As the summer travel outlook improves, added fees are making a comeback

Ready or not, travel fees are poised to make a comeback this summer. Some of them were inevitable. For example, last month most major airlines began reinstating penalty charges for some ticket changes. Yeah, I know – what took them so long?Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. Other fees may come as a surprise. If you’re visiting the Caribbean island of St. Maarten, for example, you will have to pay a $30 fee for its Visitors Protection Plan. It covers medical expenses and a medical evacuation – whether you need them or not. Airlines, hotels and travel agencies, mindful that customers hated extra charges, wisely suspended many of them because of the pandemic. But they never stopped thinking about them or the much-needed revenue they provided. Now that people are starting to travel again, the industry is ready to bring back the fees – and then some. The fees fall into two broad categories: the new ones imposed by countries on international visitors and the fees (new or reinstated) charged by companies such as airlines, travel agencies and vacation rental firms. Government fees such as the one charged by St. Maarten for visitor protection are relatively new and not covered by insurance. Sanne Wesselman, a marketing consultant who lives on a catamaran in the Caribbean, stumbled upon the St. Maarten fee on a recent visit to the island. Wesselman, who wrote about the experience in her travel blog, says the more she thought about the fee, the more sense it made. “It keeps me from having to pay high medical bills in case I do contract covid here,” she says. “And it helps St. Maarten in its fight against the coronavirus.” Mohak Nahta, the CEO of Atlas, an app that helps travelers complete visa applications, says other countries have new mandatory health fees. One of the best-known – because it affected so many U.S. travelers this spring – is the $50 to $70 charged to visitors for the Bahamas health visa. The visa covers basic medical expenses on the islands. Like Wesselman, Nahta thinks such fees are fair. “At least it lets people go into the Bahamas,” he says. But what happens when the pandemic ends? Travel insurance experts predict that countries will institute a strict medical insurance requirement to offset the cost of providing medical care to tourists. Or they will keep a medical visa requirement, if they have one, even though the pandemic has ended. That’s how it goes with travel fees. They’re easy to add but hard to remove. When it comes to travel companies, the fee frenzy is just starting. They eased up on fees during the pandemic because there were so few travelers. But other industries set an example that the travel industry is now following. A Washington Post investigation this year found that U.S. businesses were charging coronavirus-related fees ranging from a hair salon’s $5 disinfection charge to $1,200 for cleaning in a senior-living center. Worse, businesses didn’t always disclose the fees. More vacation rental companies have added security charges during the pandemic, according to Autohost, a company that provides guest-screening services for such companies. More hosts have complained about raucous parties and damage to their property during the pandemic. Security deposits on larger properties can run as high as $5,000, roughly double what they were before the pandemic. Damage waivers range from $25 to $50. “These fees cover higher security costs,” says Roy Firestein, CEO and co-founder of Autohost. The reasons seem sound. Autohost says the pandemic has caused an increase in high-risk bookings, including rentals to guests who throwdestructive parties, use fake IDs and stolen credit cards, or use the space for criminal activity. So operators have installed noise sensors and cameras – and hired guest-screening services. Guests could argue that security costs should always be included in the base price. Travel agents are adjusting their fees, too. In the past, they relied almost exclusively on commissions from service providers to earn their living. However, since the covid-19 pandemic, many agencies are evolving to a “business consulting” model by incorporating fees for their professional services, time and knowledge. TierOne Travel, based in Calgary, Alberta, is among those travel agencies that have seen commission revenue drop during the pandemic. In response, its travel advisers have doubled down on charges to travelers: booking fees, which range from $20 to $250, and change and cancellation fees of $40 to $100. “These fees vary depending on the individual agent and the type of travel being booked, such as domestic flights, international flights, cruises and travel packages,” says Shelley Ewing, TierOne’s CEO. Ewing says most customers are willing to pay the extras. “They feel that the services and expertise their travel agent provides are worth the peace of mind,” she says. “Especially with the ever-changing travel rules and restrictions implemented since the pandemic, which their travel consultant can greatly help to mitigate.” With airlines reinstating fees, some agents will probably be encouraged to keep their new ones. Historically, once customers accept a surcharge, it becomes an industry standard. The aggressive growth of hotel resort fees is a case in point. There are exceptions. The Breakers, an independent luxury hotel in Palm Beach, Fla., stubbornly refused to charge resort fees before the pandemic. It continued to resist such fees in 2020 and remains fee-free. “We would never use the premise of economic recovery opportunistically,” says Bonnie Reuben, a resort spokeswoman. “We do not feel justified in adding on charges to offset a post-pandemic loss of revenue, and we never did in the past during down-market periods.” Of course, principles come at a price. Rooms at the Breakers start at $465 per night. So this year, as you make your travel plans, don’t forget to ask about extra fees. When you get a price quote for a vacation rental or a hotel, find out if everything is included. Ask your travel adviser about any extras for cancellations or changes. And remember my words: Long after the pandemic is gone, many of these fees will still be with us. – – – Elliott is a consumer advocate, journalist and co-founder of the advocacy group Travelers United. Related ContentApple’s AirTag trackers made it frighteningly easy to ‘stalk’ meIndian diaspora reckons with crisis abroadBlack residents of Elizabeth City, N.C., thought police violence happened in other places. Then it came to their town.

Source Article from https://news.yahoo.com/pfizer-moderna-shares-plummet-biden-204800783.html

A jury convicted two American friends Wednesday in the 2019 slaying of a police officer in a tragic unraveling of a small time drug deal gone bad, sentencing them to the maximum life in prison.

The jury of two judges and six civilians deliberated more than 12 hours before delivering the verdicts against Finnegan Lee Elder, 21, and Gabriel Natale-Hjorth, 20, handing them Italy’s stiffest sentence.

Elder and Natale-Hjorth were found guilty of all charges: homicide, attempted extortion, assault, resisting a public official and carrying an attack-style knife without just cause. There was a gasp in the Rome courtroom as the presiding judge, Marina Finiti, read the verdict.

Prosecutors alleged that Elder stabbed Vice Brigadier Mario Cerciello Rega 11 times with a knife that he brought with him on his trip to Europe from California and that Natale-Hjorth helped him hide the knife in their hotel room. Under Italian law, an accomplice in an alleged murder can also be charged with murder even without materially doing the slaying.

The July 26, 2019 killing of the officer in the storied Carabinieri paramilitary police corps shocked Italy. Cerciello Rega, 35, was mourned as a national hero.

