ANONYMOUS - OUR VOICE

Google says it’s committed to ethical AI research. Its ethical AI team isn’t so sure.

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/iasO7H5945ukZhrK6VsVOUOgf4U=/0x0:5760x3016/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22555380/1028811892.jpg" /></div>
Six months after star AI ethics researcher <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/12/4/22153786/google-timnit-gebru-ethical-ai-jeff-dean-controversy-fired">Timnit Gebru said Google fired her</a> over an academic paper scrutinizing a technology that powers some of the company’s key products, the company says it’s still <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/google-ai-chief-says-reputation-hit-to-unit-is-real-after-turmoil/">deeply committed</a> to ethical AI research. It promised to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-plans-to-double-ai-ethics-research-staff-11620749048">double its research staff studying responsible AI to 200 people</a>, and CEO Sundar Pichai has pledged his support to fund more ethical AI projects. Jeff Dean, the company’s head of AI, said in May that while the controversy surrounding Gebru’s departure was a “reputational hit,” <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/google-ai-chief-says-reputation-hit-to-unit-is-real-after-turmoil/">it’s time to move on</a>.
But some current members of Google’s tightly knit ethical AI group told Recode the reality is different from the one Google executives are publicly presenting. The 10-person group, which studies how artificial intelligence impacts society, is a subdivision of Google’s broader <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-18/google-to-reorganize-ai-teams-in-wake-of-researcher-s-departure">new responsible AI organization</a>. They say the team has been in a state of limbo for months, and that they have serious doubts company leaders can rebuild credibility in the academic community — or that they will listen to the group’s ideas. Google has yet to hire replacements for the two former leaders of the team. Many members feel so adrift that they convene daily in a private messaging group to complain about leadership, manage themselves on an ad-hoc basis, and seek guidance from their former bosses. Some are considering leaving to work at other tech companies or to return to academia, and say their colleagues are thinking of doing the same.
“We want to continue our research, but it’s really hard when this has gone on for months,” said Alex Hanna, a researcher on the ethical AI team. Despite the challenges, Hanna added, individual researchers are trying to continue their work and effectively manage themselves — but if conditions don’t change, “I don’t see much of a path forward for ethics at Google in any kind of substantive way.”
A spokesperson for Google’s AI and research department declined to comment on the ethical AI team.
Google has a vast research organization of thousands of people that extends far beyond the 10 people it employs to specifically study ethical AI. There are other teams that also focus on societal impacts of new technologies, but the ethical AI team had a reputation for publishing groundbreaking papers about algorithmic fairness and bias in the data sets that train AI models. The team has lent Google’s research organization credibility in the academic community by demonstrating that it’s a place where seasoned scholars could do cutting-edge — and, at times, critical — research about the technologies the company develops. That’s important for Google, a company billions of people rely on every day to navigate the internet, and whose core products, such as Search, <a href="https://www.vox.com/22442624/google-mum-lamda-ai-search-artificial-intelligence">increasingly rely on AI</a>.
While AI has the world-changing potential to help <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03157-9">diagnose cancer</a>, <a href="https://venturebeat.com/2018/08/29/google-and-harvard-use-ai-to-predict-earthquake-aftershocks/">detect earthquakes</a>, and <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/29/1000795/facebook-ai-chatbot-blender-beats-google-meena/">replicate human conversation</a>, the developing technology also has the ability to amplify <a href="https://news.mit.edu/2018/study-finds-gender-skin-type-bias-artificial-intelligence-systems-0212">biases against women</a> and <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/15/20806384/social-media-hate-speech-bias-black-african-american-facebook-twitter">minorities</a>, pose <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/11/21131991/clearview-ai-facial-recognition-database-law-enforcement">privacy threats</a>, and <a href="https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ais-carbon-footprint-problem">contribute to carbon emissions</a>. Google has a <a href="https://ai.google/responsibilities/review-process/">review process</a> to determine whether new technologies are in line with its AI principles, <a href="https://www.blog.google/technology/ai/ai-principles/">which it introduced in 2018</a>. And its AI ethics team is supposed to help the company find its own blind spots and ensure it develops and applies this technology responsibly. But in light of the controversy over Gebru’s departure and the upheaval of its ethical AI team, <a href="https://go.redirectingat.com/?id=66960X1516588&xs=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.morningbrew.com%2Femerging-tech%2Fstories%2F2021%2F05%2F14%2Fearth-ai-ethics-experts-react-google-doubling-embattled-ethics-team&referrer=vox.com&sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2Frecode%2F22465301%2Fgoogle-ethical-ai-timnit-gebru-research-alex-hanna-jeff-dean-marian-croak" rel="sponsored nofollow noopener" target="_blank" has-subtag="true" data-cdata='{"rewritten_url":"https://go.redirectingat.com?id=66960X1516588\u0026xs=1\u0026url=https://www.morningbrew.com/emerging-tech/stories/2021/05/14/earth-ai-ethics-experts-react-google-doubling-embattled-ethics-team\u0026referrer=vox.com\u0026sref=https://www.vox.com/recode/22465301/google-ethical-ai-timnit-gebru-research-alex-hanna-jeff-dean-marian-croak\u0026xcust=___vx__p_22229342__m_m-placeholder__s_s-placeholder__t_w__c_c-placeholder__r_r-placeholder__d_d-placeholder","subtag_max_length":50,"subtag_delim_length":3,"subtag_key":"xcust","subtag_data":{"id":"66960X1516588","xs":"1","url":"https://www.morningbrew.com/emerging-tech/stories/2021/05/14/earth-ai-ethics-experts-react-google-doubling-embattled-ethics-team","referrer":"vox.com","sref":"https://www.vox.com/recode/22465301/google-ethical-ai-timnit-gebru-research-alex-hanna-jeff-dean-marian-croak","xcust":"___vx__p_22229342__m_m-placeholder__s_s-placeholder__t_w__c_c-placeholder__r_r-placeholder__d_d-placeholder"},"encode_subtag":false}'>some academics</a> in computer science research <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-research-focus-idUSKBN28X1CB">are concerned</a> Google is plowing ahead with world-changing new technologies without adequately addressing internal feedback.
In May, for example, Google was criticized for announcing a new AI-powered dermatology app that <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7evmy/googles-new-dermatology-app-wasnt-designed-for-people-with-darker-skin">had a significant shortcoming</a>: It vastly underrepresented darker skin tones in its test data compared with lighter ones. It’s the kind of issue the ethical AI team, had it been consulted — and were it not in its current state — might have been able to help avoid.
For the past several months, the leadership of Google’s ethical research team has been in a state of flux.
In the span of only a few months, the team — which has been referred to as a <a href="https://techsupport.substack.com/p/the-last-words-of-2020">group of “friendly misfits”</a> due to its status-quo-challenging research — lost two more leaders after Gebru’s departure. In February, <a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-02-19/google-fires-researcher-meg-mitchell-escalating-ai-saga">Google fired Meg Mitchell</a>, a researcher who founded the ethical AI team and co-led it with Gebru. And in April, Mitchell’s former manager, top AI scientist Samy Bengio, who previously managed Gebru and said he was “stunned” by what happened to her, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/06/googles-samy-bengio-is-leaving-amid-fallout-from-ai-researcher-firing.html">resigned</a>. Bengio, who did not work for the ethical AI team directly but oversaw its work as the leader of the larger Google Brain research division, will lead a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-hires-ex-google-ai-scientist-who-resigned-after-colleagues-firing-2021-05-03/">new AI research team at Apple</a>.
In mid-February, Google <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-18/google-to-reorganize-ai-teams-in-wake-of-researcher-s-departure?sref=Wg6QzS2e">appointed Marian Croak</a>, a former VP of engineering, to be the head of its new Responsible AI department, which the AI ethics team is a part of. But several sources told Recode that she is too high-level to be involved in day-to-day operations of the team.
This has left the ethical AI unit running itself in an ad-hoc fashion and turning to its former managers who no longer work at the company for informal guidance and research advice. Researchers on the team have invented their own structure: They rotate the responsibilities of running weekly staff meetings. And they’ve self-designated two researchers to keep other teams at Google updated on what they’re working on, which was a key part of Mitchell’s job. Because Google employs more than 130,000 people around the world, it can be difficult for researchers like the AI ethics team to know if their work would actually get implemented in products.
“But now, with me and Timnit not being there, I think the people threading that needle are gone,” Mitchell told Recode.
<div class="c-float-right">
<div>
<div class="c-entry-sidebar">
Do you work at Google and have thoughts on what’s going on? Please email Shirin Ghaffary at shirin.ghaffary@protonmail.com to reach her confidentially. Signal number available upon request by email.
</div>
</div>
</div>
The past six months have been particularly difficult for newer members of the ethical AI team, who at times have been unsure of who to ask for basic information such as where they can find their salary or how to access Google’s internal research tools, according to several sources.
