Archives

All posts by Eric Mockensturm

Martian Immigration

Posted by Eric Mockensturm on May 4, 2022
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a Comment

For most of my life, I’ve heard people say things like:

  • My ancestors immigrated here because they were skilled laborers and sought after.
  • My ancestors came here the “right” way.
  • My ancestors weren’t “illegal.”

First, it is HIGHLY unlikely that your immigrant ancestors were skilled laborers. If they were, they wouldn’t have been trying to escape their terrible homeland. People don’t just up and leave everything and everyone they know to move to a different county if they have a good life. Would you?

Second, if you’re of European or Asian descent, OF COURSE, your ancestors likely came here the “right” way, because they had to come on a ship.

Third, if you’re using “illegal” to talk about anyone coming across the border to apply for asylum, then, yes, your ancestors were likely “illegal.”

So, I took a Wikipedia page and modified it to discuss the History of Mares (Martians) in America. It’s not too difficult to figure out where this came from originally, but if you read most Wikipedia pages about European immigrants you’ll see the same basic story. Plus, the people the Martians are based on are likely some of your ancestors too.

Enjoy reading about how your ancestors were basically no different than the El Salvadorans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, etc. you think are going to ruin this county and try to turn it into what they left. Really, the ONLY difference is the color of their skin.

Excess Deaths, Comorbidities and COVID-19

Posted by Eric Mockensturm on August 29, 2020
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a Comment

Note:  I wrote this on August 29, 2020, but never made it public, because I never finished it.  However, it is now April 2022, and I am still hearing this same crazy argument, so here is the incomplete version. Since February 2020, there have been one million more deaths in the U.S. than would be expected.  Because expected deaths are very consistent from year to year, something has killed an extra one million people.  You can decide for yourself what it might be, but I’m putting my money on COVID-19.

As the death toll from COVID-19 rises, I keep hearing from people that the count is exaggerated because places were essentially counting all deaths as caused by COVID-19. There appears to be some anecdotal evidence for this, but mostly just hospital staff claiming this was happening. I’ve not seen any proof of this, although I’m sure it’s likely happened. I am also certain that the increase in deaths attributed to pneumonia just before the disease was known to be spreading was mostly due to COVID-19. Thus, there has likely been some over- and under-counting.

The thing that really cannot be faked is the total number of deaths this year. The number of people dying in a year is fairly consistent and the CDC tracks this. The number of people dying from common causes is also fairly consistent. The CDC tracks what it calls “excess deaths” that try to better understand if there’s an epidemic or pandemic. They have a great web page that allows you to explore this data (CDC Excess Deaths). The data is updated weekly but, as noted on the web page, the most recent few weeks are likely not accurate as death certificates have not been submitted and/or entered into the database. As of August 20, 2020, the graph of all deaths in the US is shown below.

The yellow/orange line in this chart is what the CDC calls the “excess death threshold.”

This line gives a limit beyond which the number of extra deaths for a week could possibly be due to normal variations. This is based on data from 2013 to the current date. The average (from 2013) is not shown on this chart but is available in the data on the page. If deaths for a week exceed this threshold we can be very certain that something is killing people besides the usual causes. You can see the 2017-2018 flu season was particularly bad for about a month but the 2018-2019 season was not nearly as bad. Note, that it is usually excess pneumonia deaths that contribute to excess deaths during flu season. The 2019-2020 flu season also was quite mild and well within what we would expect to see. 

As an example of the data shown in this chart, let’s look at the week of June 14, 2020, which is the low point of the excess deaths since the pandemic started.  During this week, the threshold for excess deaths was about 54,600 deaths.  The average since 2013 for this week is about 52,700.  The number of deaths recorded was about 58,300, or 3,700 above the epidemic/pandemic threshold and 5,600 above the average.

