This Week in 2016

• Supreme Court Knocks A Little More Off The 4th Amendment; Gives Cops Another Way To Salvage Illegal Searches
• Seeing Opportunity, Congress Tries To Rush Through Its Plan To Legalize FBI Abuses Citing ‘Orlando!’
• DOJ Insists That Rule 41 Change Is Not Important, Nothing To See Here, Move On Annoying Privacy Activist People
• MPAA Happily Gets Into Bed With Russian State Censor Agency… To Protect Copyright!
• Terrible Ruling In Germany: Digitizing The Public Domain Creates New Copyright
• Proprietary Algorithms Are Being Used To Enhance Criminal Sentences And Preventing Defendants From Challenging Them

This Week in 2011

• Universal Music Goes To War Against Popular Hip Hop Sites & Blogs
• Sony Continues Suing People Who Help Others Modify Their PS3s
• Did Universal Music Declare 50 Cent’s Own Website Is A Pirate Site?
• New Filing Explains How Domain Seizures Violate The First Amendment
• MPAA Directly Lobbies Law Enforcement To Be Its Own Private Police Force
• Drake Tells Universal Music To Stop Taking Down The Music He’s Leaking

This Week in 2006

• Homeland Security Doesn’t Extend To Telemarketing Calls
• Teen Sues MySpace For Not Protecting Her
• Netherlands Is The Latest To Outlaw Search Engines
• Should You Spy On Your Kids’ Every Online Move?
• Do Deep Linking Rules Change If It’s An MP3, Not An HTML File
• Accused Rapist Wants Some Of That Myspace Money, Too

When we talk about the scourge of anti-vaxxer philosophy within the federal government, we naturally spend a great deal of that time talking about RFK Jr. He’s the Secretary of Health and Human Services and perhaps the most infamous anti-vaxxer on the planet, after all. But if you thought HHS was the only part of the government infected with this dangerous unscientific nonsense, you’d be wrong.

In April of this year, Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Whatever-We’re-Calling-It-Today, rescinded a requirement for America’s fighting forces to be inoculated against influenza. Why? Well, because it just wasn’t necessary, you see. Also, freedom. Probably bald eagles. Perhaps apple pie and baseball are involved. It’s really anyone’s guess these days. Hegseth stated the following publicly on his decision:

“The notion that a flu vaccine must be mandatory for every service member, everywhere, in every circumstance, at all times, is just overly broad and not rational,” the secretary said. “Our new policy is simple: If you, an American warrior entrusted to defend this nation, believe that the flu vaccine is in your best interest, then you are free to take it; you should. But we will not force you.”

“Our men and women in uniform were forced to choose between their conscience and their country, even when those decisions posed no threat to our military readiness,” Hegseth said. “That era of betrayal is over. Under President [Donald J.] Trump, the War Department continues to take decisive action to once again restore freedom and strength to our joint force. We’re seizing this moment to discard any absurd overreaching mandates that only weaken our warfighting capabilities.

So, to summarize, the requirement that soldiers be vaccinated against influenza was as follows:

1. Broad and irrational
2. A betrayal
3. An absurd and overreaching mandate
4. Weakened our fighting forces
5. Would be ended and soldiers would no longer be forced to be vaccinated

I assume that analysis still holds, other than the last, now that the military is once again mandating the flu vaccine for its soldiers because, and this will shock you, a bunch of soldiers got sick.

The Army, Navy, and Air Force are once again requiring basic trainees to get vaccinated against influenza after the virus quickly swept through an Air Force base in Texas, sickening at least 222 recruits and hospitalizing four. Last week, news broke of a flu outbreak sweeping through Lackland Air Force Base, part of Joint Base San Antonio in Texas. Two unnamed sources told ABC News that the situation at the base has been worsening.

In addition to the 222 cases and four hospitalizations reported as of Tuesday, one recruit, Keon McDaniel, died. McDaniel was in his sixth week of basic training and suffered a medical emergency on June 12. It’s unclear if his death was related to the outbreak.

ABC News reported that sources think only about 40 percent of the new Air Force trainees at the base were vaccinated and that the outbreak began in early June.

So, according to Hegseth himself mere months ago, sixty percent of the new Air Force trainees at the base are going to be subject to a broad, irrational, absurd, freedom-stealing betrayal mandate to get the flu vaccine? Cool.