And some researchers on the team feel at risk after watching Gebru and Mitchell’s fraught departures. They’re worried that, if Google decides their work is too controversial, they could be ousted from their jobs, too.
In meetings with the ethical AI team, Croak, who is an accomplished <a href="https://www.anrdoezrs.net/links/8532386/type/dlg/sid/vox/https://www.att.com/Common/about_us/pdf/marian_croak.pdf" rel="sponsored nofollow noopener" target="_blank" has-subtag="true" data-cdata='{"rewritten_url":"https://www.anrdoezrs.net/links/8532386/type/dlg/sid/___vx__p_22229342__m_m-placeholder__s_s-placeholder__t_w__c_c-placeholder__r_r-placeholder__d_d-placeholder/https://www.att.com/Common/about_us/pdf/marian_croak.pdf","subtag_max_length":64,"subtag_delim_length":3,"subtag_key":"sid","subtag_data":{"sid":"___vx__p_22229342__m_m-placeholder__s_s-placeholder__t_w__c_c-placeholder__r_r-placeholder__d_d-placeholder"},"encode_subtag":false}'>engineering research leader</a> but who has little experience in the field of ethics, has tried to reassure staff that she is the ally the team is looking for. Croak is one of the highest-ranking Black executives at Google, where Black women only represent about 1.2 percent of the workforce. She has acknowledged Google’s lack of progress on improving the racial and gender diversity of its employees — an issue Gebru was vocal about while working at Google. And Croak has struck an apologetic tone in meetings with staff, acknowledging the pain the team is going through, according to several researchers.
But the executive has gotten off on the wrong foot with the team, several sources say, because they feel she’s made a series of empty promises.
In the weeks before Croak was appointed officially as the lead of a new Responsible AI unit, she began having informal conversations with members of the ethical AI team about how to repair the damage done to the team. Hanna drafted a letter together with her colleagues on the ethical AI team that laid out demands that included “structural changes” to the research organization.
That restructuring happened. But ethical AI staff were blindsided when they first heard about the changes from a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-18/google-to-reorganize-ai-teams-in-wake-of-researcher-s-departure">Bloomberg article</a>.
“We happen to be the last people to know about it internally, even though we were the team that started this process,” said Hanna in February. “Even though we were the team that brought these complaints and said there needs to be a reorganization.”
“In the very beginning, Marian said, ‘We want your help in drafting a charter — you should have a say in how you’re managed,’” said another researcher on the ethical AI team who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. “Then she disappeared for a month or two and said, ‘Surprise! Here’s the Responsible AI organization.’”
Croak told the team there was a miscommunication about the reorganization announcement. She continues to seek feedback from the ethical AI team and assures them that leadership all the way up to CEO Sundar Pichai recognizes the need for their work.
But several members of the ethical AI team say that even if Croak is well-intentioned, they question whether she has the institutional power to truly reform the dynamics at Google that led to the Gebru controversy in the first place.
Some are disillusioned about their future at Google and are questioning if they have the freedom they need to do their work. Google has agreed to one of their demands, but it hasn’t taken action on several others: They want Google to publicly commit to academic freedom and clarify its research review process. They also want it to apologize to Gebru and Mitchell and offer the researchers their jobs back — but at this point, that’s a highly unlikely prospect. (Gebru has said she would not take her old job back even if Google offered it to her.)
“There needs to be external accountability,” said Gebru in an interview in May. “And maybe once that comes, this team would have an internal leader who would champion them.”
Some researchers on the ethical AI team told Recode they are considering leaving the company, and that several of their colleagues are thinking of doing the same. In the highly competitive field of AI, where in-demand researchers at top tech companies can command <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/technology/artificial-intelligence-salaries-openai.html">seven-figure salaries</a>, it would be a significant loss for Google to lose that talent to a competitor.
Google is by far one of the largest funders of research in the tech industry — <a href="https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOGL/alphabet/research-development-expenses">it spent more than $27 billion</a> on research and design last year, which is larger than <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/content/fy-2020-budget-request/">NASA’s annual budget</a>.
But the controversies surrounding its ethical AI team have left some academics questioning its commitment to letting researchers do their work freely, without being muzzled by the company’s business interests.
Thousands of <a href="https://googlewalkout.medium.com/standing-with-dr-timnit-gebru-isupporttimnit-believeblackwomen-6dadc300d382">professors, researchers, and lecturers</a> in computer science signed a petition criticizing Google for firing Gebru, calling it “unprecedented research censorship.”
Dean and other AI executives at Google know that the company has lost trust in the broader research community. Their strategy for rebuilding that trust is “to continue to publish cutting-edge work” that is “deeply interesting,” <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/technology?sref=Wg6QzS2e">according to comments Dean made at a February staff research meeting</a>. “It will take a little bit of time to regain trust with people,” Dean said.
That might take more time than Dean predicted.
“I think Google’s reputation is basically irreparable in the academic community at this point, at least in the medium term,” said Luke Stark, an assistant professor at Western University in Ontario, Canada, who studies the social and ethical impacts of artificial intelligence.
Stark <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/24/tech/google-ai-ethics-reputation/index.html">recently turned down a $60,000 unrestricted research grant</a> from Google in protest over Gebru’s ousting. He is reportedly the first academic to ever to reject the generous and highly competitive funding.
Stark isn’t the only academic to protest Google over its handling of the ethical AI team. Since Gebru’s departure, two groups focused on increasing diversity in the field, Black in AI and Queer in AI, have said they will <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/black-queer-ai-groups-spurn-google-funding/">reject any funding from Google</a>. Two academics invited to speak at a Google-run workshop <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/departures-2-google-ai-researchers-spur-fallout/">boycotted it in protest</a>. A popular AI ethics research conference, <a href="https://venturebeat.com/2021/03/02/ai-ethics-research-conference-suspends-google-sponsorship/">FAccT, suspended Google’s sponsorship</a>.
And at least <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/two-google-engineers-resign-firing-ai-ethics-researcher-rcna245">four Google employees</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/KwasiAMensah">including</a> an <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-baker-82552/detail/treasury/position:1871451/?entityUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_profileTreasuryMedia%3A(ACoAAAABpx0BNDjuO71etPuXTsHCmQvmWfNlj2w%2C1611115642127)&section=position%3A1871451&treasuryCount=1">engineering director</a> and an <a href="https://twitter.com/le_roux_nicolas/status/1399812601392009225">AI research scientist</a>, have left the company and cited Gebru’s firing as a reason for their resignations.
Of course, these departures represent a handful of people out of a large group. Others are staying for now because they still believe things can change. One Google employee working in the broader research department but not on the ethical AI team said that they and their colleagues strongly disapproved of how leadership forced out Gebru. But they feel that it’s their responsibility to stay and continue doing meaningful work.
“Google is so powerful and has so much opportunity. It’s working on so much cutting-edge AI research. It feels irresponsible for no one who cares about ethics to be here.”
And these internal and external concerns about how Google is handling its approach to ethical AI development extend much further than the academic community. Regulators have started paying attention, too. In December, nine members of Congress sent <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/17/1014994/congress-wants-answers-from-google-about-timnit-gebrus-firing/">a letter to Google</a> demanding answers over Gebru’s firing. And the influential racial justice group Color of Change — which helped launch an advertiser boycott of Facebook last year — <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-27/google-pressured-on-racial-equity-audit-after-ai-ethics-collapse">has called for an external audit of potential discrimination</a> at Google in light of Gebru’s ouster.
These outside groups are paying close attention to what happens inside Google’s AI team because they recognize the increasing influence that AI will play in our lives. Virtually every major tech company, including Google, sees AI as a key technology in the modern world. And with Google already in the political hot seat because of antitrust concerns, the stakes are high for the company to get this new technology right.
“It’s going take a lot more than a PR push to shore up trust in responsible AI efforts, and I don’t think that’s being officially recognized by current leaders,” said Hanna. “I really don’t think they understand how much damage has been done to Google as a respectable actor in this space.”
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/22465301/google-ethical-ai-timnit-gebru-research-alex-hanna-jeff-dean-marian-croak">https://www.vox.com/recode/22465301/google-ethical-ai-timnit-gebru-research-alex-hanna-jeff-dean-marian-croak</a>

