Home insurance in California and Florida is up big thanks to climate change. Polluters get a massive subsidy through their pollution’s negative externality, and they spend the big bucks on lobbyists and propaganda to prevent environmental protection.
“In the new school year, thousands of Oklahoma students will be required to learn about 2020 election fraud conspiracy theories as part of a new curriculum developed by the state’s controversial superintendent, Ryan Walters. Walters, who has come under fire in recent months for an effort to require Oklahoma classrooms to stock Bibles and display the Ten Commandments, has said that the addition “empowers students to investigate and understand the electoral process.”
Under the state’s new curriculum, high school students will be taught to “identify discrepancies in 2020 elections results by looking at graphs and other information, including the sudden halting of ballot-counting in select cities in key battleground states, the security risks of mail-in balloting, sudden batch dumps, an unforeseen record number of voters, and the unprecedented contradiction of ‘bellwether county’ trends.”
While it’s not necessarily unreasonable to want students to learn about the dispute over the 2020 election, the standards’ framing of the controversy (which turned up no evidence of election interference) and Walters’ comments about it make it clear that teachers are meant to shed doubt on the veracity of the election.”
…
“The standards also contain passages directing teachers to ensure that students can “identify the source of the COVID-19 pandemic from a Chinese lab,” and “explain the effects of the Trump tax cuts, child tax credit, border enforcement efforts.””
…
“The curriculum change is just one of a battery of recent attempts to inject partisan politics into public school curricula. While blue states have faced criticism from the right for injecting critical race theory into the classroom, many red states have engaged in far more galling efforts to politicize classroom instruction.”
“VOA has operated for over 80 years to report “accurate, objective, and comprehensive” news that will “present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively,” according to its charter.
The Trump administration in March ordered that federal grants through USAGM will be reviewed and “eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.” A D.C. Circuit panel paused orders blocking the cuts to USAGM funding for other outlets Thursday, but did not stop the order to return Voice of America staff to work.
The Saturday order changes that, with appellate Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas — both Trump appointees — ruling together to pause the part of the lower court order requiring the government “take all necessary steps to return USAGM employees and contractors to their status prior” to Trump’s executive order.
They found that the lower court likely did not have jurisdiction to order the employees back to work.
Judge Nina Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented Saturday, writing that the decision is tantamount to “silencing Voice of America for the foreseeable future.”
But even when employees were looking at a return to work, some question whether or not the agency will be able to return to its previous state.
“We’re going to have to bring VOA out of a deep coma,” Steve Herman, VOA’s chief national correspondent, said in an interview with POLITICO before Saturday’s ruling. “And is it possible that it’ll ever regain full consciousness? That remains to be seen, because so much of the brain of VOA was destroyed by trying to strangle us.””
“It’s a startling reality about Gen Z, backed up by multiple studies and what we can all see for ourselves: The most online generation is also the worst at discerning fact from fiction on the internet.
That becomes an issue when the internet — and specifically, social media — has become the main source of news for the younger generation. About three in five Gen Zers, from between the ages of 13 and 26, say they get their news from social media at least once a week. TikTok is a particularly popular platform: 45 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 29 said they were regular news consumers on the app.”
…
“although people of all ages are bad at detecting misinformation — which is only getting harder amid the rise of AI — members of Gen Z are particularly vulnerable to being fooled. Why? There’s a dangerous feedback loop at play. Many young people are growing deeply skeptical of institutions and more inclined toward conspiracy theories, which makes them shun mainstream news outlets and immerse themselves in narrow online communities — which then feeds them fabrications based on powerful algorithms and further deepens their distrust. It’s the kind of media consumption that differs drastically from older generations who spend far more time with mainstream media, and the consequences can be grim.”
…
“Only 16 percent of Gen Zers have strong confidence in the news. It’s no surprise then that so many young people are shunning traditional publications and seeking their news on social media, often from unverified accounts that do little fact-checking.
The ramifications are potentially huge for American politics. Without some sort of course correction, a growing piece of the electorate will find itself falling victim to fake news and fringe conspiracy theories online — likely driving the hyperpolarization of our politics to new heights.”
