”
After all, other US social media companies stand to benefit from action against TikTok. Facebook is currently preparing to fully launch a music-based product called Reels with Instagram, and is even reportedly recruiting TikTok stars to promote the competing service. In his recent blog post, Mayer accused Facebook of making attacks “disguised as patriotism and designed to put an end to our very presence in the US.” Meanwhile, influencers who’ve gained massive audiences on the app are being wooed away to other rivals, like the Los Angeles-based music app Triller.
But now, in an apparent effort to allay concerns over its platform, TikTok is on a quest to prove that it is transparent about how it handles content. With Mayer’s request for all social media companies to disclose their algorithms, it’s obvious that TikTok wants to appear more transparent than Facebook and others. However, it’s not entirely clear that these efforts will address the many other concerns about TikTok.
“TikTok has become the latest target, but we are not the enemy,” Mayer wrote in the post. “The bigger move is to use this moment to drive deeper conversations around algorithms, transparency, and content moderation, and to develop stricter rules of the road.”
As evidence, Meyer pointed to the TikTok Transparency Center, which was announced back in March. The center in Los Angeles will purportedly provide some experts “the actual code that drives our algorithms,” Mayer said, and also let them observe content moderation in real time. Mayer argues that this new initiative puts TikTok “a step ahead of the industry.” That announcement was followed by a blog post in June that explained some of the basics of the company’s For You algorithm, which powers one of the popular parts of the TikTok app. The company is also opening another transparency center in Washington, DC, and hiring for positions meant to interface with the federal government.
It’s unclear if TikTok’s recent efforts will be enough to quell apprehensions about the platform. Several experts told Recode that they questioned whether TikTok’s pledge to disclose how its algorithms work will actually reveal much meaningful information, such as what type of content the company’s system chooses to amplify.
“Revealing the code is helpful and certainly more than other platforms have shared in the past,” said Kelley Cotter, a postdoctoral scholar at Arizona State University who studies public understanding of algorithms. “Revealing the code will not, in itself, tell us if the algorithm has an influence.”
Others wondered if TikTok can reveal details about its algorithms without exposing the personal data of its users. According to Nicolas Kayser-Bril, a journalist at AlgorithmWatch, the machine learning algorithms used by social media platforms are dependent not only on the code that operates them but also on training data that can influence how they operate. “In the case of TikTok’s algorithms, the training data probably contains highly personal information from users, which should not be revealed as such, even to researchers,” said Kayser-Bril.
Alongside its push for greater transparency around its algorithms and content moderation, TikTok is also working hard to distance itself from ByteDance and the Chinese government. TikTok made this case in a recent statement to Vox:
Protecting the privacy of our users’ data is of the utmost importance to TikTok. There’s a lot of misinformation about TikTok right now. The reality is that the TikTok app isn’t even available in China. TikTok is led by an American CEO, with hundreds of employees and key leaders across safety, security, product, and public policy in the U.S. TikTok stores U.S. user data in Virginia, with backup in Singapore, and we work to minimize access across regions. We welcome conversations with lawmakers who want to understand our company.
However, not everyone is convinced that this new push toward transparency is enough to assuage worries that TikTok might be used as a tool for foreign influence. After all, regardless of how much we know about how TikTok recommends content, the company is also collecting massive amounts of data about millions of users in an effort, some say, to make its AI even more powerful for a variety of purposes.
“From a national security perspective, there’s concern around using that data for espionage purposes, blackmail,” Kiersten Todt, a scholar at the University of Pittsburgh Institute for Cyber Law, told Recode. “Artificial intelligence is only as good as the data that goes into it. So if the Chinese government has the most data of any other country in the world, then what it can produce from an AI perspective could potentially give it a tremendous advantage.”
But regardless of the true security risks of TikTok, fear over the app may have prompted a new standard for what it means for a social media company to be transparent with its users. If TikTok lives up to its transparency promises, other social media companies may very well feel pressure to follow suit.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-07-29--Another round of $1,200 stimulus checks could be in the next coronavirus package

Republicans and Democrats are bogged down in negotiations over what the next coronavirus relief package should look like and just how big it should be .
One thing they can agree on : Everyone ’ s getting another round of stimulus checks .
Both the GOP ’ s HEALS Act , unveiled this week , and the HEROES Act passed by the Democratic House on May 15 , follow the CARES Act ’ s lead : Most adults making less than an adjusted gross income ( AGI ) of $ 75,000 annually would be eligible to receive another $ 1,200 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incomes higher than that , with individual filers earning $ 99,000 or more receiving no payment .
This time around , the GOP plan would extend the $ 500 dependent payment for adult dependents , rather than just dependent minor children , a boon for families who care for disabled adults .
Similarly to the Republican plan , the HEROES Act includes the same $ 1,200 payment and a larger payment of $ 1,200 for each dependent , including adult dependents — though Democrats cap it at three dependents .
While some conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ round of direct payments , the fact that it showed up in the initial GOP bill seems like a good sign for eventual passage .
“ This unprecedented expansion of federal assistance will help millions of workers , families , patients , businesses and governments survive this historic public health and economic crisis , ” said Senate Finance Committee Chair Chuck Grassley in a statement .
While it took a few weeks after passage of the CARES Act for the first round of stimulus checks and direct deposits to go out ( the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 27 , with the first direct deposits coming in mid-April ) , the second round should show up in bank accounts much more quickly .
“ As soon as Congress passes another round of rebates , if you got direct deposit , it will be in your bank account within a week , ” Claudia Sahm , director of macroeconomic policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth , told Vox .
