vox--2020-04-29--Mitch McConnell is gaslighting Democrats (again)

There is no political debate in the US more important right now than the ongoing fight over how the federal government should spend to help the economy recover .
Currently , Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is setting the pace of stimulus and the terms of the debate .
Democrats are being baited into negotiating “ victories ” that consist of measures every reasonable economist agrees is necessary .
Efforts to secure even those basic measures are being denounced as hostage-taking , and Democrats in the House , forever attendant to their skittish purple-district “ moderates , ” have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ re terrified that we ’ ll look like obstructionists , ” one Democratic Senate aide told Politico reporter Michael Grunwald .
The fear , like most Democratic fears , is overblown .
There is an enormous amount of bluffing going on among Republicans , who need ongoing stimulus just as much as Democrats .
Sooner or later , if Democrats don ’ t want to get steamrolled , played , and blamed for the next six months , they are going to have to call some of those bluffs .
Aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ item At Slate , Jordan Weissmann captures the sense of dismay with which the left greeted the phase 4 ( or is it 3.5 ? )
stimulus passed last week .
The Paycheck Protection Program , the primary vehicle for getting money to struggling small businesses , had run out of money ( after being poorly administered ) .
Republicans needed it renewed ; it was their headline stimulus achievement .
Democrats had leverage .
They used it to “ win ” more money for hospitals and coronavirus testing .
Having done so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win funds for cash-strapped states , help for the US Post Office , or any number of progressive priorities .
As Weissmann says , “ what ’ s frustrating about this deal is that it seemingly consists of things any rational person should want.
” Aid for hospitals and ramped-up testing are obvious , glaring national needs .
Why on earth should they be something Democrats push for and Republicans resist ?
Republicans know such aid is necessary just as well as Democrats .
They say in the press that these are concessions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but why should anyone else adopt that absurd framing ?
By theatrically “ conceding ” money for hospitals , Republicans get the optics of a bipartisan achievement while ensuring that they define the limits of the possible .
“ By theatrically ‘ conceding ’ money for hospitals , Republicans get the optics of a bipartisan achievement while ensuring that they define the limits of the possible ” Now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is out saying that it wasn ’ t a concession at all to give up funding for states , that governors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that the next stimulus bill will contain state and local aid “ in a big way.
” She envisions a thoughtful , phased approach , based on demonstrated need .
But there ’ s little reason to think Republicans will cooperate .
Think back to the debt ceiling fight of 2011 .
Raising the debt ceiling was also something every independent analyst agreed was necessary to keep the economy healthy .
But Republicans framed it as a Democratic ask , something for which they could extract enormous concessions .
They were entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With each successive stimulus bill in the coronavirus crisis , there will be a little less fear and urgency within the GOP caucus and Democrats will have a little less leverage .
Republicans dragging their feet , treating obvious necessities as concessions , prevents any true progressive priorities — expanded health care , paid sick leave , higher wages , green infrastructure investment , postal banking — from entering the conversation .
Republicans define the playing field and Democrats dutifully play on it .
McConnell is gaslighting ; you can tell because his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP stimulus messaging effort , which consequently consists mostly of gaslighting .
It seems to be the role for which he was born .
Anyone who wants to understand McConnell should read Jane Mayer ’ s extraordinary profile in the latest New Yorker and Alec MacGillis ’ s 2014 biography , The Cynic .
Both are in-depth examinations that find very little depth in their subject .
Meyer writes that the introverted McConnell got “ hooked ” on “ the respect that comes with holding elected office ” while he was still in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president . )
He set out in pursuit of power and has been pursuing it single-mindedly ever since .
That ’ s the beginning and end of it .
There are no consistent ideological principles , conflicted motivations , or lingering reservations .
McConnell says and does whatever is necessary to secure power for the conservative coalition he helps lead , especially the big-money donors .
When Democrats pushed for state aid and McConnell suggested that it was a “ blue state bailout , ” an attempt to rescue fiscally irresponsible blue-state governors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too large , he knew full well that it was bullshit .
There is no moral hazard in a pandemic .
There ’ s no point means testing states .
It ’ s not a reward to states to bolster their budgets when consumers are literally being told by the government to stay home .
It ’ s one reason the federal government exists .
And red states need money too — there are , after all , red-state governors pleading for help .
It makes no sense , but McConnell ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t care whether it ’ s reasonable or defensible .
He ’ s just trying to put Dems on the defensive and force them to fight for the basics .
He wants to frame state aid as a concession to Democrats and send a signal to the right-wing base that Democrats are up to something shady .
He doesn ’ t give a rat ’ s ass about pension obligations .
This is a 1,000 percent cynical maneuver .
( Now Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has picked up this nonsense and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes for McConnell ’ s sudden concern that stimulus spending might raise the deficit too much .
More than almost any other purported GOP principle , deficit concern comes and goes depending on the party ’ s immediate interests .
It was nowhere to be found in 2017 when McConnell ’ s own Congress passed a giant tax cut for corporations that will add $ 2.6 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years .
It was nowhere to be found when Trump ran up the deficit , or when George W. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Ronald Reagan ran up the deficit .
“ The deficit ” is a way for conservatives and centrists to fight against social spending , in almost all cases .
In this case , as Vox ’ s Dylan Matthews argues , it is particularly ludicrous .
There is little credible economic justification for avoiding deficit spending in the first place , but even the most dedicated deficit scold accepts that stimulative federal spending is appropriate during a historic demand-side recession in which a substantial fraction of the economy ’ s resources have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conceivable economic circumstance in which deficit spending could be more obviously justified .
Growth is the only way forward ; austerity will make the recession into a depression .
McConnell knows this as well as anyone .
He doesn ’ t give a rat ’ s ass about the deficit either .
He ’ s just trying to make it look like any spending he signs on to is a magnanimous concession .
He ’ s getting the deficit story into the media so that conservative Democrats — the suckers who actually believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun-shy , pushing to limit spending from within the caucus , doing McConnell ’ s work for him .
And he ’ s setting up the next confrontation .
When the crisis passes , Republicans will use the deficit they created as an excuse to attack spending on Medicaid , Medicare , and Social Security .
If Joe Biden wins the 2020 presidential election but Republicans keep the Senate — a not-unlikely outcome — McConnell will immediately block any further stimulus .
Just as he blocked every bit of Obama stimulus that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same to Biden .
And he will use deficit concern as his cover story .
McConnell wants to trade state and local aid for corporate protections On Monday , McConnell showed his hand .
He will demand that the next stimulus bill include liability protections for business owners that reopen after ( or , if their governors allow it , during ) the pandemic .
Protecting bosses from lawsuits , allowing them to put front-line workers in danger without fear of repercussion , really is a wish-list item — from a corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a way state and local aid is not .
Nonetheless , as Bloomberg reporter Steven Dennis says , McConnell is setting himself up for a trade : aid to states in exchange for liability protections .
It would be utterly bananas for Democrats to accept these terms .
State and local aid is a necessity and something Republicans are going to sign off on eventually , unless they want to answer for a procession of laid-off red-state teachers and firefighters .
But protecting corporate executives from worker lawsuits is just a crude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever agree to in normal circumstances .
It ’ s not a fair trade ; it ’ s McConnell manipulating the playing field , trying to get something for his donors in exchange for something he would have to do anyway .
When it comes to McConnell , the most cynical interpretation is usually the correct one .
Whatever words may be coming out of his mouth , what he is doing it trying to maximize partisan advantage .
McConnell will opt for maximal partisan warfare ; that ’ s what has worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) have pointed out that it is in the best interests of Republicans , especially Trump , to maximize stimulus spending .
The faster they put a floor beneath the cratering economy and begin building it back up , the better for Trump ’ s electoral prospects .
All things being equal , a depression ravaging the country is not going to help the incumbent .
Nonetheless , for the last 15 years , McConnell has heard pundits tell him that it ’ s risky to obstruct too much , attack too hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act too openly against the national interest for partisan gain .
Pundits wring their hands endlessly about such things .
Democrats have heard and internalized those messages .
They worry about how they look to the media and political class .
But McConnell has completely ignored them , and it has redounded to his benefit again and again .
When he refused to hold confirmation hearings on Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland in 2016 , everyone in the political ecosystem ( outside of conservative media ) warned him of the dangers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and institutional integrity .
He blew them all off .
For his troubles , he got Brett Kavanaugh .
McConnell used the filibuster to block everything Obama tried , and then when Democrats killed the judicial filibuster , he used that to pack the federal bench , winning on both sides .
He bottled up bills , worked to open up politics to unlimited dark money , and presided over a farcical , witness-free show trial of an impeached Donald Trump .
And it keeps working .
Leaning into ruthless power politics in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion won Republicans a fateful midterm landslide in 2010 .
It gave them the Senate in 2014 , Trump in 2016 , a giant tax cut in 2017 , and hundreds of right-wing federal judges , ongoing .
Ignoring critics — not just ignoring them , but smirking at them , placidly thumbing his nose at them — has proven wildly successful for McConnell .
The maximal-partisan-warfare approach for McConnell going forward would be to keep stimulus spending just high enough to prevent a total crash , channel as much of it as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to secure fair access to voting , block any funding of progressive priorities or Dem-aligned industries ( like clean energy ) , relentlessly attack Democrats for obstructionism , and then try to squeeze out another narrow , Electoral College-based victory in November .
That is , from the point of view of decency or good government , the worst thing that McConnell could do .
And it also seems highly risky — if the economy suffers too much , Republicans could pay for it in November .
But McConnell has made a career @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and winning .
There ’ s every reason to believe he will continue .
Democrats must learn to use their leverage At every stage of the stimulus negotiations , McConnell is going to push for partisan advantage , defining basic recovery policies as Democratic so that he can limit discussion and prevent progressive priorities from being heard .
The only way Democrats are going to secure those priorities is to push back .
To do that , they need to think like McConnell .
They need to realize that no amount of words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meet the Press , eloquent arguments , or thoughtful proposals — will make any difference .
There ’ s now a library ’ s worth of essays from non-conservatives about how America “ must ” meet this crisis , but all that “ must ” adds up to nothing in the absence of power .
McConnell doesn ’ t care about Democrats ’ opinions , or Washington opinion , or even popular opinion .
He is fighting for conservatives , and through right-wing media , he has their unstinting support .
All he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only real power Democrats have , their only true leverage , is in their votes .
Specifically , they can withhold them .
No bill can pass the Democratic House unless Democrats vote for it .
It is Democrats ’ choice to make state and local aid their baseline demand , thereby setting themselves up to declare victory if that necessary and inevitable policy is passed .
They could choose to demand more , to demand something as ostentatiously in the interests of workers as McConnell ’ s liability shield is in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ universal access to postage-paid mail-in ballots , to ensure a free and fair election in November .
( And they could pay for electric mail trucks to deliver those ballots . )
They could demand more money for unemployment programs and ongoing direct payments to all families , of the sort that went out with the first stimulus bill , only bigger , ongoing , and better administered .
They could demand universal paid sick leave or a better program to cover small-business payrolls or a multitrillion-dollar green infrastructure package .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiery , says he wants : a stimulus plan “ a hell of a lot bigger ” than the $ 2 trillion CARES Act .
He wants more forward-looking investments that include , uh , “ dealing with environmental things that create good-paying jobs.
” But talk is cheap .
If Democrats really want to fight , they will have to obstruct — to take hostages , in the argot .
They will have to show that they are willing to withhold their votes if they don ’ t get what they want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even threaten to do so , McConnell and Trump will attack them and the political media will be filled with pundit hand-wringing about the risks .
Again , Democrats should do what McConnell does : ignore the doubters and scolds .
Stay focused on objectives .
Treat political media like a game ; say what needs saying to win the next news cycle .
It is fluff , vapor , to be gone and replaced with some other story within 48 hours .
Only legislative outcomes matter .
Democrats don ’ t like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are accustomed to trying to win the approval of referees , trying to get points for being reasonable and responsible and open to compromise .
They are so accustomed to it that they haven ’ t noticed there are no refs anymore .
The pundits and talking heads they fear have no power .
There ’ s no one to judge their arguments superior or award them a sportsmanship trophy .
There is only power ; there are only outcomes .
Behind all the rhetoric , Democrats have one real point of leverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It gives them some power if they are willing to use it .
McConnell will do and say whatever is necessary to serve his donors .
He is willing to risk his political future on it .
Democrats should be just as ruthless and unromantic in their service of the public interest .

