Mediaboss Marketing

Former Democratic Presidential nominee and Chicago-area native Hillary Clinton was in town yesterday and ate lunch at Tuscany on Taylor Street. Theres no word on what the former Secretary of State ate, as Gina Stefani is mum on the details, only writing that it was great to see Secretary Clinton and her friends while she was in town (yesterday). My family has had the pleasure to serve both the Secretary and President over the years when they are in Chicago. That relationship dates back several years. Phil Stefani catered Clintons 50th birthday party in 1998.

The tragic late-night car crash in River North where the passenger died and the driver later committed suicide has multiple ties to the local nightlife scene. Most notably, the couple was at controversial clubstaurant Bottled Blonde and other nearby bars before their crash, the Sun-Times reports. Also, the driver, Anthony Milder, worked at Underground; while the passenger, Alejandra Damian, had worked at Vertigo Sky Lounge and Cerise, the rooftop lounge at the Virgin Hotel.

DMK Restaurants is the first major local restaurant group to ban plastic drinking straws. All 14 of the groups establishments, including multiple DMK Burger Bar locations, Fish Bar, Ada Street, and Henrys no longer use straws in order to protect our environment, according to a news release and Crains. Multiple restaurants in California, New York City, New Jersey, Florida, and other countries have already banned straws, according to a Washington Post report. However, a writer in Forbes is skeptical about the motivation of some restaurants to ban straws and urges DMK and others to provide alternatives. The Shedd Aquarium urged restaurants in April to Shedd the Straw during an Earth Day campaign.

In more DMK news, County Barbecue is slated to reopen in August, Crains reports. The groups restaurant on Taylor Street has been closed since a fire in August 2016.

Residents living near 150 North Riverside in The Loop recently received mailed notices regarding the liquor application for Porter Kitchen & Deck. Thats a new restaurant Four Corners Tavern Group (Federales, Brickhouse Tavern) is working on with an assist from Hogsalt Hospitality. Residents have until July 26 to share any concerns with the citys business affairs department.

And finally, Heros, the more than half-century-old sandwich shop at Western Avenue and Addison Street, has been sold to new owners. Today is its last day under original ownership and new owners will take over on Friday. The change has caused such a stir in its customer base that it ran out of bread yesterday.

1664 N. Ada Street, Chicago, IL 60642 (773) 697-7069

2954 North Sheffield Avenue, Chicago, IL 60657

203 N Wabash Ave, Chicago, IL 60601

203 N Wabash Ave, Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 940-4774

3600 N Western Ave, Chicago, IL 60618 (773) 327-6363

Originally posted here:
Where Hillary Clinton Ate In Chicago Yesterday - Eater Chicago - Eater Chicago

By Joe Lauria

The cover of How I Lost by Hillary Clinton. (OR Books)

Editors note: The following is an excerpt from How I Lost by Hillary Clinton, introduced and annotated by Joe Lauria and reprinted by arrangement with OR Books. The book draws on the WikiLeaks releases of Clintons talks at Goldman Sachs and the emails of her campaign chief, John Podesta, as well as key passages from her public speeches. How I Lost by Hillary Clinton also includes extensive commentary by Lauria and a foreword by Julian Assange, editor in chief of WikiLeaks.

From remarks to Goldman Sachs in Bluffton, South Carolina, June 4th, 2013.

CLINTON: I would love it if we could continue to build a more positive relationship with Russia. I worked very hard on that when I was Secretary, and we made some progress with Medvedev, who was president in name but was obviously beholden to Putin, but Putin kind of let him go and we helped them get into the WTO for several years, and they were helpful to us in shipping equipment, even lethal equipment, in and out of out of Afghanistan.

So we were making progress, and I think Putin has a different view. Certainly hes asserted himself in a way now that is going to take some management on our side, but obviously we would very much like to have a positive relationship with Russia and we would like to see Putin be less defensive toward a relationship with the United States so that we could work together on some issues.

Weve tried very hard to work with Putin on shared issues like missile defense. They have rejected that out of hand. So I think its what diplomacy is about. You just keep going back and keep trying.