It’s absolutely incredible just how shallow the anti-vaxxer mentality can be. Freedom, I am told, is worth fighting and dying for. If a flu vaccine mandate is anti-freedom, why are we letting some illnesses and potential deaths cause us to take actions that are anti-freedom?

The answer is because it isn’t about freedom at all. It’s about placating the dumbest corners of our society just because they happen to be a voting bloc aligned with Donald Trump, a man not exactly known for his incredible good health and fitness.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said that the Pentagon had granted exceptions to Hegseth’s optional flu shot policy to the Army, Navy, Air Force, National Security Agency, and the Defense Health Agency. The exceptions came after a “comprehensive review” and are in line with a standard policy of “adapting force health protection measures to critical operational realities.”

“The decisions were based upon thorough risk assessments and are designed to maximize operational readiness, lethality, and force generation, while safeguarding at-risk populations,” Parnell said.

And that’s any different than the situation three months ago, exactly?

It’s not different at all, of course. Pete Hegseth directly, and of his own accord, managed to get hundreds of soldiers sick, at a minimum. He reduced our war-fighting readiness as a result. And he reversed course the moment the inevitable outcome reared its ugly, feverish, coughing head.

Vaccine mandates are bad when its politically advantageous to say they are, but good when you’re in charge and need to prepare for an invasion of Cuba, or who knows where else.

Within the next week, Congress is preparing to vote on the KIDS Act, a sprawling package of legislation that seeks to control Americans’ web browsing and private messaging. The package includes a revised version of the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, combined with a collection of other internet bills, study bills, reporting requirements, and new regulations. Instead of debating any of these proposals on their merits, lawmakers are attempting to move them all at once under an ultra-expedited process. 

The package of cobbled-together bills is a mess, with different age-gating schemes for different services, using different standards. It’s a lot of complexity, and a lot of legal risk. Faced with that, many companies will conclude that the safest option is restrictive age-checking practices across their entire platforms.

Buried inside the KIDS Act are provisions that will push online services to verify all users’ ages, require government-directed moderation policies for online speech, and even create new rules about private and encrypted communications. While supporters continue to claim this bill protects minors online, its requirements come at the expense of privacy, free expression, and the ability of people of all ages to use the internet without revealing sensitive data. 

The KIDS Act Pressures Platforms to Check Everyone’s Age

Supporters of KOSA have said the bill doesn’t require age verification. And technically, the KOSA section of the bill does say that KOSA shouldn’t be read to require age verification. 

But if you read the rest of the bill, that disclaimer starts to look hollow. 

Throughout the KOSA section of the legislation, special protections, controls, messaging settings, and parental tools are required whenever a website or app “knows or should have known” a user is a child (defined in the bill as anyone under 13) or a teen (defined as anyone between 13 and 16 years old). 

The problem is a website operator doesn’t need actual knowledge that a user is a minor to get in legal trouble. It applies when a platform “knows or should have known” a user’s age—a low, negligence-style standard of knowledge. If an online service gets it wrong, it’s going to be up to courts and regulators to decide, after the fact, if an online service “should” have known a user was 16. 

To try to avoid liability, services will have to determine which users are teenagers and which are not. Most won’t be able to simply trust their users. They’ll have to collect more information about age, before any lawsuit or government action arises. Some companies may respond by requesting driver’s licenses or passports. Others will rely on age-estimation systems that attempt to guess users’ ages by looking at existing activity or doing facial scans. Existing estimation systems make mistakes when estimating children’s ages correctly, which is a big problem when that is the population KOSA is trying to protect. And the systems fail more frequently for people of color, people with disabilities, and trans and nonbinary people.

The bill’s authors seem to know this is a problem. On the one hand, the new KOSA section says age verification is not required. On the other, it repeatedly imposes obligations that depend on knowing whether a user is under 17. But a disclaimer doesn’t magically eliminate legal risk, especially for smaller services and startups that can’t afford to defend lawsuits or fight regulators.  

KOSA is not the only part of this package that creates age-verification pressure. The SAFE BOTS Act, like KOSA, goes back to the standard that if a service “knows or should have known” that a user is a minor it can’t offer certain chatbot features. 

