ReportWire

Tag: international alerts

  • The largest newspaper publisher in the US sues Google, alleging online ad monopoly | CNN Business

    The largest newspaper publisher in the US sues Google, alleging online ad monopoly | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Gannett, the largest newspaper publisher in the United States, is suing Google, alleging the tech giant holds a monopoly over the digital ad market.

    The publisher of USA Today and more than 200 local publications filed the lawsuit in a New York federal court on Tuesday, and is seeking unspecified damages. Gannett argues in court documents that Google and its parent company, Alphabet, controls how publishers buy and sell ads online.

    “The result is dramatically less revenue for publishers and Google’s ad-tech rivals, while Google enjoys exorbitant monopoly profits,” the lawsuit states.

    Google controls about a quarter of the US digital advertising market, with Meta, Amazon and TikTok combining for another third, according to eMarketer. News publishers and other websites combine for the other roughly 40%. Big Tech’s share of the market is beginning to erode slightly, but Google remains by far the largest individual player.

    That means publishers often rely at least in part on Google’s advertising technology to support their operations: Gannett says Google controls 90% of the ad market for publishers.

    Michael Reed, Gannett’s chairman and CEO, said in a statement Tuesday that Google’s dominance in the online advertising industry has come “at the expense of publishers, readers and everyone else.”

    “Digital advertising is the lifeblood of the online economy,” Reed added. “Without free and fair competition for digital ad space, publishers cannot invest in their newsrooms.”

    Dan Taylor, Google’s vice president of global ads, told CNN that the claims in the suit “are simply wrong.”

    “Publishers have many options to choose from when it comes to using advertising technology to monetize – in fact, Gannett uses dozens of competing ad services, including Google Ad Manager,” Taylor said in a statement Tuesday. “And when publishers choose to use Google tools, they keep the vast majority of revenue.”

    He continued: “We’ll show the court how our advertising products benefit publishers and help them fund their content online.”

    The legal action from Gannett comes as Google faces a growing number of antitrust complaints in the United States and the European Union over its advertising business, which remains its central moneymaker.

    EU officials said last week that Google’s advertising business should be broken up, alleging that the tech giant’s involvement in multiple parts of the digital advertising supply chain creates “inherent conflicts of interest” that risk harming competition.

    Earlier this year, the Justice Department and eight states sued Google, accusing the company of harming competition with its dominance in the online advertising market and similarly calling for it to be broken up.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • McCarthy floats potential impeachment inquiry into Garland over IRS whistleblower claims | CNN Politics

    McCarthy floats potential impeachment inquiry into Garland over IRS whistleblower claims | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Speaker Kevin McCarthy is floating the possibility that the House could open an impeachment inquiry into Attorney General Merrick Garland over Internal Revenue Service whistleblower allegations that Justice Department leadership improperly interfered in the Hunter Biden probe, which Garland has denied.

    “If it comes true what the IRS whistleblower is saying, we’re going to start impeachment inquiries on the attorney general,” McCarthy said Monday on Fox News.

    In congressional testimony publicly released on Thursday, two IRS whistleblowers alleged to lawmakers that the president’s son had been given preferential treatment by the Justice Department.

    McCarthy said on Fox News that the IRS agents who came forward “watched the abuse of power in how Hunter Biden was treated.”

    The allegation that the DOJ has been politicized against conservatives has been central to how House Republicans approach their congressional investigations, though there is scant evidence backing up most of their claims.

    Garland rejected those claim during a Friday news conference.

    “Some have chosen to attack the integrity of the Justice Department … by claiming that we do not treat like cases alike,” Garland said. “This constitutes an attack on an instutiton that is essential to American democracy … nothing could be further from the truth.”

    Regarding the Hunter Biden probe, the whistleblowers made several explosive allegations, including that the IRS had recommended far more serious charges for the president’s son and that US Attorney in Delaware David Weiss was blocked from bringing charges in other states.

    Garland said Friday that Weiss was “permitted to continue his investigation and to make a decision to prosecute any way in which he wanted to and in any district in which he wanted to.”

    “I don’t know how it would be possible for anybody to block him from bringing a prosecution, given that he has this authority,” Garland said.

    Hunter Biden will plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and struck a deal with federal prosecutors to resolve a felony gun charge, the Justice Department said Tuesday in court filings.

    As part of the plea agreement, the Justice Department has agreed to recommend a sentence of probation for the two counts of failing to pay taxes in a timely matter for the years 2017 and 2018, according to sources. Hunter Biden owed at least $100,000 in federal taxes for 2017, and at least $100,000 in 2018, but did not pay what was due to the IRS by the deadlines.

    A judge will have the final say on any sentence.

    Garland said Friday he would “support Mr. Weiss explaining or testifying” about the allegations raised by the whistleblowers “when he deems it appropriate.”

    McCarthy said on Fox News Monday, “We have requested by July 6, Weiss to come in and answer these questions because the IRS whistleblowers took copious notes.”

    The federal prosecutor overseeing the Hunter Biden investigation sent a letter to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan in early June saying that he had “ultimate authority” over the probe.

    Weiss, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, makes clear in a letter obtained by CNN that he was granted this authority, cutting against Republican claims that Garland and the DOJ are “weaponized” against conservatives and politicizing the Hunter Biden case.

    “I want to make clear that, as the attorney general has stated, I have been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution, consistent with federal law, the Principles of Federal Prosecution, and Departmental regulations” Weiss wrote to Jordan on June 7.

    In response, Jordan has asked Weiss to explain and provide further information about the letter stating he had “ultimate authority” over the probe.

    Jordan asked in a letter to Weiss why he was the one to respond to Congress on June 7, when the initial letter from Jordan about alleged retaliation against the IRS whistleblowers was addressed to Garland. “Who instructed you to sign and send your June 7 letter to the committee?,” Jordan asked.

    Hunter Biden’s lawyer pushed back in a statement on Friday against the whistleblowers’ claims, saying it was “preposterous and deeply irresponsible” to suggest that federal investigators “cut my client any slack” during their “extensive” five-year probe.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden faces key test as end of fundraising quarter looms | CNN Politics

    Biden faces key test as end of fundraising quarter looms | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden is racing to boost his campaign war chest as the end of the fundraising quarter approaches Friday, marking the first major test of his campaign’s ability to generate the cash and enthusiasm needed to compete against Republicans in 2024.

    In the closing days of the quarter, the campaign is ramping up its push for grassroots donors, including enlisting former President Barack Obama to tape a video with Biden to help drive small-dollar donations, CNN has learned, along with hosting a slew of down-to-the-wire, high-dollar fundraisers.

    Biden’s campaign is highly attuned to how closely their early fundraising numbers will be examined for signs of the campaign’s operational strength and enthusiasm. Aides have tightly guarded the state of Biden’s campaign haul, refraining from publicly laying out a fundraising target for the second quarter or providing an early read on how much they raised in the opening days of the president’s reelection bid.

    Campaign advisers insist they’ll have the money to run a successful campaign. Jeffrey Katzenberg, a co-chair of Biden’s campaign, told CNN in an interview Wednesday that he’s growing more confident about their ability to exceed the $1 billion Biden raised in 2020.

    “There’s no question whatsoever that he will have all of the resources to run a highly competitive campaign at or above the level of four years ago,” Katzenberg said. “The enthusiasm, the support, the loyalty is at a 10.”

    Yet even Biden’s supporters acknowledge that the headwinds he faces in his overall campaign – including dampened enthusiasm and concern over his age – will influence his effort to raise as much as $2 billion for his reelection effort. Some donors have expressed anxiety over a slow start to the money race.

    “Not a lot of people are engaging right now. They’re like, ‘We’re gonna give. We’re gonna support him,’ but people aren’t as engaged in the 2024 operation right now,” one Biden campaign bundler told CNN.

    Katzenberg, who will be on hand at fundraisers in Chicago and New York this week, argued Biden isn’t facing the same time crunch to raise money compared to his 2020 run when he faced a competitive Democratic primary.

    “He’s not on the same path that he was four years ago. There are no primaries. The urgency and the timeline is simply not the same,” he said. “Our fundraising efforts are actually being very strategic and thoughtful about when you can activate people. And you want to activate them at the point when they are ready to actually give, and that is always around very specific moments and around urgency.”

    Biden’s campaign has yet to name a national finance director, a role tasked with overseeing the overall fundraising effort, prompting frustration among some donors who wanted to see a more formal structure from the outset. The campaign’s fundraising apparatus has largely been driven by the Democratic National Committee in the opening months of the campaign.

    When the president announced his reelection campaign in April, the campaign declined to provide figures for first-day or first week fundraising – as some candidates, including Biden in 2019, do when jumping into the race to demonstrate (and generate) excitement.

    One person familiar with the matter said the Biden campaign’s fundraising after the video announcement was “nothing special.” A separate source familiar with the matter said the reelection campaign’s fundraising has been stable since launch date and in line with the Biden team’s projections.

    “The campaign will share its fundraising numbers when we submit our FEC filing next month,” said Kevin Muñoz, a Biden campaign spokesperson. “We are encouraged by the strong response we are seeing from donors and our grassroots supporters, including a significant number of new donors since 2020 that support the President’s agenda for restoring democracy, freedom, and growing the economy by growing the middle class.”

    “While MAGA Republicans duke it out over extreme, divisive, and unpopular policies in their primary, we are ensuring that we have the resources needed to run an aggressive, winning campaign,” Munoz added.

    The Biden campaign declined to share its own fundraising target for this quarter, but campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez told CNN in an interview earlier this month she believes the campaign will show “strong momentum and energy.”

    “Folks are gonna want to try to poke holes at anything that they can, but I think that, you know, we’ll continue to show just strong momentum and energy,” Chavez Rodriguez said.

    Biden’s second quarter fundraising haul will likely be compared to that of his recent predecessors.

