Lisée | Mauvaise influence

Foreign interference from south of the border:

….Dans ce Far West politique qu’est devenu Internet, écrit Perez, et « compte tenu de l’extraordinaire propension en ligne des extrémistes d’extrême droite de tous types, cette carte fait le jeu de politiciens comme Poilievre. Le pouvoir de cette “arme secrète” est énorme ». Il s’agit, pense le militant libéral, de la « principale menace » pesant sur la démocratie canadienne. Il a parfaitement raison.

On peut d’ores et déjà se demander comment réagira Elon Musk, lui qui a à ce jour investi une centaine de millions de dollars pour l’élection de Trump, sans compter l’influence qu’il détient personnellement avec ses 167 millions d’abonnés. Maintenant qu’il a pris goût à la politique partisane, pourquoi se priverait-il d’aider l’accession au pouvoir d’un homme, Pierre Poilievre, qui s’est opposé à toutes les initiatives visant à réguler les géants du Web ?

Si les trumpistes perdent l’élection américaine, une intervention massive dans l’élection canadienne ne serait-elle pas pour eux un prix de consolation ? Et s’ils gagnent, pourquoi Trump se gênerait-il non seulement d’encourager ses partisans à s’en mêler, mais aussi d’activer quelques-uns des leviers gouvernementaux à sa disposition pour aider à faire pencher la balance ? Déclassées, la Chine et l’Inde pourront aller se rhabiller.

Source: Chronique | Mauvaise influence

…. In this political Wild West that has become the Internet, writes Perez, and “given the extraordinary online propensity of far-right extremists of all kinds, this card plays into the game of politicians like Poilievre. The power of this “secret weapon” is enormous.” This is, the liberal activist believes, the “main threat” to Canadian democracy. He is absolutely right.

We can already wonder how Elon Musk will react, who has so far invested a hundred million dollars for Trump’s election, not to mention the influence he personally holds with his 167 million subscribers. Now that he has taken a liking to partisan politics, why would he deprive himself of helping a man, Pierre Poilievre, who has opposed all initiatives to regulate the giants of the Web?

If the Trumpists lose the American election, wouldn’t a massive intervention in the Canadian election be a consolation price for them? And if they win, why would Trump hesitate not only to encourage his supporters to get involved, but also to activate some of the government levers at his disposal to help tip the balance? Downgraded, China and India will be able to get dressed.

What Elon Musk Working Illegally Says About The Immigration System

Beyond the irony or hypocrisy of Musk and others, some useful information about the barriers faced by international students transitioning towards green cards and permanent residency.

Like all aspects of immigration, complicated process and we have the experience of our daughter navigating the US system while working (legally) in the US with the help of an immigration lawyer:

There Is No Immigration Visa For Entrepreneurs

In a 2021 interview, Kimbal Musk said he and Elon would have complied with the law if it was feasible. “I tried to get a visa, but there’s just no visa you can get to do a startup,” said Kimbal. “I was definitely illegal.”

Kimbal Musk is correct that there is no immigrant entrepreneur visa under U.S. law. Congress could have created one as part of the CHIPS and Science Act in 2022. The Democratic majority in the House passed a measure allowing individuals to gain permanent residence if they reached specific startup benchmarks, including attracting venture capital. However, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) blocked the provision from becoming law in a conference committee. Grassley also stopped the bill from including an exemption from annual green card limits for foreign nationals with a Ph.D. in science and technology fields and those with a master’s degree “in a critical industry.”

According to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis, 55% of U.S. billion-dollar startups have at least one immigrant founder. Another NFAP study found immigrants have founded or cofounded nearly two-thirds (65% or 28 of 43) of the top AI companies in the United States. Seventy percent of full-time graduate students in fields related to artificial intelligence are international students.

Donald Trump Is Unlikely To Liberalize Business Immigration

An analysis of the Trump administration’s policies concluded that while Donald Trump was president, his administration did not enact or propose any measures to expand the entry of high-skilled foreign nationals or immigrants to the United States.

A court blocked Trump officials from toughening policies on “unlawful presence” for international students who fall out of immigration status. Trump’s Department of Labor twice proposed rules aimed at pricing H-1B visa holders and employment-based immigrants out of the U.S. labor market. H-1B denial rates soared until a legal settlement forced Trump officials to stop what judges declared a host of unlawful practices. The National Venture Capital Association sued the Trump administration after it refused to implement a program that allowed foreign entrepreneurs to stay in America.