The slain officer’s widow, who held a photo of her dead husband while waiting for the verdict, broke down in tears and hugged his brother, Paolo.

“His integrity was defended,” Rosa Maria Esilio said outside the courtroom, between sobs. “He was everyone’s son, everyone’s Carabinieri. He was a marvelous husband, he was a marvelous man, a servant of the state who merited respect and honor.”

The defendants were led immediately out of the courtroom after the verdicts were read. As Elder was being walked out, his father, Ethan Elder, called out, “Finnegan, I love you.” Both of his parents looked stunned.

Elder’s lawyer, Renato Borzone, called the verdict against his client “a disgrace for Italy.” Natale-Hjorth’s lawyer, Fabio Alonzi, said he was speechless.

For the brief final hearing before deliberations Wednesday, the two Californians were allowed out of steel-barred defendant cages inside the courtroom to sit with their lawyers before the case went to the jury.

“I’m stressed,” Elder said to one of his lawyers. Elder fingered a crucifix he wears on a chain around his neck and kissed it before the jury went out. He also turned to his codefendant, Natale-Hjorth, and held the crucifix toward him through a glass partition, motioning heavenward.

Elder and his father crossed their fingers toward each other for good luck after the jury went into chambers.

Natale-Hjorth was greeted by his father and Italian uncle, who were present for the deliberations.

Finnegan Lee Elder listens as the verdict is read, in the trial for the slaying of an Italian plainclothes police officer in summer 2019, in Rome, Wednesday, May 5, 2021. 

Gregorio Borgia / AP


Cerciello Rega had recently returned from a honeymoon when he was assigned along with his partner, officer Andrea Varriale, to follow up on a reported extortion attempt. They went in plainclothes, and didn’t carry their service pistols.

Prosecutors contend the young Americans concocted a plot involving a stolen bag and cellphone after their failed attempt to buy cocaine with 80 euros ($96) in Rome’s Trastevere nightlife district. Natale-Hjorth and Elder testified they had paid for the cocaine but didn’t receive it.

Both defendants contended they acted in self-defense.

During the trial, which began on February 26, 2020, the Americans told the court they thought that Cerciello Rega and Varriale were thugs or mobsters out to assault them on a dark, deserted street. The officers wore casual summer clothes and not uniforms, and the defendants insisted the officers never showed police badges.

Varriale, who suffered a back injury in a scuffle with Natale-Hjorth while his partner was grappling with Elder, testified that the officers did identify themselves as Carabinieri.

At the time of the slaying, Elder was 19 and traveling through Europe without his family, while Natale-Hjorth, then 18, was spending the summer vacation with his Italian grandparents, who live near Rome. Former schoolmates from the San Francisco Bay area, the two had met up in Rome for what was supposed to be couple of days of sightseeing and nights out.

Prosecutors alleged that Elder thrust a seven-inch military-style attack knife repeatedly into Cerciello Rega, who bled profusely, like a “fountain,” Varriale had testified, and died shortly after in hospital.

Elder told the court that the heavy-set Cerciello Rega, scuffling with him, was on top of him on the ground, and he feared that he was being strangled. Elder said he pulled out the knife and stabbed him to avoid being killed, and when the officer didn’t immediately let him go, he stabbed again.

After the stabbing, the Americans ran to their hotel room, where, according to Natale-Hjorth, Elder cleaned the knife and then asked him to hide it. Natale-Hjorth testified that he hid the knife behind a ceiling panel in their room, where it was discovered hours later by police.

The defendants had told the court that several hours before the stabbing, they attempted to buy cocaine in the Trastevere nightlife district of Rome. With the intervention of a go-between, they paid a dealer, but instead of cocaine they received an aspirin-like tablet.

Before Natale-Hjorth could confront the dealer, a separate Carabinieri patrol in the neighborhood intervened, and all scattered. The Americans snatched the go-between’s knapsack in reprisal, and used a cellphone that was inside to set up a meeting with the goal of exchanging the bag and the phone for the cash they had lost in the bad drug deal.

From practically its start, the trial largely boiled down to the word of Varriale against that of the young American visitors. The victim’s widow would sit in the front row, often clutching a photo of her husband. Photos of the newlyweds, with Cerciello Rega in his dress uniform, after their wedding, were widely displayed in Italian media after the slaying.

As the trial neared its end, Elder’s lawyer, Borzone, argued that deep-set psychiatric problems, including a constant fear of being attacked, figured in the fatal stabbing. Borzone told the court his client saw a world filled with enemies due to psychiatric problems and that something “short-circuited” when Elder was confronted by the officer.

Source Article from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mario-cerciello-rega-finnegan-elder-gabriel-natale-hjorth-italy-stabbing-conviction/

NEW DELHI (AP) — Infections in India hit another grim daily record on Thursday as demand for medical oxygen jumped sevenfold and the government denied reports that it was slow in distributing life-saving supplies from abroad.

The number of new confirmed cases breached 400,000 for the second time since the devastating surge began last month. The 412,262 new cases pushed India’s official tally to more than 21 million. The Health Ministry also reported 3,980 deaths in the last 24 hours, bringing the total to 230,168. Experts believe both figures are an undercount.

Eleven COVID-19 patients died when pressure in an oxygen line dropped suddenly in a government medical college hospital in Chengalpet in southern India on Wednesday night, possibly because of a faulty valve, The Times of India newspaper reported.

Hospital authorities said they repaired the pipeline last week, but the consumption of oxygen had doubled since then, the newspaper said.

Demand for hospital oxygen has increased sevenfold since last month, a government official said, as India scrambles to set up large oxygen plants and transport oxygen. India created a sea bridge on Tuesday to ferry oxygen tankers from Bahrain and Kuwait in the Persian Gulf, officials said.

Most hospitals in India aren’t equipped with independent plants that generate oxygen directly for patients, As a result, hospitals typically rely on liquid oxygen, which can be stored in cylinders and transported in tankers. But amid the surge, supplies in hard-hit places such as New Delhi are running critically short.

Health Minister Harsh Vardhan said India has enough liquid oxygen but it’s facing capacity constraints in moving it. Most oxygen is produced in the eastern parts of India while the demand has risen in northern and western parts.

K. Vijay Raghvan, a principal scientific adviser to the government, said this phase of the pandemic was “a very critical time for the country.”

The United States, Britain, Germany and several other nations are rushing therapeutics, rapid virus tests and oxygen, along with materials needed to boost domestic production of COVID-19 vaccines to ease pressure on the fragile health infrastructure.

