Connect with us

U.S.

Facebook Will Not Run New Political Ads in the Week Before the Election

Published

on

  • Facebook released a series of new policies aimed at fighting misinformation as the election draws closer. Those policies include removing posts that use COVID-19 as a way to discourage voting, and adding information labels to any post where a candidate preemptively declares victory. 
  • The policy that attracted the most attention was Facebook’s plans to not accept new political ads the week before the election, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg explaining that there may not be enough time to contest or fact check information in that limited time.
  • Both sides have criticized this choice, with President Donald Trump’s campaign saying it goes too far by silencing political campaigns.
  • Other critics think the measure does not do enough to combat misinformation and feel the platform should be doing more to monitor political speech and ads during this time.

Facebook Announces New Tools to Fight Election Misinformation 

Facebook unveiled a slate of new policies Thursday that will be enacted to protect the upcoming election, including barring new political ads the week before Election Day. 

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained in a statement that in the final days leading up to the election, there may not be enough time to contest or fact check information in new political advertisements. Facebook has long faced pressure to limit or even ban political ads on the platform. Zuckerberg has usually opposed that idea, making this one of the strongest actions he has ever taken against the practice. 

“This election is not going to be business as usual,” Zuckerberg wrote in a statement. “We all have a responsibility to protect our democracy. That means helping people register and vote, clearing up confusion about how this election will work, and taking steps to reduce the chances of violence and unrest.”

In addition to not accepting new political ads, Facebook will also be removing posts that use COVID-19 to discourage voting, adding an informational label to posts that seek to delegitimize the outcome of the election or voting methods, and adding labels to posts made by politicians who might declare victory before the final results are in. 

The site even plan to link to accurate results on those kinds of posts and is working with Reuters on providing election results and information. On top of that, the social media giant is working to register voters heading into November 3.

Zuckerberg expressed concern about how the public might respond in the likely event that it could take several days for election results to come in as a result of increased mail-in voting. He said that it is “important that we prepare for this possibility in advance and understand that there could be a period of intense claims and counter-claims as the final results are counted.”

“I believe our democracy is strong enough to withstand this challenge and deliver a free and fair election,” Zuckerberg said in closing his statement. He suggested that it will take the work of political parties, candidates, election officials, media, and voters to make that happen. 

Criticism of New Policies

These measures were met with backlash from figures on both sides of the political aisle. While the Joe Biden campaign has yet to issue an official statement about the news, President Donald Trump’s campaign condemned it, thinking it went too far in silencing political campaigns.

“In the last seven days of the most important election in our history, President Trump will be banned from defending himself on the largest platform in America,” Samantha Zager, the Trump campaign’s deputy national press secretary said in a statement. Though, despite the suggestions of this claim, political speech on the platform is not banned. Trump is still allowed to post during that week, the campaign is just not allowed to run new political advertisements. 

On the other side of the debate, some thought Facebook’s new rules did not go far enough in fighting misinformation, which runs rampant on the site. Dipayan Ghosh, the co-director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s digital platforms and democracy project, told ABC News that the move is “narrow.”

“I think we have to acknowledge that in prohibiting new political advertising over that last week, the company is essentially volunteering the position that it believes that political ads have the potential to harm the democratic process,” Ghosh explained. “The question then is, why stop them just one week before Election Day? Especially in an election cycle when many people will have voted well before Election Day because of mail-in ballots or early voting.”

Media Matters president Angelo Carusone called these actions “pointless.”

“Of all of the issues with disinformation and extremism on Facebook — political ads are at the bottom of the list,” Carusone wrote in a statement. “Facebook’s signal-boosting right-wingers and lax policy enforcement are much bigger issues: It wasn’t Facebook’s political ads that brought the Kenosha killer to Wisconsin, after all.”

“This is just another PR stunt from Facebook. Don’t buy it,” he said.

Other Responses

Not all responses to Facebook’s new policy were negative, though. Some expressed optimism, albeit cautiously. Vanita Gupta, the President and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, believes that these policies have potential so long as they are executed properly. 

