Nintendo, of course, has an impressively long history of being IP protectionist in the extreme. But if there is one thing that Nintendo really cannot stand, it's when its own fans choose to express their fandom with art and creativity. Cool ways to use Animal Crossing? Nintendo shut it down. Dedicated gamers porting an antique Mario title to the PC? Nintendo shut it down. Fan game, after fan game, after fan game? Nintendo shut those down too. In other words, the impression you're left with is that fan creations using anything remotely close to Nintendo IP is the devil's work in the eyes of the company.

Except, perhaps, when the company would like to use some of that work without permission or giving credit to the artist, it seems.

A new website for Nintendo’s upcoming Japanese theme park Super Nintendo World went live yesterday. It featured new details and a virtual tour of the video game wonderland ahead of its February 4 opening. It also used an image of Mario for its loading screen that appears to have been created not by Nintendo, but one of its fans.

“I love how Nintendo used MY old ass Mario render in their official Nintendo World website,” Twitter user and Mario fan artist ujiidow tweeted earlier today. Their image of Mario was created roughly three years ago using the open source animation software Blender, and was shared on Reddit at the time. The Mario model used for the render wasn’t one of Nintendo’s, but instead belonged to 3D artist RafaKnight, who shared it for download on their Patreon in 2017.

Nintendo hasn't bothered to comment on any of this, but it's a funny thing how those that scream about respecting artists and creators can't seem to find it in themselves to treat others the way they want to be treated. Now, some will point out that Nintendo controls the Mario Bros. IP, as though it gave them the right to simply use any 3rd party artwork as though it were their own. That almost certainly isn't true, though, and is sort of besides the point. Nintendo goes way beyond just following the law in its intellectual property enforcement and treats it like some sort of ethos that aggressive protection is the right way to go.

So why, then, not seek permission from the artist to use what he created? Why not credit the artist in some way? It's not like said artist wouldn't have been amendable to any of this.

Ujiidow isn’t necessarily complaining though. “I’m so used to my Mario renders getting very little attention,” they told Kotaku in an email. “I’m being told to take action on the matter but I find it very nice to finally have some recognition on it.”

Holy shit, imagine if Nintendo had the same gentle attitude towards its fans that its fans have toward Nintendo? What a wonderful world that would be.

Summary: Running a site that relies on third-party content means having to deal with the underside of human existence. While most people engage in good faith, a small minority of people engage with the sole purpose of disparaging others.

Yelp is no exception. Designed to provide potential customers with useful information about goods and services, the site's popularity lent itself to brigading (negative reviews delivered en masse in response to current outrages) and the lowest common denominators of the general public: bigots.

The potential to ruin a business's reputation over their views on immigration policy, their employment of minorities, or other perceived slights made it possible for the most-respected review site to be weaponized by racists.

Yelp recognized this inevitability. Moderators patrol the site to limit the spread of bigoted content that skew review scores based on the racist predilections of reviewers.

Communities have always turned to Yelp in reaction to current events at the local level. As the nation reckons with issues of systemic racism, we’ve seen in the last few months that there is a clear need to warn consumers about businesses associated with egregious, racially-charged actions to help people make more informed spending decisions. Yelp’s User Operations team already places alerts on business pages when we notice an unusual uptick in reviews that are based on what someone may have seen in the news or on social media, rather than on a first-hand experience with the business. Now, when a business gains public attention for reports of racist conduct, such as using racist language or symbols, Yelp will place a new Business Accused of Racist Behavior Alert on their Yelp page to inform users, along with a link to a news article where they can learn more about the incident.

This move may have seemed laudable but it lent itself to subjective interpretations of decisions made by businesses, as well as individual actions by employees. Employing a racist person is not the same as running a racist business, but Yelp's blanket policy seemed to indicate both were equally racist.

Further comments by Yelp clarified some of its employees would make the final determination on alleged racism by businesses or business owners. Any company flagged for racist behavior would be sheltered from further comment until a determination was made.

Decisions to be made by Yelp:

• Does allowing users to unilaterally declare businesses to be "racist" thwart monetization efforts by Yelp?
• Is it wise to succumb to the "wisdom of the crowd," especially when Yelp feels an interstitial warning is an acceptable replacement for due diligence?