    When he announced his reelection in 2011, Obama burst out of the gate with a hefty second quarter fundraising haul of $86 million for the reelect and DNC, a record-setting figure for that time. Obama announced his reelection bid in the same fundraising quarter as Biden but had a three week lead on Biden’s entry into the 2024 race.

    Biden, never a prolific fundraiser, raised $21.5 million in his first quarter in the 2020 campaign, a figure that was surpassed by newcomer South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

    How much money Biden and his team can raise in these early stages of the campaign could dictate how his campaign apparatus ultimately looks. So far, Biden’s team had made only a few hires and has relied in large part on the DNC, including for office space as they search for a headquarters building in Wilmington, Delaware.

    DNC fundraising officials organized a summit for top donors and supporters in the days after the launch, an effort to reengage some of the highest contributors from his 2020 bid.

    One tool the campaign hopes to leverage early on in their efforts is a joint fundraising agreement between the campaign, DNC and state Democratic parties, consolidating efforts to raise money early in the race and allow individual donors to contribute up to $929,600 to the Biden Victory Fund.

    The president has spent the past two weeks crisscrossing the country for campaign cash. He raised roughly $5 million in one day of events with California Gov. Gavin Newsom during a two-day swing through California’s Bay Area last week, a source familiar with the events said.

    As the end of quarter approaches, the president is headlining five fundraisers in the span of three days, tapping into high-dollar donors in Chevy Chase, Maryland, New York City and Chicago, where the billionaire Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker is hosting an event.

    First lady Dr. Jill Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have also hit the fundraising circuit as well. Harris brought in $1.25 million for the Biden Victory Fund at the LGBTQ Leadership Council Gala in New York City earlier this week, a source familiar with the fundraiser said.

    The campaign also is leaning on its top surrogates this week to mobilize grassroots donors, including the Obama-Biden fundraising video rolling out on social media on Thursday.

    A campaign official argued the Obama-Biden duo is “an effective pairing” to push for small-dollar donors and represented “some of our best performing content from 2020.” Obama and Biden had lunch together at the White House on Tuesday.

    “He is throwing a marker down and saying, ‘Do not mistake, I am 100% in on supporting Joe Biden’s presidency,’” Katzenberg said of the Obama push. “As invaluable as his time is on the fundraising here, his endorsement, enthusiasm and continued support, friendship, loyalty. That’s what this about.”

    Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the chair of the campaign’s National Advisory Board and a prolific fundraiser herself, is hosting a call with other advisory board members Thursday to encourage them to tap into their donor networks in the closing days of the quarter, a campaign official said.

    And advisory board members including Sens. Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Chris Murphy, and Raphael Warnock as well as New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and a handful of members of Congress – Reps. Chrissy Houlihan, Sara Jacobs, and Lauren Underwood — are also expected to assist via e-mails, texts, and online fundraising.

    The campaign is hoping to galvanize online donations after Biden raised $700 million online during the 2020 cycle. White House digital strategy director Rob Flaherty, who ran the 2020 campaign’s digital operation, is expected to join the campaign this summer with an eye in part towards boosting online fundraising.

    Campaign advisers say they’ve seen positive signs about in the number of new donors drawn to the campaign, with one strategist saying, “The donor base right out of the box is expanded.”

    The campaign has sought to use moments like former President Donald Trump’s CNN Town Hall and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Twitter launch snafu to expand their donor network, though the official declined to say specifically how much was raised as part of those efforts.

    Along with about a dozen fundraiser events headlined by the president, Chavez Rodriguez, her deputy, Quentin Fulks, and Democratic National Committee Executive Director Sam Cornale spent part of this month traveling the country to meet with top donors, local Democratic officials and other supporters in an effort to stir up enthusiasm and build fundraising momentum.

    Still, among the donor class, there is a certain malaise – a combination of fundraising fatigue, the lack of a specific Republican opponent as a motivator and a general lack of enthusiasm for Biden’s candidacy.

    Some Biden allies predict the president will have little trouble fundraising if Trump emerges as the Republican nominee, believing the former president is a strong motivator for donors and voters alike.

    But that message and the sentiment behind it belie an overall weariness among those being asked to dig deeper into their pockets.

    “There was fatigue during the midterms because you had this battle to save the country in 2020. People feel like the fundraising has just never stopped,” said one Democratic fundraiser, adding that any usual “cooling-off period” never arrived.

    “It’s just constant. And every quarter is the most important quarter,” the fundraiser said.

    Uncertainty in the Republican primary field could also hold back fundraising at this stage in the election, with nearly two months before candidates face off in the first GOP debate and more than six months before primary voters cast their first ballots.

    “Ultimately, the campaign is relying on one big thing above all else: They’re relying on Trump or DeSantis or someone who’s just so unpalatable being the nominee. That’ll drive everything,” the fundraiser predicted.

    John Morgan, one of a handful of donors to attend last week’s White House state dinner for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, told CNN he’s looking to hold a fundraiser for Biden in the fall.

    “The money is going to pour in – and if Trump is the nominee, it will pour in by double because Republicans will be writing checks too,” Morgan predicted.

    “Everybody was panicked last time but then he got the nomination, and he raised a billion dollars, and if Trump is the nominee, he might raise two billion,” Morgan said.

    The average minimum price to attend one of Biden’s first dozen fundraising events, a Democratic fundraiser said, is approximately $25,000 per person, with the average event raising between $1.5 to $2 million.

    Biden has used these events to test drive and sharpen a 2024 message, seeking to reframe concerns about his age.

    “It’s a legitimate thing to raise the question of age,” Biden told donors at a May fundraiser at the Manhattan apartment of former Blackstone executive Tony James. “I hope what I’ve been able to bring to this job, and will continue to bring, is a little bit of wisdom.”

    Biden has also worked to cater his message to donors who want face time with their candidate.

    “People want his time, which is much more difficult this time around,” compared to when he was a candidate in 2020, one bundler said.

    Ahead of one of this week’s fundraising events, an expected attendee told CNN he had to warn his colleagues who are attending their first Biden fundraiser to manage expectations: “It’s gonna be cool no matter what. You get to shake hands with the president and take a photo with him. We’re all excited for that. But, you know, he is not Barack Obama. He’s not Bill Clinton. He’s not George W. Bush,” the attendee said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden’s student loan forgiveness program was rejected by the Supreme Court. Here’s what borrowers need to know | CNN Politics

    Biden’s student loan forgiveness program was rejected by the Supreme Court. Here’s what borrowers need to know | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program Friday, blocking millions of borrowers from receiving up to $20,000 in federal student debt relief, just months before student loan payments are set to restart after a yearslong pause.

    Biden had announced the student loan forgiveness program last August, but it never took effect, having been tied up in the courts for months.

    Later Friday, the president announced that his administration will pursue another pathway to providing some student debt relief, which is based on a different law than the one the now-defunct student loan forgiveness program was linked to.

    This pathway requires the Department of Education to undertake a formal rule-making process, which typically takes months. Details were not released Friday on who might benefit if that process is successful.

    Biden also announced that the administration will take steps to ease the transition period for borrowers when monthly student loan repayments resume in October. This “on-ramp” period will help borrowers avoid penalties if they miss a payment during the first 12 months.

    The Biden administration has made it easier for many borrowers to seek federal student loan forgiveness from several existing debt cancellation programs.

    New rules set to take effect in July could broaden eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which is aimed at helping government and nonprofit workers.

    And a new income-driven repayment plan proposal is meant to lower eligible borrowers’ monthly payments and reduce the amount they pay back over time. The administration said this plan was finalized Friday and borrowers will be able to take advantage of it this summer, before loan payments are due.

    The Department of Education has also made it easier for borrowers who were misled by their for-profit college to apply for student loan forgiveness under a program known as borrower defense to repayment, as well as for those who are permanently disabled.

    Altogether, the Biden administration has approved more than $66 billion in targeted loan relief to nearly 2.2 million borrowers.

    Regardless of the way the Supreme Court ruled on the one-time forgiveness program, the Biden administration had said that student loan payments will be due starting in October.

    Most student loan borrowers have not been required to make payments on their federal student loans since March 2020, when Congress passed a sweeping aid program to help people struggling financially because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

    Since then, the pause has been extended eight times – under both the Trump and Biden administrations.

    A law passed in early June that addresses the debt ceiling prohibits another extension of the pause.

    But the Biden administration said Friday that it will provide a 12-month on-ramp period for borrowers reentering payment.

    “Borrowers who can make payments should do so as payments will resume and interest will accrue,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a statement.

    “But the on-ramp to repayment will help borrowers avoid the harshest consequences of missed, partial, or late payments like negative credit reports and having loans referred to collection agencies,” he added.

    Borrowers will not be reported to credit bureaus, be considered in default or referred to collection agencies for late, missed or partial payments during the on-ramp period, according to a fact sheet from the White House.

    Student loan experts recommend that borrowers reach out to their student loan servicer with any questions about their loans as soon as possible.

    After such a long pause, many borrowers may be confused about how much they owe, when to pay and how. Millions of borrowers will have a different servicer handling their student loans since the last time they made a payment.

    Borrowers should also reach out to their servicer if they are worried they will not be able to afford their monthly payment. They may be eligible for an income-driven repayment plan, which set payments based on income and family size, but require borrowers to submit some paperwork.

    Federal student loan borrowers can check the FSA website for updates on resuming payments.

    Borrowers will also have to reauthorize the automatic debit from their accounts to pay their monthly loan bill even if they authorized the withdrawals before the pause began.

    The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators warns that borrowers may need to have patience when contacting their student loan servicer, which might be overwhelmed with a high volume of inquiries at this time.

    “It is possible you may not reach your servicer via phone the first time you call, and you may need to call a few times before getting connected,” the group says.