…
“Gen Zers are uniquely vulnerable to misinformation compared to older age groups not just because of their social media habits, says Rakoen Maertens, a behavioral scientist at the University of Oxford, but because they have fewer lived experiences and knowledge to discern reality.
Maertens, who helped create a test that measures a person’s likelihood of being duped by fake headlines, says that while Gen Zers were most likely to fall for fake news now, there is hope that as time passes, they’ll become better at detecting falsities, just like the generations before them.
There’s also another, far more depressing alternative that may be just as likely — that the rest of the population will go the way of Gen Z.”
“Across Washington, China hawks are trying to draw a hard line against any plan that would let ByteDance maintain a degree of control of the company or insight into its underlying technology, both of which are banned by the bipartisan 2024 law passed by Congress.
But Trump is already violating that law by allowing the app to stay online. And if his promised deal goes through, Congress has almost no leverage to stop it: The law leaves final approval in the president’s hands, and lawmakers can’t take him to court even if he violates its clear meaning.
“Congress does not have standing to sue,” said Alan Rozenshtein, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. He said a lawmaker can typically only file suit if they’re personally harmed by a violation.
An illegal TikTok-Oracle deal blessed by Trump would immediately join a host of White House actions that flout settled law. The Trump administration is being sued for breaking laws around deportations, civil-service protections, federal spending rules, government data-sharing and more — all of which are now playing out in federal courts across the country.
When it comes to TikTok, however, even the courts offer little recourse to enforce the 2024 law, which the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed in January.
The law requires a “qualified divestiture” of TikTok — an arrangement where ByteDance gives up all control of both the company and the powerful algorithm that runs TikTok’s video-sharing service. It can retain at most a 20 percent financial stake in the company.
The Oracle deal under discussion — a modification of a prior arrangement between TikTok and Oracle, where U.S. user data was stored on Oracle-run servers while ByteDance retained a role in TikTok’s operations — would likely flunk one or more of those tests. But it’s Trump who is ultimately empowered to declare an agreement acceptable.
“The president gets to decide what constitutes a qualified divestiture,” said Michael Sobolik, a former national security staffer for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute. “That is completely up to him, even though the contours of what needs to happen in a divestiture are spelled out in the law.”
China hawks on Capitol Hill are rattling their sabers at Trump, warning against any deal that keeps ByteDance in the room.
“The law is clear,” Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), chair of the House Select Committee on China, wrote on Tuesday. “Any deal must eliminate Chinese influence and control over the app to safeguard our interests.”
But Moolenaar and other lawmakers have few options to stop Trump once he decides to proceed. And lawyers say Washington’s sense of powerlessness is compounded by the fact that the White House is already ignoring the TikTok law.”
“search engine optimization appears to be aiding pro-China, anti-U.S. content in a way it did not just a few months ago.
This would not be the first time China has employed such propaganda tactics on YouTube, even though the platform is banned within China. In a 2021 report, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute described how “the Chinese Communist Party uses foreign social media influencers to shape and push messages domestically and internationally about Xinjiang” — where China is committing an ongoing genocide against one of its minority populations — “that are aligned with its own preferred narratives.” The pro-Chinese government influencers mentioned in the report match some of those that come up in our search results on YouTube when searching for “China.”
In 2023, the same institute found a coordinated influence campaign originating on YouTube that was promoting pro-China and anti-U.S. narratives. A recent article in the Guardian may offer a glimpse into what is happening. It found that “After requests from the governments of Russia and China, Google has removed content such as YouTube videos.””
“The Chinese government and Chinese companies do not enjoy the benefits of free speech guaranteed by our Constitution. But American citizens still do, including the often forgotten right to hear and receive information, even from the most suspicious sources. In his seemingly reluctant and “admittedly tentative” concurring opinion in TikTok v. Garland, Justice Neil Gorsuch alluded to the principle and its history while acknowledging the unique technical and security challenges presented by TikTok: “Speaking with and in favor of a foreign adversary is one thing. Allowing a foreign adversary to spy on Americans is another.””