Now it turns out that he not only did his big set of moderation changes to please Trump, but did so only after he was told by the incoming administration to act. Even worse, he reportedly made sure to share his plans with top Trump aides to get their approval first.
That’s a key takeaway from a new New York Times piece that is ostensibly a profile of the relentlessly awful Stephen Miller. However, it also has a few revealing details about the whole Zuckerberg saga buried within. First, Miller reportedly demanded that Zuckerberg make changes at Facebook “on Trump’s terms.”
Mr. Miller told Mr. Zuckerberg that he had an opportunity to help reform America, but it would be on President-elect Donald J. Trump’s terms. He made clear that Mr. Trump would crack down on immigration and go to war against the diversity, equity and inclusion, or D.E.I., culture that had been embraced by Meta and much of corporate America in recent years.
Mr. Zuckerberg was amenable. He signaled to Mr. Miller and his colleagues, including other senior Trump advisers, that he would do nothing to obstruct the Trump agenda, according to three people with knowledge of the meeting, who asked for anonymity to discuss a private conversation. Mr. Zuckerberg said he would instead focus solely on building tech products.
Even if you argue that this was more about DEI programs at Meta rather than about content moderation, it’s still the incoming administration reportedly making actual demands of Zuckerberg, and Zuckerberg not just saying “fine” but actually previewing the details to Miller to make sure they got Trump’s blessing.
Earlier this month, Mr. Zuckerberg’s political lieutenants previewed the changes to Mr. Miller in a private briefing. And on Jan. 10, Mr. Zuckerberg made them official….
This is especially galling given that it was just days ago when Zuckerberg was whining about how unfair it was that Biden officials were demanding stuff from him (even though he had no trouble saying no to them) and it was big news! The headlines made a huge deal of how unfair Biden was to Zuckerberg. Here’s just a sampling.
Also conveniently omitted was the fact that the Supreme Court found no evidence of the Biden administration going over the line in its conversations with Meta. Indeed, a Supreme Court Justice noted that conversations like those that the Biden admin had with Meta happened “thousands of times a day,” and weren’t problematic because there was no inherent threat or direct coordination.
Yet, here, we have reports of both threats and now evidence of direct coordination, including Zuckerberg asking for and getting direct approval from a top Trump official before rolling out the policy.
And where is this bombshell revelation? It’s buried in a random profile piece puffing up Stephen Miller.
It’s almost as if everyone now takes it for granted that any made-up story about Biden will be treated as fact, and everyone just takes it as expected when Trump actually does the thing that Biden gets falsely accused of.
With this new story, don’t hold your breath waiting for the same outlets to give this anywhere near the same level of coverage and outrage they directed at the Biden administration.
It’s almost as if there’s a massive double standard here: everything is okay if Trump does it, but we can blame the Biden admin for things we only pretend they did.
I’m used to hypocrisy in the political world, but this is beyond ridiculous. It’s now being made clear that the Trump admin is actually doing the exact thing that people were (falsely, misleadingly) blaming Biden for.
And it’s just a random aside in a story, and no one seems to be calling it out. Other than us here at Techdirt.
Excavating a Late Iron Age Durotriges burial at Winterborne Kingston. Credit: Bournemouth University
Not simply Roman propaganda, new research has found that women were at the centre of social networks in Celtic communities and may have been influential in many spheres of Iron Age life.
“When the Romans arrived [in Britain], they were astonished to find women occupying positions of power,” says archaeologist Dr Miles Russell. “Two of the earliest recorded rulers were queens – Boudica and Cartimandua – who commanded armies.
“It’s been suggested that the Romans exaggerated the liberties of British women to paint a picture of an untamed society.”
But Russell and a team examined the DNA of 57 individuals from a burial site in Dorset, Southern England, dating from 100 BC to 100 AD, and the results suggest women were influential in many spheres of Iron Age life.
“Indeed, it is possible that maternal ancestry was the primary shaper of group identities,” says Russel.