For the weeks before the pandemic hit, January 5th through March 8th, the country had slightly fewer deaths (2,500) than average, i.e. the flu season was not particularly bad.  However, from March 8th until August 2nd, there have been 214,800 more deaths than normal for that date range and 174,100 more than the epidemic/pandemic threshold.  Thus, it is very clear that something is causing many more people to die than would be expected.  This also makes it clear that the death toll from COVID-19, which at the time was about 160,000, is probably too low.

You might attribute some of the extra 50,000 deaths (between those attributed to COVID-10 and those over the average) to an increase in suicides.  However, the number of suicides in that period would have had to more than double–about 4,000 people kill themselves each month.  Plus, the number of deaths from workplace and vehicle accidents have been reported to be significantly down–about 9,000 people die in accidents each month.  My best guess is that the increase in suicides is probably offset by the decreases in accidental deaths and COVID-19 has at least contributed to the majority of those 50,000 extra deaths.

We can chart the number of deaths each week compared to both the average and the epidemic/pandemic threshold.

The chart clearly shows the large number–over 10,000 in most weeks–of deaths above both the average and the threshold from the end of March until the beginning of May.  The excess deaths then decreased to a minimum around the middle of June and have increased slightly since.  Note that the last couple weeks shown are very likely incorrect due to the time it takes to process death certificates and record cause(s) of death.  What’s interesting to note here is that number of excess deaths each week is roughly in line with, but generally greater than, the weekly totals for deaths attributed to COVID-19.  It’s not clear why this would be and I cannot imagine it could possibly be the result of suicide rates going up by over 50%.  If this were the case, I would hope the CDC would be providing some data for that.  However, the CDC is primarily concerned with diseases and the deaths caused by those diseases.

Thus, if you believe the death toll of COVID-19 is greatly exaggerated, you need to somehow explain how more than 200,000 extra people have died this year.  To understand this in terms of other causes of death, it could be explained by a 200% increase in deaths from other respiratory diseases, a roughly 50% increase in deaths from heart disease or cancer, or a 1000% (10x) increase in the number of suicide deaths.  It is simply extremely hard to explain how 200,000 deaths above normal over a six month period could possibly be explained by an increase in any particular cause.  In that time frame, the TOTAL death rate has increased by over 20%.  It’s hard to imagine a 20% increase in one cause of death, nonetheless in all causes of death.

Once it’s clear that something is causing these extra deaths, people will then often say that it’s “just” old and/or sick people that are dying and that these people were going to die soon anyway.  Looking at the data, the average age of a person dying from COVID-19 is around 73 years old for men and 79 years old for women, which makes it look like it’s just killing off the old people.  Note that there is not data for COVID-19 deaths for each age, just age ranges.  I took the middle of the range to determine the numbers above.  I also calculated deaths from other diseases in this way and doing so shows that the group-age average is generally a couple of years older than the true average.  For example, for heart diseases, the grouped averages are 77 and 83 for men and women, respectively, while the true averages are 74 and 81.  The data also shows that the average number of comorbidities listed when COVID-19 was the primary cause is 2.6.  However, it’s good to try to get some points of reference for these numbers.  Thus, I looked at deaths from all respiratory illnesses, and pneumonia in particular, all cancer deaths, all deaths from heart disease, and all deaths from firearms to determine the average age of death and comorbidities for these causes.

Let’s first look at pneumonia deaths as that disease is very similar to COVID-19.  The average age of a person dying from pneumonia in 2018 was 79 years old–77.1 for men and 80.9 for women.  Thus COVID-19 is killing slightly younger people than pneumonia does.  For pneumonia, the average number of comorbidities listed is 1.8.  It’s not really clear why this is significantly lower than for COVID-19, especially considering the value for all respiratory diseases provided below.

