Mediaboss Marketing

Share

Share

Share

Email

September 1, 2019 quietly passed for many of New Jerseys citizens. The day-to-day operations and ins and outs of living in the Garden State serves our legislature and executive branch quite well. That is, people are struggling to pay their taxes. The public transit light rail system is a joke. Commuting to a job is a hassle, no matter where one lives. Soccer for Johnny and Jane anyone? By the time Mr. & Mrs. New Jersey settle down at home in their evenings, the last thing that is going to be on their mind is something called Extreme Risk Protective Orders, or ERPOs for short, never mind it being law.

There is a silent and not so silent population of gun owners in New Jersey. The not so silent ones can be found protesting at Trenton, getting involved in recall elections, heading lawsuits against the government, so on and so forth. The silent population of gun owners in New Jersey are silent, and why they are silent should chill every citizen of New Jersey, regardless of political affiliation.

We need to establish some ground rules here, firearms and the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution belongs to every law-abiding legal citizen and legal alien. You dont have to be a Republican to own, use, and or like firearms. And, just because you are a Democrat, that does not mean you have to hate firearms.

The New Jersey legislature, executive branch, and judicial branch would disagree with that. Murphy, his administration, and our current majority Democrat Assembly and Senate made ERPOs what they are, the law.

The fact is there are many closet gun owners in New Jersey because we live in a hoplophobic (irrational fear of guns) society in the Garden State. In short, should someone reveal they are a gun owner in NJ, they face possible issues with losing their job, being ostracized by family and friends, and now, the repercussions could be much worse. We live in a time where swatting is a thingand the ERPOs leave a legal avenue for gun confiscation, which is ripe for abuse.

What is an ERPO? In short, an Extreme Risk Protective Order is a vehicle that an individual can use to have firearms seized from someone else, on a temporary or permanent basis. The idea is the individual would be considered a danger to themselves or others. In New Jersey, a petitioner could be a family member, a household member, or a police officer. The petitioner would apply to a court that someones guns should be seized, by swearing under oath or supplying a written affidavit. For example:

A mother is worried about some things her adult son has been saying. She has reason to believe that he may be suicidal. Knowing that her son has firearms, she applies for a ERPO to have his firearms seized. Should the judge find the mothers story compelling enough, the police show up at her sons home, unannounced, and they take all his firearms.

This is a win, no? It could be. Look at the multiple failures that lead to the Parkland shooting in Florida, where the actor should have been institutionalized based on the signs. Continuing on with our story:

The police do seize the sons firearms, without an issue. Eventually the temporary ERPO becomes a permanent one. The son is deranged and does need help. He is suicidal. The son slits his wrists in his bathtub and dies from his self-inflicted wounds.

What New Jersey does not tell you is that they dont do anything to help any of the people who get their guns seized. They are deemed a threat and or danger, have their guns taken, and are cut free to go forward with whatever mayhem they want to, however else they want, just without a gun. What is the message? We think you have issues, so were gonna take your guns, but not help you through this time. This is no different from the failed restraining order system we have in place. The same system that lead to the murder-suicide of Ruth Reyes Severino and her children here in New Jersey, and the murder of Carol Bowne.

None of this is to marginalize the threat of unstable people and violence. If you feel you are in danger, and or a friend, family member, neighbor etc. is a danger to society or themselves, call 9-1-1.Much quicker than applying to a court for any of these nonsensical pieces of paper. Think about that.

On or around February 8, 2020, the Howell Township Police department got a call describing a minivan of people with one of them waving a gun out the window. The police tracked down the minivan and found all occupants to be legal gun owners. The firearms were being stored beyond what New Jersey Statute deems necessary. The occupants were on their way to the shooting range. This is a prime example of someone trying to get at someone else. Whatever the back-story is here, an individual decided to use the fact that someone else was a gun owner against them. And it worked, for a small time. Luckily, the Howell Police are looking into the matter against the caller for making a false report.

The biggest issue with ERPOs is there is absolutely no due process. ERPOs violate the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, as well as Article I Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. In the case dealing with the minivan full of guys headed to the range, they were given their due process. An investigation happened, and the Police saw no charges should be brought, as they were not breaking the law. Super-size that nowConsider the same complainant going to the police department requesting they issue an ERPO against the minivan guy, stating he was threatening and menacing him. Complainant signs an affidavit full of all the violent behavior minivan guy allegedly exhibited towards him and next thing you know, a no-nock search warrant is being executed. Minivan guy loses his guns until he gets his day in court. In the meantime, minivan guy lost his right to self-protection and any prospects of engaging in any firearms related activities.

Now, as a society, we all need to think of the implications of this. What if there is a bitter divorce going on? Could this be used against one of the people in the divorce? What if two neighbors have beef with each other? Could a neighbor petition the police to execute one of these? Use your imagination, because it has happened in the past and is happening now. The difference is, in the past, full investigations had to take place before any action was taken against someone.