They found a striking three quarters of individuals were related through their maternal line, indicating the community, named the “Durotriges” by the Romans, was a “matrilocal” society.
“We reconstructed a family tree with many different branches and found most members traced their maternal lineage back to a single woman, who would have lived centuries before,” says Dr Lara Cassidy, assistant professor at Trinity College Dublin in Ireland and lead author of a paper describing the findings in Nature Communications.
In contrast, relationships through the father’s line were almost absent.
“This tells us that husbands moved to join their wives’ communities upon marriage, with land potentially passed down through the female line,” says Cassidy.
Patrilocal societies, in which married women move to their male partner’s community, are more commonly observed in European Neolithic, Copper and Bronze Age sites.
Durotrigian burial of a young woman from Langton Herring sampled for DNA (c) Bournemouth University. She was buried with a mirror (right panels) and jewellery, including a Roman coin amulet showing a female charioteer representing Victory. Credit: Bournemouth University.
According to Cassidy, it is the first time a matrilocal system has been documented in European prehistory.
“It predicts female social and political empowerment,” says Cassidy. “It’s relatively rare in modern societies, but this might not always have been the case.”
Looking at data from previous genetic surveys of several other Iron Age burial sites revealed similar matrilocal patterns across Britain.
“We saw cemeteries where most individuals were maternally descended from a small set of female ancestors,” saysDan Bradley, professor of population genetics at Trinityand a co-author of the study.
“In Yorkshire, for example, one dominant matriline had been established before 400 BC. To our surprise, this was a widespread phenomenon with deep roots on the island.”
According to a related Nature News & Views article, matrilocality often correlates with women having a central role in maintaining family or social networks and determining who inherits land. Previous excavations of Durotriges burials have also found the tribe buried women with valuable items.
Russell, who directed the excavation and co-authored the DNA study, says that beyond archaeology, knowledge of Iron Age Britain has come primarily from the Greek and Roman writers.
“But they are not always considered the most trustworthy,” he says. “That said, their commentary on British women is remarkable in light of these findings.”
Where’d all these shivs come from all of a sudden? Read on Substack
Maxwell Frost represents the 10th House District of Florida. I dutifully looked that up for you before realizing it’s right there on the screen.
Over the last three years, the states have been on fire with anti-trans legislation, bathroom bills, healthcare bans, and most recently sports segregation bills. In 2024, the Heterosexism Santa Anas whipped these flames into a an actual fire tornado. But on Tuesday this week, Republican Congress members took new action that might just reverse this trend: They decided to take away states’ rights to regulate trans bodies and start making these bans national. First up was an amendment to Title IX that would ban trans sports participation. Grotesquely titled the “Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025,” HB 28 passed the House 218-206 — but its fate in the Senate is uncertain given the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster (there are 53 Republicans in the Senate this year). If it reaches Trump’s desk, he’s guaranteed to sign it.
What’s more clear than the GOP’s chances to get the bill through the Senate, however, is that the Democratic approach to this Republican proposal is very different from how they have responded to anti-trans efforts in the past. This week only two Dems sided against trans people, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez. (Both represent Texas swing districts, if that matters to you.) But more importantly than the relative unity of the Democrats — even from Reps. Tom Suozzi and Seth Moulton who just recently decided to broadside the party for liking trans people so much they threw the election — they actually sounded a bit salty that the GOP was trying this shit on their watch. Almost like hating trans people was an affront to their values or something.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got a lot of attention for her speech:
She started on fire by calling out infamous anti-woman actions to make it clear that she isn’t buying GOP protestations that the bill is somehow motivated by concern for girls and women. Then she hit them for what they were actually doing:
“[You] open up gender, and, yes, genital examinations into little girls in this country in the so-called name of attacking trans girls. To that, today, what we have to say are two words: Not today.
“The majority right now says there is no place in this bill that says it opens up for genital examinations. Well, here is the thing: There is no enforcement mechanism in this bill. When there is no enforcement mechanism, you open the door to every enforcement mechanism.”
