Update: The authoritarian attack on fact checking

A WaPo opinion discusses the gutting of fact checking on social media (not paywalled). A few points are worth being aware of: 

Last month, the tech company Meta announced its decision to end the third-party fact-checking system it used on Facebook and Instagram. Instead, Meta will adopt a community notes model that invites users to challenge misinformation through the app. For a community note to appear, it must be agreed upon by other contributors from a “range of perspectives.”

Interviewer: How well do you think X’s community notes have worked at challenging false or misleading information?

Disinformation expert: Not well. Community notes basically give up on the idea of fact-checking. Truth is not a matter of consensus, and it’s not just a matter of people being mistaken. We talk about the “wisdom of crowds.” Sometimes crowds can be ignorant — but that’s not the real danger. The real danger with community notes is that there are bad actors out there; there are people who will use it as a playground to spread disinformation.

Interviewer: Even before Meta decided to cut its fact-checkers, was fighting disinformation on social media actually working?

Expert: No, they weren’t doing nearly enough. Here’s the shame with Facebook: It does an excellent job of vetting the things it truly cares about. Most people have never seen pornography or beheadings or terrorism on Facebook. And that’s because there is a human team that is dedicated to scrubbing the site of those things, because the executives understand that it would hurt their bottom line. They could do the same thing for false claims, but they choose not to.

The expert claims the best way for the MSM to regain public trust, now at an all-time low of 31%, is to talk to the public in person, face-to-face. His reasoning is that once the public meets MSM operatives who put truth above all else, the public will come to see that they are good people. he says that public trust is built through face-to-face conversation. He also says not to lie, because once a reporter lies, trust is lost and almost never comes back. 

REALITY CHECK

The expert's assertion that community notes gives up on the idea of fact-checking is correct. There will not be agreement among other contributors from a “range of perspectives”, and we all know it. Social media's concept of “community notes” is pure propaganda to deflect from the fact that fact checking by social media is dead and gone.

Context -- definitions: A fact is an objective, verifiable piece of information that remains constant regardless of belief or perspective. It is something that can be proven through evidence, observation, or empirical data. For example, “fire is hot” is a fact. By contrast, truth is more subjective and can vary based on individual beliefs, experiences, and interpretations. Truths are often constructed by people to describe how they perceive reality. They can be influenced by faith, commitment, or shared experiences among groups. For instance, the statement “God exists” can be a truth for someone who believes in a deity, but it isn’t a fact.

The expert is also absolutely right to assert that truth, assuming he means fact, is not a matter of consensus. Facts are facts, which are objective. A truth can be a matter of consensus. Here he was sloppy and should have referred to fact, not truth. 

I find the expert’s advice on how the MSM can regain public trust to be shockingly silly and naive. First, his advice is not even remotely practical. It is impossible for journalists to meet in person with over 200 million people, even if they are in semi-intimate gatherings of 50 people or less. 

Probably most people who believe the MSM intentionally lies at least a lot have been deceived by dark free speech, including political demagoguery. They hold a false belief. Even when the MSM asserts a fact that is false, and the MSM source retracts it, most of those people won’t accept the sincerity of the retraction. They will rationalize it away. Like the expert says, once a person believes they have been lied to, trust is usually gone and usually not coming back. A retraction of a mistake ain’t gonna cut it. On this point, the expert is irrational.

In my opinion, it is very discouraging that even now with the rise of demagoguery-powered authoritarianism in American politics and society, experts do not understand critical, fundamental matters in politics like cognitive biology, rhetoric and dark free speech. They are inexcusably sloppy about the distinction between truth and facts. That low level of performance does not bode well for democracy or the human condition.

Global warming updates

A NYT opinion:

That Giant Sucking Sound? It’s Climate Change Devouring Your Home’s Value.

As the compounding impacts of climate-driven disasters take effect, we are seeing home insurance prices spike around the country, pushing up the costs of owning a home. In some cases, insurance companies are pulling out of towns altogether. And in others, people are beginning to move away.

One little-discussed result is that soaring home prices in the United States may have peaked in the places most at risk, leaving the nation on the precipice of a generational decline. That’s the finding of a new analysis by the First Street Foundation, a research firm that studies climate threats to housing and provides some of the best climate adaptation data available, both freely and commercially. The analysis predicts an extraordinary reversal in housing fortunes for Americans — nearly $1.5 trillion in asset losses over the next 30 years.

