List of All Articles with Tag 'pol'

South Korea salvaged a failed North Korean spy satellite from the sea, giving it a rare direct look

Meta Platforms Inc.’s Threads app — the social network launching this week to take on Twitter Inc. —

A popular left-wing Twitter account with thousands of followers, which often went viral and provoked the outrage of leading conservatives, may have been a fake all along, according to online researchers, using a provocative posts to generation attention in a tactic known as “rage-baiting.” Erica Marsh, a self-proclaimed “proud Democrat” from Washington, started her Twitter account in September of 2022, and quickly gained more than 130,000 followers, sometimes netting over 1,000 followers a day posting her quick-twitch takes on the day’s main political news. Her messages often read like a near-parody of an over-the-top, out-of-touch progressive. In a 29 June post, reacting to the recent Supreme Court decision striking down race-based affirmative action in college admissions, she wrote, “Today’s Supreme Court decision is a direct attack on Black people. No Black person will be able to succeed in a merit-based system which is exactly why affirmative-action based programs were needed. Today’s decision is a TRAVESTY!!!” The tweet quickly caught fire online, provoking the ire of leaders like Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, who told his followers, “I strongly disagree with this racist allegation.” However, despite her ability to win followers and stir the pot and attract online attention, Ms Marsh may never have been real, according to an analysis from The Washington Post. Ms Marsh doesn’t appear in phone or voting records, and past employers she claimed like the Biden campaign say they have no record of her. “I strongly suspect that this person doesn’t exist,” John Scott-Railton, a senior researcher at the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto, told the paper. “It’s as if she dropped from the moon and arrived fully formed with this narrative that makes liberals look like idiots.” Twitter officially does not comment on press requests, and Ms Marsh’s account has been suspended. Before buying the social media site last year, Elon Musk argued fake accounts were a serious problem on Twitter, at one point threatening not to carry out his acquisition over the matter. Twitter said last July it removes over 1 million fake accounts per day. Fakes have been a persistent issue. In November, the company temporarily suspended its Twitter Blue subscription service, after users bought Twitter verification status and used it to impersonate celebrities, politicians and brands. Read More ‘Rate limits’ and Twitter chaos: What exactly is Elon Musk doing? Elon Musk supports eliminating voting rights for people without children Greg Abbott mocked after falling for hoax story about Garth Brooks being booed off stage Judge blocks Biden agencies from communicating with social media platforms Elon Musk supports eliminating voting rights for people without children Outrage erupts in South Africa over video of deputy president's security officers stomping on man

A federal judge has blocked key agencies within President Joe Biden’s administration from communicating with social media companies about certain online speech in an extraordinary ruling as part of an ongoing case that could have profound impacts on the First Amendment. The preliminary injunction granted by Donald Trump-appointed US District Judge Terry A Doughty in Louisiana on 4 July prohibits the FBI and the US Department of Health and Human Services, among others, from speaking with platforms for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” The ruling – which could obstruct the administration’s attempts to combat false and potentially dangerous claims about vaccines and elections – is a victory for Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri who have alleged that the federal government was overreaching in its attempts to combat Covid-19 disinformation and baseless election fraud narratives. Judge Doughty, who has yet to issue a final ruling, stated in his injunction that the Republican plaintiffs “have produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.” He did make some exceptions that would allow the government to warn platforms about national security threats, criminal activity or voter suppression. The legal challenge follows ongoing allegations from right-wing officials and Republican lawmakers that the federal government – specifically, Democratic officials – have conspired with “Big Tech” to silence conservative voices, a long-running conspiracy theory that proponents will argue is substantiated by the latest decision. GOP attorneys general in the case have accused government agencies of a “systemic and systematic campaign” to control speech on social media platforms that accelerated during the Trump administration and experienced a “quantum leap” under President Biden. Attorneys for the Biden administration have disputed such claims and warned that an injunction could undermine national security efforts, pointing to the programs developed among government agencies to combat disinformation in the aftermath of the 2016 election. The Independent has requested comment from the White House. Missouri’s Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who originally filed the lawsuit with Louisiana’s Attorney General Jeff Landry, called the ruling a “big win for the First Amendment on this Independence Day.” Though the case originated with those Republican officials, several additional plaintiffs added their name to the case, arguing that they also were unfairly targeted after spreading disinformation online. Plaintiffs also include vaccine conspiracy theorist and presidential hopeful Robert F Kennedy Jr and Jim Hoft, the founder of the far-right conspiracy theory-fuelled website The Gateway Pundit and a defendant in a defamation lawsuit filed by election workers who faced death threats over false reporting about them in the 2020 presidential election. This is a developing story Read More Twitter applies temporary reading limits amid ongoing problems with platform Biden renews call for assault weapons ban after ‘tragic and senseless’ spate of July 4 shootings Ex-New York congressman pardoned by Trump is planning to run again in Florida Suspicious powder found at the White House when Biden was gone was cocaine, AP sources say Biden renews call for assault weapons ban after spate of July 4 shootings Watch live: Joe Biden addresses National Education Association