The SCREEN Act requires services that host sexually explicit content to determine whether users are “more likely than not” under the relevant age limit, before allowing access to certain content. 

The consequences of this liability will not be limited to minors. If websites and apps are expected to reliably identify teenagers, adults will be asked to prove they are adults. The result is a less private internet for everyone.

The KIDS Act Pressures Platforms To Police Lawful Speech 

The new version of KOSA removes the bill’s infamous “duty of care” provision, a significant change. The revised KOSA requires covered platforms to “establish, implement, maintain, and enforce” policies and procedures addressing several categories of content and conduct. 

Some categories, such as true threats and sexual exploitation, involve unlawful activity. Others are much broader. The bill specifically requires policies addressing the “sale or use” of narcotic drugs, tobacco products, cannabis products, gambling, and alcohol. It also restricts discussions around financial fraud.

Sounds straightforward enough. Then you remember how people actually talk—online and off. Can teens discuss addiction and recovery? Can a 15-year-old post that she’s worried she has a friend who is drinking too much? Can they seek advice about a parent’s gambling problem, or get help if they or a family member have been scammed? Can they participate in harm-reduction communities or discuss substance abuse treatment? All of these young people would be engaging in lawful speech when discussing topics covered by KOSA’s enumerated harms. 

The bill does not directly ban those conversations. But it places platforms under huge pressure to create and enforce moderation policies around broad categories of lawful speech. Faced with legal risk, many services will inevitably choose to remove that speech or restrict those discussions to spaces where they know only adults can participate. We’ve seen this movie before. When legal risk goes up, platforms will take down more speech. 

The KIDS Act Regulates Private Messages, Too 

Several provisions of the bill create new rules around direct messages, disappearing or “ephemeral” messages, and AI chat services. 

The bill includes language stating that certain KOSA requirements should not be construed to override strong encryption. But the protection is incomplete. The carve-out applies to certain features and messaging controls, but doesn’t apply to KOSA’s separate requirement that platforms “address” a list of harms to minors. 

The KIDS Act never answers an obvious question: how exactly is a platform supposed to address those activities if they’re inside encrypted communications that it can’t read? That will create pressure for providers to weaken private communications or limit features on encrypted private services. 

That approach is especially troubling when it comes to ephemeral messaging. Disappearing messages are not a “loophole” or a dangerous design trick. They are a useful privacy feature that allows online conversations to function more like ordinary real-world conversations, which are not preserved forever in a permanent database.

Like many other parts of the KIDS Act, these private messaging provisions also depend on websites and apps knowing who is a minor and who is not. The result is more age checks, more restrictions, and less privacy online.

Republished from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw.

Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed. To get extended episodes with additional coverage, support us on Patreon.

In a special bonus episode for our Patreon supporters, Mike and Ben discuss some of their favorite must-read books about online speech, platform power, and content moderation. This free teaser covers their first two picks: It’s Complicated by Danah Boyd and Behind the Screen by Sarah T. Roberts.

To hear the full episode with all six books, become a Ctrl-Alt-Speech supporter on Patreon.

Just a couple weeks ago, the European Commission put out its plan for “European tech sovereignty.” It’s not surprising that Europeans are looking at their internet platform options and seeing a choice between US companies and Chinese companies as something that isn’t that appealing. Of course, Europe has mostly itself to blame for this mess. As an Economist piece in April noted, the EU effectively regulated its own internet ambitions to death:

Here is an uncomfortable truth for hand-wringing policymakers in Paris, Berlin and beyond: Europe’s dependency on America Inc is in no small part Europe’s own fault. Decades of over-regulating the old continent’s economy left businesses there unable to compete with American firms, which went on to trounce European ones even in their own backyards. What Europeans could not build quickly for themselves, due to a thicket of regulations, they often imported just as quickly from abroad….

Tech is where the dependency seems most acute. Europe has few firms at the forefront of AI, space or high-end computing (one notable exception is ASML, a Dutch firm globally vital to chipmaking). Even governments often have little choice but to use the likes of Microsoft or Amazon for cloud services, Palantir to sift through data or SpaceX to launch military satellites. Quixotic attempts to shake off big tech abound, for example by having civil servants ditch Windows for some clunky substitute. Too often the European alternatives are lacking anyway. It turns out that boasting about regulating AI before the public had made their first ChatGPT query—as the European Union did in 2021—is not conducive to home-growing AI champions.