If you called the police and there was a legitimate problem, they took the persons guns, after an investigation. Now, simply signing a paper can cause a whole slew of headaches for someone, just because.

Recently a gentleman had an ERPO levied against him because he left a bad review for his physician on a website. There is a lot to that story that is not getting out in mainstream media, and its not about to be transcribed here because a tort happy doctor is involved (but if you are so inclined, this podcast episode talks about it). Some of the ERPOs executed have turned deadly, as was the case of Gary J. Willis.

There is now a case that has sprung up. On September 5, 2019, days after the new law came into effect; an ERPO was executed on David M. Greco. The complaint came from a police department. The complaint also lacked signatures from any actual complainant. Apparently, the department, not an actual officer (as outlined as an individual that can request an EPRO) was asking for this order. The petition cites an unidentified person at the FBI and it stated:

Information was recently obtained through FBI contacts, that David Greco is involved in online anti-Semitism. Greco was found to be in contact with the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter, before the mass shootings in both Ohio and El Paso. Precautions were taken and contact was made with Greco in coordination with the FBI. Officers reached out to Greco in regards to recent posts in the social media site gab.com. All previous social media accounts were blocked due to the nature of content. While talking to Greco, he appeared extremely intelligent to officer and did not mention acting on any violent behavior towards Jes. His behavior was methodical and focused on facts

In response to the complaint, Grecos attorney Albert J. Rescinio states:

First as to the underlying factsthese facts are alleged. The actual true facts are different than what they put in the application for the TERPO which was required to be signed by an individual but was not signed by anyone in violation of the ERPO act.

There are two things going on here. First and foremost, as a matter of opinion, Grecos anti-Semitism is not something I agree with. This is not something to subscribe to. However, it is his right to be anti-Semitic, no matter how much anyone wants to say its not. Greco is allowed to post these views on social media. Greco is allowed to spew whatever anti-Semitic nonsensical garbage as he wants to. Greco is allowed to be a bigot and expose himself as such in any manner he wishes. As long as someone is not inciting or advocating violence, guess what, this ugly language and these disgusting views are allowed. Had Greco been a real threat, he would be in a custodial situation, not just have had his guns seized. Think about that. The second part here is, watch out, your social media posts can land you in hot water! This case is an infringement on both the 2nd Amendment and has a chilling effect on the 1st Amendment.

Further from Rescinio:

this is an issue of First Amendment rights. They are going after him because they do not like what he has to say. They have acknowledged in writing that he never threatened anyone but yet asked for the TERPO anyway. Also some of the statements that they made that he was in contact with the Pittsburgh shooter is not accurate. They make it sound like he knew this individual when he has made it clear that he did not know the individual nor did he agree with what the individual did.

Gerco has taken to the courts and is suing the State. David M. Greco, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated V. Gubir S. Grewal, New Jersey Attorney General, et.al. was filed as Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-19145-BRM-TJB in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark Vicinage as a class action suit. According to information from the Attorney General, approximately 1 to 2 ERPOs have been executed in New Jersey per day since the law came into effect. This is a class action for sure. According to Grecos attorney, the rate of EPROs being issued is approximately 1.5 per day.

How does this really affect you? Depending on your views of our freedoms in this country and how they are handled or mishandled, this may not affect you at all. When the subject of ERPOs was brought up, gun rights groups approached the lawmakers to make sure additions to the law included harsh penalties for people that make false statements. No such provision were included in the law, which should lead EVERY citizen in New Jersey to question the motives of the lawmakers and administration. Why should there not be specific and harsh penalties to keep people from abusing this?

On January 20, 2020 over 22,000 citizens descended upon the Virginia capitol. Gun owners from all over the state and country were there to protest the prospect of potential gun control laws. Of the 22,000 about 15,000 were openly armed. Not a single incident took place, this was a peaceful protest. Virginias State legislature recently switched to a majority Democrat control. Monies supplied by Bloomberg and the ilk of his red shirt wearing comrades, were pumped into these races in the 2019 election, and its time to pay the piper by enacting gun control.

Have you heard about sanctuary cities? That is, cities or municipalities that have resolved to not follow federal immigration laws. The subject is now coming to a boiling point and federal charges are going to be levied against the leadership of these municipalities. In lock step, the gun rights community, on a grass roots level, has decided to make sanctuaries of their own. Virginia currently has over 100 cities and counties that have passed 2nd Amendment Sanctuary resolutions, communicating to the State, Country, and World at large, that they do not condone or agree with further restrictions to their rights. This revolution is spreading to other states including New Jersey.