The images in the gallery (click to enlarge) above show how the ages breakdown for pneumonia and COVID-19 deaths for men and women.  The first chart shows the age distribution of pneumonia deaths for men, women, and both in 2018.  The peak for women occurs at 91 years old, for men at 88 years old, and for both combined at 91 years old.  The second chart shows the number of deaths in the age groups the CDC tabulates for COVID-19 for each category.  Note that these are pneumonia deaths for all of 2018 and COVID-19 deaths for about six months.  Clearly the death rate for COVID-19 is much higher than that for pneumonia.  The ages for pneumonia deaths also clearly skew higher, particularly for men.  My first thought when I saw the curve for COVID-19 deaths for men was that the drop was simply the result that the population of men over 84 years old was much less than that from 75 to 84 years old.  However, that drop is not present for pneumonia deaths.  The next chart shows the percentage of deaths in each age group and in each category.  This makes it very clear that COVID-19 is killing people quite a bit younger than pneumonia.  The age difference is especially pronounced in men.  The final chart shows the same data spread out so the percentages for the younger age groups can be seen.  Even in the younger age groups, although the percentages are much smaller overall, it is clear that COVID-19 is killing people, both at a higher total number and higher percentages, younger than pneumonia typically does.

The average age of a person dying from any respiratory disease in 2018 was 77.1 years old–75.9 for men and 78.3 for women.  Again, this is older than for COVID-19 deaths and these ages are a couple of years greater if we find the average from grouped ages.  For all respiratory diseases, the number of comorbidities listed (i.e. in addition to the main cause of death) is 2.5 which is very similar to that of COVID-19.  In general, it appears that respiratory disease deaths typically have more comorbidities listed than for deaths from other diseases.  I suspect this is because deaths from a respiratory disease often involved multiple respiratory issues.  This is why it is so surprising to me that the comorbidities for pneumonia are so low since pneumonia is frequently what kills people with immune diseases.

The images in the gallery (click to enlarge) above show how the ages breakdown for respiratory diseases and COVID-19 deaths for men and women.  The first chart shows the age distribution of respiratory disease deaths for men, women, and both in 2018.  The age range when the majority of people die from respiratory disease is large, between 75 and 90.  The second chart shows the number of deaths in the age groups the CDC tabulates for COVID-19 for each category.  Note that these are half the respiratory disease deaths for all of 2018 and COVID-19 deaths for about six months.  The death rate for COVID-19 so far is fairly close to the death rate of women from all respiratory diseases in 2018.  It appears that COVID-19 is much deadlier for younger men than all other respiratory diseases combined.  The next chart shows the percentage of deaths in each age group and in each category.  This makes it very clear that COVID-19 is killing people quite a bit younger than people dying from all respiratory diseases in 2018; this is especially true for men.  The final chart shows the same data spread out so the percentages for the younger age groups can be seen.  Even in the younger age groups, although the percentages are much smaller overall, it is clear that COVID-19 is killing people, both at a higher total number and higher percentages, younger than other respiratory diseases typically do.  (The labels are incorrect.)

Turning our attention to heart disease we can clearly see that it is much more deadly to men at a younger age than it is to women.  The average age of death from heart disease for men is 74 years old, and for women it is 81 years old.  Note that both of these are older than the average age of a COVID-19 death.  In fact, if you calculate the average for heart disease as I am forced to do for COVID-19, you get 77 years old for men and 83 years old for women.  The average number of comorbidities for heart disease deaths is 2.3.

The images in the gallery (click to enlarge) above show how the ages breakdown for heart diseases and COVID-19 deaths for men and women.  The first chart shows the age distribution of respiratory disease deaths for men, women, and both in 2018.  Again we can see the clear difference in the ages when heart diseases kill men and women.  The second chart shows the deaths grouped by ages so we can better compare with the COVID-19 data.  Note that these are half the heart disease deaths for all of 2018 and COVID-19 deaths for about six months.  For people (men and women) younger than 65 years old all heart diseases and COVID-19 kill at about the same rate.  As a percentage of the total deaths, heart disease clearly kills people that are much older than those dying from COVID-19.  For example, 25% of COVID-19 deaths for men have occurred for men 54 years old and younger.  About half this percentage, 12.5%, of men dying from heart disease are younger than 55 years old.  The data for women is again much different although relatively very similar.  About 12.5% of women dying from COVID-19 are younger than 54 years old.  Again, the percentage of women dying from heart disease who are under 55 years old is about half this.  The bar chart breaks things out for each age group so the percentages for the younger ages are discernible.