Yes, EU rules often applied to American firms, insofar as they wanted to offer their wares in the bloc. But regulation in practice hit European firms harder. The costs of administering complex data-protection rules, say, could easily be absorbed by a Google or OpenAI, with their hordes of compliance staff. Not so their European rivals, which have usually lacked scale (if only because the EU’s fragmented single market made it harder for them to grow beyond their home country). The EU thus generated barriers to entry that often ended up protecting American giants.

And so the EU is going back to the drawing board, once again thinking that it can technocrat its way to technical competence, and that seems unlikely. After all, weren’t the EU’s two biggest pieces of signature tech legislation — the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) — supposed to solve all of this already?

I’ve long been a critic of both laws that were in some ways too vague and in other ways too restrictive all along, but at the very least they were the product of a fairly lengthy process, in which EU regulators were made well aware of the tradeoffs of various approaches. And they chose to land where they landed. This new move by the European Commission isn’t quite an admission of failure, but it sure is a sign that what they insisted would create the right incentives for local competition hasn’t yet worked.

But, of course, none of that may matter if the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) — the highest court across the EU — continues to YOLO its way through internet law. Back in December we wrote about its deeply problematic ruling in the Russmedia case, which more or less ignored the fragile balance that the DSA had set forth regarding intermediary liability for third-party speech, by insisting that any platform operator must scan any user generated content for “sensitive personal data” about anyone else and block it. It effectively required full scanning of every piece of uploaded content, a ban on anonymous speech, and a requirement that “bad” posts somehow be blocked from anyone copying them.

And now it’s taken that up a notch in its new WebGroup ruling (full ruling currently only available in French, but Google translate works, at least while Google can still operate in the EU). While the headline regarding the ruling is that the CJEU says that age verification mandates are fine regarding pornographic content (matching the US Supreme Court on that one), the ruling goes even further, and suggests that any website that has algorithmic recommendations for content should take on liability for the content it recommends.

I recognize that some people are cheering this on because they hate “big tech” and think this will somehow damage it. That’s wrong. It will damage smaller tech players (such as the ones the EU is trying to encourage companies to build in the EU) way, way more. I’ve written before, in the US Section 230 context, why it’s a terrible idea to make recommendation algorithms liable for the content they recommend, and that reasoning applies equally in the EU.

Recommendation algorithms actually do, on the whole, make the internet experience much more bearable. I get that more and more internet users grew up in an era dominated by the algorithm, but it was not better before that. The internet was so filled with nonsense and junk that people begged for better algorithms. And in this new era, with the rise of AI slop, it would be even worse.

But, more to the point, a recommendation algorithm is simply stating an opinion of “this is what we think you should look at next.” We can debate the purpose of that opinion, and whether it is solely to extract more attention or money from users, or to actually provide them value. But that doesn’t matter. Nothing in “this is what we think you should look at next” is (by definition) a full-throated endorsement of the content. It’s literally “based on other stuff you’ve looked at, and our own weights and priorities, here’s what you should look at next.” It has no way of reviewing the actual quality of the content, determining if it’s helpful or not, factual or not, or nonsense or not.

That’s just not how any of this works.

But once you put liability just for recommending “this is what the algorithm thinks you should look at next” you make it ridiculously expensive to offer any sort of algorithm — even in situations like Bluesky where anyone can create and share their algorithms for others.

The end result is that the only companies who will be able to recommend content — which, by every possible measure in every possible study, we’ve seen the vast majority of internet users prefer — will be the largest companies in the world: Google, Meta, TikTok. All of the upstart competitors, all of the services the EU now says it wants to grow at home, would find it impossibly difficult to offer such a feature, because the risk of liability would be way too intense.

For all the many problems I had with the DSA, on this it mostly got the equation right, recognizing that pinning liability on platforms in this manner could have really negative effects. And while I still think the DSA should have gone much further in protecting intermediaries, the CJEU interpretation here basically takes a sledgehammer to the attempted balance within the DSA.