What does Virginia have to do with New Jersey? If you were to compare the gun control laws between New Jersey and Virginia, you will see that the two states deal with this topic very differently in the past that is. New Jersey is onerous and very unfriendly towards guns and gun owners. Not only that, the citizens of New Jersey are so stuck in a Stockholm syndrome, that they too have ingested much of the false rhetoric of the antigun machine. Our comrades in those red shirts funded by Bloomberg spew falsehoods upon open ears and cite things like gun safety, but not a single time has anyone heard these groups actually teach gun safety. Virginia, on the other hand, is comprised of many citizens that not only own firearms, but carry them (you cant do that in New Jersey). Across the entire state, firearms and freedom are a part of normal life. With all the sanctuary movements and protests, Virginias legislature has moved to still pass gun control laws, and of those laws, ERPOs are on the slate.

Our rights are being stripped from us by the political machine. It does not matter if the people have spoken. Interestingly enough, it does not matter to the leadership of Virginia that the heavily armed people have spoken and are speaking. We are slowly turning into subjects and surrendering our identities of being citizens.

If youre a gun owner, the threats are very real to you and your family. Not only are attacks coming down from our lawmakers, now you have to worry about people possibly filing false ERPOs. If youre not a gun owner, or for that matter, youre straight up anti-gun, you aught to pay attention to what is happening around you. While it may seem harmless for the rights of those people to be stripped, remember and realize that youre next.

If the war against legal gun owners ends in defeat of freedom, what liberties do you think are going to be attacked next? What happens when your political agenda does not align with the state or your opponents? With states considering outlawing words that maybe menacing to others, like is the case of Massachusetts trying to make it a crime to use the B word, with State Rep. Daniel Hunts (DBoston) H. 3719. A good question to Representative Hunt is What shall we do? Use the C word instead?

A stunning display of ignorance I think we all need to pay attention to is a quote In the New York State Rifle & Pistol Club V. City of New York Case no. 18-280 oral arguments in the Supreme Court. Justice Sotomayor, in December of 2019, makes a disturbingly stupid statement about the First Amendment when being compared to the Second Amendment:

but, if youre looking at a First Amendment right to speak, its never absolute. There are some words that are not protected. Were going to have a different fight about that at some point.

Sorry Justice Sotomayor, all words are protected. As much as you may wish to impose restrictions on ones expression and have that fight words are constitutionally protected. No matter how ugly or disgusting a person and or their opinion is, they are protected under the First Amendment. As long as there is no harassment or threats of harm, people can be as disgusting as they wish. Taking into consideration that, this affects everyone! Note that the movements to restrict expression are already in play.

Grecos attorney Albert J. Rescinio puts it best when asked for comment:

This is not just about guns and Second Amendment rights. This is about multiple fundamental constitutional rights. If people dont band together to stand up for their fundamental constitutional rights theyre going to find that they lose them. Right now it is say something we dont like and will take your guns without notice. The next thing will be say something we dont like and will throw you in prison without notice.

If anyone should have an ERPO imposed on them, it should be the activist Judges, legislators, and executives. The oath breakers should be stripped of their power to inflict harm on the citizenry in the way they restrict our rights.

Sound the alarm our rights are under attack! Who can we call? Where is our affidavit and where do we sign?

View post:
Theyre a Danger, So Have Their Guns Taken Away (All of them?) - Shore News Magazine

Photo: Eduardo Munoz Alvarez (Getty Images)

The controversial stop-and-frisk policy of the New York Police Department has spent a great deal time in the news lately as former NYC Mayor Michael Bloombergwho is currently running for presidenthas been repeatedly called to task for the policy he supported up until recently.

Bloomberg did an about-face on the policy back in November, as the New York Times then noted:

Ahead of a potential Democratic presidential run, former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York on Sunday reversed his longstanding support of the aggressive stop-and-frisk policing strategy that he pursued for a decade and that led to the disproportionate stopping of black and Latino people across the city.

I was wrong, Mr. Bloomberg declared. And I am sorry.

The speech, Mr. Bloombergs first since he re-emerged as a possible presidential candidate, was a remarkable concession by a 77-year-old billionaire not known for self-doubt: that a pillar of his 12-year mayoralty was a mistake that he now regrets. It was also, in some ways, a last word on an era of aggressive policing in New York City that began a generation ago under former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani though the fallout on neighborhoods is still felt to this day.

The emphasis in the last part of that quote is my own. Regardless of how Bloomberg is now trying to clean up his image and divorce himself from stop-and-frisk, the controversial policy is still in place within the NYPD, and even worse, the number of stop-and-frisks jumped up by 22 percent in 2019, according to a report released by the department Friday.

There were 13,459 stop-and-frisks reported in 2019, and that is 2,451 more than the 11,008 reported in 2018or a jump of 22 percent.

It is important to note that these are the number of incidents reported and may not be an actual representation of how many times stop-and-frisk has actually happened, because as a means of trying to downplay the rise in numbers, the New York Daily News reports the NYPD said the 2019 increase is unlikely to be a true increase in stops, but rather more accurate and complete reportinginferring that the lower stop numbers in previous years may be inaccurate.