India’s vaccine production is expected to get a boost with the United States supporting a waiver of intellectual property protections for COVID-19 vaccines.

Vaccine components from the U.S. that have arrived in India will enable the manufacturing of 20 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, said Daniel B. Smith, the senior diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi.

Last month, Adar Poonawalla, chief executive officer of the Serum Institute of India, the world’s biggest vaccine maker, appealed to President Joe Biden to lift the embargo on U.S. export of raw materials, which he said was affecting its production of COVID-19 shots.

The government meanwhile described as “totally misleading” Indian media reports that it took seven days to come up with a procedure for distributing urgent medical supplies that started arriving on April 25.

The statement sad a streamlined and systematic mechanism for allocation of the supplies received by India has been put in place for effective distribution. The Indian Red Cross Society is involved in distributing supplies from abroad, it said.

Source Article from https://apnews.com/article/india-middle-east-coronavirus-pandemic-health-4b830485ce09b3e7eeea40c5522d4d21

  • The US Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division says it has “concerns” over Arizona’s 2020 election audit.
  • The concerns were raised in a letter to state Sen. Karen Fann, a Republican.
  • Voting rights groups last month asked the Justice Department to intervene.
  • See more stories on Insider’s business page.

The US Department of Justice has reviewed details that “raise concerns” about the integrity of the Republican-led audit in Maricopa County, telling the president of Arizona’s state senate that the effort may violate federal law.

The audit, taking place at a sports arena in Phoenix, is being conducted by a private firm, Cyber Ninjas, that has no experience in elections and is led by a man who promoted conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. The firm was chosen to lead the effort by state Sen. Karen Fann, over the objections of Maricopa County’s local Republican officials — and after two audits were already conducted last year.

President Joe Biden won the county by more than 45,000 votes.

In a May 5 letter to Sen. Fann, obtained by local news station KNXV’s Garrett Archer, the Department of Justice’s Pamela S. Karlan, principal deputy assistant attorney general with the Civil Rights Division, said Cyber Ninjas’ involvement may be illegal.

“Federal law creates a duty to safeguard and preserve federal election records,” Karlan wrote. The department is concerned that this is not happening in Maricopa County, where the records “are no longer under the ultimate control of elections officials, are not being adequately safeguarded by contractors, and are at risk of damage or loss.”

The department’s second area of concern is Cyber Ninjas’ stated intent to “identify voter registrations that did not make sense, and then knock on doors to confirm if valid voters actually lived at the stated address.” This, Karlan wrote, “raises concerns regarding potential intimidation of voters,” which is prohibited by federal statutes.

The letter closes by asking for a response on what steps the Arizona Senate will take to ensure the audit does not break federal law. It comes the same day that one audit official told reporters he was attempting to find traces of “bamboo” on voters’ ballots to prove a conspiracy theory that they came from southeast Asia.

Sen. Fann did not immediately respond to Insider’s request for comment.

The Department of Justice’s letter comes about a week after a coalition of voting rights groups had requested such an intervention, as Insider reported.

In an interview last month, the head of the Arizona Democratic Party, state Rep. Raquel Terán, said that Cyber Ninjas was engaged in a “sham audit” intended to justify new restrictions on voting.

Local Democrats welcomed Wednesday’s intervention.

“We are glad that the DOJ is engaged and monitoring this sham,” Alex Alvarez, a party spokesperson, told Insider.

Have a news tip? Email this reporter: cdavis@insider.com

Source Article from https://www.businessinsider.com/us-justice-department-expresses-concerns-over-arizona-election-audit-2021-5

“It’s really important that we are able to work with those fishermen to help them provide the necessary evidence so that, if required, their licences can be amended,” Senator Ian Gorst, Jersey’s external relations minister, told BBC News.

Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57003069

Global health activists, who have been pressing for the waiver, praised the administration’s decision. It is “a truly historic step, which shows that President Biden is committed to being not just an American leader, but a global one,” said Priti Krishtel, an executive director of the Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge.

But the activists said a waiver alone would not increase the world’s vaccine supply. It must be accompanied by a process known as “tech transfer,” in which patent holders supply technical know-how and personnel. Activists are also demanding that Mr. Biden use his leverage to ensure that manufacturing is scaled up around the globe, and not just by the pharmaceutical companies that now hold the patents.

“No U.S.T.R. has made a pronouncement like this,” said Asia Russell, the executive director of Health GAP, a global AIDS treatment advocacy group, using the abbreviation for the trade representative. “And now the actions have to match the words.”

The United States’ announcement is only one step toward a potential international agreement on suspending intellectual property rights. Negotiating the fine print of an agreement that satisfies countries around the world is a tall order. If an agreement can be reached at the World Trade Organization, it is far from clear what would happen next.

Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, a patent law professor at Stanford Law School, suggested that the Biden administration’s move may help sway the drug industry to reach “deals that they can live with.”

Ana Santos Rutschman, a health law expert at Saint Louis University School of Law, said the drug industry now has a clear incentive to “shift the debate to the global equity problem in accessing doses that we can actually produce, as opposed to getting into this enormous fight.” The best bet for companies, she said, may be to take steps like donating more vaccine doses or selling them on a nonprofit basis to lower-income countries in need.

The debate over whether to relax intellectual property rules has stretched on for months. India and South Africa proposed the waiver last fall, seeking to suspend portions of an international intellectual property agreement dealing with issues like patents, copyrights and trade secrets. Under President Donald J. Trump, the United States opposed the effort. Other opponents have included Britain and the European Union.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/us/politics/biden-covid-vaccine-patents.html

Protesters call for stronger eviction protections in January in Sacramento, Calif. A federal appeals court will now decide whether to scrap a federal eviction moratorium from the CDC. Housing groups say renters need more time to qualify for and get rental assistance money.

Rich Pedroncelli/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Rich Pedroncelli/AP

Protesters call for stronger eviction protections in January in Sacramento, Calif. A federal appeals court will now decide whether to scrap a federal eviction moratorium from the CDC. Housing groups say renters need more time to qualify for and get rental assistance money.

Rich Pedroncelli/AP

A federal judge has issued a sweeping ruling that would revoke a pandemic eviction moratorium put in place by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But the Justice Department is appealing on behalf of the CDC.

The case was brought by the Alabama Association of Realtors, which argued that the CDC doesn’t have the power to tell landlords they can’t evict people during a pandemic. The judge agreed.