Mike Pence cheered the end of affirmative action in US colleges and universities on Sunday in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling outlawing the practice. The former vice president discussed the issue on CBS’s Face the Nation and said that the time for policies aimed at improving outcomes for minority students in general had passed. A candidate for the presidency in 2024, Mr Pence is gunning for the GOP nomination against his own former boss, Donald Trump, and other conservatives like Florida Gov Ron DeSantis and former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. His comments came as activists and authorities in the higher education field vowed to keep fighting to ensure that diversity would remain a core value in student recruiting. “Fundamentally, do you believe that there are racial inequities in the education system in the United States?” asked host Margaret Brennan. “I really don’t believe there is [racial inequality in US schools]. I believe there was,” Mr Pence said. “I mean, it’s — there may have been a time when affirmative action was necessary simply to open the doors of all of our schools and universities, but I think that time has passed.” His response drew immediate backlash on Twitter, with many questioning whether Mr Pence’s children had attended schools and colleges with diverse student bodies. The three Pence children, Michael, Charlotte and Audrey, attended Purdue, DePaul, and Yale Universities. The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that universities and colleges may not consider race as a specific factor when choosing to admit individual students. They may, however, continue to take into account how race plays into the individual experiences that those prospective students describe in their applications, such as in personal essay prompts. “[T]he student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority. The suit was brought on behalf of a group of Asian American students who argued that they were discriminated against by admissions staff at Harvard University. Critics of the ruling say it will gut efforts to improve representation of minority students in college classes. College enrollment rates remain noticeably lower among Black and Hispanic students compared to white and Asian American students. In addition, an analysis of US education data has shown that about 40 per cent of Black children attend schools where 90 per cent or more of the students are nonwhite. President Joe Biden responded to the ruling on Thursday after news of the decision broke, telling reporters simply: “This is not a normal court.” Read More Biden reveals ‘new path’ to student debt relief after Supreme Court strikes down president’s plan The Supreme Court risks inflaming the prejudices that America sought to banish In 370 days, Supreme Court conservatives dash decades of abortion and affirmative action precedents Mike Pence claims Biden is rehabilitating the Iran nuclear deal Trump returns to campaign rallies, draws thousands to small South Carolina city ahead of July 4 Biden blames GOP for student loan ruling as 2024 political consequences loom