There is no political debate in the US more important right now than the fight over how the federal government should spend to help the economy recover.
Currently, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is setting the pace of stimulus and the terms of the debate. Democrats are being baited into negotiating “victories” that consist of measures every reasonable economist agrees is necessary. Efforts to secure even those basic measures are being denounced as hostage-taking, and Democrats in the House, forever attendant to their skittish purple-district “moderates,” have proven typically easy to scare. “We’re terrified that we’ll look like obstructionists,” one Democratic Senate aide told Politico reporter Michael Grunwald.
The fear, like most Democratic fears, is overblown. There is an enormous amount of bluffing going on among Republicans, who need stimulus measures just as much as Democrats. Sooner or later, if Democrats don’t want to get steamrolled, played, and blamed for the next six months, they are going to have to call some of those bluffs.
Aid for hospitals is not some Democratic wish-list item
At Slate, Jordan Weissmann captures the sense of dismay with which the left greeted the phase 4 (or is it 3.5?) stimulus passed last week.
The Paycheck Protection Program, the primary vehicle for getting money to struggling small businesses, had run out of money (after being poorly administered). Republicans needed it renewed; it was their headline stimulus achievement.
Democrats had leverage. They used it to “win” more money for hospitals and coronavirus testing. Having done so, they had none left over to win funds for cash-strapped states, help for the US Post Office, or any number of progressive priorities.
As Weissmann says, “what’s frustrating about this deal is that it seemingly consists of things any rational person should want.” Aid for hospitals and ramped-up testing are obvious, glaring national needs. Why on earth should they be something Democrats push for and Republicans resist?
By theatrically “conceding” money for hospitals, Republicans get the optics of a bipartisan achievement while ensuring that they define the limits of the possible
Republicans know such aid is necessary just as well as Democrats. They say in the press that these are concessions, things they are giving up, but why should anyone else adopt that absurd framing?
By theatrically “conceding” money for hospitals, Republicans get the optics of a bipartisan achievement while ensuring that they define the limits of the possible.
Now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is saying that it wasn’t a concession at all to give up funding for states, that governors are just being “impatient,” and that the next stimulus bill will contain state and local aid “in a big way.” She envisions a thoughtful, phased approach, based on demonstrated need. But there’s little reason to think Republicans will cooperate.
Think back to the debt ceiling fight of 2011. Raising the debt ceiling was also something every independent analyst agreed was necessary to keep the economy healthy. But Republicans framed it as a Democratic ask, something for which they could extract enormous concessions. They were entirely willing to gamble with the economy.
With each successive stimulus bill in the coronavirus crisis, there will be a little less fear and urgency within the GOP caucus and Democrats will have a little less leverage. Republicans dragging their feet, treating obvious necessities as concessions, prevents any true progressive priorities — expanded health care, paid sick leave, higher wages, green infrastructure investment, postal banking — from entering the conversation. Republicans define the playing field, and Democrats dutifully play on it.
McConnell is gaslighting
McConnell is leading the GOP stimulus messaging effort, which consequently consists mostly of gaslighting. It seems to be the role for which he was born.
Anyone who wants to understand McConnell should read Jane Mayer’s extraordinary profile in the latest New Yorker and Alec MacGillis’s 2014 biography, The Cynic. Both are in-depth examinations that find very little depth in their subject. Meyer writes that the introverted McConnell got “hooked” on “the respect that comes with holding elected office” while he was still in school. (He was student council president.) He set out in pursuit of power and has been pursuing it single-mindedly ever since.
That’s the beginning and end of it. There are no consistent ideological principles, conflicted motivations, or lingering reservations. McConnell says and does whatever is necessary to secure power for the conservative coalition he helps lead, especially the big-money donors.
When Democrats pushed for state aid and McConnell suggested that it was a “blue state bailout,” an attempt to rescue fiscally irresponsible blue-state governors who had let their pension obligations get too large, he knew full well that it was bullshit. There is no moral hazard in a pandemic. There’s no point means testing states. It’s not a reward to states to bolster their budgets when consumers are literally being told by the government to stay home. It’s one reason the federal government exists.
And red states need money too — there are, after all, red-state governors pleading for help.
It makes no sense, but McConnell’s not trying to make sense. He’s just trying to put Dems on the defensive and force them to fight for the basics. He wants to frame state aid as a concession to Democrats and send a signal to the right-wing base that Democrats are up to something shady. He doesn’t give a rat’s ass about pension obligations. This is a 1,000 percent cynical maneuver. (Now Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has picked up this nonsense and run with it.)
The same goes for McConnell’s sudden concern that stimulus spending might raise the deficit too much.
Oh, please.
More than almost any other purported GOP principle, deficit concern comes and goes depending on the party’s immediate interests. It was nowhere to be found in 2017 when McConnell’s own Congress passed a giant tax cut for corporations that will add $2.6 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. It was nowhere to be found when Trump ran up the deficit, or when George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan ran up the deficit.
Reagan took the deficit from 70 billion to 175 billion.
Bush 41 took it to 300 billion.
Clinton got it to zero.
Bush 43 took it from 0 to 1.2 trillion.
Obama halved it to 600 billion.
Trump’s got it back to a trillion.
Morons: “Democrats cause deficits.” — Alex Cole (@acnewsitics) July 23, 2019
“The deficit” is a way for conservatives and centrists to fight against social spending, in almost all cases.
In this case, as Vox’s Dylan Matthews argues, it is particularly ludicrous. There is little credible economic justification for avoiding deficit spending in the first place, but even the most dedicated deficit scold accepts that stimulative federal spending is appropriate during a historic demand-side recession in which a substantial fraction of the economy’s resources have been deliberately idled. There is no conceivable economic circumstance in which deficit spending could be more obviously justified. Growth is the only way forward; austerity will make the recession into a depression.
McConnell knows this as well as anyone. He doesn’t care about the deficit either. He’s just trying to make it look like any spending he signs on to is a magnanimous concession. He’s getting the deficit story into the media so that conservative Democrats — the suckers who actually believe the deficit myths — will start getting gun-shy, pushing to limit spending from within the caucus, doing McConnell’s work for him.
And he’s setting up the next confrontation. When the crisis passes, Republicans will use the deficit they created as an excuse to attack spending on Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.
If Joe Biden wins the 2020 presidential election but Republicans keep the Senate — a not-unlikely outcome — McConnell will immediately block further meaningful stimulus. Just as he blocked every bit of Obama stimulus that he could to hurt Obama, he will the same to Biden. And he will use deficit concern as his cover story.
McConnell wants to trade state and local aid for corporate protections