In a statement, the NYPD said: The Department has enhanced its auditing and compliance metrics as well as developed training to address stops and proper reporting. The result is a better understanding of a very complex area of law, correction of common misunderstandings and better reporting.

Isnt that reassuring?

OK, maybe not.

Chris Dunn, legal director for the NYCLU, told the Daily News that underreporting of the number of stop-and-frisks by the NYPD has been an ongoing fear.

While increased stops would be worrisome, our bigger concern is that large numbers of stops simply are not being reported by officers, Dunn told the outlet. In truth, tens of thousands more New Yorkers may be the victims of stop-and-frisk than these figures suggest.

Still, the numbers are much lower than the 694,482 stop-and-frisks that were conducted in 2011, when use of the practice was at its peak, and still lower than the 191,851 stops that happened in 2013the same year federal Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that stop-and-frisk was unconstitutional, violated the Fourth Amendment rights of New Yorkers, and was racially discriminatorya violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourth Amendment.

That the practice still continues is disheartening. That it is negatively impacting black and brown populations is a fact.

That it needs to stop is gospel.

Original post:
NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Numbers Up 22 Percent in 2019 - The Root

Snap is working on two significant tests that could reshape its flagship app in a critical year. Tipsters have provided me with screenshots of two ongoing tests that have rolled out to a small percentage of Snapchats user base. One is a redesign of the app for Android and iOS that provides a new home for the Snap Map and the companys original video programming. The other is a test of breaking news headlines inside the app that injects timely news briefs into Snapchat to complement the existing magazine-style stories on the Discover page.

Lets look at them in turn.

The redesign takes an app that has long been limited to three screens and splits them into five. Snapchat currently opens to the camera, with a space for chats to the left and the Discover page which features a collection of ephemeral stories from friends, creators, third-party publishers, and Snap itself to the right. In the new design, the Snap Map which displays your friends physical locations on an animated map, and was previously accessed by pulling down from the camera screen is now on the left of your chats. Discover has been renamed Community. And Snaps slate of original series, which includes serialized dramas and reality-style programs, can be found to the right of Community in a new tab that has inherited the Discover name.

Perhaps most dramatically for Snap, which once seemed to pride itself in its obscure design choices, Snapchat is getting a navigation bar. Youll be able to see where you are within the app at a glance, and move directly from screen to screen with a single tap instead of swiping. Its both a totally obvious thing to do and, for Snap, a radical departure.

Were exploring ways to streamline navigation across Snapchat, soliciting feedback from our community to inform future versions of our app, a Snap spokeswoman told me. This tests UI offers more space to innovate and increases the opportunity to engage with and discover even more of what Snapchat has to offer.

The test of this new look comes three years after Snaps last redesign, which was widely panned and spurred 2 percent of active users to stop using Snapchat entirely. Snap gradually walked back some of the most hated changes, and that combined with new attention to its long-neglected Android app and marketing itself internationally led the company to have something of a comeback last year. Snapchat has added uses for the past four straight quarters, and is now used by 218 million people a day.

Still, the company is not profitable. And while it remains a hit with high school and college-age users, adults who try the app still complain loudly that they find Snapchat difficult to use. I find these complaints somewhat overstated I think most people avoid learning how to use any technology they dont have to, and that if boomers friends were all using Snapchat they would manage to figure it out within a couple of days. But still, theres no denying that Snapchat has a learning curve higher than, say, Facebook Messenger.

And for everything that did to give Snapchat a sense of cool in its early days, theres a good argument to be made that its more arcane user decisions are holding it back. Id put the location of the Snap Map high on that list its a clever feature that Facebook has found itself totally unable to copy due to privacy concerns, and today its basically invisible inside Snapchat. Giving the map an easy-to-find screen within the app feels like a no-brainer.

Similarly, Snap has invested heavily in premium programming for its Snap Originals. (Although not quite as heavily as, say, Quibi.) Currently, what Snap calls Shows are displayed in a row next to other publisher content on the Discover page, where they are easily ignored. Giving them a place of prominence within the app feels like a similarly obvious step.

Still, Snap learned its lesson from the great redesign debacle of 2017, which it rolled out globally with very little testing. Today Snap, like every other social company, is taking a deliberate approach to major changes. I suspect this one will be popular and ultimately implemented, though. Where the bad redesign scrambled a bunch of popular elements and moved them into unfamiliar places, the five-screen design feels additive to the experience. You navigate the app less, and use it more. Thats a win for the company.

The second test, while less dramatic, is more relevant to our everyday interests here at The Interface. There are two basic ways to put news on your social platform. The first is to let everyone fight it out in a feed, and do some light curating around the big moments. Think the Twitter timeline plus Moments, or Facebooks News Feed plus a news tab. The upside to this approach is that you make room for lots of voices, including some who have been historically marginalized. The downside is that lots of voices have historically been marginalized for a reason theyre overtly racist, for example, or they tell you that drinking bleach will cure your cancer.