The money will flow much more quickly this time because the US Treasury has already built an internal file detailing who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pulled all the information the federal government had , ” Sahm said , “ and Treasury filtered it , and it went through IRS first , but they built this file .
... Once that file existed , it went to another office at Treasury that ’ s basically the one that pushes a button and the money goes out.
” Ultimately , a second stimulus check will be less for many American families than extending the expanded unemployment insurance payments that both parties are currently fighting over .
While Republicans have proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payment , Democrats want to extend the current $ 600 extra weekly payment , which would provide more long-term sustainable assistance as the country continues to grapple with the pandemic .
But the speed of the stimulus checks is its own upside : According to Sahm , the first stimulus was a success in part because it went out much more quickly than the enhanced unemployment benefits , which had to be routed through the states .
“ It was good policy .
I want to see it again , ” she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fabulous because they can even go faster than before .
The sad fact is even in January , a lot of families didn ’ t have much of a buffer and so they need money .
Congress can send money .
It was really effective.
” Extending the $ 500 payment to all dependents would be a boon for disabled communities While both the Democratic and Republican versions of the bill would extend dependent payments to families with adult dependents , the Democratic version caps a larger $ 1,200 payment at three dependents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just give $ 500 for every dependent .
Inclusion of adult dependent payments came as welcome news for disability advocates who felt snubbed during the first round of stimulus .
“ It was very frustrating to me and to a lot of people with disabilities when in the prior legislation , dependents were excluded from these payments at age 17 , ” Bethany Lilly , director of income policy at the Arc of the United States , told Vox .
“ A lot of folks with disabilities are still dependent on family caregivers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and to simply have them excluded completely from the stimulus payment was not particularly logical to me .
Now in the time of the pandemic , a lot of people with disabilities have dramatically increased costs and just dramatically altered routine.
” According to Lilly , lawmakers told her that leaving out adult dependents during the first round of stimulus was “ an oversight.
” The HEROES Act even goes so far as to make adult dependent payments retroactive , so families could go back to claim the dependent payment from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not be enough to stave off an economic collapse The CARES Act was a massive piece of legislation , totaling about $ 2 trillion .
In some ways , it was bigger than the New Deal .
But it was also legislation designed to bridge a deep economic dip until the country ’ s economy could safely reopen .
It ’ s a formula that worked for some other nations , but the US is still struggling to contain the virus .
As Vox ’ s Emily Stewart explained , the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disaster , “ putting millions of Americans ’ lives and livelihoods in danger and all but ensuring prolonged economic distress nationwide.
” The unemployment rate currently sits at 11.1 percent , according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data , up 7.6 percent from February , the last full month before the pandemic started in the US .
A CNBC report from Monday reported that as many as 40 million Americans could face eviction thanks to the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting economic crisis .
Stephanie Kelton , professor of economics and public policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Congress isn ’ t taking the risk of deeper economic pain seriously .
“ It ’ s not remotely enough , ” Kelton told Vox , referring to the second round of stimulus payments and explaining that the national median rent in the US in 2017 is $ 1,023 .
“ If you ’ re out of a job and you ’ re out of income and somebody sends you a $ 1,200 check , that check is going to your landlord .
...
It ’ s puzzling to me that Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well how the economy works in the sense that they have this aversion to giving people money , somehow not realizing that what most of us do when we get money is turn around and give it to somebody else.
” For Kelton , any stimulus payments must be included in a larger package of other stimulus measures , including continuing the enhanced unemployment , in order to stave off economic collapse .
“ It ’ s about fiscal support .
If we withdraw the support prematurely then the result is going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she said .
“ Unemployment continues to increase , temporary job losses become permanent , job losses [ lead to ] a wave of foreclosures and homelessness , missed payments means potentially a financial crisis because it bleeds over into people not servicing their debt .
So you need a wraparound suite of smart policies to support income.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Republicans and Democrats are bogged down in negotiations over what the next coronavirus relief package should look like and just how big it should be. One thing they can agree on: Everyone’s getting another round of stimulus checks.
Both the GOP’s HEALS Act, unveiled this week, and the HEROES Act passed by the Democratic House on May 15, follow the CARES Act’s lead: Most adults making less than an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $75,000 annually would be eligible to receive another $1,200 check. Payments would phase out for incomes higher than that, with individual filers earning $99,000 or more receiving no payment. This time around, the GOP plan would extend the $500 dependent payment for adult dependents, rather than just dependent minor children, a boon for families who care for disabled adults.
Similar to the Republican plan, the HEROES Act includes the same $1,200 payment and a larger payment of $1,200 for each dependent, including adult dependents — though Democrats cap it at three dependents. While some conservative senators have pushed back against a second round of direct payments, the fact that it showed up in the initial GOP bill seems like a good sign for eventual passage.
“This unprecedented expansion of federal assistance will help millions of workers, families, patients, businesses and governments survive this historic public health and economic crisis,” said Senate Finance Committee Chair Chuck Grassley in a statement.
While it took a few weeks after passage of the CARES Act for the first round of stimulus checks and direct deposits to go out (the bill was signed into law on March 27, with the first direct deposits arriving in mid-April), the second round should show up in bank accounts much more quickly.
“As soon as Congress passes another round of rebates, if you got direct deposit, it will be in your bank account within a week,” Claudia Sahm, director of macroeconomic policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, told Vox.
The money will flow much more quickly this time because the US Treasury has already built an internal file detailing who should receive the money. “They pulled all the information the federal government had,” Sahm said, “and Treasury filtered it, and it went through IRS first, but they built this file. ... Once that file existed, it went to another office at Treasury that’s basically the one that pushes a button and the money goes out.”
