What Happened Today: Nov. 4, 2022
Binance skirts Iran sanctions for $8 billion; FBI posts red alert for Jewish community in New Jersey; COVID-19 boosters backfire
The Big Story
The world’s largest crypto exchange, Binance, has processed some $8 billion in crypto transactions with Iranian exchanges since 2018, the same year that the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Tehran after the United States withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation agreement established in 2015. The billions in trades were reported on Friday by Reuters, and although Binance is a Chinese company now operating in the Cayman Islands after Chinese officials cracked down on crypto trading, the platform’s U.S. affiliate, Binance.US, could be involved enough with U.S. financial markets to expose the company to stiff fines for violating the sanctions.
“Binance.com is not a U.S. company, unlike other platforms that have exposure to these same U.S. sanctioned entities,” said Binance spokesperson Patrick Hillmann. “However, we have taken proactive steps to limit our exposure to the Iranian marketplace.” A Reuters report this past July found that Binance was well aware of platform trades conducted by Iranian users, which prompted a curt Tweet from Changpeng Zhao, the company’s CEO, who wrote, “Binance banned Iranian users after sanctions, seven got missed/found a workaround, they were banned later anyways.”
Potential violations of U.S. sanctions will only add to the ongoing pressure for Binance, as it’s currently under investigation by three U.S. federal agencies for possible money laundering, tax evasion, and illegally selling securities. Binance’s several ongoing criminal probes highlight the increased attention from regulators wary of cryptocurrencies as possible avenues for individuals and governments alike to skirt laws and facilitate illegal activities.
That Binance happens to also have invested $500 million into Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter might inspire even more regulatory interest. Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported the U.S. Treasury was exploring a possible investigation into Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter on the grounds that major funding from Saudi and Chinese investors could raise national security issues for user data—a concern likely to grow over Binance’s deepening ties with Iranian financing.
In the Back Pages: One Weird Trick for Fixing Elections
→ After the FBI announced Thursday that it was monitoring a “credible” but non-specific threat to New Jersey synagogues, urging temple leadership to “take all security precautions to protect your community and facility,” CNN reported on Friday that local law officials have interviewed a possible suspect. “The individual has told authorities that he does not like Jewish people and was very angry, but he indicated that he was not going to do anything harmful,” CNN said, adding that the FBI Newark office had raised the alarm about the suspect’s online post that had been written in the past tense, as if the attack had taken place, a similarity to several other mass shootings where the perpetrators wrote about the killings before they’d happened. The incident comes amid a continual rise of antisemitism across the country, including at a college football game last week, where a projector splashed the words “Kanye is right about the Jews” on the outside of a football stadium in Jacksonville, Florida.
→ Have you ever been experienced? It’s been 55 years since Hendrix posed the question, and now British researchers have some answers on what happens to those who have. In a new study, psilocybin, the active compound in “magic mushrooms,” appears to have successfully treated some individuals suffering from depression—for a little while, a least. At the three-week endpoint, results were positive, with 29.1% of patients in the highest dosing group in remission, though by week 12, that number declined to 20.3%. Some subjects, though, didn’t react so well to the magic, with patients in all dosing groups exhibiting headache, nausea, and dizziness on the day of administration. Also, there were cases of “suicidal ideation or behavior or self-injury” among all groups, though there was “no mean worsening of suicidal ideation scores in any treatment group.” Regulators in the United Kingdom and the United States have already given the proprietary compound, COMP360, a breakthrough designation—which allows the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expedite the development of a new drug to treat a serious condition.
→ Fed Chair Jerome Powell can say whatever he wants and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen can shake maracas while he does it, but a new report from Wells Fargo’s mortgage department paints a grim picture of the U.S. economy. According to the bank, it has only 18,000 mortgage loans in the Q4 pipeline, down 90% from the same time last year. While 2021 was a banner year for home buying, 90% is 90%, which has left the bank, one of the nation’s big six, on the brink of making big cuts to its workforce.