vox Google says it’s committed to ethical AI research. Its ethical AI team isn’t so sure.

Six months after star AI ethics researcher Timnit Gebru said Google fired her over an academic paper scrutinizing a technology that powers...

Billionaires are racing to sidestep President Biden’s plan to raise their taxes

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/gzvmQm3gTnaUUKNezrwdqzY2fjs=/0x0:6192x3242/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22553707/1321197056.jpg" /></div>
President Joe Biden could soon find out that raising taxes on billionaires is more complicated than it seems.
The <a href="https://www.vox.com/22432338/joe-biden-tax-plan">new president wants the rich to pay much more in taxes</a>, in order to finance a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-28/what-s-in-biden-s-1-8-trillion-spending-plan-funded-by-taxes">$1.8 trillion plan</a> to invest in things like child care, education, and tax cuts for the poor that are meant to reduce inequality.
But standing in the other corner of the ring is a sophisticated wealth management and accounting industry that is ready to fight, eager to temper every aggressive proposal and exploit every loophole to please their clients who pay them big bucks to defend every dollar.
Over the next few months — and over the next few years, if <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/16/biden-tax-plan-executives-488887">Biden’s plan manages to pass in some form or another</a> — these forces will collide. Passing the tax bill is only the first step. The execution could be harder. No matter Democrats’ intentions, they may find that their plan lets tech billionaires off the hook.
And so the wealth management industry is brimming with a cocksure optimism that they can outsmart the bureaucracy.
<div class="c-float-right">
<aside><q>“The wealthy will find ways around it. There’s too many ways to defer, minimize, or even avoid taxes.”</q></aside>
</div>
“The wealthy will find ways around it,” predicted one wealth manager. “There’s too many ways — perfectly acceptable ways — to defer, minimize, or even avoid taxes.”
What wealth managers and pro-tax activists share is a belief that the Biden proposal poses more of a threat to millionaires than it does to billionaires — because billionaires often can be more patient when it comes to dealing with taxes, choosing the exact moment that they want to pay them. Millionaires will have to work harder to find clever workarounds.
The Biden plan would increase the federal rate for individuals making over $450,000 a year to almost 40 percent. It would increase the ultra-rich’s capital gains tax rate — the tax rate paid by wealthy entrepreneurs when they sell a company or wealthy investors when they sell a stock — to a sum of over 40 percent. The White House would end the so-called “Angel of Death” loophole that allows the wealthy to effectively avoid capital gains tax altogether by not assessing the tax if the asset is passed along to an heir. And crucially, Biden plans to increase the enforcement firepower of the IRS, a move that the administration thinks could raise over a third of the $1.8 trillion in revenue targeted by the tax overhaul.
And it’s true that these proposals have sent at least some of the ultra-rich screaming for the brake pedal, more than half a dozen wealth managers and accountants for some of Silicon Valley’s wealthiest families told Recode.
Over the last few weeks, more than a few wealthy executives and investors — including those who made their fortunes in the tech industry — have fired off emails and marched into meetings with their money managers in a state of panic. Would they really have to pay a capital gains tax that could mean more than half of their yearly earnings go to either the federal or California government? Would their children really be unable to access the intergenerational wealth that the family’s patriarchs and matriarchs worked so hard to build?
Yes, there are “mini freakouts in every client meeting we have,” said one wealth manager for Silicon Valley’s rich.
To prepare for a world in which Biden’s plans might become reality, wealthy people across the Bay Area are rushing to have their teams draw up legal documents to try to prepare for Biden’s plan potentially passing. One source relayed that tax lawyers he works with have already put out word that they will not take any more clients after September because they are anticipating so much last-minute 2021 business. Another said he’s noticed more and more clients talking about moving to tax-friendly Puerto Rico in the aftermath of the Biden proposal.
But there’s a litany of reasons that the tax experts aren’t as concerned as their clients are. And it’s not just because activists and wealth managers expect the Biden plan to be significantly watered down if and when it eventually passes Congress.
There’s the obvious — that the hike in the upper-most tax bracket matters little because the 0.01 percent don’t make their fortunes through a salary; they make it by founding or investing in companies. There’s the sorta obvious — that the increase in the capital gains rate can be circumvented if the wealthy avoid “realizing” the gain at a time when that higher rate is in place. And then there’s the even less obvious — that mega-billionaires can quite successfully go to great lengths to avoid ever paying a capital gains tax by using loans, charitable contributions, and a byzantine system of trusts to keep their fortunes from Uncle Sam.
To Gabriel Zucman, an influential progressive economist who studies tax payments from billionaires, the Biden plan has a “serious limitation.”
“If you’re Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk or the tech billionaires, it’s very easy to hold onto [your] shares and at the same time to borrow money to buy stuff — homes, private jets, or any type of consumption,” Zucman said. “The other thing in the Biden plan is to have taxation of capital gains at death. But obviously most of these tech billionaires are quite young, which means that they could still pay very little tax as a fraction of the wealth for many years and perhaps even several decades.”
Essentially, the tech titans will resist selling shares in a year when the Biden capital gains hike is in effect (not that active executives do much of that selling to begin with, out of fear of spooking the stock market). And that even if Biden succeeds with his plan to ax the provision that allows billionaires to ever avoid paying capital gains tax by bequeathing the asset to an heir — a privilege called the “step-up” basis, or the aforementioned Angel of Death loophole — Silicon Valley’s ultra-rich may have to pay more, but not until decades from now when they die.
The irony is that Zucman, the academic brains behind liberals’ calls for a wealth tax, largely agrees with the wealth defense industry on one key point: That the ultra-rich will be able to successfully fend off some of the Biden plan’s most intrusive proposals, potentially defanging the administration’s plan to raise hundreds of billions in tax revenue. The difference is that to Zucman, that’s why Biden needs to go even bolder. To wealth managers, that’s maybe why Biden shouldn’t even try.
<div class="c-float-right">
<aside><q>“Regardless of where clients fall on the political spectrum, none of them are excited to pay more taxes”</q></aside>
</div>
“Regardless of where clients fall on the political spectrum, none of them are excited to pay more taxes,” said one wealth manager. “I never met a client, regardless of their political affiliation, that isn’t excited about proper estate planning.”
Billionaires or even regular-old millionaires hire these financial aides to preserve their assets. Beating the Tax Man is why they are paid. And so the industry in Silicon Valley is already strategizing about what exactly it will do.
When it comes to the capital gains tax, expect Silicon Valley titans to rush to lock in their gains at this year’s lower rate (assuming the final tax plan does not apply retroactively, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-budget-said-to-assume-capital-gains-tax-rate-increase-started-in-late-april-11622127432">a provision that will be vigorously fought</a>.) That means that a rash of startups may look to sell toward the end of the year. Or that investors who feel they need to sell stock at some point soon may do so this year rather than next. Research on previous capital gains hikes shows that there is often a spike in realizations in the year before a new tax takes effect, according to Chye-Ching Huang, a tax policy expert at NYU.
Others may not sell at all, hoping that a new administration or a new Congress may reverse the cuts altogether. And in the meantime, billionaires may take out more loans using their stock holdings as collateral — a common practice for tech titans, as Zucman pointed out.
Wealth managers concede that evading capital gains tax at death will be difficult without the Angel of Death loophole. But they still have a few tricks up their sleeves. They say their clients in their wills will direct more and more of their appreciated fortunes to charity rather than to the US Treasury. (“Charity is a way of maintaining family wealth, not depleting it,” one wealth manager remarked.) They will — and in recent months, already have — ramp up their estate planning, which is the engineering of a complex web of trusts and companies that the rich build to pass money on to their heirs, part of an attempt to die while technically owning nothing in their name.
“If you’ve done a good job, you die with nothing,” remarked one aide to Silicon Valley’s ultra-rich. “In theory, the step-up doesn’t matter because you’ve already given all your assets to your kids, and so who cares? You spend your last dollar the day before you die.”
And even if avoiding the provision is impossible, the tax bill — and the tax revenue, to progressives’ chagrin — won’t come due until the billionaire dies. So for young tech billionaires, this is a problem for the distant future. Who knows what America’s tax policy will look like then? And for progressives, that means less money today to solve today’s problems.
Then there’s also the more general sense that the house always wins, so to speak. Wealth advisers are already trading ideas back and forth for new, underutilized tax hacks, for instance, that could be pursued more aggressively. It’s hard to predict precisely which loopholes will emerge in a new federal tax bill, but it’s remarkable that both tax activists and wealth advisers share this view that the tax avoidance industry will remain strong.
Biden’s plan seeks to combat that by spending $80 billion to beef up the investigative and enforcement capabilities of the IRS. But there is <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-tax-enforcement-target-of-700-billion-wont-be-easy-11620997200">ample skepticism</a> that the Biden plan will raise the $700 billion in revenue that it seeks — in part because the ultra-rich are so good at the cat-and-mouse game.
What is shaping up in Silicon Valley is a battle not just of laws and lobbying, but of wits and wiggle room. Tax activists concede that the wealth managers may have the upper hand in the short run, but hope that they will cut into the fortunes over the long run.
That money, says Huang, would allow America to “make permanent investments in children and families — that are not the heirs to multibillion-dollar families.”
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/22437084/joe-biden-wealth-tax-plan-billionaires-capital-gains-wealth-management-loopholes">https://www.vox.com/recode/22437084/joe-biden-wealth-tax-plan-billionaires-capital-gains-wealth-management-loopholes</a>

vox Billionaires are racing to sidestep President Biden’s plan to raise their taxes

President Joe Biden could soon find out that raising taxes on billionaires is more complicated than it seems. The new president wants the ...