Questions and policy implications to consider:

• Does Yelp's reliance on income from businesses seeking to expand their reach conflict with allegations of racism by business owners/employees?
• Do policies like this actually encourage bad faith behavior by hiding reviews behind an ominous warning that suggests the complaints are legitimate?

Resolution: This use of warnings and the hiding of unverified reviews (at least temporarily) is still company policy. While its moderation efforts may eventually lead to a satisfactory resolution, its decision to flag businesses based on unverified claims has the potential to result in a lot of collateral damage.

Originally posted on the Trust & Safety Foundation website.

Cops have a "tell." It's so obvious and yet they still pretend it isn't. Whenever something questionable goes down, all anyone has to do is ask for the recordings.

If the recording exonerates cops (or at least makes it a close call in their favor), law enforcement agencies will release the footage, often without anyone asking for it. If there might be rights violations or a questionable killing, cops will delay or deny the release of footage. In some cases, no footage is recorded at all. In others, the footage will go missing.

This "tell" is highlighted in a recent ACLU post, which compares the responsiveness of two law enforcement agencies. The one that can't immediately justify officers' actions chose to withhold, asserting a bunch of stipulations, policies, and public records exceptions to justify its lack of transparency.

The other chose to proactively release footage in hopes of talking the public into supporting its controversial actions by showing everything wasn't nearly as awful as the high-profile warrant target would make it seem.

First, we have the footage that exonerates law enforcement officers. Earlier this month, Florida law enforcement raided the house of a COVID whistleblower -- a former government employee who was kicked to the curb when COVID stats failed to match the state governor's "EVERYTHING IS FINE" pronouncements. The whistleblower claimed cops pointed guns at her children and otherwise acted excessively given the nature of the charges.

And this remains true, despite the proactive body cam footage release. Cops with guns raided a house over allegations that some hacking had occurred. In reality, the situation was much more muddy, involving a state government system that allowed people to share a password and a supposedly threatening message. When computer crime is responded to by officers with guns and the authorization to use deadly force, things are a bit fucked up. Yes, law enforcement is there to enforce laws, but keyboard warriors use keyboards, not guns. Entering a house with guns drawn drastically overestimates the "danger" officers are facing.

After being excoriated in the press and on social media, the law enforcement agency decided to clear the air. But DO NOT CONGRATULATE. This "transparency" had a clear goal -- and that goal wasn't to place the agency on the top of the transparency charts.

[I]n the Florida case, police body camera footage appears to show the state police acting in a more restrained manner than Jones was alleging. As a result, in what CNN properly noted to be a “rare move”, the state police released the body camera footage publicly, and they did it quickly. Transparency prevailed, but only because it favored the police.

This "raid" wasn't much of a raid. That's why Florida state police released the bodycam footage.

The two videos released by the department show that Jones didn't exit her Tallahassee home until about 23 minutes after officers first rang the doorbell, and 15 minutes after they first announced themselves as police.

When it makes cops seem like the good guys they proclaim themselves to be, transparency abounds. When things are more questionable, cops play it close to the vest, acting like legal scholars with years of litigation experience behind them, rather than the people who get a free pass when they conveniently misinterpret laws.

On November 19, Omaha cops shot and killed a 35-year-old black man they pulled from the back seat of a car they had stopped. Cops claim the man had a gun and the struggle over that gun led to his death. But there's reason to question that narrative. And that reason has been supplied by every government agency and law enforcement official denying access to that footage.

Despite having body camera footage of the incident, and immediate calls for transparency, the Omaha Police Department has refused to release the footage despite Nebraska’s strong tradition of open government. This decision, quite understandably, incensed the public. Omaha Deputy City Attorney Bernard in den Bosch, while acknowledging that “in the State of Nebraska, body cam videos are probably public records” nevertheless stated that “we have exercised our right to use the exception in the public records act to withhold them from public dissemination.”

The same goes for the Omaha police. The police chief claims he's just dying (but not as much as the "suspect") to release the footage, but laws surrounding grand jury investigations prevent him from doing so. This, too, is some bullshit.

