“Despite half of U.S. and U.K. adults getting their news from social media, social media companies have not taken the steps necessary to fight industry-backed deception,” reads the report.
Weeks after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identified disinformation as a key driver of the planetary crisis, three advocacy groups published a report Wednesday ranking social media companies on their efforts to ensure users can get accurate data about the climate on their platforms—and found that major companies like Twitter and Facebook are failing to combat misinformation.
The report, titled In the Dark: How Social Media Companies’ Climate Disinformation Problem is Hidden from the Public and released by Friends of the Earth (FOE), Greenpeace, and online activist network Avaaz, detailed whether the companies have met 27 different benchmarks to stop the spread of anti-science misinformation and ensure transparency about how inaccurate data is analyzed.
“Despite half of U.S. and U.K. adults getting their news from social media, social media companies have not taken the steps necessary to fight industry-backed deception,” reads the report. “In fact, they continue to allow these climate lies to pollute users’ feeds.
⚠️NEW RESEARCH: Fossil fuel industry-backed climate disinformation pollutes our social media feeds and fans the flames of the #ClimateCrisis. This is why tech companies must take responsibility and stop leaving the public in the dark! https://t.co/7h0rI2jAKWpic.twitter.com/rYEtNETJrY
The groups assessed five major social media platforms—Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, and TikTok—and found that the two best-performing companies, Pinterest and YouTube, scored 14 out of the 27 possible points.
As Common Dreams reported earlier this month, Pinterest has won praise from groups including FOE for establishing “clearly defined guidelines against false or misleading climate change information, including conspiracy theories, across content and ads.”
“One of the key objectives of this report is to allow for fact-based deliberation, discussion, and debate to flourish in an information ecosystem that is healthy and fair, and that allows both citizens and policymakers to make decisions based on the best available data.”
The company also garnered points in Wednesday’s report for being the only major social media platform to make clear the average time or views it allows for a piece of scientifically inaccurate content before it will take action to combat the misinformation and including “omission or cherry-picking” of data in its definition of mis- or disinformation.
Pinterest and YouTube were the only companies that won points for consulting with climate scientists to develop a climate mis- and disinformation policy.
The top-performing companies, however, joined the other firms in failing to articulate exactly how their misinformation policy is enforced and to detail how climate misinformation is prioritized for fact-checking.
“Social media companies are largely leaving the public in the dark about their efforts to combat the problem,” the report reads. “There is a gross lack of transparency, as these companies conceal much of the data about the prevalence of digital climate dis/misinformation and any internal measures taken to address its spread.”
Twitter was the worst-performing company, meeting only five of the 27 criteria.
“Twitter is not clear about how content is verified as dis/misinformation, nor explicit about engaging with climate experts to review dis/misinformation policies or flagged content,” reads the report. “Twitter’s total lack of reference to climate dis/misinformation, both in their policies and throughout their enforcement reports, earned them no points in either category.”
TikTok scored seven points, while Facebook garnered nine.
The report, using criteria developed by the Climate Disinformation Coalition, was released three weeks after NPRreported that inaccurate information about renewable energy sources has been disseminated widely in Facebook groups, and the spread has been linked to slowing progress on or shutting down local projects.
In rural Ohio, posts in two anti-wind power Facebook groups spread misinformation about wind turbines causing birth defects in horses, failing to reduce carbon emissions, and causing so-called “wind turbine syndrome” from low-frequency sounds—a supposed ailment that is not backed by scientific evidence. The posts increased “perceptions of human health and public safety risks related to wind” power, according to a study published last October in the journal Energy Research & Social Science.
As those false perceptions spread through the local community, NPRreported, the Ohio Power Siting Board rejected a wind farm proposal “citing geological concerns and the local opposition.”
Misinformation on social media “can really slow down the clean energy transition, and that has just as dire life and death consequences, not just in terms of climate change, but also in terms of air pollution, which overwhelmingly hits communities of color,” University of California, Santa Barbara professor Leah Stokes told NPR.
As the IPCC reported in its February report, “rhetoric and misinformation on climate change and the deliberate undermining of science have contributed to misperceptions of the scientific consensus, uncertainty, disregarded risk and urgency, and dissent.”
Wednesday’s report called on all social media companies to:
Establish, disclose, and enforce policies to reduce climate change dis- and misinformation;
Release in full the company’s current labeling, fact-checking, policy review, and algorithmic ranking systems related to climate change disinformation policies;
Disclose weekly reports on the scale and prevalence of climate change dis- and misinformation on the platform and mitigation efforts taken internally; and
Adopt privacy and data protection policies to protect individuals and communities who may be climate dis/misinformation targets.
“One of the key objectives of this report is to allow for fact-based deliberation, discussion, and debate to flourish in an information ecosystem that is healthy and fair, and that allows both citizens and policymakers to make decisions based on the best available data,” reads the report.
“We see a clear boundary between freedom of speech and freedom of reach,” it continues, “and believe that transparency on climate dis/misinformation and accountability for the actors who spread it is a precondition for a robust and constructive debate on climate change and the response to the climate crisis.”
The pledge’s signatories may write a letter summing up why they are giving so much to charity and what their priorities are, which gets posted to the internet. Scott did that and amended the letter when she remarried. What makes her stand out from others who have signed the Giving Pledge is that she continues to write about her donations and what she’s learning about giving in general. As a historian of philanthropy, I study the philosophies and motivations of donors, which I call their “gospels of giving.”
Her approach is clearly unique among her peers – other billionaire donors – because of how she relates to the organizations she supports and the diversity of those causes. She says her overarching goal is “to support the needs of underrepresented people from groups of all kinds.”
Scott values the expertise of the groups she supports and their leadership. She says she doesn’t adhere to the conventional concept of philanthropy, and she questions the way many of us think about generosity. To her it is not just a numbers game. It’s more about the spirit of giving, the sacrifice in the gift.
One major difference is that very wealthy donors tend to drill down in a single focused area, such as higher education, or a few causes – perhaps the arts or medical research. There are advisers who often recommend this approach to have the most impact.
But the nonprofits she has funded cover pretty much everything charitable donors support, from education to health, from social justice to the arts. Her latest donations even include global organizations like CARE and HIAS that are serving the needs of Ukrainians whose lives have been turned upside down.
I think it’s important that she didn’t give to only their affiliates in major cities. Foundations have been underinvesting in rural America for years. Scott’s supporting dozens of local and regional affiliates in suburban and rural counties.
Instead, she praised other forms of giving by people without billions to their name. One thing she has drawn attention to is how there’s a lot of informal giving, and that it’s not valued. This puts Scott where the average person is, especially in communities of color, where people look after neighbors and family members regularly in their giving.
Since these are charitable activities you can’t deduct from your taxes, you might not think of these helping behaviors and many forms of civic engagement as philanthropy.
Her blog posts draw attention to trends people might miss regarding the groups she supports. She states the percentage of these organizations that are led by women, people of color or people she says have “lived experience in the regions they support and the issues they seek to address.”
When somebody shows you how they’re thinking about their giving and what they support, that could have an impact on others. It may change whether they donate only to their alma mater, for example. Colleges and museums are used to getting these big gifts, but many of the organizations Scott is giving tens of millions of dollars to say these are the largest donations they’ve ever received. She’s shattering the notion of who is a worthy recipient – the unspoken idea that only the elite institutions and the most well-known are worthy of big gifts.
How does Scott talk about giving that isn’t purely monetary?
For her it’s about generosity, not just dollars. She’s definitely thinking beyond the tax breaks she’ll get for charitable gifts.
Her December 2021 post alludes to volunteering and other activities she calls the “work of practical beneficence” practiced by millions of people, estimating that it’s worth about $1 trillion. Researchers have reached similar conclusions.
She also highlighted the estimated $68 billion in annual global remittances in that post. When people come to this country, begin working and send money to their homelands, that is a form of philanthropy. They may not use the word, but it’s the same idea, because it’s giving back to your family and your country of origin, and it responds to the same motivation as a donation to an established charity.
I agree that there’s much more to American philanthropy than the roughly half a trillion dollars donated annually. There are other kinds of giving that fly below the radar screen that are important for survival, community-building, meeting basic needs and even for democracy.
She also addresses the role and value of using your voice as an important part of social change. The history of the abolition, women’s suffrage, civil rights movements and various movements today bear this out. That is something I focus on in my research. https://www.youtube.com/embed/KS2n7VUBOa0?wmode=transparent&start=0 Historian Tyrone McKinley Freeman joined Bridgid Coulter Cheadle and Kimberly Jeffries Leonard to discuss how Black leaders are following in the footsteps of history’s trailblazers by devoting their time, talent and voice to many causes.
What do you hope the public takes away from Scott’s approach to giving?
Scott has emerged as the most notable practitioner of what’s called trust-based philanthropy. That refers to the notion that there should be fewer strings attached to donations and that reporting requirements and other expectations that often come with grants from foundations can be excessive.
In December 2020, Scott mentioned that she has a team of advisers to help her with screening, although she hasn’t shared what that process looks like. But after that, she is not asking anything else of the organizations she funds. Instead, she has chosen to step back and let them exercise responsibility, giving them space and flexibility.
I hope the public hears her answers to what I like to ask: Who counts as a philanthropist and what counts as philanthropy? I agree with Scott that it’s about more than money and that philanthropy is not only the domain of the wealthy.
New survey data shows that voters “want elected officials to challenge corporate greed to lower prices,” said one advocate.
On the heels of fresh data showing that the U.S. inflation rate jumped to a new 40-year high last month, a new survey found that more than 80% of American voters believe costs are rising in part because “big corporations are jacking up prices” while raking in record profits.
Released Friday by the advocacy group Fight Corporate Monopolies, the poll showed that 82% of registered U.S. voters blame big companies for at least some of the recent inflation spike and want elected officials to “take on powerful CEOs and rein in corporate greed to lower prices.”
“Rising prices is the top economic issue for most voters, and they want elected officials to challenge corporate greed to lower prices,” Helen Brosnan, executive director of Fight Corporate Monopolies, said in a statement. “Political leaders should directly address rising prices, release plans to combat corporate greed’s role in driving prices higher, and put forth arguments that center CEOs and big corporations.”
NEW: Following yesterday's inflation report, new polling shows messaging linking corporate greed to rising prices is highly effective. pic.twitter.com/TpejFfMZEn
— Fight Corporate Monopolies (@fightmonopolies) March 11, 2022
The new survey, based on a sample size of 1,000 respondents, comes as progressives in Congress continue spotlighting corporate price-gouging as a key culprit behind rising prices nationwide even as the White House abandons that narrative, despite data indicating it resonates with voters.
With gas prices surging amid Russia’s onslaught against Ukraine, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced legislation on Thursday that would impose a “windfall tax” on oil companies in an effort to “curb profiteering.”
“Last year, oil and gas companies made $174 billion in profits,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a co-sponsor of the legislation, wrote in a Twitter post. “This year they’re on track to make more. We cannot allow Big Oil to use Ukraine and ‘inflation’ as an excuse to rip off Americans.”
Originally published on Common Dreams by JAKE JOHNSON and republished under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
There is a natural human tendency to crave comfort food during a time of stress, the feelings of baking and having the ability to feed and care for oneself was probably a very strong motivator. And what is more comforting than freshly baked, nay, home baked bread with a little butter and jam to beautify an afternoon spent at home. Even if the reason for being inside is not an ideal one.
Oddly, in the US and some other nations, bread and wheat products have been cast in the role of villain due to gluten intolerance and related illnesses. In the UK alone, in 2017, there were a reported 10% of the population suffering from some form of intolerance. Such a percentage would translate into tens of millions in the US.
Above: Photo / Adobe Stock
Is bread really the culprit or is there something else going on?
As a disclaimer, let it be stated up-front that there are certainly many people who suffer from conditions such as Celiac Disease who have a very real, hereditary response to gluten which is very serious. Many of the rest of us, however, who are not in that category, may have a situation brought on by a completely different set of circumstances.