Cancer of course kills younger people, and we see that the average age for both men and women dying of cancer is about 71 years old and that is roughly the age at which most deaths occur.  The number of comorbidities is 2.0 and, not surprisingly, less than for respiratory diseases.

Violence during protests

Posted by Eric Mockensturm on May 30, 2020
Posted in: Life, Politics. Leave a Comment

There has been a lot of crime and violence during the recent protests. As a white man I am not going to claim that I understand the experience of African Americans in this country – I do not. However because of recent experiences in my life I have had a very small glimpse of what it feels like to be helpless against a legal system, a society, and a government that seems to not care at all about you. This experience has given me the ability to better empathize with those who are currently protesting.

I’m old enough to recall the LA riots that occurred after the Rodney King arrest. This was in 1992 when I was 22 years old and just about to graduate from college. I could not understand why people resorted to crime during these times. I assumed the crimes were committed by criminals that simply saw an opportunity during the chaos to steal and vandalize, but my views have very much changed since that time. While I certainly do not condone vandalism, looting, arson, or any kind of crime (particularly violent crime) I have a very different picture of what might be going through the minds of the people committing these crimes during a protest. I believe one huge motivator for these outbursts is revenge. Almost everyone understands the desire to seek revenge. At some point, most people have been treated unfairly and had vengeful thoughts.

What I think most people have not experienced is the desire to seek revenge against something and not someone. When you feel like society and our legal system as a whole have wronged you, it is hard to focus your anger on a particular individual or group of individuals. When it is society against which you want revenge, that anger can come out in very different ways, and when it is a large group of people feeling they’ve been wronged you see many different acts of defiance. For example, I saw a Target store being looted. Maybe some people simply saw this chaos as an opportunity to steal a nice television. However, you have wonder if some of those people felt they’d been wronged by that Target. Maybe a security guard was following them around for no reason, or maybe they were treated poorly. But, how do you get revenge against Target? You can stop shopping there but that would likely have little effect. Plus, that is really not a satisfying way to get revenge. You could picket in front of Target, write letters, make blog posts, or publish what happened in other forums, but maybe you lack the time and resources for these pursuits. Even if you are able to take these actions, you may fear that no one would truly listen and nothing would be done.

I experienced first hand that desire for revenge about seven years ago. If you’re aware of what’s happened in my life over that period you may think it’s actually a person or a few people against whom I’ve thought about seeking revenge. I can assure you that it is most definitely not true. Although there were a few individuals that contributed to my suffering, I don’t blame any individual(s) for the things that happened. It is really a system and institutions that I blame the most. I have had many many hours and days with nothing to do but ponder ways in which to get revenge against these institutions, and I came up with plenty of ideas. I’m not going to disclose my ploys, as I never carried any of them out and have no plans to do so. While I may be intelligent enough to have come up with some really good plans, most acts of revenge against an institution involve doing something illegal. I am no master criminal and am under no delusion that I’m smarter than the combined experience and intelligence of law enforcement. Thus, no matter how “brilliant” I think a plan might be, I would never think there is no way I’d get caught. Plus, while none of these plans ever involved hurting someone, I could always envision how an individual might be harmed, and that was something that was simply not acceptable to me. I have a lot to look forward to in my life and getting caught and punished would severely hamper those things.

