Corporate Social Responsibility

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis’s Efforts to Make Education in Florida Less ‘Woke’

      by

      More from our inbox:‘The Carnage Must Be Stopped’Trump, Still FormidableThe Danger of Anti-Boycott BillsLiving Without Plastic Marta Lavandier/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Under Pressure, Board Revises A.P. African American Course” (front page, Feb. 2):It is, of course, sadly ironic that your article about the stripped-down African American course curriculum ran online on the first day of Black History Month.Either Gov. Ron DeSantis genuinely believes that critical thinking, a foundational understanding of how the United States came to be, and the reading of books that deepen kids’ sympathy for other kids will actually mess kids up, or he’s just pandering to the masses.Whether the governor likes it or not, our country’s history, like that of all empires, isn’t wholly pretty. Is it upsetting to learn that the land you live on was taken brutally from its original occupants and that the house you live in was bought with a loan that was denied to another person because of the color of his skin? I would hope so.But the purpose of teaching kids their country’s history isn’t to make them feel bad about themselves personally. If a kid, any kid, comes away from a classroom feeling lousy about themselves, that’s just poor teaching. They should, though, understand that not everyone has had those advantages, be grateful for their good fortune and work to make sure everyone else’s path is equally opportune.Teachers have a tough enough time helping children become empathetic and engaged citizens with the skills and knowledge necessary to thrive in the global community without becoming shuttlecocks in a soulless game of political and cultural badminton.Kevin BarrBethesda, Md.The writer was an English teacher and administrator for over 40 years at Georgetown Day School in Washington.To the Editor:I’m a current high school junior who has taken a number of Advanced Placement courses. The College Board is absolutely spineless for bending to demands from the likes of Gov. Ron DeSantis. As much as he — or anyone else for that matter — might not like the Black Lives Matter movement, there is no way to neglect it in a course that studies the contemporary history and culture of African American people.And, of course, being presented with information doesn’t mean that it will be “indoctrination.”The blatant erasure of Black, queer and feminist scholars from the course is egregious. Nobody deserves to have their experience or perspective left out.At the center of this debate is the student’s right to learn, and I believe that the student’s right to learn trumps all. History isn’t meant to be watered down.Charles YaleOmahaTo the Editor:Gov. Ron DeSantis revealed one of the reasons for his rejection of the A.P. Black history course. “This course on Black history,” he said during a press conference. “What’s one of the lessons about? Queer theory. Now, who would say that an important part of Black history is queer theory?”Who would say that? How about the lesbian poet Audre Lorde? The author James Baldwin? The trans activist Marsha P. Johnson? Barbara Jordan, Bayard Rustin, Alvin Ailey and countless others?These layers of disenfranchisement have a detrimental effect on health equity, justice and more.Donna L. TapelliniLambertville, N.J.‘The Carnage Must Be Stopped’ Pool photo by Andrew NellesTo the Editor:As a Black man and a retired police officer, I have been crying quite a bit lately. Crying from a deep sense of outrage, grief, shame and fear.Outrage, because yet another unarmed Black man has been brutally killed by police officers. In communities of color throughout the United States, police use of deadly force and acts of misconduct and abuse have seemingly grown to epidemic proportions. People of color may now feel victimized by the very people who are supposed to protect them, worrying that they will become one of the ever-growing statistics.Grief, because of the pain that I know Tyre Nichols’s family and friends must now be going through.Shame, because the officers who killed Tyre looked exactly like me. They swore the same oaths that I did to protect and serve the community. They debased and dishonored the badge that they carried.But most of all, fear, because I worry that my grandsons, great-grandsons and sons-in-law may one day become victims of this insanity. I can only pray that they will remember the things I have taught them about how to survive a police encounter, and that they are able to live to fight another day.I know in my heart that Tyre Nichols will not be the last death of a Black man at the hands of police this year.There must be change. There must be accountability. The carnage must be stopped.Charles P. WilsonBeltsville, Md.The writer is webmaster and immediate past chairman of the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers.Trump, Still Formidable Eva Marie Uzcategui/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Trump in ’24? G.O.P. Leaders Aren’t So Sure” (front page, Jan. 27):Lately there have been many reports of Donald Trump’s imminent political demise, but despite the predictions he remains a dangerous opponent and a formidable campaigner.His power has always come not from politicians but from ordinary people who see him as a bigger, more successful version of themselves. However inarticulate he sounds to the rest of us, the message his base hears is always clear.Many of his handpicked candidates lost in 2022 because of their own failings; his appeal to the MAGA base appears undimmed.He is a fighter, with the constitution and mentality of an alligator, striking back ferociously when attacked. He has no regard for the truth, but he has realized that millions of voters don’t either.Certainly none of the sorry bunch of Republicans mentioned in your article have anything like his power on the campaign trail.Tim ShawCambridge, Mass.The Danger of Anti-Boycott Bills Robert NeubeckerTo the Editor:Re “Politicians Push Back on Having E.S.G. Funds,” by Ron Lieber (“Your Money,” Jan. 30):The fight between red states and the asset manager BlackRock is a symptom of a much larger danger facing American democracy today: the attempt by state legislators to take away the right to boycott as a tool for social and political change.The first anti-boycott bill introduced in 2015 to punish Americans boycotting Israel has since been passed in 28 other states. Starting in 2021, Republicans used it as a template to punish companies engaged in environmental, social and