Insurance rates are where the systemic economic risk comes in. Not long ago, insurance premiums were a modest cost of owning a home, amounting to about 8 percent of an average mortgage payment. But insurance costs today are about one-fifth the size of a typical payment, outpacing inflation and even the rate of appreciation on the homes themselves. That makes owning property, on paper anyway, a bad investment.

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

The NYT reports:

E.P.A. Tells More Than 1,000 They Could Be Fired ‘Immediately’

A spokeswoman for Lee Zeldin, the new head of the agency, said the goal was to create an “effective and efficient” federal work force

The Trump administration has warned more than 1,100 Environmental Protection Agency employees who work on climate change, reducing air pollution, enforcing environmental laws and other programs that they could be fired at any time.

An email, reviewed by The New York Times, was sent to staff members who were hired within the past year and have probationary status. Many of those employees were encouraged to join the E.P.A. under the Biden administration to rebuild the agency, which had been depleted during President Trump’s first term. Others are experienced federal workers who had taken new assignments within the agency.

Many had been hired to work on programs that Congress created through two recent laws, doing things like helping communities replace lead pipes, mediating toxic sites and funding clean energy projects aimed at reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are heating the planet.

“As a probationary/trial period employee, the agency has the right to immediately terminate you,” the email states.  

Molly Vaseliou, an E.P.A. spokeswoman, said in a statement that “our goal is to be transparent.” She declined to answer questions about the email [the opposite of transparency = opacity], though, including whether Lee Zeldin, the agency’s new administrator, intended to terminate employees and, if so, for what reason [probably no reason will be given = opacity].

What DJT means by an “effective and efficient” federal work force is one that is ineffective and hostile to the concepts of global warming and environmental protections and regulations. This comes as no surprise. 

Project 2025 contains explicit proposals that are fundamentally hostile to the EPA and the broader concepts of addressing global warming and enforcing environmental regulations. For example, Project 2025 proposes eliminating key environmental protections, starting with dismantling the Clean Air Act. That severely weakens the EPA's authority to set health-based air quality standards, thereby undermining regulations meant to reduce pollution and protect public health.

Conclusion: DJT and MAGA will serve special interests at the expense of the public interest, including the environment.

Analysis: The new balance of power in American consumer and political markets

With DJT, the GOP and MAGA in power again, it is time to consider power. It flows from multiple sources, including politics, commerce and formal religion, especially Christianity. Not much power seems to arise from other sources like academics, liberal arts, philosophy, formal logic or science, unless they attach to politics, commerce or religion. That's especially true for science, especially if it is inconvenient to major power centers in politics, commerce or formal religion.

After DJT's election, one can assert there is a major war between between DJT's and MAGA's power and the commercial consumer market. For example, most consumers want to do something about global warming. DJT, MAGA and the carbon energy sector want to deny, distort or downplay the issue. So far, DJT, MAGA and the carbon energy sector simply ignore consumer sentiment and demand. Business as usual. That has been the case since the 1970s when most of the public became aware of environmental problems. 

It's always important to specify what the "market" means or is. The market in the time of DJT in his 2nd term means first and foremost far more kleptocratic, authoritarian political power demand or pressure at the expense of consumer power. Consumers are mostly a diffuse, non-political commercial market power source. That is the reality. 

A new reality is that DJT and MAGA now have far more power over Bezos, Zuckerberg and other billionaires and multi-millionaires than consumer's collective but diffuse power. That's why elites of commerce now owe and pay fealty to highly concentrated DJT and MAGA power. They have bended their knee and turned against democracy. In my opinion, that is inherent in unrestrained capitalism and capitalism under threat by sufficiently powerful authoritarianism. 

Nowadays, resistance to DJT and MAGA imposes risks on highly wealthy people and huge corporations. The risks also extend to many non-elites who are exposed to serious damage from kleptocratic authoritarian threats, e.g., federal employees. For the elites, the risks are loss of most or all of their wealth and power from a corrupt authoritarian American regime and government. To protect their wealth and power, capitalist elites and big businesses have no choice but to betray consumers and democracy. These are the new realities of the American capitalism game. Maybe it has been significantly that way for years. But is is definitely overwhelmingly that way now. 