Thanks for reading The Scroll! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
→ A preliminary joint study from Cornell University and Qatar University that tracked COVID-19 patients over six months has found that people who received a COVID-19 booster shot were more likely to become reinfected with Omicron than those who received only two shots. The researchers compared those who had zero, two, or three mRNA shots, followed by a primary Omicron infection to see how they all fared in contracting a second bout with Omicron. While all incidences of reinfection with a second bout of Omicron were rare and clinically mild, they were significantly higher in the unvaccinated and boosted cohorts than in the cohort who’d only received the original two-dose series. The scientists surmise the outcome for the boosted could be a result of what’s known as “immune imprinting,” in which the immune system is prejudiced to its most recent exposure to the detriment of its ability to adapt to newer versions of the same pathogen. Meanwhile, Pfizer has recently released another study touting the new bivalent booster’s ability to increase antibodies up to 13-fold—though, as the Cornell and Qatar findings suggest, high titers of vaccinal antibodies could very well be a recipe for immune imprinting.
→ Video of the Day:
In an “unprecedented” show of anger against the military and entrenched power, protestors in Pakistan are jumping on tanks in the streets after an assassination attempt yesterday against former PM Imran Khan. One of Khan’s deputies, Asad Umar, said in a recently released video that Khan blames three men for his brush with death: current PM Shehbaz Sharif, his Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah, and Major General Faisal Naseer. In their public condemnations of the attempted assassination, the government and the military have denied any involvement, though as protests grow against the ruling elite, the state has cracked down on television broadcasts, preventing them from airing coverage of Khan’s accusations. “Neither the civilian government nor military establishment will escape public blame and criticism for this attack, regardless of the facts about who perpetuated [sic] it,” Azeema Cheema, a Pakistan analyst, told the Financial Times.
→ In another blow to those millennials and Gen Zers with aspirations to create wealth through homeownership, the United States is running out of viable land, and it’s adding more fuel to the fire of astronomical home valuations. While our nation has abundant empty spaces, the desirable areas with the requisite transportation, energy, and water systems concentrated around fast-growing cities like Nashville, Tampa, and Austin are already owned, and the owners aren’t interested in selling, nor are they interested in re-zoning to build multifamily dwellings. “The number of vacant lots zoned for residential use in Nashville fell by 43.5% between 2016 and 2021,” The Wall Street Journal reported, just as Nashville home prices rose by more than 50% over the same period. While some home prices could soon begin to drop because of the Federal Reserve’s attempt to tame inflation, the dearth of available ground suggests rising land prices will be a long-term problem.
→ Stanford University recently treated students to their own live-action version of The Talented Mr. Ripley. For the past year, 20-year-old Alabama native William Curry has pretended to be a Stanford student, squatting in various dorms and getting by on his charm and gregariousness. Administrators caught on to Curry’s deception as early as December 2021 and removed him from campus, but they failed to send out any campus-wide alerts to housing staff, and Curry simply returned several times to live in different dormitories. Local police, oddly, also ignored the reports of a female student who said she’d been stalked and harassed by Curry after she stopped dating the imposture student. As The Stanford Daily reported last week, Curry now might have finally gone too far, getting kicked off campus yet again for stealing a television.
→ Quote of the Day:
We did not fight a civil war about oboe players.
This was Chief Justice John Roberts’ saucy reply to Harvard counsel Seth Waxman, who danced around the question of whether race provides a college with “viewpoint diversity” or whether it is a sole determining factor for admissions at Harvard, in a Supreme Court case that could overturn the long-standing practice of collegiate affirmative action. Waxman argued that if Harvard’s orchestra needed a new oboe player, and the school was evaluating two otherwise comparable applicants, the student who played oboe might win the coveted offer of admission. Roberts shot back his retort, adding, “We did fight a Civil War to eliminate racial discrimination, and that’s why it’s a matter of considerable concern.” Currently, the court is evaluating claims from plaintiffs who’ve argued that University of North Carolina and Harvard are “both universities [that] award mammoth racial preferences to African Americans and Hispanics.”
TODAY IN TABLET:
Bibi Wins! by Liel Leibovitz and Tony Badran
Israel’s political iron man inherits a hatful of tsuris
We Need to Talk About the Way We Talk About Israel by Diana Fersko
Israel is the topic, but American Jews are the target
SCROLL TIP LINE: Have a lead on a story or something going on in your workplace, school, congregation, or social scene that you want to tell us about? Send your tips, comments, questions, and suggestions to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Thanks for reading The Scroll! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
One Weird Trick for Fixing Elections
A public-private partnership formed by elite institutions and the federal government quietly eats away at the First Amendment
By Nadine Strossen and Matthew Harwood
On September 30, conservative outlet Just the News published allegations that an agency within the Department of Homeland Security helped create a shadowy public-private partnership called the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) to censor and suppress right-of-center voices and media in the run-up to the 2020 election with the help of Big Tech.