What Kim Jong Un’s regime shake-up says about his leadership

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/dVhF4roAblta98pSUA8rxchm5Os=/0x0:4205x2202/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22555253/1186310982.jpg" /></div>
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is rewiring his nation’s government to operate less like a dictator’s playground and more like an organization that can handle multiple crises at once.
According to reports this week from <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/02/asia/north-korea-new-position-intl-hnk/index.html">CNN</a>, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/nkoreas-ruling-party-sets-up-new-post-under-leader-kim-yonhap-2021-06-01/">Reuters</a>, and other media outlets, Kim appointed a de facto second-in-command back in January to help lead the country’s ruling Workers’ Party of Korea. As “first secretary,” a title Kim himself held from 2012 to 2016 (he assumed the grander role of “<a href="http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210111001050">general secretary</a>” in January 2021), this as-yet-unknown person will serve as the despot’s “representative” to the WPK.
Experts were quick to say this person won’t actually be North Korea’s second-in-command. It’s at best a kind of executive secretary role, someone who has the authority to handle day-to-day party operations but not the power to make key decisions without the boss’s say-so.
“It means no change to [Kim’s] status as the supreme leader of North Korea, but it will mean a change in his leadership style,” said Rachel Minyoung Lee, a Seoul-based fellow at the Stimson Center think tank in Washington, DC. In fact, “Kim technically always has had a ‘second-in-command’ in every party, state, and military institution,” she added.
The new and unprecedented role, then, isn’t really about some already prominent North Korean official gaining more authority. Rather, it’s Kim’s latest reform to ensure his regime can handle all affairs of state without his consistent, direct input.
“It should suggest to us that Kim is doing things internally,” said Ken Gause, director of the adversary analytics program at the CNA, a Virginia-based think tank. “He’s changing this regime and making it a more normalized organization.”
Kim has made big changes to North Korea’s leadership before, experts said, including moves to rein in influential regime bodies, namely those in the security apparatus and the <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/8x73m4/meet-the-men-and-women-who-help-rule-north-korea-from-the-shadows">shadowy Organization and Guidance Department</a>.
Previously, when Kim’s grandfather and father ran North Korea, those in uniform and other high-level officials influenced the country’s direction. The ruling family, at times, worried that some of them were plotting coups or taking too much power for themselves, occasionally leading to their <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/13/north-korea-executes-kim-jong-un-uncle-jang-song-thaek">brutal executions</a>.
So, making changes to North Korea’s leadership structure isn’t necessarily new for Kim. But few are certain as to why he authorized a new first secretary now, though analysts have some ideas.
The first is that North Korea faces many crises, from a <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-how-the-pandemic-is-hitting-north-korea-hard/a-57168554">devastating coronavirus outbreak</a> to a <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/north-koreas-economic-crisis-last-chance-for-denuclearization/">crushing economic collapse</a>. To handle just those two problems, let alone all the challenges facing the country, Kim can’t follow the old playbook of making every single policy decision. It now seems he wants to set the strategic direction for the nation by letting his aide know exactly what he wants and trusting them to carry out the tactical decisions.
This has the added bonus of signaling to the outside world that Kim is a reformer with modern-day ideas. “We should view this as North Korea’s attempt to make Kim seem more like a ‘normal’ leader who rules through and with the party and not a lone dictator,” said Stimson’s Lee, who also noted that “in recent months, top North Korean party officials other than Kim Jong Un have led some party meetings.”
The second is that Kim has long said he wants to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-politics-analysis/kim-jong-uns-big-plan-to-grow-north-koreas-economy-faces-harsh-reality-idUSKBN29F04T">reform North Korea’s economy</a>. But the problem, CNA’s Gause told me, is that any changes Kim makes won’t stick for the long term if the government is incapable of running without his constant input. Having a trusted official to help oversee the moves he makes, then, can help turn Kim’s economic dream into reality. “If they continue the way they had in the past, they will fail,” Gause said of the North Korean regime. “They are maturing and they are changing.”
The third reason may be a long-term play. It’s an open secret that <a href="https://twitter.com/annafifield/status/1252414533391405056">Kim has health problems</a> — he’s overweight, and a smoker. Gause suggested Kim may want to ensure he has a government in place that can continue to function should he die prematurely. That doesn’t mean he’s planning for a North Korea without a Kim family member in charge, but rather that he may envision a regime capable of working even in the temporary absence of a dictator.
<div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
In my book "The Great Successor," I wrote that Kim Jong Un's biggest risk factor was his obvious poor health -- and in particular the risk of cardiac problems.
Kim Jong Un is five feet, seven inches tall, and weighs about three hundred pounds = BMI of 45, or "extremely obese" <a href="https://t.co/04EsZfuues">pic.twitter.com/04EsZfuues</a>
— Anna Fifield (@annafifield) <a href="https://twitter.com/annafifield/status/1252414533391405056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 21, 2020</a></blockquote>
</div>
As of now, it’s unclear who will assume the first secretary position. Most experts think it will be a confidante of Kim’s and someone who serves on the five-member presidium, a committee made up of top members of the ruling party. Reports suggest <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/02/asia/north-korea-new-position-intl-hnk/index.html">Jo Yong Won</a>, who is close to Kim and believed to be in his mid-60s, could get the job or may have it already.
Put together, all of this means two key things: Kim seems to have the future of his nation in mind, and he’s supremely confident in his own leadership. He’s not giving up his power — he’s shoring it up.
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/6/2/22464844/north-korea-kim-jong-un-second-command">https://www.vox.com/2021/6/2/22464844/north-korea-kim-jong-un-second-command</a>

vox What Kim Jong Un’s regime shake-up says about his leadership

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is rewiring his nation’s government to operate less like a dictator’s playground and more like an organizat...

Why Etsy dropped $1.6 billion on Depop

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/uoh4wba8WzgdTJ4vT44J4h-eQtQ=/0x287:4000x2381/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22555137/GettyImages_1233233838.jpg" /></div>
On Wednesday, the shopping site Etsy <a href="https://investors.etsy.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2021/Etsy-to-acquire-global-fashion-resale-marketplace-Depop/default.aspx">announced</a> it was buying Depop for $1.625 billion in a mostly cash deal. Depop, a secondhand shopping platform designed for the age of influencers selling stuff on social media, will continue to operate as its own standalone marketplace. Etsy, meanwhile, says that by acquiring the platform, it’s adding “the resale home for Gen Z consumers” to its roster.
Perhaps best known for kitschy home decor, vintage clothes, and handmade goods, Etsy is staking its claim on a much younger generation of sellers and shoppers with the Depop purchase, rather than trying to reach those buyers on its own platform. The acquisition makes some business sense, too, as the two companies have a similar model: connecting independent sellers of goods to buyers. Still, Etsy is better known for homemade goods and crafts, while Depop is most famous for selling clothes.
But these two platforms have also cultivated buyers and sellers with profoundly different approaches to social media and online shopping, so merging their styles could be a struggle. The Depop deal comes as Etsy says it wants to become the home of multiple e-commerce brands that cater to new audiences. (Etsy <a href="https://investors.etsy.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2019/Etsy-Completes-Acquisition-of-Reverb-a-Leading-Online-Marketplace-for-New-Used-and-Vintage-Musical-Instruments/default.aspx">bought Reverb</a>, a marketplace for new and used musical instruments and equipment, back in 2019.) At the same time, the company might have a lot to gain from Depop’s influencer-based approach to selling clothing online.
Founded in 2011, Depop has become the secondhand marketplace for a new generation of social media users. Some <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/06/depop-a-social-app-targeting-millennial-and-gen-z-shoppers-bags-62m-passes-13m-users/">90 percent of active Depop users are younger than 26</a>, and the platform is supposed to be the 10th most-visited shopping site among Gen Z-ers in the US. Like Poshmark or Mercari, Depop includes a social component to the buying and selling experience. Sellers manage their own profiles and accounts, and many model their own clothes. Some sellers also repurpose vintage clothing, adding a handmade component to certain products. On Depop, for instance, a buyer might find <a href="https://www.depop.com/products/maliasine-sneaker-corset-repurposed-from-vintage-eb56/">a pair of deconstructed sneakers repurposed as a top</a> or purses made of <a href="https://www.depop.com/search/?q=candy+wrapper+bag">woven-together candy wrappers</a>. This sort of thing could line up with the crafting tradition at Etsy.
But part of what makes Depop distinct — and valuable to Etsy — is that it encourages a very specific strategy for sellers, encouraging an extremely online, highly social, and younger aesthetic. The fact Depop looks more like a social network than Etsy matters for this approach. Depop sellers are encouraged to promote their own shop profiles, especially on <a href="https://blog.depop.com/articles/how-to-use-social-media-to-build-your-brand">Instagram</a>, which Depop says is “one of the best ways to build your brand and your customer base.” Sellers and buyers will often turn to other platforms, such as TikTok and YouTube, where there’s a broader community of teens and 20-somethings <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-05-22/gen-z-balances-sustainable-thrifthaul-and-fast-fashion-sheinhaul-on-tiktok">focused on secondhand fashion</a>.
Depop says its mission is building a “community-powered fashion ecosystem that’s kinder on the planet and kinder to people.” The platform has prioritized the sale of used clothing, which can help curtail the environmental harms of fast fashion. And Depop has also benefited not only from the growth of social media communities interested in secondhand fashion but also <a href="https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/09/10029101/tiktok-sustainable-fashion-cottagecore-clothes">those centered on climate change</a>. The approach seems to work: In 2020, Depop made $70 million in revenue, and the company had 4 million active buyers and 2 million active sellers.
The divide between the Depop and Etsy brands, however, highlights the differences in the types of buyers and sellers the two platforms attract and how they spend their time online. On TikTok, <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@etsy">Etsy</a> has about 16,000 followers, while <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@depop">Depop</a> has more than 140,000. (Snapchat, meanwhile, has boasted about its work with Depop as an <a href="https://forbusiness.snapchat.com/inspiration/depop-increases-their-spend-on-snapchat-by-3x-after-seeing-efficient-scale">advertising success story</a>.) Compare those metrics with social media platforms whose users skew a bit older: <a href="https://twitter.com/Etsy">Etsy</a> has 2 million followers on Twitter and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/Etsy/">more than 4 million “Likes”</a> on Facebook, while <a href="https://twitter.com/depop">Depop</a> has just over 150,000 followers on Twitter and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/depop">less than 70,000 “Likes”</a> on Facebook.
Etsy, which was founded in 2005, has had growing pains in recent years. While it’s focused on a homey arts-and-craft aesthetic, the company has struggled to merge its do-gooder mission with corporate realities. In 2017, two years after the company went public, <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/21/etsy-will-cut-15-percent-of-its-workforce-in-a-new-round-of-layoffs/">Etsy laid off 15 percent of its workforce</a>, and a new CEO, Josh Silverman, took over with the aim to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/business/etsy-josh-silverman.html">raise profits</a>. Silverman is still the CEO and seems to be focused on building a set of e-commerce brands that do similar things but come with their own personalities.
Lately, there’s also growing debate about the consequences of Depop’s growth. The platform has contributed to a phenomenon of sellers scouring thrift stores to find items that can be marketed for far more than their original purchase price, and sometimes broadcasting their findings on platforms such as YouTube. This has fueled criticism that Depop, among other sites, has helped established another cycle of waste within reused clothing marketplaces while driving up prices at thrift stores, as Vox’s Terry Nguyen <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22396051/thrift-store-hauls-ethics-depop">explained</a> in April. The platform has also been criticized for lacking body diversity and <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bje8/depop-thrifting-secondhand-resell-app-favors-thin-white-models">contributing to sizeism</a>.
Still, Etsy leadership seems to think the e-commerce platforms will serve as complements.
“Depop is a vibrant, two-sided marketplace with a passionate community, a highly-differentiated offering of unique items, and we believe significant potential to further scale,” Silverman said in announcing the acquisition. “We see significant opportunities for shared expertise and growth synergies across what will now be a tremendous ‘house of brands’ portfolio of individually distinct, and very special, e-commerce brands.”
While buying Depop is an easy way for Etsy to find a new generation of shoppers — and for Etsy to stay current — it’s not clear how Depop’s community of sellers or buyers will react to the sale. Nevertheless, it’s a reminder that as shoppers continue to sour on fast fashion, there is still money to be made on used clothes.
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/22465048/depop-etsy-1-6-billion-tiktok-youtube-social-media-gen-z">https://www.vox.com/recode/22465048/depop-etsy-1-6-billion-tiktok-youtube-social-media-gen-z</a>

