Is Netflix Asking Users to Update Payment Information?
In November 2019, we received a few emails from readers alerting us that they had received an email from someone purporting to be from Netflix that asked them to update their payment information: I believe there is a scam going around in regards to Netflix. My husband received a notice that something is wrong with our account and the link given doesnt go to an actual Netflix website. They ask for all the profile information including a credit number and info. I checked the actual website and our account is in good standing and all the info is accurate.    This is not a genuine email from Netflix. This email is an attempt to steal credit card information and is known as a phishing scam.  Phishing scams use various forms of bait (hence the name) in an attempt to trick people into giving up personal information, such as passwords or credit card information. These scammers may promise a prize, such as a cash giveaway, in order to entice people to give up their information. Or, as in this case, pose as a trusted company. This Netflix phishing scam has been circulating since at least 2017. In December 2018, so many people had reported they were targeted with a version of this scam that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a statement called "Netflix phishing scam: Dont take the bait": statement Phishing is when someone uses fake emails or texts to get you to share valuable personal information  like account numbers, Social Security numbers, or your login IDs and passwords. Scammers use your information to steal your money, your identity, or both. They also use phishing emails to get access to your computer or network. If you click on a link, they can install ransomware or other programs that can lock you out of your data. Scammers often use familiar company names or pretend to be someone you know. Heres a real world example featuring Netflix. Police in Ohio shared a screenshot of a phishing email designed to steal personal information. The email claims the users account is on hold because Netflix is having some trouble with your current billing information and invites the user to click on a link to update their payment method. Readers can find additional tips on how to spot and respond to this scam here. The FTC has also published a few tips on how to spot similar scams, which we've reproduced below: here How to Recognize PhishingScammers often update their tactics, but there are some signs that will help you recognize a phishing email or text message. Phishing emails and text messages may look like theyre from a company you know or trust. They may look like theyre from a bank, a credit card company, a social networking site, an online payment website or app, or an online store. Phishing emails and text messages often tell a story to trick you into clicking on a link or opening an attachment. They may Netflix has also addressed the phishing scams that have targeted the company's users. The help section of the Netflix website (located at help.Netflix.com) informs readers they can always check the standing of their accounts on the official Netflix website, and that they should never give payment information to third-party outlets: help.Netflix.com Netflix website,  If you suspect you have received a fraudulent email or text message that appears to be from Netflix, follow these tips to keep your information safe and secure, and follow the steps below to report the message: How do I report a suspicious or phishing email or text message (SMS)? If you received a suspicious or phishing email, forward it to phishing@netflix.com and delete the email. Please include the message header information, which can be found using this Google article. phishing@netflix.com Google article If you received a suspicious text message (SMS), forward it to phishing@netflix.com using the steps for your device below. phishing@netflix.com Engadget.  "How to Recognize and Avoid Phishing Scams."
  Retrieved 14 November 2019. Lawler, Richard.  "FTC Issues Warning About a Netflix Phishing Scam."
  Engadget.  26 December 2018. Tressler, Colleen.  "Netflix Phishing Scam: Dont Take the Bait."
  FTC.  26 December 2018.
Claim:  A 15-ton "giant shark," previously believed to be extinct (and a "a parent of the Megalodon") was captured off the coast of Pakistan by local fishermen.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September  2014] 15-Ton Prehistoric Shark Captured Off Coast Of Pakistan. Just seems sketchy in all aspects.   Origins:  On 24 September 2014, World News Daily Report published an article sure spark interest in shark fans. According to the site, a "parent" species of the famed Megalodon was captured off the coast of Pakistan, near Karachi. article Megalodon The undated article "quotes" a local marine biologist as surmising that "rising sea temperatures [are] forcing these beasts to come up closer to the shores," or perhaps the shark was "simply hurt and suffering from a disorienting handicap" after reporting: A giant prehistoric shark previously thought to be extinct for more than 20 million years has been captured by local fishermen off the coast of Pakistan, reports the Islamabad Herald this morning. The giant creature first thought to be a great white shark was rapidly declared by experts to be an unknown species of shark as its great weight and size were unheard of. Analysis of the teeth suggest the shark to be a parent of the Megalodon, an extinct species of shark that lived approximately 28 to 1.5 million years ago, during the Cenozoic Era. Given broad interest in the Megalodon, the "prehistoric shark" story quickly gained traction on social media sites.  Unfortunately, World News Daily Report is one of a number of "satire" news outlets, churning out passably believable articles to be shared on Facebook and Twitter. A disclaimer page on the main site states: disclaimer World News Daily Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within worldnewsdailyreport.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction. In addition to the "prehistoric giant shark" story, World News Daily Report's featured daily articles include "Elderly Woman Vanishes During Magic Show" and "Homeless Man Sexually Assaulted By Top Models In Limousine."   