“It is the role of the political branches, and not the courts, to assess the merits of policy measures designed to combat the spread of disease, even during a global pandemic,” Judge Dabney Friedrich of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in her ruling.

“The question for the Court is a narrow one: Does the Public Health Service Act grant the CDC the legal authority to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium? It does not.”

That act empowers the CDC to make and enforce regulations that it judges are necessary to prevent “the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases.” But the judge said in this case the CDC overreached.

There have been several rulings on the matter with conflicting decisions. This latest one goes further than any of them by moving to strike down the eviction moratorium nationwide.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could now issue a stay, which would keep the CDC’s eviction protections in place, for now.

“My hope is that the D.C. Circuit Court will quickly issue a stay, and this ruling will not have effect,” said Shamus Roller, executive director of the National Housing Law Project.

“The underlying ruling in this case is pretty weak, in my opinion,” Roller said. “Congress in December extended the CDC order. So clearly Congress thinks that the CDC has this authority.”

But Roller said it’s unclear whether the appeals court will issue a stay and which way the appellate decision may go. He said the Trump administration appointed many conservative federal judges who he suspects could rule against the government exerting this kind of power — telling landlords not to evict tenants during a public health emergency.

“It’ll be a three judge panel that will review this,” Roller says. “It will depend greatly on which three judges get selected.”

Meanwhile, the plaintiff in this latest case, the Alabama Association of Realtors, said it’s pleased by the ruling.

The group’s CEO, Jeremy Walker, said, “The ruling will bring much needed relief to struggling mom-and-pop housing providers across the country.” He said the economy is growing again and getting back on its feet. “Our focus is now on the implementation of emergency rental assistance to support tenants who continue to suffer from the effects of the pandemic as soon as possible.”

The U.S. Census Bureau says nearly 7 million Americans are still behind on rent. And while Congress has authorized about $50 billion in rental assistance money, the vast majority of it hasn’t reached the people who need it yet.

So housing groups say that without the CDC order in place, many families will get evicted who might otherwise have avoided it. They worry these families could wind up homeless, just because they lost work during the worst pandemic in a century.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2021/05/05/993973765/judge-strikes-down-federal-eviction-moratorium-setting-up-high-stakes-appeal

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) wrote that the Republican Party is at a “turning point” and must decide “whether we will join Trump’s crusade to delegitimize and undo the legal outcome of the 2020 election, with all the consequences that might have.”

Cheney offered her commentary in an op-ed for the Washington Post, published Wednesday.

“We Republicans need to stand for genuinely conservative principles, and steer away from the dangerous and anti-democratic Trump cult of personality,” Cheney wrote.

With her House leadership role as GOP conference chair in jeopardy, Cheney writes that Trump’s language about the 2020 election “provoked violence on January 6.” Trump, who was banned from social media platforms, recently launched his own method of communicating with his supporters. There, he wrote, “the Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020 will be, from this day forth, known as THE BIG LIE!” 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS FROM THE CONSTITUTION NOT ‘FACEBOOK’S OVERSIGHT BOARD,’ RNC SAYS OF TRUMP BAN

“While embracing or ignoring Trump’s statements might seem attractive to some for fundraising and political purposes, that approach will do profound long-term damage to our party and our country,” Cheney wrote. “Trump has never expressed remorse or regret for the attack of Jan. 6 and now suggests that our elections, and our legal and constitutional system, cannot be trusted to do the will of the people.” 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“This is immensely harmful, especially as we now compete on the world stage against Communist China and its claims that democracy is a failed system,” she continued. 

Cheney also addressed recent violence from groups such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa, but noted those are a “different problem with a different solution.” 

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/liz-cheney-gop-leadership-trump-cult

  • In a Wednesday address, President Joe Biden gave an impassioned defense of his proposed tax hikes.
  • Biden wants to hike taxes on corporations and Americans making over $400,000 a year.
  • He said the rates he’s proposing have historical precedent, and he wants to offset spending.
  • See more stories on Insider’s business page.

While answering questions after a Wednesday address on the impact of the American Rescue Plan, President Joe Biden doubled down on his tax proposals and the need for wealthier Americans and corporations to pay their fair share — and took aim at prior Republican tax cuts.

“My Republican friends had no problem voting to pass a tax proposal — it expires in 2025 — that costs $2 trillion,” Biden said, adding that none of that was paid for. In fact, he said, it “gave the overwhelming percentage of those tax breaks to people who didn’t need it. The top one tenth of 1% didn’t need it.”

As for the argument Republicans gave in 2017, that it would generate a “great economic surge and growth,” Biden said “everyone from the Heritage Foundation on has pointed out it hadn’t done that.”

Then he turned to his plans to hike taxes.

“The biggest 35 or 30 corporations didn’t pay a single solitary penny last year, and they’re Fortune 500 companies,” Biden said. “They made $400 billion. They paid no taxes. How can that make any sense?”

Biden said sometime in the 2000s — he’d have his staff supply the exact date — the average CEO of a Fortune 500 company made about 36 times what the average employee of that corporation made.

“It’s over 450 times as much now. As my mother would say, who died and left them boss?” he said before raising his voice while questioning how it can benefit the economy to have CEOs make so much more than workers. “No, seriously, what rationale, tell me what benefit flows from that?”

“We’re not going to deprive” any executive “of their second or third home” or traveling privately by jet, he said.

“It’s not going to affect your standard of living at all. Not a little tiny bit,” Biden said, raising his voice, “while I can affect the standard of living of people I grew up with.”

Biden has proposed a slew of tax measures to offset the proposed spending in his two-pronged infrastructure package. Those include raising the income tax rate for the wealthiest Americans to 39.6%, bringing up the capital gains rate to the same level, and increasing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%. The corporate tax rate was one measure that was slashed under Trump’s tax package, falling from 35% to 21%.

Biden said he was open to compromising on the corporate tax rate — some Democrats have floated an increase to 25%, instead of 28% — but said he still wants to offset spending.

“I’m willing to compromise, but I’m not willing to not pay for what we’re talking about,” he said.

Inequality expert Sarah Anderson has testified in front of the Senate Budget Committee that the yearly gap between CEO pay and the pay of average workers is about 350 to 1.

Overall, the tax burden of Biden’s proposal would fall squarely on the top 1% of American tax filers, who would pay an average additional $100,000 per year. Biden addressed his proposal to raise the income tax rate to 39.6% for Americans making over $400,000, which he noted was a return to the Bush-era level. 