Ultimately, a second stimulus check will be less for many American families than extending the expanded unemployment insurance payments that both parties are currently fighting over. While Republicans have proposed a $200 extra weekly unemployment insurance payment, Democrats want to extend the current $600 extra weekly payment, which would provide more long-term sustainable assistance as the country continues to grapple with the pandemic.
But the speed of the stimulus checks is its own upside: According to Sahm, the first stimulus was a success in part because it went out much more quickly than the enhanced unemployment benefits, which had to be routed through the states.
“It was good policy. I want to see it again,” she said. “I think it will be fabulous because they can even go faster than before. The sad fact is even in January, a lot of families didn’t have much of a buffer and so they need money. Congress can send money. It was really effective.”
Extending the $500 payment to all dependents would be a boon for disabled communities
While both the Democratic and Republican versions of the bill would extend dependent payments to families with adult dependents, the Democratic version caps a larger $1,200 payment at three dependents. Alternatively, the Republican plan would just give $500 for every dependent.
Inclusion of adult dependent payments came as welcome news for disability advocates who felt snubbed during the first round of stimulus.
“It was very frustrating to me and to a lot of people with disabilities when in the prior legislation, dependents were excluded from these payments at age 17,” Bethany Lilly, director of income policy at the Arc of the United States, told Vox. “A lot of folks with disabilities are still dependent on family caregivers. They are often claimed as dependents, and to simply have them excluded completely from the stimulus payment was not particularly logical to me. Now in the time of the pandemic, a lot of people with disabilities have dramatically increased costs and just dramatically altered routine.”
According to Lilly, lawmakers told her that leaving out adult dependents during the first round of stimulus was “an oversight.” The HEROES Act even goes so far as to make adult dependent payments retroactive, so families could go back to claim the dependent payment from the first round as well.
$1,200 may not be enough to stave off an economic collapse
The CARES Act was a massive piece of legislation, totaling about $2 trillion. In some ways, it was bigger than the New Deal. But it was also legislation designed to bridge a deep economic dip until the country’s economy could safely reopen. It’s a formula that worked for some other nations, but the US is still struggling to contain the virus. As Vox’s Emily Stewart explained, the US is teetering on the brink of economic disaster, “putting millions of Americans’ lives and livelihoods in danger and all but ensuring prolonged economic distress nationwide.”
The unemployment rate currently sits at 11.1 percent, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, up 7.6 percent from February, the last full month before the pandemic started in the US. A CNBC report from Monday reported that as many as 40 million Americans could face eviction due to the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting economic crisis.
Stephanie Kelton, professor of economics and public policy at Stony Brook University, is worried that Congress isn’t taking the risk of deeper economic pain seriously.
“It’s not remotely enough,” Kelton told Vox, referring to the second round of stimulus payments and explaining that the national median rent in the US in 2017 is $1,023. “If you’re out of a job and you’re out of income and somebody sends you a $1,200 check, that check is going to your landlord. ... It’s puzzling to me that Republicans don’t seem to understand very well how the economy works in the sense that they have this aversion to giving people money, somehow not realizing that what most of us do when we get money is turn around and give it to somebody else.”
For Kelton, any stimulus payments must be included in a larger package of other stimulus measures, including continuing the enhanced unemployment, in order to stave off economic collapse. “It’s about fiscal support. If we withdraw the support prematurely then the result is going to be that the economy continues to deteriorate,” she said. “Unemployment continues to increase, temporary job losses become permanent, job losses [lead to] a wave of foreclosures and homelessness, missed payments means potentially a financial crisis because it bleeds over into people not servicing their debt. So you need a wraparound suite of smart policies to support income.”


vox--2020-07-29--The real stakes in the David Shor saga

The real stakes in the David Shor saga

On May 28 , David Shor , a political data analyst , sent a controversial tweet .
Soon after George Floyd ’ s death , alongside peaceful mass protests there was a substantial amount of looting and vandalism in Minneapolis and a few other cities .
Shor , citing research by Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow , suggested that these incidents could prompt a political backlash that would help President Donald Trump ’ s bid for reelection .
At the same time , he noted that , historically , nonviolent protests had been effective at driving political change “ mainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage.
” The tweet was characterized as “ concern trolling ” by the podcast host Benjamin Dixon , while Ari Trujillo Wesler , the impresario behind a popular organizing app , denounced it as “ anti-Blackness.
” The following day Shor apologized for the tweet ; shortly thereafter , he was dismissed from his job .
Shor signed a nondisclosure agreement that prevents him from further discussing the situation .
In the Atlantic , Yascha Mounk reported that Shor appeared to have been fired because of the tweet , which Civis denies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We won ’ t publicly discuss internal personnel matters out of respect for our employees and alumni , ” Amanda Moss , Civis ’ s communications director , tells me .
While details surrounding the firing remain somewhat murky , there are some things we do know .
Civis staffers I ’ ve spoken to agree that , in the words of one of them , CEO Dan Wagner “ only talked about the tweet and client complaints around the tweet ” when announcing the decision .
Another says “ they communicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that they viewed it as going against Civis values given the political environment around protests at the time.
” But of larger importance is the criticism itself , which is wrong on the merits , and at least somewhat influential inside contemporary progressive politics .
The idea is roughly that it ’ s categorically wrong for a person — or at least a white person — to criticize on tactical or other grounds anything being done in the name of racial justice .
And while it ’ s not exactly a crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always free to go do something else with their lives other than work in progressive politics , it ’ s nonetheless going to be a big problem for progressive politics if it becomes impossible to have frank conversations around the tactics and substance of race-related issues .
Many on the left have conceded that Shor got what seems to be a raw deal .
But there ’ s reluctance to see the true significance of this drama , which is not his particular employment situation but the fact that many people of some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of line .