As the ACLU points out, footage that might "influence" grand juries is released all the time. And those releases rarely turn grand juries against cops. Footage abounds of questionable cop killings -- often recorded by people who aren't cops -- and yet, grand juries rarely fail to find in favor of cops, even while indicting every other non-government ham sandwich that crosses their path.

And that's how this supposed accountability tool actually works. The cops will release footage that makes cops look good. They will withhold almost everything else. The sad thing is, the cops think it's helping them. But it isn't. Anytime law enforcement refuses to release footage (or footage goes missing, etc.), it's safe to assume officers screwed up. Until they're transparent in every situation, this assumption holds.

As you may have heard, over the weekend Amazon removed Parler from its AWS cloud hosting services, causing the website to shut down. I've been working on a longer piece about all of this, but in the meantime, I did want to write about the laughably bad antitrust lawsuit that Parler filed against Amazon in response. Notably, this came just days after Parler's CEO claims that his own lawyers quit (would these be the same "lawyers" who stupidly advised that the company doesn't need Section 230?). Instead, they found a small time independent practitioner who doesn't even have a website* to file what may be the silliest antitrust lawsuit I've seen in a long time. It's so bad that by the end of it, Parler may very well be paying Amazon a lot of money.

There are so many other things I'd rather be writing about, so I'll just highlight a few of the problems with Parler's very bad, no good, horrible, stupidly ridiculous lawsuit. If you want more, I recommend reading Twitter threads by Akiva Cohen or Neil Chilson or Berin Szoka or basically any lawyer with any amount of basic knowledge of antitrust law. The lawsuit is dumb and bad and it's going to do more harm to Parler than good.

The key part of the lawsuit is that Parler, without evidence, claims that Amazon had "political animus" against it, and that it conspired with Twitter to shut down a competitor. It provides no proof of either thing, and... even if it did show proof of political animus, that's... not against the law. And that's kind of a big deal. They're basically saying it's an antitrust violation to dislike Parler. Which it's not. But even if it were, they are simply making up false reasons for why AWS booted Parler.

AWS’s decision to effectively terminate Parler’s account is apparently motivated by political animus. It is also apparently designed to reduce competition in the microblogging services market to the benefit of Twitter.

I mean, even just this paragraph makes no sense. You may have noticed that Amazon and Twitter are different companies. The complaint is against Amazon. Amazon doesn't compete with Parler. None of this makes any sense. The next paragraph demonstrates how rushed and stupid and bad this lawsuit is:

Thus, AWS is violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in combination with Defendant Twitter. AWS is also breaching it contract with Parler, which requires AWS to provide Parler with a thirty-day notice before terminating service, rather than the less than thirty-hour notice AWS actually provided. Finally, AWS is committing intentional interference with prospective economic advantage given the millions of users expected to sign up in the near future

With Defendant Twitter? Let's scroll back up and look at the caption again:

There's only one defendant. And it's not Twitter.

The complaint goes on and on about how there's also bad stuff on Twitter, as if somehow that makes it wrong for AWS to be upset about Parler. But... Parler's whole entire claim to fame is that it moderates differently than Twitter, so claiming that there's the same stuff on Twitter is meaningless. Even worse, the example that Parler uses of how Twitter and Parler have similar content is around people suggesting that political officials including Congressional Representatives, Senators, and VP Mike Pence should be hanged. But the evidence that Parler itself provides undermines its own case, and in some cases directly contrasts its own claims. That's not just bad lawyering, that's legal malpractice.

Here is what Parler says:

What is more, by pulling the plug on Parler but leaving Twitter alone despite identical conduct by users on both sites, AWS reveals that its expressed reasons for suspending Parler’s account are but pretext. In its note announcing the pending termination of Parler’s service, AWS alleged that “[o]ver the past several weeks, we’ve reported 98 examples to Parler of posts that clearly encourage and incite violence.” Exhibit A. AWS provide a few examples, including one that stated, “How bout make them hang?”, followed by a series of hashtags, including “#fu-- mikepence.”...

AWS further stated to Parler that the “violent content on your website . . . violates our terms.” Id. Because, AWS declared, “we cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others,” AWS announced the pending termination of Parler’s account.