According to Fortune magazine, Elon Musk has given at least $132 million in political donations aimed primarily at electing Donald Trump. Musk may be disappointed if he expects Trump to make it easier for immigrants with aspirations like those of a young Elon Musk to succeed in America.

Source: What Elon Musk Working Illegally Says About The Immigration System

Elon Musk—Powerful Critic Of Illegal Immigrants—Worked Illegally In U.S. At Start Of Career, Report Says

Not all that surprising. In some ways, this election has become as much about the influence of tech bros, whether Musk weaponizing Twitter etc or Bezos not permitting an editorial by the Washington Post:

Billionaire Elon Musk, who has become a staunch opponent of illegal immigration as a top surrogate for Donald Trump, and boosted misleadingclaims about the issue throughout the 2024 election cycle, launched his career in Silicon Valley working illegally, according to The Washington Post.

The Post, citing business associates, court records and company documents, found Musk did not have the legal right to work in the U.S. while creating Zip2—a business directory software company that sold for about $300 million 25 years ago.

Musk, who was born in Pretoria, South Africa, dropped out of a Stanford University graduate program in 1995 as a foreign student to instead work on his start-up.

Musk’s immigration status put the company at risk of not receiving funding, according to the Post, which cited a funding agreement between Zip2 and Mohr Davidow Ventures that Musk, his brother Kimbal and an associate, had 45 days to secure legal work status or face losing out on the $3 million investment.

Derek Proudian, a Zip2 board member who later became the company’s chief executive, told the Post that Zip2 investors did not want its founder deported, and that the Musk brothers’ “immigration status was not what it should be for them to be legally employed running a company in the U.S.”

Musk acknowledged his immigration status when he founded Zip2 in a 2005 email to Tesla co-founders Martin Eberhard and JB Straubel revealed in a lawsuit, where he explained he applied to Stanford to stay in the U.S. legally, according to the Post.

Representatives at X and Alex Spiro, one of Musk’s attorneys, did not immediately respond to Forbes’ request for comment, and Musk has yet to respond to the story on X.

Source: Elon Musk—Powerful Critic Of Illegal Immigrants—Worked Illegally In U.S. At Start Of Career, Report Says

Lisée | La liberté d’expression à géographie variable d’Elon Musk

Good critique of “Citizen Musk:”

Lorsque Donald Trump a remporté l’élection présidentielle de novembre 2016, Elon Musk a soutenu que c’était bien la preuve que nous vivions tous dans une simulation. Comme dans le film La matrice. Une théorie veut en effet que les ordinateurs de la fin du siècle seront assez puissants pour simuler toute l’existence humaine. On peut penser que nous sommes les produits de la simulation d’un jeu pour ado de 2124. D’un ado un peu sadique, qui, lorsqu’il se lasse de torturer des fourmis à l’aide d’une loupe et d’un rayon de soleil, modifie les paramètres de notre logiciel pour nous voir souffrir.

Plus tôt cette année, le milliardaire Musk a changé d’avis. L’élection de Donald Trump en 2024 lui apparaît désormais essentielle pour préserver la démocratie américaine.

Oui, la préserver. L’homme qui a voulu renverser la dernière élection — et qui nous avertit qu’il n’acceptera les résultats de la prochaine que s’il gagne — est le seul qui peut, selon Musk, éviter le pire. « La stratégie de Biden est très simple : 1. Obtenez autant d’illégaux dans le pays que possible. 2. Légalisez-les pour créer une majorité permanente — un État à parti unique. » Le fait que le gouvernement Biden ait pour l’essentiel fermé la frontière depuis le début de l’année ne le fait pas changer d’avis. Le raisonnement est audacieux de la part d’un immigrant ; Musk est né en Afrique du Sud.

Il avait naguère d’excellentes relations avec les démocrates, d’Obama à Biden. Leurs politiques favorables au développement des voitures électriques et leur intérêt pour SpaceX, l’entreprise de fusées de Musk, ne devaient pas être étrangers à ce flirt. Mais depuis, Joe Biden a indiqué qu’il faudrait bien s’intéresser aux relations internationales d’Elon Musk.

Son activité, disons, « diplomatique », est devenue encore plus intéressante après l’invasion de l’Ukraine. Il a offert gratuitement aux Ukrainiens l’utilisation de son réseau satellitaire Starlink, essentiel pour le guidage des drones. Mais lorsque Kiev a voulu attaquer des bateaux russes qui, d’un port de Crimée, lançaient des missiles sur le territoire, Musk a bloqué l’utilisation de Starlink. Il affirmait craindre une escalade de la guerre. L’un de ses proches a raconté depuis que Musk tenait cette information de bonne source : Vladimir Poutine. Si les drones ukrainiens étaient ainsi utilisés en Crimée, lui aurait-il dit, une bombe atomique serait si vite arrivée. La Crimée a été plusieurs fois attaquée depuis. On attend toujours la première bombe A.

