Pam, and we used to have a Supreme Court with people who cared about this nation and our Constitution. Now we have only 3 of those justices left, the "liberals." The cons have gone off the deep end, whatever works for them and their donors. Who knows what is really motivating their thoughts about TikTok. I am concerned about our security and have been since I learned China owned TikTok. How is it our courts didn't care to think about this before now, yeah, when fewer people would be impacted?
Susan, Musk is already moving in that direction, only as far as I know, it is to Russia and his buddy, Putin. How is a potential government official allowed to have that "personal" relationship with Putin? That is a security risk, but TikTok is just so much more dangerous, right?
Because we have no real safeguards against this kind of behavior. The Supreme Court can be bought by the super wealthy and not even have to recuse on conflicts. The president doesn't need to pass a security check and can override the result for anyone else as he sees fit (See: Kushner, Jared, 2016). We're likely to witness how toothless our antitrust laws are if Musk decides he wants to add TikTok to his toy chest. I find propaganda American oligarch-style as toxic as anything the Chinese push out.
Nancee, and our SC cons get really upset if anyone challenges them on their decisions, something we should be doing all the time, particularly when those decisions work to take away people's rights as lately, they so often do. I blame Johnny Roberts for so much of the chaos. He seems to love it, though he claims otherwise. The lying continues even in the highest court. They should be ashamed of themselves and their behavior, but alas, not! They are supposedly good little catholic boys and girl, and I guess that is true, which is why I left the church 57 years ago, to get away from the hypocrisy and misogyny.
George, I think my brain assumed you had said "already bought" because they are as are Mitch McConnell and Mikey Johnson. None of those guys (only 1 woman in the mix), has a single moral compass among them and think somehow Trump will take care of them. He will do to them what he has done to everyone else who has gotten close to his circle, dumped them as soon as they didn't kiss properly or do exactly what Toddler-Trump demanded. They will all fall before him unless they completely capitulate (which is what I expect) or finally decide they have had enough and dump the Trump (which would be a better idea, but takes courage that every single one of them and the rest of Republicans in power all over the country do not have). How truly sad!
Jacqueline, no human being should be able to own more than 1 social media or any kind of media platform. How we have permitted this is beyond comprehension. Musk is evil, plain and simple. He will do whatever he can to wreck our society for his benefit, then move on. It is up to us to stop allowing this insanity.
He would rapidly enshittify the platform, ruining it for those users who have monetized it for income purposes, resulting in essentially a zombie app hosting clones of the far-right on "X"...it what Musk does, full stop.
Joan, Musk is right in there, getting away with everything with his Toddler-Leader-Trump, and the rest of the Republican toddler playground. They have been getting away with whatever they do for decades and our Supreme Court has grown used to playing in that toddler world right along with them given gifts and bribes and more. The only adults in the room now are Democrats (most Democrats)and some independents and 3 "liberal" SC justices. There are a lot of good judges on our courts, but a bunch who are in that toddler playground too. Why do we want toddlers in charge of anything, and not well-behaved ones learning to be decent human beings?
“[T]he Government asserts an interest in preventing a foreign adversary from having control over the recommendation algorithm that runs a widely used U. S. communications platform, and from being able to wield that control to alter the content on the platform in an undetectable manner.” Then we should immediately divest Donald Trump and Elon Musk for national security reasons.
From the origins of the divestiture bill, I don't believe that ANY evidence of a compelling nature was presented during the legislative debates of ACTUAL nefarious acts by the Chinese govt. directed against AMERICAN users. I mean, what is the difference amongst these shite US social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, et al capturing and monetizing THEIR users' data, and then targeting them by algos with foul racist, sexist, homophobic, super-violent CONTENT to really mess with people's minds, than anything that China has done vis-à-vis TikTok users?
The Zuck and Elno have made it crystal-clear the direction that they are moving their SM platforms, and if one can raise a serious argument why these changes in accepted "content" are less virulent or harmful than the Chinese government's rôle in TikTok, I'd like to hear it.
The complaint about the "recommendation algorithm" is especially amusing (and disingenuous) when all of the Meta products, YouTube, and likely every other social media app do the SAME THING.