vox Why Etsy dropped $1.6 billion on Depop

On Wednesday, the shopping site Etsy announced it was buying Depop for $1.625 billion in a mostly cash deal. Depop, a secondhand shopping ...

One year after #BlackoutTuesday, what have companies really done for racial justice?

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/sMUIXeKTt1MBxTVMq6wFynjyx2k=/0x224:3422x2016/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22553060/GettyImages_1248065134.jpg" /></div>
On May 25, 2020, footage of the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis set the internet ablaze, igniting a fervor for justice among the attentive and then-quarantined online masses. In the now widely circulated video, George Floyd can be heard pleading, “I can’t breathe” — the same three words Eric Garner had yelled not six years prior — 28 times before he became unconscious and later died. What followed was nothing short of a wildfire.
Compounded by the killings of Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery — and, later, the killing of activist Oluwatoyin Salau and the shooting of Jacob Blake — Floyd’s murder prompted an international wave of protests and a global dialogue surrounding anti-Blackness and racial injustice in the months following his death. The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-floyd-protests-crowd-size.html">by far the largest of its kind</a>, would receive more than $90 million in donations while organizing <a href="https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/">over 7,750 demonstrations in the US alone</a> between May and August 2020. Online, social media users were quick to take advantage of their digital platforms, informing followers about racial injustice through the sharing of <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-goods/21359098/social-justice-slideshows-instagram-activism">infographics</a> and what artist and educator <a href="https://www.instagram.com/idealblackfemale/">Mandy Harris Williams</a> aptly titled “critical caption essays.”
Evidently, the posts were impactful, with <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/15/23-of-users-in-us-say-social-media-led-them-to-change-views-on-issue-some-cite-black-lives-matter/">23 percent of adult social media users in the US</a> saying they changed their views about a political or social issue in 2020 due to something they saw on those platforms, up from 15 percent in 2018. Corporate commitment to racial advocacy became a necessity rather than a consideration once social media users began to take aim at specific instances of racism and unfair treatment at many companies. Hundreds of businesses rushed to release pledges committing to upholding racial justice within their organization. But did any of these companies do more than commodify a movement? A year later, have any of these companies transformed themselves for the better?
<div class="c-float-right">
<aside><q>A year later, have any of these companies transformed themselves for the better?</q></aside>
</div>
Beginning on June 2, 2020, <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/6/3/21279336/blackout-tuesday-black-lives-matter-instagram-performative-allyship">Blackout Tuesday</a> would merge these growing trends in online activism and calls for corporate accountability on social media. The online protest involved posting a single image of a black square to Instagram feeds, intended to quite literally black out users’ feeds and interrupt regular posting as a show of solidarity to Black victims of police violence. By the end of the day, the number of Instagram posts tagged with #BlackoutTuesday was in the tens of millions — and more than <a href="https://adage.com/article/datacenter/more-950-brands-participated-blackout-tuesday-instagram-plus-latest-jobs-numbers-context-datacenter/2260916">950 brands</a>, including ViacomCBS and Apple, had participated in some way. However, the social media protest quickly proved to do more harm than good.
What originally began as a hashtag (<a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/blackout-tuesday-jamila-thomas-and-platoon-brianna-agyemang-future-25-1079717/">#TheShowMustBePaused</a>) created by music executives Brianna Agyemang and Jamila Thomas to disrupt “<a href="https://www.theshowmustbepaused.com/about">the long-standing racism and inequality that exists from the boardroom to the boulevard</a>” within the music industry, quickly became appropriated by users, divorced from its original creators and intentions, and made shallow and performative. As #BlackOutTuesday grew in popularity, <a href="https://www.insider.com/blackout-tuesday-criticism-posts-hide-resources-black-lives-matter-blm-2020-6">critiques</a> of the initiative noted how the posting of mostly wordless black squares drowned out Black voices central to movements and obscured valuable information and updates, such as video evidence of police brutality, protest details, and donation links — a far cry from the racial uplift the posts set out to achieve. Instead, a majority of Blackout Tuesday posts were effectively one-off statements functioning as a form of virtue signaling, a public expression of an opinion or backing of an idea intended to demonstrate one’s moral or political correctness, often without much substantive action.
Prior to the end of May 2020, racial advocacy and anti-racism were not a priority for “socially responsible” companies, with consumers struggling to identify businesses seen as “<a href="https://www.aaaa.org/index.php?checkfileaccess=/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/BLM-for-Marketers_Volume-1_2020F.pdf">good allies to the Black Lives Matter movement</a>.” However, as the discussion of racial injustice and discrimination solidified the importance of anti-racism in corporate social responsibility, consumers expect more from where they shop — <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/6/3/21279292/blackouttuesday-brands-solidarity-donations">they want donations</a>. In a <a href="https://www.consulting.us/news/4350/most-americans-expect-brands-to-take-stand-on-racism">survey conducted by public relations firm Edelman</a> in 2020, 60 percent of American respondents said brands needed to use their marketing dollars to advocate for racial equality. The same percentage also said they would buy or boycott a brand based on its response to the ongoing protests. How companies reacted to the BLM movement became a litmus test for how consumers would interact with them in the months to come.
Nike is no stranger to making political statements through its advertising campaigns, especially when it comes to Black Lives Matter. The multinational corporation has a long history of navigating issues pertaining to diversity and inclusion through both its sponsorship of Black athletes and its executive management: In 2018, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/four-more-nike-executives-exit-amid-probe-1525803730">the Wall Street Journal chronicled</a> Nike’s “boys-club culture” and the executive exits that followed a company-wide probe. Following a 2018 partnership with ousted American football player and activist Colin Kaepernick for the <a href="https://go.redirectingat.com/?id=66960X1516588&xs=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.espn.com%2Fnfl%2Fstory%2F_%2Fid%2F24568359%2Fcolin-kaepernick-face-nike-just-do-30th-anniversary-campaign&referrer=vox.com&sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2Fthe-goods%2F22463723%2Fblackout-tuesday-blm-sephora-starbucks-nike-glossier" rel="sponsored nofollow noopener" target="_blank" has-subtag="true" data-cdata='{"rewritten_url":"https://go.redirectingat.com?id=66960X1516588\u0026xs=1\u0026url=https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/24568359/colin-kaepernick-face-nike-just-do-30th-anniversary-campaign\u0026referrer=vox.com\u0026sref=https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22463723/blackout-tuesday-blm-sephora-starbucks-nike-glossier\u0026xcust=___vx__p_22227764__m_m-placeholder__s_s-placeholder__t_w__c_c-placeholder__r_r-placeholder__d_d-placeholder","subtag_max_length":50,"subtag_delim_length":3,"subtag_key":"xcust","subtag_data":{"id":"66960X1516588","xs":"1","url":"https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/24568359/colin-kaepernick-face-nike-just-do-30th-anniversary-campaign","referrer":"vox.com","sref":"https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22463723/blackout-tuesday-blm-sephora-starbucks-nike-glossier","xcust":"___vx__p_22227764__m_m-placeholder__s_s-placeholder__t_w__c_c-placeholder__r_r-placeholder__d_d-placeholder"},"encode_subtag":false}'>30th anniversary of its “Just Do It” ad campaign</a>, Nike’s response to the growing unrest was heavily awaited.
