America is not exceptional. But we are the exception:

With the death toll surpassing 120,000, we account for the most COVID-19 deaths in the world.

American police kill over 1,000 people every year.

We’re the only one out of 22 advanced nations that doesn’t give all workers some form of paid sick leave.

We’re the only industrialized nation without guaranteed, universal healthcare.

We have the largest prison population on Earth.

We have the largest CEO-to-worker pay gap.

We spend more on the military than the next seven nations combined.

The above headline and facts are from We’re Not Winning, a video from economist Robert Reich’s website Inequality Media.

The ever-changing dangers of the ever-changing Internet.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is sometimes heralded as “the ‘Magna Carta’ of the internet.” It was passed in 1996 to provide websites with incentive to delete pornography, but it has since evolved. It is now effectively a shield that websites use to protect them from responsibility for all sorts of activity on their platforms, from illegal gun sales to discriminatory ads.

This week The Markup reporter Sara Harrison examines the U.S. law that enables both the good and the bad of internet speech, and explores how the law might be reformed to meet the new challenges of the ever-changing Internet.

Excellent article.

US billionaires have become $565 billion richer during the last 90 days

Matt Egan, writing for CNN Business, noted today that even though the past three months have been financially painful for many Americans – it hasn’t been for billionaires.

US billionaires have become $565 billion richer since March 18, according to a report published Thursday by the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank.

Total wealth for billionaires now stands at $3.5 trillion, up 19% from the low point near the beginning of the pandemic, the report said. Amazon (AMZN) boss Jeff Bezos alone is worth $36.2 billion more than he was on March 18.

Since that day, nearly 43 million Americans have filed for initial unemployment benefits. Continue reading the article here.

“We are the hollow men . . .”

Washington Post columnist George Will, ever the staunch conservative, wrote a column in yesterday’s paper titled Trump must be removed. So must his congressional enablers. This column was extraordinary in several ways. It represented yet another revolt among a growing number of influential members of the President’s own party. It has garnered the most comments (approaching 7,000 as I write this) that I think I’ve ever seen in a newspaper column. It is a rebellious voice during a week of growing rebellion on many fronts for many reasons in America. It is yet another harbinger that Donald Trump is in a centrifugal spin that seems likely to eventually destroy him.

But the central importance of this article to me his emphasis on “the enablers”. We know who the vociferous enablers are. Their madness confronts us nearly every day. But I hope we are taking note of the quiet and silent ones as well. They are the cowards of the Presidents venal and power-thirsty followers. They support him openly when his power is full strength, and support him quietly but loyally when his power wanes.

And soon, as Trump increasingly spins out of control, these enablers, feeling the changing winds, will begin to make quiet, equivocal statements and start to drift toward the political center. They will begin positioning themselves for the post-Trump world. They will want, above all, a place in that world too. A place of influence; a place that allows them to benefit from that influence; a place that will enrich them, and allow them to drift with the political winds without being held accountable for anything. The men without character. The hollow men.

Zuck. The research. And his decision.

A stunning story in Wall Street Journal on May 26, 2020 reported that an internal study by Facebook’s own researchers in 2018 revealed that the social media company’s algorithms not only did not bring people together, but in fact were driving people apart.

“Our algorithms exploit the human brain’s attraction to divisiveness,” read a slide from a 2018 presentation. “If left unchecked,” it warned, Facebook would feed users “more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention & increase time on the platform.”

Many of Facebook’s own experts agreed. Their research showed that:

● extremist groups were growing on Facebook and Facebook’s algorithms were responsible for the growth

● 64% of all extremist groups that join Facebook are due to Facebook’s own “recommendation tools” pushing extremist connections and growth

● a disproportionate amount of the bad behavior (fake news, spam, clickbait inauthentic users) came from a small pool of hyperpartisan users

● in the U.S. Facebook saw a larger infrastructure of accounts and publishers on the far right than on the far left.

That meant that if Facebook adjusted its algorithms to not promote “bad behavior” that would result in disproportionately limiting right wing actors. When that became apparent, Mr. Zuckerberg lost his enthusiasm for changing Facebook’s algorithms to mitigate extremist clicks. Two reasons: (1) he needed right wing support in Washington and didn’t want to alienate the party in power, and (2) reducing clicks was tantamount to leaving money (a lot of money) on the table. Zuckerberg was loath to do either of these things.

The bottom line: Facebook had effectively monetized nastiness, divisiveness, and rage. It paid, and it paid big. And his friend in the White House had just given big companies like Facebook a whopping tax break in 2o17. Zuckerberg didn’t want to do anything to upset the status quo.

The result: Zuckerberg shelved the research. What’s a little divisiveness in the world when there is so much money to be made from it?