Former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith has warned the merger between Vodafone and Three is “dangerous” and risks giving a company with its roots in Communist Party-ruled China a more prominent place in the UK’s mobile network. The former work and pensions secretary and MP for Chingford and Woodford Green said the proposed deal raised serious questions about national security and competition within the UK telecommunications market. Vodafone and Three, both of which have millions of customers in the UK and Ireland, announced earlier this month that they were joining forces in a multibillion-pound deal they said would create one of Europe’s biggest 5G networks. “This is a dangerous deal, which it seems is yet another example of how the Communist Party is trying to create a Western dependency on China,” Sir Iain told The Independent. “Not only does it raise important questions about competition, but it poses risks to our communication networks and personal data.” Three is owned by CK Hutchison, a Hong Kong-listed conglomerate that has been accused of supporting repression in the former British territory, where thousands of residents fled after China’s implementation of a sweeping national security law used by authorities to crack down on dissent against the regime in Beijing. Sir Iain is among a number of cross-party MPs to raise concerns about the growing influence of China in the West, and in particular, telecoms companies who have their headquarters there and are operating in the UK. “The government still doesn’t seem to understand that Chinese companies can be mandated to hand over their data to Beijing at the drop of a hat,” Sir Iain said. “We should be really worried about that. I also think we need to be taking a closer look at who owns these companies, the links between them and the Chinese government and the origins of the money flowing through them.” Last autumn the government announced that Shenzen-based Huawei technology must be removed from the UK’s 5G public networks by the end of 2027, It followed advice from the National Cyber Security Centre and pressure from Washington, which banned equipment made by the company because it posed an “unacceptable risk” to US national security. In March, prime minister Rishi Sunak warned that China plans to “reshape the world” in plans that posed an era-defining challenge for the UK and its allies in the West but dismissed calls for Beijing to be categorised as a threat, something his predecessor Liz Truss pushed for. The union Unite, which has 1.4 million members, is also campaigning against the merger, which some analysts say could result in job losses and higher prices for consumers who are already being squeezed by the cost of living crisis. The deal has triggered an initial investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority and will be subject to approval under the new National Security and Investment Act. Gail Cartmail, Unite’s executive head of operations, said: “Instead of idly watching the CK Group cream profits from UK businesses, the government should ask if they are a suitable custodian of British assets.” Charlotte Nichols, the Labour MP for Wigan North who sits on the Department for Business and Trade sub-committee on national security, said: “Unite the Union has shared research with me that shows this merger would leave sensitive government contracts and the data of millions of UK consumers in the hands of Three, a company whose key leadership have supported repression in Hong Kong and worked hand-in-hand with the Chinese state for decades. “This will be dangerous deal for the UK and I fully support Unite’s campaign against it.” Other MPs – both Labour and Conservative – have tabled questions to government departments asking what security assessments ministers have made of the proposed merger deal. Both Three and Vodafone refused to comment but have previously dismissed concerns about security, saying that they work closely with security bureaus in what is a regulated industry. The Cabinet Office has said it welcomes foreign trade and investment “where it supports growth and jobs in the UK, meets our stringent legal and regulatory requirements, and does not compromise our national security. “However, we will not hesitate to use our powers to protect national security where we identify concerns.” Read More Vodafone and Three to merge in multibillion-pound deal Vodafone and Three merger: What the huge deal actually means for you Cleverly defends China visit plans and pledges to use UK’s global ‘influence’ Three and Vodafone are merging. Here’s what that means for your phone No one wants to take responsibility for No 10 ‘groper’ complaints, warns accuser Top Tories urge Rishi Sunak to use cabinet reshuffle to get a grip on warring party

Even though the Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness program, more debt will be canceled during his time in office than under any other president.

When the Supreme Court cut affirmative action out of college admissions programs Thursday, it did not outlaw the goal of achieving diversity, but it set a new "race-neutral" standard for considering applicants.

President Joe Biden wasn't planning to take questions on Thursday. His helicopter was waiting outside on the White House's South Lawn.