Last updated:  25 September 2014 On the heels of a disappointing jobs report, Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers for President Barack Obama, shined the best light he could on the administrations economic record during the June 5, 2011, edition of ABCsThis Week with Christiane Amanpour.Two days before his appearance, the government announced that the economy had created a net of only 54,000 jobs in May -- a number well below expectations, and also below the number of jobs created in the previous few months.Amanpour pressed Goolsbee on the issue:What would you do to get this off the slow burner? she asked.Goolsbee responded, Well, I would say two or three things. The first is, the president has never stopped talking about jobs. For him, the growth strategy is the No. 1 issue. Now, we must live within our means. We have a moment that we can talk about long-run deficit reduction. And the vice president's leading an effort to do that, that the president has asked him to. But the president is getting up every day -- on Friday, he's going out to Ohio to talk about jobs in manufacturing, (and) manufacturing is having its best employment year in almost 15 years.We thought wed check whether Goolsbee was right about manufacturing employment.We turned to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the governments official source for employment numbers. There are two ways to look at the issue. One is to look at manufacturing jobs for the first five months of the year over the past decade and a half. The other is to look at the full-year totals for manufacturing jobs, which means determining the total for 2011 by extrapolating a full year from the first five months data.First, well look at the January-to-May figures.For 2011, the manufacturing sector has gained 76,000 jobs. To find gains that robust, you have to go back to 1994, when manufacturing gained 107,000 jobs from January to May.So by this standard, its 17 years, and Goolsbee actually understates his point.Now the full-year figures.For 2011, manufacturing jobs -- if they continue at their current pace -- would increase by 182,000. Thats the most for any year going back to 1997, when 288,000 jobs were created over the full year. And that was 14 years ago, which fits Goolsbees statement of almost 15 years.At this point, we should note three bits of context.First, despite the gains for the year, manufacturing jobs fell by 5,000 during the previous month, as Amanpour pointed out in the interview. (Goolsbee countered that durable goods manufacturing jobs went up, and they did, by 8,000. Durable goods are those designed to last for multiple years, such as cars and dishwashers. )Second, despite the recent gains, over the past decade and a half, the manufacturing sector has shrunk -- consistently and inexorably.Since January 1994, the manufacturing sector has shed 5,160,000 jobs, leaving todays number of manufacturing jobs 31 percent lower than it was at the start of 1994.And the actual shrinkage is even more stark than this statistic shows. Since January 1994, the labor force has grown by 18 percent. That means that simply maintaining its share of American employment would have required the manufacturing sector to increase by almost one-fifth since 1994, when in fact it declined by nearly one-third.The continual slide means that when you look at figures for the past decade and a half, most periods have shown a net loss of jobs. Since 1994, manufacturing jobs only showed a net increase six times for the January-to-May period, and only five times for the full-year period.In other words, it didnt take much for the manufacturing job gains under Obama to stand out. On the other hand, it also means that the administration has some justification for citing the accomplishment.Third, manufacturing jobs have increased for two years running (and two January-to-May periods running) -- but the combined gains havent come close to canceling out the manufacturing jobs lost during Obamas first year in office.In 2009, the economy lost more than 1.1 million manufacturing jobs. Counting the projection for 2011, the manufacturing sector will have rebounded by the end of this year by only 282,000 jobs, replacing only about a quarter of those lost since the start of 2009. While Obama isnt solely to blame for this hemorrhaging -- the recession did start under his predecessor, George W. Bush -- this does make the overall assessment of the sector under Obama more downbeat than Goolsbee indicated on the show.On balance, we feel that Goolsbees decision to highlight manufacturing jobs may be aimed at  downplaying the otherwise disappointing jobs numbers for May, but his facts are mostly on target, though he didn't provide the context of the large manufacturing job losses in 2009. Since assigning responsibility for the 2009 losses is a complicated business, well lower Goolsbee just one notch and rate his statement Mostly True. Democratic congressman Beto O'Rourke of Texas came to national prominence in 2018 through his high-profile campaign to unseat incumbent Republican U.S. senator Ted Cruz. During the course of his campaign, the Democratic candidate has been confronted with various claims and allegations about himself and his family. One such meme, entitled "'Beto' Reality Check," was shared widely on Facebook in August 2018:A spokesperson for O'Rourke's campaign described the meme as "factually incorrect in countless ways" and largely referred us to several existing news reports about the allegations. The following is our breakdown of the five sections contained in the meme.O'Rourke adopted the name "Beto" to appeal to Latino voters: The meme claimed:NOT HISPANIC"Robert O'Rourke" became "Beto" for his political campaigns and on the ballot, a tactic that gives the false impression he's Latino, misleading voters in a state with many Hispanics.In fact, O'Rourke was known as "Beto" long before he entered political life, although his birth name is Robert and he appears to use both first names interchangeably. (For example, his July 2018 Federal Election Commission "Statement of Candidacy" lists his name as "Robert Beto O'Rourke.")O'Rourke told CNN that his parents referred to him as Beto "from day one," and that it "just stuck." Others have noted that the name is likely derived from a pronunciation of the Spanish "Roberto," and O'Rourke himself described it as "a nickname for Robert in El Paso." (According to the U.S. Census Bureau, around 78 percent of El Paso county residents listed themselves as being of Mexican heritage in 2016.)O'Rourke's family is of Irish heritage. According to the New York Times, his family "came over from Ireland four generations ago to work on the railroad." His father Pat O'Rourke was a prominent El Paso County official during the 1980s.A 1986 article about Pat O'Rourke in the El Paso Times referred to his then 14-year-old son as "Beto O'Rourke." In 1999, six years before O'Rourke ran for El Paso city council, the same newspaper referred to "web site designer Beto O'Rourke" in a short article about his I.T. business Stanton Street Design.After checking the archives of the El Paso Times, we found multiple references to "Beto O'Rourke" between 1986 and 2004, when O'Rourk was either a child or a businessman and had never run for political office.In March, the campaign of O'Rourke's Republican opponent, Ted Cruz, launched a radio jingle that poked fun at the name "Beto" and included the following lyrics: "I remember reading stories/Liberal Robert wanted to fit in/So he changed his name to 'Beto'/And hid it with a grin ...":FIRST LISTEN: our new 60-second statewide radio ad introducing our liberal opponent, Congressman Robert ORourke, to Texas voters.Help #KeepTexasRed: https://t.co/PVsiCtbbyL #CruzCrew #TXSen pic.twitter.com/OxK61gZ0ek Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 7, 2018The next day, O'Rourke posted a photograph of himself as a young boy, wearing a sweater with the nickname "Beto" stitched into it, establishing that, contrary to false accusation, he did not "change his name" for political reasons:pic.twitter.com/1IO1dgmCkv Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) March 7, 2018O'Rourke used his father's connections to avoid trial for two felonies: UNPROVENThe meme claimed:FELONY ARREST RECORDAs an adult in his mid-20s, O'Rourke was caught breaking into the University of