Criticism of Shor is widespread and influential The New Yorker ’ s Isaac Chotiner called Shor ’ s treatment “ pretty disgraceful ” but questioned whether it exemplified any larger trend .
My colleague Zack Beauchamp in Vox said this is a case of something that is “ non-controversial even among left-wing intellectuals.
” But in fact , many Democratic Party professionals believe the backlash to his tweets was deserved .
Indeed , though Shor has found a new job in progressive politics , one of the conditions of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reveal who ’ s hired him — lest his new employers face the same criticism Civis did .
And all accounts of the internal situation at Civis confirm that clients and partners did in fact complain about him and his tweet to the company .
Shor ’ s tweet , as originally reported by Jonathan Chait , became a topic of discussion on the Progressphiles email list , a widely used networking list for progressive data operatives , and he was soon kicked out of the group .
The group ’ s moderators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racist ” and the criticism he got on Twitter for it as a “ much deserved call in.
” They also alleged that by arguing with his critics on Twitter , he had “ encouraged harassment that led to death threats.
” ( The list moderators are Madeleine Leader , director of data initiatives at the Center for Popular Democracy and formerly of the DNC ; Cristina Sinclair , a senior vice president at Clarity Campaigns ; Rachel Hall , the deputy director of data initiatives at Planned Parenthood Action Fund ; Herschel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HERE ; and Stefanie Hendrick , the director of Data Strategy and targeting at BerlinRosen . )
I obtained a copy of this message , along with the subsequent debate .
Some participants took Shor ’ s side in the argument , but most did not .
Jessica Morales Rocketto , currently civic engagement director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance , argued that the problem with his tweet wasn ’ t that Wasow or his research is bad , but that “ it is important to examine the point Shor was making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she said , his tweet “ could be interpreted as intended to denigrate the work of the Movement for Black Lives and pin any election losses on Black lives.
” Of course , to be taken off an email list is no great tragedy , but the criticisms of the tweet are wrong on the merits .
The important issue here is the underlying presumption that the tweet was racist .
Shor is a data scientist who works primarily on polling and public opinion .
He tries to help Democrats understand how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identifying issues it ’ s helpful for liberals to talk about and how it ’ s helpful to talk about them .
He ’ s also interested in broad adjacent questions , and anyone who knows him is familiar with his frighteningly encyclopedic knowledge of relevant academic literature .
Wasow ’ s paper is in that spirit , seemingly looking to understand how Black Americans , despite being a politically disempowered numerical minority , were able to influence the political process .
He speculates that the famous mass protests of the 1960s may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asks how that role can be quantified .
Like many scholars who ’ ve tried to research protests , he uses rainfall as an instrument because weather impacts protesting in a way that ’ s formally irrelevant to the political situation .
He finds that nonviolent activism was effective in shifting election results , particularly nonviolent activism that ’ s met with violent police repression .
And he shows that this is likely because nonviolent protests successfully get the protesters ’ perspective on the media agenda , and that violent repression in particular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finds that when protesters initiate property destruction and violence , the opposite happens and the news agenda and mass opinion shift to “ social control ” priorities that helped Nixon win in 1968 .
Mass demonstrations work , in other words , but looting and disorder are counterproductive .
This was Shor ’ s sin : repeating Wasow ’ s findings that marching is good but looting and vandalism are counterproductive .
A former staffer for Bernie Sanders responded to Shor ’ s tweet on Progressphiles to say “ we need to recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” And in particular , “ using it to dictate how BIPOC [ Black , Indigenous , and people of color ] should feel and protest is harmful.
” Shor did not say that protesting is harmful ; he said that rioting is harmful .
And he didn ’ t say that data should dictate how people feel .
And while one data scientist ’ s tweet of one political science paper should not be the last word on social movement tactics , the reasonable response to Shor would be to counter with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the dialogue followed a pattern in progressive circles that often involves making evidence-free assertions about how members of various groups feel .
In late May when the blowup happened , YouGov polling shows that the demonstrations were widely seen — by Black Americans as well as whites — as significantly inflected by violence .
Two days later , a Reuters poll found that “ majorities of both Republicans and Democrats said they supported peaceful protests but believed property damage undermined the demonstrators ’ cause .
Less than one quarter of Americans said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the circumstances , Shor was raising the exact right issue — sustained peaceful demonstrations could help the cause enormously , especially if met ( as they in fact were ) by an abusive state response , but sustained acts of violence and property destruction could hurt it .
Recognizing this , many protesters actively stepped in to try and halt vandalism .
Black political leaders ranging from Keisha Lance Bottoms and John Lewis to Ilhan Omar denounced looting and vandalism .
But political movements can ’ t live on elected officials ’ intuition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have polling and data analysis operations , and it ’ s why they need people to be able to speak up and discuss trade-offs .
This is a general issue about norms of discourse rather than a specific issue about one person ’ s tweets .
Progressive politics in the United States is conducted by a coalition of disparate issue groups that need to work together to make progress .
Managing that coalition is difficult .
And if participants in the coalition are under pressure to never criticize anything that ’ s done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they will be unable to see or cope with trade-offs in a necessary way .
For example , while I was reporting on Joe Biden ’ s somewhat surprising weakness with Hispanic voters , one Latino Democrat speculated to me that Black Lives Matter rhetoric might be turning off working-class Hispanics .
But he was so leery of being seen in any quarter as saying or doing anything critical of BLM that he wouldn ’ t say anything about it on or off the record .
“ I ’ m not touching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to my query about the possible tension .
To be sure , there are other views on Biden and Hispanics .