Hillary Clinton made these remarks before the eruption of the crisis in Ukraine the following year, which plunged U.S.-Russia relations into what seemed like a new Cold War, and three years before the neo-McCarthyite reaction to Russias supposed interference in the 2016 election. But she made them after her aggressive stance against Syria while secretary of state. On the 2016 campaign trail she railed against Russias involvement in Syria, raising fears that a Clinton presidency could lead to conflict with the second largest nuclear-armed nation.

Some background on recent U.S.-Russia relations seems to be in order. The events in Ukraine took place after Clinton left the State Department. As detailed in the Introduction, the U.S. helped engineer the violent coup of February 2014 that overthrew democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovych, prompting a Russian response. It was up to Clintons successor, John Kerry, to make the inflated and hypocritical accusation that Russia invaded Ukraine. You just dont in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext, Kerry said after he had voted in the Senate for Americas actual full-scale ground invasion of Iraq just eleven years earlier. The U.S. has never provided convincing evidence of such a Russian invasion. In fact, German intelligence, unmasked as dangerous propaganda fabrications by Gen. Philip Breedlove, then head of the U.S. European Command and supreme commander of NATO forces, who told reporters on February 25th, 2015 that Russia had well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery inside eastern Ukraine.

German leaders in Berlin were stunned. They didnt understand what Breedlove was talking about. And it wasnt the first time. Once again, the German government, supported by intelligence gathered by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germanys foreign intelligence agency, did not share the view of NATOs Supreme Allied Commander Europe, wrote the German magazine Der Spiegel. False claims and exaggerated accounts, warned a top German official during a recent meeting on Ukraine, have put NATOand by extension, the entire Westin danger of losing its credibility. Breedlove then told the Frankfurter Allgemeine news- paper in November 2014 that there were regular Russian army units in eastern Ukraine. But just a day later he admitted to the German newsmagazine Stern that they were mostly trainers and advisors.

In March 2015, U.S. Lieutenant General Ben Hodges identified a direct Russian military intervention in eastern Ukraine. Senior officials in Berlin immediately asked the BND for an assessment, but the intelligence agencys satellite images showed just a few armored vehicles. ... One intelligence agent says it remains a riddle until today how [Hodges] reached his conclusions.

From the start of the Ukraine crisis Breedlove said Russia had assembled 40,000 troops on the Ukrainian border and warned of an imminent invasion. But intelligence officials from NATO member states had already excluded the possibility of a Russian invasion, wrote Der Spiegel. There were perhaps even fewer than 20,000 troops on the border and they had already been there prior to the beginning of the conflict.

None of this deterred Clinton. As a presidential candidate, she picked up the Russia as aggressor theme in Ukraine, even alleging that Moscow was an aggressor in Syria, though it was invited in by an internationally recognized government to help defend against a largely foreign-backed rebellion. After the U.S. won the first Cold War back in the early 1990s, Bill Clintons administration, with Wall Street banks such as Goldman Sachs in the lead, teamed up with Russian oligarchs to plunder the once state-owned economy.

The U.S. was in a unique position in history to bring progress to the world. Instead it pursued a furtherance of its rulers wealth and power at the expense of millions of people at home and abroad. Hillary Clinton today is at the center of this deception of pretending to deliver democracy and social progress to the majority, while doing the opposite.

Still further back, when the Second World War ended, there was fear that the U.S. would return to the Great Depression. But rather than making massive government investment in civilian industries, it was defense spending that saved the economy and became the basis of growth throughout a Cold War in which the Russian threat was hyped to keep American Cold Warriors in power, armaments factories humming and profits pouring in. This came to an end with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union. Now, there was considerable money to be made by Western corporations and banks in the wide-open economy of a defeated Russia. None other than Goldman Sachs was hired by the Russian government to take the lead in bringing foreign investment into the country. The deal was signed for Goldman by Robert Rubin, a year before he became Bill Clintons treasury secretary.

A compliant Boris Yeltsin, whose re-election, ironically, was in no small part due to the interference in Russian domestic politics by American election advisers, opened the doors to carpetbagging American banks and businesses.

Returning to a peacetime economy during the Clinton administration for the first time since 1940 would have meant dismantling the military-industrial relationship that Dwight Eisenhower warned about. But instead, with the Pentagon and NATO struggling for meaning in the immediate post-Cold War era, a new enemy was found, first in Islamist extremism and then in Serbia during the Kosovo crisis.