National security concerns? Oh please, politicians love to drag that out per agenda. Donald Trump is a national security risk … and no red state voices raised.
Sounds like Bytedance just needs to change TikTok’s name to get around the law. The same way companies in the US declare bankruptcy, change their name, and reopen the next day.
Similarly, when Bondi says there will NOT be an enemies list in the DOJ, she’s not lying, the enemies list will be kept in the White House.
Again I have to bring up discernment... the ability to distinguish between watching the cute kitten program and our national safety. Where are Americans placing what they value?
They don’t understand national security unless it’s migrants over running the country and poisoning the blood of the white man. They have a 6th grade reading level and , if possible, less understanding of our national security than the man they voted for.
Trump only cares about people adoring him and he’ll work to keep it available as long as it’s users adore him.
I like to keep his priorities in mind at all times, as for me to do otherwise keeps me in danger of assuming ANYTHING about his motives that outweighs stolen wealth.
I don't know. For Trump, in all his vacuity, this is likely still true, but once a person has broken the $200B mark in personal wealth, is more money still the incentive? I think this has now morphed into a lust for unchecked power, a desire to dominate on a global level.
An apt summation. Last summer I spent a weekend with relatives and finally told one that I don't care about seeing the gender reveal videos she wanted to share. Most of social media is garbage, designed to keep users scrolling so that Zuckerberg and his colleagues can collect our data and flood our feeds with ads.
I think "security" is a nebulous term, one of the many words bastardizes by conscious choice of influencers and conceded by what should restrain. If leaders said, "China having this kind of information would allow them to drop bombs on your head, undermine your ability to earn money, or feed your children" (what ever)... people would respond differently. It's basic communication not something wrong with people.
Sharon - you mean like Bondi responded during her confirmation hearing yesterday, when asked how she planned to address domestic terrorism in her role as AG? She went straight to border issues. I caught just this bit in passing so didn't wait to hear a followup to that non-answer.
I refuse to listen to these confirmation hearings because we know that no matter how awful these nominees are, or how massive a security risk, the pansy GOP will confirm them and then praise them as the country sinks.
I fear for many 9/11 type attacks by our enemies and adversaries.
Mostly, I don't listen either. But every once in awhile, I'll turn on the tv and see a bit of one or another of the hearings. Doubt I've spent 2 minutes watching if one or another catches my attention.
Kitten videos aside, many young people use TikTok for political activism on our side of the spectrum. Historically, it has not been effective for grownups to attempt to ban what the youth have chosen as their means of expression.
Nice twist on the story Christie (if you are an actual person named Christie), but I can't buy it... banning exploitation of youth and stopping subversive collection of data on people is banning youth expression??? Is there any equivalency to national security?
“Congress has designated it in the Act, a foreign adversary, and national security concerns cannot be ignored.”
That’s a laugh. Our own government is a foreign adversary — they’re wielding Meta and Xitter (that’s pronounced shitter) and others. They are collecting data on their users for . . .reasons — and spreading all kinds of targeted dis and mis — constant manipulative lies with intent to disinform.
Hi Joyce. Might you please teach us what it means that president Biden says the ERA is real, but is not making the archivist publish it to the Constitution? It seems like a ploy to look good with no impact, to me. She must publish it for it to be real, correct? I so hope I'm wrong and the amendment is real regardless.
He can't publish it. Only the archivist can. Apparently he is not ordering the archivist to publish it as the questions surrounding it are still problems.
Well as I understand it the legal question which is definitely under consideration was regarding whether the original cut off date for ratification is legal or not. This was raised by the GOP and right wing politicos yes but that doesn't make the challenge "interference". If the original cut off date is legal and stands, then the ERA can't become law as it wasn't ratified in time. If it is decided that the cutoff date is not valid then the ratification period would still be open until enough states ratified
It is a perfectly valid legal question, and I still regret that the Democrats in 77 were the ones who insisted on that deadline to try to get states to ratify the amendment quickly.
Unfortunately the ploy didn't work (only 32 states out of 38 needed had ratified by the deadline).
I fear you are correct, Jane. I just found this on NPR:
“President Biden on Friday declared that he considers the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution ‘the law of the land,’ a surprising declaration that does not have any formal force of effect, but that is being celebrated by its backers in a rally in front of the National Archives.