governance investing in several states, leading to the current face-off with BlackRock in Texas.Bills introduced earlier this year in South Carolina, Iowa and Missouri follow the same template as the original anti-boycott law punishing boycotts of Israel, but expand the target to punish state contractors that may be engaged in boycotts of companies that do not offer reproductive health care or gender-affirming care and companies that do not meet workplace diversity criteria.From civil rights leaders to farm workers and anti-apartheid activists, Americans have relied on boycotts throughout the country’s history. We are currently at a crossroads where such a crucial tool may no longer be available for future generations.Julia BachaNew YorkThe writer is a filmmaker and director of “Boycott.”Living Without PlasticMust avoid: All of these items, which are part of the reporter’s everyday life, contain plastic.Photographs by Jonah Rosenberg for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Plastic Surgery: No Phone, No Credit Cards, No Bed” (Sunday Styles, Jan. 15):I enjoyed reading your report about living without plastic for 24 hours after taking out my home-delivered Times from its plastic wrapper.David ElsilaGrosse Pointe Park, Mich. More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      What Exxon Knew, but Concealed, About Climate Change

      by

      More from our inbox:The U.S. Embassy in IsraelPaying Off Our DebtsWhy Use Real Guns on Movie Sets?Election Deniers Wasting Taxpayer FundsDarren Woods, ExxonMobil’s C.E.O., appeared before the House Oversight Committee via video link in 2021.Jacquelyn Martin/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Exxon Scientists Saw Global Warming, as Oil Giant Cast Doubt, Study Says” (Business, Jan. 13):Exxon knew that its fuels would contribute to overheating the planet, yet it chose to deceive the public. It’s the very definition of fraud. Fossil fuel interests and their political allies are carrying out a fraud on humanity. They enjoy massive profits while their products are causing disease, death and disruption around the world.More than eight million people die annually from fossil fuel pollution. Societies are burdened by billions of dollars in damages from climate-fueled heat waves, wildfires, droughts, floods and sea rise.How can we hold them accountable? Many cities and states have filed lawsuits against fossil fuel companies seeking damages.We citizens can demand congressional action to end fossil fuel subsidies, enact carbon pricing to make the polluters pay, subsidize clean energy, speed electrification, reform the permitting process for renewable energy, and sequester carbon through healthier forests and better agricultural practices.Robert TaylorSanta Barbara, Calif.To the Editor:The revelation that Exxon scientists in the 1970s correctly projected the long-term climate impacts of burning fossil fuels, while publicly claiming ignorance, is both unsurprising and infuriating. Rising profits beat rising sea levels every time.Communities on the front lines of the climate crisis have long felt the environmental, economic and health consequences of burning oil, gas and coal. It stands to reason that scientists employed by big polluters would reach the same conclusions.When lead paint and tobacco companies were found to have known the negative health effects of their products, but spent decades concealing them, a public reckoning — with significant monetary damages — followed. It is long past time for the fossil fuel industry to face the same kind of accountability.Zellnor Y. MyrieBrooklynThe writer is a New York State senator for the 20th District.To the Editor:It is indeed unfortunate that Exxon was not forthcoming about its studies and its scientifically accurate projections of global warming. We can use this information to vilify Exxon Mobil, and certainly it deserves criticism, or we can use the information to acknowledge that a great deal of untapped expertise resides in the private energy industry that can be harnessed to address climate change.It would be highly productive if the federal government worked with energy corporations, where so much energy expertise resides, helping them make the socially beneficial decisions that are required to move toward nonpolluting and climate-friendly sources of energy.The government could help fund research and provide economic assistance to construct new infrastructure, which would ease the monetary challenges in transitions.Make the oil and energy industry part of the solution, as opposed to the problem.Ken LefkowitzMedford, N.J.The writer is a former employee of PECO Energy, an electric and gas utility.To the Editor:Thank you for this article, but this is not news. We have known for some time that the oil companies have been deliberately misrepresenting the facts regarding global warming, when they knew better.The Union of Concerned Scientists published “The Climate Deception Dossiers” in 2015. This document is a compilation of evidence that the oil companies knew what greenhouse gases would do to the Earth.In addition, the magazine Scientific American published an article in 2015 that stated that Exxon knew about global warming in 1977.Joseph MilsteinBrookline, Mass.The U.S. Embassy in IsraelThe lot in Jerusalem that is a candidate for a new U.S. embassy.Ofir Berman for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Don’t Build the Jerusalem Embassy Here,” by Rashid Khalidi (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 17):Dr. Khalidi’s view of international law, history and politics demands a response.When the British withdrew from Palestine in 1948, the Jewish organizations had embraced the 1947 U.N. General Assembly resolution recommending partition into predominantly Jewish and Arab states. Arabs rejected the recommendation and attacked. If there was a “nakba” (catastrophe), it was of their making.Second, Israel did not wake up one day and decide to march into East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Egypt, Syria and Jordan engaged in armed aggression in 1967 with the stated objective of pushing the Jews into the sea. Israel exercised its inherent right of self-defense under the U.N. Charter.There is not an international right of return law. That argument is an excuse for destroying Israel as a Jewish state.Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem recognized the location of Israel’s capital and sent an important signal to those who advocate the destruction of Israel. Real peace between Israel and the Palestinians will happen when both sides recognize a need to compromise.Nicholas RostowNew YorkThe writer is a former legal adviser to the National Security Council and general counsel and senior policy adviser to the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.Paying Off Our DebtsThe Treasury Department is using so-called extraordinary measures to allow the federal government to keep paying its bills.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “U.S. Hits Debt Cap, Heightening Risk of Economic Pain” (front page, Jan. 20):If the debt limit is not raised, then the U.S. will be unable to make payments to some of its creditors, employees and entitlement programs that it is legally obligated to make.How nifty! My wife and I have a mortgage and a car loan. We have decided that our personal debt level is too high. So, we plan to send our bank a letter today saying that we will no longer make our mortgage or car payments.On second thought, scratch that. I know what our bank would say. And it would be right.If we need to reduce our debt as a nation, then — like my wife and me — let’s do it by reducing future spending commitments, not by failing to make current payments that we have already legally committed ourselves to make.Craig DuncanIthaca, N.Y.Why Use Real Guns on Movie Sets?Alec Baldwin on set of the film “Rust” in near Santa Fe, N.M., after the death of the cinematographer Halyna Hutchins in October 2021.Agence France-Presse, via Santa Fe County Sheriff’s OfficeTo the Editor:Re “Baldwin to Face Pair of Charges in Movie Death” (front page, Jan. 20):Why do actors need to use real guns? They use fake props for everything else!If we can send people to the moon and create self-driving cars, you would think that we could create realistic-looking guns, instead of real ones, that actors could use in movies and theaters.If they had done that on the set of “Rust,” the western that Alec Baldwin was filming, no one would have died. It’s a simple solution to prevent anything like this from happening again.Ellen EttingerNew YorkElection Deniers Wasting Taxpayer FundsA ballot cast for former President Donald J. Trump that was part of the county’s recount.Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Despite Recount of 2020 Ballots, County’s Deniers Cling to Doubts” (front page, Jan. 16):Sensible taxpayers have the right to ask why their tax funds and the time of civil servants are spent on a request for an additional recount or audit of a verified and certified vote absent any evidence of fraud or irregularity.Where no reasonable probable cause exists for any such recount or audit, then any re-examination should be completely at the expense and time of the party that initiated it, especially when these beliefs are conjured up by conspiratorial fantasies or motivated by bad faith.Government officials and civil servants need to be free to focus on the needs of all, and not just the aims of a divisive and selfish minority.Jim CochranDallas More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Before He Takes On ‘Woke Capitalism,’ Ron DeSantis Should Read His Karl Marx

      by

      With their new majority, House Republicans are planning to take on “woke capitalism.”“Republicans and their longtime corporate allies are going through a messy breakup as companies’ equality and climate goals run headlong into a G.O.P. movement exploiting social and cultural issues to fire up conservatives,” Bloomberg reports. “Most directly in the G.O.P. cross hairs is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is under pressure from the likely House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to replace its leadership after the nation’s biggest business lobby backed some Democratic candidates.”I wrote last year about this notion of “woke capitalism” and the degree to which I think this “conflict” is little more than a performance meant to sell an illusion of serious disagreement between owners of capital and the Republican Party. As I wrote then, “the entire Republican Party is united in support of an anti-labor politics that puts ordinary workers at the mercy of capital.” Republicans don’t have a problem with corporate speech or corporate prerogatives as a matter of principle; they have a problem with them as a matter of narrow partisan politics.That the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, railed this week against the “raw exercise of monopolistic power” by Apple, for example, has much more to do with the cultural politics of Twitter and its new owner, Elon Musk, than any real interest in the power of government to regulate markets and curb abuse. (In fact, DeSantis argued in his book, “Dreams From Our Founding Fathers,” that the Constitution was designed to “prevent the redistribution of wealth through the political process” and stop any popular effort to “undermine the rights of property.”)Nonetheless, there is something of substance behind this facade of conflict. It is true that the largest players in the corporate world, compelled to seek profit by the competitive pressures of the market, have mostly ceased catering to the particular tastes and preferences of the more conservative and reactionary parts of the American public. To borrow from and paraphrase the basketball legend Michael Jordan: Queer families buy shoes, too.Republicans have discovered, to their apparent chagrin, that their total devotion to the interests of concentrated, corporate capital does not buy them support for a cultural agenda that sometimes cuts against those very same interests.Here it’s worth noting, as the sociologist Melinda Cooper has argued, that what we’re seeing in this cultural dispute is something of a conflict between two different segments of capital. What’s at stake in the “growing militancy” of the right wing of the Republican Party, Cooper writes, “is less an alliance of the small against the big than it is an insurrection of one form of capitalism against another: the private, unincorporated, and family-based versus the corporate, publicly traded, and shareholder-owned.” It is the patriarchal and dynastic capitalism of Donald Trump against the more impersonal and managerial capitalism of, for example, Mitt Romney.To the extent that cultural reactionaries within the Republican Party have been caught unaware by the friction between their interests and those of the more powerful part of the capitalist class, they would do well to take a lesson from one of the boogeymen of conservative rhetoric and ideology: Karl Marx.Throughout his work, Marx emphasized the revolutionary character of capitalism in its relation to existing social arrangements. It annihilates the “old social organization” that fetters and