She also stressed that having these laws on the books limits the freedoms of cis (that is, “non-trans” if you’re new) women and girls:
“What this also opens the door for is for women to try to perform a very specific kind of femininity for the very kind of men who are drafting this bill, and to open up questioning of who is a woman because of how we look, how we present ourselves, and yes, what we choose to do with our bodies.”
AOC wasn’t the only one to body the misogynistic GOP. Congresswoman Sara Jacobs sharpened her shiv and stuck it right in,
“This bill doesn’t even come close to protecting women and girls in sports. In fact, it puts all women and girls in danger of sexual abuse.”
Lori Trahan, the only woman Division-1 athlete in Congress, attacked on the same line, this time asking, What about the children?
“[T]he consequences of that approach will be devastating: Girls as young as 4 years old being subjected to invasive lines of questioning about their bodies and even physical inspections by an adult, a stranger, a predator, all because some creep accuses them of not being a girl. What parent would want to put their daughter through that? I know I wouldn’t.”
Brand new Congressman Rep Maxwell Frost turned up the heat even more, if that’s possible, giving a few small but horrifying details about a recent investigation into a volleyball player in his home state of Florida. And he did it in front of a sign naming HB 28 “The GOP Child Predator Empowerment Act.”
That’s some shit, y’all. His video was posted to Twitter, which I will link this one time, because he’s almost as good at this as AOC.
And this Dem messaging? It got under Republican skin. When secret Wonkette girl crush Rep. Jasmine Crockett accused Nancy Mace of whipping up cissexism as a fundraising tactic, Mace actually challenged Crockett to step outside and fight. Joy Reid had a great take on this, but there’s nothing funnier than Mace herself, thinking she can take Crockett on when just five weeks ago she had her arm in a sling from shaking a man’s hand (yr Wonkette did not see any evidence she’d even visited medical staff or had any injury diagnosed, but damn that sling was sure real for a couple days).
This is, to use a technical term usually found only in the official records of the Parliamentarian of the House, some cool ass shit. I know that many of us have been waiting for Dems to hit the GOP and hit them hard when they come after minorities or rights or values that we on the Left would like to see them protect. So folks have to be wondering, what woke them up?
Though your friendly, neighborhood Crip Dyke doesn’t have hard information, it would be irresponsible not to speculate that last November’s election made a difference. And by this we mean not only the elevation of Trump, once again, to head of the executive branch which may indeed have lit a fire in some, but also the election of Sarah McBride, an election which elevated the entire US House of Representatives by finally making it possible for a trans legislator to participate in debates on the bills that target us.
Many noticed that McBride didn’t instantly and loudly fight back when Nancy Mace attacked her personally, using McBride’s election as an excuse to pass new bathroom restrictions for those working on Capitol Hill. But as yr Wonkette reminded at the time:
McBride [needs] a chance to work, a chance to develop reputation and influence. She needs to do some very careful relationship building now.
The House Dems did a fantastic job of articulating exactly how government interest in girls’ bodies becomes a predatory risk for cis and trans folks alike. But it wasn’t cis people that first noticed the problem or developed the argument. I know because I had to come up with these observations and arguments in 1996 without any cis help at all, and I spent 14 years teaching cis people patiently, over and over, how transphobia, like homophobia, is a weapon of sexism.
Whether McBride was secretly organizing Democratic rhetorical strategies and asking cis folks to take the point so that she couldn’t be marginalized as a trans radical, it’s certainly not an accident that it is now that congressional Dems are spending time on a daily basis talking to a real live trans person that they are figuring out how to talk about trans issues. Here’s hoping they’ll continue to make the GOP majorities bigoted victories more and more costly.