Si vous êtes comme moi abonné à son fil X, vous aurez remarqué que ses propres messages, très fréquents, apparaissent invariablement au sommet de votre page. C’est que Musk a modifié ses algorithmes pour être toujours la première chose que vous voyez. Liberté d’expression bien ordonnée commence par soi-même. On a pu le voir récemment relayer une photo truquée d’une Kamala Harris vêtue de rouge avec une casquette à la mode de Mao, annonçant qu’elle allait être une dictatrice communiste.

C’est savoureux, car Elon Musk est pris d’une totale timidité quand vient le temps de critiquer la Chine, le deuxième marché mondial pour ses voitures Tesla. Il exploite à Shanghai une méga-usine. La Chine avait interdit Twitter sur son territoire en 2009, ce dont Musk ne parle jamais, alors qu’il tempête chaque fois qu’un autre pays veut baliser ses activités. Il s’agit d’une défense de la liberté à, disons, géographie variable.

Une de ses déclarations de septembre dernier a fait fureur à Pékin. Pour Musk, la situation de Taïwan est « analogue à celle d’Hawaï ou quelque chose comme ça, une partie intégrante de la Chine qui ne fait arbitrairement pas partie de la Chine ». Sa position fut moins appréciée à Taipei, où l’idée de retirer leur liberté d’expression à ses 23 millions d’habitants ne fait pas recette.

Grand partisan du leader brésilien Jair Bolsonaro, qui a donné libre accès sur son territoire à Starlink, Musk en a fait la promotion pendant la campagne qui l’opposait à Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, puis a omis de faire bloquer par X les appels à la violence qui ont conduit à une tentative de renversement de Lula. Face à son refus de se conformer aux décisions brésiliennes sur la modération de certains comptes sur X, Musk a vu son entreprise interdite d’activité au Brésil, où elle comptait 40 millions d’usagers. Il est furieux.

Mais il ne l’est pas toujours. Ainsi, à la demande de son ami le président autoritaire de l’Inde, Narendra Modi, X bloque les comptes de centaines d’opposants au régime. Exactement comme X a bloqué, en Turquie, pendant la dernière campagne électorale, les comptes, là aussi, de centaines d’opposants au régime d’Erdoğan. Musk est récompensé : Modi a relaxé les règles d’investissement pour permettre à Tesla et à Starlink de s’installer chez lui. Erdoğan a aussi ouvert les bras à Starlink et a confié à SpaceX le lancement d’un satellite.

Ces épisodes ont mis en rogne le cofondateur de Wikipédia Jimmy Wales, qui a écrit sur X : « Si Elon pense maintenant : “Nous ne nous soucions pas de la liberté d’expression si elle interfère avec le fait de gagner de l’argent”, alors il devrait simplement l’avouer. »

La semaine dernière, Trump a annoncé que, s’il était réélu, Elon Musk aurait le mandat de rendre le gouvernement fédéral plus efficace. Cela promet. Lorsqu’il a acheté Twitter pour la somme colossale de 44 milliards de dollars américains, il a viré illico 75 % des salariés. Alors on attend avec impatience son plan minceur pour l’État américain.

Source: Chronique | La liberté d’expression à géographie variable d’Elon Musk

Computer translation:

When Donald Trump won the November 2016 presidential election, Elon Musk argued that it was proof that we were all living in a simulation. Like in the movie The Matrix. One theory is that computers at the end of the century will be powerful enough to simulate all human existence. We can think that we are the products of the simulation of a 2124 teen game. Of a slightly sadistic teenager, who, when he gets tired of torturing ants with a magnifying glass and a ray of sunshine, changes the settings of our software to see us suffer.

Earlier this year, billionaire Musk changed his mind. Donald Trump’s election in 2024 now seems essential to him to preserve American democracy.

Yes, preserve it. The man who wanted to overturn the last election – and who warns us that he will only accept the results of the next one if he wins – is the only one who can, according to Musk, avoid the worst. “Biden’s strategy is very simple: 1. Get as many illegals in the country as possible. 2. Legalize them to create a permanent majority – a one-party state. The fact that the Biden government has essentially closed the border since the beginning of the year does not make him change his mind. The reasoning is bold on the part of an immigrant; Musk was born in South Africa.