The headline was alarming: “Outsourced censorship: Feds used private entity to target millions of social posts in 2020.” The targets of censorship, according to the article, were some of the biggest names on the right—Charlie Kirk, Sean Hannity, Gateway Pundit, Fox News, and the New York Post—whose social media posts on platforms like TikTok, Twitter, and Facebook were labeled, soft blocked, or removed. On his show, Hannity reacted to the news by alleging that the EIP created an “enemies list.” The story also charged that the government and the partnership colluded to evade First Amendment protections, and noted that each EIP partner was handsomely rewarded with millions in federal dollars after the 2020 election. Finally, the story warned, the partnership wasn’t finished—it has continued its work during the run-up to the 2022 midterm elections.
The EIP responded a week later. In a long statement, the partnership pushed back on the story and the resulting media coverage, essentially claiming that it was all heat and no light. According to the EIP, it was simply flagging election-related disinformation online, and passing it on to social media companies in order to protect the legitimacy and integrity of the 2020 vote. If conservative accounts were disproportionately targeted, according to the partnership, it was because “the vast majority of false rumors and disinformation about the 2020 election spread primarily through far-right influencers catering to Trump-voting audiences, reflecting the asymmetrical nature of the phenomenon.” The partnership also said that the social media platforms alone were responsible for determining what actions to take after the EIP shared its findings. Finally, the partnership wasn’t operating secretively, the statement said. It blogged, tweeted, and held daily webinars in the runup to the election, and afterward wrote peer-reviewed papers and a massive 290-page after-action report.
It is difficult to assess the full details of what exactly went on, especially regarding the EIP’s underlying motives. But we do know this: You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to be concerned about the First Amendment implications of the EIP’s work, even as described by the EIP itself—especially with tomorrow's elections on the line.
There is a serious argument that a partnership like the EIP violates at least the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment. The idea behind the partnership, according to the EIP’s after-action report, came from four students at the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) who were interning at the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). They observed that there was no agency in the federal government tasked with identifying, monitoring, and correcting election-related disinformation online. As the report itself acknowledged, a U.S. government response to domestic “election disinformation” was problematic, because it “would likely be excluded from law enforcement action under the First Amendment.” The EIP wasn’t wrong.
Government itself has only strictly limited power to restrict false information—for example, when it satisfies the specific, narrow standards for fraud, defamation, or perjury. These constitutional guardrails are wise precisely because such vague concepts as “disinformation” give officials too much enforcement discretion, which they predictably use to target critical, dissenting, and minority voices. Denying government the power to implement such an inherently manipulable concept as “disinformation” honors the cardinal First Amendment principle of “viewpoint neutrality,” which ensures that the general power to discern what’s true and false belongs to the American people.
In an apparent attempt to avoid this constitutional problem, the EIP was created “in consultation with CISA” on July 26, 2020—100 days out from the Nov. 3 national election. The groups within the EIP seemed almost designed to make conservative heads explode. Two research groups housed at liberal universities? Check. A New York-based social media analytics firm? Check. A digital research lab connected to a Washington, D.C.-based establishment think tank? Check.
The EIP then set up a ticketing system whereby private stakeholders, like the NAACP or the Democratic National Committee, could submit “tickets,” or reports, flagging possible examples of disinformation. While most tickets came from private stakeholders and EIP analysts, at least one government agency submitted tickets. According to the partnership, CISA did not submit any tickets, but 5% of tickets came from the State Department’s Global Engagement Center.
When the EIP decided a ticket qualified as disinformation and sent it to the social media platforms, the companies took notice. According to the EIP after-action report, the social media giants responded at least 75% of the time to the tickets in which they were tagged. Thirty-five percent of the URLs the partnership shared with Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, and YouTube “were either labeled, removed, or soft blocked,” reported the EIP. The tech platforms disproportionately targeted large accounts supporting then-President Donald Trump, which, according to the partnership, were claiming the election was or would be stolen. These “repeat spreaders” included the actor James Woods, Gateway Pundit, Donald Trump Jr., Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk, Mark Levin, and Breitbart News, among others.