The fact is these kids are exposed to sex and gender as soon as they learn there is a difference between boy and girl. Hey what do you tell a boy in kindergarten when they need to go to the bathroom. That’s right in all their younger grades they are instructed to use the bathroom of their gender, boy go to the boys bathroom, girls go to the girls bathroom. That teaches them gender regardless of these cis straight religious people want to admit it or not. Plus their goal seems to deny their kids the idea that some people are different, have different feelings when those very kids are in their class and maybe their friends? They seek to deny these kids friendships with people who are different from them. It reminds me of the segregation issues in the southern state. White supremacist did not want their pretty white kids in the same class as the black kids they felt were … something. It is like they thought the black was able to spread and be caught. No matter if these religious people like it or not the world has changed, society has changed and it is not the time of their bible nor the fabled 1950s they dream existed. Trying to deny the existance of the LGBTQ+ is like trying to deny black people exist. Hugs.
Parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.
January 17, 2025 at 6:54 p.m.
A large group of parents protested in Rockville, Maryland, on June 27, 2023, in an effort to allow their children to opt out of books that feature LGBTQ+ characters in Montgomery County schools. (Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post)
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a case about whether public schools must give parents ofelementary schoolchildren a chance to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they saygoes against their religious convictions.
Parents, who are Muslim,Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox, filed suit in 2023, saying the policy violates their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion.
The case puts the high court at the center of a contentious national debate over how to teach and treat gender and sexuality in schools, which has spurred fights over books, bathroom use and on which teams transgender athletes should be allowed to play.
Eric Baxter, an attorney for the families, said in a statement that the school system’s decision to disallow opt-outs was “cramming down controversial gender ideology” to 3-year-old pupils. Becket, a public interest institute that pushes for religious liberty, is representing the families, and has been involved in other cases on LGBTQ+ issues.
“The Court must make clear: Parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality,” Baxter said.
Montgomery County schools declined to comment, citing the pending litigation. Butthe districtwrote in filings to the high court thatan adverse ruling could upend long-standing legal precedent that guides how schools teach.
“Petitioners seek to unsettle a decades-old consensus that parents who choose to send their children to public school are not deprived of their right to freely exercise their religion simply because their children are exposed to curricular materials the parents find offensive,” attorneys for the schools wrote.
During the 2022-2023 school year, Montgomery County schools introduced a reading list of books that included LGBTQ+ characters as part of an effort to be more inclusive to its diverse student population. The lists were intended for students from prekindergarten to 12th grade and were created with parental feedback.
The school system required teachers to read at least one storybook a year from a group of titles that included “Pride Puppy,” which is about a gay pride parade; “Intersection Allies,” which is about a group of children discussing their differences; and “Love, Violet,” which is about a girl who has feelings for a female classmate.
“The storybooks are not used in any lessons related to gender and sexuality,” the school district wrote in itsfiling. “Nor is any student asked or expected to change his or her views about his or her own, or any other student’s, sexual orientation or gender identity. Instead, the books are made available for individual reading, classroom read-alouds, and other educational activities designed to foster and enhance literacy skills.”
The parents wrote in court documents that the Montgomeryschool board also issued guidance that instructed teachers to emphasize that “not everyone is a boy or girl” and that some “people identify with both, sometimes one more than the other and sometimes neither.”
As teachers started using the books in the classroom, some families wanted to opt their children out of the discussions due to concerns that the lessons and subsequent discussions would conflict with their religious views. The books that targeted elementary-aged students were particularly controversial.
Originally, some principals let families pull their children out of the classroom when the books were read. But in March 2023, the school system’s central office announced that opt-outs would not be permitted.
More than 1,100 parents signed a petition asking the district to restore the opt-out right and hundreds protested the decision. Maryland is one of 47 states and the District of Columbia that have opt-out or opt-in provisions for sex education in schools, according to the parents’ filing.
In May 2023, a group of parents filed a lawsuit against the school system, alleging that the district violated their First Amendment rights and that the decision went against a district policy that allows for religious accommodations. The parents are not asking the school system to drop the curriculum.
Other parents did not support opting out of the curriculum.
