Tag: posts

On Monday, Twitter debuted a new feature that will allow users to add notes to other people’s tweets. It’s a user-generated fact-checking system, and it’s called Birdwatch.

In the pilot phase, these notes will be available on a separate website rather than Twitter itself—though the tentative plan is to eventually add the feature to the main platform.

Nick Pickles, director of public policy strategy and development at Twitter, told Reason the goal is to “move the policy debate about content moderation beyond a framing of deciding whether things are true or false or not.”

“People on Twitter desire to be part of the conversation,” he said.

Twitter gave me a preview and demonstration of Birdwatch prior to its launch and solicited my feedback. The concept is intriguing: Notes will be written by Twitter users who have signed up for Birdwatch. The idea is to provide clarification; in the pilot program, participants could use a note to explain why a tweet is inaccurate, for instance. If another user thinks a note is wrong, they can add a note of their own. Participants will rate the helpfulness of other Birdwatchers’ notes, and eventually, Twitter will be able to prioritize the visibility of notes that were written by users who are highly rated.

“These notes are being intentionally kept separate from Twitter for now, while we build Birdwatch and gain confidence that it produces context people find helpful and appropriate,” said Keith Coleman, vice president of products at Twitter. “Additionally, notes will not have an effect on the way people see Tweets or our system recommendations.”

It’s an interesting approach to a difficult problem. Twitter has struggled with how to handle factually inaccurate tweets, such as those concerning the 2020 presidential election. The strategy Twitter settled on was manually adding warning labels to these tweets. The issue there is that it positions the platform to play the role of fact-checker, and people might reasonably see evidence of political bias in which tweets generate warning labels. Users might also assume—wrongly—that if a tweet does not contain a warning label, it has been deemed accurate by the platform.

The beauty of Birdwatch is that the fact-checking is provided by other users, rather than by Twitter itself. Under this system, there should be no complaints that Twitter has fact-checked X tweet but not Y tweet—that’s up to the users, and anyone who doesn’t like a note is free to object to it.

These notes don’t have to be mere true/false statements, either. Birdwatchers will be encouraged to provide clarity and nuance, and link to articles that support their argument. Again, the accountability comes via this system itself: Users can rate the helpfulness of notes, or add their own.

Here’s a video that explains how it works:

 

Fact-checking users’ obviously joke statements about whale conspiracies would probably not be the best use of Birdwatch, though as the video makes clear, the system will prompt note-adders to consider whether a tweet is satirical. (And at least in theory, habitually adding pointless notes to joke tweets would perhaps earn a user an “unhelpful” rating.)

In my conversations with Twitter personnel, they freely admitted that they couldn’t predict exactly how this will all work out. But they are optimistic that the Twitter community in the aggregate is capable of accurately adjudicating the veracity of tweets. At best, this could outmode the more obnoxious fact-checking done by Twitter itself. At worst—well, it’s an interesting science experiment.

In the pilot phase, signups are limited to Twitter users who have not recently violated the terms of service. Those eligible can apply here.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36aGrxX
via IFTTT

On Saturday, I provided an overview of New Hampshire v. Massachusetts, an important “original jurisdiction” state vs. state case currently before the Supreme Court. At that time, I noted that we might know as soon as today how the Supreme Court intended to handle case, because this is the day when the Court would issue orders related to cases that went to conference on Friday, January 22 (including this one).

In reality, the only step the Court took on the case today, was issue an order inviting the acting Solicitor General “to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.” Obviously, this is only a very modest step. But it does suggest the Court is taking the case seriously, and is unlikely to dismiss the case out of hand, as it did with a number of previous original jurisdiction cases, such as last month’s “Texas Turkey” attempting to overturn the election results in some key swing states.