She said that these plans are “significant improvements & come after much pressure from civil rights community.”

“But everything – any impact – rests on enforcement,” she added.

Claire Wardle, the U.S. director of First Draft, a nonprofit group that combats misinformation, told the Washington Post that she was pleasantly surprised by these new steps. 

“It’s a strange feeling to read something by Mark Zuckerberg and say, ‘Yup, yup, yup,'” she said. “I’m pretty excited by it.”

See what others are saying: (ABC News) (Washington Post) (Politico)

U.S.

FDA Authorizes Moderna and J&J COVID Vaccine Boosters, Approves Mix-and-Match Doses

Published

on

The approval will allow at-risk Americans who received Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to get any booster six months after their initial series and all Johnson & Johnson recipients 18 and older to do the same two months after their single-shot dose.


New FDA Authorization

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday authorized boosters shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines and approved a mix-and-match strategy that will allow people who got one company’s shot to get a booster from a different maker.

The decision paves the way for millions of more at-risk Americans to get extra protection, and not just certain Pfizer recipients as previously approved by the FDA.

Under the authorization, people who received Moderna or Pfizer can get any one of the three booster shots six months after completing their initial series if they are 65 and older, at high risk of severe COVID, or face increased exposure because of their work.

Meanwhile, all J&J recipients 18 and older can get any of the approved vaccines two months after they received the one-shot jab.

Hazy Recommendations, For Now

Notably, the FDA did not recommend a certain combination of vaccines, nor did the agency say whether or not it would be more effective for people to stick with their original vaccine maker for their booster.

The new authorizations draw on a study from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which found that there are no safety concerns with mixing boosters and that vaccine combinations were at least as effective in stimulating antibodies as matched vaccines.

In the case of J&J recipients, the NIH found that people actually had a higher boost from mixing either Moderna or Pfizer boosters.

However, some of the scientists who worked on the study said it should not be used to recommend one combination over another because the research was limited.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which determines vaccine recommendations, could issue more guidance on when and whether people should switch vaccine makers for their booster shots.

An advisory panel for the agency is meeting Thursday to discuss the new FDA authorizations and recommendations.

Once the panel makes its decision, the CDC director has the final say on the guidelines. If the agency agrees with the FDA’s decisions, the booster shots could be rolled out as soon as this weekend.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (NPR) (The Washington Post)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Paris Hilton Urges Lawmakers To Crack Down on Abusive Teen Treatment Facilities

Published

on

The heiress alleges that she was a victim of abuse in these types of centers for two years and wants to ensure that no child suffers through the same experience.


Paris Hilton Details Abuse Within “Troubled Teen Industry”

Socialite and entrepreneur Paris Hilton spoke outside of the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday to support the Accountability for Congregate Care Act, which is set to be introduced in the near future.

Hilton joined Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) to advocate for the legislation, which aims to create a “bill of rights” for children in treatment and behavioral centers.

The heiress has alleged that she spent two of her teenage years in these types of facilities and was subject to rampant abuse. She is far from alone. 

During a press conference, Hilton said that one night when she was 16, she woke up to two large men in her bedroom forcing her out of her house. She said she screamed for help because she thought she was being kidnapped, but her parents watched as she was taken away to a “troubled teen” program. 

“Like countless other parents of teens, my parents had searched for solutions to my rebellious behavior,” she explained in an op-ed for The Washington Post this week. “Unfortunately, they fell for the misleading marketing of the ‘troubled teen industry’ — therapeutic boarding schools, military-style boot camps, juvenile justice facilities, behavior modification programs and other facilities that generate roughly $50 billion annually in part by pitching ‘tough love’ as the answer to problematic behavior.”

Hilton said she was sent to four different facilities where she was “physically and psychologically abused.” 

“I was strangled, slapped across the face, watched in the shower by male staff, called vulgar names, forced to take medication without a diagnosis, not given a proper education, thrown into solitary confinement in a room covered in scratch marks and smeared in blood and so much more,” she explained during the press conference. 