Regardless of exact statistics, intolerance to gluten is clearly a “thing”, particularly in the US. Many theories are out there as to the cause, including industrial bread manufacturing methods, suspect ingredients such as emulsifiers used in baking and pesticides on wheat farms. Some have even reported that when intolerant individuals travel to Europe, symptoms disappear, although they eat bread and other gluten containing foods.
An entirely different culture producing a drastically different result: German baking tradition
While American Style bread is also available in Germany, it is rare and not commonly sold in Bakeries but rather only in SuperMarkets. They call it “Toast-Bread” as it’s primary advantage is being square and machine cut, therefore a better fit for a common toaster than the various shapes and sizes of slices cut from what they consider “normal” loaves.
What is considered normal bread is, for example, never sold more than eight hours after baking (except at “day old” scavenger prices). The number of real bakeries, ones that take very seriously the task of making “the daily bread”, per capita is large compared to any US city. This can be dug up in statistics, but is easier to realize by just walking down any street in a German city. Literally every other shop is a small bakery with a dozen different types of bread that was baked that same morning.
Bakers up at 4am all across every town and city
Another factor is the wide range of fresh ingredients included. A short list of the types of bread and various ingredients is vast, and varies from region to region. Six hundred main bread types are well known and this does not include many specialty breads and rolls.
In addition to wheat, bread is often made with rye, barley, potato, oat, spelt, soy and other lesser known grains. Added seeds, nuts and fruit often include one or more of the following (partial list):
sunflower seeds
pumpkin seeds
poppy seeds
fled seeds
walnuts
raisins
currants
sesame seeds
olives
linseed
hazelnuts
almonds
oat flakes
whole gain groats
whey
In Germany, at any common bakery on the street, most, if not all of the items described above would be available on any given day. No need to go to a special, overpriced “organic” or “gourmet” bakery in some high end neighborhood. Just any average bakery will do.
Oddly, these same ingredients are often touted in online health advice articles – implying that there are health benefits to adding these “special” ingredients to one’s diet, all while other countries have had them as daily menu items for centuries if not thousands of years.
Taking all of the above into account, it should come as little surprise that, in the US, obscure health issues due to the lack or misuse of heretofore standard food items would be on the rise. In the case of gluten intolerance, it rises to practically epidemic proportions. Fixing this for any individual, short of taking residence outside the US, would require extra efforts and involve a possible increase in the cost of nourishment. However, considering the alternatives (suffering with a condition without a cure), it might be well worth it.
The CDC currently recommends that you “wear the most protective mask you can that fits well and that you will wear consistently.” The question, then, is what type of mask offers the best protection for you – by filtering the air you breathe in – and for those around you – by filtering the air you breathe out?
The CDC’s updated guidelines clearly lay out the hierarchy of protection: “Loosely woven cloth products provide the least protection, layered finely woven products offer more protection, well-fitting disposable surgical masks and KN95s offer even more protection, and well-fitting NIOSH-approved respirators (including N95s) offer the highest level of protection.”
From a performance standpoint, the N95 and KN95 masks are the best option. While supply chain limitations led to the CDC recommending people not wear N95s early in the pandemic, today they are easily obtainable and should be your first choice if you want the most protection.
The biggest change in the new guidelines has to do with cloth masks. Previous guidance from the CDC had said that some cloth masks could offer acceptable levels of protection. The new guidance still acknowledges that cloth masks can offer a small amount of protection but places them at the very bottom of the bunch.
2. What’s the difference between N95, surgical and cloth mask materials?
The effectiveness of a mask – how much protection a mask provides the wearer – is a combination of two major elements. First, there’s the ability of the material to capture particles. The second factor is the fraction of inhaled or exhaled air leaking out from around the mask – essentially, how well a mask fits.
Most mask materials can be thought of as a tangled net of small fibers. Particles passing through a mask are stopped when they physically touch one of those fibers. N95s, KN95s and surgical masks are purpose-built to be effective at removing particles from air. Their fibers are typically made from melt-blown plastics, often polypropylene, and the strands are tiny – often less than four thousandths of an inch (10 micrometers) in diameter – or approximately one third the width of a human hair. These small fibers create a large amount of surface area within the mask for filtering and collecting particles. Although the specific construction and thickness of the materials used in N95, KN95 and surgical masks can vary, the filter media used are often quite similar.
These fibers are very tightly packed together so the gaps a particle must navigate through are very small. This results in a high probability that particles will end up touching and sticking to a fiber as they pass through a mask. These polypropylene materials also often have a static charge that can help attract and catch particles.
Cloth masks are typically made of common woven materials such as cotton or polyester. The fibers are often large and less densely packed together, meaning particles can easily pass through the material. Adding more layers can help, but stacking layers has a diminishing return and the performance of a cloth mask, even with multiple layers, will still typically not match that of surgical mask or N95.
3. How much does fit matter for masks?
Fit is the other major component in how effective a mask is. Even if the materials used in a mask were perfect and it removed all particles from the air that passed through it, a mask can offer protection only if it doesn’t leak.
When you breathe in and out, air will always take the path of least resistance. If there are any gaps between a mask and someone’s face, a substantial fraction of every breath will seep out through those gaps and the mask will provide relatively little protection.
Many cloth mask designs simply do not seal well. They are not stiff enough to push against the face, there are gaps where the mask doesn’t even come in contact with the face and it is not possible to cinch them tightly enough against the skin to form a decent seal.
But leaking is a concern for all masks. Although the materials used in surgical masks are quite effective, they often bunch and fold on the sides. These gaps provide an easy route for air and particles to leak out. Knotting and tucking surgical masks or wearing a cloth mask over a surgical mask can both significantly reduce leakage.
N95 masks aren’t immune to this problem either; if the nose clip isn’t securely pushed against your face, the mask is leaking. What makes N95s unique is that a specific requirement of the N95 certification process is making sure the masks can form a good seal.
4. What is different about omicron?
The mechanics of how masks function is likely no different for omicron than any other variant. The difference is that the omicron variant is more easily transmitted than previous variants. This high level of infectiousness makes wearing good-quality masks and wearing them correctly to limit the chances of catching or spreading the coronavirus that much more critical.
Unfortunately, the attributes that make for a good mask are the very things that make masks uncomfortable and not very stylish. If your cloth mask is comfy and light and feels like you are wearing nothing at all, it probably isn’t doing much to keep you and others safe from the coronavirus. The protection offered by a high-quality, well-fitting N95 or KN95 is the best. Surgical masks can be very effective at filtering out particles, but getting them to fit correctly can be tricky and makes the overall protection they will provide you questionable. If you have other options, cloth masks should be a last choice.
Originally published on The Conversation by Christian L’Orange and republished under a Creative Commons License
If we are failing to meet our commitments, it is because of a handful of the richest people on the planet refuse to pay their taxes.
2021 will perhaps be remembered as the year when the great powers demonstrated their inability to assume their responsibilities to prevent the world from sinking into the abyss. I am thinking of course of the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow. After having used up the available atmospheric space to develop, the industrialized countries reaffirmed their refusal to honour this climate debt, even though global warming has become an existential issue.
And this is not all. I also refer to the calamitous management of the Covid-19 pandemic. Rich countries have monopolized and hoarded vaccines, and then locked themselves in surreal debates about third doses or the comparative merits of this or that vaccine. This strategy sows death and hinders economic recovery in vaccine-deprived countries, while making them fabulous playgrounds for the proliferation of more contagious, more deadly and more resistant variants that do not care about borders.
If we add the tax evasion of the ultra-rich using tax havens, we arrive at a total loss of US $483 billion.
Finally, I also want to talk about another agreement imposed by the Northern capitals, apparently more technical, but which symbolizes their selfishness and blindness: the one on the taxation of multinationals. Concluded in October, it is a gigantic undertaking, the first reform of the international tax system born in the 1920s, totally obsolete in a globalized economy. Thanks to its loopholes, multinationals cause States to lose some US $312 billion in tax revenue each year, according to the “State of Tax Justice in 2021” just published by the Tax Justice Network, the Global Alliance for Tax Justice and Public Services International.
If we add the tax evasion of the ultra-rich using tax havens, we arrive at a total loss of US $483 billion. This is enough, the report reminds us, to cover more than three times the cost of a complete vaccination programme against Covid-19 for the entire world population. In absolute terms, rich countries lose the most tax resources. But this loss of revenue weighs more heavily on the accounts of the less privileged: it represents 10% of the annual health budget in industrialized countries, compared to 48% in developing ones. And make no mistake, the people responsible for this plundering are not the tropical islands lined with palm trees. They are mostly in Europe, first and foremost in the United Kingdom, which, with its network of overseas territories and “Crown Dependencies”, is responsible for 39% of global losses.
In this context, the agreement signed in October is a missed opportunity. Rich countries, convinced that complying with the demands of their multinationals was the best way to serve the national interest, put themselves behind the adoption of a global minimum corporate tax of 15%. The objective, in theory, is to put an end to the devastating tax competition between countries. Multinationals would no longer have an interest in declaring their profits in tax havens, since they would have to pay the difference with the global minimum tax.
In reality, at 15%, the rate is so low that a reform aimed at forcing multinationals to pay their fair share of taxes risks having the opposite effect, by forcing developing countries, where tax levels are higher, to lower them to match the rest of the world, causing a further drop in their revenues. It is no coincidence that Ireland, the European tax haven par excellence, has graciously complied with this new regulation.
Taxation is the very expression of solidarity. In this case, the absence of solidarity. A global tax of 15% on the profits of multinationals will only generate US $150 billion, which, according to the distribution criteria adopted, will go, as a priority, to rich countries. If ambition had prevailed, with a rate of 21% for example, we would have obtained an increase in tax revenues of US $250 billion. With a rate of 25%, tax revenues would have jumped by US $500 billion, as recommended by ICRICT, the Independent Commission on the Reform of International Corporate Taxation, of which I am a member, along with economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Piketty, Gabriel Zucman and Jayati Ghosh.
Making multinationals pay their fair share of taxes, fighting climate change, dealing with Covid-19 and future pandemics: in reality, everything is linked. While the virus is on the rise again with the arrival of winter in the northern hemisphere, the boomerang effect of the vaccine monopolies no longer needs to be shown or explained. As for the climate emergency, we know from a recent study by the World Inequality Lab that the map of carbon pollution is perfectly in line with that of economic disparities. The richest 10% of the world’s population emit nearly 48% of the world’s emissions—the richest 1% produce 17% of the total!—while the poorest half of the world’s population is responsible for only 12%.
This gap is obvious between countries, but also within them. In the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and France, the emissions levels of the poorest half of the population are already approaching the per capita targets for 2030. If we are failing to meet our commitments, it is because of a handful of the richest people, the same people who do not pay their taxes. It is time for our elites to realize that fighting inequality on all fronts—health, climate and tax—is our only way out. Otherwise, there is no salvation for humanity—and it is no longer a hyperbole.
Originally published on Common Dreams by EVA JOLY and republished under under Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
Small businesses and individuals say that in order to sell their products online in the U.S., they have to be on Amazon and—given the millions of products on its virtual shelves at any moment—they have to get a high ranking from Amazon’s product search engine or buy sponsored listings.
Amazon transitioned from digital retailer to sales platform in 2000, when it took a page from eBay and started allowing individuals and companies to sell through its website. This led to explosive sales growth (though the company reported only small profits overall, choosing to reinvest its profits for most of its existence). Amazon encouraged these “third-party sellers” with add-on services like storage, shipping, and advertising. Third-party sellers now account for 58 percent of sales on Amazon.
Even as sellers saw their revenues grow, they started to suspect that Amazon was using their nonpublic sales information to stock and sell similar products, often for less money.
Indeed, Amazon has been investing in creating products sold under its own brand names since at least 2007. Since 2017, it has dramatically expanded its catalog of private-label brands (which are trademarked by Amazon and its partners) and its list of exclusive products (developed by third-party companies who agree to sell them only on Amazon). The company refers to both as “our brands” in various parts of its website.
We found that Amazon has now registered trademarks for more than 150 private-label brands, and market research firm TJI Research estimated the number of brands developed by others but sold exclusively on Amazon.com at 598 in 2019. Some of its house brand names signal to buyers that they are part of the company—such as Amazon Basics, Amazon Essentials, and Amazon Commercial.