Stephanie Valencia of Equis Research told me she didn ’ t see a problem with BLM rhetoric and Latino voters .
She said she saw it as “ an opportunity rather than a challenge ; the opportunity to unite the movements.
” But Valencia ’ s more diplomatic framing still contains the implication that there is an issue to discuss of how this slogan plays with Hispanics .
The work of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is optimized for winning elections requires real work and data and experimentation and a willingness to adjust tactics to seize rather than squander the opportunity to mobilize a broad coalition .
A recent Pew survey , for example , showed that Latino Democrats are much more skeptical of cutting police funding than are their Black or white peers — part of a consistent pattern of more police-friendly opinion .
Activists and advocates obviously can ’ t let polling snapshots dictate everything they say and do .
But informing your political work with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And for that to happen , people need to be able to do what Shor did — raise questions about trade-offs , backlashes , and potential pitfalls even when emotions are running high .
Trump ’ s relative success with Latinos right now looks like it may not matter since he ’ s losing the election badly overall .
But he ’ s doing so in a way that mostly confirms Wasow ’ s main findings and the value of discussing them .
Progressives need to maintain the ability to be smart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns of people like Shor about whether a possible protest backlash could boost Trump , so far , seem to be wrong .
That makes it easy to dismiss the whole thing as a tempest in a teapot or a weird one-off with no broader implications .
But the fact is there was a widespread and somewhat influential push to argue that even discussing the possibility of a backlash was racist and wrong .
One big reason the backlash has not arrived , though , is the actual protest organizers rejected the anti-anti-riot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to build disciplined and effective movements .
They were joined in this by the vast majority of Black elected officials around the country .
Then , in line with Wasow ’ s predictions , Trump ’ s lawlessness in the brutality against protesters in Lafayette Square near the White House created a public opinion backlash against him .
Democrats have also benefited during this time from the fact that their presumptive nominee , Biden , long stood out from the field in opposing the unpopular ideas of the police abolition movement .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this by senior members of the Congressional Black Caucus like James Clyburn who quickly put the kibosh on police defunding as a House Democratic priority .
All of which is to say that the situation in the real world is not nearly as dire as those who spend too much time marinating in the Twitter hothouse think .
The Democratic Party is mostly run by sensible people , while the Republican Party is mostly run by Donald Trump .
But the issue is not nearly so minor as the deflationists make it out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are able to get operatives fired and render them unhirable .
They ’ re able to shut down discussions on listservs meant for tactical discussions .
And most of all , they create an environment where lots of people feel they need to watch their words very carefully .
There is a genuine ongoing dialogue about whether claims made on behalf of racial justice should be subject to critical scrutiny .
The Shor story ’ s ambiguous ending — continued employment under cover of secrecy — suggests that the answer is a resounding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

On May 28, David Shor, a political data analyst, sent a controversial tweet. Soon after George Floyd’s death, alongside peaceful mass protests there was a substantial amount of looting and vandalism in Minneapolis and a few other cities. Shor, citing research by Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, suggested that these incidents could prompt a political backlash that would help President Donald Trump’s bid for reelection. At the same time, he noted that, historically, nonviolent protests had been effective at driving political change “mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage.”
Post-MLK-assasination race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2%, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon. Non-violent protests *increase* Dem vote, mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage. https://t.co/S8VZSuaz3G. pic.twitter.com/VRUwnRFuVW — (((David Shor))) (@davidshor) May 28, 2020
The tweet was characterized as “concern trolling” by the podcast host Benjamin Dixon, while Ari Trujillo Wesler, the impresario behind a popular organizing app, denounced it as “anti-Blackness.”
So we’re really concern trolling to for the purposes of increasing democratic turnout.
Tell you what, go to Minneapolis and fill the protestors in about your findings. Be sure to video it for our viewing pleasure. — Benjamin Dixon (@BenjaminPDixon) May 28, 2020
Yo. Minimizing black grief and rage to "bad campaign tactic for the Democrats" is bullshit most days, but this week is absolutely cruel.
This take is tone deaf, removes responsibility for depressed turnout from the 68 Party and reeks of anti-blackness. — Ari "Vote by Mail" Trujillo Wesler (@TheReFTW) May 28, 2020
The following day Shor apologized for the tweet; shortly thereafter, he was dismissed from his job. Shor signed a nondisclosure agreement that prevents him from further discussing the situation. In the Atlantic, Yascha Mounk reported that Shor appeared to have been fired because of the tweet, which Civis denies, though the company will not elaborate.
“We won’t publicly discuss internal personnel matters out of respect for our employees and alumni,” Amanda Moss, Civis’s communications director, tells me.
While details surrounding the firing remain somewhat murky, there are some things we do know. Civis staffers I’ve spoken to agree that, in the words of one of them, CEO Dan Wagner “only talked about the tweet and client complaints around the tweet” when announcing the decision. Another says “they communicated that it was because of the tweet and that they viewed it as going against Civis values given the political environment around protests at the time.”
But of larger importance is the criticism itself, which is wrong on the merits, and at least somewhat influential inside contemporary progressive politics.
The idea is roughly that it’s categorically wrong for a person — or at least a white person — to criticize on tactical or other grounds anything being done in the name of racial justice. And while it’s not exactly a crisis of free speech, since people are always free to go do something else with their lives other than work in progressive politics, it’s nonetheless going to be a big problem for progressive politics if it becomes impossible to have frank conversations around the tactics and substance of race-related issues. Many on the left have conceded that Shor got what seems to be a raw deal. But there’s reluctance to see the true significance of this drama, which is not his particular employment situation but the fact that many people of some influence sincerely believe the tweet was out of line.
