Mediaboss Marketing

Back in January, Representative Liz Cheney earned the ire of many a fellow Republican when she had the audacity to claim that Donald Trump had lit the flame of the attack on the Capitol, announced her support to impeach him, and then, days later, voted to do exactly that. Of course, nothing that Cheney said or did was wrongTrump quite obviously incited the violent riot and he should have been impeachedbut to his band of loyalists in the party, the Wyoming lawmakers actions were tantamount to treason. (Which is an interesting point of view, given that the guy they were defending had literally tried to overthrow the results of a federal election.) Dozens of Republican representatives tried to strip Cheney of her role as conference chair. Florida representative Matt Gaetz flew to Wyoming and, after declaring like only a mediocre white man can that he knew everything there was to know about the place having been there for one hour, urged voters to oust her from the House. Donald Trump Jr. has spent the last two months and change attacking Cheney for disrespecting his father.

Unfortunately for Junior, his quest to avenge Daddy Trump and maybe get more than one biannual hug, is not going so hot. Per CNN:

A Wyoming Senate bill to create election runoffsfailed on Wednesday, despite Donald Trump Jr.s campaign to pass it in an attempt to defeat Republican Rep. Liz Cheney in 2022. The vote was 1415 with one lawmaker excused. The former presidents son has increasingly attacked the No. 3 House Republican sinceshe voted to impeach his fatherfollowing the deadly attack on the Capitol. In January, Trump Jr. called into an anti-Cheney rallyled by Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, urging Republicans to coalesce around a single candidate to challenge her. And in March, Trump Jr. publicly pressured the state senators on the committee working on the bill, tweeting their email addresses to his 6.8 million followers. Any Republican in Wyoming who does Liz Cheneys bidding and opposes SF145 is turning their back on my father and the entire America First movement, Trump Jr.tweeted.

The bill wouldve forced Cheney and other candidates to receive more than 50% of the vote to win a primary, and potentially pit her against one Trump-backed opponent in a runoff primary election. But despite Trump Jr.s efforts, a Wyoming state Senate committee amended the bill so it wouldnt take effect until 2023, as some legislators pushed to give county clerks enough time to adapt.

Earlier this week, the ex-presidents namesake tweeted a photo of Cheney speaking to Democratic representative Jamie Raskin and suggested the two were conspiring to take down his father:

Last month, Junior said in an interview that he has no intention of running for office right now but wouldnt rule out a future bid. At the moment, though, he believes he can make a bigger impact on the Republican Party by focusing on the weaklings who voted to impeach his dad for a second time. Said weaklings are no doubt quivering in fear.

Someone at Amazon thought it was a good idea to get into a Twitter war with Democratic lawmakers

Oh, Amazon. Dear, sweet, innocent Amazon. Youre a trillion-dollar company that made Jeff Bezos $58 billion richer in the course of one year. You crush mom-and-pop stores just by looking at them. Someday soon, youll probably roll out technologythat will allow people to use one-click ordering to have a warehouse employee dropped directly into their bathroom to wipe their asses for them, eliminating the need for toilet paper (but not the profit, because the ass-wiping wont come cheap). Youre the kind of monopoly aspiring monopolies hope to be one day. Yet apparently there isnt one person on your corporate communications team who realized that this was a stupid idea:

Those are a mere sampling of the tweets sent from Amazons corporate account this week in which the tech giant has attempted to own a bunch of lawmakers whove said mean but true things about them. In the case of Bernie Sanders, Amazon is presumably mad at him for backing the attempt by workers at an Alabama warehouse to unionize, an effort that the tech behemoth is unsurprisingly unhappy about, hence the anti-union messages in the bathrooms. Of course, Sanders is not the governor of Vermont, and so he cant control the minimum wage in the state. (Amazon could learn about the difference between federal, state, and local governing in a book called *The Infographic Guide to American Government: A Visual Reference for Everything You Need to Know,* the Kindle edition of which is available right now on Amazon.com.) As for the companys minimum wage, it was raised to $15 in 2018 after pressure fromBernard Sanders.

Read more:
Wyoming Tells Donald Trump Jr. to Sit Down and STFU - Vanity Fair

WASHINGTON (AP) Dominion Voting Systems filed a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News on Friday, arguing the cable news giant, in an effort to boost faltering ratings, falsely claimed that the voting company had rigged the 2020 election.

The lawsuit is part of a growing body of legal action filed by the voting company and other targets of misleading, false and bizarre claims spread by President Donald Trump and his allies in the aftermath of Trumps election loss to Joe Biden. Those claims helped spur on rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in a violent siege that left five people dead, including a police officer. The siege led to Trumps historic second impeachment.