“Just raise it back to what it was before. It raises enough money from that savings to put every single person in community college who wants to go,” he said.  On that topic, he posed a question: “What’s going to grow America more?” The options, he said, are “the super wealthy having to pay 3.9% less tax” or an entire generation “of Americans having associate degrees.”

In closing, Biden said: “This is about making the average multimillionaire pay just a fair share. It’s not going to affect their standard of living” — pausing to whisper — “a little bit.”

Source Article from https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-defends-tax-increases-average-multimillionaire-whispered-wealth-infrastructure-2021-5

In this article

Facebook’s self-created “supreme court” refused to do the company’s dirty work when it handed down a decision on the platform’s indefinite ban of former President Donald Trump.

Facebook was right to ban Trump after his posts expressing support for rioters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, Facebook’s oversight board said in its decision Wednesday. But, the board said, Facebook should not have made the ban indefinite, adding that it’s up to the company to decide the appropriate time frame for suspension — whether that’s a few weeks more or forever.

“In applying a vague, standardless penalty and then referring this case to the Board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities,” wrote the board, an independent committee of 20 outside experts. “The Board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty.”

The oversight board was created to adjudicate on some of the trickiest problems Facebook faces in operating a platform for a community larger than most nations. It’s funded by a trust created by Facebook but which the platform cannot control. The board’s recommendations are not binding.

Yet Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had previously committed the platform to following the board’s decision on the Trump ban, whatever it may be. Zuckerberg has long said he does not want to be the sole arbiter of truth for such a large community and has welcomed the presence of an outside body that could appear to play that role in a deliberative way — without taking away any of his power over the business.

That makes the board’s decision on the Trump ban perhaps the worst-case scenario for Facebook, at least in terms of the delicate diplomatic line it walks in Washington. It was clear long before the decision was made that half the country would likely be unhappy with whichever outcome the board chose, whether it was to permanently ban or to reinstate Trump’s account. But the actual decision has seemed to aggravate lawmakers on both the left and the right.

“Facebook is a disinformation-for-profit machine that won’t accept responsibility for its role in the safety of our democracy and people,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., tweeted following the decision on Wednesday. “Trump should be banned for good, but Facebook will continue to fumble with its power until Congress and antitrust regulators rein in Big Tech.”

“Break them up,” tweeted staunch Trump ally Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.

While some Democrats were more conciliatory toward Facebook, it’s clear they have a single outcome in mind once Facebook hands down its final decision, leaving the company in a tricky spot.

Zuckerberg can no longer deflect blame for a decision on Trump’s suspension. The oversight board gave Facebook up to six months to come up with an appropriate time frame for the ban and to explain their policy that justifies it. While the board’s co-chairs acknowledged the same case could land back on their desk after that, Facebook will have already been forced to state publicly one way or another whether it believes the former president should be allowed to return to its platform.

Still, the board did provide a list of recommendations to frame how Facebook should consider its decision, which could at least make its ultimate choice more clear to consumers. The board said that context matters when it comes to suspension decisions and preventing significant harm should take precedence over newsworthiness. It suggested that Facebook could assess whether risk of harm has diminished before reinstating an account.

There’s a lot on the line for Facebook. The company already faces antitrust lawsuits from the Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of state attorneys general that have seen broad bipartisan support. Trump’s suspension from the platform seemed to rile up conservatives who had already felt the company was too powerful, motivating them to join with Democrats seeking reforms to antitrust law and the legal liability shield that protects tech platforms known as Section 230.

Even if Facebook allows Trump back on the platform, it’s hard to know if Republicans will forgive the original suspension, while Democrats will likely be motivated to push even harder for reforms.

Already, Republicans have seemed to express willingness to go further than previously in terms of tech reform after Wednesday’s decision. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the ranking member on the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement that Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent suggestion of regulating social media like common carriers “offers a sound basis for legislation that would bring accountability to this industry.” Categorizing platforms as common carriers would come with far greater regulation than they experience today, possibly making their content moderation practices too risky to continue in their current form.

A Facebook spokesperson referred to the company’s earlier blog post on the board’s decision.

“We will now consider the board’s decision and determine an action that is clear and proportionate,” Facebook VP of Global Affairs Nick Clegg wrote. “In the meantime, Mr. Trump’s accounts remain suspended.”

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

WATCH: The big, messy business of content moderation on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/05/mark-zuckerberg-can-no-longer-deflect-blame-for-trumps-facebook-suspension.html

Bill Gates isn’t just a billionaire tech nerd — he can also party like a rockstar.

The billionaire Microsoft founder was once photographed “dancing Paris Hilton-style” on a banquette with a group of attractive women at a Microsoft-sponsored party during the 2010 Sundance Film Festival.

“He gyrated in a VIP booth until 2 a.m.,” Page Six reported at the time. “Everybody was snapping photos of him until his security rushed him out the back door after he tipped a waitress $500.”

He was seen high-fiving female friends dancing in his booth and pulling a series of moves including air guitar, fist pumping, the Swim and the Jackhammer.

BILL AND MELINDA GATES ANNOUNCE THEY ARE GETTING DIVORCED

Gates was at Sundance for the screening of Davis Guggenheim’s “Waiting for Superman,” a documentary about education reform, which is a focus of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Microsoft party featured John Legend and The Roots in concert and was held at Sundance’s Bing Lounge.

“Bill Gates got up on the booth during the concert but really started moving and grooving once the show was over and the DJ set started,” a witness said.

Bill Gates attends the Onitsuka Tiger Party on January 23, 2010 in Park City, Utah.
(Michael Bezjian/WireImage)

“The crowd was absolutely shocked and floored to see Bill Gates dancing like a wild man! He climbed right up on the booth and started dancing, uninhibited, alongside party guests.

“People tried to get photos but his security did not like that at all. They were standing in front of him the whole time and while he didn’t seem to have a care in the world, his security was serious and tried to block anyone from taking photos.” 

INTERPRETER ZHE ‘SHELLY’ WANG ALLEGEDLY DENIES SPLITTING UP BILL AND MELINDA GATES

Bill and Melinda Gates announced their divorce in a joint statement on Monday.

A divorce suit was filed by Melinda, saying she and the Microsoft co-founder — who married in Hawaii on New Year’s Day 1994 — don’t have a prenuptial agreement to distribute their estimated $130 billion in assets.