The second approach, and the one favored by Snap, has been to allow only whitelisted publishers onto the platform. In theory, this should elevate high-quality and mainstream news publishers while limiting the amount of misinformation on the platform. It hasnt always been perfect Snapchats Discover page has long been criticized for clickbait and sexually provocative stories but the company has seen far fewer scandals around hosting dangerous and extremist content than its peers.

The news briefs I saw featured timely headlines from publishers include NowThis, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. Called Happening Now, the section curates top headlines about developments in the United States and the world. Each one-sentence headline can be tapped to bring up a full screen news brief containing a photo and a short article. (The one I saw, about the New Hampshire primary, was about 75 words.)

Snap confirmed the test.

We are in the very early stages of exploring how to evolve news offerings on Snapchat, the company said. We are working with a handful of partners and testing with a small percentage of Snapchatters in the U.S. We dont have additional details to share at this time.

A collection of news briefs may look like a small thing, and perhaps it is. But surfacing high-quality mainstream news outlets like the Post and the Journal to a young audience strikes me as a good thing, particularly in an election year.

Snap emphasized to me that both of these tests are in their early stages and might change substantially before they are released to a global audience, if they are released globally at all. But it seems clear to me that at least in the case of the redesign, larger forces will continue pulling them toward the more accessible version of the app I saw in screenshots.

Having a reputation for being inaccessible benefited Snapchat until it didnt. As the app grows up, its working to become a more welcoming place. Which means being a little bit more like everyone else.

Correction, 10:11 p.m.: This article originally said Snapchat is used by 218 million people a month. It is actually used by 218 million people a day.

In Tuesdays edition we referred to Maui in Moana as a god. A sharp-eyed reader pointed out that Maui is, in fact, a demi-god. The Interface regrets the error.

Today in news that could affect public perception of the big tech platforms.

Trending up: Twitter partnered with the US Census Bureau to launch a new tool aimed at combating misinformation about the Census. When someone searches for certain keywords associated with the Census, a prompt will direct them to an official government website.

Trending up: Instagram rolled out an update to combat misinformation about the coronavirus. Now, when users click on the #coronavirus hashtag, theyll see a notice encouraging them to visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website for credible information.

Trending down: Coronavirus rumors are still going viral on YouTube despite the companys efforts to stop them from spreading. The video platform is doing better than many other social networking sites, but misinformation abounds.

Mike Bloomberg has outspent Trump on Facebook ads since joining the presidential race. Over the past two weeks, the former mayor of New York has spent an average of $1 million a day on Facebook ads. Heres David Ingram at NBC:

On a single day, Jan. 30, Bloomberg bought $1.7 million worth of Facebook ads, signaling just how much hes willing to put his personal wealth behind his long shot bid.

His campaign budget is virtually limitless, so he has the luxury of being able to engage on all of the campaign battlefronts, said Fernand Amandi, a Democratic political consultant in Miami who is not working for a presidential candidate this year.

Bloomberg, with an estimated net worth of around $61 billion, said after the muddled results from the Iowa caucuses that he would ramp up his budget for ads and staff. Hes focused on the dozen-plus states that will cast votes on Super Tuesday, March 3, which is reflected in his Facebook spending.

The UK government is planning to give platforms like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook a mandate to protect their UK users from illegal content related to child exploitation and terrorism, as well as harmful content more generally. The regulations will apply to any websites that allow user-generated content. What will this mean in practice? Seems like it could be big. (Jon Porter / The Verge)

Facebook suspended a network of accounts used by Russian military intelligence to plant misinformation online. The network targeted Ukraine and other countries in Eastern Europe. (Jack Stubbs / Reuters)

Facebook also suspended two more networks of accounts that were each engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior on behalf of a government. The first operation originated in Iran and focused mainly on a US audience. The second originated in Myanmar and Vietnam and targeted audiences in Myanmar. (Facebook)

Facebook has been trying to ban gun sales on the platform for four years. But gun sellers are finding workarounds, gaming the Marketplace by using coded language. (Matt Drange / Protocol)

Facebook delayed the rollout of its dating feature in Europe after the Irish Data Protection Commission raised issues with the features compliance with European Union data protection rules. The feature was supposed to debut before Valentines Day. (Sad trombone.) (Parmy Olson / The Wall Street Journal)

A man experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles is suing the city over a Facebook page used by police. The lawsuit asserts that Facebook groups where residents were complaining about homeless encampments led to the man being harassed by police. (Emily Alpert Reyes / Los Angeles Times)

The Department of Homeland Security is buying up cell phone location data for immigration and border enforcement purposes. While this seems like it could infringe on peoples Fourth Amendment rights, its unclear whether using location data to target people constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure. (Gilad Edelman / Wired)