Texas El Paso. Charged with breaking and entering and burglary, he mysteriously avoided trial. A few years later, arrested for drunk driving, he again walked with a "deal." Being the song of a powerful, politically connected County Judge apparently has benefits. O'Rourke dismisses his felony convictions as "youthful pranks" and "mistakes"; it's old news, move along, nothing to see here.O'Rourke has indeed been arrested for burglary and drunk driving, a history which he has discussed several times over the course of his political career, as his spokesperson told us: "While charges were dismissed, this is something that Beto has always publicly addressed -- during his initial run for the city council, his run for Congress, in profiles written about him, during dozens of interviews, and at town halls across the state during this campaign."In a 27 August 2018 op-ed for the Houston Chronicle and  San Antonio Express-News, O'Rourke himself wrote:Twenty-three years ago I was arrested for attempted forcible entry after jumping a fence at the University of Texas at El Paso. I spent a night in the El Paso County Jail, was able to make bail the next day, and was released. Three years later, I was arrested for drunk driving -- a far more serious mistake for which there is no excuse.According to El Paso county jail records, O'Rourke was arrested for attempted burglary on 19 May 1995, when he was 22 years old. He was released from custody the same day. Court records show that the prosecutor dropped the charge in February 1996.O'Rourke was also arrested for driving while intoxicated on 27 September 1998, the day after his 26th birthday. He completed a "misdemeanor diversion program" (namely "DWI school") in October 1999, and the charge was dropped.In August 2018, the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News cited police reports, including a witness account, which suggested that the incident leading to O'Rourke's DWI arrest was relatively serious and involved a collision with another vehicle and a possible attempt by O'Rourke to leave the scene:State and local police reports obtained by the Chronicle and Express-News show that ORourke was driving drunk at what a witness called a high rate of speed in a 75 mph zone on Interstate 10 about a mile from the New Mexico border. He lost control and hit a truck, sending his car careening across the center median into oncoming lanes. The witness, who stopped at the scene, later told police that ORourke had tried to drive away from the scene. O'Rourke recorded a 0.136 and 0.134 on police breathalyzers, above a blood-alcohol level of 0.10, the state legal limit at the time.In the case of his DWI arrest, O'Rourke did not face prison time because he completed an alternative adjudication program. It's not clear why the attempted burglary charge was dropped in 1996 (we asked the O'Rourke campaign about this but didn't receive a response to that particular question in time for publication). However, we could find no evidence that O'Rourke's father had any role in either case, nor did the meme offer any evidence.Congressman O'Rourke's father Pat was the El Paso County judge until 1986 -- a kind of chief executive of the county's governing body, the Commissioners Court -- so he had not held office for nine years by the time of his son's attempted burglary arrest.O'Rourke violated 'insider trading' laws: The meme claimed:INSIDER TRADING VIOLATIONSAfter being sent a memo specifically prohibiting investment in Twitter's IPO [initial public offering], O'Rourke made a tidy one-day profit on it. When uncovered by a government watchdog, he quickly turned himself in. This violation of the STOCK Act (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) is apparently a habit, as there are several other instances of this behavior; he characterizes them as mistakes.Despite the meme's claim, O'Rourke has never been charged with, or convicted of, violating any laws related to insider trading, including the STOCK Act, which bars members of the U.S. Congress from benefiting from financial transactions made on the basis of information they received in their capacity as members of Congress.But this section of the meme does contain elements of truth in that -- after the matter was brought to light by a third party -- O'Rourke reported his potential violation of rules to the House Ethics Committee (for stock transactions he maintained were executed by his broker without his knowledge), and the matter was resolved without any charges being brought against him:U.S. Rep. Beto ORourke alerted the House Ethics Committee that he might have violated a new law restricting members of Congress from engaging in certain stock transactions.It is the first case to come before the committee involving a 2012 law that prohibits members of Congress from participating in initial public offerings, or IPOs, other than what is available to members of the public generally, said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Committee for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, a watchdog group.ORourke, a Democrat whose district covers a portion of western Texas, reported the possible violation after Legistorm, an online news site that tracks congressional issues, informed him that his Nov. 15 disclosure saying he participated in the Twitter IPO earlier in the month might indicate a violation of a 2012 law called the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act.The freshman congressman also reported that, through his stockbroker, he participated in six other initial public offerings this year. In an interview, ORourke said he didnt see a Nov. 5 memo from the House Ethics Committee warning members of Congress about participating in IPOs.On 27 November 2013, O'Rourke wrote on Facebook that the ethics committee had informed him they would consider the issue resolved once he sold off any remaining shares that he bought during any IPOs, and sent the U.S. Treasury a check equal to the amount he earned in profits from those IPO-related shares:Upon receiving the letter from the Committee today I instructed my broker to sell all remaining shares, which he did. I then sent a check for the full amount of the profit from all IPO trades this year to the U.S. Treasury by overnight mail. Copies of the trades and the check have been sent to the Ethics Committee.I apologize to the House of Representatives and to the people I represent for not exercising due diligence. I will be much more thorough in the future concerning financial transactions and do my best to ensure that I am in full compliance with all rules covering members of Congress.Records filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives show that O'Rourke bought between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of shares in Twitter on 7 November 2013 (the first day the company was traded on the stock market), before selling off between $1,000 and $15,000 in shares later that day.Records also indicate that on 27 November 2013, O'Rourke again sold off between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of Twitter shares "pursuant to the recommendations made by House Ethics Committee in a letter from 11/27/13."A condom full of "white powder" was found in O'Rourke's father's car: trueThe meme claimed:FATHER'S DRUG SCANDALO'Rourke's father, while