On Monday, McConnell showed his hand. He will demand that the next stimulus bill include liability protections for business owners that reopen after (or, if their governors allow it, during) the pandemic.
Protecting bosses from lawsuits, allowing them to put front-line workers in danger without fear of repercussion, really is a wish-list item — from a corporate wish list. It is nakedly partisan in a way state and local aid is not.
Nonetheless, as Bloomberg reporter Steven Dennis says, McConnell is setting himself up for a trade: aid to states in exchange for liability protections.
Pelosi, meanwhile, has said the next bill WILL have state and local aid as her must-have.
Kind of sets up a trade here. — Steven Dennis (@StevenTDennis) April 27, 2020
It would be utterly bananas for Democrats to accept these terms. State and local aid is a necessity and something Republicans are going to sign off on eventually, unless they want to answer for a procession of laid-off red-state teachers and firefighters.
But protecting corporate executives from worker lawsuits is just a crude bit of corruption, nothing Democrats would ever agree to in normal circumstances. It’s not a fair trade; it’s McConnell manipulating the playing field, trying to get something for his donors in exchange for something he would have to do anyway.
When it comes to McConnell, the most cynical interpretation is usually the correct one. Whatever words may be coming out of his mouth, what he is doing it trying to maximize partisan advantage.
McConnell will opt for maximal partisan warfare; that’s what has worked for him
Many people (myself included) have pointed out that it is in the best interests of Republicans, especially Trump, to maximize stimulus spending. The faster they put a floor beneath the cratering economy and begin building it back up, the better for Trump’s electoral prospects. All things being equal, a depression ravaging the country is not going to help the incumbent.
Nonetheless, for the last 15 years, McConnell has heard pundits tell him that it’s risky to obstruct too much, attack too hard, violate norms too flagrantly, or act too openly against the national interest for partisan gain. Pundits wring their hands endlessly about such things.
Democrats have heard and internalized those messages. They worry about how they look to the media and political class. But McConnell has completely ignored them, and it has redounded to his benefit again and again.
When he refused to hold confirmation hearings on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland in 2016, everyone in the political ecosystem (outside of conservative media) warned him of the dangers, the grave risk to comity and tradition and institutional integrity. He blew them all off. For his troubles, he got Brett Kavanaugh.
(Last month, McConnell said that he would happily hold a confirmation vote on a Trump Supreme Court nominee, even in the last year of a Trump presidency. Critics accused him of hypocrisy. He didn’t care.)
McConnell used the filibuster to block everything Obama tried, and then when Democrats killed the judicial filibuster, he used that to pack the federal bench, winning on both sides. He bottled up bills, worked to open up politics to unlimited dark money, and presided over a farcical, witness-free show trial of an impeached Donald Trump.
And it keeps working. Leaning into ruthless power politics in the face of elite media and political opinion won Republicans a fateful midterm landslide in 2010. It gave them the Senate in 2014, Trump in 2016, a giant tax cut in 2017, and hundreds of right-wing federal judges, ongoing.
Ignoring critics — not just ignoring them, but smirking at them, placidly thumbing his nose at them — has proven wildly successful for McConnell.
The maximal-partisan-warfare approach for McConnell going forward would be to keep stimulus spending just high enough to prevent a total crash, channel as much of it as possible to GOP constituencies, block attempts to secure fair access to voting, block any funding of progressive priorities or Dem-aligned industries (like clean energy), relentlessly attack Democrats for obstructionism, and then try to squeeze out another narrow, Electoral College-based victory in November.
That is, from the point of view of decency or good government, the worst thing that McConnell could do. And it also seems highly risky — if the economy suffers too much, Republicans could pay for it in November.
But McConnell has made a career out of betting on the worst thing and winning. There’s every reason to believe he will continue.
Democrats must learn to use their leverage
At every stage of the stimulus negotiations, McConnell is going to push for partisan advantage, defining basic recovery policies as Democratic so that he can limit discussion and prevent progressive priorities from being heard.
McConnell also warning against what he called left-wing daydreams. — Steven Dennis (@StevenTDennis) April 27, 2020
The only way Democrats are going to secure those priorities is to push back.
To do that, they need to think like McConnell. They need to realize that no amount of words — no op-eds, sharp comments on Meet the Press, eloquent arguments, or thoughtful proposals — will make any difference. There’s now a library’s worth of essays from non-conservatives about how America “must” meet this crisis, but all that “must” adds up to nothing in the absence of power.
McConnell doesn’t care about Democrats’ opinions, or Washington opinion, or even popular opinion. He is fighting for conservatives, and through right-wing media, he has their unstinting support. All he cares about is vote counts.
The only real power Democrats have, their only true leverage, is in their votes. Specifically, they can withhold them. No bill can pass the Democratic House unless Democrats vote for it.
It is Democrats’ choice to make state and local aid their baseline demand, thereby setting themselves up to declare victory if that necessary and inevitable policy is passed. They could choose to demand more, to demand something as ostentatiously in the interests of workers as McConnell’s liability shield is in the interests of executives.
They could demand universal access to postage-paid mail-in ballots, to ensure a free and fair election in November. (And they could pay for electric mail trucks to deliver those ballots.) They could demand more money for unemployment programs and ongoing direct payments to all families, of the sort that went out with the first stimulus bill, only bigger, ongoing, and better administered. They could demand universal paid sick leave or a better program to cover small-business payrolls or a multi-trillion-dollar green infrastructure package.
That’s what Joe Biden, sounding newly fiery, says he wants: a stimulus plan “a hell of a lot bigger” than the $2 trillion CARES Act. He wants more forward-looking investments that include, uh, “dealing with environmental things that create good-paying jobs.”
But talk is cheap. If Democrats really want to fight, they will have to obstruct — to take hostages, in the argot. They will have to show that they are willing to withhold their votes if they don’t get what they want. When they do so, or even threaten to do so, McConnell and Trump will attack them and the political media will be filled with pundit hand-wringing about the risks.
Again, Democrats should do what McConnell does: ignore the doubters and scolds. Stay focused on objectives. Treat political media like a game; say what needs saying to win the next news cycle. It is fluff, vapor, to be gone and replaced with some other story within 48 hours. Only legislative outcomes matter.
Democrats don’t like this kind of power politics. They are accustomed to trying to win the approval of referees, trying to get points for being reasonable and responsible and open to compromise. They are so accustomed to it that they haven’t noticed there are no refs anymore. The pundits and talking heads they fear have no power. There’s no one to judge their arguments superior or award them a sportsmanship trophy.
There is only power; there are only outcomes. Behind all the rhetoric, Democrats have one real point of leverage: they can vote for or against. It gives them some power if they are willing to use it.
McConnell will do and say whatever is necessary to serve his donors. He is willing to risk his political future on it. Democrats should be just as ruthless and unromantic in their service of the public interest.


