Facebook adopts a Hands-Off Stance on Political Ads: Was it the right choice?

Dissent Erupts at Facebook Over Hands-Off Stance on Political Ads

Attention has been brought to the authenticity of political ads on Facebook and raises the question of whether adopting a hands-off stance on political ads is ethical, and if not ethical, whether prohibiting free expression on social media goes against the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

A little background on the issue: It started with a letter written by Facebook's employees that disparages Zuckerberg and his executives' decision to let politicians post any claims they wanted —even false ones — in ads on the site. It also urges the leaders of Facebook to reconsider their stance, positing that Facebook's position on political advertising is "a threat to what FB stands for".

"Free speech and paid speech are not the same thing", the employees wrote and claims that Facebook's current policy gives political corporations the power to "weaponize" Facebook's platform and target people who places utmost trust in content posted by political figures.

In addition to resistance from within, Facebook has also been facing criticism and condemnation from presidential elections, lawmakers and civil rights groups. This is largely due to what President Trump did a month ago. His campaign had begun circulating an ad for Facebook that makes false claims about former vice president Joeseph R. Biden Jr., who is running for president. When Biden's campaign had asked Facebook to remove the ad, the company had refused, claiming "ads from politicians were newsworthy and important for discourse"

In response to this, Zuckerberg reinforces his defense of the issue on premises of the rights given by the Constitution to American people: freedom of expression. “People having the power to express themselves at scale is a new kind of force in the world — a Fifth Estate alongside the other power structures of society,” Mr. Zuckerberg said in a 5000-word speech to students at Georgetown University.

What happens next however, is left to be seen, as every party involved in the matter stood their ground on how they believe the issue should be resolved. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat running for president, has made her position clear by buying a political ad on Facebook that falsely claimed Mr. Zuckerberg and his company supported Mr. Trump for president, challenging Zuckerberg to how far she could take it on the site. As of now, Zuckerberg has not responded in action, simply stating that Facebook’s policies would be seen positively in the long run, especially when compared with policies in countries like China, where the government suppresses online speech.

This issue is significant to our current studies in class, as it not only brings light to an essential aspect of the political campaigning: the media, and raises the question of whether or not political advertising is ethical if the information presented is misleading, but also allows us to observe a real-life scenario in which freedom of expression does not necessarily have a positive effect, which could potentially instigate the creation of a bill that prohibits misleading political campaigns.

Here's my question: Should politicians be given free rein in media advertising? And would stifling and filtering political messages on the media because they are misleading be a violation of the 1st Amendment?

ISIS remains a threat after its founder's death

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/27/us/politics/isis-leader-al-baghdadi-dead.html
U.S. special operations forces killed the leader of the Islamic State militant group, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, during a raid in northwestern Syria, President Donald Trump announced Sunday morning.
However, while Baghdadi’s death marks a blow to the group, the Islamic State still poses a threat in Syria, particularly as a result of President Trump's decision to withdraw troops from northern Syria earlier this month, which opens the door for Turkey to launch an invasion against Syrian Kurdish forces -- the main U.S. allies in the fight against ISIS. Hundreds of ISIS fighters and their family members escaped detention two weeks ago during the Turkish-backed incursion against Kurdish fighters.

Trump concluded his announcement by saying "the world is a much safer place".

In 2016 alone, ISIS has claimed responsibility for several attacks around the world such as the acts of terror in Belgium, Germany, the United States. Its mission of spreading the Islamic religion have claimed the lives of hundreds of innocent people. Additionally, the group’s territorial conquest and radical religious crusade in the Middle East have led to the deaths of many innocent civilians through warfare and religious persecution. The ongoing debate about how the world should respond to the threat that ISIS poses has been diverse and controversial. However, while there is a general agreement that something must be done to address the terrorist organization, few individuals and governments have reached a consensus on what the appropriate response should be.

In deciding what action to take, the United States Government must consider any proposed action within the context of its broader Foreign Policy. Foreign policy in the Unites States has changed drastically since the nation’s founding. From the strategy set out in George Washington’s Farewell Address encouraging the avoidance of involvement in foreign affairs to the military interventionist policies of the modern day, U.S. Foreign Policy transformed from limited involvement to the investment of major national resources in foreign endeavors.

1. What is foreign policy? How would you characterize American foreign policy during the 19th century? Today? What do you think accounts for the differences?

2. What role do the three branches of government have in creating American foreign policy? What tensions sometimes arise between the branches over foreign policy? Who else influences foreign policy?