He once had excellent relations with the Democrats, from Obama to Biden. Their policies in favor of the development of electric cars and their interest in SpaceX, Musk’s rocket company, should not be unrelated to this flirtation. But since then, Joe Biden has indicated that we should be interested in Elon Musk’s international relations.

His activity, let’s say, “diplomatic”, became even more interesting after the invasion of Ukraine. He offered Ukrainians free of charge the use of his Starlink satellite network, essential for drone guidance. But when Kiev wanted to attack Russian ships that, from a Crimean port, launched missiles on the territory, Musk blocked the use of Starlink. He claimed to fear an escalation of war. One of his relatives has said since that Musk held this information as a good source: Vladimir Putin. If Ukrainian drones were used in this way in Crimea, he would have told him, an atomic bomb would have arrived so quickly. Crimea has been attacked several times since then. We are still waiting for the first bomb A.

If you are like me subscribed to his X-feed, you will have noticed that his own very frequent messages invariably appear at the top of your page. It’s because Musk has modified his algorithms to always be the first thing you see. Freedom of well-ordered expression begins with oneself. We could see him recently relay a rigged photo of a Kamala Harris dressed in red with a Mao-style cap, announcing that she was going to be a communist dictator.

It’s tasty, because Elon Musk is taken by total shyness when it comes time to criticize China, the world’s second market for his Tesla cars. He operates a mega-factory in Shanghai. China banned Twitter on its territory in 2009, which Musk never talks about, while it storms every time another country wants to mark its activities. It is a defense of freedom with, let’s say, variable geography.

One of his statements last September was all the rage in Beijing. For Musk, Taiwan’s situation is “similar to that of Hawaii or something like that, an integral part of China that is arbitrarily not part of China”. His position was less appreciated in Taipei, where the idea of removing their freedom of expression from its 23 million inhabitants is not a recipe.

A big supporter of Brazilian leader Jair Bolsonaro, who gave free access to Starlink on his territory, Musk promoted it during the campaign that opposed him to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then failed to block by X the calls for violence that led to an attempt to overthrow Lula. Faced with his refusal to comply with Brazilian decisions on the moderation of certain accounts on X, Musk saw his company banned from activity in Brazil, where it had 40 million users. He is furious.

But he is not always. Thus, at the request of his friend the authoritarian president of India, Narendra Modi, X blocks the accounts of hundreds of opponents of the regime. Exactly as X blocked, in Turkey, during the last election campaign, the accounts, here too, of hundreds of opponents of the Erdoğan regime. Musk is rewarded: Modi has relaxed the investment rules to allow Tesla and Starlink to settle in his home. Erdoğan also opened his arms to Starlink and entrusted SpaceX with the launch of a satellite.

These episodes made Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales angry, who wrote on X: “If Elon now thinks: “We don’t care about freedom of expression if it interferes with making money,” then he should simply admit it. ”

Last week, Trump announced that if re-elected, Elon Musk would have a mandate to make the federal government more effective. It promises. When he bought Twitter for the colossal sum of US$44 billion, he fired 75% of employees. So we look forward to his slimming plan for the American state.

Right-Wing Influencers Are Going Full Racist in Anti-DEI Rants – The Daily Beast

Of note:

Boeing has had its fair share of negative news coverage lately, as the company’s decades of corner-cutting, outsourcing, and neglect led to some recent terrifyingmishaps.

You might wonder what this has to do with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Well, it seems that efforts to create more just and equitable workplaces are the scariest thing imaginable to certain right-wing influencers. So terrifying, in fact, that they could lead to aviation disasters.

Elon Musk, the CEO of a car company whose vehicles have a tendency to catch fire, tweeted, “It will take an airplane crashing and killing hundreds of people for them to change this crazy policy of DIE.” The obvious innuendo is that Black people are responsible for Boeing’s failures. Musk has also referred to DEI as “just another word for racism.”

But Musk didn’t stop there. He amplified a tweet that suggested Black students have lower IQs, attacked HBCUs, and argued Blacks have “borderline intellectual impairment.” This is eugenics, plain and simple. It’s pseudo-science used to dehumanize Blacks, not dissimilar to when pro-slavery white people argued that Blacks were more suited for field work because they couldn’t learn and had smaller brains.

Not to be outdone, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk—a vocal Donald Trump sycophant—used Boeing’s issues to argue against the employment of Black pilots. During a podcast, Kirk said, “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’” Other MAGA celebrities expressed similarly racist concerns.