After the lawsuit was filed, the school system quietly stopped teaching two of the books referenced in the lawsuit because of concerns that it would “require teachers to explicitly teach vocabulary terms outside of the context of the lesson,” according to a district database.
The parentswho sued the district asked a federal judge in Maryland for a preliminary injunction to restore the opt-out provision, but the judge denied the request, ruling the parents were unlikely to succeed because they could not show “that the no-opt-out policy burdens their religious exercise.”
That ruling was upheld by a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, before the parents petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. Oral arguments in the case will be scheduled later.
Mark Eckstein, a Montgomery County schools parent and LGBTQ+ advocate, said he wasn’t surprised the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, given that discussions around gender and sexuality have roiled school communities across the country.
“I strongly believe that the district court ruled correctly, and I’m hoping there will be a vigorous defense of the wisdom of that decision and MCPS’s policy,” he said.
Montgomery is one of a number of school districts where controversy has flared over books dealing with sexuality and gender. In 2023,a Georgia teacher was fired after she read a book about gender conformity to her fifth-grade class. She sued.
A group of parents in Dearborn, Michigan, sued the school district in 2022, seeking to remove books from school libraries they felt had inappropriate sexual content. Hundreds of mostly Muslim parents also protested at a school board meeting.
The effort was part of a broader push to pull somebooks from schools and libraries. The American Library Association found more than 4,200 book titles were targeted for removal from schools in libraries in 2023, greatly outpacing the 2,500 targeted the year before. Almost 50 percent of the titles dealt with gay and minority themes.
The Supreme Court has moved in recent terms to expand religion in education and the rights of the religious.
In 2o22, a divided court ruled that Washington state discriminated against a football coach who prayed at midfield after a high school football game. The same year, the high court ruled Maine could not exclude religious schools from a voucher program that provides public assistance for education.
Last year, the high court ruled that the constitution’s free speech provisions shield some businesses from being required to provide services to same-sex couples, after a web designer argued she should not have to do such work because of her religious beliefs.
Justin Jouvenal covers the Supreme Court. He previously covered policing and the courts locally and nationally. He joined The Post in 2009. follow on X@jjouvenal
The case was filed by the Catholic anti-LGBTQ hate group, the Becket Fund, whose senior counsel celebrates below.
The Becket Fund last appeared here in July 2024 when they sued to overturn Michigan’s ban on ex-gay torture.
In 2014, the Becket Fund joined with NOM, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, and Alliance Defending Freedom to form an anti-LGBTQ “supergroup” to battle same-sex marriage.
In 2013, the Becket Fund joined with major Catholic groups in sponsoring the so-called Manhattan Declaration, signers of which avow that they will “civilly disobey” laws that protect LGBTQ people from discrimination.
The Becket Fund was founded in 1994 by a former Reagan administration Justice Department lawyer who worked under future Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
The group is named for Saint Thomas Becket, who was Archbishop of Canterbury under King Henry II until he was murdered by followers of the King in the year 1170.
Outside of LGBTQ issues, the Becket Fund is best known for winning cases on behalf of the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby.
Last night, it got to be bedtime and I didn’t even realize I’d set nothing up for today, until I got up this morning. Scottie’s posted some important news here already, and I don’t want to knock it off the top, so instead of the posts I thought I’d make, I’m just gonna link ’em, and readers can just read whatever they like and still not miss those posts of Scottie’s.
Tuesday afternoon, Politico ran a very good story about media and political attacks against Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and her response to the ongoing wildfires. The piece, by reporter Melanie Mason, points out that much of the criticism has been unfair and often baldface lies. It also notes that Bass’s public persona as a detail-oriented consensus builder has in part led to the perception that she’s not an action-oriented take-charge leader in this crisis. It’s one of the better discussion of Bass and the wildfires we’ve read, in addition of course to our own, ahem.
“Nationally, there’s just a pile-on. […] If you look at her replies [on social media] now, she could be posting a video of her literally running into a burning building and taking a child out of there, and people would still be replying ‘resign!’”