3. What principles and values have helped shape American foreign policy?

N.B.A. Faces Controversy After Pro-Hong Kong Tweet

China has asked the N.B.A to fire a team executive, Daryl Morey, after he posted a tweet in support of protesters in Hong Kong. Although the Chinese government denies this, it is clear that the tweet was taken negatively. Games were not aired in China while several Chinese companies also denounced him and cut ties with the Rockets, a popular team in China. 

The outrage wasn’t contained amongst the Chinese either. After the NBA publicly apologized about how offensive the tweet may have been to “friends and fans in China”, many American politicians and fans snapped back, accusing the NBA of submitting to China in order to preserve profits. However, Adam Silver, the league commissioner, explained that the apology was misinterpreted, and renewed his support for both Morey and free speech. As a result, China Central Television, the state-run television network, canceled its broadcasts of games between the Lakers and the Nets, along with other related events and promotions. 

Silver stands by with the ideals behind Morey’s tweet saying, “these American values, - we are an American business - travel with us wherever we go.” While he stands by Morey’s tweet in support of the Hong Kong protestors, he also expresses his support for Joe Tsai, the owner of the Nets' decision to criticize Morey and the Hong Kong protestors. 

1. What are the implications of foreign countries trying to restrict the free speech of American businesses?
2. Does China have too much influence in American businesses and politics?
3. What does it say about our own ideals of freedom of speech, if we continue to support a country that restricts that of its people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/sports/basketball/nba-china-adam-silver.html

How Tenisons Between State and Federal Marijuana Laws Affect the Workplace

The increase in marijuana legalization has prompted the question: "how legal is it actually?" Confusion on marijuana laws is caused by the disconnect in state and federal laws. States such as California, Oregon and Colorado have legalized marijuana for recreational use, however, federal law still states that marijuana is illegal and criminalized. Essentially, this means that a California police officer cannot arrest a person for using marijuana in California, but a federal agent could.

One of the main areas where this tension between state and federal laws causes confusion is the workplace. Industries like real estate, law enforcement and employment law struggle with policymaking when it comes to marijuana usage. On one hand, most employers do not want their employees using marijuana because usage is known to decrease motivation and productivity. On the other hand, banning marijuana usage could create conflicts between employees and employers, as marijuana is legal for recreational use.

However, more and more businesses are beginning to ban marijuana use, even in fully legal states. This is most likely a result of a significant increase in recreational use: the first year marijuana was legal in Colorado, usage by employees rose 20% (naag.org). Some employees have protested by claiming that legal medical marijuana use should be tolerated. However, most courts have ruled that employers may ban medical marijuana use as well as recreational.

In conlusion, legal marijuana laws don't necessarily mean free usage.

Democratic leaders walk out of meeting with Trump following dispute

During a meeting to discuss Trump's decision to pull out of Northern Syria, Democratic leaders walked out in frustration when the meeting led to personal attacks. According to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Trump had a "meltdown" during which he called her a "third-rate politician".

The meeting was held recently following a House vote in which the House voted 354-60 to criticize Trump's decision to pull out U.S. troops from Northern Syria, making it possible for Turkey to invade. With the absence of the U.S. in the region, Russia has also been able to step in fill the power vacuum.

In response to the Turkish invasion, Trump wrote a letter to the Turkish president encouraging him to stop his invasion. In this letter Trump urged Erdogan to consider what he was doing and halt the invasion.

Later in the day, Trump tweeted out to criticize Pelosi for her conduct during the meeting, claiming that she had a "meltdown" and questioning her mental stability.


1. Given that the U.S. has already pulled out of Northern Syria, what actions should the U.S. now take to try and resolve the issue?

2. How could the meeting between Trump and the Democratic leaders have been handled differently to allow for productive discourse rather than conflict?

3. In what ways could Pelosi and Trump begin to make amends in order to prevent future conflicts such as this one?


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democrats-angrily-walk-out-white-house-meeting-after-trump-meltdown-n1067716

Trump rolls back on Vaping following mysterious series of disease outbreaks

Trump rolls back on Vaping following mysterious disease outbreak

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/12/cdc-narrows-investigation-of-mysterious-vaping-related-lung-disease.html

Currently, the CDC and FDA have been hard at work investigating a mysterious lung disease that seems to have swept the nation by surprise. We knew for a fact that tobacco products were directly attributed to lung cancer as well as esophageal cancer however, the recent rise in teens coming down with a 'serious lung disease' as a result of vape products has been unheard of. Donald Trump recently made a promise to sweep the nation of flavored vape products.


In addition to including 380 cases under likely or certain influence by vape products, there have now been six directly linked deaths. The conditions of the lung disease resemble those of lipoid pneumonia and an oil induced pneumonia. The reports have also detailed a possible ingredient within the some vape products (vitamin E acetate) that they believe is linked in many of the cases.