“At Provo Canyon School in Utah, I was given clothes with a number on the tag. I was no longer me, I was only number 127,” she continued. “I was forced to stay indoors for 11 months straight, no sunlight, no fresh air. These were considered privileges.”

Goals of the  Accountability for Congregate Care Act

Hilton claims that a lack of transparency and accountability has allowed this structure of abuse to thrive for decades. In some cases, she said it has taken children’s lives. Now, she wants Congress and President Joe Biden to act. 

“This bill creates an urgently needed bill of rights to ensure that every child placed into congregate care facilities is provided a safe and humane environment,” Hilton said of the Accountability for Congregate Care Act.

“This bill of rights provides protections that I wasn’t afforded, like access to education, to the outdoors, freedom from abusive treatment, and even the basic right to move and speak freely. If I had these rights and could have exercised them, I would have been saved from over 20 years of trauma and severe PTSD.” 

Foster children, children being treated for mental disorders, and other children in youth programs would be impacted by the bill.

Hilton was one of several survivors and advocates who fought for the legislation on Wednesday. Rep. Khanna thanked them for using their stories to fight for change. 

“No child should be subjected to solitary confinement, forced labor, or any form of institutional abuse,” he wrote. “Thanks to Paris Hilton, my colleagues & the survivors & advocates who joined us today to discuss how we can hold the congregate care industry accountable.”

While only Democratic legislators are currently sponsoring the bill, Hilton called for a bipartisan effort to fight for the rights of children. 

Ensuring that children are safe from institutional abuse isn’t a Republican or Democratic issue,” Hilton said. “It’s a basic human rights issue that requires immediate attention.”

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The Hill) (NBC News)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Surgeons Successfully Test Pig Kidney Transplant on a Human

Published

on

The procedure has been hailed as a major scientific breakthrough that could eventually open the door to a renewable source of desperately needed organs.


Groundbreaking Procedure

Surgeons at the NYU Langone Transplant Institute revealed Tuesday that they temporarily attached a kidney from a genetically modified pig to a human patient and found that it worked normally.

The operation was the first of its kind and could one day lead to a vast supply of organs for those who are in severe need. According to the Associated Press, more than 90,000 people in the U.S. are in line for a kidney transplant. Each day, an average of 12 die while waiting.

With the family’s consent, the groundbreaking procedure was performed on a brain-dead patient who was kept alive on a ventilator.

According to the surgeons, the pig used was genetically engineered to grow an organ that wouldn’t produce a sugar that the human immune system attacks, which would then trigger the body to reject the kidney. 

The organ was connected to blood vessels on the patient’s upper leg, outside the abdomen, and it was observed for over 54 hours, with doctors finding no signs of rejection.

Concerns and Hurdles Ahead

While the procedure was successful, this doesn’t mean it’ll be available to patients anytime soon. Several questions about long-term functionality remain, and it will still have to go through significant medical and regulatory hurdles. 

Details of the procedure haven’t even been peer-reviewed or published in a medical journal yet, though there are plans for this. 

Experts are also considering the ethical implications of this type of animal-to-human transplant. For some, raising pigs to harvest their organs raises concerns about animal welfare and exploitation. Such medical procedures have already earned criticism from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA.

“Pigs aren’t spare parts and should never be used as such just because humans are too self-centered to donate their bodies to patients desperate for organ transplants,” PETA said in a statement, according to The New York Times.

On the other side of the debate are people like Dr. Robert Montgomery, the director of the N.Y.U. Langone Transplant Institute who performed the breakthrough procedure in September.

“I certainly understand the concern and what I would say is that currently about 40% of patients who are waiting for a transplant die before they receive one,” he told BBC.

“We use pigs as a source of food, we use pigs for medicinal uses – for valves, for medication. I think it’s not that different.”

See what others are saying: (CNN)(BBC) (The New York Times)

Continue Reading