keeps down “the new forces and new passions” that spring up in the “bosom of society.” It decomposes the old society from “top to bottom.” It “drives beyond national barriers and prejudices” as well as “all traditional, confined, complacent, encrusted satisfactions of present needs, and reproduction of old ways of life.”Or, as Marx observed in one of his most famous passages, the “bourgeois epoch” is distinguished by the “uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions.” Under capitalism, “All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at least compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.”In context, Marx is writing about precapitalist social and economic arrangements, like feudalism. But I think you can understand this dynamic as a general tendency under capitalism as well. The interests and demands of capital are sometimes in sync with traditional hierarchies. There are even two competing impulses within the larger system: a drive to dissolve and erode the barriers between wage earners until they form a single, undifferentiated mass and a drive to preserve and reinforce those same barriers to divide workers and stymie the development of class consciousness on their part.But that’s a subject for another day and a different column.For now, I’ll simply say that the problem of “woke capitalism” for social and political conservatives is the problem of capitalism for anyone who hopes to preserve anything in the face of the ceaseless drive of capital to dominate the entire society.You could restrain the power of capital by strengthening the power of labor to act for itself, in its own interests. But as conservatives are well aware, the prerogatives of workers can also undermine received hierarchies and traditional social arrangements. The working class, after all, is not just one thing, and what it seeks to preserve — its autonomy, its independence, its own ways of living — does not often jibe with the interests of reactionaries.Conservatives, if their policy priorities are any indication, want to both unleash the free market and reserve a space for hierarchy and domination. But this will not happen on its own. The state must be brought to bear, not to restrain capital per se but to make it as subordinate as possible to the political right’s preferred social agenda. Play within those restraints, goes the bargain, and you can do whatever you want. Put differently, the right doesn’t have a problem with capitalism; it has a problem with who appears to be in charge of it.There is even a clear strategy at work. If you can stamp out alternative ways of being, if you can weaken labor to the point of desperation, then perhaps you can force people back into traditional families and traditional households. But no matter how hard you try, you cannot stop the dynamic movement of society. It will churn and churn and churn, until eventually the dam breaks.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Why Wall Street Loves Gridlock in Washington

      by

      Stocks tend to rally after midterm elections, historical data shows. They perform even better when voters deliver divided government.“Midterm elections are one of the best historic buy signals.”Brendan Mcdermid/ReutersDivided we rise? It’s become a favorite data point among sell-side Wall Street historians: In the year after every midterm election since 1950, the S&P 500 has gone up, regardless of the party in power.“It’s no exaggeration to say that midterm elections are one of the best historic buy signals for equities we have,” Jim Reid, a markets strategist at Deutsche Bank, wrote in a client note this morning.Even better: Stocks tend to outperform when there’s a divided government. According to LPL Financial, since 1950, the S&P 500 has outperformed (on a 52-week basis) whenever voters produce the power scenario of a split or Republican-controlled Congress and a Democratic president. (The benchmark S&P has climbed 17.5 percent in those years versus an overall average annual return of 12.3 percent.) That combination is looking more likely this morning, with the polls suggesting that the Republicans will most likely take control of the House, while the Senate is a tossup.As always, past performance is no indicator for future gains (or losses). Still, it’s worth examining how politics and investor psychology have tended to influence the markets after midterm elections over the past eight decades.There are two central reasons markets rally after the midterms. First, say the LPL markets strategists Barry Gilbert and Jeffrey Buchbinder, “uncertainty associated with the election is behind us, and markets don’t like uncertainty.” More crucially, investors view the midterms as “something of a course correction from presidential elections.” If the opposing party gains ground, it’s more likely businesses and investors will see greater “prospects of a better policy balance ahead, regardless of who is in the Oval Office.”One result: ambitious tax and government spending increases would be off the table, a scenario that could buoy corporate profits, according to Brian Gardner, the chief Washington policy strategist at Stifel, an investment bank and wealth management firm. A potential drawback? It could open the door to a debt-ceiling standoff, higher odds of a government shutdown and partisan paralysis when it comes to trying to get stuff done — i.e., a fiscal spending plan to lift the country out of a looming recession.The way-too-early winners and losers view: The energy and defense sectors would do well, Gardner says. Big Pharma could also benefit, if Republicans succeed in rolling back Medicare’s ability to negotiate on prescription drug prices, a key pillar of the Inflation Reduction Act. A potential loser is Big Tech, which has critics in both parties.HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING Donald Trump drops a hint about 2024. The former president stole the spotlight at a rally in Ohio, telling supporters in a speech for J.D. Vance, the Republican Senate candidate, that he would make “a very big announcement on Nov. 15 at Mar-a-Lago.” The comments fueled speculation that he was gearing up for another White House run.FTT, the digital coin tied to the leading crypto exchange FTX, plunges. The token has lost nearly a quarter of its value in the past day. It is also raising fears about more instability in crypto land, causing drops in Bitcoin, Ether and Solana. Alameda Research, the hedge fund operated by the crypto mogul Sam Bankman-Fried, has big holdings in FTT and Solana.