    No debt had been canceled, even though the Biden administration had received about 26 million applications for relief last year and approved 16 million of them.

    The forgiveness program, estimated to cost $400 billion, would have fulfilled a campaign promise of Biden’s to cancel some student loan debt. But a group of Republican-led states and other conservative groups took the administration to court over the program, claiming that the executive branch does not have the power to so broadly cancel student debt in the proposed manner.

    Critics also point out that the one-time student loan forgiveness program does nothing to address the cost of college for future students and could even lead to an increase in tuition. Some Democrats joined Republicans in voting for a bill to block the program. Both the Senate and the House passed the measure, but Biden vetoed the bill in early June.

    Under Biden’s student loan forgiveness proposal, individual borrowers who made less than $125,000 in either 2020 or 2021 and married couples or heads of households who made less than $250,000 a year would have seen up to $10,000 of their federal student loan debt forgiven.

    If a qualifying borrower also received a federal Pell grant while enrolled in college, the individual would have been eligible for up to $20,000 of debt forgiveness.

    Pell grants are awarded to millions of low-income students each year, based on factors including their family’s size and income and the cost charged by their college. These borrowers are also more likely to struggle to repay their student debt and end up in default.

    The administration estimated that roughly 20 million borrowers would have seen their entire federal student loan balance wiped away.

    An independent analysis from the Penn Wharton Budget Model found that about two-thirds of the student debt cancellation would have gone to households making $88,000 a year or less.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • These are the big ideas Republicans are pushing for 2024 | CNN Politics

    These are the big ideas Republicans are pushing for 2024 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    Amend the Constitution! Touch the third rail! Think big and make things better!

    This is the big ideas period of American politics – a time that occurs roughly every four years in the lead-up to a presidential election – when candidates push expansive proposals, usually short on specifics.

    While the big ideas generally have little chance of becoming law, they speak to what the people who want to be president think will move primary voters.

    With President Joe Biden currently a lock for the Democratic nomination, most of the intellectual action this year is among Republicans.

    Below are some of the big ideas of the moment, which are usually unique to one or two candidates as opposed to positions that are standard for the party. I view these as distinct from the daily political issues – things like abortion rights, foreign policy, border security and gender rights, where there is a sliding scale of positions.

    Nikki Haley: Biden ‘likely’ won’t make it to end of second term

    Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who is 51, wants to impose a “mental competency” test for older candidates over 75.

    With both of the current leading candidates – Biden and former President Donald Trump – well beyond when most people would consider retirement, age is already a major issue this year.

    It’s a smart way to tap into fears that Biden, in particular, has lost a step. But it’s hard to imagine it actually put into use. Who would administer this test? Who would assess the results? Why not all candidates?

    The point of the democratic system is that voters should get to choose. This proposal would necessarily limit their choices.

    On the other hand, age limits are not an entirely crazy idea. Corporations impose them on executives, for instance. Pilots have a mandatory retirement age of 65, although that could be raised in the near future to deal with a pilot shortage.

    Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland.

    Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech founder, wants to raise the legal voting age to 25. It’s hard to imagine how this would work since the current voting age of 18 is guaranteed in the 26th Amendment.

    Democrats like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have in recent years pushed to go in the opposite direction, arguing to lower the voting age to 16.

    Ramaswamy says there would be exceptions to raising the voting age, such as for people who join the military or otherwise meet a “national service requirement.” Others could pass the same test given to naturalized immigrants.

    “I want more civic engagement. My hypothesis is that when you attach greater value to the act, we will see more 18-to-25-year-olds actually vote than do now,” Ramaswamy told The Washington Post.

    01 nikki haley town hall cnn 030823

    Nikki Haley calls for raising retirement age

    Nikki Haley and former Vice President Mike Pence are among those pushing to change the age at which Americans can access retirement benefits.

    While both Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis are swearing up and down that they will protect these key parts of the social safety net, Haley and Pence are calling for a more honest discussion about the nation’s finances.

    In their telling, raising the retirement age would only affect the youngest Americans – people in their 20s and younger, generations sure to live and work longer than their forebears.

    But specifics are hard to come by, as CNN’s Jake Tapper found when he asked Haley at a CNN town hall in early June what retirement age she is proposing. She said more calculations are needed to come up with a specific retirement age for people currently in their 20s.

    Meantime, she said, “we’re going to go tell them ‘Times have changed.’ I think (Trump and DeSantis are) not being honest with the American people.”

    DeSantis did recently acknowledge in New Hampshire that Social Security is “going to look a little bit different” for younger generations.

    Pence, at his own CNN town hall in early June, said raising the eligibility age for Social Security is one option to have the tough conversation about national spending, but not the only one.

    “It also could include letting younger Americans invest a portion of their payroll taxes in a mutual fund, like the TSP (Thrift Savings Plan) program that 10 million federal employees are in today,” he said.

    trump missouri rally

    Trump slams 14th Amendment at rally

    Both former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis want to revoke birthright citizenship, or the right of every person born in the US to be an American citizen.

    They complain that even babies born to undocumented people become citizens. Birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment, the key post-Civil War amendment that was meant to protect former slaves.

    Trump has been teasing an end to birthright citizenship for years, but there is not currently a meaningful effort to change the Constitution.

    Trump has pledged to sign an executive order. DeSantis has said he would lean on Congress and the court system. Actually changing the Constitution would be nearly impossible in today’s political environment.

    Former President Donald Trump’s most outside-the-box ideas have a futuristic “Jetsons” feel.

    He wants to build new “freedom cities” on federal land to reopen the American frontier and give people a chance at home ownership. He argues the plan could revitalize American manufacturing.

    And he envisions freeing Americans from hellish commutes by looking to the skies, taking the initiative to innovate vertical-takeoff vehicles. CNN’s report on Trump’s proposals notes that technology is already underway by industry, but a long way from being available to consumers.

    A government-planned city might seem like a strange proposal for a candidate whose party has long embraced free market ideals. But the idea of a planned city is not completely foreign – just look at Washington, DC.

    Republican presidential candidate Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks during a town hall event in Hollis, New Hampshire on June 27, 2023.

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wants to undo Trump’s greatest bipartisan achievement: The First Step Act, a criminal justice and sentencing reform law.

    The product of intense bipartisan negotiations during Trump’s term in office, the law was hailed for rethinking harsh prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.

    But the political landscape has changed since 2018, when Trump signed the law as president and DeSantis voted for it as a congressman. Now, DeSantis calls the law the “jailbreak bill.”

    Both men want to impose the death penalty for drug offenders, an especially awkward pivot for Trump, who has bragged about his compassion in setting drug dealers like Alice Johnson free when he commuted her sentence. The case helped build support for the First Step Act. Her crime could have made her eligible for the death penalty under his new plan.

    Trump still brags about the First Step Act, and repealing it would take help from Democrats in the Senate.

    DeSantis, meanwhile, is moving to the right of Trump on crime and even vetoed a bipartisan criminal justice law in Florida that passed easily through the Republican-dominated legislature.

    Pence also said in his CNN town hall he would “take a step back” from the First Step Act – though it is unclear what that means in practical terms.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DOJ has spent over $9 million investigating Trump since special counsel was appointed | CNN Politics

    DOJ has spent over $9 million investigating Trump since special counsel was appointed | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Justice Department has spent over $9.2 million investigating former President Donald Trump since the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith in November, according to the first public accounting of his expenses.

    Smith’s office, leading the high-profile investigations into Trump, has spent more than $5.4 million between November and March 31, the Justice Department said. Other DOJ entities have spent an additional $3.8 million to support Smith.

    Smith is investigating efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and prosecuting former Trump for allegedly retaining classified information after he left the White House.

    More than $2 million of that cost went to employee salaries, the report released Friday says. Another $1 million dollars paid for investigative support and more than $80,000 went to helping employees relocate while they worked for the special counsel. The reports run through March 31, 2023.

    The additional $3.8 million DOJ has spent includes payment for “hours worked by agents and investigative support analysts, as well as the cost of protective details for the Special Counsel when warranted.”

    While Smith’s topline number dramatically tops the amount that special counsels Robert Hur and John Durham spent in the same timeframe, about $600,000 and $1 million respectively, his spending on investigations into the Trump and his allies still pales in comparison to the nearly $32 million that Robert Mueller and other DOJ offices spent during his years-long prove into whether Russia swayed the 2016 election for Trump.

    Hur, who is leading the investigation into the handling of classified documents found at Joe Biden’s home and former private office, also spent a significant amount of his expenses on employee compensation. Hur was appointed just a few months after Smith and has not made any major public moves. DOJ spent an additional $572,000 in support of Hur, the report says.

    Durham, the special counsel appointed to investigate potential misconduct in the Trump-Russia probe, spent more than $7 million from the time he started his investigation as a special counsel, according to Friday’s filing. Additional DOJ expenditures related to it amount to $1.73 million.

    Durham’s work as a special counsel concluded in May after the release of a 300-page report, which strongly rebuked the FBI’s investigation into Trump, highlighting multiple errors in the origins of the bureau’s investigation into ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign.

    The investigation, however, resulted in one guilty plea of an FBI lawyer who admitted to doctoring an email regarding a surveillance warrant. Durham’s other two prosecutions against a campaign lawyer for Hillary Clinton and a source for the Trump-Russia dossier both ended in acquittals.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US-Israeli citizen charged with arms trafficking, acting as Chinese agent | CNN Politics

    US-Israeli citizen charged with arms trafficking, acting as Chinese agent | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    US prosecutors unsealed an indictment Monday charging the co-director of a think tank with illicit arms trafficking, violating US sanctions laws, and other charges, five months after he was arrested in Cyprus and fled from authorities.

    The US-Israeli citizen, Gal Luft, co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, is also someone House Oversight Chairman James Comer, a top Republican, has described as an informant claiming to have incriminating information on Hunter Biden.