Meanwhile the newly elected Vladimir Putin began to reassert Russian sovereignty. He forbid oligarchs from entering pol- itics and threw some in jail. Under President Dmitry Medvedev relations with the U.S. improved. It was just after this period that Clinton made the remarks above, in which she says shed love better relations with Russia. The Goldman audience knew what she meant: allowing Wall Street to continue its major access to the Russian economy. But Putin was back and, as Clinton put it, hes asserted himself in a way now that is going to take some management on our side. She still wanted better relations with Moscow but Putin has to be less defensive toward a relationship with the United States. By this time, Putin had raised Russians living standards, restored their pride and was riding huge favorability ratings.

The U.S. hides its intense interest in Russian markets and vast natural resources behind allegations of human rights abuses by Putin, for instance that he murders journalists and political opponents, allegations that may be true but are extremely difficult to prove. Russia has pro-Western liberal opposition politicians and several opposition newspapers that regularly and openly criticize Putin. Russia is not a model democracyfew countries arebut it has more freedom than many U.S. allies.

About a year before she made these remarks to Goldman Sachs, relations with Putin had soured when, in 2011, he blamed Clinton by name for stirring up anti-government protests in Russia. Clinton doesnt mention this in her remarks. Rather, she accuses Putin of not cooperating on a missile defense system the U.S. later installed in Romania. The U.S. claimed the missiles were for defensive purposes against Iran but they could also be used offensively and Russia saw them as a threat. Putin next moved to eject American NGOs from the country, fearing they could stir up revolt to replace him with a Yeltsin-like figure. Relations plunged after U.S. involvement in the overthrow of Ukraines democratically elected president in February 2014, detailed in the Introduction. Clinton became a vocal critic of Russia, calling Putin Hitler after he acted defensively in Crimea.

Indeed, the Ukraine crisis appeared to be a neoconservative-inspired plan to provoke Putin. With the Western press full of stories about Russian aggression, NATO staged significant war games in 2016 with 31,000 troops on Russias Western frontier. For the first time in 75 years, German troops retraced the steps of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.

What we shouldnt do now is inflame the situation further through saber-rattling and warmongering, the then German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told Bild am Sontag newspaper. Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliances eastern border will bring security is mistaken. Instead Steinmeier called for dialogue with Moscow. We are well advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation, he said, saying it would be fatal to search only for military solutions and a policy of deterrence.

A day after Steinmeiers remarks, General Petr Pavel, chairman of NATOs military committee, dropped another bombshell. Pavel told a Brussels press conference that Russia was not a threat to the West. It is not the aim of NATO to create a military barrier against broad scale Russian aggression, because such aggression is not on the agenda and no intelligence assessment suggests such a thing, he said.

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Follow this link:
Hillary Clinton and the Fear of War With Russia - Truthdig

From Texas Standard:

Plaintiffs have fileda new lawsuitchallenging the University of Texas at Austin's race-based admission rules. Unlike a well-known case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the new suit was filed in state court, and bases its claims on the Texas Constitution and state statutes. Because the Supreme Court ruled in Fisher v. University of Texas that UT-Austin could retain its race-based admission system, it is unclear how the new case will fair.

In 2008, Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian woman from Sugarland, applied for admission to UT-Austin. She didn't qualify for automatic admission because she wasn't in the top 10 percent of her class. She competed with others in the the normal pool of in-state applicants and didn't get in. Fisher claimed that if the university had not used race as a factor in admissions, she would have been admitted.

The Supreme Court found that UT-Austin's practice of using race as one factor in admission decisions was narrowly tailored to promote diversity and therefore acceptable under the U.S. Constitution.

A group that backed Fisher in her case, the non-profit Students for Fair Admissions,filed a new complaintin a Travis County court on behalf of a new set of plaintiffs. They are arguing that affirmative action, as used by UT-Austin, is invalid under the Texas constitution.

Lynne Rambo, a professor of law at Texas A&M University Law school, who is a specialist in equal protection, affirmative action and constitutional law, says the plaintiffs base their suit on three state provisions, including two found in the Texas Constitution.