But hundreds of others carry labels that do not clearly indicate that they belong to the online retail giant—including Goodthreads, Lark & Ro, Austin Mill, Whole Paws, Afterthought, Truity, find., Fetch, Mr. Beams, Happy Belly, Mama Bear, Wag, Solimo, and The Portland Plaid Co.
Amazon says it sold $3 billion in private-label goods in 2019, representing just one percent of sales on the platform, but does not specify which brands are included in that estimate. Analysts with SunTrust Robinson Humphrey estimated that Amazon sold five times as much, $15.6 billion of private-label goods in 2019, including brands owned by Whole Foods, and that the figure will reach $31 billion by 2022.
The result is that sellers now not only compete against each other for placement in Amazon search results but also increasingly against Amazon’s own in-house brands and exclusives. According to a to a 2021 report by JungleScout, 50 percent of sellers say Amazon’s products directly compete with theirs.
We sought to investigate how Amazon treats its own products in search results. These are proprietary devices, private labels, and exclusive-to-Amazon brands it considers “our brands.”
To do so, we started by developing a list of 3,492 popular product searches, ran those searches on desktop (without logging in), and analyzed the first page of results.
We found that in searches that contained Amazon brand and exclusive products, the company routinely put them first, above those from competing brands with better ratings and more reviews on Amazon.
Furthermore, we trained supervised machine learning classifiers and found that being an Amazon brand or exclusive was a significantly more important factor in being selected by Amazon for the number one spot than star ratings (a proxy for quality), review quantity (a proxy for sales volume), and any of the other four factors we tested. We did not analyze the potential effect of price on ranking because unit sizes were not standard, affecting price. In addition, similar products can vary by factors that affect price, such as materials and workmanship, for which we also could not control.
Importantly, we found that knowing only whether a product was an Amazon brand or not could predict whether the product got the top spot 70 percent of the time.
In a nationally representative survey we commissioned, only 17 percent of respondents said they expect the determining factor behind whether Amazon places a product first is whether it owns the brand. About half (49 percent) said they thought the products Amazon placed in the number one spot were the best-selling, best-rated, or had the lowest price. The remaining 33 percent said they didn’t know how Amazon ranked products.
We found that Amazon disproportionately placed its own products in the top search result. Despite making up only 5.8 percent of products in our sample, Amazon gave its own products and exclusives the number one spot 19.5 percent of the time overall. By comparison, competing brands (those that are not Amazon brands or exclusive products) were given the number one spot at a nearly identical rate but comprised more than 13 times as many products at 76.9 percent.
Most of the Amazon brand and exclusive products that the company put in the number one spot, but not all—83.9 percent—were labeled “featured from our brands” and carried the phrase “sponsored result” in the source code (as well as being part of a grid labeled “search results” in the source code). They were not marked “sponsored” to shoppers.
In a short, written statement, Amazon spokesperson Nell Rona said that the company does not favor its brands in search results and that it considers “featured from our brands” listings as “merchandising placements” and not “search results,” despite their presence in the search results grid. Rona said these listings are not advertisements, and declined to answer dozens of other questions.
Overall, 37.4 percent of Amazon brand or exclusive products in search results in our sample were neither labeled as “our brands” nor carried a name widely associated with the company, such as AmazonBasics or Whole Foods. That left buyers unaware that they were buying an Amazon brand or exclusive-to-Amazon product.
Nearly nine-in-10 U.S. adults who responded to our survey were unable to identify Amazon’s highest-selling private label brands (Pinzon, Solimo, and Goodthreads), and only 51 percent were aware that Whole Foods is an Amazon-owned brand.
Rona said Amazon identifies its products by including the words “Amazon brand” on the products page, among a list of the item’s features, and sometimes in the listing title. We only found this to be the case in 23 percent of products in our sample that were Amazon-owned brands.
Comparing product pages three months apart, we found that they were less dynamic than they used to be. The default seller among products with multiple merchants only changed in 23.5 percent of products in our data. This was significantly less often than a comparable study from five years ago.
Background
Amazon and third-party sellers have a tense symbiosis. Amazon founder and chairman Jeff Bezos has acknowledged the importance of sellers to the company’s bottom line but also calls them competitors. Amazon provides shipping, inventory management, and other services, he wrote, that “helped independent sellers compete against our first-party business” to begin with. Sellers say Amazon’s fees cut deep into their margins but they can’t get the same volume of sales anywhere else.
Antitrust regulators in Europe, Asia, and North America have been examining Amazon’s treatment of third-party sellers.
The European Commission announced an antitrust investigation in 2019, alleging Amazon used third-party seller data to inform its own sales decisions. The commission also announced a separate investigation in 2020 into whether Amazon gives preference to its own listings and to third-party sellers that use its shipping services over other sellers. Last year, India’s antitrust regulator announced an investigation into alleged anti-competitive practices by Amazon, including preferential treatment for some sellers. And in June 2021, U.S. lawmakers introduced the American Choice and Innovation Online Act, which prohibits large platforms from advantaging themselves in their own marketplaces or using nonpublic data generated by business conducted on their platform. Authorities in Germany and Canada are investigating Amazon’s selling conditions for third-party sellers, and the attorney general for Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit in May 2021 that accuses Amazon of overly restrictive requirements for third-party sellers.
Also last year, U.S. lawmakers pressed Bezos on his treatment of third-party sellers during a congressional hearing that was part of an antitrust investigation into the four major tech companies. Rep. Lucy McBath, a Democrat from Georgia, told Bezos, “We’ve interviewed many small businesses, and they use the words like ‘bullying,’ ‘fear,’ and ‘panic’ to describe their relationship with Amazon.” The resulting report produced by the subcommittee indicated Amazon was well aware of its power over third-party sellers, citing an internal Amazon document that “suggests the company can increase fees to third-party sellers without concern for them switching to another marketplace.”
Journalists and researchers have documented instances of Amazon promoting its house brands over competitors’. In 2016, Capitol Forum, a subscription news service focused on antitrust issues, examined hundreds of listings and found that Amazon “prioritizes its own clothing brands on the promotional carousel labeled ‘Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought’ ” on product pages. Capitol Forum said Amazon did not respond to its request for comment.
A study titled “When the Umpire is also a Player: Bias in Private Label Product Recommendations on E-commerce Marketplaces,” presented at the Association for Computing Machinery’s Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in March 2021, examined how Amazon’s private-label brands performed in “related products” recommendations on product pages for backpacks and batteries. The researchers said they found that “sponsored recommendations are significantly more biased toward Amazon private label products compared to organic recommendations.”
In June 2020, ProPublica reported that Amazon was reserving the top spot in search results for its own brands across dozens of search terms, labeling it “featured from our brands” and shutting others out. An Amazon spokesperson told ProPublica at the time that the move was a “normal part of retail that’s happened for decades.”
Our investigation is the first study to use thousands of search queries to test how Amazon’s house brands rank in search results—and to use machine learning classifiers to determine whether sales or quality appeared to be predictive of which products Amazon placed first in search results.
In addition, we used a multipronged approach to identify Amazon house brands and exclusives, building a data set of 137,428 unique products on Amazon, which is available in our GitHub. We were unable to find any such publicly accessible dataset when we began our investigation.
Methodology: Data Collection
Sourcing Product Search Queries
To measure how Amazon’s search engine ranked Amazon’s own products relative to competing brands, we needed a list of common queries that reflect what real people search. We built the dataset from top searches from U.S. e-commerce retailers, using two sources.
The first was autocomplete queries on Amazon.com’s and Walmart.com’s product search bars. We cycled through each letter of the alphabet (A–Z) as well as numbers ranging from 0 to 19 and saved the suggested search queries presented by the autocomplete algorithm. This process yielded 7,696 queries from Amazon.com and 3,806 queries from Walmart.com.
We then gathered the most popular searches reported by Amazon via its Seller Central hub. We collected the top 300 searches between Q1 and Q3 2020 for the Amazon categories “Softlines,” “Grocery,” “Automotive,” “Toys,” “Office Products,” “Beauty,” “Baby,” “Electronics,” and “Amazon.com.” This provided 2,700 unique searches.
Combining the autocomplete queries and seller-central queries resulted in 11,342 unique “top search” queries.
Collecting Search Results
We created a Firefox desktop emulator using Selenium. The emulator visited Amazon.com and made each of the 11,342 searches on Jan. 21, 2021. The search emulator was forwarded through IP addresses in a single location, Washington, D.C., in order to reduce variation in search results (which typically vary by location).
We saved a screenshot of the first page of search results as well as the HTML source code. (Examples of screenshots and source code for search results are available on GitHub.)
In the source code of product search result pages, Amazon titles some listings with the data field “s-search-result.” This is what we are calling search results in our data. Amazon does serve other products on the search results page in advertising and other promotional carousels, including “editorial picks” and “top rated from our brands,” but those do not appear in every result (at most a third of our sample), and they are not part of the grid that Amazon labels search results.
On desktop, the majority of Amazon-labeled “search results” in our data were delivered in uniform 60-product positions (four per column for 15 rows, though Amazon narrows the width to three columns on smaller screens). Some searches returned fewer than 60 products, but none returned more. A minority (about one in 10) of searches in our data returned 22 products or fewer, delivered in a single column, one item per row. This happened for some electronics searches but never in other search categories.
Because we were seeking to analyze how Amazon ranks its own products relative to competing brands’ products, we further limited our analysis to search results that contained Amazon brands and exclusives on the first page. Of the 11,342 top searches, slightly less than three in 10 (30.8 percent) contained this type of product on the first page. We used the resulting 3,492 top searches for our analysis.
Identifying Amazon’s Brands and Exclusives
We were unable to find a public database of Amazon brand and exclusive products, so we had to build one.
We started with the search pages themselves. On many (but not all), Amazon provides a filter on the left-hand side, allowing shoppers to limit the search to “our brands,” which Amazon says lists only its private label products and “a curated selection of brands exclusively sold on Amazon.”
We collected each of those “our brand” results for each query, saving a screenshot and the source code, also on Jan. 21, 2021.
We then discovered an undocumented API that yields all Amazon “our brands” products for any given search. We ran all 11,342 search terms through this API and saved those responses as well. (API responses are available on GitHub.)
Both the search emulator and API requests were forwarded through IP addresses in Washington, D.C.
Strangely, Amazon does not identify proprietary electronics, including Kindle readers and Ring doorbells, when a shopper filters a search result to list only Amazon’s “our brands.” To identify those, we also gathered products Amazon listed as best sellers in the category “Amazon Devices & Accessories.”
Together, all three sources yielded a dataset of 137,428 unique products, identified by their 10-character ASIN (Amazon Standard Identification Number). This dataset of Amazon’s proprietary devices, private label, and exclusive products is available on GitHub.
It is the largest and most comprehensive open access dataset of Amazon brand and Amazon-exclusive products we’ve seen, and yet we know it is not complete. Amazon told Congress in July 2019 that at that time it sold approximately 158,000 products from its own brands.
Collecting Product Pages
In addition to the above, we collected the individual product pages for the 125,769 products that appeared in the first page of our 3,492 top searches in order to analyze the buy box information. The buy box displays the price, return policy, default seller, and default shipper for a product.
To gather the product pages, we used Amazon Web Services and the same Selenium emulator we made for collecting the search result pages. The emulator visited the hyperlink for each product and saved a screenshot and the source code.
We collected these pages on Feb. 3–6 and Feb. 17–18, a few weeks after we scraped the search result pages. To determine the effects of the delay, we analyzed how often a subsample of buy boxes’ default sellers and shippers flipped between Amazon and third parties after a similar lag and found they remained largely unchanged (see more in Limitations).
Product Characteristics
We asked up to four questions of every product listing in order to identify certain characteristics and used this to produce the categories we used in our analysis.
is_sponsored: Is the listing a paid placement?
is_amazon: Is the listing for an Amazon brand or exclusive?
is_shipped_by_amazon: Does the default seller of the product (the “buy box”) use Amazon to ship the listed product?
is_sold_by_amazon: Is the default seller of the product Amazon?