county judge, had a 2-way radio installed in his Jeep. Installers discovered a condom packed with a "white powder" concealed in his vehicle and called police. Much to the dismay of investigating officers, the Captain on duty, a friend and political ally of O'Rourke, flushed the evidence down the toilet and dropped the charges. The Captain was subsequently suspended and tried for tampering with evidence.This section of the meme relates to incidents which took place in 1983, when Beto O'Rourke was 10 years old, and which had absolutely nothing to do with him.Nevertheless, it's true that in February 1983, El Paso County Sheriff's Captain Willie Hill told two police officers to get rid of a condom full of white powder which they had found in Pat O'Rourke's car while they were installing a radio in it. The officers suspected the powder to be heroin or cocaine, but the substance was never tested to determine its true nature.Hill was temporarily suspended but was reinstated after being acquitted on a misdemeanor charge of evidence tampering. (The prosecutor had earlier dropped a charge of misconduct against him.) Hill testified that he made a snap decision about the discovery of the powder, which he strongly suspected had been planted there to embarrass or undermine either O'Rourke or one of the officers installing the radio.O'Rourke and Hill were friends, as O'Rourke (then county judge) told the El Paso Times: "Because he's a good man, it would be an injustice if Willie were to suffer grievous consequences from this whole episode. You have an honest and honorable man implicated by pure fluke. And that's just damn right not fair."O'Rourke was involved in a family business that was prosecuted for tax violations: The meme claimed:FAMILY BUSINESS FEDERALLY PROSECUTEDO'Rourke's family business "Charlotte's Furniture," a store "Beto," his mother and sister are involved with, was charged in 2010 with altering records to avoid IRS reporting. Investigators found they accepted cash payments, in one instance over $630,000 from an unnamed individual (that's a LOT of furniture)! Found guilty on 15 counts, the sentence was a $250,000 fine and 5 years' probation. Around the time O'Rourke announced as a senate candidate, the business was shuttered and its records became unavailable. O'Rourke passes the prosecution off as a "mistake"; it's been covered, move along, nothing to see here.The meme got the basic facts right about the federal tax case against Charlotte's, but it falsely claimed that Congressman O'Rourke was personally "involved" in the company. He was not.In 2010, Charlotte's Inc., an El Paso furniture store company started by O'Rourke's grandmother in 1951, was convicted of "structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, a tax-related felony. The company was charged as a corporate entity, but the Congressman's mother, Melissa O'Rourke, acted as its authorized representative.The company pled guilty to accusations that it had restructured transactions in order to present relatively large cash payments as having been made in installments of less than $10,000. Anti-money laundering provisions of U.S. law require that a business reveal the identity of any individual who makes a cash payment above that threshold.In total, Charlotte's and its employees illegally restructured $630,000 in payments, all from one customer, in this way between May 2005 and October 2006. The identity of that customer is not known. U.S. District Court judge Kathleen Cardone gave a sentence of five years' probation and a $500,000 fine, with $250,000 of that suspended.In 2017, Melissa O'Rourke announced that she intended to close down the business but denied the decision was connected to her son's U.S. Senate campaign or the 2010 conviction.According to Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts records for 2017, Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with Charlotte's Inc., whose directors were Melissa O'Rourke and the Congressman's sister Charlotte O'Rourke.Records for 2005 and 2006 (when the I.R.S. reporting violations took place) as well as 2010 (when the conviction happened) show that Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with the company at those times, either.The Congressman is part owner of the property where Charlotte's was located. According to O'Rourke's 2013 congressional financial disclosure, his mother gifted him an ownership stake worth between $1 million and $5 million in Peppertree Square, a shopping center on North Mesa St. in El Paso.However, his part ownership of the Peppertree Square property (which does not appear to entail any management function in any of the businesses located there) did not accrue until 31 December 2012, more than six years after the conclusion of the I.R.S. reporting violations at Charlotte's.  One such meme, entitled "'Beto' Reality Check," was shared widely on Facebook in August 2018: meme   A spokesperson for O'Rourke's campaign described the meme as "factually incorrect in countless ways" and largely referred us to several existing news reports about the allegations. The following is our breakdown of the five sections contained in the meme. The meme claimed: NOT HISPANIC "Robert O'Rourke" became "Beto" for his political campaigns and on the ballot, a tactic that gives the false impression he's Latino, misleading voters in a state with many Hispanics. In fact, O'Rourke was known as "Beto" long before he entered political life, although his birth name is Robert and he appears to use both first names interchangeably. (For example, his July 2018 Federal Election Commission "Statement of Candidacy" lists his name as "Robert Beto O'Rourke.") Statement O'Rourke told CNN that his parents referred to him as Beto "from day one," and that it "just stuck." Others have noted that the name is likely derived from a pronunciation of the Spanish "Roberto," and O'Rourke himself described it as "a nickname for Robert in El Paso." (According to the U.S. Census Bureau, around 78 percent of El Paso county residents listed themselves as being of Mexican heritage in 2016.) CNN noted listed O'Rourke's family is of Irish heritage. According to the New York Times, his family "came over from Ireland four generations ago to work on the railroad." His father Pat O'Rourke was a prominent El Paso County official during the 1980s. New York Times A 1986 article about Pat O'Rourke in the El Paso Times referred to his then 14-year-old son as "Beto O'Rourke." In 1999, six years before O'Rourke ran for El Paso city council, the same newspaper referred to "web site designer Beto O'Rourke" in a short article about his I.T. business Stanton Street Design. article article After checking the archives of the El Paso Times, we found multiple references to "Beto O'Rourke" between 1986 and 2004, when O'Rourk was either a child or a businessman and had never run for political office. In March, the campaign of O'Rourke's Republican opponent, Ted Cruz, launched a radio jingle that poked fun at the name "Beto" and included the following lyrics: "I remember reading stories/Liberal Robert wanted to fit in/So he changed his name to 'Beto'/And hid it with a grin ...": FIRST LISTEN: our new 60-second statewide radio ad introducing our liberal opponent, Congressman Robert ORourke, to Texas voters. Help #KeepTexasRed: https://t.co/PVsiCtbbyL #CruzCrew #TXSen pic.twitter.com/OxK61gZ0ek #KeepTexasRed https://t.co/PVsiCtbbyL #CruzCrew #TXSen pic.twitter.com/OxK61gZ0ek  Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 7, 2018 March 7, 2018  The next day, O'Rourke posted a photograph of himself as a young boy, wearing a sweater with the nickname "Beto" stitched into it, establishing that, contrary to false accusation, he did not "change his name" for political reasons: pic.twitter.com/1IO1dgmCkv pic.twitter.com/1IO1dgmCkv  Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) March 7, 2018 March 7, 2018  The meme claimed: FELONY ARREST RECORD As an adult in his mid-20s, O'Rourke was caught breaking into the University of Texas El Paso. Charged with breaking and entering and burglary, he mysteriously avoided trial. A few years later, arrested for drunk driving, he again walked with a "deal." Being the song of a powerful, politically connected County Judge apparently has benefits. O'Rourke dismisses his felony convictions as "youthful pranks" and "mistakes"; it's old news, move along, nothing to see here. O'Rourke has indeed been arrested for burglary and drunk driving, a history which he has discussed several times over the course of his political career, as his spokesperson told us: "While charges were dismissed, this is something that Beto has always publicly addressed -- during his initial run for the city council, his run for Congress, in profiles written about him, during dozens of interviews, and at town halls across the state during this campaign." In a 27 August 2018 op-ed for the Houston Chronicle and  San Antonio Express-News, O'Rourke himself wrote: op-ed Twenty-three years ago I was arrested for attempted forcible entry after jumping a fence at the University of Texas at El Paso. I spent a night in the El Paso County Jail, was able to make bail the next day, and was released. Three years later, I was arrested for drunk driving -- a far more serious mistake for which there is no excuse. According to El Paso county jail records, O'Rourke was arrested for attempted burglary on 19 May 1995, when he was 22 years old. He was released from custody the same day. Court records show that the prosecutor dropped the charge in February 1996. records records O'Rourke was also arrested for driving while intoxicated on 27 September 1998, the day after his 26th birthday. He completed a "misdemeanor diversion program" (namely "DWI school") in October 1999, and the charge was dropped. arrested In August 2018, the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News cited police reports, including a witness account, which suggested that the incident leading to O'Rourke's DWI arrest was relatively serious and involved a collision with another vehicle and a possible attempt by O'Rourke to leave the scene: cited State and local police reports obtained by the Chronicle and Express-News show that ORourke was driving drunk at what a witness called a high rate of speed in a 75 mph zone on Interstate 10 about a mile from the New Mexico border. He lost control and hit a truck, sending his car careening across the center median into oncoming lanes. The witness, who stopped at the scene, later told police that ORourke had tried to drive away from the scene. O'Rourke recorded a 0.136 and 0.134 on police breathalyzers, above a blood-alcohol level of 0.10, the state legal limit at the time. In the case of his DWI arrest, O'Rourke did not face prison time because he completed an alternative adjudication program. It's not clear why the attempted burglary charge was dropped in 1996 (we asked the O'Rourke campaign about this but didn't receive a response to that particular question in time for publication). However, we could find no evidence that O'Rourke's father had any role in either case, nor did the meme offer any evidence. Congressman O'Rourke's father Pat was the El Paso County judge until 1986 -- a kind of chief executive of the county's governing body, the Commissioners Court -- so he had not held office for nine years by the time of his son's attempted burglary arrest. judge governing body The meme claimed: INSIDER TRADING VIOLATIONS After being sent a memo specifically prohibiting investment in Twitter's IPO [initial public offering], O'Rourke made a tidy one-day profit on it. When uncovered by a government watchdog, he quickly turned himself in. This violation of the STOCK Act (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) is apparently a habit, as there are several other instances of this behavior; he characterizes them as mistakes. Despite the meme's claim, O'Rourke has never been charged with, or convicted of, violating any laws related to insider trading, including the STOCK Act, which bars members of the U.S. Congress from benefiting from financial transactions made on the basis of information they received in their capacity as members of Congress. STOCK Act But this section of the meme does contain elements of truth in that -- after the matter was brought to light by a third party -- O'Rourke reported his potential violation of rules to the House Ethics Committee (for stock transactions he maintained were executed by his broker without his knowledge), and the matter was resolved without any charges being brought against him: violation U.S. Rep. Beto ORourke alerted the House Ethics Committee that he might have violated a new law restricting members of Congress from engaging in certain stock transactions. It is the first case to come before the committee involving a 2012 law that prohibits members of Congress from participating in initial public offerings, or IPOs, other than what is available to members of the public generally, said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Committee for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, a watchdog group. ORourke, a Democrat whose district covers a portion of western Texas, reported the possible violation after Legistorm, an online news site that tracks congressional issues, informed him that his Nov. 15 disclosure saying he participated in the Twitter IPO earlier in the month might indicate a violation of a 2012 law called the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act. The freshman congressman also reported that, through his stockbroker, he participated in six other initial public offerings this year. In an interview, ORourke said he didnt see a Nov. 5 memo from the House Ethics Committee warning members of Congress about participating in IPOs. On 27 November 2013, O'Rourke wrote on Facebook that the ethics committee had informed him they would consider the issue resolved once he sold off any remaining shares that he bought during any IPOs, and sent the U.S. Treasury a check equal to the amount he earned in profits from those IPO-related shares: wrote Upon receiving the letter from the Committee today I instructed my broker to sell all remaining shares, which he did. I then sent a check for the full amount of the profit from all IPO trades this year to the U.S. Treasury by overnight mail. Copies of the trades and the check have been sent to the Ethics Committee. I apologize to the House of Representatives and to the people I represent for not exercising due diligence. I will be much more thorough in the future concerning financial transactions and do my best to ensure that I