You may be wondering then how I can say I understand the actions taken by some individuals during these protests. It’s really simple; the risk-reward trade-off for me is probably very different than for most of the people taking these actions. While I’m sure none of them want to get caught, I suspect many do not see a bright future ahead. While a few months in jail is certainly no fun, when you really have nothing else to look forward to for those few months and think it’s not going to have a negative impact on your future, the calculus changes and the rewards start to outweigh the risks. Plus, when part of the reward is the feeling of getting revenge, it is much easier to justify your actions in your own head.

Part of the risk of getting caught for most people is the possibility of going to jail or prison. It’s not only that people don’t want to be incarcerated, it’s that there’s a huge fear of the unknown; you have no idea what it will be like or how you might fit in. However, once you’ve been in jail or prison that fear is gone, and I suspect for most people the experience is likely not nearly as bad as they imagined. In fact, your life incarcerated may not really be much worse than your life free. I certainly heard this from quite a few inmates.

I don’t know how many of these protesters have spent time in jail/prison (old statistics from the Department of Justice show about 20% of African Americans have been incarcerated by the time they are 30), but given the unfair treatment by law enforcement that they are protesting, I would guess that the number is unfortunately high. Thus the fear of the unknown that is prison may not be a consideration for many of these people. Sadly many may very well feel that they have nothing much to lose, and that this last resort behavior is justified.  Additionally, it is also human nature to somewhat mute bad experiences, making someone’s time being incarcerated not seem nearly as bad as it was at the time. I can certainly related to this.

The final reason I can understand the destruction is that it is so frustrating to feel like your voice is not being heard. You say over and over that there is a problem and no one listens. You say over and over that something is unjust and no one listens. The news pays attention for a news cycle which lasts at most a couple of week. For example, when was Ahmaud Arbery last in the news? The frustration builds as you see more and more injustice happening and no one in power doing anything about it, even if it’s not clear what the best course of action is. Destruction is one way of making your voice heard even if no one actually hears your voice. It keeps the media’s attention. While I do not suspect there is some larger, deeper plan to destroy things to keep the focus on the problem, I can understand the desire to act out when you feel your needs are not being met and think no one is listening; this is a natural and very human reaction that we are all born with.

Another part of the problem here is also that those who are supposed to be there to protect people (law enforcement) are the ones that are causing harm. The sense of betrayal here is immense – it’s a similar dynamic to a child that is being abused by a parent or teacher.  Over time the relationship gets extremely warped and the child will likely lash out eventually.  Unfortunately, this aggression is often not directed at the person that abused them, but at their own children or others around them.

I will leave you with a clip from a show I saw in early 2013 when I was feeling a lot of hate and anger.  It really resonated with me then and it still does.

Trump vs. Twitter V

Posted by Eric Mockensturm on May 29, 2020
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a Comment
A private (or public as Twitter is) is free to respond to someone’s post and to a limited degree delete posts and accounts, but only if they seek protection under the Communications Decency Act. Companies do it all the time. 
 
While the legal maneuver is to try to undermine the protections given to social platforms, the previous posts were also referencing the tweets Trump made about Twitter limiting free speech. 
 
While AG Barr has said the DOJ had been looking into that particular section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act, and there are some good arguments that it should be altered, I believe the timing of this is simply a result of Trump’s vindictiveness.
 
The executive order is really not that complex and could have easily been written in a couple of days and even a matter of hours by someone versed in the particular law under scrutiny. It also clearly shows the vindictive nature that he’s expressed in tweets following Twitter replying to his tweet. See https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/, which I have embedded for reference below.  What I find truly amazing is the introduction to the executive order which clearly shows its vindictive origins.  They actually use “whataboutisms” in it referencing Adam Schiff and the “Russian Hoax”.  I’m not exactly sure what Schiff tweeted but I doubt it had anything to do with Trump colluding with Russia.  I suspect it was about Russia’s attempted interference in the 2016 election.  If so, then that has clearly been proven if you read any of the warrants issued for Russians.  They really didn’t even try to hide it and left a very clear digital trail back to them.  Just read the indictment for yourself; it’s quite interesting once you get into the details.
 