THE MOST SAVAGE MEMES ABOUT BILL AND MELINDA GATES’ DIVORCE

Bill, 65, and Melinda, 56, signed a separation contract for dividing their property and possessions, the terms of which weren’t disclosed in the King County Superior Court papers in Washington.  

Reps for Bill Gates did not respond to requests for comment from Page Six.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/bill-gates-fist-pumped-party-sundance-film-festival

In this article

Facebook’s self-created “supreme court” refused to do the company’s dirty work when it handed down a decision on the platform’s indefinite ban of former President Donald Trump.

Facebook was right to ban Trump after his posts expressing support for rioters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, Facebook’s oversight board said in its decision Wednesday. But, the board said, Facebook should not have made the ban indefinite, adding that it’s up to the company to decide the appropriate time frame for suspension — whether that’s a few weeks more or forever.

“In applying a vague, standardless penalty and then referring this case to the Board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities,” wrote the board, an independent committee of 20 outside experts. “The Board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty.”

The oversight board was created to adjudicate on some of the trickiest problems Facebook faces in operating a platform for a community larger than most nations. It’s funded by a trust created by Facebook but which the platform cannot control. The board’s recommendations are not binding.

Yet Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had previously committed the platform to following the board’s decision on the Trump ban, whatever it may be. Zuckerberg has long said he does not want to be the sole arbiter of truth for such a large community and has welcomed the presence of an outside body that could appear to play that role in a deliberative way — without taking away any of his power over the business.

That makes the board’s decision on the Trump ban perhaps the worst-case scenario for Facebook, at least in terms of the delicate diplomatic line it walks in Washington. It was clear long before the decision was made that half the country would likely be unhappy with whichever outcome the board chose, whether it was to permanently ban or to reinstate Trump’s account. But the actual decision has seemed to aggravate lawmakers on both the left and the right.

“Facebook is a disinformation-for-profit machine that won’t accept responsibility for its role in the safety of our democracy and people,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., tweeted following the decision on Wednesday. “Trump should be banned for good, but Facebook will continue to fumble with its power until Congress and antitrust regulators rein in Big Tech.”

“Break them up,” tweeted staunch Trump ally Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.

While some Democrats were more conciliatory toward Facebook, it’s clear they have a single outcome in mind once Facebook hands down its final decision, leaving the company in a tricky spot.

Zuckerberg can no longer deflect blame for a decision on Trump’s suspension. The oversight board gave Facebook up to six months to come up with an appropriate time frame for the ban and to explain their policy that justifies it. While the board’s co-chairs acknowledged the same case could land back on their desk after that, Facebook will have already been forced to state publicly one way or another whether it believes the former president should be allowed to return to its platform.

Still, the board did provide a list of recommendations to frame how Facebook should consider its decision, which could at least make its ultimate choice more clear to consumers. The board said that context matters when it comes to suspension decisions and preventing significant harm should take precedence over newsworthiness. It suggested that Facebook could assess whether risk of harm has diminished before reinstating an account.

There’s a lot on the line for Facebook. The company already faces antitrust lawsuits from the Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of state attorneys general that have seen broad bipartisan support. Trump’s suspension from the platform seemed to rile up conservatives who had already felt the company was too powerful, motivating them to join with Democrats seeking reforms to antitrust law and the legal liability shield that protects tech platforms known as Section 230.

Even if Facebook allows Trump back on the platform, it’s hard to know if Republicans will forgive the original suspension, while Democrats will likely be motivated to push even harder for reforms.

Already, Republicans have seemed to express willingness to go further than previously in terms of tech reform after Wednesday’s decision. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the ranking member on the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement that Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent suggestion of regulating social media like common carriers “offers a sound basis for legislation that would bring accountability to this industry.” Categorizing platforms as common carriers would come with far greater regulation than they experience today, possibly making their content moderation practices too risky to continue in their current form.

A Facebook spokesperson referred to the company’s earlier blog post on the board’s decision.

“We will now consider the board’s decision and determine an action that is clear and proportionate,” Facebook VP of Global Affairs Nick Clegg wrote. “In the meantime, Mr. Trump’s accounts remain suspended.”

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

WATCH: The big, messy business of content moderation on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/05/mark-zuckerberg-can-no-longer-deflect-blame-for-trumps-facebook-suspension.html

Ms. Tai added that the United States would participate in negotiations at the W.TO. over the matter, adding, “Those negotiations will take time given the consensus-based nature of the institution and the complexity of the issues involved.”

Activists have been pressing for the waiver but have also said that a waiver alone will not boost world supply of the vaccine; it must be accompanied by the process known as “tech transfer,” in which patent holders supply technical know-how and personnel.

“This is a start,” said Gregg Gonsalves, a Yale University epidemiologist and longtime AIDS activist who has been pressing for the waiver. “We need the writing of the text of this waiver now to be transparent and public, but as we have always said we need tech transfer now.”

Earlier Wednesday, members of the W.T.O. held another round of discussions about waiving intellectual property protections. Further discussions are expected in the coming weeks, as India and South Africa, which proposed the waiver, are preparing a revised plan for nations to consider.

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the director general of the W.T.O., urged members to proceed with negotiations over the text of the plan.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/us/politics/covid-vaccine-patent-biden.html

Bill Gates’ investment firm transferred $1.8 billion in stock to his wife, Melinda, the same day the couple announced their separation after 27 years of marriage.

Cascade Investment, a holding company that the Microsoft co-founder formed to manage much of his financial assets, transferred more than 14 million shares of Canadian National Railway to Melinda Gates on Monday, according to a securities filing.

On the same day, the firm transferred more than 2.9 million shares of AutoNation to Melinda Gates, a separate filing shows.

Based on Wednesday’s stock prices, the Canadian National Railway holdings are worth more than $1.5 billion and the shares of AutoNation, a Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based company that sells cars, are valued at over $300 million.

The transferred shares represent more than 3 percent of all outstanding AutoNation stock, and about 2 percent for that of The Canadian National Railway.

Bill and Melinda Gates signed a separation agreement for dividing their assets after 27 years of marriage.Getty Images for Robin Hood

The transfers are among the first indications of how one of the world’s wealthiest couples will go about divvying up their assets as they separate.

The couple’s divorce petition, which was filed Monday in King County Superior Court in Washington state, indicated that they don’t have a prenuptial agreement to distribute their estimated $130 billion in assets.