"The main part of the Texas Constitution that they're relying on is the Equal Rights Amendment that Texas adopted back in 1972, when [it] was being advanced by women [nationally.] That has been interpreted by the Texas Supreme Court to go beyond the Equal Protection Clause," Rambo says.

Cases based on Texas law could fail because the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause places adherence to the U.S. Constitution over state law. But Rambo says the fact that the Texas Equal Rights Amendment grants more rights could help the plaintiffs' case.

"Classically, the states have been allowed to expand broader constitutional rights than the U.S. Constitution," she says. "In many states, there are broader Fourth Amendment protections. Texas, for example, has a broader Fifth Amendment self-incrimination privilege than the U.S. Constitution affords."

Students for Fair Admissionwas created by Edward Blumto seek plaintiffs to challenge university admissions policies at UT-Austin, Harvard, the University of North Carolina and the University of Wisconsin.

"He's a UT grad, and he apparently has a real dislike for the consideration of race in any number of areas," Rambo says. "He was behind Shelby County, for example, the case challenging Sections 4and 5 of the Voting Rights Act."

Written by Shelly Brisbin.

Continue reading here:
UT-Austin Faces Another Affirmative Action Lawsuit - KUT

One of the vulnerabilities built into the heart of every business owner is the tendency to believe fast-talking internet marketing gurus and slick, hyper-polished sales gurus.

Its not that these gurus are so great at selling; its just that what theyre promising is so attractive to you. They know what your need isto grow your business. They know your need is strong, even all-consuming. Its easy for them to take advantage of your need as they pitch their method or serviceeven if it has no chance of increasing your revenue. Heres what you need to know so you dont fall prey to their pitches.

When my husband and I ran an ad agency in Silicon Valley years ago, we had a competitor who was the perfect example of the slick marketing guy. He could convince his clients to spend incredible amounts of moneyon things that were never going to work. He did quite a lot of work for publishers of trade magazines. Publishers were easy marks for him, because most publishers had started out as advertising salespeople and moved up. They were good at selling. No offense to any salesperson reading this, but salespeople are suckers for a good pitch. Its a professional admiration situation. When we meet someone who is good at what we do, we want to spend time with them, and learn from them.

This slick agency guy would produce expensive, oversized, glossy, gorgeous brochures aimed at media buyers (agency people who bought ad space for their clients).

He told his client that the oversized brochure was too big to file on purpose. He would explain that because the brochure was too big to file, it would stay on the media buyers desk, where she would be constantly reminded of the publishers publication. The client bought that concept, and the brochures were produced.

In the real world, media buyers received these oversized pieces, looked at them briefly, realized they couldnt be filed, and then threw them away. I know that because I was a media buyer, and also because I had interviewed scores of media buyers for my trade publishing clients. They all said the same thing: If its too big to file, it goes in the trash.

The slick guys always know how to do one thing wellmake the client feel good about himself. It is the easiest sales job in the world.

In todays market, its quite common for a clever website designer to create a look that he thinks the client will likerather than what the clients customer likes or needs. The resulting site is a navigation nightmare for the serious buyer. Unnecessary Flash animation. Non-searchable catalogs, where the images are scanned in from the printed catalog (dont laugh, every industry has these). Hard-to-follow pathways to the individual products and the shopping cart.

Next time one of these design guys makes you drool because of the cool factor, remember that Google is one of the busiest sites in the world, and theres really nothing cool about it, from a designers point of view. Cool doesnt sell. It gets in the way of buying.

The myth perpetuated by most sales gurus is that you are in control of the sale. Theyll give you all sorts of advice about how to manipulate the customer into buying.

Their basic premise is deeply flawed. When a customer comes into a store, whos in charge? Whos got the money? Who can walk out at any moment, if he doesnt see what he wants, or the salesperson frustrates or irritates him?

Obviously, the buyer is in control of the buying process. No amount of clever manipulationwhich buyers are wise to, anywaywill change this basic fact. Besides, its rudeand its the fastest way to lose the trust of the buyer, who will then go out of his way to avoid you in the future.

Every industry has its fads. In the marketing industry, relationship consultants have tried to convince CEOs that the key to successfully marketing and selling is to build a relationship with the customer.