Of course, the executive order will need to withstand legal scrutiny of the courts, but I think that is part of the ploy–make social media platforms “waste” money in drawn-out legal battles in which it seems lawyers are typically the only winners.
 
There is a lot to debate about section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act but I believe it actually allows free speech more than it hampers it. Without it, say, Lori Klausutis’ husband could sue Twitter about the posts the president made concerning her death. That just does not seem right to me. Plus, if Lori Klausutis’ husband sued Twitter, would Twitter not then sue Trump?  Who wins then besides lawyers?
 
It would be like a store being sued because someone besides the owners posted inflammatory material on a bulletin board they’d set up for public announcements. If you want to go even more extreme, I don’t think it’d be right to allow a business to be sued because someone spray-painted inflammatory things on their building. Are all blogs that allow comments now going to have to worry about being sued for something a commenter might say?  If so, I think a lot of places that once offered platforms for discussion will simply shut down, or ban that discussion.
 
Social platforms need to maintain a balance between allowing people to express their opinions and the need to prevent misinformation, and harmful and/or indecent material from spreading, and maybe they go too far sometimes; the law is not clear on the line of what is okay and what is not.  However, what Trump is doing is essentially trying to kill or hamper the platform that gives him so much of his voice.  It is honestly quite strange and a very perplexing move.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.  Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy.  Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.  This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.  When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.  They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology.  Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms.  As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes.  It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse.  Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias.  As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet.  As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets.  Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China.  One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance.  It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.  Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights.  They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice.  We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

Sec. 2.  Protections Against Online Censorship.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.  Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)).  47 U.S.C. 230(c).  It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.  As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.  In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material.  The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”  47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3).  The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”  It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.  Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.  When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct.  It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

(b)  To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard.  In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii)  the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

(A)  deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

(B)  taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(iii)  any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 3.  Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech.  (a)  The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms.  Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(c)  The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

Sec. 4.  Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech.  The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.”  Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017).  Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders.  These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate.  Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).

(b)  In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship.  In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints.  The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

(c)  The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code.  Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

(d)  For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order.  The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 5.  State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws.  (a)  The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.  The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

Sec. 6.  Legislation.  The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

Sec. 7.  Definition.  For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

Sec. 8.  General Provisions. (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)    the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)   the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Executive Orders I

Posted by Eric Mockensturm on May 29, 2020
Posted in: Politics. Leave a Comment
The debate about executive orders is a long and intricate one, and I personally believe that over the years both parties (when in power) have expanded executive power too far. There is obviously a reason to allow executive orders, i.e. when something needs to be done quickly in an emergency. Whether the COVID-19 outbreak was/is an emergency is of course debatable. However, I feel it was/is far more of an emergency than Twitter’s ability to respond to tweets on its platform.
 
What you have to remember is that all the executive power Trump normalizes can and will be used by the other party when in power. I see these as very short-term wins for the Republican party that generally weaken the checks and balances our government depends on to be a democracy.

Capitalism, Counterfeit-capitalism, and Cronyism

Posted by Eric Mockensturm on May 29, 2020
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a Comment

A collection of great articles about capitalism, cronyism, and counterfeit-capitalism… They’re all quite interesting.  From September 2019:

https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/wework-and-counterfeit-capitalism

I really wonder how the gig economy is going to shake out after things open back up. Will people continue to get stuff delivered and/or pick things up curbside more? All these were options BC-19 (before COVID-19) but I’m sure more people have tried them now. What’s the consensus?

https://themargins.substack.com/p/doordash-and-pizza-arbitrage

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-05-18/the-unicorns-fell-into-a-ditch

Trump vs. Twitter IV

Posted by Eric Mockensturm on May 29, 2020
Posted in: Politics, Uncategorized. Leave a Comment
A private (or public as Twitter is) is free to respond to someone’s post, and to a limited degree delete posts and accounts. They do it all the time. See my follow-up post about the actual order. Of course, that’s the legal maneuver.