Just 3.4 percent of U.S. airline pilots are Black. White men have flown the friendly skies almost exclusively since the Wright brothers’ first flight in 1903. Even with mitigation efforts to make air navigation more reflective of the society it serves, training programs, recruitment strategies, and airlines have fallen short.

United Airlines and Delta Airlines, specifically, have advanced diversity in hiring, but even there the needle hasn’t moved much in diversifying the pilot class—it’s still overwhelmingly majority white male.

So why are the likes of Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk, and others using the pilot workforce situation as the target of their DEI takedown?

The simple answer is… because they can. There is a shortage of airline pilots, a growing number of pilots are of retirement age, and the pipeline must be expanded to keep up with consumer demand. These realities scare certain white men who are hellbent on believing they are the master race, and that all others are inherently inferior.

And the attacks on DEI are coordinated and relentless.

As of this week, Florida’s 28 public colleges are prohibited from using government funds for diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. And because everything’s bigger in the Lone Star State, Texas boasts 30 new anti-DEI laws. Thirteen states’ attorneys general signed a public letter in July 2023 after the fall of affirmative action in college admissions. The letter had nothing to do with college admissions, but the Republican AGs used the Supreme Court decision as a platform to directly voice their collective opposition to DEI in the workforce.

These efforts don’t even scratch the surface of the anti-DEI architects’ ultimate goal—stratifying the American workforce and reducing access to the C-suite, STEM careers, small businesses, and opportunities previously afforded almost solely to white men. America is more diverse today than it has ever been—and the fix is in to ensure diversity isn’t reflected in high-paying jobs, the highest levels of government, or leadership in America’s top educational institutions.

To be Black in America is to live in a constant threat of attack on your civil rights and humanity, the questioning of your abilities, and a belief that you are unworthy solely because of the color of your skin. Regardless of how often Nikki Haley says, “America isn’t a racist country,” the red, white, and blue time and again finds itself painfully erecting barriers to Black achievement, health access, and any marker of equity.

Source: Right-Wing Influencers Are Going Full Racist in Anti-DEI Rants – The Daily Beast

Elon Musk Promotes Campaign To Ban ADL While Agreeing With ‘Raging Anti-Semite’ – Forbes

sigh…

An online campaign to ban the Anti-Defamation League from X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, has gone viral several times over the weekend while owner Elon Musk has signaled that he supports the proposal. But Musk took his rhetoric to even more extreme places on Monday while responding to a far-right activist who describes himself as a “raging anti-semite.”

“The ADL, because they are so aggressive in their demands to ban social media accounts for even minor infractions, are ironically the biggest generators of anti-Semitism on this platform!” Musk tweeted early Monday, somehow suggesting that Jews are to blame for anti-semitism.

The ADL is an activist group that fights anti-semitic hate speech and has long been a thorn in the side of people who hate Jews. There’s a long history of anti-semites claiming Jews are actually to blame for anti-semitism. The Nazis often used this line of argument in propaganda of the 1930s and ‘40s.

Musk’s tweet on Monday was in response to Keith Woods, a white nationalist from Ireland who has previously called himself a “raging anti-semite” in a since-deleted tweet from 2019.

“Alex Jones doesn’t want to #BanTheADL because ‘they’re the most pro-Hitler organisation I’ve ever seen’,” Woods tweeted.

Musk’s relationship with far-right voices on X have gotten more attention ever since he purchased Twitter in October 2022 and made a number of changes to the platform. Musk has defended a number of racists, including Dilbert creator Scott Adams when he advocated for racial segregation, which has caused many major advertisers to become nervous about brand safety on the site.

Musk also seemed to personally intervene to reinstate an account that had posted child sexual abuse material back in July. A Twitter executive defended the restoration of the account at an Australian government hearing in August by saying that perhaps the account was posting the content “out of outrage.” It’s widely understood by other major social media platforms that posting child sexual abuse material, whatever the alleged reason, should result in an immediate ban.

The ADL has found an increase in hate speech on X since Musk bought the site and CEO Jonathan Greenblatt recently had a discussion with CEO Linda Yaccarino about the problem. Greenblatt tweeted about his discussion with Yaccarino on August 30.

“I had a very frank + productive conversation with @LindayaX yesterday about @X, what works and what doesn’t, and where it needs to go to address hate effectively on the platform,” Greenblatt tweeted, according to the Jerusalem Post.

“I appreciated her reaching out and I’m hopeful the service will improve. @ADL will be vigilant and give her and @ElonMusk credit if the service gets better… and reserve the right to call them out until it does,” Greenblatt continued.

That tweet has since been deleted, though it’s not exactly clear why. Yaccarino’s response is still available on the site.