Vitamin E acetate is an ingredient commonly used in skin care products. The ingredient is said to be used likely to enhance or augment the vapor clouds given off after inhaling the product. Many cases where reportedly healthy children have fallen ill have become more and more common.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/vaping-kills-four-leaves-450-19646171

The White House has currently placed the issue as a priority within their agenda. The issue has affected teens across the nation and Trump has personally made statements in regard to the recent outbreak saying "We can't allow people to get sick. And we can't have our kids be so affected." Following pressure from local governments, state officials, educators and health officials, Trump has promised to make a stand for stricter regulations on e-cigarettes and other vape products.



1.) Do you think Trump is right to decide to regulate vaping products? Why?

2.) Is regulating something, even if something is deemed dangerous, becoming more commonplace within the Republican agenda? Why?

3.) Should vaping product usage among teens be allowed? Why?

A War is Brewing Between Two U.S. Allies: Turkey and the Kurds

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/world/middleeast/turkey-attacks-syria.html

Aftermath of the Turkish assault on Ras al-Ayn, a Syrian city in Kurdish-controlled territory.

On Wednesday, October 9th, Turkey led an air and ground assault on the border of Syria and
Turkey, killing at least eight civilians in the Kurdish-controlled area. This attack came as a direct
result of President Trump giving the Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the go-ahead by
removing the American troops previously stationed on the border. According to officials, the US
has not been providing support to Turkey, however, “for the last few weeks, as Turkish military
officials planned the assault, they received American surveillance video and information from
reconnaissance aircraft” (Hubbard and Gall). 

Syrian Kurds marching for peace prior to their city being bombed by Turkish warplanes.

Turkey is a NATO ally of the United States, but the Kurds have been even closer allies over the
past four years. Starting in 2015, a US-led military coalition joined forces with a Kurdish militia
(now the Syrian Democratic Forces or SDF) to fight ISIS forces in Syria and Iraq. Many of
Trump’s own party members and usual allies have spoken out against his decision to, in effect,
abandon the Kurds after they helped the US fight ISIS. The Syrian Democratic Forces now have
shift their focus from ISIS to fighting against the Turkish threat at their border, which some
predict will allow ISIS to reemerge.

Trump has issued conflicting statements about whether he supports the Turkish assault on the
Kurds. It is reported that in a phone call with Turkish President Erdogan, Trump permitted the
operation, but after the assault happened Trump called it “a bad idea.” Americans have seen
this on almost a daily basis: our president issuing inconsistent statements and many times
flat-out lies. 

Keeping in mind that Turkey is a member of NATO, can and should the US reverse Trump’s
decision and support the Kurds who once supported us?

Trump used his power as Chief Diplomat to do something that both Democrats and Republicans
strongly opposed. Will this increase the likelihood of his impeachment in the House and
conviction in the Senate? Would it be unconstitutional for congresspeople to keep this in mind
when casting their vote for impeachment/conviction?

Donald Trump and Republican Party Struggles to Establish and Maintain Foreign Policy

Colin Powell Says Trump's Foreign Policy is 'In shambles'

Article Link: https://www.foxnews.com/media/colin-powell-trump-foreign-policy-is-in-shambles

Powell, the former Secretary of State has claimed that Donald Trump's foreign policy is failing, and that the entire Republican party needs some sort of reform in this aspect of governing. 

Claiming to be a moderate republican himself, Powell expressed his concerns for the current state of foreign policy. "The Republican Party has got to get a grip on itself," he said. 

Powell went on to explain that if he was under Trump's administration, someone would have told him,"...'Mr. President, you screwed up, so we've got to fix it and we'll put out a correction.'" It is clear that Donald Trump's foreign policy is not doing well. In addition to the errors that Trump has made, none of them are being corrected. Everyone in the commerce department has just backed up the President, and done whatever he says.

The last quote from Colin that is important and should be included is that, "...the Constitution started with, 'We the People,' not 'Me the President.'" It is clear that Colin is upset by the current state of Foreign Policy, and how selfish Trump has been with the decisions he has made. It is safe to say that he hasn't looked out for the country's best interest the way he has looked out for his best interest.

In conclusion, Donald Trump has been extremely selfish, and ineffective. If he doesn't make a change to the way he maintains our relationships and policies with other countries, he could put America in a bad position for the future. Whether it be a loss of an ally, or an excommunication by a country that makes an item essential to our economy, we could be in serious trouble. 

1) How could Trump improve the condition of US Foreign policy? 

- Keep in mind that he hasn't done much for us in this area of gov't yet, so there is ample room for improvement.