Sponsored products (is_sponsored) are the most straightforward: Amazon labels them “sponsored.” If a product in the Amazon-labeled search results is not sponsored, we consider it “organic.” We only identified products with subsequent features if they were organic.
We identified an organic product as an Amazon brand or exclusive (is_amazon) when it matched one of the 137,428 Amazon ASINs we collected. If it didn’t match, we considered it a “competing brand.”
We identified a product as is_amazon_sold if the “sold by” text in the buy box contained “Amazon,” “Whole Foods,” or “Zappos” (which is owned by Amazon). If it didn’t, we identified the product as “Third-Party Sold.”
We identified a product as is_amazon_shipped if the buy box shipper information contained “Amazon” (including “Amazon Prime,” “Amazon Fresh,” and “Fulfilled by Amazon”), “Whole Foods,” or “Zappos” (which is owned by Amazon). If it didn’t contain Amazon, we identified products as “Third-Party Shipped.”
We use these features to train and evaluate predictive classifiers (see Random Forest Analysis) as well as produce product categories in our ranking analysis (see the following section).
Most of the categories have a direct relationship with the features they are named after.
We categorized products as “Sponsored” if we identified them as is_sponsored. Similarly, we categorized products as “Amazon Brands” and exclusives if they are organic and is_amazon, and “Competing Brands” if the products are organic and not is_amazon.
We categorized organic products as entirely “Unaffiliated” if they did not meet the criteria for is_amazon, is_amazon_sold, and is_amazon_shipped. In other words, these are competing brands that are sold and shipped by third-party sellers.
The features and categories we identified are hierarchical and overlap. Their relationships are summarized in the diagram below.
Data Analysis
Ranking Analysis: Who Comes Out on Top?
We analyzed the rate of products that received the top search result relative to the proportion of products of the same category that appeared in our sample. We found that Amazon brands and exclusives were disproportionately given the number one search result relative to their small proportion among all products.
We used two straightforward measures for our analysis. First, we calculated a population metric using the percentage of products belonging to each category among products from all the search pages. To do this, we divided the number of products per category that occupy search result slots compared to all product slots in our sample. This included duplicates.
We then calculated an incidence rate for how frequently Amazon gave products in each category the coveted first spot in search results. We did this by dividing the number of searches in each category in the top spot by the total number of searches in our sample (with at least one product). (A table of each of these metrics by category appears in our GitHub and in “Supplementary datasets.”)
We chose to focus on that top left spot because Amazon changes the number of items across the first row based on screen size, and some searches return only a single item per row, so the top left spot is the only one to remain the same across all search results in our data.
In a majority of the searches in our data, 59.7 percent, Amazon sold the top spot to a sponsored product (17.3 percent of all product slots). The bulk of our analysis concerns the remaining 40.3 percent.
When we looked at all searches, Amazon gave its own products the number one spot 19.5 percent of the time even though this category made up only 5.8 percent of products in our sample.
Amazon gave competing brands the number one spot at a nearly identical rate (20.8 percent of the time), but these cover more than 13 times the proportion of products in our sample (76.9 percent).
Amazon gave entirely unaffiliated products (competing brands that were sold and shipped by third-party sellers) the top spot 4.2 percent of the time, but these products made up 5.8 percent of all products in our sample.
The only organic (nonsponsored) category that Amazon placed in the number one spot at a rate that was greater than the proportion of its products in the sample was its own brands and exclusives.
About eight in 10 (83.9 percent) of the Amazon brands or exclusives that Amazon placed in the top spot were labeled “featured from our brands.” These are identified as part of Amazon’s “search results” and are not marked “sponsored.” However, the source code for those labeled results contained information that was the same as sponsored product listings (data-component-type=”sp-sponsored-result”). These Amazon brand and exclusive brand products were not labeled as “sponsored” for shoppers.
Where Are Products Placed?
In addition to the top spot, we calculated how often Amazon placed each type of product in each search result position down the page (1–60). All searches have a number one spot but do not always return 60 results, so we always calculated this rate using the number of searches with that product spot as the denominator. Sponsored results that are part of search results are counted in the denominator of the rates.
(As mentioned earlier, we did not include promotional and advertising carousels and modules because these are not part of the grid labeled “search results” in the metadata and none appeared in the same place in a majority of search results.)
Amazon placed its own products and exclusives in the number one spot 3.5 times more frequently than in any other position on the search page.
It placed competing brands (including those it sells itself) everywhere except the top (1) and bottom (15) rows of the search page. Competing brands appeared only sparsely where sponsored products were common in search results (rows 4–5 and 8–9). The company placed entirely unaffiliated products—meaning a competitor’s brand that was both sold and shipped by a third party—primarily in the lower rows (9–13).
In 59.7 percent of searches in our sample, Amazon gave the number one spot to sponsored products. When Amazon returned a 15th row, it always listed sponsored products there, too.
Not Always Labeled
Amazon only identified 42 percent of its brands and exclusives to the shopper with a disclosure label (e.g., “featured from our brands,” “Amazon brand,” or “Amazon exclusive”). Of the Amazon brand and exclusive products in our sample, 28.8 percent were from a brand many people (but not all) would understand to be a private Amazon label, such as “Whole Foods,” “Amazon Basics,” or “Amazon Essentials.” Some were both labeled and from a better-known Amazon brand. For the remaining 37.4 percent, we found that buyers were not informed that they would be purchasing an Amazon brand or exclusive.
When the same product that is an Amazon brand or exclusive appeared more than once in the same search, we considered it labeled if any of the listings were labeled. This gives Amazon the benefit of the doubt by assuming that a customer will understand that the disclaimer applies to duplicate listings. Therefore, our metrics for disclosure are the lower bound.
Duplicates
Amazon gave its own products more than one spot in search results in roughly one in 10 (9.2 percent of) searches, not including other potential duplicates in promotional carousels. It did not give competing brands’ products more than one spot for organic search results.
Survey Results
We commissioned the market research group YouGov to conduct a nationally representative survey of 1,000 U.S. adults on the internet, to contextualize our findings. It revealed that 76 percent of respondents correctly identified Amazon Basics as being owned by Amazon and 51 percent correctly identified Whole Foods.
The vast majority of respondents, however, could not identify the company’s top-selling house brands that did not contain the words “Amazon” or “Whole Foods” in their name. Ninety percent did not recognize Solimo as an Amazon brand, and 89 percent did not know Goodthreads is owned by Amazon. Other top-selling brands, like Daily Ritual, Lark & Ro, and Pinzon were not recognized by 94 percent of respondents as Amazon brands.
We also asked respondents what trait defines the top-ranked products in Amazon search results. Few expected it to be based solely on being an Amazon brand. More than 21 percent of respondents thought the top-ranked product would be “the best seller,” 17 percent thought it was “the best rated,” 11 percent thought it was “the lowest price,” and 33 percent of respondents were “not sure.” Only 17 percent thought the number one listed item was “a product from one of Amazon’s brands.”
Quality and Sales Factors
We compared the star ratings (a rough proxy for quality) and number of reviews (a rough proxy for sales volume) of the Amazon Brands that the company placed in the number one spot on the product search results page with other products on the same page.
We found that in two-thirds (65.3 percent) of the instances where Amazon placed its own products before competitor brands, the products that were Amazon brands and exclusives had lower star ratings than competing brands placed lower in the search results. Half of the time (51.7 percent) that the company placed its own products first, these items had fewer reviews than competing products the company chose to place lower on the search results page.
One in four (28.0 percent of) top-placed Amazon brands had both lower star ratings and fewer reviews than products from competing brands on the same page.
When we evaluated several predictive models, we found that features like star ratings and the number of reviews were not the most predictive features among products Amazon placed in the number one spot.
Random Forest Analysis
We tried to determine which features differentiate the first organic product on search results from the second organic product on the same page.
To do this, we created a categorical dataset of product comparisons and used it to train and evaluate several random forest models.
The product comparisons looked at differences in features that we had access to, and that seemed relevant to product rankings (like stars and reviews). We found that being an Amazon brand or exclusive was by far the most important feature, of the seven we tested, in Amazon’s decision to place a product in the number one versus number two spot in product search results.
How We Created Product Comparisons
We took our original dataset of 3,492 search results with at least one Amazon brand or exclusive, filtered out sponsored products, and generated a dataset of product comparisons. Each product comparison is between the number one product and number two product on the same search page. The random forest used these attributes to predict a yes or no (boolean) category: which product among the pair was given the top search result (placed_higher).
The product comparisons encode the differences in star ratings (stars_delta) and number of reviews (reviews_delta); whether the product appeared among the top three clicked products from one million popular searches in 2020 from Amazon Seller Central (is_top_clicked); and whether the product was sold by Amazon (is_amazon_sold), shipped by Amazon (is_amazon_shipped), or was an Amazon brand or exclusive (is_amazon). We also used a randomly generated number as a control (random_noise). Distributions of each of these features is available on GitHub.
While we had access to price information, we did not analyze its potential effect on ranking because price was not standardized per unit. We also had access to each product’s “best sellers rank” for the time period we collected product pages, but the same product could have various different rankings in different Amazon categories (e.g., #214 in Beauty & Personal Care and #3 in Bath Salts), making consistent comparisons impossible.
This produced a dataset of 1,415 product comparisons. (To see exactly how we created our training and validation dataset, see our GitHub.)
By creating this dataset of product comparisons, we were able to compare two products with one model and control for which features led to higher placement.
Why Random Forest?
A random forest combines many decision tree models, a technique we used in a previous Markup investigation into Allstate’s price increases. Decision trees work well at predicting categories with mixed data types, like those from our product comparisons.
Decision trees can, however, memorize or “overfit” the training data. When this happens, models can’t make good predictions on new data. Random forests are robust against overfitting and work by training a forest full of decision trees with random subsets of the data. The forest makes predictions by having each tree vote.
We used grid search with five-fold cross-validation to determine optimal hyperparameters (parameters we control versus those that arise from learning cycles): 500 decision trees in each forest, and a maximum of three questions each decision tree can ask the data. By asking more questions, each tree becomes deeper. But that also means that the trees are more likely to memorize the data. The more trees we train, the more resources it takes to run our experiment. Grid search trains and evaluates models with an exhaustive list of combinations of these hyperparameters to determine the best configuration.
Evaluating the Models
Our model correctly picked Amazon’s number-one-ranked product 73.2 percent of the time when all seven features were considered.
We systematically removed each feature and retrained and reevaluated the model (called an ablation study) in order to isolate the importance of each individual feature. We used the accuracy of the model trained on all seven features as a baseline to compare each newly evaluated model (see results in Change of Accuracy in table above).
When we did this, we saw that removing information about whether a product was an Amazon brand or exclusive (is_amazon) reduced the model’s ability to pick the right product by 9.7 percentage points (to 63.5 percent). This drop in performance was far greater than any other individual feature, suggesting that being an Amazon brand or exclusive was the most predictive feature among those we tested in determining which products Amazon placed in the first organic spot of search results.
To demonstrate the influence of Amazon brands and exclusives in another way, we trained a model with only is_amazon, and it correctly predicted the number one product 70.7 percent of the time. Every other standalone feature performed significantly worse, only picking the correct product between 49.3 (random_noise) and 61.5 (is_sold_by_amazon) percent of the time.
To a lesser extent, the number of reviews (reviews_delta) were also predictive of a product getting the number one spot. Removing this feature reduced the model’s performance by 3.3 percentage points.
The other six features were less informative when it came to getting the number one spot versus the number two spot. Performance of the random forest for every possible permutation of features is available in our GitHub.
These findings were consistent with ranking the feature importance from the random forest model trained on all features. This third approach also suggests that is_amazon is the most predictive feature for the random forest.
When we compared additional product pairs with the number one spot and those of lower-ranked products beyond just the number two spot, is_amazon remained the most predictive feature out of those we tested (results in our GitHub).
We used predictive models to show that being an Amazon brand or exclusive was the most influential feature among those we tested in determining which products Amazon chose to place at the top of search results.