The problem is, its the seller who wants the relationship. Buyers dont start interacting with sellers because they want a relationship. Relationships are what you have with your family and friends, not salespeople.

When buyers go to a seller, they want the seller to do what he is supposed to do: provide products or services in a professional, helpful way. In other words, they just want to buy a car from someone who is honest and helpful. They dont want the car salesman showing up for dinner.

Of course, there are complex business services where the seller and the buyer interact for a long time. Yes, you could call this a relationship. Yes, it is possible to make friends with your vendors. But assuming theres a desire for a relationship on the part of the buyer is not realistic. It permits the seller to feel as if he has more power than he really does.

Webcast, July 6th: Advanced SEO Site Auditing

Long-term interactions between buyers and sellers are much more about the performance of the seller than any kind of relationship. As long as the seller is performing to the customers satisfaction, the customer will want to continue interacting. As soon as the seller starts to slip, the customer will look elsewhere.

Can you create a loyal customer? Do you think that a customer will stay loyal to you, no matter what? Think again. You cant control customer loyalty. But you can control your organizations behavior towards customers. If your behavior pleases your customers, they will stay loyal. Theres no need to create a special loyalty program when youre successfully meeting customer needs.

There are some bright guys who have learned how to sell content on the Web. They sell other things, too, but educational content is their specialty. They have developed an infomercial-type approach, complete with testimonials, video, and a sense of urgency and scarcity. They make good use of affiliate marketing programs, compelling landing pages, hurts-less pricing techniques (only 12 monthly payments of $197.99), and other tried-and-true late-night-TV techniques. They do make money.

All well and good, if you are selling something similar to what they are selling, and if you follow their techniques to the letter. The problem is, their methods may not be right for your product/service and your customers. It could be the exact opposite of what will actually work.

As I am typing this, social media is all the rage. Its the Latest Greatest. The latest greatest gurus scream that you must be there, wherever there is. And, in fact, social media (or the latest hot marketing channel) definitely could have a rightful place in your marketing mix. It might even be the most successful way for you to get the word out and interact with your customers.

Social media may also be a colossal waste of money, no matter how much time and effort you put into it, if your customers simply arent there or you arent using the media in a way that works for them. You cant afford to guess about this. You dont want to risk your marketing budget and opportunity window because youre guessing. You need to know.

My mantra about social media is, Ask not what social media can do for you; ask your customers what they want you to do for them, using social media.

There is no question that social media is changing the way companies interact with customers. I think it is profound; companies used to be the dog wagging the customer tail, and now customer-created content is becoming the customer dog wagging the company tail.

It is likely that you will find a way to monetize social media, given the new tools that are emerging and taking hold. However, if you start with the customer, and find out how they want you to utilize it, you will be supporting their efforts to buy your products and services. They will reward you for doing that. If you jump into it because it is sexy or everybodys doing it, youll end up with more regrets than revenue.

Ive watched dozens of latest greatest fads come marching down Main Street, band blaring. Most of them continued marching, right out of town, never to be seen again. Only a few have stayed and become part of the commercial community.

How can you know, ahead of time, what will work for your customers? What will pay, and what wont?

Your customers will answer these questions for you, if you ask them correctly.

The takeaway:

Your potential buyers may or may not respond to the latest marketing techniques. You can spend your entire budget thrashing around in the dark, trying this, and then that. You can go out of business using the most up-to-date marketing methods. Many companies do just that.

Or, you can make the entire process straightforward, by understanding what your customers need and how they want to buy it, then putting those things in front of them. You will eliminate the uncertainty and guesswork. You will make a series of informed decisions that lead to increased revenue. And, you will sleep better at night, because what you are doing will make sense.

This article originally appeared on the Digital Revolution Show and has been republished with permission.

Kristin Zhivago is the president and co-founder of Cloud Potential, a company dedicated to helping companies gain an unfair advantage in the midst of the digital revolution. She and Joe Mckenna, CEO, started Cloud Potential in 2014. Prior to co-founding Cloud Potential, Zhivago was a revenue coach to Viewfullprofile

Continued here:
Proceed With CautionMyths Perpetuated By Internet Marketing Gurus - Business 2 Community

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has made no secret of his desire to extend his campaign to suppress criticism and dissent beyond Turkeys borders. But now, his government is leaning on the management of Twitter to do his dirty work for him, by demanding that the company silence an American expert in Washington.