However, the day before, on Friday, one of the top trends on Twitter was “Hang Mike Pence,” with over 14,000 tweets. See Peter Aitken, ‘Hang Mike Pence’ Trends on Twitter After Platform Suspends Trump for Risk of ‘Incitement of Violence’, Fox News (Jan. 9, 2021), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/twittertrending-hang-mike-pence. And earlier last week, a Los Angeles Times columnist observed that Twitter and other social media platforms are partly culpable for the Capital Hill riot, by allowing rioters to communicate and rile each other up. See Erika D. Smith, How Twitter, Facebook are Partly Culpable for Trump DC Riot, LA Times (Jan. 6, 2021), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-01-06/howtwitter-facebook-partly-culpable-trump-dc-riot-capitol. Yet these equivalent, if not greater, violations of AWS’s terms of service by Twitter have apparently been ignored by AWS

This leaves out some fairly important context. For one, the "Hang Mike Pence" trend was driven mainly by people calling out the insurrectionists who were saying that -- and which Twitter very quickly removed under their content moderation practices. Parler, on the other hand, made it clear that it was still trying to figure out how to moderate, and hoped to rely on volunteers. That's in Parler's evidence. That it didn't have a real plan in place yet. And that is why Amazon kicked it off.

On top of that, Parler's lawsuit claims that AWS needed to give it 30 days notice, but really only gave it a couple of days. Yet, in the evidence that Parler itself provides, Amazon mentions to Parler's policy chief that it has been sending dozens of examples of content that violate its policy for several weeks.

Amazon, for its part, appears to have not even waited to be served by Parler, but hit back hard with a very damning response to Parler that just dismantles Parler's argument bit by bit in fairly explicit terms.

This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints. It is not about a conspiracy to restrain trade. Instead, this case is about Parler’s demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens. There is no legal basis in AWS’s customer agreements or otherwise to compel AWS to host content of this nature. AWS notified Parler repeatedly that its content violated the parties’ agreement, requested removal, and reviewed Parler’s plan to address the problem, only to determine that Parler was both unwilling and unable to do so. AWS suspended Parler’s account as a last resort to prevent further access to such content, including plans for violence to disrupt the impending Presidential transition.

As Amazon says, the antitrust claims are obviously silly, but even the breach of contract claims are ridiculous because if anyone breached the contract, it was Parler:

Despite Parler’s rhetoric, its lawsuit is no more than a meritless claim for breach of contract. But the facts are unequivocal: If there is any breach, it is Parler’s demonstrated failure and inability to identify and remove such content. AWS was well within its rights to suspend Parler immediately for those failures. Parler also cannot hold AWS liable in tort for enforcing the agreement’s express terms. And there is no antitrust claim where, as here, Parler cannot plausibly plead an agreement to cause it harm and the complained-of conduct is undeniably compatible with a legitimate purpose.

Compelling AWS to host content that plans, encourages, and incites violence would be unprecedented. Parler has no likelihood of prevailing on the merits, and the balance of equities and public interest strongly tip against an injunction. The motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied.

In the Amazon filing, the company notes that it began sending breach reports to Parler in November of last year and detailed the nature of the content that it was concerned about, often directly calling for violence. They include a ton of screenshots of the kind of violent speech that was on Parler, that goes way beyond what you'd see on other platforms, and which other platforms would remove.

Amazon also notes that the exhibit is only a small sampling:

The content AWS provided to Parler is merely representative of volumes of content that poses a security risk and harms others, in direct violation of the AUP. See id. Exs. E-F (examples). That content includes, but is not limited to, calls for violence against a wide range of individuals, including elected officials, law enforcement officers, and teachers. People have acted on these calls: Parler was used to incite, organize, and coordinate the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. See Doran Decl. Exs. F-G. AWS reported to Parler, over many weeks, dozens of examples of content that encouraged violence, including calls to hang public officials, kill Black and Jewish people, and shoot police officers in the head. Executive 2 Decl. Exs. D-F. Parler systematically failed to “suspend access” to this content, much less to do so immediately, and demonstrated that it has no effective process in place to ensure future compliance.3 Executive 2 Decl. 7. Parler itself has admitted it has a backlog of 26,000 reports of content that violates its (minimal) community standards that it had not yet reviewed. Id. Parler’s own failures left AWS little choice but to suspend Parler’s account.