vox--2020-04-29--Students are filing lawsuits and organizing strikes against universities

College campuses are historically ripe spaces for grassroots student activism .
For decades , students have organized labor strikes , political protests , and demonstrations to showcase their dissatisfaction with school administrators and current events alike .
More recently , student groups from institutions like the University of Chicago , Parsons School of Design , and Vassar College have been exerting pressure on administrators to issue room and board refunds , make academic concessions , freeze tuition for the upcoming school year , or offer reductions to compensate for online education .
Many are threatening to boycott classes or withhold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — who are primarily employed by their respective universities — are petitioning for extended research funding or considering a rent and labor strike .
Meanwhile , a handful of students are independently filing class-action lawsuits to demand fair compensation for their shortened academic year .
The coronavirus pandemic suddenly forced most college campuses to close and migrate to virtual classes in March , leaving vulnerable students to contend with employment , housing , and food insecurity , sometimes on their own .
As a result , there ’ s been an upswing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid efforts .
As with most activities in the coronavirus era , activism — and the frustration that has fueled this collective action — has moved online .
The economic crisis prompted by Covid-19 is leaving millions of Americans unemployed and struggling to live with daily financial uncertainty .
At the same time , students across the country say they feel unsupported by their universities — institutions that they ’ ve paid thousands of dollars to attend , some of which have millions to billions of dollars worth of endowments .
Yet it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smaller schools that are heavily tuition-dependent and have small endowments , have the budget to meet some of these demands .
Even the most prestigious schools are alarmed about their revenue decline this year : Some are projecting losses of more than $ 100 million , and many college leaders fear that a significant portion of students won ’ t enroll in the fall , even if campuses do open up .
Under the CARES Act , campuses across the country will receive $ 14 billion in total aid , an amount that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the financial needs of institutions and their students , said the American Council on Education .
Student groups are pressuring administrators by going on strike Students say these virtual grassroots protest strategies are a measure of last resort intended to highlight their discontent and force administrations to recognize their requests .
“ It ’ s way harder to convince an administrator through a screen instead of waiting outside their office , ” said Priscilla Gaona , a senior at Parsons who helped organize a class and registration boycott .
“ But with this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and staff that the student body supports these demands for budget transparency , a tuition freeze , universal grading system , and tuition refunds on top of housing and meal plan reimbursements.
” While Parsons has addressed and complied with some of the students ’ requests , organizers say it ’ s reflective of their efforts in shaping the administration ’ s agenda .
According to Gaona , for example , Parsons was able to expedite the timeline of housing and meal plan refunds shortly after students emphasized how crucial it was to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s easy for the school to act like what we ’ re asking for is impossible , ” she told me .
“ But once students put pressure on them , they ’ re able to quickly decide the course of action.
” A Parsons spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement , “ Students ’ voices are incredibly important and are being invited into the conversations taking place , so that a range of solutions can be discussed .
Our shared goal is to ensure the health and well-being of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of every student.
” At the University of Chicago , about 500 undergraduate students are planning to withhold their tuition payment for the spring quarter starting on April 29 , according to Julia Attie , a senior and organizer with UChicago for Fair Tuition .
“ We ’ re hoping to negotiate with the university before the end of the quarter , but students who are striking , including myself , are well aware of the risks , but it is a personal decision on my end , ” Attie told me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ strike is a late fee and a potential registration hold on a student ’ s account .
The group is calling for a 50 percent reduction in spring quarter tuition , elimination of all student fees , and a reinstitution of part-time status for students ( an option that was removed in 2016 ) among other demands that are supported by more than 1,500 students .
So far , the university has agreed to a tuition freeze for the 2020-21 school year — a decision also made by various colleges as a form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Student activists believe that a fraction of the school ’ s $ 8.5 billion endowment and its $ 5 billion fundraising campaign could go toward reducing tuition for all students in the upcoming quarter .
( This estimate might not be entirely accurate , since most colleges have relatively fixed budgets and restrictions on endowments and fundraising dollars . )
A university spokesperson responded in an email , citing a previous message from UChicago ’ s provost that the university “ will honor our commitments of financial support for students and make increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with increased demonstrated financial need , ” adding that it has “ expanded its longstanding financial support for undergraduate students with demonstrated need and has extensive financial aid programs for students in our professional , PhD , and master ’ s programs.
” Meanwhile , graduate students — most of whom do research and teach courses on campus — are concerned about the timelines of their degree completion and whether their academic programs will continue to receive funding .
Many can ’ t do research in their homes since labs and libraries are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctoral candidate at the University of Chicago and member of the campus ’ s Graduate Students United union .
“ A lot of us are demanding one-year extensions of our timelines and of our research because we aren ’ t sure how long this will go , ” Jain told me , adding that graduate students are more likely to be financially vulnerable with families of their own .
“ International students are terrified their visas might expire before they could get their work done .
We just want the guarantee that none @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very precarious time.
” Many lawsuits filed by students are asking for tuition refunds .
That might be difficult , one legal expert says .
Plenty of student activist groups have a list of multi-pronged demands , which also includes continuation of pay for staff and faculty members .
However , tuition and fee refunds for undergraduates have primarily dominated the conversation , especially in class-action lawsuits from students at Michigan State University , Drexel University , University of Miami , Purdue University , and others .
“ The common claim I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contract , ” said Peter Lake , director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy at Stetson University .
“ Students are trying to claim there was some contractual obligation to provide them something that , in the end , wasn ’ t provided.
” When a student enrolls at a university , they enter various contractual relationships with the school , Lake explained , through the form of meal plans , activity fees , educational services , and housing .
Some universities have already agreed to a partial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court filings claim the compensation offered is not enough to cover students ’ financial losses .
For example , a case against the University of Michigan argued that the $ 1,200 housing credit reimbursed to those who moved out of residence halls is “ not commensurate with the financial losses ” of students and their families .
“ These cases are 100 percent about fairness , ” said David Fink of the law firm Fink Bressack , who is representing several students in cases against the University of Michigan , Michigan State University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ re not objecting to the actions taken by the universities to protect the health and wellbeing of the students .
It ’ s the question of who should bear the burden of the economic impact , and these students feel they haven ’ t been treated fairly with respect to tuition , room and board , and activity fees they ’ ve paid for.
” “ These students feel they haven ’ t been treated fairly with respect to tuition , room and board , and activity fees they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , students no longer have access to labs , in-person training , or equipment for specific courses .
“ Is it fair for students to pay for the cost of in-person education in a brick-and-mortar classroom when the student is receiving online training from their own laptop ?
” Fink said .
In short , these lawsuits argue that the colleges have failed in providing educational services and opportunities that students agreed to and paid for in their tuition .
Lake , an expert in legal issues surrounding higher education , told me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases against institutions that broadly challenge the quality of instruction or what he calls “ core mission delivery ” — the teaching , testing , and pedagogy of a school — are rarely successful .
“ Usually , a student or a group of students will have to show that a very particular promise was made to them , ” he said .
In the case of housing and meal plans , colleges have generally been more open to issuing partial refunds .
But in the case of tuition specifically , Lake believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returning tuition because they believe they ’ re delivering educational services , just in a different way.
” Furthermore , contract law recognizes that in the case of an unforeseeable and unusual event like a pandemic , “ the delivery of contractual obligations may change because of that , ” Lake added .
When I asked if I could talk with any of the students who ’ ve filed suit , Fink told me that they ’ re “ not seeking publicity ” but felt that “ it was their civic responsibility to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their fellow students could be treated fairly.
” While it has been historically difficult for students to win against a university in a breach-of-contract case , Lake said it ’ s possible there could be a judge sympathetic enough to the plight of students to make a progressive ruling , which would move a case forward .
Regardless , he concluded that administrators shouldn ’ t ignore the energy behind the student protests and litigation .
“ Higher education can most likely defend itself in court , but that doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lake warned .
“ There ’ s a business challenge and a public opinion issue , and it would be very unwise to turn your back on the energy that ’ s building around affordability and the cost of college , especially if litigation doesn ’ t succeed.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

