Monday, November 21, 2022

AOC responds to Elon Musk's poll to reinstate Trump's Twitter, saying the 'last time he was here this platform was used to incite an insurrection'


AOC 

Katie Balevic
Sat, November 19, 2022 


Elon Musk issued a Twitter poll asking if Donald Trump's account should be reinstated.


Trump was permanently suspended from the platform following the Capitol insurrection.


AOC issued a reminder about the "last time" Trump was on Twitter, which he "used to incite an insurrection."


While Elon Musk tinkers with Twitter and teases the possible reinstatement of Donald Trump, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez issued a public reminder of the violent insurrection incited by the former president during his last days on the platform.

Musk, whose takeover of the company has prompted hundreds of employee departures and resignations, issued a poll on Friday asking users whether they want the embattled former president back on the social media platform.

"Idk man, last time he was here this platform was used to incite an insurrection, multiple people died, the Vice President of the United States was nearly assassinated, and hundreds were injured but I guess that's not enough for you to answer the question. Twitter poll it is," Ocasio-Cortez said in a tweeted response.


The New York Democrat added that the House January 6th Committee has "extensively covered how Trump's use of Twitter played a critical role in the violence of that day." She added video footage of former Vice President Mike Pence being escorted to an alternative location within the Capitol as rioters fought police and infiltrated the Capitol.





"Review their extensive work & ask yourself why a billionaire is toying w/ bringing back the person responsible for this," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.

Trump has been permanently suspended from the site since January 8, 2021, following the Capitol siege by Trump supporters.

Some 948 people have been criminally charged in the insurrection, and 450 have pleaded guilty. Several rioters and their attorneys blamed Trump for their involvement, saying the former president "asked us to go to the march on the 6th."

Elon Musk Bids Farewell to Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones

The billionaire and new owner of Twitter is in the process of implementing a new content management policy.

Elon Musk is a "free speech absolutist."

It was in the name of free speech that he announced that he was acquiring Twitter, which he said had become a censor of unpopular opinions.

Since the acquisition of the social network on Oct. 27, Musk has been revamping the platform to find sources of revenue, as he personally went into debt to the tune of $13 billion to finance this deal, which cost him $44 billion.

The billionaire wants to move fast as he must pay annual interest of $1.2 billion to the banks soon. 

He thus cut half of the firm's workforce in one day, or 3,700 jobs, and gave an ultimatum to the rest of the employees to choose between leaving or working long hours. A massive exodus of talent ensued, forcing Musk to close Twitter's offices until Nov. 21.

But one of the big challenges to the ambitions of the tech tycoon is to retain advertisers, who have paused their advertising spots on the platform because they do not want their products and services to be associated with misinformation, hateful and racist remarks and bullying. Their fears are due to the fact that Musk wants to be more accommodating when it comes to policing acceptable messages on the social network. 

Trump Is Back

The billionaire believes that free speech comes first. The only limit he imposes is the law: he would only suspend a tweet if it violates the law of the country where it is posted.

He began to apply this principle by reactivating the account of former president Donald Trump, banned from the platform since Jan. 8, 2021 after the events on Capitol Hill.

He also reinstated the accounts of the satirical conservative-leaning site The Babylon Bee and that of the Canadian psychologist Jorden Peterson on Nov. 18. These had been banned by the former Twitter team for making hateful remarks.

These moves raise fears that Musk will bring extremists back to the platform. But the billionaire has just drawn a red line. He has just rejected the reinstatement of the account of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

It all started with a question asked by Musk:

"What should Twitter do next?" Musk asked on Nov. 18.

"Bring back Alex Jones!!!!" a Twitter user responded.

"No," Musk firmly said.

'Too Bad'

But another user didn't let go and expressed their disappointment in very strong terms to Musk.

"Alex Jones is the litmus test, @elonmusk. Not just on the issue of freedom of speech, but on the issue of not bending the knee to political and judicial intimidation. If this is a hard "no", your Twitter will never be any more trustworthy than @paraga or @Jack's twitter," the user said.

"Too bad," Musk replied.

Jones is obsessed with the theory of the deep state, a fantasy malevolent occult group that secretly pulls the strings of the White House, in conspiracy mythology. He made a fortune, selling survivalist products and disseminating his suspicious interpretations of the slightest event online, through the most influential English-language conspiracy site, InfoWars.

From Sept. 11 to SARS-CoV-2, Alex Jones fired all the paranoid counter-narratives to attract an ever-wider audience. Having become the figurehead of Anglo-Saxon conspiracy, he had 900,000 followers on Twitter and his Facebook and YouTube pages gathered more than 2.4 million followers, before he was banned from Twitter in 2018. 