On May 29, 2020, prior to Blackout Tuesday, Nike released a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drcO2V2m7lw">video statement</a> on the Black Lives Matter movement in which it called on audiences to pay attention to the unrest unfolding before them. It was met with widespread support and acceptance, with many seeing the statement as a model for corporate social responsibility. Since then, Nike has continued to restructure its executive leadership team under the stewardship of CEO John Donahoe, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/nike-replaces-its-diversity-chief-11595905726">promoting Felicia Mayo, a Black woman executive, to the role of diversity chief</a> in July 2020. And as part of the company’s internal goals, or <a href="https://purpose.nike.com/2025-targets">Purpose 2025 Targets</a>, Nike, with Converse, Jordan Brand, and Michael Jordan, <a href="https://purpose.nike.com/our-commitment-to-the-black-community">committed a combined $140 million over 10 years</a> in support of local and national organizations dedicated to addressing racial inequality for Black Americans, an initiative known as the <a href="https://purpose.nike.com/our-commitment-to-the-black-community">Black Community Commitment</a>. Though not a gold standard, Nike’s promise of holistic social responsibility has been matched by few companies.
<div>
<div>[embedded content]</div>
</div>
Millennial-pink beauty brand Glossier’s rather diverse word-of-mouth marketing strategy has helped maintain the company’s reputation as one of the industry’s more inclusive and progressive companies. On May 30, 2020, Glossier similarly posted a <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CA1K4rLpQq9/">statement</a> on Instagram pledging to stand in solidarity with the Black community and the Black Lives Matter movement. It also committed to donating a total of $1 million to Black-owned beauty businesses and organizations addressing racial injustice through <a href="https://go.redirectingat.com/?id=66960X1516588&xs=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.glossier.com%2Fblog%2Fgrants&referrer=vox.com&sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2Fthe-goods%2F22463723%2Fblackout-tuesday-blm-sephora-starbucks-nike-glossier" rel="sponsored nofollow noopener" target="_blank" has-subtag="true" data-cdata='{"rewritten_url":"https://go.redirectingat.com?id=66960X1516588\u0026xs=1\u0026url=https://www.glossier.com/blog/grants\u0026referrer=vox.com\u0026sref=https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22463723/blackout-tuesday-blm-sephora-starbucks-nike-glossier\u0026xcust=___vx__p_22227764__m_m-placeholder__s_s-placeholder__t_w__c_c-placeholder__r_r-placeholder__d_d-placeholder","subtag_max_length":50,"subtag_delim_length":3,"subtag_key":"xcust","subtag_data":{"id":"66960X1516588","xs":"1","url":"https://www.glossier.com/blog/grants","referrer":"vox.com","sref":"https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22463723/blackout-tuesday-blm-sephora-starbucks-nike-glossier","xcust":"___vx__p_22227764__m_m-placeholder__s_s-placeholder__t_w__c_c-placeholder__r_r-placeholder__d_d-placeholder"},"encode_subtag":false}'>an inaugural grant initiative</a>. A year later, Glossier <a href="https://go.redirectingat.com/?id=66960X1516588&xs=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.glossier.com%2Fblog%2Four-commitment&referrer=vox.com&sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2Fthe-goods%2F22463723%2Fblackout-tuesday-blm-sephora-starbucks-nike-glossier" rel="sponsored nofollow noopener" target="_blank" has-subtag="true" data-cdata='{"rewritten_url":"https://go.redirectingat.com?id=66960X1516588\u0026xs=1\u0026url=https://www.glossier.com/blog/our-commitment\u0026referrer=vox.com\u0026sref=https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22463723/blackout-tuesday-blm-sephora-starbucks-nike-glossier\u0026xcust=___vx__p_22227764__m_m-placeholder__s_s-placeholder__t_w__c_c-placeholder__r_r-placeholder__d_d-placeholder","subtag_max_length":50,"subtag_delim_length":3,"subtag_key":"xcust","subtag_data":{"id":"66960X1516588","xs":"1","url":"https://www.glossier.com/blog/our-commitment","referrer":"vox.com","sref":"https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22463723/blackout-tuesday-blm-sephora-starbucks-nike-glossier","xcust":"___vx__p_22227764__m_m-placeholder__s_s-placeholder__t_w__c_c-placeholder__r_r-placeholder__d_d-placeholder"},"encode_subtag":false}'>announced</a> it would renew the grant program for 2021 “as part of a broader $10 million commitment to bolster equity, inclusion, and representation in the beauty industry over the next five years.”
Despite this, <a href="https://www.instagram.com/outtathegloss/">Outta The Gloss</a>, a collective of former retail employees of the company, <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CD2bph3Fkvy/">shared on Instagram</a> an <a href="https://medium.com/@outtathegloss/to-glossier-a-call-for-accountability-and-necessary-change-17954e34f6d1">open letter</a> to Glossier in August 2020. The letter detailed a sometimes racist and inequitable working environment and included a <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CD2bptSlo0j/">list of demands</a>, such as “standardized anti-racist training for management” and the hiring of an “on site HR Liaison working solely with retail.” Later, the group <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CFxYzZHFfb2/">launched a boycott</a> of Glossier at the <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CFxE0pFlZ6q/">urging of its followers</a>. Other than an August blog post from Glossier CEO and founder Emily Weiss, Outta The Gloss maintains that its demands have yet to be meaningfully acknowledged by the company, leaving consumers to question Glossier’s commitment to anti-racism within its own workplace.
In contrast, beauty company Sephora set to make right <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/6/13/18677563/sephora-sza-ulta-racial-bias-shopping-while-black">a history of racist discrimination</a> in its retail stores. On May 30, 2020, Sephora CEO Jean-André Rougeot <a href="https://community.sephora.com/t5/Customer-Support/An-open-letter-to-our-Sephora-employees-and-community/td-p/5392215">issued a statement</a> committing to stand in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement; a few days later, it published its <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CA8FXidlYD7/?hl=en">own #BlackoutTuesday post</a> and closed its retail stores for a two-hour company-wide training on racial bias. The company’s US business also became the first major retailer to sign the <a href="https://www.15percentpledge.org/">15 Percent Pledge</a>, a campaign founded by fashion designer Aurora James asking retailers to dedicate at least 15 percent of their shelf space to Black-owned businesses. (Retailers and brands such as Vogue, Bloomingdales, and Old Navy — among others — have since signed on, too.)
Sephora has also <a href="https://click.linksynergy.com/deeplink?id=nOD%2FrLJHOac&mid=2417&u1=vox&murl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sephora.com%2Fbeauty%2Fdiversity-and-inclusion" rel="sponsored nofollow noopener" target="_blank" has-subtag="true" data-cdata='{"rewritten_url":"https://click.linksynergy.com/deeplink?id=nOD/rLJHOac\u0026mid=2417\u0026u1=[]vx[p]22227764[m]m-placeholder[s]s-placeholder[t]w[c]c-placeholder[r]r-placeholder[d]d-placeholder\u0026murl=https://www.sephora.com/beauty/diversity-and-inclusion","subtag_max_length":72,"subtag_delim_length":2,"subtag_key":"u1","subtag_data":{"id":"nOD/rLJHOac","mid":"2417","u1":"[]vx[p]22227764[m]m-placeholder[s]s-placeholder[t]w[c]c-placeholder[r]r-placeholder[d]d-placeholder","murl":"https://www.sephora.com/beauty/diversity-and-inclusion"},"encode_subtag":false}'>pledged</a> to do the following in 2021: increase the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/01/13/sephora-race-bias-discrimination/">seven Black-owned brands it carries to 16</a>, focus on supporting BIPOC founders in beauty through its <a href="https://sephoraaccelerate.com/">Sephora Accelerate</a> program, and continue providing new training modules for in-store employees while reducing the presence of third-party security officers.
Meanwhile, the department store Nordstrom was quick to involve itself in the Black Lives Matter movement, despite the company’s <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/women-film-themselves-canceling-nordstrom-accounts-after-store-drops-ivanka_n_58a6102be4b037d17d261574">more conservative customer base</a>. It published a <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CA8BUtiF4qI/">#BlackoutTuesday post</a>, and later released a <a href="https://press.nordstrom.com/news-releases/news-release-details/black-lives-matter-what-weve-heard-what-were-doing">statement</a> committing to “increase representation of Black and Latinx populations” in management roles and “[deliver] $500M in retail sales from brands owned by, operated by, or designed by Black and/or Latinx individuals,” both by the end of 2025. It also promised to ensure that its training resources for customer-facing employees “include anti-racism and bias content.”
Both Sephora and Nordstrom have acknowledged that in their commitment to addressing anti-racism, the work begins internally.
<div class="c-float-left">
<div>
<div class="c-entry-sidebar">