Dominion argues that Fox News, which amplified inaccurate assertions that Dominion altered votes, sold a false story of election fraud in order to serve its own commercial purposes, severely injuring Dominion in the process, according to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by The Associated Press.

The truth matters. Lies have consequences, the lawsuit said. ... If this case does not rise to the level of defamation by a broadcaster, then nothing does.

Even before Dominions lawsuit on Friday, Fox News had already filed four motions to dismiss other legal action against its coverage. And anchor Eric Shawn interviewed a Dominion spokesperson on air in November.

Fox News Media is proud of our 2020 election coverage, which stands in the highest tradition of American journalism, and we will vigorously defend against this baseless lawsuit in court, it said in a statement on Friday.

There was no known widespread fraud in the 2020 election, a fact that a range of election officials across the country and even Trumps attorney general, William Barr have confirmed. Republican governors in Arizona and Georgia, key battleground states crucial to Bidens victory, also vouched for the integrity of the elections in their states. Nearly all the legal challenges from Trump and his allies were dismissed by judges, including two tossed by the Supreme Court, which has three Trump-nominated justices.

Still, some Fox News employees elevated false charges that Dominion had changed votes through algorithms in its voting machines that had been created in Venezuela to rig elections for the late dictator Hugo Chavez. On-air personalities brought on Trump allies Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, who spread the claims, and then amplified those claims on Fox News massive social media platforms.

Dominion said in the lawsuit that it tried repeatedly to set the record straight but was ignored by Fox News.

The company argues that Fox News, a network that features several pro-Trump personalities, pushed the false claims to explain away the former presidents loss. The cable giant lost viewers after the election and was seen by Trump and some supporters as not being supportive enough of the Republican.

Attorneys for Dominion said Fox News behavior differs greatly from that of other media outlets that reported on the claims.

This was a conscious, knowing business decision to endorse and repeat and broadcast these lies in order to keep its viewership, said attorney Justin Nelson, of Susman Godfrey.

Though Dominion serves 28 states, until the 2020 election it had been largely unknown outside the election community. It is now widely targeted in conservative circles, seen by millions of people as one of the main villains in a fictional tale in which Democrats nationwide conspired to steal votes from Trump, the lawsuit said.

Dominions employees, from its software engineers to its founder, have been harassed. Some received death threats. And the company has suffered enormous and irreparable economic harm, lawyers said.

One employee, Eric Coomer, told the AP he had to go into hiding over death threats because of the false claims. He has sued the Trump campaign, conservative media columnists and conservative media outlets Newsmax and One America News Network.

Dominion has also sued Giuliani, Powell and the CEO of Minnesota-based MyPillow over the claims. A rival technology company, Smartmatic USA, also sued Fox News over election claims for a similar sum of money. Unlike Dominion, Smartmatics participation in the 2020 election was restricted to Los Angeles County. Fox News has moved to dismiss the Smartmatic suit.

Dominion lawyers said they have not yet filed lawsuits against specific media personalities at Fox News but the door remains open. Some at Fox News knew the claims were false but their comments were drowned out, lawyers said.

The buck stops with Fox on this, attorney Stephen Shackelford said. Fox chose to put this on all of its many platforms. They rebroadcast, republished it on social media and other places.

The suit was filed in Delaware, where both companies are incorporated, though Fox News is headquartered in New York and Dominion is based in Denver.

Original post:
Dominion Voting sues Fox for $1.6B over 2020 election claims - The Associated Press

Donald Trumps planned social media platform will debut in three to four months, the former presidents one-time campaign manager and senior adviser said.

Were going to have a platform where the presidents message of America First is going to be able to be put out to everybody, Corey Lewandowski said on the conservative Newsmax TV networks Saturday Agenda.

Therell be an opportunity for other people to weigh in and communicate in a free format without fear of reprisal or being canceled, he said.

Lewandowskis comments followed ones from Trump, who said on a March 22 podcast that after being banned from Twitter and other major social-media platforms, hes working on his own and would have more details soon.

Im doing things having to do with putting our own platform out there that youll be hearing about soon, Trump said in an interview for Fox News contributor Lisa Boothes podcast The Truth.

A week ago, Trump adviser Jason Miller said Trump would return to social media in about two to three months.

Trump picked Lewandowski to run a super PAC as part of his forthcoming post-presidential political efforts, Politico reported in February.

Original post:
Trump ally says social media site is coming in three to four months - The Boston Globe

UPMC on Friday said it has given monoclonal antibody treatment to about 1,000 people, preventing death or even hospitalization for about 70 percent.