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Final Landscape: As candidates make their closing arguments, Democrats are bracing for potential losses even in traditionally blue corners of the country as Republicans predict a red wave.The Battle for Congress: With so many races on edge, a range of outcomes is still possible. Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, breaks down four possible scenarios.Voting Worries: Even as voting goes smoothly, fear and suspicion hang over the process, exposing the toll former President Donald J. Trump’s falsehoods have taken on American democracy.Nvidia starts selling a China-only chip. The U.S. chip-maker is reportedly selling an alternative to a high-end chip banned from sale in China under new American export restrictions. Meanwhile, Apple’s warning that it would not be able to produce enough iPhones for the holiday season because of Covid-19 lockdowns in China highlights how enmeshed the tech giant is there, even as many of its Western peers are shut out.The owners of Liverpool F.C. put the soccer club up for sale. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have been hired to sell the franchise, one of the most popular worldwide. The club could sell for far more than the $3 billion that Chelsea fetched this year; Forbes values Liverpool at nearly $4.5 billion.Elizabeth Holmes is denied a new trial. A federal judge that the Theranos founder’s arguments for a new one didn’t introduce any new evidence. Holmes is set to be sentenced on Nov. 18 on four counts of criminal fraud.Activists at COP27 in Egypt.Sean Gallup/Getty ImagesMoney matters dominate COP One of the big questions to emerge so far from COP27: Who is paying for efforts to combat global warming, and is it fair? Here’s what’s happening at the gathering in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt:The Switzerland plan — pay poorer countries to reduce their carbon emissions, then claim credits toward its own carbon footprint — is drawing scrutiny.Egypt may be hosting a conference dedicated to reducing carbon emissions, but it’s eager to sell fossil fuels to Europe to raise money for its debt-ridden economy.Climate activists are protesting Coke’s sponsorship of COP27, pointing to its increasing use of plastics.A new study by Oxfam said that the world’s 125 wealthiest individuals collectively produce 393 million tons in annual carbon emissions — or 3 million tons each on average.Musk, and the power of one Is Elon Musk’s frenetic management style, which is often punctuated by a daily tweet barrage (including a now-deleted one engaging with a quote from a white nationalist), a sign of genius, or an indication that he’s in over his head? Yesterday, the prominent venture capitalist Chris Sacca, an early Twitter investor, spoke on the matter.“One of the biggest risks of wealth/power is no longer having anyone around you who can push back, give candid feedback, suggest alternatives, or just simply let you know you’re wrong,” he wrote.Musk’s management of Twitter has been chaotic. He pushed for a huge round of layoffs, only to ask some of those workers to return. He delayed the rollout of Twitter’s subscription product amid internal pushback. Advertisers have paused their spending. While Musk says Twitter usage is at a record high, others point to potentially troubling data. And just yesterday, he publicly urged independent voters to back Republican candidates in today’s midterm elections.Others are seizing on the moment: The news publisher Axios has promoted its newsletters to potential advertisers as a “well-lit alternative to Twitter,” according to an email to ad buyers obtained by DealBook.Many of his supporters remain in his corner. The investor Ron Baron, an early Tesla investor, told CNBC that the opportunities at Twitter were “gigantic.” Meanwhile, Musk allies in charge at Twitter include his personal lawyer and a crowd nicknamed “Elon’s goons.” Sacca was unimpressed: “I’ve recently watched those around him become increasingly sycophantic and opportunistic.”Sacca sees a corollary in Travis Kalanick, Uber’s co-founder. In 2017, Kalanick resigned from the ride-hailing company after shareholders revolted over a toxic workplace culture. Other tech founders have been similarly humbled: Musk was fired from PayPal in 2000.To be clear, Sacca isn’t calling for Musk to leave Twitter. “I really want this thing to work,” he tweeted. “The only way I see that happening is if anyone around Elon can speak some truth to power and complement his bold and ambitious instincts with desperately needed nuance.”In fashion, green clashes with antitrustFashion brands are under pressure to go green. But an effort by some big houses to collaborate on sustainability initiatives has put them in the cross hairs of antitrust authorities, with European regulators claiming that some attempts may have resembled collusion, write The Times’s Lizzie Paton and Jenny Gross, and DealBook’s Ephrat Livni.The coronavirus pandemic inspired fashion to rethink its practices. During lockdowns, a group of clothing executives and designers spoke on Zoom about limiting waste, and went on to publish ambitious statements in 2020 on making the industry more environmentally friendly. But those declarations set off alarm bells in Brussels: E.U. antitrust regulators raided unnamed fashion houses in May, stating that the targets may have violated rules against price fixing and created a cartel. (People at several of the companies confirmed they had been contacted. The brands declined to comment, and the E.U. has not publicly identified them.)Many sustainability policies would end up raising prices and reducing quantity, said Hill Wellford, a former antitrust official at the Justice Department now at the law firm Vinson & Elkins. “Multiple client consortiums have called me about making agreements for environmental purposes,” he said, “and I have to say to them, ‘Those are dangerous to do.’”The clash between sustainability and competition policy is hot political fodder. “Congress will increasingly use its oversight powers to scrutinize the institutionalized antitrust violations being committed in the name of E.S.G.,” Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, and others wrote in a Nov. 3 letter to 51 major law firms advising clients on environmental practices. With Republicans likely to win back at least one chamber in the midterm elections, conservative lawmakers are gearing up for more of these kinds of fights.