    Luft has tweeted denials of the allegations, saying in February, “I’ve been arrested in Cyprus on a politically motivated extradition request by the US. The US, claiming I’m an arms dealer. It would be funny if it weren’t tragic. I’ve never been an arms dealer. DOJ is trying to bury me to protect Joe, Jim&Hunter Biden.”

    An attorney for Luft did not immediately respond to a request for comment. CNN has reached out to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security.

    Luft is a fugitive, prosecutors say.

    Luft was charged with failing to register as an agent for China in the US, including in 2016 acting through a former high-ranking US official who was then advising President-elect Donald Trump. He was also charged with acting as a middleman to aid Chinese companies buying weapons. The indictment also alleges Luft violated US sanctions by attempting to broker sales of Iranian oil.

    House Republicans are investigating the Biden family’s financial dealings and have requested information from the Justice Department about its investigation into Hunter Biden, who has agreed to plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors. At least one Republican, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, has claimed that Luft is an important witness in that investigation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pence says he supports banning abortions for nonviable pregnancies | CNN Politics

    Pence says he supports banning abortions for nonviable pregnancies | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former Vice President Mike Pence said abortion should be banned when a pregnancy is not viable, according to the Associated Press.

    “I’m pro-life. I don’t apologize for it,” Pence told the AP in a recent interview. “I just have heard so many stories over the years of courageous women and families who were told that their unborn child would not go to term or would not survive. And then they had a healthy pregnancy and a healthy delivery.”

    CNN has reached out to the Pence campaign for comment.

    Pence strongly opposes abortion and has been perhaps the most outspoken Republican candidate about the issue as many of his GOP rivals have avoided staking out a clear position on abortion.

    During a CNN town hall in Iowa last month, Pence said he supports a federal abortion ban including exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. He also backs federal legislation limiting the procedure and has called on other 2024 GOP candidates to support a 15-week national abortion ban.

    Pence told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer back in March that he would support legislation restricting abortion to six weeks of pregnancy. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law in his state that banned abortion at six weeks while President Donald Trump has suggested the legislation was “too harsh.”

    Clinicians use ultrasound results and measure pregnancy hormone levels in order to determine “whether a pregnancy is viable beyond the first trimester,” according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

    Pregnancies that are deemed unviable regardless of gestational age include tubal ectopic pregnancies and early pregnancy loss, according to the ACOG, which can be deadly for the pregnant person. There are cases, such as “genetic or isolated structural abnormalities in which essential structures do not develop properly,” in which survivability is poor and patients may choose to end their pregnancies or give birth with palliative care options, the ACOG notes.

    Since Roe v. Wade was overturned last year, several women have shared their harrowing stories of trying to obtain medically necessary abortions in states that have greatly restricted the procedure. One Texas woman told CNN’s Elizabeth Cohen that she nearly died after her water broke four months into her pregnancy, putting her at high risk for a life-threatening infection. Doctors in Texas had to wait until the woman was sick enough so they felt legally safe to terminate her pregnancy and then bring her to the ICU after she started developing symptoms of sepsis.

    A Christian conservative, Pence views the “cause of life” as “the calling of our time.”

    “As your President, I will always stand for the sanctity of life and I will not rest and I will not relent until we restore the sanctity of life to the center of American law in every state in the land,” he said in his presidential campaign announcement last month.

    Pence has called for more support and resources for women in crisis pregnancies and advocated for adoption as alternatives to abortion.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here is the CNN polling director’s advice for reading polls | CNN Politics

    Here is the CNN polling director’s advice for reading polls | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    Anyone who spends time following American politics is bound to encounter reports about polling.

    Done right, it can be valuable to figure out what’s motivating voters and which candidates are resonating. Done wrong, it’s misleading and counterproductive.

    That’s why for this newsletter I end up talking a lot to Jennifer Agiesta, CNN’s director of polling and election analytics, about which surveys meet CNN’s standards and how I can use them correctly.

    With the 2024 election just around the corner, it seemed like a good time to ask for her tips on what to look out for and avoid as the industry adapts to the changing ways Americans live and communicate. Our conversation, conducted by email, is below.

    WOLF: My impression is that polling seemed to miss the rise of Donald Trump in 2016 and then missed the power of Democrats at the national level in 2022. What’s the truth?

    AGIESTA: In both 2022 and 2016, I would say that polling – when you lump it all together – had a mixed track record. Methodologically sound polling – assessed separately from the whole slew of polls out there – did better.

    In 2022 especially, many polls actually had an excellent year: National generic ballot polling on the House of Representatives from high-quality pollsters found a close race with a slight Republican edge, which is exactly what happened, and in state polls, those that were methodologically sound had a great track record in competitive races.

    Our CNN state polls in five key Senate battlegrounds, for example, had an average error of less than a point when comparing our candidate estimates to the final vote tally, and across five contested gubernatorial races we had an average error of less than a point and a half.

    But there were quite a few partisan-tinged polls that tilted some of the poll averages and perhaps skewed the story of what the “polls” were showing.

    In 2016, you probably remember the big takeaway that the national polls were actually quite accurate and the bigger issues happened in state polling.

    Some of that was because more methodologically sound work was happening at the national level, and many state polls were not adjusting (“weighting” is the survey research term for this type of adjustment) polls for the education level of their respondents.

    Those with more formal education are more likely to take polls, and with an electorate newly divided by education in the Trump era, those polls that didn’t adjust for it tended to overrepresent those with college degrees who were less likely to back Donald Trump.

    You add to that evidence of late shifts in the race and extremely close contests and a good amount of that polling in key states did not paint an accurate picture (the polling industry’s assessment of the 2016 issues is here). Most state polling now does adjust for education.

    WOLF: How, generally, does CNN conduct its polling?

    AGIESTA: CNN has recently made changes to the way we conduct our polling to be more in line with the way people communicate today, using several different methodologies depending on the type of work we’re doing.

    A few times a year, we conduct surveys with 1,500 to 2,000 respondents who are sampled from a list of residential addresses in the United States. We initially contact those respondents through a mailing, which invites them to take the survey either online or by phone, depending on their preference and at their convenience, and then we follow up with an additional reminder mailing and some phone outreach to people in the sample who are members of groups that tend to be a bit harder to reach.

    These polls stay in the field for almost a month. This process allows us to get higher response rates and to obtain a methodologically sound estimate of some baseline political measures for which there aren’t independent, national benchmarks such as partisanship and ideology.

    We also conduct polling that samples from a panel of people who have signed up to take surveys, but who were initially recruited using scientific sampling methods, which helps to protect against some of the biases that can be present in panels where anyone can sign up.

    Our panel-based polls can be conducted online, by phone or by text message depending on how quickly we’re trying to field and how complicated the subject matter is.

    WOLF: What are the signs you look for in a good poll and what are some of the polling red flags?

    AGIESTA: It can be really hard for people who aren’t well-versed in survey methodology to tell the difference between polls that are worth their attention and those that are not.

    Pollsters are using many different methodologies to collect data, and there isn’t one right way to do a good poll.

    But there are a few key indicators to look for, with the first being transparency. If you can’t find information about the basics of a poll – who paid for it, what questions were asked (the full wording, not just the short description someone put in a graphic), how surveys were collected, how many people were surveyed, etc. – then chances are it’s not a very good poll.

    Most reputable pollsters will gladly share that kind of information, and it’s a pretty standard practice within the industry to do so.

    Second, consider the source, much as you would with any other piece of information.

    Gallup and Pew, for example, are known for their methodological expertise and long histories of independent, thoughtful research. Chances are pretty good that most anything they release is going to be based in solid science.

    Likewise, most academic survey centers and many pollsters from independent media are taking the right steps to be methodologically sound.

    But a pollster with no track record and fuzzy details on methodology, I’d probably pass.

    I would also say to take campaign polling with a grain of salt. Campaigns generally only release polls when it serves their interest, so I’d be wary of those numbers.

    In the same vein, market research that’s publicly released that seems to prove the need for a specific product or service – a mattress company releasing a poll that says Americans aren’t getting great sleep, for example – maybe don’t take that one too seriously either.

    WOLF: The coming primary season offers its own set of challenges because there are polls focused on specific early contest states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Do you have any advice regarding these early contest polls in particular?

    AGIESTA: Polling primary electorates is notoriously difficult. It’s more difficult to identify likely voters, because they tend to be fairly low turnout contests, the rules on who can and can’t participate are different from state to state, and the quality of voter lists that pollsters may use for sampling varies by state.

    On top of that, as the election gets closer, the field of candidates and the contours of the race may change just before a contest happens – remember how the Democratic field shrank dramatically in the two days between the South Carolina primary and Super Tuesday in 2020 as an example.

    So when you’re looking at primary polling, it is very important to remember that polls are snapshots in time and not necessarily great predictors of future events.

    WOLF: Most of what general consumers like me want to see from a poll is which candidate is ahead. But I’ve heard you caution against focusing on the horse-race aspect of polling. Why?

    AGIESTA: There are several reasons for that caution.

    First is that polling of any kind has an error margin due to sampling. Even the most accurate poll has the possibility of some noise built into it because any sample will not be a perfect measure of the larger pool it’s drawn from.

    Because of that, any race that’s closer than something like a 5-point margin will mostly just look like a close race in polls.

    The value of polling in that situation is twofold: What it can tell you about why a race is close or what advantages each candidate has, and once you have multiple polls with similar methodologies, you can start to get a sense of how a race is trending.

    Polling is great for measuring which issues are more important to voters, how enthusiastic different segments of the electorate are, and what people think about the candidates in terms of their personal traits or job performance. Those measures can tell you a lot about the state of a race that you can’t get solely from a horse-race measure.

    WOLF: What is the best way to track who is ahead or behind in an election?