UPMC portrayed the results as a major breakthrough in COVID-19 treatment and one that, along with vaccine, can prevent a repeat of COVID-19 surges and high death rates of the past.

Moreover, UPMC said the treatment is available at 16 of its locations, including UPMC Pinnacle hospitals in the Harrisburg region.

I would advise most patients to get monoclonal antibody treatment if they qualify, said Erin McCreary, a UPMC infectious disease pharmacist.

McCreary said UPMC plans to eventually detail its results in a peer-reviewed article. However, because the results represent a transformative and life-saving development, UPMC chose to publicize the results on Friday, she said.

Monoclonal antibody treatment is a one-time treatment given intravenously. According to McCreary, it involves copies of antibodies which seek out the COVID-19 virus and prevent it from infecting the cells and reproducing.

Essentially, were giving your immune system a leg up on the virus before it can take hold and wreak havoc, she said.

McCreary said side effects have been minimal, and she knows of no UPMC patients who had to be hospitalized because of reaction to the treatment. Three versions of monoclonal antibody treatment are available under emergency use approval from the federal government.

UPMC doctors said the treatment was given to President Donald Trump in October, when Trump made a seemingly miraculous recovering after coming down with COVID-19. UPMC had no role in treating Trump.

UPMC said it has found the treatment works best if given within 10 days of a positive COVID-19 test and, ideally, within four days of the onset of mild symptoms.

Its available to people at highest risk of becoming severely ill from COVID-19, including people 65 and older and younger patients who are obese or have conditions such diabetes or heart, lung or kidney disease.

About one-third of UPMC COVID-19 patients qualify. However, UPMC doctors said Friday they will advocate for expanding eligibility.

They further said they are surprised monoclonal antibody treatment isnt being used more widely. In fact, they said, because of expanded demand, they devised a lottery system to determine who would receive it, to ensure people dont use favored status and connections to get it. They havent had to use the lottery.

They urged people with COVID-19 symptoms to ask their doctors about getting the treatment.

They said costs are covered by the federal government or private insurance and cost shouldnt be a barrier for anyone.

They further said the monoclonal antibody treatment is being adjusted to involve more than one antibody. UPMC is studying the revised versions to determine if they are more effective against variant strains of COVID-19, which werent present when the original version was developed.

The UPMC doctors said the treatment is available in UPMC emergency rooms and also can be given at nursing homes or even at someones home.

After Trump tested positive and began feeling severely ill on a Friday in October, he was given monoclonal antibody therapy at the White House before he was taken to the hospital by helicopter. At one point his blood oxygen level had dropped to the point he was given supplemental oxygen.

At the hospital, he was also given an antiviral medication and a steroid. After being flown to the hospital on a Friday, he walked out on the following Monday.

Read more:
UPMC cites dramatic results with COVID-19 treatment received by Trump - PennLive

Photographer: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

Photographer: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

Sometime in the coming weeks, Facebook Inc.s new Oversight Board will announce whether Donald Trump will be allowed to post again on Facebook and Instagram. Based on its recent rulings in other cases, the board seems poised to end Facebooks suspension of Trump, which began in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Trumps return to social media would bolster his attempt to remain the dominant figure in the Republican Party. More broadly, it could reshape the way political speech is governed for Facebooks 2.8 billion users, making it more difficult for the company to remove harmful content and bad actors. A pro-Trump decision could also influence other platforms, including Twitter, which permanently banned the former president after the ransacking of the Capitol, and YouTube, which said on March 4 that it would end its suspension of Trump when the risk of political violence recedes.

Facebook Inc. had ample reason to separate Trump from his 35 million followers on its namesake website, plus 24 million on Instagram. Over a period of months, he used a range of social media platforms to undermine public confidence in the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Then, having drawn thousands of followers to Washington, D.C,. in January for what he promised would be a wild protest, he directed the crowd to march on the Capitol, where Congress was formally counting electoral votes. Five people died in the ensuing attack, and 140 police officers were injured. Explaining its decision to suspend Trump indefinitely, Facebook said it sought to prevent use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government.

A view of Trumps Facebook page on Jan. 7.

Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

But then the company referred the Trump suspension to its Oversight Board, a quasi-judicial body that it set up last year to review content moderation decisions and issue rulings the company promises to follow. The board is made up of 20 globally diverse academics, lawyers, and civic leaders, as well as a former prime minister of Denmark and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. While the board hasnt been shy about second-guessing Facebook, overturning the companys decisions in five out of the six cases decided so far, that top-line number can be misleading. The board has jurisdiction only over Facebooks decisions to remove content, meaning its usually decided to restore it. At least for now, the board isnt allowed to review instances where Facebook has allowed potentially harmful materialsuch as incitement, hate speech, or disinformationto remain on its platform.