“A strong and productive partnership is built on good intentions and candor. Thank you Jonathan,” Yaccarino tweeted.

Musk’s apparent obsession with the ADL has continued for several days, even suggesting that perhaps an online poll would be useful to see if the organization should be banned from X. When a large account known as Wall Street Silver described the ADL as one of many “radical left wing hate groups,” Musk implicitly endorsed the idea with a tweet reading, “It would be difficult to describe them as centrist.”

X did not respond to emailed question about Musk’s tweets on Monday. I’ll update this article if I hear back.

It’s still unclear why Musk responds to so many anti-semites on his social media platform if he’s against anti-semitism. But Musk followed up with more attacks on the ADL in a response to his tweet.

“Since the acquisition, The @ADL has been trying to kill this platform by falsely accusing it & me of being anti-Semitic,” Musk tweeted.

Musk then confirmed that advertising at X has been suffering, which he blamed on the ADL.

Musk then threatened to file a defamation suit against the ADL.

“If this continues, we will have no choice but to file a defamation suit against, ironically, the ‘Anti-Defamation’ League,” Musk tweeted.

X still hasn’t responded to my questions emailed on Monday afternoon.

Source: Elon Musk Promotes Campaign To Ban ADL While Agreeing With ‘Raging Anti-Semite’ – Forbes

Why an Unremarkable Racist Enjoyed the Backing of Billionaires

More on the far right ecosystem in the USA:

In 1923, Princeton University Press published “A Study of American Intelligence” by Carl Campbell Brigham, a eugenicist and professor of psychology at the university.

Brigham, like many men of his class and station at the time, believed in race hierarchy — of a natural order of humanity, with some groups at the top and others at the bottom. He was part of a national effort, among elites and ordinary citizens alike, to improve the “racial fitness” of the American people by restricting immigration and removing the undesirable through sterilization.

As one like-minded eugenicist, Robert M. Yerkes, wrote in his foreword to Brigham’s book, “The author presents not theories or opinions but facts. It behooves us to consider their reliability and their meaning, for no one of us as a citizen can afford to ignore the menace of race deterioration or the evident relations of immigration to national progress and welfare.”

As a scientist, Brigham would bring the laws of heredity and the study of intelligence to bear on the question of race hierarchy. He would purport to show, with scientific precision, the inherent superiority of so-called Nordic Americans above all others.

“His four major groups consisted of native-born whites, total whites, foreign-born whites, and Negroes,” explains the historian Nell Irvin Painter in “The History of White People.” “Within these groups, Brigham differentiated between the above-average foreigners and the below-average foreigners. Turks and Greeks just barely improved on the foreign-born average, while men from Russia, Italy, and Poland ranked at the bottom with the ‘Negro draft.’ Northwestern Europeans topped the chart.”

It was the traditional Anglo-American race hierarchy, illustrated with the charts, graphs and calculations that elevated the claim from everyday, casual prejudice to an objective account of society. And it served its intended purpose: to naturalize inequality of status and resources in an era defined by its yawning gaps between haves and have-nots.

It should come as no surprise to learn, as Adam Cohen notes in “Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck,” that “John D. Rockefeller Jr., the world’s wealthiest man, funded scientific research into how what he called the ‘defective human’ could be bred out of the population.” Or that, as Edwin Black explains in “War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race,” eugenicists drew from “almost unlimited corporate philanthropy to establish the biological rationales for persecution” of the so-called unfit.

I mention all of this as context for Richard Hanania, a rising star among conservative writers and intellectuals. For years before appearing in the pages of newspapers and publications like this one, Hanania wrote articles for white supremacist publications under a pseudonym. According to a recent investigation by Christopher Mathias of The Huffington Post:

[Hanania] expressed support for eugenics and the forced sterilization of “low IQ” people, who he argued were most often Black. He opposed “miscegenation” and “race-mixing.” And once, while arguing that Black people cannot govern themselves, he cited the neo-Nazi author of “The Turner Diaries,” the infamous novel that celebrates a future race war.

Hanania no longer writes for those publications. And though he may claim otherwise, it doesn’t appear that his views have changed much. He still makes explicitly racist statements and arguments, now under his own name. “I don’t have much hope that we’ll solve crime in any meaningful way,” he wrote on the platform formerly known as Twitter earlier this year. “It would require a revolution in our culture or form of government. We need more policing, incarceration, and surveillance of black people. Blacks won’t appreciate it, whites don’t have the stomach for it.” Responding to the killing of a homeless Black man on the New York City subway, Hanania wrote, “These people are animals, whether they’re harassing people in subways or walking around in suits.”