am in full compliance with all rules covering members of Congress. Records filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives show that O'Rourke bought between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of shares in Twitter on 7 November 2013 (the first day the company was traded on the stock market), before selling off between $1,000 and $15,000 in shares later that day. filed Records also indicate that on 27 November 2013, O'Rourke again sold off between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of Twitter shares "pursuant to the recommendations made by House Ethics Committee in a letter from 11/27/13." indicate The meme claimed: FATHER'S DRUG SCANDAL O'Rourke's father, while county judge, had a 2-way radio installed in his Jeep. Installers discovered a condom packed with a "white powder" concealed in his vehicle and called police. Much to the dismay of investigating officers, the Captain on duty, a friend and political ally of O'Rourke, flushed the evidence down the toilet and dropped the charges. The Captain was subsequently suspended and tried for tampering with evidence. This section of the meme relates to incidents which took place in 1983, when Beto O'Rourke was 10 years old, and which had absolutely nothing to do with him. Nevertheless, it's true that in February 1983, El Paso County Sheriff's Captain Willie Hill told two police officers to get rid of a condom full of white powder which they had found in Pat O'Rourke's car while they were installing a radio in it. The officers suspected the powder to be heroin or cocaine, but the substance was never tested to determine its true nature. Hill was temporarily suspended but was reinstated after being acquitted on a misdemeanor charge of evidence tampering. (The prosecutor had earlier dropped a charge of misconduct against him.) Hill testified that he made a snap decision about the discovery of the powder, which he strongly suspected had been planted there to embarrass or undermine either O'Rourke or one of the officers installing the radio. being acquitted O'Rourke and Hill were friends, as O'Rourke (then county judge) told the El Paso Times: "Because he's a good man, it would be an injustice if Willie were to suffer grievous consequences from this whole episode. You have an honest and honorable man implicated by pure fluke. And that's just damn right not fair." El Paso Times The meme claimed: FAMILY BUSINESS FEDERALLY PROSECUTED O'Rourke's family business "Charlotte's Furniture," a store "Beto," his mother and sister are involved with, was charged in 2010 with altering records to avoid IRS reporting. Investigators found they accepted cash payments, in one instance over $630,000 from an unnamed individual (that's a LOT of furniture)! Found guilty on 15 counts, the sentence was a $250,000 fine and 5 years' probation. Around the time O'Rourke announced as a senate candidate, the business was shuttered and its records became unavailable. O'Rourke passes the prosecution off as a "mistake"; it's been covered, move along, nothing to see here. The meme got the basic facts right about the federal tax case against Charlotte's, but it falsely claimed that Congressman O'Rourke was personally "involved" in the company. He was not. In 2010, Charlotte's Inc., an El Paso furniture store company started by O'Rourke's grandmother in 1951, was convicted of "structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, a tax-related felony. The company was charged as a corporate entity, but the Congressman's mother, Melissa O'Rourke, acted as its authorized representative. felony The company pled guilty to accusations that it had restructured transactions in order to present relatively large cash payments as having been made in installments of less than $10,000. Anti-money laundering provisions of U.S. law require that a business reveal the identity of any individual who makes a cash payment above that threshold. restructured provisions In total, Charlotte's and its employees illegally restructured $630,000 in payments, all from one customer, in this way between May 2005 and October 2006. The identity of that customer is not known. U.S. District Court judge Kathleen Cardone gave a sentence of five years' probation and a $500,000 fine, with $250,000 of that suspended. sentence In 2017, Melissa O'Rourke announced that she intended to close down the business but denied the decision was connected to her son's U.S. Senate campaign or the 2010 conviction. announced According to Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts records for 2017, Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with Charlotte's Inc., whose directors were Melissa O'Rourke and the Congressman's sister Charlotte O'Rourke. records Records for 2005 and 2006 (when the I.R.S. reporting violations took place) as well as 2010 (when the conviction happened) show that Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with the company at those times, either. Records The Congressman is part owner of the property where Charlotte's was located. According to O'Rourke's 2013 congressional financial disclosure, his mother gifted him an ownership stake worth between $1 million and $5 million in Peppertree Square, a shopping center on North Mesa St. in El Paso. disclosure However, his part ownership of the Peppertree Square property (which does not appear to entail any management function in any of the businesses located there) did not accrue until 31 December 2012, more than six years after the conclusion of the I.R.S. reporting violations at Charlotte's. O'Rourke, Robert Beto.  "Statement of Candidacy."
  Federal Election Commission.  9 July 2018. Bradner, Eric.  "With Primary Ending, Cruz Takes Opening Shot at Beto O'Rourke's Name."
  CNN.  7 March 2018. Stanton, John.  "Juarez's Biggest Booster Is an Irish-American Congressman."
  BuzzFeed News.  14 October 2014. Draper, Robert.  "Texas, Three Ways."
  The New York Times.  14 November 2014. Scharrer, Gary.  "O'Rourke Goes Out Talking."
  The El Paso Times.  8 December 1986. The El Paso Times.  "Consumers Dial Up Web Site."
  16 June 1999. O'Rourke, Beto.  "Texas Should Lead the Way on True Criminal Justice Reform."
  The Houston Chronicle.  27 August 2018. Diaz, Kevin.  "Police Reports Detail Beto O'Rourke's 1998 DWI Arrest."
  The Houston Chronicle.  31 August 2018. Cruz, Laura.  "Friends, Family Say Goodbye to O'Rourke."
  The El Paso Times.  7 July 2001. The White House.  "Fact Sheet: The STOCK Act -- Bans Members of Congress from Insider Trading."
  4 April 2012. The El Paso Times.  "Congressman May Have Broken Ethics Rules with Twitter Stock Purchase."
  26 November 2013. Landis, David.  "Jurors Decided Hill Negligent, Not Criminal."
  The El Paso Times.  23 December 1983. Scharrer, Gary.  "O'Rourke Expresses Sorrow Over Charge."
  The El Paso Times.  29 October 1983. Legal Information Institute.  "U.S. Code, Title 31, Subtitle IV, Chapter 53, Subchapter II, Section 5324 -- Structuring Transactions to Evade Reporting Requirement Prohibite."
  Cornell Law School.  Accessed 31 August 2018. U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, El Paso Division.  "U.S.A. vs Charlotte's Inc. -- Information."
  4 May 2010. U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, El Paso Division.  "U.S.A. vs Charlotte's Inc. -- Amended Judgment."