WeChat users in the US and Canada are having their messages about the coronavirus blocked to prevent contacts in China from seeing them. Its yet another example of China trying to censor unflattering information, even on international soil. (David Gilbert / Vice)

Essential Products, a consumer electronics start-up founded by the former Google executive Andy Rubin, is shutting down. The company was dogged by news about Rubins departure from Google, which involved a $90 million exit package and credible sexual misconduct allegations from an employee. (Rubin denied the allegations.) Daisuke Wakabayashi and Erin Griffith at The New York Times have the story:

In 2018, Essential received buyout interest from larger companies like Amazon, Walmart and several telecom carriers, according to a person familiar with the situation who was not authorized to speak on behalf of the company. Walmart and Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Any potential buyout would have valued the company below its $1 billion valuation, the person said.

But interest evaporated, in part because of the risk associated with Mr. Rubins workplace scandals. In 2017, The Information, a technology news site, reported that he had departed Google after an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate, prompting him to take a leave of absence from Essential to deal with personal matters.

Tim Sweeney, co-founder of Epic Games, criticized Facebook and Google onstage at the DICE Summit in Las Vegas. They provide free services then make you pay for their service in loss of privacy and loss of freedom, he said.

Carlos Maza, a journalist who calls YouTube deeply unethical and reckless, left Vox to work full-time as a YouTube creator. The move shocked fans whod come to know Maza as a critic of the video-sharing platform, after it failed to stop a right-wing pile-on against him last year. Fun little profile. (Kevin Roose / The New York Times)

YouTube is testing out a new clap feature to let fans donate to creators. The emphasis on donations suggests YouTube is closely watching whats working for creators on Twitch. Look what happens when platforms have something meaningful to compete against! (Julia Alexander / The Verge)

WhatsApp hit two billion users, up from 1.5 billion two years ago. The Facebook-owned messaging app is now the most popular chat platform. Seems like it will be a strong and growing business when the FTC forces Facebook to spin it into a separate company! (Manish Singh / TechCrunch)

In the early days of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg kept his plans for world domination in handwritten journals. He destroyed them. But a few revealing pages survived in this excerpt from a new book that I just got my hands on yesterday. (Steven Levy / Wired)

Reuters launched a new business unit to fact check misinformation on Facebook. The team will review videos and photos as well as news headlines and other content in English and Spanish submitted by Facebook or flagged by the wider Reuters editorial team. (Josh Constine / TechCrunch)

Digital blackface the appropriation of words, dances, GIFs, and memes originating within communities of color has found its way to TikTok. Questionable hashtags like #Ghetto, #InTheGhetto, and#NWordPass have taken off, as have challenges like #CripWalk. We should be talking a lot more about digital blackface, which you see everywhere once you start looking for it. (Tatiana Walk-Morris / OneZero)

Gossip influencers are creating an entire economy around chronicling the lives and romantic adventures of social media stars. In the process, theyre blurring the line between reporting and influencing. Were here for it! (Rebecca Jennings / Vox)

Tech billionaires give away billions but its just a small fraction of their staggering wealth. When you look at how much theyre giving away verses how much is in their bank accounts, the situation appears less admirable. (Theodore Schleifer / Recode)

This is what happens when you finally talk to the person youve been swiping left on, on Tinder (and why they keep showing up). Kaitlyn Tiffany has an absolutely perfect piece in The Atlantic on a phenomenon familiar to any longtime Tinder user (ahem): the person who keeps swiping right on you and showing up in your feed no matter how many times you say no to them:

I had heard from women on Twitter, and from one of my offline friends, that Alex was rude in their DMs after they matched on Tinder. When I asked him about this, he said, Im very narcissistic. I own that.

Hammerli works in digital marketing, though he would not say with what company. He uses Tinder exclusively for casual sex, a fact that he volunteered, along with an explanation of his views on long-term relationships: Idiotic in a culture where we move on from shit so easily and upgrade iPhones every year. When I asked whether hes ever been in love, he responded: lmao no. Monogamy, he said, is a fly-over state thing.

Happy Valentines Day.

Send us tips, comments, questions, and additional Snapchat tests: casey@theverge.com and zoe@theverge.com.

Read this article:
Snapchat is testing a big new redesign - The Verge

PEORIA (WEEK) --The town of Normal and several Normal Police Department officers, including its chief, are being sued in relation to an officer being accused of stealing $12,000 when responding to a residence for a drug overdose.

The lawsuit was filed Monday in the U.S. Central District court in Peoria by the attorneys representing Lindsey Holzhauer, alleging officer Brian Williams did not have a valid search warrant or consent to search the residence, and "violated her Fourth Amendment right... to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures."

The lawsuit stems from the November 25 incident, when Williams was tasked with checking the well-being of a person who had potentially overdosed. The victim died, but a relative later reported to the NPD that $12,000 was missing from the residence.