Each week we’ll send you the very best from The Goods, plus a special TikTok edition by Rebecca Jennings on Tuesdays. <a href="http://www.vox.com/the-goods-newsletter" data-analytics-viewport="related-story" data-analytics-link="related-story">Sign up here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div>
Other retail companies have failed to make any substantial long-term commitments.
E-commerce retailer Fashion Nova was criticized <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ikrd/black-influencers-are-calling-out-popular-brands-for">by users and influencers alike</a> for failing to acknowledge or respond to the Black Lives Matter movement prior to June 1, 2020, despite its large consumer base of Black women. The fast-fashion retailer — which has been called out a number of times for <a href="https://www.revelist.com/style-news/fashion-nova-knock-off-designers/15005/bleu-believes-that-fashion-nova-in-its-current-position-could-be-successful-without-dupes-if-the-brand-chose-to-ditch-them-entirely/9">stealing designs from small businesses and Black designers</a> and for <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/business/fashion-nova-underpaid-workers.html">underpaying garment workers in its Los Angeles factory</a> — ultimately <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CA7DaFIpY7C/">posted a black square</a> with no caption on June 2. It <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CA-YOj9p2i4/">issued a statement</a> the following day in which it remarked, “Our actions speak louder than our words,” and pledged to donate $1 million to various “community resources and activism, awareness campaigns, and other initiatives to help in the fight for racial equality and opportunity.”
Fashion Nova has not made any other statements pertaining to the Black Lives Matter movement since then, though it continues to partner with celebrities such as Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion in its philanthropic initiative, <a href="https://www.instagram.com/fashionnovacares/">Fashion Nova CARES</a>, which has provided financial support to the <a href="https://www.instagram.com/breonnataylorfoundation/">Breonna Taylor Foundation</a> and emerging Black designer <a href="https://www.tiaadeola.com/">Tia Adeola</a>, among others. Despite the company’s ubiquity in the Black community and its reliance on Black celebrity and culture for relevance, its <a href="https://www.instagram.com/fashionnova/">Instagram</a> page, which functions as its main form of advertising, is devoid of any mentions of anti-Black racism beyond donations, and lacks representation of Black models.
Starbucks, which also has a <a href="https://theoutline.com/post/4192/starbucks-racism-timeline">fraught history</a> navigating race, <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CBAy5uvnccf/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link">pledged</a> to stand in solidarity with its “Black partners, customers, and communities,” and to donate $1 million to organizations promoting racial equity — while simultaneously banning employees and baristas from wearing any pro-Black Lives Matter clothing or accessories. Ultimately, the company revised its decision on the dress code, making <a href="https://stories.starbucks.com/stories/2020/starbucks-shares-update-on-standing-together-against-racial-injustice/">250,000 pro-BLM T-shirts</a> for employees in an attempt to show support for the movement, and continue to offer their elective online anti-bias classes. And in October, Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson announced that the company would tie executive pay to the meeting of racial diversity targets set to boost diversity in Starbucks’ workforce — by 2025, the company aims to have “<a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/starbucks/starbucks-sets-ambitious-goals-for-corporate-diversity-and-ties-it-to-executive-pay/">people of color represented in at least 30% of roles in corporate operations and 40% of retail and manufacturing roles</a>,” though the company declined to share details of how exactly these goals would be tied to executive pay. Since then, the company has <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/starbucks-reaches-agreement-with-eeoc-over-alleged-bias-in-promotions/">reached a voluntary agreement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in light of 2007 allegations of racial bias in its promotions</a>, and has also started a $100 million <a href="https://stories.starbucks.com/press/2021/starbucks-expands-initiatives-to-advance-opportunity-equity-and-inclusion-in-the-communities-it-serves/">Community Resilience Fund</a> that will “support small business growth and community development projects in BIPOC neighborhoods.”
In the music tech industry, companies such as SiriusXM, Apple Music, Spotify, and YouTube Music also made respective Blackout Tuesday posts. On June 2, Spotify shared a number of in-app features intended as a show of solidarity with Black creators and users, though <a href="https://junkee.com/spotify-black-lives-matter-silence/256088">artists were quick to criticize</a> the lack of money being donated. This initial offering <a href="https://newsroom.spotify.com/2020-06-01/spotify-stands-with-the-black-community-in-the-fight-against-racism-and-injustice/">included</a> a rather out-of-touch 8-minute, 46-second track of silence meant to memorialize the length of time that George Floyd was suffocated by Derek Chauvin, a Black History Is Now hub, and a selection of Black Lives Matter playlists. Later that week, the company <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-03/spotify-music-labels-pledge-to-fight-racism-after-public-rebuke">committed to contributing up to $10 million</a> in an employee match allocated to organizations addressing anti-racism and racial justice, donating an additional $1 million in advertising inventory to social justice groups (though $345,000 worth of this advertising budget was used to promote the company’s own Black History Is Now hub).
<div class="c-float-right">
<aside><q>It pays to take a stand, even if performative</q></aside>
</div>
Now, the question remains; have these companies’ pledges led to any real impact or change in the year since a national racial reckoning? Among the groups that received money from the aforementioned companies — including national organizations such as the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation and the Equal Justice Initiative — was the NAACP’s Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF). In a statement, LDF president Sherrilyn Ifill shared that “the most valuable gift over the past year has been the increase in pro bono support” which enabled them to “litigate and advocate with greater intensity, and to increase the pace of our work,” increasing the fund’s capacity to support Black communities.
Still, if anything is to be learned from how these companies have approached corporate accountability it is that it pays to take a stand, even if performative. As millennial and Gen Z consumers increasingly expect brands to be actively involved in social justice movements, publicly choosing a stance has rewarded companies with consumer loyalty.
Following Nike’s BLM statement video, the company moved <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/just-dont-nikes-statement-black-lives-matter-lesson-bandwagon-young/">up 22 places on Social Chain Data’s social media leaderboard in May 2020,</a> into the No. 31 spot. The ice cream company <a href="https://www.provokemedia.com/latest/article/how-brands-can-sustain-black-lives-matter-in-2021">Ben & Jerry’s saw its social media reach grow</a> by 35 percent on Twitter and 27 percent on Facebook, after declaring, “We must dismantle white supremacy” last June. However, #<a href="https://twitter.com/writtenbyhanna/status/1399519550132178945?s=21">HasBenAndJerrysTweetedYet</a>, a hashtag started by Twitter user <a href="https://twitter.com/telushk?s=21">@telushk</a>, has been gaining traction this month in light of the company’s refusal to acknowledge <a href="https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/progressive-ice-cream-ben-jerry-freezes-when-it-comes-palestine">its own investments in Israel’s illegal settlements</a>. If these predominantly white and men-owned companies ultimately reap the benefits of committing to anti-racism and the fight against white supremacy, is this change really a transformation? And is it substantively supporting Black Americans who confront the burden of racism and racial injustice in their everyday lives?
The range of company pledges, commitments, and statements we’ve seen indicate an ever-present truth: that no matter how impactful or effective corporate activism is, it will also always be inherently performative. Companies cannot be entrusted to be the leaders of the people’s social justice movements.
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22463723/blackout-tuesday-blm-sephora-starbucks-nike-glossier">https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22463723/blackout-tuesday-blm-sephora-starbucks-nike-glossier</a>