It will also be interesting to see where the Biden Administration comes down on the case. As a general rule, Democratic administrations often favor the interests of high-tax blue states, which might mean supporting Massachusetts’ efforts to tax remote workers employed by Massachusetts firms, but working in other states. But, as the amicus briefs show, blue states are actually divided on this case, with Connecticut, New Jersey, and Hawaii joining a brief supporting New Hampshire. The latter is itself a purple state trending slowly blue, and a a potential swing state in presidential and senatorial elections.

One possible easy out for the administration would be to avoid taking a position on the substantive issue, but argue that New Hampshire doesn’t have standing to bring the case. That might also be attractive to them because clamping down on state standing might make it tougher for red states to sue the Biden Administration itself. I hope they do not go this route, but it’s certainly possible.

Historically, political liberals have often favored loose standing rules, while conservatives have favored tighter ones. But that relationship has become muddled in recent years, as both right and left often take opportunistic positions on standing, depending on whose ox is being gored in a particular case. I myself have long favored abolishing standing requirements entirely, and I have held this view during both Democratic and Republican administrations. But I admit my position isn’t likely to prevail anytime soon.

Whatever the administration decides to do, it looks like this case isn’t likely to go away quickly. The Court has already had it under consideration for many weeks, and it seems increasingly likely that they are going to give it a full hearing.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3plGyhF
via IFTTT

This morning, U.S. Dominion, Inc. made good on its threats to sue Rudy Giuliani by filing a $1.3 billion defamation suit against him for propagating and repeating various unfounded conspiracy claims about Dominion Voting Systems and its various election-related products. This suit follows on a similar filing against Sidney Powell, demand letters filed against conservative media outlets, and a threatened suit against My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell.

Dominion’s complaint is available here. The opening reads:

During a court hearing contesting the results of the 2020 election in Pennsylvania, Rudy Giuliani admitted that the Trump Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud” and that “this is not a fraud case.” Although he was unwilling to make false election fraud claims about Dominion and its voting machines in a court of law because he knew those allegations are false, he and his allies manufactured and disseminated the “Big Lie,” which foreseeably went viral and deceived millions of people into believing that Dominion had stolen their votes and fixed the election. Giuliani reportedly demanded $20,000 per day for that Big Lie. But he also cashed in by hosting a podcast where he exploited election falsehoods to market gold coins, supplements, cigars, and protection from “cyberthieves.” Even after the United States Capitol had been stormed by rioters who had been deceived by Giuliani and his allies, Giuliani shirked responsibility for the consequences of his words and repeated the Big Lie again. This defamation action follows.

Among other things, the complaint stresses that while Giuliani often repeated outrageous, unfounded claims against Dominion–and promoted the ravings of Sidney Powell, among others, on television and various public fora–he was careful not to include such allegations in any legal filings in which he participated, likely because he feared court discipline or other adverse consequences from such filings.

According to Axios, additional suits are possible, including perhaps a suit against Trump himself. And, of course, a suit against Lindell is still possible.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3qWxjoJ
via IFTTT

With health care providers running out of doses in droves and hustling to cancel thousands of appointments, many face an additional problem: Hobbled by strict guidelines for who can and cannot receive vaccines right now, and fines for flouting the rules, perfectly good doses are being thrown in the garbage. “I have personally heard stories like this from dozens of physician friends in a variety of different states. Hundreds, if not thousands, of doses are getting tossed across the country every day,” Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, told NBC News.

It’s an entirely predictable outcome. When vials of doses are thawed to prepare them for use, they cannot be refrozen. Vials that have been punctured must be used within just a few hours. Combine those factors with tight state-imposed parameters for which people can currently receive the vaccine and waste is practically unavoidable—when people cancel appointments with little notice, it can be hard for health care workers to find new recipients off the street who qualify under the state’s current phase. They’re left either breaking the law or throwing doses in the garbage.

To make matters worse, state departments of health are struggling to tell how often it’s happening or how many precious doses have been squandered. Although many states mandate reporting of vaccine waste, providers have little incentive to comply: If New York’s system is any indication, they might end up fined or under investigation.