Williams allegedly called Holzhauer anonymously to tell her to stop contacting police after learning she had contacted the NPD to report the missing $12,000.

The lawsuit also states NPD officers "conspired and acted together to cover up their misconduct."

The lawsuit alleges a detective with the NPD contacted Holzhauer and told her "it would be in her best interest to keep the complaint within the Normal Police Department and to not involve the ISP."

The case was turned over to the Illinois State Police, which conducted the sting, resulting in Williams arrest.

Chief Rick Bleichner, Tim Edmiaston and Jim Ferguson of the NPD are listed as defendants in the lawsuit.

Holzhauer is also suing for emotional distress in the incident.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

Williams pleaded not guilty to all the charges in December.

He is currently on administrative leave and facing charges of official misconduct and theft over $10,000 in McLean County Court after he was arrested in an Illinois State Police sting operation. His bond was set at $30,000 but a judge released Williams on personal recognizance.

A call to the Normal Police Department was not immediately returned Monday morning.

Continued here:
Town of Normal, police officers being sued in connection to officer allegedly stealing $12K - WEEK - week.com

Frank Thorp V and Kyle Stewart

6d ago / 4:32 AM UTC

If that short break was used to try to reach a deal to move the proceedings along, it appears it didn't work.

McConnell resumed the trial, and then Schumer immediately introduced his fifth amendment, which seeks to subpoena certain Defense Departmentdocuments and records.

They will go into up to two hours of debate on the amendment. Several senators looked tired an hour ago, as Jeffries made the case for why Mulvaney should be called as a witness.

As Jeffries spoke, some senators appeared to be eating snacks. A few chatted quietly. Most watched the screens as the videos were played, although a few looked around the room and up at the galleries.

As the clock approached 9 p.m., a few senators rested their heads against their hands as they sat listening, and Senate pages walked through the room refilling water glasses.

Frank Thorp V and Liz Johnstone

6d ago / 4:38 AM UTC

The fourth Schumer amendment, to call Mulvaney as a witness, was defeated along party lines, 53-47 just like the previous three.

McConnell, after remarking that he had observed a "certain similarity of all of these amendments," asked Schumer whether he would be willing to stack the votes on the remaining Democratic amendments into one to speed the evening along. Schumer did not agree and told him he would be willing to hold amendment votes Wednesday if senators wanted to go home now.

"The bottom line is verysimple," Schumer said. "As has been clear toevery senator in the country: Webelieve witnesses anddocuments are extremelyimportant and a compelling casehas been made for them.We will have votes on all ofthose.We will also the leader, without consulting us made changes, a number of significant changes thatsignificantly deviated from the1999 Clinton resolution.We want to change those.So there will be a good numberof votes."

McConnell put the trial into a quorum call, or a break but moments later, the trial resumed with the reading of Schumer amendment No. 5 into the record.

Rebecca Shabad

6d ago / 2:25 AM UTC

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., one of the seven House managers and the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, argued in favor of the Democratic amendment that calls for a subpoena of acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

Mulvaney, who also leads the Office of Management and Budget, played a key role in the president's efforts to freeze nearly $400 million in U.S. security assistance to Ukraine and withhold a White House meeting.

"Based on the extensive evidence that the House did obtain, it is clear that Mulvaney was crucial in planning the scheme, executing its implementation and carrying out the cover-up," said Jeffries.

"Emails and witness testimony show that Mr. Mulvaney was 'in the loop' on the president's decision to explicitly condition a White House meeting on Ukraine's announcement of investigations beneficial to the president's re-election prospects," he added. "He was closely involved in implementing the president's hold on a security assistance, and subsequently admitted that the funds were being withheld to put pressure on Ukraine."

Mulvaney is one of four witnesses that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., would like the Senate to subpoena. The House issued a subpoena compelling Mulvaney's testimony during the impeachment inquiry last year but he defied it at the direction of the White House.

Jonathan Allen

6d ago / 2:10 AM UTC

President Donald Trump's defense failed him at the opening of hisSenate impeachment trial Tuesday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had one job. He just had to collect 51 votes forthe trial rules he had written, in close consultation with White House officials, to deliver Trump an acquittal quickly, quietly and with as few surprises as possible.

He couldn't do it.

The other half of Trump's squad,his legal team, chose not to defend his actions with a cogent explanation for them. Rather than rebutting hours of evidence presented by House Democratic impeachment managers, White House lawyers opted to repeat Trump's attacks on the process and the disjointed set of rejoinders he's delivered to Democrats in public.

Read more of the analysis here.