vox One year after #BlackoutTuesday, what have companies really done for racial justice?

On May 25, 2020, footage of the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis set the internet ablaze, igniting a fervor for justice among ...

Covid And The Rise Of Scientism

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/41576_2000_Article_BF35038589_Fig1_HTML.png" /></div>
Science, that is done with good ethics, for the purpose of fighting disease, is a most admirable thing and should not be rejected nor eschewed. But, what happens when scientists become elevated to a dangerous level, and an ideology of scientism becomes a new religion? With the belief in evolutionism being seen as an obligation in the scientific establishment, it is not far-fetched to have a fear that Darwinism — really, eugenics — would be applied by this cult of scientism. With the rise of coronavirus came a societal reliance on scientists, specifically in the medical sphere. Now, we are not arguing that these scientists are necessarily evil or have malicious intent. We are merely pointing to the atmosphere that the covid crisis brought about, specifically the reliance on scientific experts on making policy decisions. We must specify here that it was completely acceptable and morally right to go to medical experts in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, since it is them who have the knowledge on viruses. But — and this is what we are stressing here — could the reliance on scientific experts be exploited          to advance an evil agenda, like eugenics? It has happened in the past.
In the first half of the 20th century, eugenics was justified because it was what the scientific establishment  said was the right thing to do. The mass murder committed by the Nazi regime had the underpinnings of scientism, and even the the Young Turks — who ruled the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century and orchestrated the Armenian Genocide — looked to Darwinist elitism. Scientific evils still exist and are even accepted as proper procedure. For example, in 2017 <a href="https://shoebat.com/">shoebat.com</a> did a series of articles on the Max Planck Institute, the most prestigious scientific establishing within the European Union, and showed how common it is for their scientists to use aborted embryos for experiments. The Max Planck Institute even has thousands of brain samples which were taken by Nazi scientists during the Holocaust, and this was revealed after the institute swore that they had buried the brain remnants in a burial.
In Seattle there is the  “Birth Defects Research Laboratory” where the corpses of aborted fetuses (whose lives were terminated because they had handicaps) are collected and which is heavily acclaimed by scientists. The largest collection of aborted embryos is in Kyoto, Japan, known as the “Kyoto Collection” or the “Congenital Anomaly Research Center,” directed by Shigehito Yamada. In Croatia there is the “Zagreb Collection of human brains” which is the Croatian Institute for Brain Research where the brains of aborted babies are kept for research. Scientific evil still exists and it is both praised and accepted by the scientific establishments.
Thus, to have concern that the reliance on scientists would be abused for evil is not without warrant. The Western world has already seen glimpses of the elevation of medical experts above ethics. For example, in 2018 a British judge ruled in favor that 11-month old Isaiah Haastrup’s life be terminated because medical experts concluded that he should not be allowed to live with severe brain damage. In the words of one <a href="https://shoebat.com/2018/01/29/doctors-in-britain-declare-that-a-sick-baby-must-be-killed-the-parents-protest-and-say-that-the-child-is-still-responsive-and-has-emotions-the-doctors-say-that-the-child-must-be-put-to-death/">article</a>, “a British judge ruled Monday in favor of doctors arguing to terminate his care and against the boy’s parents.” In <a href="https://shoebat.com/2017/07/24/british-parents-whose-baby-the-british-government-wanted-to-murder-have-now-decided-to-kill-their-own-child/">2017</a>, “Britain’s courts, backed by the European Court of Human Rights, refused permission” to prolong the life of 11-month old Charlie Yates who suffered from a rare genetic condition causing progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.
In both of these stories, one can see how the courts based their decisions to end a life on the opinions of medical experts. One can see how such power could be wielded by the scientific establishment in order to go beyond, from pulling the life support of children to orchestrating more eugenic policies. In the words of Richard Horton, honorary professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who has served various roles for the World Health Organization: “Danger comes when political choices are equated with scientific deductions, when good is only derived from truth. At that moment, a society comes to believe that the world is completely knowable. Experts are sought not only to set political objectives, but also to formulate moral norms. At that moment, democracy is in jeopardy.”
Horton’s warning of “good is only derived from truth” may confuse some people. Is not truth good? What he is emphasizing here is not moral truth, but a callous fixation on “facts” that are deduced by “experts.” For example, if certain people are physically handicapped to the point that they need government assistance, scientific experts could affirm that such people are ‘draining’ the system and are a burden for the healthy members of the society.
Now, it would be a fact that these handicap people are indeed costing tax payer money, but even if this is a fact it should not dictate moral decisions or ethics. In other words, ‘cold facts’ should not justify a cold view of humanity, and thus such facts should not be elevated above human dignity or the innate value of human life. GK Chesterton once wrote:
<blockquote readability="13">
“It is typical of our time that it has to look for its god through a microscope; and our time has marked a definite adoration of the insect. Like most things we call new, of course, it is not at all new as an idea; it is only new as an idolatry. …But in our own time has appeared a very different tone, and more than one great man, as well as numberless intelligent men, have in our time seriously suggested that we should study the insect because we are his inferiors.”
</blockquote>
For society to look for “its god” in a microscope is to search for moral truth that springs from faith in science, and in such a paradigm the human becomes lower than the animals that science studies (hence why the Nazis were for animal rights while deeming certain people as inferior). Another current example of scientists dictating government policy that leads to death is what occurred in Sweden where its head epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, affirmed that no lockdown should be made at all. Because of this, Sweden had the highest death rate from covid in Scandinavia. Since covid is most dangerous against the elderly and those of diminished immune systems, Tegnell’s policy was essentially “let the weak die”. This “let the weak die” mentality was exhibited in New York City where thousands of covid patients were put into elderly care centers, setting off explosions of covid outbreaks amongst those most vulnerable to the contagion. Elderly care centers were even prohibited from testing new or returning residents for covid. As Laura L. Appleman <a href="https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=207103102008007112082028002094082077015002001000090086121026070112086092029102095091030096049125038001052021095100025103119005046002046043009070003117073096127099049080048111067091110093115103109110103114124125103124070118074028065102118116112110007&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE">notes</a>:
<blockquote readability="15">
“Compounding the problem, several states allowed hospitals to send COVID-19 patients into nursing homes and long-term care facilities, thus seeding the virus there and ultimately increasing infections and deaths. New York, for example, issued a state directive in March 2020 permitting COVID-19 patients to be placed in nursing homes in order to free up hospital beds. The order required nursing homes to readmit former residents with COVID-19 who were released from hospitals, as well as accept new “medically stable” residents, whether or not they were infected with COVID-19.232 The nursing homes were also explicitly barred from testing new or returning residents for the coronavirus.  Minnesota did likewise, and then faced a similar explosion of nursing home COVID infections and deaths.”
</blockquote>
Who came up with this policy? It was the New York City health department, as we read in the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/new-york-andrew-cuomo-us-news-coronavirus-pandemic-nursing-homes-512cae0abb55a55f375b3192f2cdd6b5">AP</a>:
<blockquote readability="12">
“More than 9,000 recovering coronavirus patients in New York state were released from hospitals into nursing homes early in the pandemic under a controversial directive that was scrapped amid criticism it accelerated outbreaks, according to new records obtained by The Associated Press. …New York’s health department in July released a 33-page report, heavily criticized by health experts and resident advocates, that said patients sent to homes posed little danger to residents because they had spent an average nine days at the hospitals — consistent with federal guidance at the time about how long it took for people to stop being contagious.”
</blockquote>
If governments want to enact a darwinistic policy, they can simply commission the scientists willing to provide their blessing. Alex Stevens, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Kent, warned about the use of scientists to justify state policy: “My previous research on the use of evidence in policy-making showed that ministers can trawl for evidence that suits their purposes or invest selectively in the types of research that are likely to show them in a favourable light. What results is the ‘survival of the ideas that fit’ … In working alongside senior civil servants, I learned how skilled they can be in selecting evidence that will tell the story that ministers want to be told.” (Ellipses mine). 
In addition to the reality of the exploitation of society’s reliance on science to justify destructive scientism, there is also the reality of how with the spread of covid came the acceleration towards technocracy, since people plunged into a deeper reliance on technology due to the pandemic. The rise of automation means more economic disparities as those with more tech knowledge will get far more ahead than those without it. When Pew Research <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/02/18/experts-say-the-new-normal-in-2025-will-be-far-more-tech-driven-presenting-more-big-challenges/">asked</a> 915 innovators, developers, business and policy leaders, researchers and activists about what to expect for 2025, they responded that they expect that “those who are highly connected and the tech-savvy” will “pull further ahead of those who have less access to digital tools”. And since social media is becoming more advanced and our use of these platforms is only deepening, the use of the internet to spread political propaganda that would incite populist rage will only intensify. Many of the respondents to the Pew survey stated that “their deepest worry is over the seemingly unstoppable manipulation of public perception, emotion and action via online disinformation – lies and hate speech deliberately weaponized in order to propagate destructive biases and fears.” With economic disparities widening due to automation, and the utilization of social media for propaganda purposes and misinformation becoming more and more expedient, political turbulency is to be expected as class tensions will be manipulated and exploited. Socialist ideologies will grow in strength, and class war will only be increasingly stoked. So with the atmosphere that the covid situation facilitated, there has been exposed a heavy reliance on science, and there has been accelerated a deeper reliance on technology and automation. With this, we have a reliance on scientists which could be capitalized upon for scientism; an acceleration towards automation which will make it more difficult to find low-skilled jobs, and the existence of social media which will make it easier to rile up those embittered against the system for economic reasons and unemployment. What we have here are accumulating trends towards a vicious populism. 
 
 
source <a href="https://shoebat.com/2021/06/02/covid-and-the-rise-of-scientism/">https://shoebat.com/2021/06/02/covid-and-the-rise-of-scientism/</a>

armageddon Covid And The Rise Of Scientism

Science, that is done with good ethics, for the purpose of fighting disease, is a most admirable thing and should not be rejected nor esche...