The amendment would need to be formally published or certified to come into effect by the national archivist, Colleen Shogan — and when or if that will happen is unclear.
The executive branch doesn't have a direct role in the amendment process, and Biden is not going to order the archivist to certify and publish the ERA, the White House told reporters on a conference call. A senior administration official said that the archivist's role is "purely ministerial" in nature, meaning that the archivist is required to publish the amendment once it is ratified.
In response to an NPR question about whether the archivist would take any new actions, the National Archives communications staff pointed to a December statement saying that the ERA "cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions."
"This is a long-standing position for the archivist and the National Archives. The underlying legal and procedural issues have not changed," the archives' statement said.
————
Joyce, I read elsewhere that Trump plans to replace the current archivist with one of his loyalists. What happens to the ERA if it’s not published now? Will it disappear for good?
"Per curiam decisions are typically short and resolve cases through summaries and without hearing oral arguments (but not always). The per curiam opinions will typically address issues the Court views as relatively non-controversial."
There is no reason SCOTUS could not use this rationale to overturn Citizens United. The evil here (grave national security threat) is quite similar to the evil our nation has, in its long history and tradition, recognized that arises from the undue influence and power that large corporate money plays in our political system. No reason, except that is, for the truly un-American ideological views of six members of this court. And the worst part of it all is that huge corporate money took over the Democratic Party, as Democrats used the tool that Citizens United gave them far more effectively than Republicans. And that's why we have an oligarchy now and have lost, or at least gravely and perhaps fatally wounded, our democracy. Sic transit gloria mundi.
I have to disagree over who used - and benefitted most from - the Citizens United decision. Many Democrats have refused to take big PAC money -- I've never heard of a Republican doing the same. I think Musk's purchase of the Presidency for Trump tells us all we need to know.
I don't see or understand how the "... Democrats used the tool that Citizens United gave them far more effectively than Republicans." What more effectively achieved goal have Democrats thereby achieved? Losing the Presidential election in November 2024? I assume you do NOT mean _that_, but what DO you mean?
Yes, what does Tom Cotton say. After all, he couldn’t comprehend that Singapore isn’t China. Has he changed his mind now that dear leader wants it to stay?
That’s an understatement. Man who lied about being an army ranger never hesitated to say Tim Walz had stolen valor because they couldn’t comprehend his career.
So if 170 million Americans and businesses don’t care about security concerns we shouldn’t scrutinize or restrict those security risks? Isn’t this a little too democratic?
I hope Musk is not allowed to buy TicTok
Yeah, we used to have antitrust laws in this country.
Pam, and we used to have a Supreme Court with people who cared about this nation and our Constitution. Now we have only 3 of those justices left, the "liberals." The cons have gone off the deep end, whatever works for them and their donors. Who knows what is really motivating their thoughts about TikTok. I am concerned about our security and have been since I learned China owned TikTok. How is it our courts didn't care to think about this before now, yeah, when fewer people would be impacted?
Not since reagan messed up the country
I seem to recall a progressive broke up the monopolies.
Especially since he has such an in with the Chinese government. He would sell out is adopted country for the power that comes with owning TikTok.
Susan, Musk is already moving in that direction, only as far as I know, it is to Russia and his buddy, Putin. How is a potential government official allowed to have that "personal" relationship with Putin? That is a security risk, but TikTok is just so much more dangerous, right?
Because we have no real safeguards against this kind of behavior. The Supreme Court can be bought by the super wealthy and not even have to recuse on conflicts. The president doesn't need to pass a security check and can override the result for anyone else as he sees fit (See: Kushner, Jared, 2016). We're likely to witness how toothless our antitrust laws are if Musk decides he wants to add TikTok to his toy chest. I find propaganda American oligarch-style as toxic as anything the Chinese push out.
Nancee, and our SC cons get really upset if anyone challenges them on their decisions, something we should be doing all the time, particularly when those decisions work to take away people's rights as lately, they so often do. I blame Johnny Roberts for so much of the chaos. He seems to love it, though he claims otherwise. The lying continues even in the highest court. They should be ashamed of themselves and their behavior, but alas, not! They are supposedly good little catholic boys and girl, and I guess that is true, which is why I left the church 57 years ago, to get away from the hypocrisy and misogyny.