Some observers have argued that Facebook designed the Oversight Board as a clever sham that would allow it to keep controversial content on the platform. Such content drives user engagement, which, in turn, maximizes ad revenue. That seems overstated. The relatively tiny number of cases the board is likely to decide probably wont have a meaningful effect on the overall supply of engagement bait. Moreover, while Facebook has vowed to obey board rulings in particular cases, the company is not obliged to apply the principles the board enunciates to millions of similar cases. Rather than a sham, the oversight body appears to reflect an impulse to outsource responsibility for content moderationto have someone else make tough calls, at least in a handful of especially sensitive cases, like, say, the deplatforming of a former president.

Facebook management tends to outsource decisions about which posts stay up. The company sends the vast majority of its front-line human content moderation work to third-party vendors who employ relatively inexpensive local labor in places including the Philippines and India.

In an interview with Kate Klonick for a definitive New Yorker piece on the founding of the Oversight Board, Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg said the body wasnt designed to deflect responsibility. Im not setting this up to take pressure off me or the company in the near term, he said. The reason that Im doing this is that I think, over the long term, if we build up a structure that people can trust, then that can help create legitimacy and create real oversight.

The analytical approach the Oversight Board has taken favors the restoration of Trumps account. As a corporation, Facebook isnt, strictly speaking, constrained by the First Amendment, which limits government restrictions on speech. But in some of its initial rulings, the board has skeptically scrutinized Facebooks own community standards, stressing the ambiguity of the rules under which the company has removed content. Its also tended to frame the factual context of the disputed posts in a narrow way, an approach that can minimize the potential harm the speech in question could cause. If carried over to the Trump decision, these inclinations would help him.

Consider a ruling that reversed Facebooks removal of a 2020 post from Myanmar that included the assertion that there is something wrong with Muslims psychologically. Facebook took down the post under its policy against hate speech. The board acknowledged the severity of anti-Muslim animus in Myanmar but referred to this instance as a mere expression of opinion, which did not advocate hatred or intentionally incite any form of imminent harm. The board could have taken a broader view of the recent history of Myanmar. Doing so would have put more emphasis on the Myanmar militarys ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims, an atrocity partly fueled by dehumanizing rhetoric spread on Facebook. The companys belated vigilance about preventing further lethal abuse of its platform in Myanmar seems warranted.

In another case, the board overturned the removal of a post from France describing the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a cure for Covid-19, a widespread claim that has been refuted by scientific evidence. Facebook took action under its rule against misinformation that risks imminent physical harm. In light of the coronavirus pandemic, the company has vowed to remove claims of false cures and other medical misinformation. But the Oversight Board was dissatisfied with Facebooks inappropriately vague guidelines, concluding: A patchwork of policies found on different parts of Facebooks website make it difficult for users to understand what content is prohibited. So the misleading post about a phony cure was restored.

Which brings us back to Trump. Describing his pending case on its website, the board narrows its focus to just two posts from Jan. 6. In the first, Trump appeared in a video while the rioters were still ransacking the Capitol. We had an election that was stolen from us, he told the insurrectionists. He said they should go home but added, We love you. Youre very special. In a later written message, posted while police were securing the Capitol, he said, These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously ripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.

This framing of the case suggests the board may not consider adequately the broader context: the pattern of Trumps Facebook and Twitter pronouncements, going back months, in which he tried to erode popular faith in voting and the peaceful transfer or power. Another possible signal that should give Trump some confidence is the boards assertion in its case preview that Facebook wasnt crystal clear about which of its rules he violated. In earlier decisions, the board pointed to this kind of fuzziness to justify reversals of company sanctions.

Removing a political leader from a widely used platform should be a punishment of last resort. It narrows the scope of political debate and may deny voters valuable election-related information. In close cases, Facebook should lean toward penalties like labeling content as misleading or limiting its distribution.

To Facebook, though, Trump wasnt a close case. His social media communication, viewed in total, spread falsehoods about a rigged election and thereby created a real danger to our democracy. He praised and justified insurrectionists, even as they stalked congressional hallways, chanting that they wanted to hang Vice President Mike Pence. Facebook has no obligation to amplify speech that undermines democratic governance and incites violence. But the Oversight Board, as a result of its bureaucratic imperatives and analytical approach, might yet restore Trumps Facebook and Instagram megaphones.Barrett, a former writer for Bloomberg Businessweek, is the deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, where he researches disinformation.Read next: Marketers Push Black Lives Matter But Underpay Black Influencers

Here is the original post:
Trump's Facebook Ban Will Likely Be Overturned by New Oversight Board - Bloomberg