Limitations
Search Data Limitations
The two datasets we created are small in comparison to the full catalog of products for sale on Amazon.com, for which there are no reliable estimates. However, we sought to examine searches and products that generate significant sales, not every product or every search.
We collected search data on desktop, so our analysis only applies to desktop searches. Amazon’s search results may differ on mobile, desktop, and the Amazon app.
Amazon’s search results can also vary by location. One example is the distance of the closest Whole Foods store and its inventory, which would affect any given person’s search for certain items. We collected the data using I.P. addresses in Washington, D.C., so our results are specific to that city.
And, according to an Amazon-authored report for IEEE Internet Computing, a journal published by a division of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Amazon personalizes offerings to buyers according to similar items they have already purchased or rated (called item-to-item collaborative filtering). Our searches were not made in the same session nor were we logged into an Amazon account with user history, so our results were not personalized. In the absence of personalization, Amazon defaults to “generally popular items.” This also means that we did not capture search results or product pages for Amazon Prime subscribers.
Product Page Data Limitations
Some products that compete with Amazon brand and exclusive products are sold by numerous sellers, including Amazon itself. A 2016 ProPublica investigation revealed that of a sample of 250 products, Amazon took the buy box for itself or gave it to vendors that paid for the “Fulfilled by Amazon” program in 75 percent of cases. The same year, researchers at Northeastern University tracked 1,000 best-selling products over six weeks and found that buy box winners changed for seven out of 10 products in their study.
For our main analysis, we did not seek to analyze which specific seller won the buy box but rather whether the seller or shipper during our snapshot was Amazon or a third party.
We captured product pages and their subsequent buy boxes in a snapshot of time between Feb. 3–6 and 17–18. Due to a technical problem, there was a two- to four-week delay between when we collected the searches and when we collected the product pages. This means that the seller and shipper of those products are only representative of searches made during that time and could have changed from the time we collected the searches to when we collected the product pages.
When we collected product pages in February, about 3.9 percent of them were no longer available or the product had been removed from the Amazon Marketplace altogether since we gathered the search pages in January. We removed these products from any calculations involving the seller or shipper.
To test the reliability of our product page data, we took a random sample, on May 13, 2021, of 2,500 of the 125,769 products we had collected in February 2021 and reran the product page scraper.
Some of the product pages were missing data: 6.1 percent were sold out, 1.6 percent were removed from Amazon’s marketplace, and another 3.4 percent no longer displayed a default seller who won the buy box. In these latter cases, Amazon provided a button to “See All Buying Options.” The missing data did not overall favor or disfavor Amazon but rather was consistent with the proportion of Amazon-sold products (30.2 compared to 27.1 percent) from the sample of products we recollected.
The remaining 2,103 products that had legible buy boxes (the vast majority) were largely unchanged. Only 16.1 percent of products changed default sellers. This included changes between Amazon and third-party sellers.
Product sellers changed from a third party to Amazon in 1.6 ± 0.5 percent of products, and from Amazon to a third party in 3.1 ± 0.7 percent of products (margins of error calculated with 95 percent confidence).
When it came to who shipped the product, the shipper went from a third party to Amazon in 2.9 ± 0.7 percent of products, and from Amazon to a third party in 6.6 ± 1.1 percent of products.
Because the buy box remained largely unchanged during a 12-week gap in this representative subsample of our data, we find that our buy box findings are reliable, despite the three- to four-week gap between when we gathered search results and product pages.
This seemed to signal a change from previous research. So we went further to determine whether the buy box had become more stable since the 2016 Northeastern University study. That study was limited to products with multiple sellers. When we did the same, it brought the sample size down to 1,209. Looking only at products with multiple sellers, we found Amazon changed the buy box seller for only 23.5 percent of products. In addition, among products with multiple sellers, Amazon gave itself the buy box for 40.0 percent of them.
For products with multiple sellers, the winning sellers changed from Amazon to a third party in 2.1 ± 0.8 percent of products and from a third party to Amazon in 4.4 ± 1.1 percent of products. Third-party sellers changed among themselves in 31.4 percent of products sold by third-party sellers. No individual third-party seller won more than 0.06 percent of the products with more than one seller.
Shippers changed from Amazon to a third-party in 2.3 ± 0.8 percent of products and from a third party to Amazon in 7.8 ± 1.5 percent of products.
Reviewing the product pages three months apart, we found that the default seller Amazon chose for the buy box when multiple merchants were available has become significantly less likely to change from five years ago.
Limitations Identifying Amazon Brands and Exclusive Products
Amazon’s “our brands” filter is incomplete. For instance, it listed only 70.3 percent of products that were tagged “featured from our brands” on the search page. In addition, Amazon did not include its proprietary electronics in the “our brands” filtered results when we gathered the data. The company declined to answer questions about why these were not included.
Because of this, we had to use three methods to collect our product database of Amazon brands and exclusives, and it’s possible we missed some products, particularly proprietary electronics.
Black Box Audit
Our investigation is a black box audit. We do not have access to Amazon’s source code or the data that powers Amazon’s search engine. There are likely factors Amazon uses in its ranking algorithm to which we do not have access, including return rates, click-through rates, and sales. We have some data from Amazon’s Seller Central hub about popular products and clicks, but this data is itself limited and did not cover all of the products in our searches.
For these reasons, our investigation focuses on available and clear metrics: how high categories of products are placed compared to their proportion of results, how well users review highly ranked products relative to other products, and how many reviews a product has garnered, which is a crude indication of sales.
Amazon’s Response
Amazon did not take issue with our analysis or data collection and declined to answer dozens of specific questions.
In a short, prepared statement sent via email, spokesperson Nell Rona said that the company considers “featured from our brands” listings as “merchandising placements,” and as such, the company does not consider them “search results.” Rona said these listings are not advertisements, which by law would need to be disclosed to shoppers. We found these listings were identified as “sponsored” in the source code and also part of a grid marked “search results” in the source code.
“We do not favor our store brand products through search,” Rona wrote.
“These merchandising placements are optimized for a customer’s experience and are shown based on a variety of signals,” Rona said. None of these were explained beyond “relevance to the customer’s shopping query.”
Regarding disclosing to customers about Amazon brands, Rona said they are identified as “Amazon brand” on the products page, and some carry that wording in the listing. We found this to be the case in only 23 percent of products that were Amazon-owned brands.
She said brands that are exclusive to Amazon would not carry that wording since they are not owned by Amazon.
Rona supplied a link to an Amazon blog post that mentions that its branded products made up about one percent of sales volume for physical goods and $3 billion of sales revenue in 2019. It is unclear whether brands exclusive to Amazon are included in those figures.
Conclusion
Our investigation revealed that Amazon gives its own products preference in the number one spot in search results even when competitors have more reviews and better star ratings. We also found that reviews and ratings were significantly less predictive of whether a product would get the number one spot than being an Amazon brand or exclusive.
In addition, we found that Amazon placed its own products and exclusives in the top spot in higher proportion than it appeared in the sample, a preference that did not exist for any other category. In fact, it placed its own brands and exclusives in the top spot as often as competing brands—about 20 percent of the time—although the former made up only six percent of the sample and the latter 77 percent.
Almost four in 10 products that we identified as Amazon brands and exclusives in our sample were neither clearly labeled as an Amazon brand nor carried a name that most people recognize as an Amazon-owned brand, such as Whole Foods. In our survey, almost nine-in-10 U.S. adults did not recognize five of Amazon’s largest brands.
We also found that the default seller among products with multiple merchants changed for just three in 10 products over three months, a significantly lower rate of change than a similar study found five years ago.
Amazon’s dominance in online sales—40 percent in the United States—means the effect of giving its own products preference on the search results page is potentially massive, both for its own business as well as the small businesses that seek to earn a living on its platform.
Appendix
Supplementary Search Dataset and Analysis
When first exploring this topic and before hitting on our top searches dataset, we had created a generic dataset that returned similar findings. We replaced it as the main dataset because our top searches dataset was closer to real searches made by users. We include it here as a secondary dataset.
Generic Searches
We created a search dataset from products listed in each of the 18 departments found on Amazon’s “Explore Our Brands” page.
Three annotators looked through 1,626 products listed on those pages and generated between one and three search queries a person might use if searching for that product. These were meant to represent generic searches for which we know Amazon brands are competing against others.
We generated 2,558 search terms. We randomly sampled 1,600 and collected these searches using the same method and during the same time period we used to collect top searches. A quarter of the search results (24 percent) did not contain Amazon Brands, so we discarded them, leaving 1,217 generic searches, our supplementary dataset.
Generic Search Findings
In the generic searches, Amazon Brands constituted a slightly larger percentage of the overall product sample (8.2) than our top searches database (5.8). The percentage of the time Amazon gave its own products the number one spot also increased, to roughly one in four of our generic searches from one in five for our top searches.
Competing brands constituted a similar proportion of products in both of our datasets. However, Amazon placed competing brands in the number one spot even less often (10.8) in these generic searches than it had for top searches (20.8).
Entirely unaffiliated products made up even less of the pool of products in our generic searches (3.0) than top searches (5.8), and Amazon also gave them the top spot even less frequently, 1.5 percent of the time compared to 4.2 percent for top searches.
The results from this additional dataset show a similar pattern to our main dataset, whereby Amazon prioritizes its own products at the top of search results.
Counting Carousels
As mentioned earlier, we did not include sponsored or promotional carousels in our analysis.
If we were to consider sponsored or promotional carousels, the percentage of organic products from top searches would drop from 87 to 68 percent. This also means that sponsored products would increase from 17 percent to 32 percent. There were a total of 49,686 products in these carousels.
Acknowledgements
We thank Christo Wilson of Northeastern University, Juozas “Joe” Kaziukėnas of Marketplace Pulse, Rebecca Goldin of Sense About Science and George Mason University, Kyunghyun Cho of New York University, and Michael Ekstrand of Boise State University for reviewing all or parts of our methodology. We also thank Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College for reviewing our survey design.
When the iOS 15.1 update drops for the general public (likely soon as it’s already been seeded to beta testers since Monday) it will feature the ability to add your proof of vaccination status to the Health app and then create a vaccination ID card in Apple Wallet.
Many businesses, venues, restaurants, and more are requiring proof of vaccination for entry. For example California is the first state where proof of COVID vaccination or negative test for indoor events over 1,000 people.
The new feature in iOS 15.1 is made possible by the support Smart Health Cards which are valid for California, Louisiana, New York, Virginia, Hawaii, and some Maryland counties, as do Walmart, Sam’s Club, and CVS Health.
Above: ID in iPhone Wallet
Therefore, using this system you would be able to to look up their information in state databases, if you are in any of the states listed above, but if you were vaccinated through at Walmart or CVS it will also be feasible to add your information to the Health and Wallet.
Once you have gone to the web site for your state, for example in California it would be found at https://myvaccinerecord.cdph.ca.gov where you can type in personal information such as name and date of birth to get access to your records and status.
Though iOS 15 already has the ability to download the information to your Health app, and you can do this today, the last step, adding an ID to your wallet from the health app will not be possible until you have upgraded to iOS 15.1.
The record is locked to your name and can only be used by you. There will be a QR code that you will first download to your health app on the iPhone, then, once it is in the health app there will be a prompt to allow you to “add to wallet”. By clicking that link a vaccination ID car, with the QR code will be generated and added to your wallet.
iOS 15.1 is likely to be available under > General > software update in your phone’s Settings app within days. (Our guess is by Monday, September 27, 2021)
Tap the download link on your iPhone or iPod touch.
Tap Add to Health to add the record to the Health app.
In a tweet on Sunday morning the superstar comedian and actor, 56, announced that he had a positive covid result. He also urged his 5.2 million followers to get vaccinated.
“Hey guys I just found out I have COVID, trust me you don’t want this. Get vaccinated.”
In May 2021, Rock divulged that he had been vaccinated while he was being interviewed on The Tonight Show with Jammy Fallon.
He has spoken out previously and often in favor of people and his fans getting vaccinated.
It is unclear what, if any symptoms he may have. So-called “breakthrough” infections – a positive test in spite of already being vaccinated, are somewhat common, with the statistics showing that, though a vaccinated individual can still carry the virus, hence the positive test result, the symptoms are usually mild and seldom require hospitalization.