Criticism of Shor is widespread and influential
The New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner called Shor’s treatment “pretty disgraceful” but questioned whether it exemplified any larger trend. My colleague Zack Beauchamp in Vox said this is a case of something that is “non-controversial even among left-wing intellectuals.”
But in fact, many Democratic Party professionals believe the backlash to his tweets was deserved. Indeed, though Shor has found a new job in progressive politics, one of the conditions of his employment is that he can’t reveal who’s hired him — lest his new employers face the same criticism Civis did. And all accounts of the internal situation at Civis confirm that clients and partners did in fact complain about him and his tweet to the company.
Shor’s tweet, as originally reported by Jonathan Chait, became a topic of discussion on the Progressphiles email list, a widely used networking list for progressive data operatives, and he was soon kicked out of the group. The group’s moderators described Shor’s tweet as “racist” and the criticism he got on Twitter for it as a “much deserved call in.” They also alleged that by arguing with his critics on Twitter, he had “encouraged harassment that led to death threats.” (The list moderators are Madeleine Leader, director of data initiatives at the Center for Popular Democracy and formerly of the DNC; Cristina Sinclair, a senior vice president at Clarity Campaigns; Rachel Hall, the deputy director of data initiatives at Planned Parenthood Action Fund; Herschel Pecker, a project coordinator at UNITE HERE; and Stefanie Hendrick, the director of Data Strategy and targeting at BerlinRosen.)
I obtained a copy of this message, along with the subsequent debate. Some participants took Shor’s side in the argument, but most did not. Jessica Morales Rocketto, currently civic engagement director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance, argued that the problem with his tweet wasn’t that Wasow or his research is bad, but that “it is important to examine the point Shor was making in a larger sense.” In context, she said, his tweet “could be interpreted as intended to denigrate the work of the Movement for Black Lives and pin any election losses on Black lives.”
Of course, to be taken off an email list is no great tragedy, but the criticisms of the tweet are wrong on the merits.
David Shor did nothing wrong
The important issue here is the underlying presumption that the tweet was racist. Shor is a data scientist who works primarily on polling and public opinion. He tries to help Democrats understand how to win elections. That primarily means identifying issues it’s helpful for liberals to talk about and how it’s helpful to talk about them. He’s also interested in broad adjacent questions, and anyone who knows him is familiar with his frighteningly encyclopedic knowledge of relevant academic literature.
Wasow’s paper is in that spirit, seemingly looking to understand how Black Americans, despite being a politically disempowered numerical minority, were able to influence the political process. He speculates that the famous mass protests of the 1960s may have played a role. And he asks how that role can be quantified.
Like many scholars who’ve tried to research protests, he uses rainfall as an instrument because weather impacts protesting in a way that’s formally irrelevant to the political situation. He finds that nonviolent activism was effective in shifting election results, particularly nonviolent activism that’s met with violent police repression. And he shows that this is likely because nonviolent protests successfully get the protesters’ perspective on the media agenda, and that violent repression in particular generates sympathetic press coverage.
He also finds that when protesters initiate property destruction and violence, the opposite happens and the news agenda and mass opinion shift to “social control” priorities that helped Nixon win in 1968.
Mass demonstrations work, in other words, but looting and disorder are counterproductive. This was Shor’s sin: repeating Wasow’s findings that marching is good but looting and vandalism are counterproductive.
A former staffer for Bernie Sanders responded to Shor’s tweet on Progressphiles to say “we need to recognize the role data plays in this conversation.” And in particular, “using it to dictate how BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, and people of color] should feel and protest is harmful.”
Shor did not say that protesting is harmful; he said that rioting is harmful. And he didn’t say that data should dictate how people feel. And while one data scientist’s tweet of one political science paper should not be the last word on social movement tactics, the reasonable response to Shor would be to counter with some other form of evidence. Instead, the dialogue followed a pattern in progressive circles that often involves making evidence-free assertions about how members of various groups feel.
In late May when the blowup happened, YouGov polling shows that the demonstrations were widely seen — by Black Americans as well as whites — as significantly inflected by violence.
Two days later, a Reuters poll found that “majorities of both Republicans and Democrats said they supported peaceful protests but believed property damage undermined the demonstrators’ cause. Less than one quarter of Americans said violence was an appropriate response.”
Under the circumstances, Shor was raising the exact right issue — sustained peaceful demonstrations could help the cause enormously, especially if met (as they in fact were) by an abusive state response, but sustained acts of violence and property destruction could hurt it. Recognizing this, many protesters actively stepped in to try and halt vandalism. Black political leaders ranging from Keisha Lance Bottoms and John Lewis to Ilhan Omar denounced looting and vandalism. But political movements can’t live on elected officials’ intuition alone. That’s why they have polling and data analysis operations, and it’s why they need people to be able to speak up and discuss trade-offs.
Effective movements need tough conversations
This is a general issue about norms of discourse rather than a specific issue about one person’s tweets. Progressive politics in the United States is conducted by a coalition of disparate issue groups that need to work together to make progress. Managing that coalition is difficult. And if participants in the coalition are under pressure to never criticize anything that’s done in the name of a good cause, they will be unable to see or cope with trade-offs in a necessary way.
For example, while I was reporting on Joe Biden’s somewhat surprising weakness with Hispanic voters, one Latino Democrat speculated to me that Black Lives Matter rhetoric might be turning off working-class Hispanics. But he was so leery of being seen in any quarter as saying or doing anything critical of BLM that he wouldn’t say anything about it on or off the record. “I’m not touching that,” was another’s response to my query about the possible tension.
To be sure, there are other views on Biden and Hispanics. Stephanie Valencia of Equis Research told me she didn’t see a problem with BLM rhetoric and Latino voters. She said she saw it as “an opportunity rather than a challenge; the opportunity to unite the movements.”