    AGIESTA: When you’re looking at trends over time, there are a few tactics that can help to make sense of disparate data.

    The best option is following the trend line within a single poll. If a pollster maintains the same methodology, the way a race moves or doesn’t in that poll’s trend line can tell you a lot about how it’s shaping up.

    That is sometimes hard to find though, as not every pollster conducts multiple surveys of the same race.

    Another good way to measure change over time is to lean on an average of polls, though, as we learned in 2022, those averages can vary pretty widely depending on how they’re handling things like multiple polls from the same pollster or whether they are including polls with a partisan lean.

    WOLF: I don’t have a landline and I don’t answer my phone for strange numbers. What makes us think polling is reaching a wide enough range of people?

    AGIESTA: Many polls these days are conducted using methods other than phone.

    Looking over the 13 different pollsters who released surveys that meet CNN’s standards for reporting in May or June on Joe Biden’s approval rating, only six conducted their surveys entirely by phone. And those phone pollsters are calling far more cellphones than landlines.

    The most important thing for any poll, regardless of how it’s conducted, is that it reaches people who are representative of those who are not answering the poll, and so far, it appears that right mix is achievable through multiple possible methodologies.

    WOLF: Are there specific groups of people that pollsters acknowledge they have trouble reaching? What is being done to fix it?

    AGIESTA: There are several demographic groups that pollsters know are frequently harder to reach than others – younger people, those with less formal education, Black and Hispanic Americans are among the most notable – and the prevailing theory of why 2020 election polling went awry is that some Republicans were less likely to participate in surveys than others.

    Pollsters have several techniques to combat this.

    Some pollsters who draw on online panels where they know the demographic and political traits of people who might participate in advance will account for this in their sampling plans.

    Phone pollsters can do something similar when they use a sample drawn from a voter list that has some of that information connected to a voter’s contact information.

    And if a pollster really wants to dig deep on a hard-to-reach group, they can conduct an oversample to intentionally reach a larger number of people from that group to improve the statistical power of their estimates within that group.

    WOLF: What is the next big challenge facing pollsters?

    AGIESTA: Well, the next election is always a good contender for the next big challenge for pollsters!

    But I think the big challenge looming over all of that is making sure that we’re finding the right ways to reach people and keep them engaged in research. The industry’s leaders are thinking through the right ways to use tools such as text messaging, social media and AI while still producing representative, replicable work.

    Elections are the attention-grabbing part of survey research, but pollsters measure attitudes and behaviors around so many parts of everyday life that our understanding of society would really suffer if survey methods fail to keep up with the way people communicate. I’m excited to see it continue to evolve.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • With the rise of AI, social media platforms could face perfect storm of misinformation in 2024 | CNN Business

    With the rise of AI, social media platforms could face perfect storm of misinformation in 2024 | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Last month, a video posted to Twitter by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign used images that appeared to be generated by artificial intelligence showing former President Donald Trump hugging Dr. Anthony Fauci. The images, which appeared designed to criticize Trump for not firing the nation’s top infectious disease specialist, were tricky to spot: they were shown alongside real images of the pair and with a text overlay saying, “real life Trump.”

    As the images began spreading, fact-checking organizations and sharp-eyed users quickly flagged them as fake. But Twitter, which has slashed much of its staff in recent months under new ownership, did not remove the video. Instead, it eventually added a community note — a contributor-led feature to highlight misinformation on the social media platform — to the post, alerting the site’s users that in the video “3 still shots showing Trump embracing Fauci are AI generated images.”

    Experts in digital information integrity say it’s just the start of AI-generated content being used ahead of the 2024 US Presidential election in ways that could confuse or mislead voters.

    A new crop of AI tools offer the ability to generate compelling text and realistic images — and, increasingly, video and audio. Experts, and even some executives overseeing AI companies, say these tools risk spreading false information to mislead voters, including ahead of the 2024 US election.

    “The campaigns are starting to ramp up, the elections are coming fast and the technology is improving fast,” said Jevin West, a professor at the University of Washington and co-founder of the Center for an Informed Public. “We’ve already seen evidence of the impact that AI can have.”

    Social media companies bear significant responsibility for addressing such risks, experts say, as the platforms where billions of people go for information and where bad actors often go to spread false claims. But they now face a perfect storm of factors that could make it harder than ever to keep up with the next wave of election misinformation.

    Several major social networks have pulled back on their enforcement of some election-related misinformation and undergone significant layoffs over the past six months, which in some cases hit election integrity, safety and responsible AI teams. Current and former US officials have also raised alarms that a federal judge’s decision earlier this month to limit how some US agencies communicate with social media companies could have a “chilling effect” on how the federal government and states address election-related disinformation. (On Friday, an appeals court temporarily blocked the order.)

    Meanwhile, AI is evolving at a rapid pace. And despite calls from industry players and others, US lawmakers and regulators have yet to implement real guardrails for AI technologies.

    “I’m not confident in even their ability to deal with the old types of threats,” said David Evan Harris, an AI researcher and ethics adviser to the Psychology of Technology Institute, who previously worked on responsible AI at Facebook-parent Meta. “And now there are new threats.”

    The major platforms told CNN they have existing policies and practices in place related to misinformation and, in some cases, specifically targeting “synthetic” or computer-generated content, that they say will help them identify and address any AI-generated misinformation. None of the companies agreed to make anyone working on generative AI detection efforts available for an interview.

    The platforms “haven’t been ready in the past, and there’s absolutely no reason for us to believe that they’re going to be ready now,” Bhaskar Chakravorti, dean of global business at The Fletcher School at Tufts University, told CNN.

    Misleading content, especially related to elections, is nothing new. But with the help of artificial intelligence, it’s now possible for anyone to quickly, easily and cheaply create huge quantities of fake content.

    And given AI technology’s rapid improvement over the past year, fake images, text, audio and videos are likely to be even harder to discern by the time the US election rolls around next year.

    “We’ve still got more than a year to go until the election. These tools are going to get better and, in the hands of sophisticated users, they can be very powerful,” said Harris. He added that the kinds of misinformation and election meddling that took place on social media in 2016 and 2020 will likely only be exacerbated by AI.

    The various forms of AI-generated content could be used together to make false information more believable — for example, an AI-written fake article accompanied by an AI-generated photo purporting to show what happened in the report, said Margaret Mitchell, researcher and chief ethics scientist at open-source AI firm Hugging Face.

    AI tools could be useful for anyone wanting to mislead, but especially for organized groups and foreign adversaries incentivized to meddle in US elections. Massive foreign troll farms have been hired to attempt to influence previous elections in the United States and elsewhere, but “now, one person could be in charge of deploying thousands of thousands of generative AI bots that work,” to pump out content across social media to mislead voters, Mitchell, who previously worked at Google, said.

    OpenAI, the maker of the popular AI chatbot ChatGPT, issued a stark warning about the risk of AI-generated misinformation in a recent research paper. An abundance of false information from AI systems, whether intentional or created by biases or “hallucinations” from the systems, has “the potential to cast doubt on the whole information environment, threatening our ability to distinguish fact from fiction,” it said.

    Examples of AI-generated misinformation have already begun to crop up. In May, several Twitter accounts, including some who had paid for a blue “verification” checkmark, shared fake images purporting to show an explosion near the Pentagon. While the images were quickly debunked, their circulation was briefly followed by a dip in the stock market. Twitter suspended at least one of the accounts responsible for spreading the images. Facebook labeled posts about the images as “false information,” along with a fact check.

    A month earlier, the Republican National Committee released a 30-second advertisement responding to President Joe Biden’s official campaign announcement that used AI images to imagine a dystopian United States after the reelection of the 46th president. The RNC ad included the small on-screen disclaimer, “Built entirely with AI imagery,” but some potential voters in Washington D.C. to whom CNN showed the video did not spot it on their first watch.

    Dozens of Democratic lawmakers last week sent a letter calling on the Federal Election Commission to consider cracking down on the use of artificial intelligence technology in political advertisements, warning that deceptive ads could harm the integrity of next year’s elections.

    Ahead of 2024, many of the platforms have said that they will be rolling out plans to protect the election’s integrity, including from the threat of AI-generated content.

    TikTok earlier this year rolled out a policy stipulating that “synthetic” or manipulated media created by AI must be clearly labeled, in addition to its civic integrity policy which prohibits misleading information about electoral processes and its general misinformation policy which prohibits false or misleading claims that could cause “significant harm” to individuals or society.

    YouTube has a manipulated media policy that prohibits content that has been “manipulated or doctored” in a way that could mislead users and “may pose a serious risk of egregious harm.” The platform also has policies against content that could mislead users about how and when to vote, false claims that could discourage voting and content that “encourages others to interfere with democratic processes.” YouTube also says it prominently surfaces reliable news and information about elections on its platform, and that its election-focused team includes members of its trust and safety, product and “Intelligence Desk” teams.

    “Technically manipulated content, including election content, that misleads users and may pose a serious risk of egregious harm is not allowed on YouTube,” YouTube spokesperson Ivy Choi said in a statement. “We enforce our manipulated content policy using machine learning and human review, and continue to improve on this work to stay ahead of potential threats.”

    A Meta spokesperson told CNN that the company’s policies apply to all content on its platforms, including AI-generated content. That includes its misinformation policy, which stipulates that the platform removes false claims that could “directly contribute to interference with the functioning of political processes and certain highly deceptive manipulated media,” and may reduce the spread of other misleading claims. Meta also prohibits ads featuring content that has been debunked by its network of third-party fact checkers.

    TikTok and Meta have also joined a group of tech industry partners coordinated by the non-profit Partnership on AI dedicated to developing a framework for responsible use of synthetic media.

    Asked for comment on this story, Twitter responded with an auto-reply of a poop emoji.