As for Amazon treating Twitter differently? Turns out (beyond everything I mentioned above) there's a bigger problem: Twitter doesn't use AWS:

Parler’s Complaint is replete with insinuations that AWS had equal grounds to suspend Twitter’s account and thus discriminated against Parler. For example, Parler cites the hashtag “#hangmikepence,” which briefly trended on Twitter. ... But AWS does not host Twitter’s feed, so of course it could not have suspended access to Twitter’s content.

Finally, Amazon notes that Section 230 also protects its practices here:

In addition to their facial deficiencies, Parler’s interference and antitrust claims also fail under Section 230(c)(2) of the Communications Decency Act. Under that statute, the provider of an “interactive computer service” is immune for acting in good faith to restrict access to material that is excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.

This is actually interesting, in that rather than using 230(c)(1) like nearly every case, Amazon recognizes this is one of those rare (c)(2) cases, giving it the right to restrict access to violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable content. This part of the law is rarely tested, as (c)(1) handles most moderation claims, but probably doesn't fit here, given the fact that Amazon was denying overall service to Parler, not just moderating specific speech.

Parler's going to lose this lawsuit. And it's going to lose badly.

* In a very, very strange set of circumstances, there is another lawyer with the identical name, David J. Groesbeck, (including middle initial) who is a patent lawyer, also based in Washington state and registered to practice in NY, but they are different, and the patent lawyer (who does have a website) had to put a notice on his website saying he's not the same David J. Groesbeck who has Parler for a client, and giving that lawyer's phone number, since he's being inundated with calls, yelling at him for representing Parler.

Proving that 2020 wasn't done with us yet, January 6, 2021 added a new horror to the long list of things that showed "may you live in interesting times" is a curse, rather than a blessing. Urged on by the guy less than ten days away from being escorted from the premises by security and his favorite legal advocate -- one that advocated for "trial by combat" over the election results -- Trump supporters invaded Washington, DC, hoping to somehow nullify the election through intimidation and violence.

This violent debacle (and it was violent -- five people dead and two explosive devices recovered) has resulted in a lot of backlash. The most immediate backlash will be felt by some of the red-hatted crowd that broke into the Capitol building in hopes of preventing election certification. An executive order signed by Trump -- one targeting "violent, left-wing extremists" -- will instead be used to enhance the prison sentences of violent, right-wing extremists. Perhaps the worst president in history will exit the office with his supporters feeling the brunt of this incredible self-own. MAGA, indeed.

But it's back to business as usual, now that things have settled down. An attack on the election process has resulted in calls for action. And calls for action prompted by singular events with almost no chance of being repeated almost always result in things being made worse for millions of citizens who did nothing more than watch in horror as events unfolded.

The 9/11 attacks resulted in an expansion of the surveillance state. The tragic attack was leveraged to take power away from the people and give it to their government instead. The same thing appears to be happening now, with President-elect Joe Biden demanding a War on (Domestic) Terrorism. And other legislators are demanding more be done now, ignoring the dire repercussions of their demands in favor of inflicting pain on people who didn't vote for them. (h/t Sam Mintz)

Flight attendants felt disturbed by the presence of Capitol Hill invaders on flights out of DC. This is fine. And, as private companies, airlines can certainly refuse to allow certain people to board their planes. But this private objection is being made public, courtesy of Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. He wants these private complaints to become public by adding alleged "insurrectionists" to the incredibly expansive no-fly lists maintained by the federal government.

Given the heinous domestic terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol yesterday, I am urging the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to use their authorities to add the names of all identified individuals involved in the attack to the federal No-Fly List and keep them off planes. This should include all individuals identified as having entered the Capitol building—an intrusion which threatened the safety of Members of Congress and staff and served as an attack on our Nation.

We already saw reports of ‘unruly mobs’ in the air on the way to Washington, D.C. It does not take much imagination to envision how they might act out on their way out of D.C. if allowed to fly unfettered. This is an action that TSA and the FBI, by law, are able to take but, to my knowledge, have not yet taken. Alleged perpetrators of a domestic terrorist attack who have been identified by the FBI should be held accountable.