Hanania sees his claims as uncomfortable truths. “The reason I’m the target of a cancellation effort is because left-wing journalists dislike anyone acknowledging statistical differences between races,” he recently wrote. But his supposedly transgressive views are little more than the warmed-over dogmas of the long-dead ideologues who believed in the scientific truth of race hierarchy. Of course, those men, their peers and their followers lost their appetite for that talk in the wake of the Holocaust, when the world got a firsthand look at the catastrophic consequences of state-sponsored racism, eugenicism and antisemitism.

But more interesting than either Hanania — whose recent notoriety has not lifted him too far from his previous obscurity — or his rancid views are his backers. According to Jonathan Katz, a freelance journalist, Hanania’s organization, the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, has received at least $700,000 in support through anonymous donations. He is also a visiting scholar at the Salem Center at the University of Texas at Austin — funded by Harlan Crow.

A whole coterie of Silicon Valley billionaires and millionaires have lent their time and attention to Hanania, as well as elevated his work. Marc Andreessen, a powerful venture capitalist, appeared on his podcast. David Sacks, a close associate of Elon Musk, wrote a glowing endorsement of Hanania’s forthcoming book. So did Peter Thiel, the billionaire supporter of right-wing causes and organizations. “D.E.I. will never d-i-e from words alone,” wrote Thiel. “Hanania shows we need the sticks and stones of government violence to exorcise the diversity demon.” Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican presidential candidate, also praised the book as a “devastating kill shot to the intellectual foundations of identity politics in America.”

The question to ask here — the question that matters — is why an otherwise obscure racist has the ear and support of some of the most powerful people in Silicon Valley? What purpose, to a billionaire venture capitalist, do Hanania’s ideas serve?

Look back to our history and the answer is straightforward. Just as in the 1920s (and before), the idea of race hierarchy works to naturalize the broad spectrum of inequalities, and capitalist inequality in particular.

If some groups are simply meant to be at the bottom, then there are no questions to ask about their deprivation, isolation and poverty. There are no questions to ask about the society which produces that deprivation, isolation and poverty. And there is nothing to be done, because nothing can be done: Those people are just the way they are.

If some groups — and really, if some individuals — are simply meant to be at the top, then there are no questions to ask about their wealth, status and power. And as my friend John Ganz notes in his newsletter, the idea of race hierarchy “creates the illusion of cross-class solidarity between these masters of infinite wealth and their propagandist and supporter class: ‘We are of the same special breed, you and I.’” Relations of domination between groups are reproduced as relations of domination between individuals.

This, in fact, has been the traditional role of supremacist ideologies in the United States — to occlude class relations and convert anxiety over survival into the jealous protection of status. The purveyors of supremacist ideologies have worked in concrete ways to bound the two things, survival and status, together; to create the illusion that the security, even prosperity, of one group rests on the exclusion of another. (The history of segregated housing in this country is testament enough to the success of that ideological project.) With enough time to grow and take root, these ideologies branch out with a life and logic of their own, reproduced by people who believe they have something new, novel and forbidden.

Why are billionaires backing an unremarkable racist as he tries to find a place in polite society? Because his interest in a hierarchical society built on racism serves their interest in a hierarchical society built on class — and ruled by capital.

It’s the same, then, as it ever was.

Source: Why an Unremarkable Racist Enjoyed the Backing of Billionaires

Hate Speech’s Rise on Twitter Is Unprecedented, Researchers Find

Of note. Likely to get worse:

Before Elon Musk bought Twitter, slurs against Black Americans showed up on the social media service an average of 1,282 times a day. After the billionaire became Twitter’s owner, they jumped to 3,876 times a day.

Slurs against gay men appeared on Twitter 2,506 times a day on average before Mr. Musk took over. Afterward, their use rose to 3,964 times a day.

And antisemitic posts referring to Jews or Judaism soared more than 61 percent in the two weeks after Mr. Musk acquired the site.

These findings — from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, the Anti-Defamation League and other groups that study online platforms — provide the most comprehensive picture to date of how conversations on Twitter have changed since Mr. Musk completed his $44 billion deal for the company in late October. While the numbers are relatively small, researchers said the increases were atypically high.

The shift in speech is just the tip of a set of changes on the service under Mr. Musk. Accounts that Twitter used to regularly remove — such as those that identify as part of the Islamic State, which were banned after the U.S. government classified ISIS as a terror group — have come roaring back. Accounts associated with QAnon, a vast far-right conspiracy theory, have paid for and received verified status on Twitter, giving them a sheen of legitimacy.