College campuses are historically ripe spaces for grassroots student activism. For decades, students have organized labor strikes, political protests, and demonstrations to showcase their dissatisfaction with school administrators and current events alike.
More recently, student groups from institutions like the University of Chicago, The New School, and Vassar College have been exerting pressure on administrators to issue room and board refunds, make academic concessions, freeze tuition for the upcoming school year, or offer reductions to compensate for online education. Many are threatening to boycott classes or withhold tuition money, and some graduate students — who are primarily employed by their respective universities — are petitioning for extended research funding or considering a rent and labor strike. Meanwhile, a handful of students are independently filing class-action lawsuits to demand fair compensation for their shortened academic year.
The coronavirus pandemic suddenly forced most college campuses to close and migrate to virtual classes in March, leaving vulnerable students to contend with employment, housing, and food insecurity, sometimes on their own. As a result, there’s been an upswing in campus activism, starting with student-led mutual aid efforts. As with most activities in the coronavirus era, activism — and the frustration that has fueled this collective action — has moved online. The economic crisis prompted by Covid-19 is leaving millions of Americans unemployed and struggling to live with daily financial uncertainty. At the same time, students across the country say they feel unsupported by their universities — institutions that they’ve paid thousands of dollars to attend, some of which have millions to billions of dollars worth of endowments.
Yet it’s uncertain whether colleges, especially smaller schools that are heavily tuition-dependent and have small endowments, have the budget to meet some of these demands. Even the most prestigious schools are alarmed about their revenue decline this year: Some are projecting losses of more than $100 million, and many college leaders fear that a significant portion of students won’t enroll in the fall, even if campuses do open up. Under the CARES Act, campuses across the country will receive $14 billion in total aid, an amount that is “woefully inadequate” to meet the financial needs of institutions and their students, said the American Council on Education.
Student groups are pressuring administrators by going on strike
Students say these virtual grassroots protest strategies are a measure of last resort intended to highlight their discontent and force administrations to recognize their requests.
“It’s way harder to convince an administrator through a screen instead of waiting outside their office,” said Priscilla Gaona, a senior at The New School who helped organize a class and registration boycott. “But with this strike, we wanted to show faculty and staff that the student body supports these demands for budget transparency, a tuition freeze, universal grading system, and tuition refunds on top of housing and meal plan reimbursements.”
While The New School has addressed and complied with some of the students’ requests, organizers say it’s reflective of their efforts in shaping the administration’s agenda. According to Gaona, for example, The New School was able to expedite the timeline of housing and meal plan refunds shortly after students emphasized how crucial it was to receive money as soon as possible. “It’s easy for the school to act like what we’re asking for is impossible,” she told me. “But once students put pressure on them, they’re able to quickly decide the course of action.”
A New School spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement, “Students’ voices are incredibly important and are being invited into the conversations taking place, so that a range of solutions can be discussed. Our shared goal is to ensure the health and well-being of our community and the continued academic progress of every student.”
At the University of Chicago, about 500 undergraduate students are planning to withhold their tuition payment for the spring quarter starting on April 29, according to Julia Attie, a senior and organizer with UChicago for Fair Tuition. “We’re hoping to negotiate with the university before the end of the quarter, but students who are striking, including myself, are well aware of the risks, but it is a personal decision on my end,” Attie told me. The most immediate consequence of a tuition strike is a late fee and a potential registration hold on a student’s account.
If you didn't get a chance to see our livestream yesterday, here are some of the testimonies from our direct action. ... Posted by UChicago for Fair Tuition on Sunday, April 26, 2020
The group is calling for a 50 percent reduction in spring quarter tuition, elimination of all student fees, and a reinstitution of part-time status for students (an option that was removed in 2016) among other demands that are supported by more than 1,500 students. So far, the university has agreed to a tuition freeze for the 2020-21 school year — a decision also made by various colleges as a form of financial relief during the pandemic. Student activists believe that a fraction of the school’s $8.5 billion endowment and its $5 billion fundraising campaign could go toward reducing tuition for all students in the upcoming quarter. (This estimate might not be entirely accurate, since most colleges have relatively fixed budgets and restrictions on endowments and fundraising dollars.)
A university spokesperson responded in an email, citing a previous message from UChicago’s provost that the university “will honor our commitments of financial support for students and make increased financial aid available to students and families with increased demonstrated financial need,” adding that it has “expanded its longstanding financial support for undergraduate students with demonstrated need and has extensive financial aid programs for students in our professional, PhD, and master’s programs.”
Meanwhile, graduate students — most of whom do research and teach courses on campus — are concerned about the timelines of their degree completion and whether their academic programs will continue to receive funding. Many can’t do research in their homes since labs and libraries are closed, said Uday Jain, a doctoral candidate at the University of Chicago and member of the campus’s Graduate Students United union.
“A lot of us are demanding one-year extensions of our timelines and of our research because we aren’t sure how long this will go,” Jain told me, adding that graduate students are more likely to be financially vulnerable with families of their own. “International students are terrified their visas might expire before they could get their work done. We just want the guarantee that none of us will get fired during this very precarious time.”
Many lawsuits filed by students are asking for tuition refunds. That might be difficult, one legal expert says.
Plenty of student activist groups have a list of multi-pronged demands, which also includes continuation of pay for staff and faculty members. However, tuition and fee refunds for undergraduates have primarily dominated the conversation, especially in class-action lawsuits from students at Michigan State University, Drexel University, University of Miami, the University of California and California State University systems, and others.
“The common claim I’ve seen people launch is breach of contract,” said Peter Lake, director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy at Stetson University. “Students are trying to claim there was some contractual obligation to provide them something that, in the end, wasn’t provided.” When a student enrolls at a university, they enter various contractual relationships with the school, Lake explained, through the form of meal plans, activity fees, educational services, and housing.
Some universities have already agreed to a partial refund of certain fees, but some court filings claim the compensation offered is not enough to cover students’ financial losses. For example, a case against the University of Michigan argued that the $1,200 housing credit reimbursed to those who moved out of residence halls is “not commensurate with the financial losses” of students and their families.
“These cases are 100 percent about fairness,” said David Fink of the law firm Fink Bressack, who is representing several students in cases against the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Wayne State University. “We’re not objecting to the actions taken by the universities to protect the health and wellbeing of the students. It’s the question of who should bear the burden of the economic impact, and these students feel they haven’t been treated fairly with respect to tuition, room and board, and activity fees they’ve paid for.”
“These students feel they haven’t been treated fairly with respect to tuition, room and board, and activity fees they’ve paid for.”
Due to campus closures, students no longer have access to labs, in-person training, or equipment for specific courses. “Is it fair for students to pay for the cost of in-person education in a brick-and-mortar classroom when the student is receiving online training from their own laptop?” Fink said. In short, these lawsuits argue that the colleges have failed in providing educational services and opportunities that students agreed to and paid for in their tuition.
Lake, an expert in legal issues surrounding higher education, told me that based on historical precedent, contract cases against institutions that broadly challenge the quality of instruction or what he calls “core mission delivery” — the teaching, testing, and pedagogy of a school — are rarely successful.
“Usually, a student or a group of students will have to show that a very particular promise was made to them,” he said. In the case of housing and meal plans, colleges have generally been more open to issuing partial refunds. But in the case of tuition specifically, Lake believes “administrators are reluctant or opposed to returning tuition because they believe they’re delivering educational services, just in a different way.”
i’m paying to be taught in person. i shouldn’t be forced to not learn anything and continue to pay my tuition for classes i’m being forced to take online, it’s not the same. — Madison (@madisonlmcd26) April 28, 2020
Furthermore, contract law recognizes that in the case of an unforeseeable and unusual event like a pandemic, “the delivery of contractual obligations may change because of that,” Lake added.
When I asked if I could talk with any of the students who’ve filed suit, Fink told me that they’re “not seeking publicity” but felt that “it was their civic responsibility to step forward and file suit so they and their fellow students could be treated fairly.”
While it has been historically difficult for students to win against a university in a breach-of-contract case, Lake said it’s possible there could be a judge sympathetic enough to the plight of students to make a progressive ruling, which would move a case forward. Regardless, he concluded that administrators shouldn’t ignore the energy behind the student protests and litigation.
“Higher education can most likely defend itself in court, but that doesn’t mean the controversy is over,” Lake warned. “There’s a business challenge and a public opinion issue, and it would be very unwise to turn your back on the energy that’s building around affordability and the cost of college, especially if litigation doesn’t succeed.”


vox--2020-04-28--Justin Amash just announced an exploratory committee for a bid for the White House

Rep. Justin Amash ( I-MI ) , a libertarian House representative and frequent critic of Donald Trump ’ s presidency , announced his intention on Tuesday to launch an exploratory committee to examine a run for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination .
The announcement was not a surprise , as Amash paused campaigning for his Congressional seat to “ carefully consider a presidential run ” back on April 15th .
On Twitter , Rep. Amash said , “ We ’ re ready for a presidency that will restore respect for our Constitution and bring people together .
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first steps toward serving Americans of every background as president.
” A founding member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus , Amash left the Republican Party in July of 2019 , writing in a Washington Post op-ed that “ preserving liberty means telling the Republican Party and the Democratic Party that we ’ ll no longer let them play their partisan game at our expense.
” He was the only conservative to vote for impeaching President Trump .
When I spoke to Amash last year , he decried government spending by both parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideals .
He said , “ One of the things I like to tell libertarians when I go to conferences and other places is that libertarians are not really a small minority in the country .
Most Americans have rather libertarian tendencies or classical liberal tendencies — the spirit of this country is very much libertarian or classical liberal.
” Conservatives ( and libertarians ) are divided on the potential of Amash ’ s run , with some arguing that Amash could take valuable votes away from Democratic nominee Joe Biden and help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third-party voters is a little complicated .
Because so few Americans vote third party , it ’ s often hard to say if they have a real impact on the outcome of the race .
But it ’ s certainly a get for the Libertarian Party .
Candidate Jacob Hornberger told Reason Magazine that an outside candidacy could help the Libertarian Party .
“ When these people come in from outside the party , it provides a prestige factor.
” Libertarian Party chairman Nicholas Sarwark told me , “ We welcome Congressman Amash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination contest .
While he will have to win support of the majority of convention delegates to receive the nomination , his entry is another sign that more Americans are seeking something different from the tribal politics of the red and blue teams.
” I ’ ve reached out to Amash ’ s office and campaign , and will update if and when I hear back .

Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI), a libertarian House representative and frequent critic of Donald Trump’s presidency, announced his intention on Tuesday to launch an exploratory committee to examine a run for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination.
Today, I launched an exploratory committee to seek the @LPNational’s nomination for president of the United States. Americans are ready for practical approaches based in humility and trust of the people. — Justin Amash (@justinamash) April 29, 2020
The announcement was not a surprise, as Amash paused campaigning for his congressional seat to “carefully consider a presidential run” back on April 15. On Twitter, Rep. Amash said, “We’re ready for a presidency that will restore respect for our Constitution and bring people together. I’m excited and honored to be taking these first steps toward serving Americans of every background as president.”
A founding member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, Amash left the Republican Party in July of 2019, writing in a Washington Post op-ed that “preserving liberty means telling the Republican Party and the Democratic Party that we’ll no longer let them play their partisan game at our expense.” He was the only conservative to vote for impeaching President Trump.
When I spoke to Amash last year, he decried government spending by both parties and expressed his abiding commitment to libertarian ideals. He said, “One of the things I like to tell libertarians when I go to conferences and other places is that libertarians are not really a small minority in the country. Most Americans have rather libertarian tendencies or classical liberal tendencies — the spirit of this country is very much libertarian or classical liberal.”
Conservatives (and libertarians) are divided on the potential of Amash’s run, with some arguing that Amash could take valuable votes away from Democratic nominee Vice President Joe Biden and help Donald Trump. The actual research on third-party voters is a little complicated. Because so few Americans vote third party, it’s often hard to say if they have a real impact on the outcome of the race. But it’s certainly a get for the Libertarian Party. Candidate Jacob Hornberger told Reason Magazine that an outside candidacy could help the Libertarian Party. “When these people come in from outside the party, it provides a prestige factor.”
Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark told me, “We welcome Congressman Amash to the Libertarian Party and the Presidential nomination contest. While he will have to win support of the majority of convention delegates to receive the nomination, his entry is another sign that more Americans are seeking something different from the tribal politics of the red and blue teams.”
I’ve reached out to Amash’s office and campaign, and will update if and when I hear back.


vox--2020-04-29--People are using Facebook more than ever during the coronavirus pandemic — but its business is still

People are using Facebook more than ever during the coronavirus pandemic — but its business is still taking a hit

As people around the world are shut in their homes under lockdown , they ’ re using Facebook more than ever to share news , message their friends , and find entertaining distractions from the dullness of quarantine life .
But that doesn ’ t mean Facebook , or other social media companies like Twitter and Snap , are making more money .
On Wednesday , in Facebook ’ s first earnings statement since the pandemic hit , the company shared impressive statistics : Nearly 3 billion people now use at least one of Facebook ’ s apps ( Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) each month , an 11 percent increase year over year and the highest it ’ s ever been .
Facebook alone had 2.6 billion monthly active users , an increase of 10 percent year over year .
But financially , Facebook isn ’ t doing nearly so well .
While Facebook ’ s revenue was up overall by 18 percent year over year this past quarter , beating analysts ’ expectations , much of that time period didn ’ t include the peak impact of the pandemic .
Looking ahead , company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a larger economic fallout .
In the last few weeks of March , after global lockdowns began to take effect , the company said it saw a steep decline in the money it makes from advertising .
These declines flattened out in April .
Because of ongoing uncertainty related to the pandemic , the company declined to give its usual prediction of how much revenue it will make next quarter , and instead offered the snapshot of revenue in the past few weeks of April instead .
“ There is a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said as he opened the quarterly earnings call .
He admitted that the impact of Covid-19 on his business “ has been significant.
” So why is Facebook expecting to make less money on advertising than before even as it gains more users ?
As my colleague Peter Kafka explained in March , as industries across the economy from tourism to real estate take a major financial hit , they ’ re in turn spending less to advertise on Facebook than they normally would .
Many major brands have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platforms like Facebook .
Facebook says advertisements coming from the auto and travel industry have been especially impacted , while other industries , like gaming , are relatively spending more .
This shift isn ’ t unique to Facebook .
Twitter , Google , and virtually every other company whose main source of income comes from digital advertising are facing the same pressures .
“ If you ’ re going to have a business which is primarily advertising , which is our plan for the long-term , you have to recognize that advertising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ macroeconomy , ” said Zuckerberg on the earnings call .
Google ’ s parent company Alphabet announced on Tuesday that it has faced a significant downturn in advertisement revenues in March due to the pandemic , although not as bad as analysts expected .
The search giant is reportedly planning to cut its marketing budget by half and slow down some hiring in order to tighten its belt .
But despite these short-term slowdowns for Facebook and Google , some argue that in the long run , the company , like the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this pandemic stronger .
One of the biggest issues these companies previously faced pre-coronavirus was the threat of regulation .
Now , the chorus of powerful voices calling to break up Big Tech has largely quieted , at least for now , as politicians face more imminent issues tied to the pandemic .
Another promising area for Facebook is in its gaming products and other hardware .
It reported an 80 percent increase in its revenue from sources other than advertising , such as its Oculus Quest VR headsets and Portal video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also impact media companies that rely on Facebook and Google advertising for a large chunk of their revenue but don ’ t have the same enormous scale of business .
Together , Facebook , Google , and Amazon make up an overwhelming majority of all US dollar spending on advertising .
Wednesday ’ s earnings from Facebook are another example of how widely popular Facebook is and how much people are using the tool during a global pandemic .
They ’ re also a grim indication of how much the global economy is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the most widely used tools in society are hurting , smaller companies will be especially hard hit in the face of a sustained global recession .
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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

As people around the world are shut in their homes under lockdown, they’re using Facebook more than ever to share news, message their friends, and find entertaining distractions from the dullness of quarantine life.
But that doesn’t mean Facebook, or other social media companies like Twitter and Snap, are making more money.
On Wednesday, in Facebook’s first earnings statement since the pandemic hit, the company shared impressive statistics: Nearly 3 billion people now use at least one of Facebook’s apps (Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, or WhatsApp) each month, an 11 percent increase year over year and the highest it’s ever been. Facebook alone had 2.6 billion monthly active users, an increase of 10 percent year over year.
But financially, Facebook isn’t doing nearly so well.
While Facebook’s revenue was up overall by 18 percent year over year this past quarter, beating analysts’ expectations, much of that time period didn’t include the peak impact of the pandemic. Looking ahead, company executives said they’re bracing for a larger economic fallout. In the last few weeks of March, after global lockdowns began to take effect, the company said it saw a steep decline in the money it makes from advertising. These declines flattened out in April. Because of ongoing uncertainty related to the pandemic, the company declined to give its usual prediction of how much revenue it will make next quarter, and instead offered the snapshot of revenue in the past few weeks of April instead.
“There is a lot of uncertainty now about the world,” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said as he opened the quarterly earnings call. He admitted that the impact of Covid-19 on his business “has been significant.”
So why is Facebook expecting to make less money on advertising than before even as it gains more users? As my colleague Peter Kafka explained in March, as industries across the economy from tourism to real estate take a major financial hit, they’re in turn spending less to advertise on Facebook than they normally would. Many major brands have slashed marketing budgets for digital spending on platforms like Facebook. Facebook says advertisements coming from the auto and travel industry have been especially impacted, while other industries, like gaming, are relatively spending more.
This shift isn’t unique to Facebook. Twitter, Google, and virtually every other company whose main source of income comes from digital advertising are facing the same pressures.
“If you’re going to have a business which is primarily advertising, which is our plan for the long-term, you have to recognize that advertising is more volatile and sensitive to the macroeconomy,” said Zuckerberg on the earnings call.
Google’s parent company Alphabet announced on Tuesday that it has faced a significant downturn in advertisement revenues in March due to the pandemic, although not as bad as analysts expected. The search giant is reportedly planning to cut its marketing budget by half and slow down some hiring in order to tighten its belt.
But despite these short-term slowdowns for Facebook and Google, some argue that in the long run, the company, like the other major tech giants, could come out of this pandemic stronger. One of the biggest issues these companies previously faced pre-coronavirus was the threat of regulation. Now, the chorus of powerful voices calling to break up Big Tech has largely quieted, at least for now, as politicians face more imminent issues tied to the pandemic.
Another promising area for Facebook is in its gaming products and other hardware. It reported an 80 percent increase in its revenue from sources other than advertising, such as its Oculus Quest VR headsets and Portal video calling devices.
These advertising declines will also impact media companies that rely on Facebook and Google advertising for a large chunk of their revenue but don’t have the same enormous scale of business. Together, Facebook, Google, and Amazon make up an overwhelming majority of all US dollar spending on advertising.
Wednesday’s earnings from Facebook are another example of how widely popular Facebook is and how much people are using the tool during a global pandemic. They’re also a grim indication of how much the global economy is contracting. If these companies that make some of the most widely used tools in society are hurting, smaller companies will be especially hard hit in the face of a sustained global recession.


vox--2020-04-29--Megan Thee Stallion’s “Hot Girl Summer” is the dark horse song of quarantine