The one who was described by Steve Bannon, the former director of the far-right American site Breitbart News, as the greatest American thinker since the Founding Fathers, has long asserted that the Sandy Hook massacre did not really take place.

He was recently ordered to pay nearly a billion dollars to the relatives of the victims of the Sandy Hook shootings, in a defamation case. In a second defamation case in Connecticut, a judge on Nov. 10 awarded eight families a further $473 million in punitive damages in the form of legal fees, bringing the total to over $1.4 billion.

Elon Musk’s Twitter Poll About Donald Trump:

5 Reasons It Was Unscientific


Brce Y. Lee

Senior Contributor
Elon Musk Twitter Trump

On November 19, Twitter reinstated Donald Trump on to its platform after the company’s self-designated “Chief Twit,” billionaire Elon Musk, had tweeted, “The people have spoken.” This was based on results from a Twitter poll that Musk had posted asking whether he should “Reinstate former President Trump,” to which 51.8% of respondents had apparently answered “Yes.” So did such a poll have much scientific merit or were such results essentially “polling” your leg, so to speak, and potentially “polling” open the door for even more unscientific polls on Twitter in the future? And is this how Musk is going to decide whether to reactivate Twitter accounts that have been previously banned for spreading Covid-19, vaccine, or other health-related disinformation? Well, there are five major reasons why Twitter polls like Musk’s wouldn’t stand up to any type of real scientific scrutiny.

Before we get to these five reasons, let’s take a look at the main thing that Musk seemed to be touting about the poll: the size of its responses. Yes, at first glance, Musk’s poll did seem rather large, garnering 15,085,458 votes according to the following tweet:

At one point, Musk claimed that his poll was getting one million votes per hour. But just because someone says, “I’ve got a big poll,” doesn’t mean that you should necessarily trust what comes out of it. In other words, the 7.8 million votes of “Yes” does not guarantee that “The people have spoken” and “Vox Populi, Vox Dei,” which is Latin for “the voice of the people is the voice of God,” as Musk asserted on November 19:

Vox may be “voice” in Latin, but you shouldn’t let just any voices carry. It’s difficult to tell how many of these voices may have actually been “Vox bots” or “Vox the same person voting over and over again,” which could end up being “Vox garbage.” This brings us to the first big unscientific problem with Musk’s poll:

1. It’s not clear how many individual humans actually voted.

You know the saying, “vote early, vote often?” Well, the risk with any voting or polling system is ballot stuffing, which is not a Thanksgiving dish but the practice of casting more votes than the the number of people who can legitimately vote. Nothing about a Twitter poll seems to prevent such a possibility. A bot may be able to log a vote or even multiple votes on a Twitter poll. At the same time, a single person could set up multiple Twitter accounts to register multiple votes on such a poll. Truly scientific polls will have safeguards that can verify whether someone voting is an actual human being and restrict that person’s ability to vote only once. Twitter polls won’t be able to achieve such standards as long as you can vote completely anonymously and establish anonymous accounts on the social media platform.

Forbes InnovationTwitter Alternative ‘Hive Social’ Is Having A Viral Sign-Up MomentREAD MOREBBC iPlayer Down Under Weight Of World Cup Viewers‘The Walking Dead’ Series Finale Was Bad Because It Wasn’t A Series FinaleComputer Forecasts, Expert Judgment, And “Chimeric Forecasting” Of Infectious DiseasesCan Green Hydrogen Help Heavy Duty Industries Like Steel Decarbonise?Twitter Alternative ‘Hive Social’ Is Having A ViralSign-Up Moment

2. Musk didn’t specify the characteristics of the respondents and the non-responders.

With any poll, the question is whether the results truly represent what the entire population of interest (in this case Twitter users) believes or instead reflects the thoughts of only a particularly segment of the population. The latter situation could result in some major biases. For example, choosing a Justin Bieber concert to determine what percentage of people have heard of Bieber would be kind of biased in the Biebs favor. Therefore, you’ve got to determine whether the sample polled is truly representative of the overall population.

One common way of determining how representative your sample might be is to report the relevant characteristics (e.g., age, sex, political affiliation, socioeconomic status, and botitiude) of those who responded to the poll versus those who did not and determine how similar versus different they are. The bigger the difference, the more non-representative and potentially biased the responses may be. Did Musk voice any of these characteristics? Umm, vox no.