The Robert's Kangaroo Court needs to be openly and regularly mocked since it seems to annoy the thin-skinned partisan hack.
Minor correction: "can be bought" should read "HAS been bought".
George, I think my brain assumed you had said "already bought" because they are as are Mitch McConnell and Mikey Johnson. None of those guys (only 1 woman in the mix), has a single moral compass among them and think somehow Trump will take care of them. He will do to them what he has done to everyone else who has gotten close to his circle, dumped them as soon as they didn't kiss properly or do exactly what Toddler-Trump demanded. They will all fall before him unless they completely capitulate (which is what I expect) or finally decide they have had enough and dump the Trump (which would be a better idea, but takes courage that every single one of them and the rest of Republicans in power all over the country do not have). How truly sad!
It should be obvious there is no one left to stop musk from "doing whatever the hell he wants."
Jacqueline, no human being should be able to own more than 1 social media or any kind of media platform. How we have permitted this is beyond comprehension. Musk is evil, plain and simple. He will do whatever he can to wreck our society for his benefit, then move on. It is up to us to stop allowing this insanity.
He would rapidly enshittify the platform, ruining it for those users who have monetized it for income purposes, resulting in essentially a zombie app hosting clones of the far-right on "X"...it what Musk does, full stop.
On the other hand, maybe if he does, he can have Donald drive it into the ground.
He seems to be able to do whatever he wants. Sigh.
Joan, Musk is right in there, getting away with everything with his Toddler-Leader-Trump, and the rest of the Republican toddler playground. They have been getting away with whatever they do for decades and our Supreme Court has grown used to playing in that toddler world right along with them given gifts and bribes and more. The only adults in the room now are Democrats (most Democrats)and some independents and 3 "liberal" SC justices. There are a lot of good judges on our courts, but a bunch who are in that toddler playground too. Why do we want toddlers in charge of anything, and not well-behaved ones learning to be decent human beings?
“[T]he Government asserts an interest in preventing a foreign adversary from having control over the recommendation algorithm that runs a widely used U. S. communications platform, and from being able to wield that control to alter the content on the platform in an undetectable manner.” Then we should immediately divest Donald Trump and Elon Musk for national security reasons.
From the origins of the divestiture bill, I don't believe that ANY evidence of a compelling nature was presented during the legislative debates of ACTUAL nefarious acts by the Chinese govt. directed against AMERICAN users. I mean, what is the difference amongst these shite US social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, et al capturing and monetizing THEIR users' data, and then targeting them by algos with foul racist, sexist, homophobic, super-violent CONTENT to really mess with people's minds, than anything that China has done vis-à-vis TikTok users?
The Zuck and Elno have made it crystal-clear the direction that they are moving their SM platforms, and if one can raise a serious argument why these changes in accepted "content" are less virulent or harmful than the Chinese government's rôle in TikTok, I'd like to hear it.
The complaint about the "recommendation algorithm" is especially amusing (and disingenuous) when all of the Meta products, YouTube, and likely every other social media app do the SAME THING.
National security concerns? Oh please, politicians love to drag that out per agenda. Donald Trump is a national security risk … and no red state voices raised.
As well as Elon Musk.
As well as … who in his entourage isn’t?
I am not the least bit impressed that 170 million Americans use Tic Tok. A very wise man once said, "one million flies can't be wrong...eat shit!"
Sounds like Bytedance just needs to change TikTok’s name to get around the law. The same way companies in the US declare bankruptcy, change their name, and reopen the next day.
Similarly, when Bondi says there will NOT be an enemies list in the DOJ, she’s not lying, the enemies list will be kept in the White House.
Very good point . . . TokTik anyone???
Again I have to bring up discernment... the ability to distinguish between watching the cute kitten program and our national safety. Where are Americans placing what they value?
They don’t understand national security unless it’s migrants over running the country and poisoning the blood of the white man. They have a 6th grade reading level and , if possible, less understanding of our national security than the man they voted for.
Trump only cares about people adoring him and he’ll work to keep it available as long as it’s users adore him.
I add and as long as he has a shot at garnering personal wealth from it
Almost seems to go without saying right?