Instead, the two have signed a separation contract for dividing their property and possessions, but the terms of that agreement have not been publicly disclosed in court documents.

Cascade Investment’s transfer of stock to Melinda Gates gives the first look into how the couple will divide their assets.
AFP via Getty Images

Cascade Investment, which reportedly manages a whopping $30 billion of Gates’ personal financial holdings, will be one of the key assets to watch.

Another important asset category at stake is the couple’s ownership of American farmland.

Gates owns nearly 270,000 acres, or 422 square miles, of land across more than a dozen states, according to a January investigation by The Land Report of the largely hidden investments. Divorce proceedings could reveal more about Gates’ role as the biggest owner of farmland in the country.

Source Article from https://nypost.com/2021/05/05/bill-gates-transferred-1-8b-in-stock-to-melinda-amid-divorce-news/

A screen grab from body camera video provided by Atlanta police shows Rayshard Brooks (right) speaking with Garrett Rolfe last June in the parking lot of a Wendy’s restaurant in Atlanta.

Atlanta Police Department /Via AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Atlanta Police Department /Via AP

A screen grab from body camera video provided by Atlanta police shows Rayshard Brooks (right) speaking with Garrett Rolfe last June in the parking lot of a Wendy’s restaurant in Atlanta.

Atlanta Police Department /Via AP

An Atlanta oversight board has ordered the reinstatement of Garrett Rolfe, the fired police officer charged with murder in the death of Rayshard Brooks, based on technicalities about dismissal procedures under the Atlanta city code.

Rolfe will remain on administrative leave until his criminal charges are resolved, the Atlanta Police Department said in a statement to NPR.

The department filed paperwork to dismiss Rolfe the day after he shot Brooks, a 27-year-old Black man, in the parking lot of a Wendy’s on June 12. Rolfe has since been charged with murder, though his criminal case has been bogged down by procedural delays.

The order to reinstate him, made by the city’s Civil Service Board, is based on the finding that Atlanta police did not follow city code when it dismissed him. The board found the department made several errors on the dismissal paperwork and did not give Rolfe adequate time to respond.

The board specifically did not make a judgment about whether Rolfe’s conduct was criminal.

“It is important to note that the CSB did not make a determination as to whether officer Rolfe violated Atlanta Police Department policies. In light of the CSB’s rulings, APD will conduct an assessment to determine if additional investigative actions are needed,” department spokesperson Anthony Grant told NPR.

On the night of June 12, Rolfe and another officer were called to the Wendy’s because Brooks had fallen asleep in his car in the drive-through lane, according to authorities. The officers arrived and questioned Brooks, and conducted field sobriety tests for about 30 minutes, police body camera footage shows. They then moved to handcuff him, saying he’d had too much to drink to be driving.

Brooks resisted arrest. In the scuffle, he grabbed an officer’s Taser, then ran away. Rolfe chased him with his own Taser drawn. Still running, Brooks tried to fire the Taser back toward Rolfe. Rolfe then drew his handgun and fired three shots, two of them striking Brooks.

The officers, including Rolfe, did not immediately provide medical assistance. Brooks died soon after at a hospital.

Rolfe’s dismissal was announced that weekend.

His firing came at a chaotic time for the Atlanta Police Department. Less than two weeks previously, two other officers were fired for Tasering two Black college students during a traffic stop. (Those officers have also been reinstated.) The chief, Erika Shields, resigned June 13, the same day the department filed paperwork to fire Rolfe.

During a board hearing last month over whether Rolfe’s firing should be reversed, witness testimony and evidence showed an error-ridden, rushed dismissal.

Atlanta city code requires that the subject of disciplinary action have an opportunity to respond before the action, in this case Rolfe’s dismissal, takes effect. That response period can be shortened in the case of emergency.

But the board ruled that the city did not provide Rolfe that chance to defend himself, instead delivering the notice of his dismissal at a meeting neither he nor police supervisors could attend.

Additionally, officials made several mistakes on the disciplinary paperwork, including checking both “yes” and “no” boxes on one form under the section indicating whether the dismissal was an “emergency action.”

“This was very rushed. Time was of the essence. Sometimes mistakes happen when you rush,” Sgt. William Dean, an investigator with APD’s internal affairs unit, testified at the hearing.

The hearing did not address whether any of Rolfe’s actions that night were criminal. Rolfe, making his first public statement since killing Brooks, refused to answer any questions related to June 12, citing the Fifth Amendment.

Two witnesses from APD, Dean and Assistant Chief Todd Coyt, testified that they believed that Rolfe and his partner had acted appropriately during the encounter with Brooks.

The conditions of Rolfe’s bond ban him from possessing firearms and prevent him from having contact with any APD officers except in case of emergencies, according to court documents.

Rolfe will receive back pay, according to Atlanta city ordinance. It was not immediately clear whether his administrative leave would be paid or unpaid. Inquiries to Rolfe’s counsel and APD were not immediately answered.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2021/05/05/993842478/fired-atlanta-officer-who-shot-rayshard-brooks-reinstated-due-to-personnel-rules

A San Francisco man was arrested Tuesday after he allegedly stabbed two Asian American women in broad daylight, police said.

The 55-year-old man is suspected of attacking the women in downtown San Francisco on Tuesday afternoon before fleeing the scene, according to San Francisco Police Department spokesperson Robert Rueca. He was located and arrested about a mile from the scene on Tuesday evening. Charges were still pending and a motive for the stabbings was under investigation, Rueca said.

The names of the suspect and the victims have not been released.

San Francisco resident Patricia Lee, who was working at a nearby flower stand at the time, said she saw the knife-wielding man approach the women at a bus stop. She said the blade was “pretty big” and appeared to be a military-style knife.

“Her back was turned and all I see is the feathers came out of her jacket, so I’m very sure that she got sliced,” Lee told San Francisco ABC station KGO in an interview Tuesday. “It could have been me instead.”

After stabbing the women, whom she described as elderly, Lee said the man “walked away like nothing happened.”

The incident occurred in the district represented by Matt Haney, member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, who took to Twitter to condemn the attack as “disgusting and horrific.” Haney said both women were hospitalized for their injuries and were in “stable” condition as of Tuesday night. One of them, an 85-year-old, required surgery. Haney said he was reaching out to the victims and their families to offer his support.

“This is something that is happening to Asian people in our community specifically,” Haney told KGO in an interview Tuesday. “This is a pattern.”