3. Musk did not provide much time for people to respond.

The poll appeared to open on a Friday (November 18) and close on a Saturday (November 19). So if you happen to have had anything else going on in your life during that one-day periods besides being on Twitter, you could have easily missed the poll or perhaps filed it away as “I’ll respond later after my bout of diarrhea ends” or something like that. Giving people not much more than a day to respond likely favored those folks who happened to be on Twitter during that time period, had strong enough motivation to respond quickly, and believed that Musk would listen to them. This, in turn, could have introduced significant biases into the results. If Musk had truly wanted a broader sample of people’s opinions, could he have kept the poll open longer? After all, whether Trump should be on Twitter wasn’t exactly an urgent DEFCOM 1 matter.

4. There was no transparency about how the poll was administered or promoted or how the votes were verified and counted.

The $44 billion deal that gave Musk control of Twitter basically gave him control of, well, Twitter. That means that he can readily change who works at Twitter, such as lay off half its workforce, or how Twitter’s functions work, such as changing Twitter verification policies so that anyone able to pay $8 a month can get a blue verification check-mark. Heck that latter change even let a seemingly “verified” yet fake Eli Lilly and Company Twitter account claim that insulin will be free, as I covered recently for Forbes. With so many people gone from the company so quickly, who knows how accurate the polling Twitter functions may be right now. So, before you trust any polls, make sure that the methods used to solicit and count responses are clearly documented, legit, and verifiable by an independent third party. For example, you wouldn’t trust someone who told you, “I surveyed a million people and they all said you stink,” would you?

5. Musk did not discuss the limitations of his poll.

One of the most important parts of any presentation or publication describing a real scientific study is the “Limitations” section. This is where the study authors describe the weaknesses of their study and how such weaknesses may affect interpretation of the results. Clearly, no study or no poll is perfect. All have their limitations. Yet, Musk didn’t clearly express such limitations.

Despite these mega-limitations of his Twitter poll, Musk ostensibly let the poll decide whether to allow the MAGA-leader back on his social media platform for the first time since Trump had been banned for inciting violence during the January 6,2021, insurrection and storming of the U.S. Capitol building. That was after Musk had promised on October 28 that, “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints. No major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes.” Trump has tweeted since his account went back live again, though. When asked whether he’ll return to Twitter, Trump answered, “I don't see any reason for it.” But it remains to be seen how many Scaramuccis or heads of lettuce will pass before Trump is back to his old tweeting ways.

Regardless of what you feel about the former U.S. President and current Mar-A-Lago resident Trump being back on Twitter, you’ve gotta worry about basing significant decisions on a highly unscientific and easily manipulatable method like a Twitter poll. A Twitter poll is not replacement for a real scientific poll. And it certainly is not a replacement for real scientific evidence. In other words, a Twitter poll won’t do when the stakes are high.

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedInCheck out my website

I am a writer, journalist, professor, systems modeler, computational and digital health expert, medical doctor, avocado-eater, and entrepreneur, not

...

UK
Virgin Money agrees 10% pay rise for staff on top of £1,000 cost-of-living payment

The bank has also revealed rising revenues as interest rates are increased



Graeme Whitfield
Business and Agenda Editor
 21 NOV 2022
A branch of Virgin Money (Image: Rob Browne/ WalesOnline)

Newcastle bank Virgin Money has revealed a 10% pay rise for most of its 7,500 staff as it reported a 43% hike in annual profits.

The group - which has offices in Newcastle, Leeds and Glasgow - said it was giving staff a rise of between 9% and 11%, as well as a £1,000 cost-of-living payment in August. The bank said it thought the package was ‘sector leading’.

The company said that, alongside the staff pay boost, it has launched a cost-of-living hub to help offer support to customers in financial distress but said it has not yet seen signs of an increase in borrowers falling behind with their repayments.

But the lender stressed it was “carefully monitoring” its customer base and set aside £52m to cover borrower defaults as the UK faces a prolonged recession due to the cost-of-living crisis. The group also said it was seeing the impact of rocketing inflation on banking customers, with its data showing spending has soared by 16% on groceries and 57% on energy bills.

Virgin Money chief executive David Duffy said the bank had returned a “pretty strong result in a difficult environment”.

He said: “2022 has been a milestone year for Virgin Money. We have good momentum while delivering a strong performance and improved returns for our shareholders. We’ve changed the game in purpose-led flexible working to create an engaged, high-performing organisation that’s cost efficient and agile, which will underpin targeted growth through further digital innovation.