    Twitter has rolled back much of its content moderation in the months since billionaire Elon Musk took over the platform, and instead has leaned more heavily on its “Community Notes” feature which allows users to critique the accuracy of and add context to other people’s posts. On its website, Twitter also says it has a “synthetic media” policy under which it may label or remove “synthetic, manipulated, or out-of-context media that may deceive or confuse people and lead to harm.”

    Still, as is often the case with social media, the challenge is likely to be less a matter of having the policies in place than enforcing them. The platforms largely use a mix of human and automated review to identify misinformation and manipulated media. The companies declined to provide additional details about their AI detection processes, including how many staffers are involved in such efforts.

    But AI experts say they’re worried that the platforms’ detection systems for computer-generated content may have a hard time keeping up with the technology’s advancements. Even some of the companies developing new generative AI tools have struggled to build services that can accurately detect when something is AI-generated.

    Some experts are urging all the social platforms to implement policies requiring that AI-generated or manipulated content be clearly labeled, and calling on regulators and lawmakers to establish guardrails around AI and hold tech companies accountable for the spread of false claims.

    One thing is clear: the stakes for success are high. Experts say that not only does AI-generated content create the risk of internet users being misled by false information; it could also make it harder for them to trust real information about everything from voting to crisis situations.

    “We know that we’re going into a very scary situation where it’s going to be very unclear what has happened and what has not actually happened,” said Mitchell. “It completely destroys the foundation of reality when it’s a question whether or not the content you’re seeing is real.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Threads now has ‘tens of millions’ of daily users. But its honeymoon phase may be over | CNN Business

    Threads now has ‘tens of millions’ of daily users. But its honeymoon phase may be over | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Two weeks after Meta launched its Twitter competitor Threads and received an unprecedented amount of user signups, the frenzy around the app appears to have come back to Earth.

    After surpassing 100 million user sign-ups in less than a week, user engagement on Threads has slowed. Threads daily active users fell from 49 million on July 7, two days after its launch, to 23.6 million users last Friday, according to a report published this week by web traffic analysis firm Similarweb. The app’s average usage time also fell from 21 minutes to 6 minutes over the same timeframe.

    The slowdown hints at the challenges ahead for Meta as it looks to not only draw users away from Twitter but build a service that reaches a far larger audience. Threads is already facing some of the common issues that often plague social media platforms, including user retention, spam and some early regulatory scrutiny around its approach to content moderation. It’s also not clear yet how much Meta’s investments in building Threads will actually amount to financial returns for the company.

    “I’m very optimistic about how the Threads community is coming together,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a post on the platform Monday. “Early growth was off the charts, but more importantly 10s of millions of people now come back daily … The focus for the rest of the year is improving the basics and retention.”

    Meta executives acknowledged in the early days after Threads’ launch that getting users to sign up for a buzzy new app is much easier than convincing them to continue engaging there long-term. That’s likely even more true for Threads, which launched as a relatively bare-bones app in an effort to capitalize on a moment of weakness at Twitter and also tapped into Instagram’s network to ease the sign-in process.

    Threads on Tuesday rolled out its first batch of updates to the iOS version of the app, including a translation button, a tab on users’ activity feed dedicated to showing who’s followed them and the option to subscribe and receive notifications from accounts a user doesn’t follow.

    Instagram head Adam Mosseri, who is overseeing the Threads launch, has also hinted at plans to add features such as a desktop version of the app, a feed of only accounts a user follows and an edit button. “We’re clearly way out over our skis on this,” Mosseri said in a Threads post the week of the app’s launch.

    In the meantime, Threads is grappling with a common social media issue — spam. Users have complained of replies to posts filling up with spammy links and offering “giveaways” in exchange for new followers. And on Monday, Mosseri said in a Threads post that the platform was “going to have to get tighter on things like rate limits” because “spam attacks have picked up.”

    This “is going to mean more unintentionally limiting active people (false positives),” Mosseri warned. “If you get caught up [in] those protections let us know.”

    Meta declined to clarify whether Mosseri’s post refers to limits on users’ ability to post or read content, or to provide any additional details. But the comment did prompt some snark from Twitter owner Elon Musk, after backlash to Twitter’s own rate limits — restrictions on how many tweets users can read — helped propel Threads’ early growth.

    Meta shares have jumped more than 6% since the Threads launch, but some analysts who follow the company are skeptical that Threads will quickly contribute to the company’s bottom line, if at all.

    Threads could be a way for Meta to eke additional engagement time out of its massive existing user base. The app could also ultimately supplement Meta’s core advertising business, which could use a boost after facing challenges from a broad decline in the online ad market and changes to Apple’s app privacy practices.

    Meta executives have said they will likely incorporate advertising into the platform, once its user base has reached critical mass. But even if Threads continues to add users, “advertisers could be hesitant and possibly wait before allocating ad dollars to Threads because of their uncertainty about long-run user retention and engagement,” Morningstar senior equity analyst Ali Mogharabi said in a recent investor note.

    Like Twitter, Threads could also struggle to attract advertisers because the nature of a real-time news and public conversations app means the content is sometimes negative or controversial. Even before Musk took over Twitter and alienated advertisers, the platform represented a tiny piece of the ad sales market compared to Meta’s properties.

    Threads, however, likely has a leg up on Twitter because Meta is known as a company that provides clear value for advertisers, said Scott Kessler, global tech sector lead at research firm Third Bridge. If anything, he said, the risk may be that some advertisers may think twice about spending on yet another Meta platform versus diversifying their ad strategy.

    For now, analysts will be awaiting Meta executives’ commentary about Threads during its quarterly earnings call next week, including to see if they offer any hints about whether ads may be rolled out on the app ahead of the crucial holiday shopping season.

    “They launched this in July,” Kessler said. “That should give them enough time to build out sufficient tools for holiday shopping season advertising.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • RFK Jr. hearing encapsulates a political era when truth is upside down | CNN Politics

    RFK Jr. hearing encapsulates a political era when truth is upside down | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    In a Donald Trump-influenced era of through-the-looking-glass politics, everything seems upside down, traditional loyalties are scrambled, history can be rewritten and truth is just what anyone wants it to be.

    A Republican-run House hearing Thursday encapsulated the current political circus ahead of another tense election. In a head-spinning spectacle, a Kennedy family scion and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination was greeted as a hero by Republicans. But he was slammed by Democrats, including by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries as “a living, breathing, false flag operation.”

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was given a platform by pro-Trump Republicans because his conspiracies about vaccine and Covid-19, and claims that the government has tried to censor him gel with their efforts to shield Trump by claiming that the political weaponization of government is a Democratic and not a GOP transgression.

    The marriage of convenience in a fiery hearing underscored how populism and the bending of truth pioneered on the right by Trump also has significant currency on the left. It illustrated how the character of mainstream American politics is under siege from fringe voices and extremist positions that once struggled to be heard but in recent years found a footing on social media, the campaign trail and even in Congress and the White House.

    As an example of his creation of alternative realities – a tactic frequently used by Trump – Kennedy forcibly denied that he had ever been anti-vaccine, racist or antisemitic. Yet CNN fact checks show he has repeatedly shared unfounded conspiracy theories with a false link between autism and childhood vaccines. He has also claimed that man-made chemicals could be making children gay or transgender. And just last week, he was hit by new claims of conspiracy mongering, racism and antisemitism over remarks at a dinner in New York City in which he claimed that “Covid-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”

    Despite this controversy, Kennedy brazenly appeared to be inventing new truths even during the hearing. He said, for instance, “In my entire life, and while I’m under oath I have never uttered a phrase that was either racist or antisemitic.” At another moment he said: “I’ve never been anti-vaccine,” then added: “But everybody in this room probably believes that I have been because that’s the prevailing narrative.”

    Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of President John F. Kennedy, criticized his relative in a social media video Friday, calling his candidacy an “embarrassment.”

    “I’ve listened to him. I know him. I have no idea why anyone thinks he should be president. What I do know is, his candidacy is an embarrassment. Let’s not be distracted, again, by somebody’s vanity project.” Schlossberg said.

    In an odd flipping of the normal political order, Democrats in the hearing effectively sought to undermine the candidacy of the son and nephew of assassinated party heroes, former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and President John F. Kennedy. The top Democrat on the House Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett, for instance, condemned committee chair Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan for letting Kennedy air what Democrats regard as extreme views. “It’s a free country. You absolutely have a right to say what you believe,” she said, adding: “But you don’t have the right to a platform, public or private.”

    Plaskett’s comments did raise serious questions about whether there are limits – if any – on a prominent personality’s right to free speech even if they are saying things that are not true, as well as the extent to which misinformation has swamped politics and elections. But most of the hearing stayed away from such topics and was dominated by Republican attempts to score points and shield Trump and Democratic attacks on Kennedy.

    One of the ex-President’s top allies, Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, the fourth ranking House Republican, revived conservative claims that the Democratic-leaning officials in the federal government suppressed a story about a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden before the last election, a move she argued had been instrumental in his father beating Trump for the presidency. She cited this theory when asking Kennedy whether he believed there was censorship amounting to government interference in the 2020 election.

    Former Twitter executives admitted under oath this year that the social media network temporarily suppressed a story about the laptop but said there was no government interference in the decision. CNN has previously reported that allegations the FBI told Twitter to suppress the story are unsupported, and a half-dozen tech executives and senior staff, along with multiple federal officials familiar with the matter, denied any such directive was given.

    But the specific truth in this case isn’t necessarily important to Republicans who were using Kennedy to further create the impression of government interference to prevent Trump retaining the White House. The more public confusion there is the better it is for the ex-president politically. Of course, claims that Democrats are the ones really guilty of election interference are a direct attempt to whitewash Trump’s own behavior – since he used the tools of his office to try to subvert the 2020 election and to stay in power.