Against the backdrop of the novel coronavirus pandemic , Megan Thee Stallion ’ s 2019 anthem “ Hot Girl Summer ” has been in heavy rotation on my Spotify account .
The song has become an essential part of my personal quarantine soundtrack , and I think it should be part of yours , too .
Don ’ t let the fact that it ’ s not summer , or that you don ’ t feel like your best “ hot girl ” self , or that you haven ’ t attended anything remotely resembling a party in months stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second longer .
A quick refresher on where you may already know “ Hot Girl Summer ” from , in case you have completely forgotten anything that preceded the pandemic : “ Hot Girl Summer ” the song was predated by the hot girl summer movement , whose origins can also be traced back to Megan Thee Stallion .
A self-proclaimed “ hot girl coach , ” Megan championed the victories of hot girls everywhere on her May 2019 album Fever and laid the foundation for “ hot girl summer ” to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to life online by black women and then adopted by everyone else on Twitter and beyond , hot girl summer was built on a bedrock of breezy confidence .
As Megan Thee Stallion herself sagely noted in a July 17 tweet , “ Being a Hot Girl is about being unapologetically YOU , having fun , being confident , living YOUR truth , being the life of the party etc.
” Inspired by her fans ’ hot girl enthusiasm , Megan Thee Stallion collaborated with artists Nicki Minaj and Ty Dolla $ ign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in August 2019 , capping off a season-long celebration of all things hot .
As Vox ’ s Rebecca Jennings wrote last year , the hot girl summer trend “ [ provided ] a template against which people can perform the realities of their life.
” Many months after the summer of 2019 , “ Hot Girl Summer ” still reminds of the inclusive opportunity for people to live out the hot girl ethos and be “ that bitch.
” The celebratory message of “ Hot Girl Summer ” hits differently in quarantine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sadly , “ that bitch ” has never been one of them .
This unfortunate reality , however , has not stopped me from soaking up “ Hot Girl Summer ” like it ’ s the last patch of sunlight in a rapidly darkening sky .
For one thing , the song is a smash .
Megan ’ s signature flow is punchy and forthright , and her verses on “ Hot Girl Summer ” are no exception .
She raps effortlessly about the joys of being sexy , rich , and beloved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it ’ s Nicki ’ s turn to rap about the joys of being sexy , rich , and beloved .
And while Ty Dolla $ ign ’ s presence on a song by and for hot girls is perplexing , his chorus acts as a pleasantly mellow bridge between Nicki and Megan ’ s energetic verses .
But as potent as the sheer bop power of “ Hot Girl Summer ” is on its own , the song has taken on newfound significance in the context of the novel coronavirus quarantine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listen to “ Hot Girl Summer ” right now and feel as though its central themes — partying , celebrating yourself , being “ on your bullshit ” for bullshit ’ s sake — are relics of a pre-pandemic past .
Despite being less than a year old , “ Hot Girl Summer ” already seems imbued with the nostalgic glamour of a different era .
It ’ s three minutes of jubilant escapism , wrapped in a Juicy J beat .
The song recalls a time when I wasn ’ t glued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ updates or half-heartedly stirring lentils in an apartment that I ’ m afraid to leave .
This isn ’ t to say that last summer was a utopian vacuum of poolside parties and “ real hot girl shit.
” On the contrary : Many of the systemic failures currently exacerbating the coronavirus crisis gained critical momentum over the course of last summer .
In 2019 , the Trump administration enacted a climate plan that was proven to increase air pollution levels and cause more premature deaths .
Reproductive health care access dwindled rapidly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record-breaking number of people in its facilities .
The idea of hot girl summer was possibly as illusory then as it is now .
Still , as life under quarantine oscillates between stifling monotony and horror , revisiting Megan Thee Stallion ’ s 2019 song of the summer feels like a rose-colored look back at a better timeline .
At its core , “ Hot Girl Summer ” preaches a message of fun self-determination .
It promises that when you know your worth , summer is yours for the taking .
And as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ongoing health crisis , it feels good to bask in Megan ’ s relentless hot girl optimism .
Even if it ’ s only for a moment .
One Good Thing is Vox ’ s recommendations feature .
In each edition , find one more thing from the world of culture that we highly recommend .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Against the backdrop of the novel coronavirus pandemic, Megan Thee Stallion’s 2019 anthem “Hot Girl Summer” has been in heavy rotation on my Spotify account. The song has become an essential part of my personal quarantine soundtrack, and I think it should be part of yours, too. Don’t let the fact that it’s not summer, or that you don’t feel like your best “hot girl” self, or that you haven’t attended anything remotely resembling a party in months stop you from enjoying this song for a second longer.
Let me explain.
A quick refresher on where you may already know “Hot Girl Summer” from, in case you have completely forgotten anything that preceded the pandemic: “Hot Girl Summer” the song was predated by the hot girl summer movement, whose origins can also be traced back to Megan Thee Stallion. A self-proclaimed “hot girl coach,” Megan championed the victories of hot girls everywhere on her May 2019 album Fever and laid the foundation for “hot girl summer” to take the internet by storm.
Quickly brought to life online by black women and then adopted by everyone else on Twitter and beyond, hot girl summer was built on a bedrock of breezy confidence. As Megan Thee Stallion herself sagely noted in a July 17 tweet, “Being a Hot Girl is about being unapologetically YOU, having fun, being confident, living YOUR truth, being the life of the party etc.” Inspired by her fans’ hot girl enthusiasm, Megan Thee Stallion collaborated with artists Nicki Minaj and Ty Dolla $ign to release “Hot Girl Summer” in August 2019, capping off a season-long celebration of all things hot.
As Vox’s Rebecca Jennings wrote last year, the hot girl summer trend “[provided] a template against which people can perform the realities of their life.” Many months after the summer of 2019, “Hot Girl Summer” still reminds of the inclusive opportunity for people to live out the hot girl ethos and be “that bitch.”
The celebratory message of “Hot Girl Summer” hits differently in quarantine
I am a lot of things. Sadly, “that bitch” has never been one of them. This unfortunate reality, however, has not stopped me from soaking up “Hot Girl Summer” like it’s the last patch of sunlight in a rapidly darkening sky.
For one thing, the song is a smash. Megan’s signature flow is punchy and forthright, and her verses on “Hot Girl Summer” are no exception. She raps effortlessly about the joys of being sexy, rich, and beloved, pausing to take a breath only when it’s Nicki’s turn to rap about the joys of being sexy, rich, and beloved. And while Ty Dolla $ign’s presence on a song by and for hot girls is perplexing, his chorus acts as a pleasantly mellow bridge between Nicki and Megan’s energetic verses.
But as potent as the sheer bop power of “Hot Girl Summer” is on its own, the song has taken on newfound significance in the context of the novel coronavirus quarantine. It’s hard not to listen to “Hot Girl Summer” right now and feel as though its central themes — partying, celebrating yourself, being “on your bullshit” for bullshit’s sake — are relics of a pre-pandemic past.
Despite being less than a year old, “Hot Girl Summer” already seems imbued with the nostalgic glamour of a different era. It’s three minutes of jubilant escapism, wrapped in a Juicy J beat. The song recalls a time when I wasn’t glued to my phone’s disturbing news updates or half-heartedly stirring lentils in an apartment that I’m afraid to leave.
This isn’t to say that last summer was a utopian vacuum of poolside parties and “real hot girl shit.” On the contrary: Many of the systemic failures currently exacerbating the coronavirus crisis gained critical momentum over the course of last summer. In 2019, the Trump administration enacted a climate plan that was proven to increase air pollution levels and cause more premature deaths. Reproductive health care access dwindled rapidly in several states. ICE detained a record-breaking number of people in its facilities. The idea of hot girl summer was possibly as illusory then as it is now.
Still, as life under quarantine oscillates between stifling monotony and horror, revisiting Megan Thee Stallion’s 2019 song of the summer feels like a rose-colored look back at a better timeline. At its core, “Hot Girl Summer” preaches a message of fun self-determination. It promises that when you know your worth, summer is yours for the taking. And as incompatible as this attitude feels with the ongoing health crisis, it feels good to bask in Megan’s relentless hot girl optimism. Even if it’s only for a moment.
One Good Thing is Vox’s recommendations feature. In each edition, find one more thing from the world of culture that we highly recommend.


vox--2020-04-29--Amazon is cracking down on internal communication after a surge in worker activism