“Inside counsel at major companies who really want to be sustainability leaders see antitrust as their biggest hurdle,” Amelia Miazad, an expert in sustainable capitalism and the founder of the Business in Society Institute at Berkeley Law, told The Times. “Companies cannot continue to produce products for consumers in the future unless they’re able to collaborate.”THE SPEED READ DealsThe actor Matthew McConaughey reportedly may join a potential bid by Jeff Bezos and Jay-Z for the N.F.L.’s Washington Commanders. (N.Y. Post)Investment losses at Tiger Global’s flagship hedge fund have grown to nearly 55 percent as the firm’s bets on tech companies and on China suffered. (FT)Foxconn will invest $170 million in the electric truck maker Lordstown Motors. (WSJ)SoftBank’s C.E.O., Masayoshi Son, reportedly plans to put an end to his memorably unusual earnings presentations. (WSJ)PolicyThe Justice Department seized Bitcoin once valued at nearly $3.4 billion from a man who pleaded guilty to stealing from the Silk Road online black-market bazaar. (WSJ)Oil companies have called Britain “fiscally unstable” as its government weighs a windfall tax on the industry. (FT)The Supreme Court’s conservative justices signaled that they were open to further limiting the power of federal regulators like the S.E.C. (NYT)Best of the restJohn Tyson, the C.F.O. of the meat processor Tyson Foods, was arrested after he reportedly became intoxicated and fell asleep in the wrong house. (CNBC)British companies have an “appalling” shortfall of women in executive positions, according to new research. (FT)Inside the messy split — Rolexes and handbags held as hostages and more — of Rome’s soccer legend and his estranged wife. (NYT)John Foley, Peloton’s co-founder and former C.E.O., has found his next act: selling custom rugs directly to consumers. (Insider)Evelyn de Rothschild, who helped unite branches of his family’s banking dynasty and advised the British government and Queen Elizabeth II, has died. He was 91. (Bloomberg)Thanks for reading! We’ll see you tomorrow.We’d like your feedback. Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com. More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Elon Musk Is Tweeting Through a Tide of Criticism

      by

      The new owner of Twitter has embarked on a tweeting spree to push back, spar and justify his actions.Illustration By The New York Times; Photo By Adrees Latif/reutersUnder pressure and facing a wave of criticism, Elon Musk has increasingly turned to his favorite release valve: Twitter.Since Saturday, Mr. Musk, the world’s richest man and the new owner of Twitter, has embarked on a tweeting spree so voluminous that he is on a pace to post more than 750 times this month, or more than 25 times a day, according to an analysis from the digital investigations company Memetica. That would be up from about 13 times a day in April, when Mr. Musk first agreed to buy Twitter.His recent tweets have covered an increasingly broad range of topics. Over the last four days, Mr. Musk, 51, needled the comedian Kathy Griffin and beefed with the Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey on the platform. He made masturbation jokes aimed at a rival — and much smaller — social media platform. He posted, then deleted, a tweet engaging with a quote from a white nationalist. And he defended his ownership of Twitter, including why he had laid off 50 percent of the company’s staff and why people should not impersonate others on the service.All in all, Mr. Musk, who described himself in his Twitter profile as “Chief Twit” before later changing the description to “Twitter Complaint Hotline Operator,” has tweeted more than 105 times since Friday, mainly about Twitter, according to a tally by Memetica.“Birds haven’t been real since 1986,” Mr. Musk tweeted on Sunday in a discussion thread about Twitter, including a meme from an absurdist conspiracy theory that posits that birds are actually robot spies. He did not respond to a request for comment.Mr. Musk is under tremendous scrutiny 11 days after completing his $44 billion deal for Twitter, which was the largest leveraged buyout of a technology company in history. On Friday, he cut roughly 3,700 of the company’s 7,500 employees, saying he had no choice because Twitter was losing $4 million a day. At the same time, he has found himself embroiled in the same content debates that have plagued other social media companies, including how to give people a way to speak out without spreading misinformation and toxic speech.More on Elon Musk’s Twitter TakeoverA Familiar Playbook: In his first days at Twitter, Elon Musk has been emulating some of the actions of Mark Zuckerberg, who leads Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.A Different Kind of Deal: Silicon Valley moguls used to buy yachts and islands. Now they are rich enough to acquire companies they fancy.‘Hard Fork’: In an episode of The Times’s tech podcast, two Twitter employees described the atmosphere inside the company in the aftermath of the acquisition.Effect on Midterms: Mr. Musk is in the middle of firing thousands of Twitter employees, including many who helped fight misinformation. What could that mean for the upcoming elections?Already Mr. Musk has had to delay the rollout of a subscription product that would have given people check marks on their Twitter profiles. Advertisers have paused their spending on Twitter over fears that Mr. Musk will loosen content rules on the platform. And the midterm elections are set to be a test of how a slimmed-down Twitter will perform in catching inflammatory posts and misinformation about voting and election results.In a report that was published on Monday, researchers at the Fletcher School at Tufts University said the early signs of Mr. Musk’s Twitter “show the platform is heading in the wrong direction under his leadership — at a particularly inconvenient time for American democracy.”The researchers said they had tracked narratives about civil war, election fraud, citizen policing of voting, and allegations of pedophilia and grooming on Twitter from July through October. “Post-Musk takeover, the quality of the conversation has decayed” as more extremists and misinformation peddlers have tested the platform’s boundaries, the researchers wrote.Amid the hubbub, Mr. Musk’s behavior on Twitter suggests that he intends to simply post through it. And while he has always been a prolific tweeter, he has raised the level in recent days.On Friday, Mr. Musk, who has more than 114 million followers on Twitter, proposed a “thermonuclear name & shame” campaign against brands that had stopped advertising on the platform. He said that he had done everything he could to appease advertisers but that activists had worked against him to cause brands to drop out of spending on Twitter.At the same time, the billionaire was