    Thursday’s hearing is not the first time political reality has seemed mixed up or traditional loyalties subverted. Just last week for instance, Republicans subjected FBI Director Christopher Wray to a fearsome grilling in a hearing while Democrats unusually defended the bureau – long regarded as one of the most conservative organs of the US government. The GOP storm was whipped up by allies of Trump who want to discredit investigations into his effort to overturn the 2020 election and his hoarding of classified documents in his Florida resort. Trump has already been indicted in the latter case and there are growing signs he will be charged in the former. He denies any wrongdoing and claims the investigations are politically motivated.

    It’s not that Republicans don’t have genuine ground for oversight. Independent government watchdog reports and internal investigations for instance have found deficiencies and mistakes in some investigations involving Trump. In the Russia probe, there were mistakes in the use of a dossier complied by a former British spy and in applications for surveillance warrants. More recently, an agreement with the Justice Department under which Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to two tax misdemeanors and struck a deal to resolve a felony gun charge is within the right of Congress to investigate. But neither case so far supports the wild claims that a corrupt liberal deep state is conducting schemes designed to suppress conservatives that are often made by Trump and his fellow Republicans.

    There is plentiful evidence that the ex-president is the one who weaponized government to go after his political enemies and to evade accountability. For instance he sacked former FBI chief James Comey and told NBC News it was because of the Russia investigation. He used his position as president and the prospect of military aid to seek to coerce Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into opening an investigation into Joe Biden and his son in a phone call that later led to his first impeachment. And Trump, by pressuring multiple officials in key swing states and by lambasting poll workers and making claims of widespread voter fraud, apparently used executive power to try to defy the will of voters in 2020.

    Voters also risked being misled by Washington’s hall of mirrors on another occasion this week. In a more frivolous, but still misleading example of the way it’s often hard to work out what is true, the Biden campaign debuted a campaign video that appeared to show one of Trump’s most fervent allies, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene praising Biden as fulfilling the historic mission of great Democratic presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. The words were those of Greene but they were selectively edited from a speech in a video that disguised her true intent, which was to condemn historic government spending by Democrats on education, health care, and social safety net programs that Republicans claim are akin to socialism.

    This example of things being not quite what they seem was more of a cheeky case of campaign trolling than the wholesale refashioning of truth evident Thursday. The hearing at one point degenerated into both Republicans and Democrats accusing each other of trying to censor their questions and witnesses.

    One veteran Democrat, Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, summed up how the session had in itself warped reality. “I never thought we’d descend to this level of Orwellian dystopia. Suddenly, the tools of the trade are not to get at the truth but to distract, distort, to deflect and dissemble,” Connolly said.

    Oddly, several members on the Republican side of the committee nodded their heads in agreement – apparently convinced the Orwellian behavior in question was on the part of what they see as a tyrannical, censoring government rather than in the obvious truths turned upside down.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • McCarthy told Trump he backed expunging impeachments but there’s no vote being scheduled | CNN Politics

    McCarthy told Trump he backed expunging impeachments but there’s no vote being scheduled | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    In a private call with former President Donald Trump, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he personally backed the idea of expunging Trump’s two impeachments and would bring it up to the conference to gauge support, a source said. He did not promise to bring it to the floor, the source added.

    McCarthy, a California Republican, has been working overtime to try and placate Trump after an interview last month, in which McCarthy said he thinks the former president can win in 2024, but did not know if he was the “strongest” candidate, prompting outrage from Trump advisers and allies. The speaker’s perceived transgression once again raised questions from Trump and his inner circle as to why he had not yet endorsed the former president in his 2024 presidential bid.

    McCarthy called Trump to apologize after the interview, claiming he misspoke on CNBC, sources told CNN at the time. It is unclear what, if any, other promises were made on this call.

    Politico first reported the endorsement of the position made by McCarthy to Trump, but McCarthy disputed the assertion in the Politico reporting that he had promised to hold the vote.

    “No,” McCarthy told reporters Thursday when asked if he had promised to hold the expungement vote. When pressed on if he would commit to not holding a vote, he said it should “go through committee like anything else.”

    Multiple sources tell CNN that calling a House vote to expunge the two impeachments against the former president would be a fool’s errand, as leadership does not have the votes to pass this. So even if McCarthy indicated to Trump he’d do it, it’s unlikely votes would be there – likely further inflaming tensions. Additionally, it is unclear if expunging an impeachment is possible and it has never been done before.

    There is no clear procedural consequence of a resolution that portends to “expunge” Trump’s impeachment, according to guidance from the House Parliamentarian’s office. Efforts that have been discuss include a non-binding House resolution expressing the sense of the House, or “expresses the sentiments of one chamber.” Not only would that measure not expunge the impeachment, the effort also cannot undo the two votes that were taken in 2019 and 2020 that impeached the former president. Those votes would still exist in the Congressional Record.

    Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill, including GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, have pushed McCarthy to call a House vote to expunge the two impeachments.

    GOP Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins Friday that he would vote to expunge Trump’s impeachment if McCarthy were to bring it to the floor but added that it wouldn’t be “wise” for the speaker to do so “in terms of precedent that it sets.”

    “It’s probably wise for the Republican base. It’s not wise in terms of constitutional history,” Buck said on “The Source,” adding that “the Senate expunged when they voted not to impeach.”

    Hours after McCarthy’s CNBC interview last month and after he had called the former President to clean up his remarks, Trump said “they better do it” when asked by a supporter at the opening of his New Hampshire campaign office about the House of Representatives expunging his two impeachments.

    “If McCarthy does his job, they’ll expunge both of those crappy impeachments,” a supporter said as Trump signed hats and mingled with voters at his new New Hampshire office.

    “I understand they’re working on that,” Trump said. “They better do it.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Microsoft and Activision extend their deal deadline | CNN Business

    Microsoft and Activision extend their deal deadline | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Microsoft and Activision have mutually agreed to extend their merger deadline by three months in the face of ongoing negotiations with the UK government that could allow the $69 billion acquisition to close, the two companies announced on Wednesday.

    The announcement highlights the commitment by both companies to complete the deal after back-to-back court defeats for US regulators who had challenged the merger.

    The new contractual deadline for consummating the deal will be October 18, the companies said. The previous deadline was July 18.

    “Together with @Activision, we are announcing the extension of our merger agreement to 10/18 to provide ample time to work through the final regulatory issues,” Brad Smith, Microsoft’s vice chair and president, said in a Twitter post on Wednesday.

    If the companies fail to close by Aug. 29, Microsoft could be asked to pay a breakup fee of $3.5 billion, an increase of $500 million over the previously agreed-upon sum, according to a filing from Activision with the Securities and Exchange Commission. If the deal fails to close by Sept. 15, the breakup fee could increase to $4.5 billion, the filing said.

    In addition, according to the filing, if the companies fail to complete their merger and Microsoft is forced to pay the breakup fee, the companies also agreed that beginning on Oct. 18 Microsoft would have to pay Activision “100% of all proceeds or other payments for games” that belong to Activision.

    Following a federal judge’s decision last week in the US not to block the acquisition from closing, Microsoft announced a deal with the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to suspend litigation over the merger. The move is intended to give both sides time to reach agreement on how the acquisition might be altered to address competition concerns in that country.

    “The recent decision in the U.S. and approvals in 40 countries all validate that the deal is good for competition, players, and the future of gaming,” a company spokesperson said. “Given global regulatory approvals and the companies’ confidence that CMA now recognizes there are remedies available to meet their concerns in the UK, the Activision Blizzard and Microsoft boards of directors have authorized the companies not to terminate the deal until after October 18. We’re confident in our next steps and that our deal will quickly close.”

    In a memo to employees, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick thanked staff for their patience.

    “I know many of you have questions about our merger with Microsoft,” Kotick wrote. “I am happy to share that based on our continued confidence in closing our deal, the Activision Blizzard and Microsoft boards have mutually agreed not to terminate the deal until after October 18.”

    Kotick added: “This merger is great for players, workers, and our business, and it will create opportunities to compete against companies with large talent pools, strong IP and complete control of their markets. Our merger is cleared to close in over 40 countries already, and we remain confident in resolving any remaining regulatory concerns in the UK.”

    In a memo to employees, Microsoft’s Xbox head Phil Spencer reiterated his hopes of bringing “more games to more players everywhere.”

    “While we can technically close in the United States due to recent legal developments, this extension gives us additional time to resolve the remaining regulatory concerns in the UK,” Spencer wrote in his email.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Exclusive: Trevor Reed is expected to make a full recovery after being wounded in Ukraine | CNN Politics

    Exclusive: Trevor Reed is expected to make a full recovery after being wounded in Ukraine | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former US Marine Trevor Reed is expected to make a full recovery after being wounded in battle approximately two weeks ago serving alongside Ukrainian forces fighting Russia, a source close to Reed told CNN.

    Reed is currently receiving medical care in Germany after being evacuated there by MediCare Hubs Kyiv, a German NGO, and FRIDA Ukraine, an Israeli NGO.

    Reed first traveled to Ukraine on November 1 to fight the invading Russian forces, doing so strictly as a volunteer with no affiliation with the US government, the source said.

    Reed, who spent nearly three years wrongfully detained in Russia, told friends and family he was motivated to fight by seeing the depths of Russian oppression firsthand as a prisoner, the source said, adding that Reed said he was honored to serve alongside Ukrainian fighters.

    After Reed’s unit successfully pushed back against Russian forces and recaptured about 2 km of land near Bahkmut, the source said, Reed was wounded along with others in his unit. As opposed to what US government sources told another media outlet, Reed did not step on a land mine. He was injured by shrapnel which he got in both his legs.

    He is “recuperating quickly and hopes to be home soon,” the source said.

    The source says that Reed and his family hope the news media can respect their desire for privacy as Reed recovers from his wound. He will tell his story when the time is right, the source tells CNN.

    Reed was freed from Russian detention in a high-profile prisoner swap in April 2022.