Mason’s piece is a smart, thoughtful look at how an accomplished politician is being dragged in the media, and how her own political instincts and strengths aren’t proving to be much help in countering the overwhelmingly negative coverage. Kind of like having a municipal water system that’s perfectly capable of handling building fires, but not designed to contain a fire hurricane made far more catastrophic by climate change. By all means, you should read it!
But because we are doing a Doktor of Rhetoric post today, we’re only going to discuss Mason’s very good reporting and analysis in the context of how Politico distorted its own goddamn coverage for the sake of adding more cheap shots to the shitstorm of belligerent bellyaching with which Bass is contending.
Later yesterday afternoon, Politico’s “California PM Playbook” column took Mason’s thoughtful, nuanced reporting and ran it through a bullshit filter, resulting in a column that mentions the pile-on of disinformation that Bass has faced, but ultimately paints Bass as responsible for her own unfair coverage, darn her.
California Playbook editor Lindsay Holden quotes and paraphrases Mason liberally, but hypes up the negatives almost to the exclusion of all else, leaving the reader with the impression that Bass, as Holden’s headline puts it, “has lost the plot.”
Mason depicts Bass as a competent leader whose substance-over-style political instincts aren’t necessarily a great match for a crisis where cable news and rightwing social media are driving the narrative:
Bass has also been hampered by instincts she honed as a deal-making legislator and coalition-building community activist. Never someone to actively seek the spotlight, her unflashy demeanor now comes off as uninspiring for people seeking a leader projecting command.
An unnamed Democratic consultant says that right now, LA needs a media hero, “someone to stand up in the middle of the Pacific Palisades or the middle of Sylmar or the middle of Hollywood every day and say, ‘This is our community, and we will rebuild.’”
The consultant added, “I want her to show some emotion, that she’s tapping into the fear and anxiety that so many people feel, and not reflect this soft brand of optimism that she’s been known for.”
Soft optimism bad, Henry V filtered through Independence Day good. But Mason also notes that after the widespread devastation of the first horrible hours, when high winds kept water bombers grounded and blew the fires out of control,
firefighters have been remarkably successful in halting additional damage — despite new fires cropping up throughout the week.
“All of those could have been massive conflagrations had they expanded, and they didn’t,” said Doug Herman, a Democratic strategist who works with Bass.
That note doesn’t make it into Holden’s version, which instead seems to be cheering on style, and the hell with substance. After noting that Elon Musk’s attacks on Bass are “often half-baked or outright false,” Holden adds in an anecdote that wasn’t in Mason’s piece, bizarrely framing a dishonest video clip as somehow one more example of Bass’s “painfully poor messaging strategy” (a phrase Mason does not use):
The latest example came Tuesday afternoon, when CBS News sent out a misleading tweet suggesting its reporter asked Bass whether she “regrets” taking an overseas trip while the wildfires erupted. The accompanying video clip showed Bass answering “No.”
In fact, CBS’ Jonathan Vigliottiasked Bass whether, looking back, she still would’ve taken the diplomatic trip to Ghana.
CBS News subsequently revised the tweet to get the question right, and added a note to clarify that Bass was saying no, on reflection she wouldn’t have taken the trip. For all the good it did.
Here’s where we lost our patience with the Playbook piece: Holden went right ahead and insisted that Bass had fucked up:
The episode served as a mini illustration of Bass’ problems — specious information, followed by her own unwillingness to provide a fuller explanation, let alone a broader acknowledgement of her mistake. The narrative about her trip might have been put to bed last week, but Bass’ resistance to engage on it has allowed her enemies to continue painting her as an absent and ineffective leader.
Apparently, Bass should have anticipated that CBS would send a tweet distorting what she said, and she should have pre-debunked it, too. Shame on her! She really has lost the plot, all right.
Perhaps Mason should update her own piece with a close look at how her own outlet indulged in the kind of bullshit she was analyzing, but that might be a little too meta. And god knows Meta has enshittified itself plenty already.
Scottie's Playtime 