  8 June 2010. Villa, Pablo.  "Charlotte's Furniture Store to Close This Year, Owner Says."
  The El Paso Times.  4 August 2017. Correction [4 September 2018]: This article has been updated to more accurately describe the role of El Paso County judge. In February 2021, a video went viral on TikTok that supposedly showed a handcuffed man saving a choking police officer's life. The video, which supposedly came from the cop car's dashcam, racked up more than 26 million views within a few days of its initial posting by @kd_k97:   There are strong reasons to doubt this is a genuine video of a handcuffed man saving a choking police officer's life. More likely, it's a staged video that was created as a sort of "morality play" asking the viewer to ponder what they would do in this situation.  While there are no explicit disclaimers labeling this footage as a scripted moment as opposed to a genuine incident captured on a police car's dashcam, there are a number of indications that this video could be more accurately captioned as the former.  For one, this "dashcam" video did not originate with a police department, a news article, or any other official source. Rather, this video first went viral on TikTok.  This is also just one part of a three-part video series. Part one showed the initial confrontation, involving a Black man being stopped and handcuffed after reports of "suspicious activity." Part two shows the handcuffed man saving the cop's life after he starts to choke. Part three shows the Black man retrieving the cuffs after saving the cop's life, giving them back to the police officer and preparing to be arrested again, before the cop decides to reward his good deed and let him go. Part one showed Part two shows Part three shows While this may be an effective way to break down and share a scripted performance, this would be an odd way to release a genuine police dashcam video.  We have not seen any news reports about this alleged incident, nor have we found any "official" versions of this video from a police department. On social media, users also noted that the officer's "costume" didn't seem authentic. For instance, he doesn't appear to be wearing a weapon and the "bullet proof vest" appears a bit flimsy.  TikTok user kd_k97 has not commented on the authenticity of the video. However, they did respond to a comment that highlighted the intended message of the video:   We reached out to KD97 for more information, and will update this article accordingly. Donald Trump thepolitician was a relatively newpersonality in 2016, as many people had already known him for years asa real estate mogul and reality televisionstar. His longtime presence in American pop culture made him an especially rich source of urban legends, misinformation, and memes. In February 2016, the above-reproduced an image-based rumor claimed that Trump's Las Vegas hotel lacked a casino because the Nevada Gaming Commission had deemed Trump not "trustworthy" enough to qualify for one:  We located one possible source for the claim in a 23 February 1987New York Timesarticle.According to piece, which was nearly 30 years old, Trump had difficulty in the 1980s withattempts to expand his empire west: article Last September Mr. Trump bought a 4.9 percent stake in the Holiday Corporation, which operates casinos in Atlantic City and Nevada. He sold the stake at a $35 million profit in November and bought into Bally. Mr. Trump recently applied for a Nevada casino license, but Paul Bible, chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission at the time, said that Nevada regulators would look askance at any ''greenmailer'' who hurts casino companies operating in Nevada by acquiring large quantities of stock in order to sell the stake back to the company at a premium. Mr. Trump's sale of the Holiday shares was on the open market, after takeover rumors boosted the market price. In court papers filed for the Camden hearing, Mr. Trump's lawyers denied that their client had invested in Bally for the purpose of selling to the company at a premium. ''Mr. Trump has never been, and is not presently, a greenmailer or corporate raider,'' his counterclaim said. Seventeen years later, Trump's activity in Vegas again made headlines. A February2004Las Vegas Review-Journalarticleincluded information about the Nevada Gaming Commission's view of Trump at the time: article Trump and his companies, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc. and the THCR Holding Corp., were required to be licensed by gaming regulators in Nevada after he purchased 358,000 shares of Riviera parent Riviera Holdings Corp. The purchase, made [in or around early 2003], put [Trump]over a threshold requiring investigation and licensure by Nevada gaming regulators. Trump and the other officers of his companies will appear at the Gaming Commission meeting in the capital on Feb. 19 for final approval. Gaming Control Board Chairman Dennis Neilander said the investigations of Trump and his executive team gave the board no need to ask any personal questions at the hearing. He called the applications "very clean" and said he was impressed with the backgrounds of some of Trump's personnel. Members of the control board asked Trump and his executives about problems with minors gaining entry to his New Jersey properties, but Chief Operating Officer Mark Brown said the company is making every effort to control the problem. Trump has talked for years about moving into the Las Vegas casino industry, but his expected licensing by the end of the month will make it much easier to put deals together. Laterthat month,the Associated Press reported that Trump was approved by Nevada state regulators to hold a stake in the Riviera hotel and casino: reported The Gaming Commission approved Trump and companies that he controls as part of a registration and suitability-finding process that would speed up any actual casino licensing in the future. Repeating his Feb. 4 comments to the commission's investigative arm, the Gaming Control Board, Trump said "it's an honor to be here." He said he had lost many deals in previous years because of a state licensing process that can take more than a year. Trump paid about $2 million for shares in Riviera Holdings Corp. That put him barely over a 10 percent threshold subjecting investors to investigation and licensure by casino regulators ...The move was designed to start the state licensing process, Trump said, adding that he has little contact with Riviera executives and doesn't intend to expand on his involvement with the property. Asked about his building plans, Trump said he favors a project such as his Trump towers in Manhattan, Chicago and elsewhere. There's "not a great chance" that it would include New Frontier owner Phil Ruffin of Las Vegas, he added. Trump's television career and presidential bid probablydisrupted any potential ventures in Nevada between 2004 and 2016, but on 25 February 2016, anarticlein theWall Street Journalspeculated thatTrumpwasrevisitingpossibilities in Vegas: article Las Vegas casino owner Phil Ruffin said in an interview this week that he is hoping to build a casino with Mr. Trump next to the luxury high-rise Trump Hotel, which the two co-own on the Strip. He said the plans are still very preliminary, but he expects to accelerate them this year, and the Trump Organization would be a 50% owner. There are still no architectural renderings, land surveys or other concrete proposals, he added... [Son Eric]Trump said in an interview that various possible expansion plans have been discussed, including the casino and a new convention space. Nothing has been solidified, he said, adding that the family is focused on other matters including the elder Mr. Trumps presidential campaign and developing hotels elsewhere. The proposed casino would be on a four-acre parcel next to the Trump Hotel, which Mr. Ruffin and Donald Trump opened in 2008 on land that Mr. Ruffin owned. The site is currently a parking lot for the hotel; Mr. Ruffin said the casino would be connected to the existing hotel ...Mr. Ruffin said that he is now contemplating a $100 million casino, with the Trumps as 50% partners. ...Mr. Ruffin said it is unclear if Mr. Trump or his family members would need to undergo the rigorous process of securing a license from the Nevada Gaming Control Board ...Mr. Trump owned casinos in Atlantic City for decades but never had any gambling interests in Nevada. We were unable to locate any information to substantiate the claim that Trump was ever denied a gaming license or that his Las Vegas hotel was originally planned as a casino. It was true Trump engaged in legal battles in the 1980s aroundbuying