Michael Rubin, an outspoken scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, has been a thorn in the side of the Erdogan government and his Justice and Development Party for many years. Rubin has also been the target of a lawsuit filed by the Turkish president in Turkey accusing him of making insults and supporting a terrorist organization.

Now, Erdogan is taking his effort to squelch Rubins criticism to a new level. Twitter notified Rubin on Monday that it had received a court order from Turkey demanding the shutdown of his Twitter feed, on the grounds thatit had violated the personal rights of the Turkish president.

The court order, dated June 16, said that Twitter had seven days to comply, appeal, or face various consequences under Turkish law, including possible fines. On June 26, Twitters legal team alerted Rubin of the court order, saying the company was still evaluating its options. Aspokesperson for Twitter declined to comment further on the case and said the only reason an account would be suspended is if it violates Twitters rules. As of Wednesday, Rubins Twitter feed was still active.

Erdogan has threatened Twitter before. In 2014, he restricted access in Turkey to the social media site, after users began spreading recordings that purported to reveal admissions of corruption by Erdogan and his inner circle. Erdogan, who was prime minister at the time, suggested a complete ban on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.

We will wipe out all of these, he said at a rally. The international community can say this, can say that. I dont care at all. Everyone will see how powerful the Republic of Turkey is.

Rubin makes no apologies for his very public criticism of Erdogan, his party, his alleged corruption and his crackdown inside Turkey on freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and all manner of political dissent. Since last years attempted military coup against Erdogan, Rubin has stepped up his activity. This year, he began tweeting in Turkish and writing articles using information sourced to members of the Turkish opposition and even Turkish journalists who have been banned inside Turkey or chased out of the country.

Its a test case for Twitter, because there are a lot of journalists in exile who have taken to Twitter, Rubin told me. If Twitter were to cave to this, it would have a chilling effect on diaspora journalism, not just with regard to Turkey.

Just three months before the coup attempt, Rubin wrote an article entitled, Will there be a coup against Turkey? which speculated that discontent among some parts of the military might spill over into an attempt to oust Erdogan. That was a lucky guess, admittedly, he said.

Since the coup, Rubin has doubled down on his criticism of Erdogans clampdown on civil society and his attempts to press the United States for extradition of Fethullah Gulen, a cleric in exile in Pennsylvania whom Erdogan accuses of orchestrating the coup.

Last month, Rubin tweeted in Turkish: To support Erdogan is not to support Islam or Turkish dignity. Supporting Erdogan means supporting corruption and Turkeys collapse. Just last week, Rubin tweeted out a link to a Dropbox file that contains a document spelling out a counter-narrative to Erdogans claims about the coup attempt, written by secular nationalist military officers who dispute the official account.

Rubin has received death threats from pro-Erdogan Twitter users, but he has no intention of stopping, he said.

Hes an Ottoman snowflake; he cant handle criticism whatsoever, he said. Just because he can make people shut up inside Turkey doesnt mean he can stop all discourse outside Turkey.

Viewed in isolation, the Erdogan governments campaign against Rubin seems petty and overbearing. But his story is not an isolated event. The Turkish government is pushing the limits of attacking external critics all over the world.

In March, the Turkish government pressured Germany to prosecute a comic who made a satirical video insulting Erdogan. German Chancellor Angela Merkel received criticism for allowing the investigation to go forward under a little-used law criminalizing insults to foreign leaders. Ultimately, prosecutors declined to press charges.

In April, a Turkish prosecutor opened an investigation into whether 17 foreign nationals were involved in instigating last years coup, including former CIA director John Brennan, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Preet Bharara, the former U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York.

During Erdogans visit to Washington in May, members of his personal security detail were reportedlycaught on videobeating up peaceful protesters in a public park. The D.C. police department later charged several members of Erdogans security team for the alleged assaults.

The Turkish Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.

If Twitter does what Erdogan wants, that would set a dangerous precedent and not just in Turkey. What the new generation of autocrats wants is to be able to suppress criticism not only at home but also around the world.

Gaye Gunes contributed reporting to this article.

See original here:
Turkey wants Twitter's help in suppressing an American critic - Washington Post