The government’s role in forming EIP and implementing its ticketing system, as well as social media companies’ high level of responsiveness to EIP’s tickets, suggest that the government may be sharing its power with ostensibly private actors to such an extent that the latter are effectively functioning as government agents. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has sensibly recognized that when certain actions are undertaken by private sector actors that are “entangled” with the government, such actions are subject to the same constitutional limits that apply to the government. Likewise, the Court has held that when governmentpressures private actors to engage in censorship, that too violates the First Amendment. The involvement of the DHS and State Department in the project does make one wonder how much pressure the social media companies felt to address the tickets that EIP sent to them.
As of now, it seems the federal government is at least approaching that constitutional entanglement line. Recent reporting from The Intercept places the EIP within a larger, troubling context. Lee Fang and Ken Klippenstein detail how the DHS, originally created in the aftermath of 9/11 to focus on terrorist threats emanating abroad, has been expanding and altering its mission to address what it considers domestic threats, including a broad concept of information that it deems potentially dangerous; moreover, in seeking to suppress such information, DHS has often collaborated with powerful tech companies without sufficient oversight from Congress. The agency's ill-fated proposal for a Disinformation Governance Board in April was only the most well-known and widely ridiculed instance of bureaucratic proliferation and mission creep that has accelerated under both the Trump and Biden administrations.
First Amendment and broader culture-of-free-speech concerns aren’t the only problem presented by the EIP, however. Consider the issue of bias. In December 2021, seven members of the EIP published an article in the Journal of Quantitative Description. The article focused on the social media accounts cited above, which the authors argue acted as superspreaders of election disinformation, helping sow doubt about the integrity and legitimacy of the 2020 election. The authors admit that the monitoring process for identifying and flagging pieces of disinformation likely “reflect biases of individual analysts.” These analysts, as Stanford Internet Observatory’s Renée DiResta explains in a CISA video, were “trained student researchers” from Stanford.
That’s a salutory admission, but one sentence later the authors wave it away. “Though the organizers did not record the political orientations of the Tier 1 analysts,” the EIP authors write, “our experience working with them suggests that diverse political orientations were present and that the overall group skewed towards the center left.” For many who are skeptical about the EIP already, this might only induce resigned laughter, since they likely perceive Stanford students as being far to the left of the average American. Imagine if the federal government helped form a similar partnership that employed students from Liberty University to flag disinformation online. The reaction would be largely the same, only coming from the opposite side.
According to the partnership, its primary goal is to defend American democracy, particularly the integrity and legitimacy of our electoral system. These are laudable, worthwhile goals, but the way EIP went about pursuing them demonstrates a paternalistic lack of faith in the intelligence of ordinary Americans. In their zeal to play gatekeeper, a group of elite institutions, partnering with government agencies, is picking and choosing what Americans see online. Whatever you want to call that, it isn’t democracy.
As the Supreme Court said, an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” is antithetical not only to individual liberty, but also to the entire idea of self-government. Accordingly, the Court has stressed, our system is designed to discover truth "out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than through any kind of authoritative selection.” It’s difficult for that process to play out unencumbered when the government itself has a policy of telling proxies whose tongues to cut out.
Transparency, arguably absolute transparency, is necessary to counter the free speech dangers that the EIP poses by policing inherently slippery concepts like“misinformation” and “disinformation.” The partnership does seem to understand the value of showing its cards. In its statement, the EIP stated that it “has always operated openly and transparently” and that any “insinuation that information about our operations or findings were secret up to this point is disproven by the two years of free, public content we have created.”
It would be more accurate to say that the EIP operated while hidden in plain sight. An obscure partnership between little-known research centers and ABC government agencies may be technically transparent, but that matters little if the vast majority of the population has no idea the arrangement exists. A large portion of the blame goes to the popular and resource-rich media outlets that weren’t interested in covering such developments for readers and viewers until a comparatively small conservative website did it for them.
Since the EIP was formed to exchange information between its partners in real time, it presumably could create a web tool to allow interested citizens and organizations to also watch it work in real time and provide some sort of due process for accounts flagged for disinformation. And if the partnership’s existence continues beyond the midterms, especially in the runup to the 2024 election, it should prioritize recruiting analysts who represent the ideological and political diversity of the American electorate and provide that data to the public.
With the potential for abuse so grave, blog posts, Twitter threads, and downloadable after-action reports won’t cut it. Radical transparency is the least voters should expect of such a partnership at least partially funded by taxpayer money and involving elements of the national security bureaucracy. Such a commitment would go a long way toward demonstrating to the public that the EIP has nothing to hide—and is glad to have the American people watch it like a hawk.
Thanks for reading The Scroll! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.