I’m talking here about his follow-up tweets about the situation and his general sense that what Twitter did somehow violated his right to free speech.

While Barr has said the DOJ had been looking into that particular section of the law, and there are some good arguments that it should be altered, I do believe the timing of this is simply a result of Trump’s vindictiveness.

The document is really not that complex and could have easily been written in a couple of days and even a matter of hours by someone versed in the particular law under scrutiny. It also clearly shows the vindictive nature that he’s expressed in tweets following Twitter replying to his tweet. See: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

Of course, this will need to withstand legal scrutiny of the courts, but I think that is part of the ploy–make social media platforms “waste” money in drawn-out legal battles in which it seems lawyers are typically the only winners.

There is a lot to debate about section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act but I believe it actually allows free speech more than it hampers it. Without it, say, Lori Klausutis’ husband could sue Twitter about the posts the president made concerning her death. That just does not seem right to me. It would be like a store being sued because someone besides the owners posting inflammatory material on a bulletin board they’d set up for public announcements. If you want to go even more extreme, I don’t think it’d be right to allow a business to be sued because of someone spray-painting inflammatory things on their building.

Social platforms need to maintain a balance between allowing people to express their opinions and the need to prevent misinformation from spreading, and maybe they go too far sometimes.

I believe Trump’s original travel ban from Arab counties did not pass the legal challenges, but the revised version did by a party-line vote in SCOTUS. But the debate over the courts becoming too political is for another time.

Trump vs. Twitter III

Posted by Eric Mockensturm on May 28, 2020
Posted in: Politics, Uncategorized. Leave a Comment

I guess he went through with it. If it has any effect it will only stifle the ability to express oneself. You allow Twitter to be sued over what users post and you think they wouldn’t immediately take down many of Trump’s tweets, especially the ones about Scarborough. Honestly, I think Twitter should in response simply delete his account saying it’s too much of a liability for them now.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/trump-executive-order-section-230-twitter-fact-checking

Trump vs. Twitter II

Posted by Eric Mockensturm on May 28, 2020
Posted in: Politics, Uncategorized. Leave a Comment

I seriously wonder how courts will rule on this… if they rule for Trump our society will be permanently altered, for the worse I believe. Trump is trying to limit Twitter’s freedom of speech. Can he possibly not see that? Are the “advisers” he has surrounded himself with too afraid to point out the obvious inconsistency? Does he think his followers will not see this obvious inconsistency?
No newspaper is under any obligation to publish every letter they receive, and Twitter is under no obligation to publish every tweet they receive. Likewise, a newspaper is free to publish a letter and then respond to it. Twitter is free to do the same.
Please, SOMEONE, rent a room in a Trump hotel and hang a banner critical of Trump from the window and see what happens.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/

Trump vs. Twitter

Posted by Eric Mockensturm on May 28, 2020
Posted in: Politics, Uncategorized. Leave a Comment

It appears that our president’s vindictiveness towards anyone that he perceives as disagreeing with or slighting him goes even deeper than I previously thought.  He also clearly does not understand that companies, public or private, are under no obligation to protect free speech.  Do you think Trump would not have banners hung from the windows of his hotels saying “Trump Sucks” removed?  Companies are also under no obligation to not have an opinion.  Twitter did not remove his tweets; they only officially responded to them with counterpoints.  Is it not THEIR right to do so?  We have a narcissistic, vindictive bully as a president that is willing to use all the power we’ve given him and power we did not give him to protect his ego, belittle and oppress his opponents, and take revenge on anyone that disagrees with him.

We cannot allow this man to continue dismantling the government we have so he can take revenge on his enemies.  He and the Republican party are establishing some dangerous precedents that can and likely will be used by both parties in the future.  To those that applaud him for taking these actions, please remember that future presidents will also take advantage of these precedents and implement policies through executive orders and/or with no oversight that you may very much not like.