Tuesday’s attack was the latest in a spate of violence targeting Asian Americans in cities across the nation. The coronavirus pandemic and its suspected origins in the Chinese city of Wuhan is cited as having led to a fresh onslaught of anti-Asian discrimination in the United States that has waged on for over a year.

From March 19, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021, there were more than 3,795 hate incidents, including verbal harassment and physical assault, against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the United States that were reported to Stop AAPI Hate, a nonprofit organization that tracks such incidents.

Source Article from https://abcnews.go.com/US/san-francisco-police-arrest-man-accused-stabbing-asian/story?id=77501206

Facebook indefinitely suspended then-President Donald Trump’s accounts in January after a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Facebook indefinitely suspended then-President Donald Trump’s accounts in January after a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Facebook was justified in its decision to suspend then-President Donald Trump after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the company’s Oversight Board said on Wednesday.

That means the company does not have to reinstate Trump’s access to Facebook and Instagram immediately. But the panel said the company was wrong to impose an indefinite ban and said Facebook has six months to either restore Trump’s account, make his suspension permanent, or suspend him for a specific period of time.

Facebook indefinitely suspended Trump’s accounts in January after a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, saying he used his account to “incite violent insurrection.” Other social networks also kicked off the then-president, with Twitter going as far as banning Trump for good.

“At the time of Mr. Trump’s posts, there was a clear, immediate risk of harm and his words of support for those involved in the riots legitimized their violent actions,” the Oversight Board wrote in the announcement of its decision. “Given the seriousness of the violations and the ongoing risk of violence, Facebook was justified in suspending Mr. Trump’s accounts.”

However, it said Facebook was attempting to “avoid its responsibilities” by imposing an indefinite suspension — which the board slammed as “a vague, standardless penalty” — and then asking the board to make the final call.

“The Board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty,” the decision said.

“We’re not here for Facebook just to lob politically controversial hot potatoes at us for us to decide,” board co-chair Michael McConnell, a Stanford law professor, told NPR.

Facebook, following the ruling, will now “determine an action that is clear and proportionate,” Vice President of Global Affairs and Communications Nick Clegg said in a statement. Until then, he said, Trump’s accounts will remain suspended.

In a statement, Trump said Facebook, as well as Twitter and Google, had taken away his free speech. He said their actions were “a total disgrace and an embarrassment to our Country.”

“These corrupt social media companies must pay a political price,” he said.

The decision is the most high-profile and high-stakes case the panel, made up of outside experts, has weighed in its short existence. Stripping Trump of the ability to reach his 35 million Facebook followers and 24 million Instagram followers has stoked criticism that the tech company is biased against conservatives — a claim many on the right have made for years without evidence.

Even those who wanted to see Trump permanently banned cast doubt on the Oversight Board’s legitimacy after learning of its decision.

“What people need to understand now is that the Oversight Board, which has still left the door open on this issue, is not the cure for what ails us on social media,” said Jim Steyer of the nonprofit Common Sense, who has been a vocal critic of Facebook, in a statement.

The only way to stop the spread of misinformation and disinformation on social media, he said, “is independent, democratically accountable oversight of [Facebook CEO] Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook.”

Zuckerberg has long said the company should not be the arbiter of truth and has argued for a hands-off approach to political speech in particular, saying it’s already highly scrutinized.

Yet on Wednesday, the Oversight Board suggested political leaders should not be treated differently than others with great influence online. It urged Facebook to be more transparent about how it applies its rules to “influential users,” among other recommendations.

“Considerations of newsworthiness should not take priority when urgent action is needed to prevent significant harm,” it wrote.

The company’s policies and lack of transparency have led to widespread confusion and contributed to the suspicions of bias, board co-chair McConnell said at a press conference shortly after the decision.

“When you do not have clarity, consistency and transparency, there’s no way to know,” he said. “And much of the reason for demanding consistency and transparency is so that this can be revealed.”

While the board’s policy recommendations are not binding, Clegg said the company would carefully review them.

Tech companies’ power over speech hotly debated

The social networks’ moves to ban Trump in the wake of Jan. 6 immediately caused an uproar and added fuel to a raging debate over whether tech companies should determine who gets a voice online.

Republican politicians and right-wing commentators said it was evidence of Silicon Valley’s alleged anti-conservative bias. A spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she found Twitter’s ban “problematic” because she believes “the right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance.”

But others say Facebook’s ban was overdue. They argued that the company had given Trump too much leeway to break its rules because of its lenient stance on political speech and posts it deemed “newsworthy” and therefore kept up, even if they violated Facebook’s policies.

Zuckerberg said at the time of the suspension in January that he believed the risk of allowing Trump to keep using the platform was “simply too great.” When Facebook referred the decision to the Oversight Board several weeks later, the company said it believed the move “was necessary and right,” given the “extraordinary circumstances.”

The board says it received 9,666 comments on Trump’s suspension. Many researchers and civil rights groups said Facebook was right to ban Trump because of his efforts to undermine the election and encourage violence. A submission from Republican lawmakers accused Facebook of bias against conservatives.

The board also received a “user statement” on behalf of Trump as part of its deliberations.

The former president has teased that he may not return to any of the major platforms and says he’s considering launching his own social media network. On Tuesday, Trump added a new page on his website with a feed of messages — effectively, a blog. There’s no ability for other people to comment or reply, but there are buttons to share the posts to Facebook and Twitter.

Facebook created the Oversight Board to review the hardest calls it makes about what content it does and does not allow users to post. The board began accepting cases in October. It is designed to review a small number of cases each year, and Facebook has agreed to abide by its decisions. The panel can also make recommendations about the company’s policies.

The panel, which is funded by Facebook through a $130 million independent trust, is currently made up of 20 experts from around the world, including specialists in law and human rights, a Nobel Peace laureate from Yemen, the vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, the former prime minister of Denmark and several journalists.

Editor’s note: Facebook is among NPR’s financial supporters.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2021/05/05/987679590/facebook-justified-in-banning-donald-trump-social-medias-oversight-board-rules

Updated 5:48 AM ET, Wed May 5, 2021

“The (daily) production of oxygen in the country was 5,700 metric tons (6,283 tons) on August 1, 2020, which has now increased to around 9,000 metric tons (9,920 tons),” a Health Ministry spokesperson said at a news conference on Monday. Last month, the ministry said it had 50,000 metric tons (55,115 tons) in surplus oxygen stocks.

    Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/05/india/india-covid-foreign-aid-distribution-intl-hnk-dst/index.html