I like to keep his priorities in mind at all times, as for me to do otherwise keeps me in danger of assuming ANYTHING about his motives that outweighs stolen wealth.
That is the key the “garnering personal wealth” from it!
I don't know. For Trump, in all his vacuity, this is likely still true, but once a person has broken the $200B mark in personal wealth, is more money still the incentive? I think this has now morphed into a lust for unchecked power, a desire to dominate on a global level.
Absolutely well said!
An apt summation. Last summer I spent a weekend with relatives and finally told one that I don't care about seeing the gender reveal videos she wanted to share. Most of social media is garbage, designed to keep users scrolling so that Zuckerberg and his colleagues can collect our data and flood our feeds with ads.
I think "security" is a nebulous term, one of the many words bastardizes by conscious choice of influencers and conceded by what should restrain. If leaders said, "China having this kind of information would allow them to drop bombs on your head, undermine your ability to earn money, or feed your children" (what ever)... people would respond differently. It's basic communication not something wrong with people.
However, the felon and his propaganda Fox and Friends continue to poison people’s views of what is true and what isn’t!
Good point.
Sharon - you mean like Bondi responded during her confirmation hearing yesterday, when asked how she planned to address domestic terrorism in her role as AG? She went straight to border issues. I caught just this bit in passing so didn't wait to hear a followup to that non-answer.
I refuse to listen to these confirmation hearings because we know that no matter how awful these nominees are, or how massive a security risk, the pansy GOP will confirm them and then praise them as the country sinks.
I fear for many 9/11 type attacks by our enemies and adversaries.
Mostly, I don't listen either. But every once in awhile, I'll turn on the tv and see a bit of one or another of the hearings. Doubt I've spent 2 minutes watching if one or another catches my attention.
I used to watch almost all the hearings. But then I was so mad all the time I couldn’t relax.
So true.
Already directly loading data directly to Red Note. Massive movement from
Tik Tok straight to data of Chinese
Kitten videos aside, many young people use TikTok for political activism on our side of the spectrum. Historically, it has not been effective for grownups to attempt to ban what the youth have chosen as their means of expression.
Nice twist on the story Christie (if you are an actual person named Christie), but I can't buy it... banning exploitation of youth and stopping subversive collection of data on people is banning youth expression??? Is there any equivalency to national security?
“Congress has designated it in the Act, a foreign adversary, and national security concerns cannot be ignored.”
That’s a laugh. Our own government is a foreign adversary — they’re wielding Meta and Xitter (that’s pronounced shitter) and others. They are collecting data on their users for . . .reasons — and spreading all kinds of targeted dis and mis — constant manipulative lies with intent to disinform.
Joyce,
TikTok. Tempus Fugit. ....waits for no man. Hurray for the Supremes, even a broke clock gets it right twice a day.
Love the flock pics yesterday. Be kind to yourself and others. Roll tide. Peace. We are in this together.
Call me simple minded but until we can get more control over social media regarding misinformation, propaganda, and security, I SAY BAN THEM ALL.
nah
Hi Joyce. Might you please teach us what it means that president Biden says the ERA is real, but is not making the archivist publish it to the Constitution? It seems like a ploy to look good with no impact, to me. She must publish it for it to be real, correct? I so hope I'm wrong and the amendment is real regardless.
I thought I read this morning from Heather that he is publishing it. Did I misunderstand?
He can't publish it. Only the archivist can. Apparently he is not ordering the archivist to publish it as the questions surrounding it are still problems.
I am pretty sure the “legal problems” stem from GOP interference.
Well as I understand it the legal question which is definitely under consideration was regarding whether the original cut off date for ratification is legal or not. This was raised by the GOP and right wing politicos yes but that doesn't make the challenge "interference". If the original cut off date is legal and stands, then the ERA can't become law as it wasn't ratified in time. If it is decided that the cutoff date is not valid then the ratification period would still be open until enough states ratified
It is a perfectly valid legal question, and I still regret that the Democrats in 77 were the ones who insisted on that deadline to try to get states to ratify the amendment quickly.
Unfortunately the ploy didn't work (only 32 states out of 38 needed had ratified by the deadline).
Have someone read it into the congressional record.