Google has hired Brazilian former President Michel Temer to lobby lawmakers considering a proposal to regulate the internet,

After the US Supreme Court struck down his administration’s plan to cancel federal student loan debts for millions of Americans, President Joe Biden has unveiled a “new path” for relief, one that he assured is “legally sound” but will “take longer”. In remarks from the White House on 30 June, the president hit out at Republican state officials and legislators who supported the lawsuit which enabled the nation’s highest court to strike down his student debt forgiveness initiative, accusing many of them of hypocrisy for taking money from pandemic-era relief programs while opposing relatively meager relief for student loan borrowers. “Some of the same elected Republicans, members of Congress who strongly opposed relief for students, got hundreds of thousands of dollars themselves ... several members of Congress got over a million dollars — all those loans are forgiven,” he said. “The hypocrisy is stunning,” he said. Accompanied by Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, Mr Biden opened his remarks by acknowledging that there are likely “millions of Americans” who now “feel disappointed and discouraged or even a little bit angry about the court’s decision today on student debt”. “And I must admit, I do too,” he said. Still, Mr Biden reminded Americans that his administration has previously taken actions to reform student loan repayment programs to make them easier to access, and to keep borrowers from spending more than five per cent of disposable income on monthly repayments, and to strengthen loan forgiveness options for borrowers who take public service jobs. The president has directed Mr Cardona to “find a new way” to grant similar loan relief “as fast as we can” in a way that is “consistent” with the high court’s decision. On Friday, the Education Department issued the first step in the process of issuing new regulations under this so-called “negotiated rulemaking” process. In the mean time, Mr Biden said his administration is creating a temporary year-long “on-ramp repayment programme” under which conditions will remain largely the same as they have during the three-year pandemic-era pause in payments which is set to expire this fall. The department’s 12-month “on ramp” to begin repayments, from 1 October through 30 September, aims to prevent borrowers who miss repayments in that time period from delinquency, credit issues, default and referral to debt collection agencies. “During this period if you can pay your monthly bills you should, but if you cannot, if you miss payments, this on-ramp temporarily removes the threat of default,” he said. “Today’s decision closed one path. Now we’re going to pursue another — I’m never gonna stop fighting,” the president continued, adding that he will use “every tool” at his disposal to get Americans the student debt relief they need so they can “reach [their] dreams”. “It’s good for the economy. It’s good for the country. It’s gonna be good for you,” he said. Asked by reporters whether he’d given borrowers false hope by initiating the now-doomed forgiveness plan last year, Mr Biden angrily chided the GOP for having acted to take away the path to debt relief for millions. “I didn’t give any false hope. The question was whether or not I would do even more than was requested. What I did I felt was appropriate and was able to be done and would get done. I didn’t give borrowers false hope. But the Republicans snatched away the hope that they were given and it’s real, real hope,” he said. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling from the conservative majority argues that the president does not have the authority to implement sweeping relief, and that Congress never authorised the administration to do so. Under the plan unveiled by the Biden administration last year, millions of people who took out federally backed student loans would be eligible for up to $20,000 in relief. Borrowers earning up to $125,000, or $250,000 for married couples, would be eligible for up to $10,000 of their federal student loans to be wiped out. Those borrowers would be eligible to receive up to $20,000 in relief if they received Pell grants. Roughly 43 million federal student loan borrowers would be eligible for that relief, including 20 million people who stand to have their debts cancelled completely, according to the White House. Lawyers for the Biden administration contended that he has the authority to broadly cancel student loan debt under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, which allows the secretary of education to waive or modify loan provisions following a national emergency – in this case, Covid-19. Since March 2020, with congressional passage of the Cares Act, monthly payments on student loan debt have been frozen with interest rates set at zero per cent. That pandemic-era moratorium, first enacted under Donald Trump and extended several times, was paused a final time late last year. Over the last decade, the student loan debt crisis has exploded to a balance of nearly $2 trillion, most of which is wrapped up in federal loans. The amount of debt taken out to support student loans for higher education costs has surged alongside growing tuition costs, increased private university enrollment, stagnant wages and GOP-led governments stripping investments in higher education and aid, putting the burden of college costs largely on students and their families. Read More Supreme Court strikes down Biden’s plan to cancel student loan debts Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action, banning colleges from factoring race in admissions Biden condemns Supreme Court striking down affirmative action: ‘This is not a normal court’ Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivers searing civil rights lesson in dissent to affirmative action ruling

An overview of the media in Serbia, including links to broadcasters and newspapers.