    Secretary of State Antony Blinken at a news conference Tuesday in Tonga said that Reed’s fighting in Ukraine “shouldn’t have any effect” on ongoing negotiations aimed at freeing two Americans who remain wrongfully detained in Russia: Paul Whelan and Evan Gershkovich.

    “As I’ve noted before, even with countries where we have profound differences, and almost by definition, countries that are arbitrarily detaining or unlawfully detaining Americans are usually countries with which we have profound differences, we manage to find ways to bring Americans home,” Blinken said.

    Another US official noted that “of course” they were concerned about the negative implications that Reed’s situation would have on negotiations, but stressed that the two issues are wholly separate.

    State Department principal deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel and another US administration official stressed that Reed “was not engaged in any activities on behalf of the US government.”

    “And as I indicated, we have been incredibly clear warning American citizens, American nationals not to travel to Ukraine, let alone participate in fighting,” Patel added.

    “Since the beginning of this war, we have warned that US citizens who traveled to Ukraine, especially with the purpose of participating in fighting there, that they face significant risks including the risk of capture or death or physical harm,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Plaintiffs in high-profile redistricting case urge judges to toss out Alabama’s controversial congressional map | CNN Politics

    Plaintiffs in high-profile redistricting case urge judges to toss out Alabama’s controversial congressional map | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Civil rights groups representing plaintiffs in a high-profile congressional redistricting case are urging a federal court in Alabama to reject a controversial new map crafted by the Republican-dominated legislature, saying it perpetuates a violation of the nation’s landmark voting rights law.

    In a late-night court filing Friday, the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund and multiple attorneys asked a three-judge panel to direct an official to devise a new map that complies with the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

    The plaintiffs in the case said legislators who drew and approved the maps didn’t comply with a court mandate to create a second congressional district where Black voters have an opportunity to elect their preferred candidates.

    Instead, they argued, lawmakers were “focused on pleasing national leaders whose objective is to maintain the Republican Party’s slim majority in the US House.”

    State officials, who have defended the map as fair, have until August 4 to respond to the new filings.

    The dispute has drawn national attention after critics accused Alabama legislators of openly defying the US Supreme Court and its directive to give Black voters more political power in the state.

    And the outcome of the legal battle in Alabama – along with court skirmishes in several other states over congressional redistricting – could help determine whether Republicans retain their slim majority in the House after next year’s elections.

    In this case, the Republican supermajority in the Alabama legislature approved a new map on July 21, weeks after the US Supreme Court said that an existing map – with just one majority-Black congressional district out of seven in a state where Black residents make up 27% of the population – likely violated the decades-old federal voting law by diluting the voting power of Black residents. The high court, by a 5-4 majority, affirmed a lower court decision that had ordered the state to redraw the congressional maps to include a second majority-Black district or “something quite close to it.”

    But the map approved this month and signed into law by Alabama’s GOP Gov. Kay Ivey instead boosted the share of Black voters in the majority-White 2nd Congressional District from roughly 30% to nearly 40%. It also reduced the Black voting-age population in the state’s only majority-Black district to around 50% from about 55%.

    Voting rights experts say the state has a history of racially polarized voting, making it harder for candidates favored by Black voters to win in a district where Black residents account for less than 50% of the voting-age population.

    “The new CD2 … does not provide Black voters a realistic opportunity to election their preferred candidate in any but the most extreme situations,” the plaintiffs argued in the new filings.

    In Alabama, most Black voters have supported Democrats. If the federal judges approve a map with a second majority-Black district, that could result in two Democrats representing the state in the House.

    House Republicans hold just a narrow edge on Democrats, and the Supreme Court’s decision in the Alabama case has given Democrats fresh optimism that their side will prevail in legal fights aimed at increasing the share of Black voters in congressional districts in Louisiana, Georgia and several other states.

    In a sign of the high political stakes, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has weighed in on the debate and told reporters that he spoke to Alabama lawmakers as they met for the special session to redraw the map to comply with the court order.

    The Justice Department filed a so-called “statement of interest” on Friday but did not side with any party in the dispute. The agency outlined factors the judges should consider in its analysis and called on the court to impose its own map if it determines that the one drawn by lawmakers violated the Voting Rights Act.

    A court hearing on objections to the legislature’s map is set for August 14.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘X’ removed after being installed atop company headquarters following Twitter’s rebrand | CNN Business

    ‘X’ removed after being installed atop company headquarters following Twitter’s rebrand | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Officials from the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection on Monday morning observed that the new “X” on top of the building formerly known as Twitter’s headquarters was being dismantled, according to Patrick Hannan, the department’s spokesman.

    The news comes after the company was issued a notice of violation (NOV) Friday for work without a permit for the new sign, which flashes at night, that adorns the building.

    “Over the weekend, the Department of Building Inspection and City Planning received 24 complaints about the unpermitted structure, including concerns about its structural safety and illumination. This morning, building inspectors observed the structure being dismantled. A building permit is required to remove the structure but, due to safety concerns, the permit can be secured after the structure is taken down,” Hannan said in an email to CNN.

    “The property owner will be assessed fees for the unpermitted installation of the illuminated structure. The fees will be for building permits for the installation and removal of the structure, and to cover the cost of the Department of Building Inspection and the Planning Department’s investigation,” he added.

    CNN has reached out to the company formerly known as Twitter for comment.

    – CNN’s Ramishah Maruf contributed to this report

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republican lawmaker calls TikTok ‘an immediate threat’ and calls for app to be banned | CNN Politics

    Republican lawmaker calls TikTok ‘an immediate threat’ and calls for app to be banned | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Republican Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington said Sunday that TikTok represents “an immediate threat” from China and called for the short-form video app to be banned in the US.

    The chairwoman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that Congress should pass a data privacy law and ban TikTok in the US after the company’s CEO Shou Chew testified in front of her committee on Thursday.

    McMorris Rodgers said Chew’s testimony “made clear” that TikTok is a threat to the US.

    “What the hearing made clear to me was that TikTok should be banned in the United States of America to address the immediate threat and we also need a national data privacy law,” McMorris Rodgers told CNN’s Jake Tapper.

    The Republican lawmaker cited TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, being connected to China as evidence of the national security risk.

    While many nations have imposed bans on official government devices out of national security concerns, there is currently no public evidence the Chinese government has spied on people through TikTok.

    The company told CNN in a statement, “The best way to address concerns about national security is with the transparent US-based protection of US user data and systems with robust third-party monitoring, vetting and verification, which we are already implementing.”

    On Sunday, McMorris Rodgers responded to criticism from TikTok users, many of whom mocked lawmakers for their lack of familiarity with the app and questioned why Congress would spend time regulating social media. She noted the rare bipartisan agreement on the national security risks the app presents.

    “I would say there is an immediate threat via TikTok from the Chinese Communist Party. That is the reason that I believe we need to ban TikTok immediately. It is a national security threat,” McMorris Rodgers said. “It united Republicans and Democrats on the committee as to the urgent need for us to take action.”

    Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, also shared concerns over the app’s connection to China on Sunday.

    “At the end of the day, TikTok is owned by a Chinese company, ByteDance, and by Chinese law, that company has to be willing to turn over data to the Communist Party or, one of my bigger fears, we have 150 million Americans on TikTok, average of about 90 minutes a day, and how that channel could be used for propaganda purposes or disinformation by the Communist Party,” Warner said in an interview with CBS News.

    McMorris Rodgers also emphasized the need to pass a national data privacy law to restrict all social media platforms from collecting user data, including those based in the US.

    “We need to take action whether it’s TikTok, big tech or other data brokers to restrict the amount of data that they’re collecting to begin with,” she said.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Six US troops diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries following Iran-backed attacks in Syria | CNN Politics

    Six US troops diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries following Iran-backed attacks in Syria | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Six US service members have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries as a result of attacks from Iran-backed groups in Syria last week.

    Four US troops at the coalition base near al Hasakah that was attacked on March 23 by a suspected Iranian drone, and two service members at Mission Support Site Green Village attacked on March 24, have been identified as having brain injuries in screening since the attacks, Pentagon spokesman Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder said Thursday.

    “As standard procedure, all personnel in the vicinity of a blast are screened for traumatic brain injuries,” he said. “So these additional injuries were identified during post-attack medical screenings.”

    Those screenings are ongoing, he added.

    One of the service members has been transferred to Baghdad for further treatment, a US defense official familiar with the matter told CNN, noting that Baghdad has more advanced treatment options and better specialists than remaining on base in Syria.

    The other five US service members who have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries are being treated at their facilities.

    The news comes a week after the suspected Iranian drone struck a facility housing US personnel, killing an American contractor and wounding five service members. The US responded with precision air strikes on facilities associated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which Ryder said Thursday killed eight militants.

    The US service members who were wounded in the attacks last week, Ryder said, “all are in stable condition.”

    Of the five injured in the original attack on March 23, one other service member is receiving treatment in Germany, while two others and a contractor are being treated in Iraq, and two have returned to duty. The service member who was injured in attacks on March 24 is also receiving medical care and is in stable condition, Ryder said.

    In 2020, more than 100 service members were diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injuries after an Iranian missile attack on the al Asad military base in Iraq. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said at the time that symptoms take time to manifest.

    “[I]t’s not an immediate thing necessarily – some cases it is, some cases it’s not,” he said. “So we continue to screen.”

    Mild traumatic brain injuries, or concussion, is one of the most common forms of TBI among service members. But TBIs can also be debilitating; veterans described symptoms of dizziness, confusion, headaches, and irritability after sustaining TBIs, as well as changes in personality and balance issues.

    On Thursday, Ryder reiterated US officials’ remarks last week that the US “will take all necessary measures to defend our troops and our interests overseas.”

    “We do not seek conflict with Iran,” he said, “but we will always protect our people.”

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link