2) Why is president Trump so selfish when it comes to Foreign Policy? Is there something other  countries know or have on him that he doesn't want us American citizens to know? 

Nancy Pelosi Steps Up to the Plate- The Impeachment Process Begins

Nancy Pelosi Begins Formal Impeachment Process of Trump

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/democrats-impeachment-trump.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-pull-troops-from-northern-syria-as-turkey-readies-offensive/2019/10/07/a965e466-e8b3-11e9-bafb-da248f8d5734_story.html

After months of holding out, Nancy Pelosi has agreed to go through with the formal impeachment process of President Trump. She announced that they would be charging Trump with, "betraying his oath of office and the nation's security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain" (NY Times). With a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, the impeachment inquiry will most likely pass through the House and go to the Senate for a trial. However, the Senate has a Republican majority, which raises questions over whether the GOP will turn on Trump. As a 2/3 majority is necessary to convict the sitting President, multiple Republicans would need to vote in favor of impeachment in order to have Trump convicted and removed from office.

A whistleblower brought to light allegations that Trump had pressed the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate the Biden family. Seen as a ploy to use a foreign power for his own political gain, Trump was highly criticized for this. The Democrats felt that after this, they finally had the platform and momentum needed to begin an impeachment inquiry.

Additionally, there has been increasing anti-Trump sentiment within the GOP, especially due to his recent actions regarding the Kurds in Syria. Traditionally allies of America, the Kurds are a highly oppressed people that have experienced genocide at the hands of the Turkish people in the past. On October 7, Trump agreed to remove American troops in Northern Syria who were protecting the Kurds, essentially allowing the Turkish military to go in and slaughter them. The outcry was immediate, as both Republicans and Democrats spoke out against this decision. The Kurds, who had helped American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and with ISIS, would be left completely vulnerable without American protection. This decision by Trump greatly increased both Democratic and Republican backlash against him, and may influence the impeachment process.

This is an example of American politics related to the impeachment process of a U.S. President. The Speaker of the House must first announce the impeachment process, then various committees must investigate the offenses. If it passes a House vote, it goes to the Senate for a trial. If 2/3 of the Senate vote to convict, the President is forced to leave office. With a Republican majority in the Senate, it will be interesting to see how the process results.

1. How do you think the Senate will vote if the impeachment process gets to them? How will Republicans respond?

2. How will Trump's recent actions in Syria affect the impeachment process? Will it cause enough GOP backlash to convict him in the Senate if it gets there?

3. If Trump becomes the first president to be convicted in an impeachment inquiry, how will this reflect on American politics? How will it affect voting in the next several elections?

The homeless problem in San Francisco continues to get worse!

Link to the homeless article!

A persisting problem in San Francisco is the increasing rate of homeless people, dating back to the late 70's, attributed to the quick deindustrialization, consequently resulting in a loss of jobs, rapid increase in housing prices and the loss of social welfare programs. This issue has only gotten worse since then, leaving San Francisco streets filled with 'tent cities'. 

After a quick trip to California and New Mexico, Donald Trump told reporters that San Francisco and their rising homeless population is in violation to environmental rules as a result of the amount of needles ending up in the ocean... 

“They’re in total violation — we’re going to be giving them a notice very soon...They have to clean it up. We can’t have our cities going to hell.”

Trump detailed the effects of waste in storm sewers and needles polluting the ocean, and using the EPA as a threat to San Francisco. In response, San Francisco mayor, London Breed, said how Trump's comments were ridiculous and untrue, stating how the sewers in San Francisco are, "...one of the best and most effective in the country, that ensures that all debris that flow into storm drains are filtered out at the city’s wastewater treatment plants.". In addition, Ms. Breed included how in response to the rising homeless population, the city will be adding 1,000 shelter beds by next year, building more affordable housing and easier access to mental health and drug addiction services. 

Though Trump's accusations regarding the sewer were false, his regards to needles and the overwhelming amount in San Francisco is true. In August 2018, the Public Health Department retrieved 164,264 needles, showing the sharp increase in heroin use in the city. In addition to the needles, the amount of feces in the streets require a clean up crew, resulting in more available toilets for people. As well has the homeless population increased 17% since 2017, being at 8,011 unsheltered individuals. Although suspicion around the intent behind Trump's claim have to do with how Trump seems to be more worried about how homeless people may look to others, rather than the actual homeless people. 

1. Why do you think Trump is threatening San Francisco with the EPA, and talking devotedly about the negative impacts a rising homeless population has when he pulled the U.S out of the Paris Climate Agreement? 
• He has also made it quite clear how he doesn't really care much about the environment when looking at his lax rules on water and toxic air pollution...