These changes are alarming, researchers said, adding that they had never seen such a sharp increase in hate speech, problematic content and formerly banned accounts in such a short period on a mainstream social media platform.

“Elon Musk sent up the Bat Signal to every kind of racist, misogynist and homophobe that Twitter was open for business,” said Imran Ahmed, the chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate. “They have reacted accordingly.”

Mr. Musk, who did not respond to a request for comment, has been vocal about being a “free speech absolutist” who believes in unfettered discussions online. He has moved swiftly to overhaul Twitter’s practices, allowing former President Donald J. Trump — who was barred for tweets that could incite violence — to return. Last week, Mr. Musk proposed a widespread amnesty for accounts that Twitter’s previous leadership had suspended. And on Tuesday, he ended enforcement of a policy against Covid misinformation.

But Mr. Musk has denied claims that hate speech has increased on Twitter under his watch. Last month, he tweeted a downward-trending graph that he said showed that “hate speech impressions” had dropped by a third since he took over. He did not provide underlying numbers or details of how he was measuring hate speech.

On Thursday, Mr. Musk said the account of Kanye West, which was restricted for a spell in October because of an antisemitic tweet, would be suspended indefinitely after the rapper, known as Ye, tweeted an image of a swastika inside the Star of David. On Friday, Mr. Musk said Twitter would publish “hate speech impressions” every week and agreed with a tweet that said hate speech spiked last week because of Ye’s antisemitic posts.

Changes in Twitter’s content not only have societal implications but also affect the company’s bottom line. Advertisers, which provide about 90 percent of Twitter’s revenue, have reduced their spending on the platform as they wait to see how it will fare under Mr. Musk. Some have said they are concerned that the quality of discussions on the platform will suffer.

On Wednesday, Twitter sought to reassure advertisers about its commitment to online safety. “Brand safety is only possible when human safety is the top priority,” the company wrote in a blog post. “All of this remains true today.”

The appeal to advertisers coincided with a meeting between Mr. Musk and Thierry Breton, the digital chief of the European Union, in which they discussed content moderation and regulation, according to an E.U. spokesman. Mr. Breton has pressed Mr. Musk to comply with the Digital Services Act, a European law that requires social platforms to reduce online harm or face fines and other penalties.

Mr. Breton plans to visit Twitter’s San Francisco headquarters early next year to perform a “stress test” of its ability to moderate content and combat disinformation, the spokesman said.

On Twitter itself, researchers said the increase in hate speech, antisemitic posts and other troubling content had begun before Mr. Musk loosened the service’s content rules. That suggested that a further surge could be coming, they said.

If that happens, it’s unclear whether Mr. Musk will have policies in place to deal with problematic speech or, even if he does, whether Twitter has the employees to keep up with moderation. Mr. Musk laid off, fired or accepted the resignations of more than half the company’s staff last month, including those who worked to remove harassment, foreign interference and disinformation from the service. Yoel Roth, Twitter’s head of trust of safety, was among those who quit.

The Anti-Defamation League, which files regular reports of antisemitic tweets to Twitter and keeps track of which posts are removed, said the company had gone from taking action on 60 percent of the tweets it reported to only 30 percent.

“We have advised Musk that Twitter should not just keep the policies it has had in place for years, it should dedicate resources to those policies,” said Yael Eisenstat, a vice president at the Anti-Defamation League, who met with Mr. Musk last month. She said he did not appear interested in taking the advice of civil rights groups and other organizations.

“His actions to date show that he is not committed to a transparent process where he incorporates the best practices we have learned from civil society groups,” Ms. Eisenstat said. “Instead he has emboldened racists, homophobes and antisemites.”

The lack of action extends to new accounts affiliated with terror groups and others that Twitter previously banned. In the first 12 days after Mr. Musk assumed control, 450 accounts associated with ISIS were created, up 69 percent from the previous 12 days, according to the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think tank that studies online platforms.

Other social media companies are also increasingly concerned about how content is being moderated on Twitter.

When Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, found accounts associated with Russian and Chinese state-backed influence campaigns on its platforms last month, it tried to alert Twitter, said two members of Meta’s security team, who asked not to be named because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The two companies often communicated on these issues, since foreign influence campaigns typically linked fake accounts on Facebook to Twitter.

But this time was different. The emails to their counterparts at Twitter bounced or went unanswered, the Meta employees said, in a sign that those workers may have been fired.

Source: Hate Speech’s Rise on Twitter Is Unprecedented, Researchers Find