Hallie Jackson and Hans Nichols

6d ago / 2:22 AM UTC

SO WHAT DID PRESIDENT TRUMP THINK OF TODAY? He was absolutely engaged in the impeachment proceedings today, getting "minute-by-minute" updates on the process, according to Rep. Mark Meadows, one of the presidents closest allies and an impeachment team member. Legislative Affairs head Eric Ueland backed that up, telling reporters that the president is "very impressed" with whats been happening on the Hill. But take all that with a grain of salt: the president likes to see impressive TV performances, and we have reason to believe that he may have more mixed feelings than what aides are letting on. And the president is also someone who likes to gauge the reviews so his opinion may end up shaped by the tone from his preferred cable news shows. (An early guide: Sean Hannity, in his opener, is adopting a bored affect and introducing the networks Congressional correspondent as someone whos been "suffering through a lot of this tediousness.")

WILL THE PRESIDENTS DEFENSE TEAM FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS BY 9AM WEDNESDAY?Its possible, but the chances seem less-than-likely. Ueland didnt shut the door on it tonight, but Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas sounded more definitive, telling reporters he believes a motion to dismiss is unlikely: its "not nearly as good an outcome for the president and for the country as will be a final judgment on the merits." Again, its kind of a moot point regardless since Senate Republicans dont think there are the votes to support such a motion.

IS THE DEFENSE GOING TO PUSH BACK ON THE APPARENT SATURDAY START FOR THEIR OPENING? Seems doubtful. Two sources familiar with the thinking suggest its not likely the White House team will put up much of a fight on the expected Saturday start to opening arguments (thats if House managers take up their allotted three days.) Thats subject to change, as always. But weekend arguments would, in theory, let the presidents defenders get in their first word before the Sunday political talk shows, and then have a weekday audience for the rest of their arguments Monday and, if needed, Tuesday.

Haley Talbot

6d ago / 1:32 AM UTC

As Rep. Adam Schiff spoke on the floor, Sen. Chuck Schumer smiled and laughed while talking to the aides seated next to him a strikingly different demeanor from Majority Leader Mitch McConnells stoic posture across the aisle.

In a brief moment of bipartisanship, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., walked over to the Republican side behind the last row of senators. As he was passing by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., he crouched down and the two chatted and laughed briefly. A packet of gum was being passed around that back row between Sasse, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and others.

While the table on the prosecution side with the managers was full of open binders, notebooks and laptops the Trump defense team's table looked neat. Their binders were not open while Schiff and Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., spoke, and their laptops also remained closed.

During the arguments, Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren took notes on occasion, andRepublican Sens. Amy Murkowski and Susan Collins watched Schiff intently for the duration of his remarks. In the final few minutes of Schiff's comments, Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, tapped on his watch to indicate the California Democrat was nearing the end of his time. Schiff seemed to look in his direction but did not pause or stop.

When Crow was speaking, the other House managers watched him intently, turning in their chairs to face him. Rep Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., was the one exception; he took notes throughout and referred back to binders and notes.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., read during most of the proceedings, while Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., yawned several times. Cruz slumped back in his chair, scowling, while Schiff and Crow spoke. Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., had a similar posture and didnt take notes or read.

Frank Thorp V

6d ago / 12:42 AM UTC

McConnell moved to table the third Democratic amendment, which would have subpoenaed OMB documents related to the charges against the president and regarding the suspension of assistance to Ukraine.

Schumer introduced a fourth amendment to subpoena acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

Senators will now take a 30-minute recess to eat dinner. It'll be pizza for both sides, Republicans will eat Ledo's in the Mansfield room, where they usually hold their policy luncheons, and Democrats will eat Ledo's in the cloakroom.

During dinner, they will discuss what happens next. When they return from this recess they will debate, for up to two hours, the Mulvaney amendment. Then there will be another vote to kill the amendment.

On Tuesdaysbonus episode of Article II, host Steve Kornacki explains the last-minute changes that Mitch McConnell made to the impeachment trial rules in response to pressure from moderate Republican senators.

Download the podcast.

Julie Tsirkin

6d ago / 12:26 AM UTC

Some senators appear to be losing steam as the trial headed into the night.

There were many yawns, including from Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala. Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, was most definitely sound asleep for the majority of Rep. Val Demings' presentation. When Jay Sekulow took the stand, speaking audibly louder, Risch was jolted awake.

GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mike Lee of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa took copious notes throughout Demings presentation. Grassley and Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., were noting each piece of evidence presented on the screens. New Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., also took notes throughout.

When Lev Parnas' interview with Rachel Maddow was shown, Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., began laughing and writing something down. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., was smiling from ear to ear, sitting up in his chair and looking at Republicans. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., remained still and serious throughout. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., passed a note to Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., and the two laughed and nodded.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., passed breath mints from his desk to senators sitting nearby, including Republican Sens. Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah. Sen. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., sat with a blanket over her lap. Schumer appeared to be quite thirsty, with pages refilling his water glass every 10 minutes. Grassley had a sheet of paper on his desk with photo identifiers.

Continued here:
Trump impeachment: Live coverage of the trial - NBCNews.com