These are, of course, generalizations, based on various statistics and studies. A danger, particularly of the new “Delta” variant is that a person is easily infected and the severity of the symptoms differ greatly among individuals.
Hey guys I just found out I have COVID, trust me you don’t want this. Get vaccinated.
So, the likely potential benefit of Rock having had the Johnson and Johnson vaccination in May, is that he could experience milder symptoms that had he not done so.
IN an interview in January with Gayle King on CBS Sunday Morning, Rock replied to queries regarding his perspective on the issue: “Let me put it this way. Do I take Tylenol when I get a headache? Yes. Do I know what’s in Tylenol? I don’t know what’s in Tylenol. I just know my headache is gone.
“Do I know what’s in a Big Mac, Gayle? No. I just know it’s delicious.”
Recently, in early September, US President Joe Biden initiated new vaccine requirements and criticized the choice of roughly 80 million Americans who had at that time not had the jab.
The new mandate calls for all employers with more than 100 workers must require them to be vaccinated or test for the virus weekly.
Greg Abbott, the Republican Governor for Texas tested positive for Covid-19. The news comes in the middle of the legal battles over banning vaccination and mask mandates in the state, despite opposition from both local officials and school districts.
According to NBC News, Abbott is fully vaccinated, there are reports he also received a 3rd booster shot and is currently receiving Regeneron’s antibody treatment (usually exclusive to those with compromised immune systems). Per his communication’s director, he is “in good health, and currently experiencing no symptoms.”
“Governor Abbott is in constant communication with his staff, agency heads, and government officials to ensure that state government continues to operate smoothly and efficiently”
-Mark Miner, the governor’s communications director
Perhaps a “bit” hyprocritcal? Abbott has access and benefits from any and all possible medical services necessary. Unfortunately the same privilege is not available to most ordinary Texans, where currently the state is experiencing a surge of new cases and hospitalizations
Possible WW3 over Digital Ads with Zuck & Google Vs MSFT & Apple
Sometimes, in order to tackle a complicated subject it is necessary, first, to take a step back. For example, before tech and the internet became the dominant economic force it is today there were hundreds, even thousands of companies that had important roles to play in the economy.
Not they other companies are unimportant today, but the sheer scale of trillion dollar (and growing) tech companies such as Google, Facebook who combined represent a near monopoly in digital advertising, and Apple and Microsoft, each also with strangleholds in some markets, but on the outside in the war over digital ad income.
This disparity and imbalance is so massive as to be nearly unprecedented in history. And, now, as the first blind hero worship phase has ended, we are entering a phase where the nearly ubiquitous influence and dominance over lives and fortunes are finally being questioned.
Next up: The war erupting as a result of the extreme correlation between the entrenched and overwhelming dominance of Facebook and Google in digital ads, the income source of media producers, and the near demise of that industry.
The situation has finally become so critical and lopsided that governments are finally stepping in to enforce changes that could never happen while one side, the “dominant digital platforms” holds all the cards and power.
One new axiom that has emerged with the rise of big tech monsters is that only a monster can hope to prevail in a war with another monster. Enter Kong vs Godzilla.
In this emerging world war it is more complicated still; on one side are the parallel duo of Facebook and Google, with similarities in the way they dominate digital advertising, but also in that they share a “surveillance” based business model using private user data to control markets and traffic.
On the other side are Apple, which has staked a claim to user privacy as a means to clearly differentiate a positive product and service based model, Microsoft, that appears to simply want to play the underdog as a search engine alternative to google and a “smaller” player in the digital ad space.
And then, in a corner of distinction above all others, lies the power of world governments.
World governments are playing a pivotal role as a kind of referee – finally stepping in, as the dangers and damage caused already by the duo of Facebook and Google, have awakened the possible regulatory, anti-trust actions that only they can enforce.
First was the rumble down under, now, on to Europe and North America
Even as a kind of truce has erupted in Australia, with the government making specific alterations to the News Media Bargaining Code that, apparently, appeased Facebook enough to withdraw its universal ban on hosting Australian news product.
According to AP News: Google and Facebook, take a combined 81% of online advertising in Australia and initially condemned the code as unworkable.
That has rapidly changed, and the stand-off has come to at least a temporary end.
Also likely, is that the massive demand for an app offering direct access to some of the exact stories that Facebook banned sent a strong enough message that competition for viewers is only one click away.
Motivating the two sides to come to terms and for Facebook to back down from its draconian stance vis-à-vis the new law.
Even as the Aussie skirmish fades a new front in Europe is emerging
Microsoft announced on February 22nd that is was joining a coalition of European Publishers to promote an “Aussie style” code for digital platforms to remunerate news content producers.
In addition to Microsoft, groups involved include the European Publishers Council (EPC), News Media Europe (NME), European Newspaper Publishers’ Association (ENPA), and European Magazine Media Association (EMMA).
Previously, Microsoft had already Earlier this month, Microsoft was lobbying in support of other countries following Australia’s lead in creating legislation mandating that news outlets to be paid for articles published on the platforms in the United States, Canada, the European Union, and other countries.
“We welcome Microsoft’s recognition of the value that our content brings to the core businesses of search engines and social networks because this is where Google and Facebook generate the vast majority of their revenues.
It is crucial that our regulators recognise this key point, and don’t get misled into thinking that side deals on the basis of a stand-alone product are the same thing, because they are not at all and undermine the neighbouring rights that we have been granted. All publishers should get an agreement – no one should be left out”.
-CHRISTIAN VAN THILLO, CHAIRMAN OF THE EUROPEAN PUBLISHERS COUNCIL
EPC, NME, ENPA, EMMA, and Microsoft call for arbitration to be implemented in European or national law that requires search engines and media platforms that aggregate news pay for content based on the Publisher‘s Right set out in Directive 2019/790.
Pandora’s Box is open and spilling all over the highway
Interestingly, Microsoft is, in a roundabout and equally self-severing way (according to critics) is now the second trillion dollar tech monster to take a direct stance against Facebook and Google and the monopoly strangle hold the enjoy over the financial life-blood of advertising that is essential for journalism and news production to survive, let alone flourish.
Critics will point out that Microsoft’s Bing search engine with a tiny market share compared to Google (in chart above the ridiculous 90% plus monopoly can be seen) has nothing to lose and everything to gain by supporting government efforts to even the playing field. And Apple? Facebook has already declared war and alleged all sorts of evil motivations for the privacy controls being built into its operating systems.
But that kind of talk is a bit late and weak now that the ultimate tech monster showdown has already begun. The first crack in a flawed and destructive business model, one shared to a great degree by both Facebook and Google has seen its first failure. Many more are yet to come.
And, last but not least, Microsoft and Apple are positioning themselves as the “good guys” and siding with governments and the News production organizations, partly, in order to be seen in a more positive light in case various anti-trust and regularity battles loom between either of them and the governments that are, currently, also investigating all of the giants.
By the way, seen any of Amazon’s recent “we are good guys, despite what you might have heard, seen or experienced” commercials? Small tip: if you have to spend millions on commercials trying to convince people you are not an evil greed-obsessed avaricious crap-ass company then you probably are exactly that.
The horses are out of the barn so grab your popcorn and get ready for this to get strange soon. After Europe Canada and then the US is coming into the ring.
Clearly there is something going on here and it seems blazingly obvious to everyone except those gathered to partake. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) of 2021 began in Orlando, Florida on Friday. And nearly straight away this thing grabbed the show by the horns (above).
Or at least the Twitter reaction and meme factory was impressed. For all the wrong reasons. The four years of the “former guy” were hard to live through for sane people. But it is becoming more and more apparent that those that reveled in those times were not just angry political weirdos but, possibly, certifiable.
First was the warning from the Chief of the Capitol Police that pro-former-guy and right wing militia members were plotting to set bombs, literally, off at the Capitol to coincide with Biden’s upcoming State of the Union Address.
“We know that members of the militia groups that were present on January 6th have stated their desires that they want to blow up the Capitol and kill as many members as possible with a direct nexus to the State of the Union.”
Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman
Now, as the always bizarre anyway CPAC conference convenes they decide to set up a Gold-calf worship statue and parade it around for the faithful.
That "golden calf" statue of Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Florida? pic.twitter.com/unwbEPUxwv
— Mr. Naturalism (The Antichrist Unicorn) (@MNaturalism) February 26, 2021
Another seems to think BigBoy Burgers had something to do with the statue’s origin:
OMFG whoever built this golden calf of Trump *must* have known about Bob's Big Boy. COME ON.
The only thing missing is the burger, probably because Trump already ate it with a large fry and washed it down with a Diet Coke. pic.twitter.com/UP6vR8ylVL
At least they had some modicum of civility, truth, and intelligence back then. Wish we had someone like Ike back at the helm instead of Trump aka "the golden calf"… pic.twitter.com/nUhrlLt80r
If four years of the Former Guy taught us anything, it’s that we have no time left for evil, soulless greed run amok
– Opinion & Analysis –
Recent attempts by politicians, beholden to the fossil fuel industry in Texas, to use the collapse of the energy infrastructure during the recent weather disaster as an opportunity to bash and trash wind and solar energy is an example of an unfortunate, banal and still common form of pure evil.
The deeper connections, easily seen lurking just beneath the surface, are rich and multilayered.
If this extreme weather disaster is one of many that are linked to climate change, a manifestation of dangers that climate scientists have been warning of for decades, the irony goes beyond just sick.
Wind and solar energy exist as an early and tentative positive step toward somehow stopping, or at least slowing down, the negative man-made climate change repercussions before it is too late.
The real reasons behind the Texas power grid collapse are related to traditional fossil fuel based energy sources and bad management of the energy infrastructure that can be traced back to an arrogant belief that Texas is better off without connections to the national system.
The local political response to this eminently preventable catastrophe was to bash and trash and blame the very technology that, ultimately, is part of a tentative start to actually begin to solve the bigger problem of man-made climate change.
…the time is gone to accept “two sides” to an argument that, by postponing any real solutions, will kill us all.
Just as the history of the internal combustion engine and the fossil fuel and auto industry’s attempts to prolong its near monopoly, using disinformation and other tactics for over 50 years was evil, the anti-sustainable energy politics in Texas today is just a continuation of that effort.
The time is gone to accept “two sides” to an argument that has one side trying, by attempting to postpone any real solutions, to kill us all, in the name of short term greed.
Under unique circumstances lending legitimacy to evil is too costly to condone
Looking at “both sides” of an issue is a practice based on a theory that “reasonable people” can disagree on diametrically opposed views. This idea is often suspended, however, by unreasonable people for their own reasons. That is sometimes called “war”.
Reasonable people, people, for example that understand climate science and want to prevent the total destruction of the earth and the extinction of all inhabitants, are often reluctant to suspend this idea of “good people on both sides” by their very nature as caring individuals.
“Now we need to understand that the “silence of one good man” can spell disaster for all good people. Each of us who remained passive as our impending disaster continued might have been the one “good man” who didn’t act, didn’t speak out, didn’t resist…
Now is a time when huge changes are going to be forced by an external and highly powerful and dangerous threats to our survival. The changes that are needed involve radically new ways of thinking and acting across many spheres of activity.
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
New technologies, such as the aforementioned wind turbines and solar collectors, new forms of transportation, new ways of looking at other causes of, and remedies to, the excessive expulsion of carbon into the atmosphere will be absolutely required.
The truth is that for these new ways of thinking and acting to take over in human commerce the old ways must be cancelled. With extreme prejudice.
The past and those that want to go back to it are a lost cause, unfortunately
Many many “rich” people will be unhappy about this. And they will have politicians in their pocket that will gladly spread lies and disinformation to try and sustain the sick, evil gravy-train of polluting, carbon spewing systems as long as possible.
Sick and evil, not because those ways of surviving for humanity, burning fossil fuels and using them for a million different things that were a benefit in the short term, but because the short term is over.
The various arguments that somehow it is a good idea not to change and for the changes to slow down and not step on any toes as they gradually become “viable” have zero validity as of today (really as of 25 years ago but that’s water under the bridge).