In the Empire State, mass vaccination sites at Yankee Stadium and Citi Field have put operations on hold until the city can receive 200,000 shots per week—double what’s currently expected. But just a few weeks ago, providers were throwing out doses. As I wrote then:

“On December 28, [Gov. Andrew Cuomo] signed an executive order rolling out strict penalties—up to $1 million in fines, plus loss of medical license—for medical providers who allow people to skip the state-issued vaccination line, even when those doses are about to expire….Predictably, The New York Times reported today that some clinics throughout New York City, like the Family Health Center of Harlem, are throwing out doses that are about to expire.”

Meanwhile, a hospital in New Rochelle, New York, came under investigation for potentially allowing people to skip the vaccine line. All their doses were seized and reallocated elsewhere.

Medical providers are engaging in indefensible but perfectly rational behavior when they throw out doses; it’s reasonable to be afraid of fines, and they have no incentive to report vaccine waste to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), despite being asked to do so. As the nonprofit investigative outlet ProPublica reports:

“In Washington, a health facility allegedly threw out some COVID-19 vaccine doses at the end of workers’ shifts because staff believed state guidelines blocked them from giving unused shots to people below the top priority tier. In Maryland, workers appear to have tossed thawed doses when they ran out of time to administer them safely. How many doses, exactly, have been wasted in those states is unknown because neither state is tracking unused or wasted vaccines.”

ProPublica found that some amount of vaccine waste is also occurring in Indiana, Michigan, and New Jersey; it’s totally unclear whether these are isolated incidences or not. In Pueblo, Colorado, 300 doses had to be thrown out after a refrigeration malfunction. And NBC News reports that this is happening in Oregon, Ohio, and Massachusetts as well. Providers and state officials in North Carolina and Virginia allege they’re doing a bit better,

This latest government failure to track the number of doses going to waste is awfully reminiscent of the failure to track school reopening data—something you’d think would be absolutely essential to determining whether school districts can return to in-person instruction. Once those data were collected, experts like Brown University economist Emily Oster were able to make the cautious case for school reopenings, being able to be more confidently assert that schools were not a significant vector for COVID-19 transmission. It’s equally crucial in this situation that states have accurate data as to how many doses are being thrown out and why.

“Vaccines are worth more than gold and we don’t have enough. We can’t afford to waste a ml.,” George Mason University economics professor Alex Tabarrok tells Reason. “Indeed, until production is much higher we need to consider every possible method of ‘stretching’ our doses such as using low dead-volume syringes, half-dosing, and moving to First Doses First.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2NpEOpt
via IFTTT

Before his death from prostate cancer in 1993, Rock & Roll Hall of Fame member Frank Zappa spent time in jail for making an obscene recording requested by undercover cops, released 60 records in every genre imaginable, became one of the first modern musical artists to start his own company, testified before Congress that labeling music due to lyrical content was an attack on free speech, and inspired Vaclav Havel and others fighting Czechoslovakia’s repressive communist regime. He packed a hell of a lot into 52 years, and made a lot of waves and enemies along the way.

Zappa is the subject of an eponymous new documentary by Alex Winter, whose previous films include Downloaded (a study of Napster and unauthorized file sharing), Deep Web (a look at Ross Ulbricht and the Silk Road), and Trust Machine (an exploration of how blockchain technology decentralizes power; go here for a Reason interview with him about that film).

“Zappa,” says Winter, who is also well-known for his acting in the Bill & Ted series and other films, “matters because he was an extremely talented and composer but also because…he was very anti-authoritarian, very anti-fascist, very pro–citizens’ rights. He also saw the tech revolution coming. In all of these extremely interesting ways, Zappa was ahead of the curve.” Although his politics, like his music, defy easy (or any, really) categorization, Winter says that Zappa’s overriding beliefs in free speech, individualism, and entrepreneurship carried strong libertarian connotations.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie; edited by Meredith Bragg.