“While we have solid credit quality across our lending, we are aware that some customers will have to make difficult decisions in this environment, and we are proactively offering them help and support.”

In full year results for the period to September 30, total underlying operating income increased 12% to £1.755bn. Underlying pre-tax profits fell slightly to £789m, down 1% from £801m the previous year, but statutory profit on ordinary activities before tax went up from £417m to £595m.
UK
No economic benefits from Brexit so far, David Davis admits

Story by Rob Merrick • 

david-davis.jpeg© AP

Brexit has failed to deliver any notable economic benefits, more than six years after the vote to leave the EU, David Davis has admitted.

The former Brexit secretary – a key figure in the push for withdrawal and the negotiations that followed – blamed the Covid pandemic for the absence of any gains from the upheaval.


Asked if, amid growing calls for a change of course, he accepted “we haven’t seen any economic benefit for having left the EU,” Mr Davis replied: “No major ones.”

He pointed to “minor ones” such as the UK beginning delivery of Covid vaccines in 2020 before the rest of Europe – although it is strongly disputed that this was a Brexit freedom.

Mr Davis went on: “There’ll be more of that. You will see our medical based industries and our software based industries grow significantly.”

Speaking to Times Radio, he argued: “Just easing our way out of a Covid crisis, you can’t make any sensible economic measures at the moment.”

Mr Davis, now a backbencher, also echoed Rishi Sunak in insisting the head of the CBI, Tony Danker, is “wrong” to believe looser immigration rules would help rescue the economy.

The comments come amid evidence of disagreement at the top of government about how to mitigate the forecast 4 per cent hit to GDP, with a 15 per cent loss of trade, from Boris Johnson’s hard Brexit deal.

The chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, argued last week that the “vast majority” of cross-Channel trade barriers can be removed, without explaining how.

But Mr Sunak’s official spokesperson declined to repeat the claim, after the prime minister stamped on suggestions he will pursue a closer “Swiss-style” agreement with Brussels.

The prime minister insisted: “Let me be unequivocal about this. Under my leadership, the UK will not pursue any relationship with Europe that relies on alignment with EU laws.”

The “Swiss-style deal” rumour has threatened to reignite the Tories’ Brexit wars – despite it being highly unlikely the EU would offer such an arrangement, even if the UK wanted it.

Brexiteer MP admits Australian trade deal is 'not actually a very good …
Duration 1:04 View on Watch

Nigel Farage has called it a “betrayal”, claiming the Conservatives would be “destroyed at the next general election in a way that they cannot begin to contemplate”.

The CBI has pointed to a lack of workers as a key reason for its warning that last week’s autumn statement – while reversing Liz Truss’s blunders – had no plan for growth.

But Mr Sunak told its conference: “The number one priority right now, when it comes to migration, is to tackle illegal migration,” – pointing to the small boats crisis.

Asked if, despite the clashes over Brexit and migration, he would still say the Tories are the “party of business”, he replied: “Yes, unequivocally, unequivocally.”

Sarah Olney, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesperson, said: “People will be aghast that, while living standards plummet, Conservative MPs are yet again fighting amongst themselves over Europe. Their pointless red tape is strangling trade with our closest neighbours.”

A story in 4 parts: Grimsby seafood factory blames Brexit as it’s forced to shut

ISI is set to pull out of the UK to focus on its European operations - despite Brexit being heralded as the 'fishing industry's salvation' by a local MP.

One of Grimsby’s landmark seafood factories has been forced to close in a major blow to the town.

The former Five Star Fish facility was taken on by Icelandic Seafood International in 2020 but has recorded a staggering £8 million in losses, with bosses blaming Brexit, according to local reports.

ISI will now pull out of the UK and will focus on its European operations.

In 2016, North East Lincolnshire backed the UK’s decision to leave the EU by an overwhelming 69.9 per cent.

The year after, former Chancellor Norman Lamont assured voters that the decision would “not be a disaster” for the port town after the fish processing industry asked for a special free trade status post-Brexit.

In 2020, Lia Nici, the MP for Great Grimsby, reassured voters that Brexit will be the “fishing industry’s salvation” in a Yorkshire Post column.

“The decline in the fishing industry is something we really need to consider. Our constituents in Grimsby are looking for us to make a change”, she said.

“After 40 years there is ongoing anger and resentment”, but we “now have the ability to become an independent coastal state.”

Unfortunately, like many Brexit promises, they have proved to be hollow.

ISI says it will now exit the UK market “from a value-added perspective” to “run a profitable business within the European value-added seafood industry”.