embroiled in a fight over his plan to charge Twitter users $8 a month for a subscription service, Twitter Blue, which would give a check mark to anyone who paid. The check mark had been free for notable people whose identities had been verified by the company, including celebrities, politicians and journalists, as a way to protect against impersonation.Critics were unhappy about Mr. Musk’s plans to monetize the check mark, saying it could lead to the spread of misinformation and fraud on the platform. In protest, some Twitter accounts that had check marks changed their display names and photographs to match Mr. Musk’s account over the weekend, a move intended to illustrate why it would be confusing if anyone could buy a check mark.On Sunday, Mr. Musk announced that he would permanently suspend any account “engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying ‘parody.’” The billionaire, who had previously criticized Twitter when it permanently barred users, then barred Ms. Griffin, who had posed as him on the service.Mr. Musk, who has called himself a “free speech absolutist,” is learning the basic expectation of content moderation for popular social networks, said Daphne Keller, director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center.“His ideas have been incoherent for a while,” she said.On Sunday night, Mr. Musk responded to a tweet featuring a quote from a white nationalist, before deleting the post and moving on to squabble with Mr. Dorsey over Birdwatch, a feature that lets community members add context to tweets that they believe are misleading. Mr. Musk, who previously lauded the feature, proposed changing the feature’s name to “Community Notes.”“Community notes is the most boring Facebook name ever,” replied Mr. Dorsey, who owns a $1 billion stake in Mr. Musk’s Twitter.Then on Monday, Mr. Musk suggested he might pursue civil society groups and activists who were pushing for Twitter advertiser boycotts, when he replied to a right-wing commentator that “we do” have grounds for legal action. Legal experts said the holding of boycotts for social and political goals is protected under the First Amendment.Mr. Musk also tweeted that people should vote Republican in Tuesday’s midterm elections. “Shared power curbs the worst excesses of both parties, therefore I recommend voting for a Republican Congress, given that the Presidency is Democratic,” he tweeted. He later posted that he was an independent with a “voting history of entirely Democrat until this year.”He soon moved on. Mr. Musk’s attention became fixed on Mastodon, a Twitter competitor that has gained traction over the past 10 days. Playing off Mastodon’s name, he made several crude jokes about masturbation — then deleted those posts an hour later.Tiffany Hsu More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Russia Reactivates Its Trolls and Bots Ahead of Tuesday’s Midterms

      by

      Researchers have identified a series of Russian information operations to influence American elections and, perhaps, erode support for Ukraine.The user on Gab who identifies as Nora Berka resurfaced in August after a yearlong silence on the social media platform, reposting a handful of messages with sharply conservative political themes before writing a stream of original vitriol.The posts mostly denigrated President Biden and other prominent Democrats, sometimes obscenely. They also lamented the use of taxpayer dollars to support Ukraine in its war against invading Russian forces, depicting Ukraine’s president as a caricature straight out of Russian propaganda.The fusion of political concerns was no coincidence.The account was previously linked to the same secretive Russian agency that interfered in the 2016 presidential election and again in 2020, the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg, according to the cybersecurity group Recorded Future.It is part of what the group and other researchers have identified as a new, though more narrowly targeted, Russian effort ahead of Tuesday’s midterm elections. The goal, as before, is to stoke anger among conservative voters and to undermine trust in the American electoral system. This time, it also appears intended to undermine the Biden administration’s extensive military assistance to Ukraine.“It’s clear they are trying to get them to cut off aid and money to Ukraine,” said Alex Plitsas, a former Army soldier and Pentagon information operations official now with Providence Consulting Group, a business technology company.The campaign — using accounts that pose as enraged Americans like Nora Berka — have added fuel to the most divisive political and cultural issues in the country today.It has specifically targeted Democratic candidates in the most contested races, including the Senate seats up for grabs in Ohio, Arizona and Pennsylvania, calculating that a Republican majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives could help the Russian war effort.The campaigns show not only how vulnerable the American political system remains to foreign manipulation but also how purveyors of disinformation have evolved and adapted to efforts by the major social media platforms to remove or play down false or deceptive content.Last month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued an alert warning of the threat of disinformation spread by “dark web media channels, online journals, messaging applications, spoofed websites, emails, text messages and fake online personas.” The disinformation could include claims that voting data or results had been hacked or compromised.The agencies urged people not to like, discuss or share posts online from unknown or distrustful sources. They did not identify specific efforts, but social media platforms and researchers who track disinformation have recently uncovered a variety of campaigns by Russia, China and Iran.The State of the WarGrain Deal: Russia rejoined an agreement allowing the shipment of Ukrainian grain through the Black Sea, one of the few areas of cooperation amid the war, easing uncertainty over the fate of a deal seen as crucial to preventing famine in other parts of the world.On the Diplomatic Front: The Group of 7 nations announced that they would work together to rebuild critical infrastructure in Ukraine that has been destroyed by Russia’s military and to defend such sites from further attacks.Turning the Tables: With powerful Western weapons and deadly homemade drones, Ukraine now has an artillery advantage in the south, where a battle for the city of Kherson appears to be imminent. The work of reconnaissance teams penetrating enemy lines has also proven key in breaking Russia’s hold in the territory.Refugees: The war has sent the numbers of Ukrainians seeking shelter in Europe soaring, pushing asylum seekers from other conflicts to the end of the line.Recorded Future and two other social media research companies, Graphika and Mandiant, found a number of Russian campaigns that have turned to Gab, Parler, Getter and other newer platforms that pride themselves on creating unmoderated spaces in the name of free speech.These are much smaller campaigns than those in the 2016 election, where inauthentic accounts reached millions of voters across the political spectrum on Facebook and other major platforms. The efforts are no less pernicious, though, in reaching impressionable users who can help accomplish Russian objectives, researchers said.