Eventually the climate itself will kill them for their mistakes. Unfortunately it will also kill the rest of us if we allow them to continue to postpone positive change with lies and disinformation.
– D.L.
There must be an understanding among “reasonable” people, people who want to be part of an urgent crusade to save the world, literally, that points of view and the people who espouse them represent evil, plain and simple.
They will scream that reasonable people are “femi-nazis and “eco-terrorists” and say and do whatever it takes to protect what’s left of a deadly status quo. But they are wrong.
Eventually the climate itself will kill them for their mistakes. Unfortunately it will also kill the rest of us if we allow them to continue to postpone positive change with lies and disinformation.
“Every one of these people is the banality of evil personified. Every one of them became what Arendt called a “leaf blowing in the whirlwind of time.” Now every one of them bears responsibility for what could lie ahead.”
This change in thinking about how to respond to this kind of evil will be a more important factor in the survival of humanity than all the technological advances combined.
“World War III is a guerrilla information war with no division between military and civilian participation.” – Marshall McLuhan (1970), Culture is Our Business, p. 66.
–Marshall McLuhan
“Info-wars” were predicted as the battlefield of WWIII by Marshall McLuhan in 1970 and now we are in it and there must be an understanding of what is at stake.
When disinformation is used as a perennial weapon against positive, necessary change it is necessary to do more than disagree. It is necessary to expose the lies and, more importantly, the obvious sick and criminal motives for the lies. Over and over as often as necessary.
Laying out the evidence, built up over months and leading to Jan. 6th, makes a compelling case, for anyone not considered a clown
Click here to see “Tower of Lies“ to help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
All throughout the so-called “presidency” of DJT bizarre double standards were used, exploited and reinforced by him and his minions. If he made an outrageous, even criminal statement, either on Twitter, or in a publicly available video recording, and outrage or any kind of pushback arose, the go-to explanation was “he was obviously joking”.
No matter if the gaffe was suggesting people inject bleach to combat the corona virus, or when he suggested that the U.S. buy Greenland, there was always a built in escape hatch: he didn’t really mean it, and you are a political hack, or worse, for suggesting that he did.
And, even more ridiculous, if you were a member of the press or a democrat, there were many who would seriously posit that he should not, or could not, be held accountable because he is obviously an idiot or a clown or a criminal mastermind and stable genius that would, therefore, get away with it anyway.
From an interview by NPR titled “What Might Accountability For President Trump Look Like?” with IAN BASSIN, executive director of Protect Democracy:
“But when you look internationally and you look at history, what you find is that the risks of not acting are actually worse. What happens is that abusers return to power often and engage in even more abusive behavior. To put this in terms I think we all could understand, as every parent knows, if a child takes a cookie from the cookie jar when he’s not supposed to, and you just move on, not only will he do it again, but next time, so will his brother and sister.”
Added together with propaganda techniques cribbed from Russia (and others) such as “Whataboutism” and an even more primitive derivative of the idea which comes straight from the playground-bully school: “I know you are, but what am I?”.
”Whataboutism has been common in Putin’s Russia. The Atlantic cited one such example in 2014, noting that when the Kremlin faced criticisms of its treatment of protesters, government officials responded, “What about the United Kingdom? Breaking the law during public gatherings there could lead to a fine of 5,800 pounds sterling there or even prison.”
And then there are the famous Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels’ well known axioms: “Accuse your enemy of that which you are guilty” and the “Big Lie” theory:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
One valid reason for this unique out-of-office Impeachment proceeding is exposing the limits for the “Buffoon Defense”
This stroll down memory lane brings us to the current Senate Trial that will lead to a vote to convict Trump and, since he can no longer be removed, to bar him from ever again running for, or holding, public office.
When the evidence is laid out, as if Trump were an actual president and serious person, which is happening, beginning today on live TV, the effect is shock, not that these things happened, but that the gulf between his actions, and the consequences any other person would receive as a result, ever became so incredibly huge.
This was the drift of the impeachment managers presentation; lay out facts, using words, charts, graphs and even video evidence. Facts that, under any other circumstance, and with regard to any other politician, or any other defendant, would yield a 99.9999% likelihood of grave and serious consequences.
Yet in this bizarre case it is being seen and understood as serious and real by, perhaps, the majority, and at the same time is seen as meaningless or worse, some kind of left-wing conspiracy, by the rest.
What does the success of such obvious propaganda and mind control say about our society and situation going forward?
Even among the most discerning witnesses of the last four plus years it remains hard to determine just how much of the propaganda was planned, orchestrated and understood by the perpetrators with Trump as a figurehead.
Or if it was all a big, insane coincidence, that an actual buffoon could be just smart enough to use the “idiot-card” with such success.
If there is a book being written on Trump’s true legacy or on the mysteries that he left behind, this core mystery, how much his actual stupidity was a key benefit to getting away with so much crime, so much destruction, and, in the end, depending on the outcome, even murder, should be the central premise.
And this trial, with the articulated goal of accountability for real and very serious crimes, must have as a secondary aim, to expose and deconstruct the lies and the methods of avoiding accountability for all the damage and destruction over the entire tenure of the administration.
It remains to be seen if the ability to use the Buffoon Defense will extend to Sedition and Murder, if so, the larger story will ultimately be the insanity of acquitting a man so obviously deserving of finally being made to face consequences, and that will be rightly seen as the larger crime.
Ivanka Trump, first daughter, posted a video of herself, in an extreme-self-congratulatory fashion, with instrumental music playing in the background. In the oddly disconcerting clip she can be seen working “hard” to hand deliver boxes of food to those in need. In the final days left of Trump’s term, apparently, his eldest daughter felt the need to make her presence known. According to many on Twitter, her strange, weak attempts to display compassion (with a clear agenda to promote herself) failed to convey actual concerned authenticity, despite the fact that millions of people continue to be seriously affected during the coronavirus pandemic.
Ivanka Trump decided to share a picture of her father during his visit to the historic Mount Rushmore back in July of this year. The positioning of Trump’s head alongside George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, was according to the caption of Trump’s daughter… “amazing”. Back in August, Trump was quick to call reports from the NYT “Fake News” that he had inquired with the South Dakota governor about getting his face carved upon the iconic rock face, yet he also somehow thought it was “good idea”. Ivanka’s tweet went viral with immediate reactions on Twitter, proving those on the internet felt the opposite of amazed, with majority of users, quick to mock her decision and timing of the shared post.
Hilarious Negativity and Scare Tactics in non-stop Coke filled tirade from “upbeat” RNC. The juxtaposition of the ridiculous scare tactics and nonsense threats of what could happen if Trump is not re-elected would be funny is not so sad. The overblown screaming and the smug self satisfied exaggerated nonsense begs the obvious question: who supplied the blow? The ad splices together a long list of speakers at the convention, from Don Jr. to Charlie Kirk to Kimberly Guilfoyle to Tim Scott, each of them attempting to paint the most gruesome picture imaginable of the horrible state of America in some imaginary post Trump future. Naturally, this is nearly believable, as long as one is referring not to what would happen if Joe Biden were to become president, but the actual current reality today in Trump’s America.
Some of the many appalling and even disgusting facets of the Trump era are reflected in the primitive psychological tactics that emanate from any speech or off the cuff remark from the President. “Gaslighting“, “Whataboutism” and “I know you are but what am I” playground level taunts and name calling abound. And, above all, the tactic of projecting whatever you are accused of onto your enemies, no matter how ridiculous it appears. Like on July 4th when trump implied that Antifa was a “fascist” organization. How can a group with “anti” and Fascist” in the very name be accused of being the thing that they have clearly and overtly declared themselves to be against? Ask Trump. And now, in an apple-falling-not-far-from-the-tree moment of imbecilic genetic transference, Don Jr. employs all of the above in a recent twisted tirade on Fox. Unfortunately for him, the folks that call themselves the “Meidas Touch” were able to illustrate just how ridiculous and revealing this web of insanity really is.
No surprise, yet another of the Trump clan has covid-19.Asymptomatic but in quarantine, one more of the anti-mask Trump crew has been added to the list of those that have tested positive for the Covid 19 virus. It’s unknown whether the public would have been informed by either Trump Jr. or the White House without the story from Bloomberg broken. Recent news that pentagon officials and other have tested positive after several other members of the Trump family including Kimberly Guilfoyle, Trump Jr.’s girlfriend, were infected with the virus earlier this year. Trump Sr. was positive in October, first lady Melania Trump, and their son Barron had also tested positive for the disease and Guilfoyle was infected in August .
Nepotism proves to be a recipe in failure for Trump clan. Featured in this ad produced by the super PAC known as – The Lincoln Project takes a well deserved shot at Jared Kushner, calling him the “secretary of failure”. Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law has been given a large handful of very important tasks, one of which was heading the response team uncharge of coming up with a plan to contain the spread of the pandemic. So far the total lack of an effective “plan” and instead the obvious outcome that more and more Americans are losing their lives, he has definitely failed on that front.
Apparently, it’s been officially confirmed, Trump truly is the biggest loser, after the Electoral College and even the right-wing packed Supreme Court have confirmed it. The turn of events has inspired a January 2021 version of the classic song by the Von Trapp family of “The Sound of Music” in a special a Trump remix.
Thanks to a New Zealand Principal and musician, Shirley Șerban, who cleverly and brilliantly adapted the lyrics to fit Trump. Her YouTube channel also has other parody videos including “Covid Christmas” and A Message to Trump in Disney Frozen style “Let it Go” .
Art meets and imitates life squared in new Comedy series inspired by Trump and Produced by the Obamas
Barack and Michelle Obama are producing a sketch comedy series for Netflix inspired by Trump’s 2016 presidential win and transition. The Obamas’ production company “Higher Ground” will bring in U.S. comedian to host the show, which has been titled, “The G Word with Adam Conover”. Barack and Michelle Obama’s Higher Ground Productions has a multi-year agreement to produce films and series (both scripted and unscripted) for Netflix.
Click to see “The Fifth Risk” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
The streaming series is loosely inspired by the book “The Fifth Risk” by Michael Lewis. Written in 2018 his book is about the narrative of the Trump administration’s botched presidential transition, and takes us into the engine rooms of a government under attack by its leaders through willful ignorance and greed.
Interestingly, Barack Obama was himself a topic and participated, to some degree, in the transition and it is interesting to imagine what, if any, insight he may have been able to ad to the comedic potential of the subject matter.
The Federal Government manages a vast array of critical services that are meant to keep us safe and underpin our lives, from ensuring the safety of our food and drugs and predicting extreme weather events to tracking and locating black market uranium before the terrorists do. Trump’s lack of interest or ability in managing the transition, let alone the Government itself, is the basic fodder for the comedic premise.
BoJack Horseman treatment could yield fantastic and funny results
Adam Conover confirmed the news on Twitter; “Very happy to finally be able to share this news: I’m creating a new comedy series for Netflix about the federal government. It’s called The G Word, and I can’t wait to share it with you.”
Conover is known for “Adam Ruins Everything” and “BoJack Horseman” and will use his comedic chops to blend sketch comedy with documentary elements, as the focus of the show is, in normal times, a pretty serious one, the government.
Netflix’s press release shared a little more light into what the show will bring to viewers:
”Using fast-paced visual comedy, Conover reveals the profound power and complexity of the U.S. government, introduces viewers to the heroic civil servants who make it work, and takes an incisive satirical look at its shortcomings.”
NETFLIX PRESS RELEASE
Filming is set to begin sometime early 2021, during the same general time as Barack Obama’s former vice president Joe Biden will be taking office as the 26th President.
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
Rules that favor the sane are clearly unpopular with the chief of interruptions and accusations
The final Presidential debate, currently scheduled for Thursday October 22 will have 90 minutes divided into six fifteen-minute segments. Each segment will have 2 minutes of time for each candidate to speak, guaranteed without interruption, before the topic is “discussed” in open debate format.
Trump, whining to reporters last night disagreed with virtually everything about the debate: “I will participate but it’s very unfair that they changed the topics and it’s very unfair that again we have an anchor who’s totally biased.”