But Valencia’s more diplomatic framing still contains the implication that there is an issue to discuss of how this slogan plays with Hispanics. The work of framing social justice rhetoric in a way that is optimized for winning elections requires real work and data and experimentation and a willingness to adjust tactics to seize rather than squander the opportunity to mobilize a broad coalition.
A recent Pew survey, for example, showed that Latino Democrats are much more skeptical of cutting police funding than are their Black or white peers — part of a consistent pattern of more police-friendly opinion.
Activists and advocates obviously can’t let polling snapshots dictate everything they say and do. But informing your political work with information about public opinion is common sense. And for that to happen, people need to be able to do what Shor did — raise questions about trade-offs, backlashes, and potential pitfalls even when emotions are running high. Trump’s relative success with Latinos right now looks like it may not matter since he’s losing the election badly overall. But he’s doing so in a way that mostly confirms Wasow’s main findings and the value of discussing them.
Progressives need to maintain the ability to be smart
The punchline to all this is that concerns of people like Shor about whether a possible protest backlash could boost Trump, so far, seem to be wrong. That makes it easy to dismiss the whole thing as a tempest in a teapot or a weird one-off with no broader implications. But the fact is there was a widespread and somewhat influential push to argue that even discussing the possibility of a backlash was racist and wrong.
One big reason the backlash has not arrived, though, is the actual protest organizers rejected the anti-anti-riot instant consensus in online progressive circles and tried to build disciplined and effective movements. They were joined in this by the vast majority of Black elected officials around the country. Then, in line with Wasow’s predictions, Trump’s lawlessness in the brutality against protesters in Lafayette Square near the White House created a public opinion backlash against him.
Democrats have also benefited during this time from the fact that their presumptive nominee, Biden, long stood out from the field in opposing the unpopular ideas of the police abolition movement. And he’s given cover in this by senior members of the Congressional Black Caucus like James Clyburn who quickly put the kibosh on police defunding as a House Democratic priority.
All of which is to say that the situation in the real world is not nearly as dire as those who spend too much time marinating in the Twitter hothouse think. The Democratic Party is mostly run by sensible people, while the Republican Party is mostly run by Donald Trump.
But the issue is not nearly so minor as the deflationists make it out to be. People with unsound views are able to get operatives fired and render them unhirable. They’re able to shut down discussions on listservs meant for tactical discussions. And most of all, they create an environment where lots of people feel they need to watch their words very carefully.
There is a genuine ongoing dialogue about whether claims made on behalf of racial justice should be subject to critical scrutiny. The Shor story’s ambiguous ending — continued employment under cover of secrecy — suggests that the answer is a resounding “only time will tell.”


vox--2020-07-29--Zadie Smith’s Intimations reads like notes for a later, better project

Zadie Smith wrote and published her new collection of essays , the slim and polished Intimations , entirely during the pandemic .
And as I read it , I couldn ’ t help but wish she ’ d waited five years to do so .
“ The year isn ’ t halfway done , ” Smith allows in her brief foreword .
So she isn ’ t trying to write a “ comprehensive account ” of 2020 .
Instead , the six essays that make up Intimations are her attempt to “ organize some of the feelings and thoughts that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in me , in those scraps of time the year itself has allowed.
” Organize them Smith has , with her characteristic lucidity and novelistic sense of character .
And when the subject is her own interiority , the essays fairly gleam with precision .
In “ Suffering Like Mel Gibson , ” Smith riffs ably on the familiar meme of Mel Gibson talking to Jesus to grapple with how to talk about personal suffering during this time of universal anguish .
“ Suffering is not relative , ” she writes .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffering individual — it can not be easily mediated by a third term like ‘ privilege.
’ ” In the guilt-laced “ Screencrabs ( After Berger , before the virus ) , ” she develops precise and loving sketches of some of the characters of the New York City neighborhood she is leaving behind to shelter in London .
“ I myself have no ‘ survival instinct , ’ ” Smith writes , but nevertheless she has , “ in my passive way , ” decided to leave the city .
But as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she crosses the street before passing her local nail place so the masseuse she visits every other day won ’ t see her .
And when her neighborhood ’ s Woman With the Little Dog ( every neighborhood has one ) tells her , “ You ’ ll be there for me , and I ’ ll be there for you , and we ’ ll all be there for each other , the whole building , ” Smith can only whisper back , “ Yes , we will , ” and walk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shine of relatability to them : Certainly most people feel guilty right now , if only because they are not suffering as much as other people ; certainly also most people care with a particular singularity about their own suffering , regardless of how it ranks relative to those around them .
But the enormous insight Smith is capable of marshaling toward her own thought process is not quite there on the page yet .
There is something of the journal entry to these essays , a sense of taking notes and observing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet arrived .
Of putting down details from a close view to use when enough time has passed for perspective .
And when Smith turns her gaze to current events , to the politics of the pandemic , the results can feel downright facile .
In “ The American Exception , ” she attempts to reckon with why America ’ s response to the pandemic has been so lacking on every level .
Smith ’ s sentences in this essay can sometimes sing — “ We are great with death , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mighty with it ” — but this question has been turned over and over and over so often by so many different thinkers over the past few months that by the time Smith takes her turn , the result feels almost empty .
I know by now that my country ’ s elected officials have failed the country .
I know that they are using the rhetoric of American exceptionalism to justify their failure .
I know that people are dying as a result .
What else you got ?
Far richer is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” in which Smith turns to the death of George Floyd and systemic racism in both Britain and America .