Lots to unpack here.

First, the TSA should not be given any permission to do anything, given that it's done almost nothing with the vast amount of leeway it's already been granted.

Second, no-fly lists are an unconstitutional mess. Even given the massive amount of deference judges grant to "national security" arguments, courts remain unconvinced that forbidding someone from flying (and then refusing to even acknowledge this fact, much less given them a chance to challenge this determination) isn't a violation of their rights.

Adding a bunch of people to the no-fly list isn't a good idea, especially when the government has plenty of power to deal with the perpetrators of this Capitol Hill invasion without deciding they're no longer allowed to board airplanes. As Rep. Thompson says, perpetrators should be held accountable. There are plenty of laws on the books -- and one recent executive order -- that will help federal prosecutors achieve this goal. Banning perps from flying doesn't change anything about the prosecutorial matrix.

And if someone can be identified and added to a no-fly list, chances are they can be identified, arrested, and prosecuted. So the watchlist is just punitive damage with almost zero recourse. Let the law take its course. Leave the no-fly list out of it. If airlines want to refuse to serve suspects facing prosecution for the Capitol raid, they can do so. The government doesn't need to be involved. Federal agencies can BOLO suspects without putting them on a watchlist that severely curtails their ability to travel. And that's all it should do at this point, since we're supposed to presume innocence before determining guilt.

The Personal and Business Finance Super Bundle features 12 courses on how to handle your finances effectively with content on accounting, financial mathematics, various funds, and more. You'll learn how to use Excel and QuickBooks to track and monitor your finances efficiently, how to budget and invest, how to do basic accounting, and much more. It's on sale for $40.

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.

Many of us watched in horror as Trump supporters -- encouraged by the outgoing President's insinuation that a "stolen" election could be overturned if VP Mike Pence was prevented from certifying election results -- raided the Capitol building in Washington, DC. What may have started as simple MAGA stupidity ended with five people dead and two improvised explosive devices recovered. Welcome to Leroy Jenkinsville, USA.

Invading federal buildings is a serious federal offense. That's why Trump sent federal officers to Portland -- officers that spent a lot of time shooting and pepper spraying journalists and legal observers. There was a lot of irony contained in the Capitol invasion by Trump supporters -- ones who feel the government can do no wrong when their boy is in charge but cannot be trusted the moment the guy up top is replaced.

But the most painful irony still lies ahead. An executive order from Trump signed in June was meant to target "anarchists and left wing extremists" who tore down monuments to Confederate "heroes" and otherwise menaced federal property. Now, it looks like the latest citizens to be hit with sentence enhancements will be the same people who cheered on this open targeting of people whose views were diametrically opposed to Trump's. "Fullest extent of the law" -- as ordered in the Presidential edict -- means pursuing maximum sentences for attacking federal property.

As horrifying as all of that was, the worst may lie ahead. The incoming president is threatening to turn January 6th into the next 9/11. (h/t Jameel Jaffer)

President-elect Joe Biden characterized the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday as domestic terrorists, referring to the violence as “one of the darkest days in the history of our nation.”

“Don’t dare call them protesters,” Mr. Biden said in remarks from Wilmington, Del. “They were a riotous mob. Insurrectionists. Domestic terrorists. It’s that basic. It’s that simple.”

He's not wrong. Some of the acts -- especially the use of IEDs -- are the very definition of "domestic terrorism." The problem is what Biden wants to do about it.

Mr. Biden has said he plans to make a priority of passing a law against domestic terrorism, and he has been urged to create a White House post overseeing the fight against ideologically inspired violent extremists and increasing funding to combat them.

This may seem reasonable. And some renewed focus on the domestic side of terrorism might be warranted, considering how it's been back-burnered by law enforcement for, um, personal reasons. It's well documented that law enforcement agencies in the US -- including the FBI -- have ignored domestic extremists in favor of targeting people with darker skin and non-Christian faiths. Ignoring the domestic threat means not having to examine people law enforcement agencies have on their payrolls, far too many of whom have been caught espousing bigoted views in private.