“The audiences are much, much smaller than on your other traditional social media networks,” said Brian Liston, a senior intelligence analyst with Recorded Future who identified the Nora Berka account. “But you can engage the audiences in much more targeted influence ops because those who are on these platforms are generally U.S. conservatives who are maybe more accepting of conspiratorial claims.”Many of the accounts the researchers identified were previously used by a news outlet calling itself the Newsroom for American and European Based Citizens. Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, has previously linked the news outlet to the Russian information campaigns centered around the Internet Research Agency.The network appears to have since disbanded, and many of the social media accounts associated with it went dormant after being publicly identified around the 2020 election. The accounts started becoming active again in August and September, called to action like sleeper cells.Nora Berka’s account on Gab has many of the characteristics of an inauthentic user, Mr. Liston said. There is no profile picture or identifying biographical details. No one responded to a message sent to the account through Gab.The account, with more than 8,000 followers, posts exclusively on political issues — not in just one state but across the country — and often spreads false or misleading posts. Most have little engagement but a recent post about the F.B.I. received 43 responses and 11 replies, and was reposted 64 times.Since September the account has repeatedly shared links to a previously unknown website — electiontruth.net — that Recorded Future said was almost certainly linked to the Russian campaign.Electiontruth.net’s earliest posts date only from Sept. 5; since then, it has posted articles almost daily ridiculing President Biden and prominent Democratic candidates, while criticizing policies regarding race, crime and gender that it said were destroying the United States. “America under Communism” was one typical headline.The articles all have pseudonyms as bylines, like Andrew J, Truth4Ever and Laura. According to Mr. Liston, the website domain was registered using Bitcoin accounts.Electiontruth.net lists a cafe in Cotter, Ark., as its contact. The cafe has closed, replaced by the Cotter Bridge Market. The market’s owners said they knew nothing about the website.Trent Bozeman for The New York TimesFor its contact information, electiontruth.net lists a cafe inside a converted gas station in Cotter, Ark., a town of 900 people on a bend in the White River. The cafe has closed, however, and been replaced by Cotter Bridge Market, a produce shop and deli whose owners said they knew nothing about the website. No one at Election Truth responded to a request for comment submitted through the site.Mr. Liston said that links to electiontruth.net appeared to be closely coordinated with the accounts on Gab linked to the Russians.In another campaign, Graphika identified a recent series of cartoons that appeared on Gab, Gettr, Parler and the discussion forum patriots.win. The cartoons, by an artist named “Schmitz,” disparaged Democrats in the tightest Senate and governor races.One targeting Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia, who is Black, employed racist motifs. Another falsely claimed that Representative Tim Ryan, the Democratic Senate candidate in Ohio, would release “all Fentanyl distributors and drug traffickers” from prison.The cartoons received little engagement and did not spread virally to other platforms, according to Graphika.A recurring theme of the new Russian efforts is an argument that the United States under President Biden is wasting money by supporting Ukraine in its resistance to the Russian invasion that began in February.Nora Berka, for example, posted a doctored photograph in September that showed President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine as a bikini-wearing poll dancer being showered with dollar bills by Mr. Biden.“As working class Americans struggle to afford food, gas, and find baby formula, Joe Biden wants to spend $13.7 billion more in aid to Ukraine,” the account posted. Not incidentally, that post echoed a theme that has gained some traction among Republican lawmakers and voters who have questioned the delivery of weapons and other military assistance.“It’s no secret that Republicans — that a large portion of Republicans — have questioned whether we should be supporting what has been referred to as foreign adventures or somebody else’s conflict,” said Graham Brookie, senior director of the Digital Forensics Lab at the Atlantic Council, which has also been tracking foreign influence operations.The F.B.I. and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency did not respond to requests for comment about the Russian efforts. Mr. Brookie called the revived accounts “recidivist behavior.” Gab did not respond to a request for comment.As before, it may be hard to measure the exact impact of these accounts on voters come Tuesday. At a minimum, they contribute to what Edward P. Perez, a board member with the OSET Institute, a nonpartisan election security organization, called “manufactured chaos” in the country’s body politic.While Russians in the past sought to build large followings for their inauthentic accounts on the major platforms, today’s campaigns could be smaller and yet still achieve a desired effect — in part because the divisions in American society are already such fertile soil for disinformation, he said.“Since 2016, it appears that foreign states can afford to take some of the foot off the gas,” Mr. Perez, who previously worked at Twitter, said, “because they have already created such sufficient division that there are many domestic actors to carry the water of disinformation for them.” More