Opinions about this will obviously vary widely. These are my mine. 

About federal authority and power for DOGE and Elon Musk

All kinds of sources are reporting that Musk, operating in DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) is aggressively intruding on major federal operations, e.g., here, here and here. What legal basis is there for this?

Q: What is the legal or constitutional basis on which DOGE has any power to do anything at all?

A: Elon Musk’s DOGE derives its authority from President Donald Trump’s executive orders, which reorganized existing executive branch structures rather than creating a new federal agency. Its legal standing hinges on contested interpretations of presidential power and ongoing litigation challenging its compliance with federal transparency laws.

Legal Basis for DOGE’s Authority

Executive Order Framework: DOGE was established via a January 20, 2025, executive order renaming the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) as the U.S. DOGE Service and embedding it within the Executive Office of the President. This leverages the President’s constitutional authority (Article II) to manage federal operations and reorganize executive agencies without congressional approval. The order grants DOGE access to agency records and systems to “modernize federal technology and software,” bypassing prior regulations that might restrict such access.

Temporary Organization Status: DOGE operates as a “temporary organization” under 5 U.S.C. § 3161, which allows short-term federal entities to address specific missions. This structure avoids the need for congressional authorization, though critics argue it exceeds statutory intent by centralizing influence over federal policy.

Advisory Role vs. Enforcement Power:

DOGE lacks direct legislative or regulatory authority. Its mandate is advisory, focusing on recommendations for cost-cutting, IT modernization, and workforce reductions. However, its proximity to the White House amplifies its influence, as agency heads are required to form “DOGE teams” to align with its agenda.

Constitutional and Legal Challenges

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Violations: Multiple lawsuits allege DOGE operates as an unlawful advisory committee under FACA, which requires transparency, public access, and balanced membership. Plaintiffs argue that despite its rebranding as part of the executive branch, DOGE’s initial formation involved private actors (e.g., Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy) shaping policy without accountability.

Separation of Powers Concerns:

Critics contend DOGE’s structure concentrates power in unelected billionaires, undermining congressional oversight and civil service protections. Legal experts warn that its recommendations to “pause” regulations via executive action could test constitutional limits on presidential authority.

Ethics and Transparency Risks: DOGE’s use of encrypted messaging (e.g., Signal) and Musk’s potential conflicts of interest (e.g., SpaceX contracts) have sparked demands for records under FOIA. Opponents argue its opacity violates norms of democratic governance.

Key Precedents and Counterarguments

Historical Analogues: DOGE mirrors past presidential commissions like Reagan’s Grace Commission, which similarly advised on cost-cutting without formal authority. However, DOGE’s integration into the executive branch distinguishes it from purely external advisory bodies.

Judicial Outlook: Courts will likely scrutinize whether DOGE’s operations qualify as a FACA committee or fall within the President’s managerial discretion. A ruling against DOGE could force compliance with transparency laws or dissolution.

So, in other words, even if the courts eventually do hold that what DOGE and Musk are doing is illegal, vast damage will already have been inflicted. That damage could be mostly avoided if the courts issue restraining orders or injunctions to resolve legal challenges to DOGE policies, its mode of operations and its conflicts of interest. 

Perplexity says that Federal courts are moderately likely to issue temporary restraining orders (TROs) or preliminary injunctions against DOGE initiatives, given the legal challenges alleging violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and separation of powers concerns. However, the likelihood hinges on judicial interpretations of procedural requirements, the urgency of harm, and the administration’s compliance history. The likelihood of success on the merits requires plaintiffs must show DOGE violates FACA’s transparency rules, e.g., public meetings, balanced membership, and record-keeping.

There is a track record of similar cases with FACA Precedents. So far, federal courts have historically enforced FACA strictly. For example, in Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition v. Department of Interior (1994), a court blocked agency decisions made by noncompliant advisory committees. And, in AAPS v. Clinton (1993), courts scrutinized Hillary Clinton’s role in a health care task force, ruling that advisory bodies must comply with FACA if non-federal members shape policy. In addition, federal judges issued 55 nationwide injunctions against Trump’s policies during his four years in office, signaling significant willingness to curb executive overreach. For context, federal judges issued 19 nationwide injunctions during Obama's eight years in office.