But no matter how good it might feel to finally force law enforcement to confront people whose cognitive dissonance allows them to post ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ memes alongside their Blue Lives Matter content, there's absolutely no reason anyone should welcome another expansion of government power under the guise of fighting terrorism.

The 9/11 attacks vastly expanded the government's reach and grasp. And it has resulted in a lot of domestic surveillance -- much of which uses the pretense of being "foreign-facing" to excuse its intrusion into the lives of Americans. For years, the NSA was able to harvest phone metadata in bulk, almost all of which was generated by domestic communications. Backdoor searches of NSA collections allow the FBI and others to obtain domestic communications without a warrant. And the FBI's war on foreign terrorism has done little more than allow the agency to radicalize people right into lengthy prison sentences.

Add to that biometric collections at airports, no-fly lists that are almost impossible to challenge, and the court-supported belief that the rights of American citizens are null and void anywhere within 100 miles of a border, coast, or international airport, and you have dozens of reason why no one should celebrate a new, entirely-domestic, War on Terror.

What happened earlier this month was disturbing. And domestic terrorism is a threat that should be addressed. But emotional lawmaking in the wake of an attack has never worked out well for Americans, even if many would applaud the punishment of people they don't like. America's law enforcement already has the tools, funding, and power to tackle domestic terrorism. They just need to start doing it. What they don't need is a whole new set of powers. And what Americans really don't need is less freedom and liberty, no matter what threat we're facing.

Outside from perhaps military contractors, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a US business sector that benefitted more from Trumpism that the telecom sector. AT&T nabbed a $42 billion tax break in exchange for roughly 42,000 layoffs and a reduction in network investment. T-Mobile, after hiring Corey Lewandowski and throwing money at Trump's DC hotel, nabbed approval for a Sprint merger most objective experts warned would result in tens of thousands of job losses, less competition, and higher prices. And telecom giants convinced the Trump FCC to effectively lobotomize its consumer protection authority.

The telecom industry also managed to kill net neutrality, neuter local municipalities' abilities to stand up to wireless giants in negotiation, and kill some modest FCC broadband privacy rules before they could even take effect. Topping that off, the telecom sector spent several years convincing the lion's share of DC that "big tech" is the only real monopolistic threat in America, resulting in the entirety of our regulatory and antitrust enforcement being fixated on Silicon Valley while giving telecom (natural monopolies with a thirty year track record of anti-consumer, anticompetitive behavior) a complete pass.

All in all, that's a pretty good haul in a four year span. And I omitted a lot of unidirectional regulatory favors for fear of boring you.

Throughout this period, telecom giants were happy to look the other way as brown-skinned kids were locked in cages, bigotry was used as a political bludgeon, racism flourished, rampant corruption ballooned, and the country descended into chaos at the every whim of an idiot king. Only now, that public opposition has ballooned in the wake of Trump supporters beating a cop to death, has the industry had enough. And by "enough," we mean temporarily suspending select PAC spending for a few weeks until the outrage dies down:

"A large and growing number of tech and telecom companies are freezing their political contributions to Washington lawmakers after President Trump incited a mob that attacked the US Capitol last week. And some companies – including telecom heavyweights AT&T, Verizon and Comcast – are specifically targeting lawmakers such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo), who opposed President-elect Joe Biden's election victory."

Keep in mind, AT&T and Comcast alone were some of the heaviest donors to Republicans that spread bullshit claims to undermine a free and fair election, resulting in riots and casualties. And AT&T was almost certainly playing a major role in the GOP attacks on Section 230, a law essential to the basic functioning of online discourse. And who can forget that time AT&T threw $600,000 under the table at Trump "fixer" Michael Cohen to gain additional insider access to the President as it pursued the very successful lobotomization of the FCC.

Now the same companies that threw millions at Trumpland while ignoring or downplaying every last scandal want a cookie for temporarily suspending PAC spending for a few weeks until public outrage dies down. Something that usually happens anyway right about now as companies adjust to the new political realities of a new incoming administration and a shifting Congress. And because the US press is routinely incapable of calling a duck a duck (fascism, racism, corruption, hypocrisy), it will probably work.