The mistake the CJEU is making here, as highlighted by expert Daphne Keller, is that in thinking that this will “make big tech more responsible” it actually empowers them, encourages them to engage in constant monitoring and surveillance, and basically appoints them as the speech police. What could go wrong?

Some of us have been making this point for years. And the results of earlier laws (like the GDPR) showed exactly how this would play out, entrenching the largest companies and leaving the EU once again flailing around demanding new laws to fix the situation their old laws created.

It’s understandable that the EU doesn’t like its tech platform choices. But it’s now in a loop of its own making. Fail to understand the technology, fall prey to a moral panic, over regulate… and then wonder why no one is building and the big American tech companies just get bigger. Rinse and repeat. The CJEU’s latest ruling undermines the attempt at balance laid out by the DSA and completely sabotages the “homegrown” sovereign competitors the Commission so desperately claims it wants to cultivate — while handing the surveillance infrastructure bill to the only players big enough to pay it. The Commission can call it tech sovereignty all it wants. The CJEU just made vassalage structural.

Dive into Godot – a rising star in the game engine world – with the 2026 Complete Godot Stack Development Bundle. You’ll learn to create platformers, RPGs, strategy games, FPS games, and more as you master this free and open-source engine with easily expandable systems. Plus, you’ll also explore techniques for game design and game asset creation – giving you the ultimate techniques to customize your projects. It’s on sale for $25.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

This is not the only administration to engage in corruption. Most administrations have to some extent. It’s that corruption is the everyday, front-page business of this administration. It’s so brazen, it’s insulting. It demands Americans pretend nothing matters but what Trump wants and, to a lesser extent, whatever his current roster of obliging subservients want.

Even MAGA should be angry. But this political movement is as bereft of intellectual honesty as it is bereft of anything approaching normal human intelligence. It’s millions of people willing to be peasants just because the king has promised to make things even worse for their fellow human beings.

We, the people, end up with daily fuckery, composed and carried out by chinless nepo babies, former Fox commentators and far right podcasters, multiply-disgraced, massively-underqualified members of Trump’s personal legal team, Marco Fucking Rubio, and the homunculus currently doing business as “Stephen Miller.”

Then there’s Kash Patel — a guy who would have been derided as a diversity hire by the MAGA crowd if he hadn’t been given the top spot in the FBI by Donald Trump. Less than 18 months into his tenure, Patel is best known for partying with sports teams, abusing government airplane privileges, spending more time in nightclubs than in his office (ALLEGEDLY), and performing loyalty tests of FBI agents and officials, most often in the form of polygraph tests.

Trump’s slush fund for insurrectionists might be as (nearly!) dead in the water as the Faith No More fish (you know the one…), but Patel has apparently found a way to misuse public funds to reward loyalists willing to ride or die with a man who has managed to (ALLEGEDLY) drink his lack of qualifications under the table.

“We have been receiving troubling reports that you may be using part of the budget of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as a personal slush fund to make tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlawful ‘bonus’ payments to loyalist MAGA henchmen who have engaged in misconduct,” says a letter from Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., to Patel, obtained exclusively by MS NOW.

Committee Democrats have information that Patel has issued more than $1 million in awards, the letter says. The letter says the money went to special agents serving on his Director’s Advisory Team, which Raskin’s letter describes as “a curated group of agents who are willing to carry out your unlawful partisan and personal orders.” It also went to agents on Patel’s security detail, “circumventing the mandatory maximum pay caps established by statute,” the letter says.

I’ve got to hand it to Raskin. While some will (dishonestly) object to the tone of this official letter, it’s written in a form MAGA understands: direct accusations, delivered with contempt. Most official letters/queries sent by legislators are a bit more polite and tend to treat accusations as unconfirmed suspicions, even when the accusers have the facts in hand to deliver unqualified accusations.

This letter forgoes those niceties. That makes it much more difficult for the FBI and/or Kash Patel himself to dispute the accusations. When punches aren’t pulled, the administration has to defend itself in kind. Since it far prefers to bully people who aren’t willing to deliver the first blow, it seems unsure of how to handle this:

The FBI did not respond to a request for comment by MS NOW.