Amazon ’ s corporate employees have started to question the e-commerce giant ’ s business and labor practices more than ever before .
In response , the company appears to be cracking down .
This week , Recode has learned that Amazon has started strictly enforcing rules that limit its employees ’ internal communications with each other on several large company email listservs , where workers have been criticizing how the company is treating its warehouse workers during the coronavirus pandemic and have organized protests in response .
On Monday , Amazon ’ s IT department notified some employees who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they are required to have employee moderators pre-approve any posts on their mailing lists — a rule that the company says previously existed but several sources told Recode was rarely enforced until now .
Employees who create or manage listservs can pick who they want to designate as the moderators , but those moderators have to be an “ L6 ” manager-level employee or above , limiting the gatekeepers of the discussion .
A spokesperson for Amazon said that its policies about moderating large email lists are not new , but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has started enforcing its policies for all mailing lists that either weren ’ t following the rules or had been previously granted exceptions .
Shortly after publication of this story , Amazon ’ s IT department notified Amazon employees who run large listservs that it is delaying making any changes to email moderation in order to “ minimize disruption to any business-critical email lists , ” per an email Recode reviewed .
Amazon ’ s listservs — which number in the thousands — are places for employees to discuss a wide range of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Recently , some of these forums have also become places for workers to critique the company ’ s operational handling of the Covid-19 pandemic , particularly in how it treats warehouse workers , who have asked for higher pay and more safety protections .
Some inside the company see the new communications rules as a way to muzzle corporate employees who are increasingly organizing on behalf of their lower-paid colleagues .
“ It ’ s obviously and transparently being done to shut down employee communication , ” said one corporate Amazon employee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of company policies barring employees from speaking to the press without prior approval .
“ If we wanted to share information about a firing internally or publicize an event , we would need to convince a moderator to let us do it — and that would be mean them risking getting fired.
” Another corporate employee who ’ s active on internal listservs agreed that the move appeared to be aimed at the organizers , but that there were likely other factors at play , too .
Recently , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distribution lists with other kinds of requests , the employee said , and the organizers ’ mass invites were likely the final straw rather than the only reason for the move .
Whether or not Amazon ’ s renewed enforcement of these rules is mainly meant to restrict internal activism , many Amazon employees perceive it that way .
They worry that the company ’ s recent actions will be a barrier to having meaningful discussion on important topics like warehouse worker rights and the company ’ s environmental policies .
Amazon did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifically about concerns that the rules are limiting employees ’ speech on working conditions .
In recent weeks , hundreds of Amazon warehouse employees at more than 50 sites around the US have participated in protesting working conditions during the pandemic , demanding greater pay , access to protective gear , and more generous time-off policies .
Amazon ’ s corporate employees have used listservs to share their dismay over the escalating labor disputes and to organize events that bring together blue-collar and white-collar workers .
In turn , the company has fired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests — including two longtime corporate employees , Emily Cunningham and Maren Costa .
Cunningham and Costa were prominent leaders of an internal climate activism group , Amazon Employees for Climate Justice ( AECJ ) , with an active listserv of more than 8,000 members .
Last Friday , AECJ members used dozens of Amazon internal listservs to invite thousands of their colleagues to skip work in a mass sickout and instead attend a virtual panel discussion about Amazon warehouse working conditions and environmental policies .
Although the invites to this event mysteriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizers were fired for organizing a similar event the week prior , it went on as planned with more than 300 people attending virtually .
With the new enforcement about these rules on email communications , employees say it will be impossible for workers to use listservs to mobilize their colleagues in a similar fashion .
“ Everyone seems to acknowledge ( subtly or overtly ) that this was in response to the employees getting fired and the sickout , ” another Amazon employee told Recode .
“ I think part of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average employees upset at AECJ because of this new inconvenience.
” Aside from the concerns about censorship of discussions about worker rights , several employees have also expressed concern in internal emails about how the rules will slow down forums dedicated to supporting underrepresented employee groups .
Many of the most popular listservs at Amazon are ones for women in engineering and racial minorities who work at the company to virtually convene and support each other .
In an internal email one employee moderator sent to a listerv for discussing diversity and inclusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will cause a “ slower flow of communication ” and that the moderation team may start rejecting certain emails , which will be “ a very different dynamic ” for the mailing list .
Last year , Amazon ’ s tech giant peer Google similarly limited employee speech on internal forums following a rise in worker activism .
While the move was met with a fair share of criticism , the crackdown ultimately was not enough to stop workers from continuing to organize and publicly leak controversial company initiatives .
In contrast to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s internal forums is relatively new to Amazon ’ s buttoned-up workplace culture , particularly on the corporate level .
If moderators of employee discussions find the policies too laborious , they could move the discussion to off-corporate platforms , as tens of thousands of Amazon warehouse workers have done in private Facebook groups .
And while Amazon ’ s decision may stop contentious worker discussions in the short term , it also draws more attention to worker organizing and signals how seemingly threatened Amazon ’ s management is by open discussion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Amazon’s corporate employees have started to question the e-commerce giant’s business and labor practices more than ever before. In response, the company appears to be cracking down.
This week, Recode has learned that Amazon has started strictly enforcing rules that limit its employees’ internal communications with each other on several large company email listservs, where workers have been criticizing how the company is treating its warehouse workers during the coronavirus pandemic and have organized protests in response.
On Monday, Amazon’s IT department notified some employees who manage listservs of more than 500 people that they are required to have employee moderators pre-approve any posts on their mailing lists — a rule that the company says previously existed but several sources told Recode was rarely enforced until now. Employees who create or manage listservs can pick who they want to designate as the moderators, but those moderators have to be an “L6” manager-level employee or above, limiting the gatekeepers of the discussion.
A spokesperson for Amazon said that its policies about moderating large email lists are not new, but that after a routine audit, the company has started enforcing its policies for all mailing lists that either weren’t following the rules or had been previously granted exceptions.
Shortly after publication of this story, Amazon’s IT department notified Amazon employees who run large listservs that it is delaying making any changes to email moderation in order to “minimize disruption to any business-critical email lists,” per an email Recode reviewed.
Amazon’s listservs — which number in the thousands — are places for employees to discuss a wide range of topics, from climate change to parenting. Recently, some of these forums have also become places for workers to critique the company’s operational handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, particularly in how it treats warehouse workers, who have asked for higher pay and more safety protections. Some inside the company see the new communications rules as a way to muzzle corporate employees who are increasingly organizing on behalf of their lower-paid colleagues.
“It’s obviously and transparently being done to shut down employee communication,” said one corporate Amazon employee who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of company policies barring employees from speaking to the press without prior approval. “If we wanted to share information about a firing internally or publicize an event, we would need to convince a moderator to let us do it — and that would be mean them risking getting fired.”
Another corporate employee who’s active on internal listservs agreed that the move appeared to be aimed at the organizers, but that there were likely other factors at play, too. Recently, there’s been a rise in employees spamming these distribution lists with other kinds of requests, the employee said, and the organizers’ mass invites were likely the final straw rather than the only reason for the move.
Whether or not Amazon’s renewed enforcement of these rules is mainly meant to restrict internal activism, many Amazon employees perceive it that way. They worry that the company’s recent actions will be a barrier to having meaningful discussion on important topics like warehouse worker rights and the company’s environmental policies.
Amazon did not respond to a request for comment specifically about concerns that the rules are limiting employees’ speech on working conditions.
In recent weeks, hundreds of Amazon warehouse employees at more than 50 sites around the US have participated in protesting working conditions during the pandemic, demanding greater pay, access to protective gear, and more generous time-off policies. Amazon’s corporate employees have used listservs to share their dismay over the escalating labor disputes and to organize events that bring together blue-collar and white-collar workers.
Do you work at Amazon and have thoughts on what’s going on? Please email Shirin Ghaffary at shirin.ghaffary@protonmail.com or Jason Del Rey at jasondelrey@protonmail.com to reach them confidentially. Signal numbers available upon request by email.
In turn, the company has fired at least six employees involved in recent protests — including two longtime corporate employees, Emily Cunningham and Maren Costa. Cunningham and Costa were prominent leaders of an internal climate activism group, Amazon Employees for Climate Justice (AECJ), with an active listserv of more than 8,000 members.
Last Friday, AECJ members used dozens of Amazon internal listservs to invite thousands of their colleagues to skip work in a mass sickout and instead attend a virtual panel discussion about Amazon warehouse working conditions and environmental policies. Although the invites to this event mysteriously disappeared from workers’ calendars and two organizers were fired for organizing a similar event the week prior, it went on as planned with more than 300 people attending virtually.
With the new enforcement about these rules on email communications, employees say it will be impossible for workers to use listservs to mobilize their colleagues in a similar fashion.
“Everyone seems to acknowledge (subtly or overtly) that this was in response to the employees getting fired and the sickout,” another Amazon employee told Recode. “I think part of what Amazon is trying to do is make average employees upset at AECJ because of this new inconvenience.”
Aside from the concerns about censorship of discussions about worker rights, several employees have also expressed concern in internal emails about how the rules will slow down forums dedicated to supporting underrepresented employee groups. Many of the most popular listservs at Amazon are ones for women in engineering and racial minorities who work at the company to virtually convene and support each other.
In an internal email one employee moderator sent to a listerv for discussing diversity and inclusion, the employee acknowledged that additional requirements will cause a “slower flow of communication” and that the moderation team may start rejecting certain emails, which will be “a very different dynamic” for the mailing list.
Last year, Amazon’s tech giant peer Google similarly limited employee speech on internal forums following a rise in worker activism. While the move was met with a fair share of criticism, the crackdown ultimately was not enough to stop workers from continuing to organize and publicly leak controversial company initiatives. In contrast to Google, the recent organizing on Amazon’s internal forums is relatively new to Amazon’s buttoned-up workplace culture, particularly on the corporate level.
If moderators of employee discussions find the policies too laborious, they could move the discussion to off-corporate platforms, as tens of thousands of Amazon warehouse workers have done in private Facebook groups. And while Amazon’s decision may stop contentious worker discussions in the short term, it also draws more attention to worker organizing and signals how seemingly threatened Amazon’s management is by open discussion among its employees.