First fire the archivist, and ask the second-in-command if they are willing to their job, if the answer is no, fire them as well.
Thank you for the clarification.
that's the wordage I've seen everywhere
I fear you are correct, Jane. I just found this on NPR:
“President Biden on Friday declared that he considers the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution ‘the law of the land,’ a surprising declaration that does not have any formal force of effect, but that is being celebrated by its backers in a rally in front of the National Archives.
The amendment would need to be formally published or certified to come into effect by the national archivist, Colleen Shogan — and when or if that will happen is unclear.
The executive branch doesn't have a direct role in the amendment process, and Biden is not going to order the archivist to certify and publish the ERA, the White House told reporters on a conference call. A senior administration official said that the archivist's role is "purely ministerial" in nature, meaning that the archivist is required to publish the amendment once it is ratified.
In response to an NPR question about whether the archivist would take any new actions, the National Archives communications staff pointed to a December statement saying that the ERA "cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions."
"This is a long-standing position for the archivist and the National Archives. The underlying legal and procedural issues have not changed," the archives' statement said.
————
Joyce, I read elsewhere that Trump plans to replace the current archivist with one of his loyalists. What happens to the ERA if it’s not published now? Will it disappear for good?
Here’s the rationale from Lawrence Tribe and Kathleen Sullivan of the Contrarian:
https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=3719374&post_id=155030820&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1xe074&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMTY1NDY5NDQsInBvc3RfaWQiOjE1NTAzMDgyMCwiaWF0IjoxNzM3MTM2ODY0LCJleHAiOjE3Mzk3Mjg4NjQsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0zNzE5Mzc0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.oFXulIBjbdJj93UVJA_3_gMlMpSYyYofD6dGj6CPymU
I'm just relieved to see the words "per curiam" in the decision. That's what the Real Supreme Court would have done in the old days.
"Per curiam decisions are typically short and resolve cases through summaries and without hearing oral arguments (but not always). The per curiam opinions will typically address issues the Court views as relatively non-controversial."
from the Cornell Law School site.
What's the difference between adversary and enemy? Which is Xi? Putin?
An adversary is an opponent in a contest, conflict or dispute and differs from an enemy in that an enemy is an opponent that is openly hostile.
Good question. In the Book of Job, Satan is called the Adversary.
There is no reason SCOTUS could not use this rationale to overturn Citizens United. The evil here (grave national security threat) is quite similar to the evil our nation has, in its long history and tradition, recognized that arises from the undue influence and power that large corporate money plays in our political system. No reason, except that is, for the truly un-American ideological views of six members of this court. And the worst part of it all is that huge corporate money took over the Democratic Party, as Democrats used the tool that Citizens United gave them far more effectively than Republicans. And that's why we have an oligarchy now and have lost, or at least gravely and perhaps fatally wounded, our democracy. Sic transit gloria mundi.
I have to disagree over who used - and benefitted most from - the Citizens United decision. Many Democrats have refused to take big PAC money -- I've never heard of a Republican doing the same. I think Musk's purchase of the Presidency for Trump tells us all we need to know.
I don't see or understand how the "... Democrats used the tool that Citizens United gave them far more effectively than Republicans." What more effectively achieved goal have Democrats thereby achieved? Losing the Presidential election in November 2024? I assume you do NOT mean _that_, but what DO you mean?
Congress — all huff, all puff, all fall down.
Yes, what does Tom Cotton say. After all, he couldn’t comprehend that Singapore isn’t China. Has he changed his mind now that dear leader wants it to stay?
Tom Cotton - Slavery, a necessary evil - has no mind to change, just pre-Civil War attitudes.
The stupid is mighty strong whin Tom Cotton . . .
That’s an understatement. Man who lied about being an army ranger never hesitated to say Tim Walz had stolen valor because they couldn’t comprehend his career.
Even more despicable than I remembered. Fits in with the GQP swamp slime.
americans are idiots as are their leaders(fornow)...bread and circuses
also, school boards need to focus on our literacy rate and not be banning books that kids don't have the ability to read anyway
So if 170 million Americans and businesses don’t care about security concerns we shouldn’t scrutinize or restrict those security risks? Isn’t this a little too democratic?
Just a bit hypocritical...
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other