The FBI has maintained its silence even after Sen. Raskin made the letter public by publishing it to the Judiciary Committee’s website. And what’s detailed there definitely looks like the actions of a binge drinker — you know, the magical moment in a bar evening when the contents of your wallet suddenly turn into Monopoly money and you don’t realize just how much damage you’ve done to your bank account until the NSF push notifications start rolling in:

In some cases, nearly $8,000 payments have been made to multiple individuals every two-week pay period despite many of the beneficiaries of your selective generosity already maxing out on a federal employee’s salary. While it is unclear at this time exactly how much each of the agents has received, we can confirm that numerous loyalist employees have received at least five such payments in consecutive pay periods, amounting to nearly $40,000 per agent. We can also confirm you have depleted the FBI reserve accounts for bonus payments at such a frenzied rate that some of the payments have bounced back from exhausted accounts.

That’s insane. On one hand, you have the drunk-on-a-spending-spree indicators: a guy who doesn’t know how much money he’s spent or from what account until someone else notifies him of his overdrafts.

On the other hand, you have the ugly reality of the situation: this is what it takes to keep FBI employees “bought.” The payments are large and happen frequently, strongly suggesting loyalty to his MAGA twist on FBI day-to-day operations lasts — at most — up until the next paycheck hits the bank. If you’re buying loyalty two weeks at a time, you’re not a benefactor. You’re a blackmail victim.

Either Kash Patel thinks he can throw money at any problem that can’t be solved with a lie detector test and a swift dismissal or agents have figured out they can make bank by pretending to be on board with whatever vengeful kick the director happens to be on that particular week. And I’ll be honest: I prefer a yes man who’s in it for personal profit to a yes man that’s in it because toadying is the only life-hack they know.

Whatever the equation, it all comes down to Patel being an absolute chump. Every negative headline increases the chance of him being tossed aside by the man whose boots he’s been licking for most of the last decade. And I can bet that most of these people walking away with inflated paychecks can easily see the buttons they need to push to ensure they get their loyalty bonuses, week in and week out.

You might recall that one of the conditions of the FCC’s approval of The Ellison family’s $8 billion acquisition of CBS was that the agency would install a “ombudsman” at the network to ensure CBS journalism was appropriately feckless and deferential to our mad, idiot king.

This was particularly ironic given decades of whining by Republicans about stuff like the “fairness doctrine,” and other short-lived government attempts to set acceptable contours for journalistic speech. The appointment didn’t even really appear necessary, given Bari Weiss’ pretty obvious loyalty to oligarchs and autocrats like Trump and Netanyahu.

The guy they appointed, Kenneth Weinstein, unsurprisingly had no qualifications for the role. Weinstein had been the head of the faux-academic right wing Hudson Institute “think tank,” and has absolutely no experience in journalism or television whatsoever.

Similarly unsurprisingly, a new New York Times report indicates that Weinstein has largely been invisible and pointless since his appointment. He doesn’t issue statements, he doesn’t appear to help anybody dealing with internal chaos being caused by Weiss, he doesn’t respond to direct questions from politicians, and he barely shows up at the office:

“In the nine months since he was hired, Mr. Weinstein has issued no public statements about CBS News’s coverage or its controversies. He has not issued any guidance or feedback in staffwide emails or memos, three employees said. He has told some employees that he is scheduled to work only one day per month, two people said, though one said he responded to queries outside his monthly workday.”

As I predicted, there’s just not much for him to actually do at a company that’s innately so dutifully loyal to the nation’s richest assholes. The New York Times at one point seems confused by the idea this “watchdog” does do any useful watchdogging:

“As CBS News has been shaken by infighting between management and its star correspondents this year, Mr. Weinstein’s silence is being criticized by media experts. They say Paramount, the parent company of CBS News, has essentially hired a watchdog who doesn’t bark.”

Of course Weinstein wasn’t appointed to be a “watchdog” or to help the network or its employees. He was hired so that the Trump administration could be ensured a direct line to the leadership of a media company being converted into a propaganda mill, something that’s likely not even necessary due to the ample close connections between the Ellisons, CBS leadership, and the administration.

Weinstein’s other job was to simply ensure that CBS was remaining dutifully loyal to the president, a role that’s also not really necessary since folks like Bari Weiss have no integrity.

The New York Times doesn’t mention how much Weinstein is being paid for his single day of “work” a month, and how many shitcanned CBS journalist salaries it would have paid for.