Here is a subject that Smith has already thought about deeply , and which she can rhetorically tie to the pandemic .
The concept of “ herd immunity , ” in this essay , becomes the credo by which the ruling class has always lived : “ Immunity .
From the herd.
” But what Zadie Smith knows best is the form of the novel itself , and Intimations is at its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her attention to the question of what it means during this moment in time to write .
She writes , she confesses in “ Something to Do , ” because it is , well — “ There is no great difference between novels and banana bread , ” she writes .
“ They are both just something to do .
They are no substitute for love.
” “ Something to Do ” sounds comic , but it is not .
It is an act of self-flagellation in essay form , a blast of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like all of us who are not essential workers , “ confronted with the problem of life served neat , without distraction or adornment or superstructure.
” And she concludes that her life ’ s work , the thing she does better than nearly anyone in the world , has left her with “ a dry , sad , small idea of a life.
” Art is not useless , Smith allows .
It can be a way of understanding what really matters , which is love .
But it is not essential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she suggests , politically meaningful .
“ The people sometimes demand change , ” she notes .
“ They almost never demand art.
” Still , Smith continues to fill her days with writing , on the grounds that she must fill them with something , after all .
( “ It ’ s nice to have company , ” she notes , nodding toward the frantic production of sourdough loaves and banana bread that populated social media all spring . )
And that gentle shrug is , more or less , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have to have something to do , don ’ t we ?
It might as well be this book as anything else .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Zadie Smith wrote and published her new collection of essays, the slim and polished Intimations, entirely during the pandemic. And as I read it, I couldn’t help but wish she’d waited five years to do so.
“The year isn’t halfway done,” Smith allows in her brief foreword. So she isn’t trying to write a “comprehensive account” of 2020. Instead, the six essays that make up Intimations are her attempt to “organize some of the feelings and thoughts that events, so far, have provoked in me, in those scraps of time the year itself has allowed.”
Organize them Smith has, with her characteristic lucidity and novelistic sense of character. And when the subject is her own interiority, the essays fairly gleam with precision.
In “Suffering Like Mel Gibson,” Smith riffs ably on the familiar meme of Mel Gibson talking to Jesus to grapple with how to talk about personal suffering during this time of universal anguish. “Suffering is not relative,” she writes. “Suffering has an absolute relation to the suffering individual — it cannot be easily mediated by a third term like ‘privilege.’”
In the guilt-laced “Screencrabs (After Berger, before the virus),” she develops precise and loving sketches of some of the characters of the New York City neighborhood she is leaving behind to shelter in London. “I myself have no ‘survival instinct,’” Smith writes, but nevertheless she has, “in my passive way,” decided to leave the city. But as she makes her arrangements to leave, she crosses the street before passing her local nail place so the masseuse she visits every other day won’t see her. And when her neighborhood’s Woman With the Little Dog (every neighborhood has one) tells her, “You’ll be there for me, and I’ll be there for you, and we’ll all be there for each other, the whole building,” Smith can only whisper back, “Yes, we will,” and walk away.
Rating: 3 out of 5 vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark
These essays have an attractive shine of relatability to them: Certainly most people feel guilty right now, if only because they are not suffering as much as other people; certainly also most people care with a particular singularity about their own suffering, regardless of how it ranks relative to those around them. But the enormous insight Smith is capable of marshaling toward her own thought process is not quite there on the page yet. There is something of the journal entry to these essays, a sense of taking notes and observing for a bigger project that has not yet arrived. Of putting down details from a close view to use when enough time has passed for perspective.
And when Smith turns her gaze to current events, to the politics of the pandemic, the results can feel downright facile. In “The American Exception,” she attempts to reckon with why America’s response to the pandemic has been so lacking on every level. Smith’s sentences in this essay can sometimes sing — “We are great with death,” she writes, devastatingly; “we are mighty with it” — but this question has been turned over and over and over so often by so many different thinkers over the past few months that by the time Smith takes her turn, the result feels almost empty. I know by now that my country’s elected officials have failed the country. I know that they are using the rhetoric of American exceptionalism to justify their failure. I know that people are dying as a result. What else you got?
Far richer is “Postscript: The Virus as Contempt,” in which Smith turns to the death of George Floyd and systemic racism in both Britain and America. Here is a subject that Smith has already thought about deeply, and which she can rhetorically tie to the pandemic. The concept of “herd immunity,” in this essay, becomes the credo by which the ruling class has always lived: “Immunity. From the herd.”
But what Zadie Smith knows best is the form of the novel itself, and Intimations is at its liveliest and most provocative when she turns her attention to the question of what it means during this moment in time to write. She writes, she confesses in “Something to Do,” because it is, well — “There is no great difference between novels and banana bread,” she writes. “They are both just something to do. They are no substitute for love.”
“Something to Do” sounds comic, but it is not. It is an act of self-flagellation in essay form, a blast of nihilism. Under quarantine Smith is, like all of us who are not essential workers, “confronted with the problem of life served neat, without distraction or adornment or superstructure.” And she concludes that her life’s work, the thing she does better than nearly anyone in the world, has left her with “a dry, sad, small idea of a life.”
Art is not useless, Smith allows. It can be a way of understanding what really matters, which is love. But it is not essential work. And it is not, she suggests, politically meaningful. “The people sometimes demand change,” she notes. “They almost never demand art.”
Still, Smith continues to fill her days with writing, on the grounds that she must fill them with something, after all. (“It’s nice to have company,” she notes, nodding toward the frantic production of sourdough loaves and banana bread that populated social media all spring.)
And that gentle shrug is, more or less, the animating ethos of Intimations. Well, we have to have something to do, don’t we? It might as well be this book as anything else.