Photo Credits: SONY PICTURES CLASSICS / Album/Newscom; Album / Francesc Fàbregas/Newscom; Philippe Gras/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Keystone Press Agency/ZUMA Press/Newscom; SONY PICTURES CLASSICS / Album/Newscom; Philippe Gras / Le Pictorium/Newscom; Rowntree, Bill/Mirrorpix/Newscom; KEYSTONE Pictures USA/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Alain Dister/DAPR/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Tschiponnique Skupin/ZUMApress/Newscom; Pamela Price/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Mirrorpix/Newscom

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3oaxKKc
via IFTTT

Members of the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) voted overwhelmingly on Sunday to continue to teach remotely—even though district officials want teachers back in classrooms beginning this week.

Chicago Public Schools Chief Executive Officer Janice Jackson described any refusal to come to work on Monday as an “illegal strike,” according to The Washington Post.

The union reported that roughly 86 percent of its 25,000 members participated in the vote, and 71 percent of teachers wanted to keep teaching remotely. “CPS did everything possible to divide us by instilling fear through threats of retaliation, but you still chose unity, solidarity and to collectively act as one,” said the union in a statement.

The union has previously claimed that the push to reopen schools is rooted in “sexism and racism,” even though the inadequacies of virtual education are disproportionately harming young people of color and forcing hundreds of thousands of women to exit the work force. And when the district decided to hire 2,000 new employees to assist students in the classroom if their teachers opt to continue with distance learning, the union objected to that plan, too.

This is completely unreasonable—and totally unfair to the kids and parents held hostage by politically powerful teachers unions. Many families would undoubtedly prefer to reclaim the per-pupil dollars forcibly confiscated via taxation and spend that money on education options that actually meet their kids’ needs: private school, pod-based learning, tutoring, etc. But the public school system obviously won’t give back the money; it will continue to compensate teachers even if they refuse to work.

Completely unreasonable behavior is not solely the province of Chicago’s teachers: In Fairfax, Virginia, teachers union boss Kimberly Adams expressed opposition to five-day in-person learning next fall, even if all the teachers have been vaccinated. In an email to Reason, Adams confirmed that she believes the hybrid model—two days of in-person learning and three days of virtual learning—should remain in place.

“Concern remains that students will not be vaccinated before they return to school,” said Adams. “This requires that we maintain the hybrid model and continue social distancing, masking and all the other mitigation strategies.”

Of course, there’s no plan to vaccinate most students—because the vaccines aren’t even approved for kids younger than 16. What Adams is suggesting is essentially that schools should remain mostly virtual indefinitely.

This is a horrifying prospect for many families. It’s especially tough for the kids themselves. Nevada’s Clark County School District, which includes Las Vegas, recently made the decision to reopen, in part because of a rash of suicides among young people.

“When we started to see the uptick in children taking their lives, we knew it wasn’t just the Covid numbers we need to look at anymore,” Jesus Jara, Clark County’s superintendent, told The New York Times. “We have to find a way to put our hands on our kids, to see them, to look at them. They’ve got to start seeing some movement, some hope.”

That Times report, which goes into great detail about the pandemic-inflicted mental health crisis among kids, is not for the faint of heart. Young people, thankfully, have very little to fear from the disease itself. But society’s strategies for coping with COVID-19 have impacted them severely. Many of the most disadvantaged children—those who rely on the public school system—have been at home for nearly an entire year. We are already seeing the effects on their mental health, and the future will likely bring equally bad consequences in terms of their educational achievements, college prospects, and beyond.

This is all happening despite the fact that schools can reopen safely, and have never been associated with significant COVID-19 spread. With teachers at the front of the vaccination line in many states, the already thin argument for continuing to traumatize children in the name of public safety is hard to take seriously.

Yet teachers unions, in Chicago and elsewhere, are holding the public education system hostage. Their petty defiance is not just cruel, but also contrary to both established science and the clear interests of families. Letting a class of government employees become this powerful should be treated as a clear failing of public policy.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ol1OTo
via IFTTT