During an hour long interview with “Fox & Friends” he went further:
‘This was supposed to be a foreign policy debate, and new all of a sudden we’re talking about things that are not foreign policy. And, frankly, it was a change that they made that was far bigger than the mute button, I mean, frankly. But they made a change, and it shouldn’t have happened. It shouldn’t have happened”
During Barack Obama’s two terms, Pete Souza was with the President during more crucial moments than anyone else — and he photographed them all. Souza captured nearly two million photographs of President Obama, in moments highly classified and disarmingly candid. Obama: An Intimate Portrait reproduces more than 300 of Souza’s most iconic photographs with fine-art print quality in an oversize collectible format.
Some are already speculating that Trump will scream and yell and wave his arms during the time that his mic is muted. Alternatively, he could choose to cancel, which appears to be unlikely at this late juncture. Apparently, while the last debate was all about talking over, interrupting and generally trying to disrupt the proceedings, this time it will be about complaining outside the actual performance itself. I guess we’ll all have to tune in to see.
“We realize, after discussions with both campaigns, that neither campaign may be totally satisfied with the measures announced today. We are comfortable that these actions strike the right balance and that they are in the interest of the American people, for whom these debates are held.”
– The Commission on Presidential Debates
In addition to the 2 minutes of time each is given to speak without interruption there will be an attempt made to calculate the time one candidate loses due to an interruption by the other candidate will be credited back to the candidate that was interrupted.
Since Trump interrupted three times as often as Biden in the first debate; 71 times vs. 22 by the former Vice President, it was always unlikely that these rules would be welcomed by the Trump campaign. The bizarre strategy of “winning by interruption” will have far less potential in the new format.
The groundwork has been laid to choose to blame and mock the commission and the moderator or simply refuse to attend
On Monday a complaint in advance was already sent to the commission by Bill Stepien, Trump’s campaign manager:
“It is completely unacceptable for anyone to wield such power, and a decision to proceed with that change amounts to turning further editorial control of the debate over to the Commission which has already demonstrated its partiality to Biden,” said Stepien.
Additionally, the Trump campaign appears to be unhappy with the topics that were announced by the debate commission and in the same letter quoted above attempted to steer the debate topics away from the Covid-19 pandemic and into “foreign policy” and other issues.
All the grousing could be a set-up for a last minute cancelation by the Trump camp, as has been speculated.
That would likely only benefit Biden, and speed-up the need for Trump to find a country that would host him in exile.
However, as of last night this quote from Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien still stands: Trump “is committed to debating Joe Biden regardless of last minute rule changes from the biased commission in their latest attempt to provide advantage to their favored candidate.”
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
The Wannabe Emperor’s Clothes are on Full Display and growing more revolting by the day
Trump’s penchant for propaganda has taken a steroid filled-turbo-charged turn for the worst. In the build-up phase to his now obvious plans to contest any election result other than a Trump win, initially during protests in Portland and Washington DC (The violent state initiated street clearing [bible-holding stunt]), we began to point out the incredible comparisons with [Mussolini and Hitler]. These comparisons are now fully accepted by the [main-stream media].
That an imaginary “organization” that has as it’s creed to fight fascism (which is what America fought against in WWII) could be painted as the ultimate enemy (I guess Mexican rapists are out of style) is even more bizarre. Meanwhile, Trump continues to paint himself as some kind of Fascist-Hero, at the same time hugging American flags at every opportunity.
Worth mentioning that these are a collection of shots from Triumph of the Will. Meaning, the @WhiteHouse's film is playing out in real-time. But the shots on the right are scattered throughout the first ten minutes of the two-hour-long propoganda film.
Disinformation, Propaganda and Possible lead up to “False-flag-Op”
Even more disturbing is the success his massive, foreign backed, disinformation campaign has had, most of all in rural areas, in convincing actual Americans that he and his “Reality-TV-Fascist” approach is actually some kind of twisted patriotism. One that they should adopt, cheer-on and defend with assault rifles, if it does not succeed in taking over our democratic system completely by November 3rd.
We have already moved on from “awaiting the outcome of the election” to planning and / or fearing the outbreak of insane right-wing fascist violence when he loses. The big question is, who will there be to fight?
There is no “antifa” to speak of. There’s no need to protest (except by Trump fans) if he loses. And the police, FBI and Government in general have no right or reason to treat angry Trump supporters who protest any differently than BLM protestors, angry over the murder of innocent black people.
One retired, raving-mad-reality-TV-star can’t topple our Democratic system, even with foreign assistance, right?
If they incite or commit violence against anyone, unprovoked, they will be arrested. Since there will not be millions of people insane enough to follow their “leader” into certain defeat and likely incarceration, the crowds, if there are any, will dwindle and fade. There will be, no “enemy” to fight against.
They can continue to hate Biden and Democrats, even hate democracy, but that hate, just as was the case during eight years of Obama in the White House, will amount to little more than racist grumbling and sad idiotic hate for hate’s sake.
Naturally, if Trump takes his Nazi-Fascist campaign to the level of treasonous criminality (assuming he hasn’t already) and follows the 1930s script further to setting fire to the equivalent of the 1933 [German Reichstag fire] – then blaming it on “antifa” so he can declare a state of emergency – this will be an overly obvious coup attempt, conveniently happening just before an election he is certain to lose, and would be dealt with accordingly.
In the case of this madman-on-steroids nothing can be ruled out, but day-by-day, even the most extreme escape-routes seem to be disappearing for our Orange Maniac “leader”.
huge colorful and visual reminder of Trump’s years of lying…
A 50 foot wide by 10 foot tall wall mural went up Saturday, October 3, 2020 in the Bushwick neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York and was dubbed as the “Wall of Lies.” Tom Tenney, an executive director for a non-profit internet radio station called Radio Free Brooklyn, and Phil Buehler, a photographer, are responsible for the creation.
The outdoor wall has more than 20,000 false, misleading claims or lies that Trump has made during his first four year term in office. All of the lies on displayed were sourced from, and recorded on, the ‘Fact Checker’ database by The Washington Post. The WP Fact Checker has an ongoing database of false claims made by Trump, to date. For example, in 1,267 days Trump has made 20,055 false or misleading claims (the data was last updated July 9, 2020), and this number is sure to keep rising all the way up until the November 3rd election.
“We came up with this idea of finding an empty space big enough in Bushwick to actually display them. Even in 16-point type, it’s a lot of real estate that it takes up. Visually, you really get a sense of being able to step back and take in the enormity.”
Tom Tenney / Creator of “The Wall of Lies”
Glenn Kessler, the editor and chief writer for The Washington Post’s Fact Checker, noted on his social media page that the database that helped to inspire the wall was also used for the primary source material for the book by the Post titled, “Donald Trump and His Assault on Truth”.
In Brooklyn this weekend, @radiofreebk erected a 50-foot-long mural featuring every claim listed in our database of Trump's false or misleading claims, color-coded by subject. The database is also the source of our best-selling book, "Donald Trump and His Assault on Truth" pic.twitter.com/ey70JZ3Feh
During his term Trump has averaged 12 lies per day
The display of claims are arranged in chronological order as well assorting various colors. The different colors on the wall are coded based on category: yellow is for Russia, pink for the environment, green for coronavirus, etc). Very helpful.
Below are a few example of some of the misleading claims Trump said that are highlighted on the “Wall of Lies” display in Bushwick:
“The reason that Mexico is so good — because they do have very, very tough immigration. They don’t have the kind of things and the kind of stupidity that we have. I mean, where somebody touches one foot on our sand and we now have to bring them into a court. We then have to register them. We then have to catch and release them.”
“Blue-color workers are doing fantastic. They’re the biggest beneficiary of the tax cuts, the blue collar. Blue collar.”
“Many, many of the great auto companies are coming back into Michigan. They’re coming back into Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina.
“African American…unemployment have reached their lowest levels ever in the history of our country.”
“We’re taking in billion and billions of dollars in tariff. I’m giving billions of dollars back to the farmers because they pinpointed the farmers.”
Democrats will not stop fighting for Americans’ health care and rights.
I stopped by Bushwick to talk with everyday New Yorkers about what's at stake in this Supreme Court fight.
The wall, understandably, has garnered a lot of attention. Due to this massive popularity the creators decided to keep the wall up all the way until the election, instead of sticking to the original plan to remove on that next day. Senate Democratic Leader, Chuck Schumer stopped to take a look at the wall.
It is truly stunning to view this physical representation of something that will likely never be matched: A torrent of Presidential lies so huge that it fills a wall. A permanent memorial should be erected to warn future generations of the cost of electing a “reality TV con-man and huckster” to the highest office in the land…
Top aid is the next on a growing list of those infected from Trump’s inner circle
Due to the outbreak of positive test result in many who work in the White House, Miller was already self-isolating, working remotely for the last five days. He was tested daily during that time and said that he had tested negative for the virus every day through Monday. His wife tested positive for COVID-19 in May. She just happens to be Vice President Mike Pence’s press secretary Katie Miller.
As we reported in previous articles, this, it can be loosely surmised, is an ongoing extension of the numerous cases that appear to have an origin in the SCOTUS super-spreader event held at the White House Rose Garden. That event has been responsible for at least 14 known cases and has been dubbed the “Rose Garden Massacre”.
Others from the White House inner circle that have been previously announced as having tested positive include:
Melania Trump (First Lady)
Ronna McDaniel (Republican National Committee chairwoman)
Hope Hicks (White House communications aide)
Kellyanne Conway (Former White House counselor)
Bill Stepien (Trump campaign manager)
John Jenkins (University of Notre Dame president)
Chris Christie (Former New Jersey Gov.)
Nick Luna (Director of Oval Office operations)
Karoline Leavitt (White house assistant press secretary)
“Covita” shoots campaign ad on the White House Balcony jacked on steroids and behaving like a cartoon
The reactions to the latest and most bizarre, and many would say, disgusting, campaign photo-op continue to pour in. The Lincoln Project, a well known Republican super-pac, founded by George Conway, who’s wife Kellyanne and possibly daughter have both tested positive for covid-19 (see video at end of article), put together several ads and Twitter videos pointing out the extreme, irresponsible and tasteless implications of Trump claiming to have “learned so much about coronavirus”.
In a second clip, which has since gone viral, playing video recovered during the video shoot for his misguided campaign ad, Trump can be heard and seen gasping for air, since steroids only mask the underlying medical issues but do nothing to cure or improve them. This is a creepy and disconcerting view of what is really going on here.
While the world gasps at his “insane” behavior, Trump gasps, literally for air, in full view of cameras while pretending to be superman and trying, yet again, to downplay the virus that has killed nearly 210,000 in the US alone. Will he have a relapse before the next debate, which he swears he is planning to attend?
While it may be from the added delusions, brought on by steroid side-effects, it’s clear that Trump wants to spin his own infection into some kind of massive political victory that will propel him, miraculously, into four more years of power. Sadly, and just plain sad, it is more likely to propel him into a pine box.
Who would have thought that the ultimate October Surprise would be one that Trump is, ultimately, unleashing on himself. Any shred of believability that he might have had, after his constant 4 year long history of lying about everything, is now gone for good particularly regarding anything related to Covid.
The breaking news that the top US general, Mark Milley, who is Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman is now quarantining, due to exposure to a top Coast Guard official, who tested positive for covid-19, is not helping matters. Several members of the Pentagon’s senior leadership are quarantining leading to the press continuing to speculate about how this looks to foreign adversaries.
Mounting positive test results among Republican elite is leading to possible dark news ahead
Take it from Herman Cain, who died of coronavirus after attending Trump rallies where masks and social distancing were scarce to none. When asked if he thought Cain, at that point already deceased, caught it at his rally, Trump replied “No, I don’t think he did”.
A humbling Herman Cain/coronavirus timeline:
6/24: Attends Trump rally, maskless 7/2: Tests positive for Covid-19 7/10: Says he’s improving 7/15: Says his doctors seem happy 7/27: Says he’s really getting better 7/30: Dies
.jpg#/media/File:%D0%92%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8_(%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F).jpg){kind=link}