casino stock. But in 2004, Trump was approved for the initial stages of casino-based development, and there was no indication he was everdeclined a Nevada Gaming Commission license based on whether he was "trustworthy." On 2 March 2016, the Nevada Gaming Commission replied to our inquiry, stating that "Donald Trump was licensed by the Nevada Gaming Commission in February 2004." A meme of uncertain origin alerted readers in March 2019 to the growth of the Muslim population within the U.S., warning that "in twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President":  The literal interpretation of this message  that by the year 2040 Muslims will comprise a large enough proportion of the U.S. population they could elect a particular person to the U.S. presidency regardless of how the rest of the country voted  is woefully wrong according to current estimates and projections. The Pew Research Center estimated in January 2018 that about 3.45 million Muslims of all ages were living in the U.S. in 2017, constituting about 1.1% of the total U.S. population. Pew also projected that by 2050  well more than the 20-year period posited by the meme  the U.S. Muslim population would reach 8.1 million, or 2.1% of the nations total population. estimated While 2.1% of the total population may constitute a significant voting bloc, obviously such a bloc would not be nearly large enough to determine the results of a nation-wide election all on its own. Even under the United States' electoral college system for electing presidents, which does not directly depend on popular vote totals, a candidate would still require the support of at least 23 percent of voters to reach the White House. Even that modest figure is more than 10 times greater than the projected Muslim proportion of the U.S. population in 2050. electoral college Moreover, even the modest Muslim population is at a disadvantage when it comes to the electoral college system, as Muslims are not evenly distributed around the U.S. According to Pew, some metropolitan areas such as Washington, D.C., have sizable Muslim communities, and "certain states, such as New Jersey, are home to two or three times as many Muslim adults per capita as the national average." But other states are home to far fewer Muslims. Regardless, without radical changes in immigration laws and patterns (or fecundity), it's simply not plausible that "in twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President." Even if such a huge shift in the religious make-up of the U.S. population were possible in such a relatively short timeframe, it's unclear what readers could or should do in response to the meme's exhortation for them "to make a difference." Repeal the First Amendment's religious liberty protections in order to bar Muslims from voting? Encourage non-Muslim women to engage in a "baby race" to out-populate Muslims? Pass legislation against demographics? For those truly curious about Muslim voting patterns in the U.S., we note the Pew Research Center reported in November 2018 that, "Many more U.S. Muslims identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party than the GOP (66 % vs. 13 %), but the share who are Republican has held steady over the last 10 years, including after the election of President Donald Trump ..." So Muslim voters could conceivably tip an election in favor of a particular major-party candidate in conjunction with that party's base of voters, but they will not be sufficiently numerous to elect a candidate on their own any time in the next few decades. voting patterns https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/03/new-estimates-show-u-s-muslim-population-continues-to-grow/ https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/06/republicans-account-for-a-small-but-steady-share-of-u-s-muslims/ Mohamed, Besheer.  "Republicans Account for a Small But Steady Share of U.S. Muslims."
  Pew Research Center.  6 November 2018. Mohamed, Besheer.  "New Estimates Show U.S. Muslim Population Continues to Grow."
  Pew Research Center.  3 January 2018. Kurtzleben, Danielle.  "How to Win the Presidency with 23 Percent of the Popular Vote."
  NPR.  2 November 2016. FACT CHECK: Was Nick Hanauer's 2012 TED Talk about income inequality banned because it was "too politically controversial" to release?  Claim: A 2012 TED Talk video featuring wealthy entrepreneur Nick Hanauer speaking on the subject of income inequality was banned because it was deemed "too politically controversial."    Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2015]   There are several articles that claim "TED Banned This Billionaire For Exposing Capitalism's Biggest Lie" or some similar wording. This is about the speech of Nick Hanauer, apparently a Seattle venture capitalist. The language of this sensational claim makes me suspicious, as does the unlikelihood of the claim. Is it true? What is the source of the rumour?   Origins: On 1 March 2012, Seattle-based venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer participated in the global conference series of "TED Talks." The video of his six-minute talk, widely circulated since its release, captured him addressing a spate of issues pertaining to income inequality and capitalism from the perspective of a very wealthy individual:  Not long after Hanauer's March 2012 talk was filmed, rumors began circulating claiming that TED had deliberately suppressed the clip due to its potentially offensive (to rich people) nature. On 16 May 2012, National Journal published an article contending that TED's organizers had quashed the groundbreaking talk because its content was simply too controversial to release, an odd assertion considering the 2011 emergence of a well-known (and widely reported upon) protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street): article Occupy Wall Street TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer  the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com  to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic  specifically, Hanauer's contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America's true "job creators." "We've had it backward for the last 30 years," he said. "Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich." You can't find that speech online. TED officials told Hanauer initially they were eager to distribute it. "I want to put this talk out into the world!" one of them wrote him in an e-mail in late April. But early this month they changed course, telling Hanauer that his remarks were too "political" and too controversial for posting. In the years since 2012, Hanauer's TED clip has paradoxically been viewed millions of times while remaining the focus of articles describing it as described as "banned," "too controversial," or the speech TED "doesn't want you to see." While it's difficult to determine the accuracy of statements about its online availability in March 2012, the clip clearly became widely available and was frequently viewed on sharing sites such as YouTube shortly thereafter, and it has remained popular ever since. But in 2015, many social media users continued to assert Hanauer's talk was banned: Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer  Rich People Dont Create Jobs (VIDEO) #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48 #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48  Hannah Kennison (@HannahKennison1) July 6, 2015 July 6, 2015   Nick Hanauer on His Banned TED Talk & Why the Middle Class are the Job Creators https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ  Jonathan Goodman (@GoodmanJonathan) July 20, 2015 July 20, 2015   if you are interested in #economics, then it is worth listeningBanned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer 'Rich people don't... https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g #economics https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g  Mudassar Bashir (@mb62020) June 15, 2015 June 15, 2015   Nick Hanauer too politically controversial: rich people dont create jobs, consumers do - via Reese Jones https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz  VritTV (@Verite_TV) June 11, 2015 June 11, 2015   In late May 2012 a contributor to TED's forums specifically asked why Hanauer's talk had been "banned," prompting a lengthy discussion during the course of which individuals affiliated with TED linked to a statement issued by TED curator Chris Anderson on why Hanauer's talk had not been promoted.     The service by which Anderson published the explanation (Posterous) shuttered in April 2013, taking Anderson's remarks with it. However, a cached version revealed the date (17 May 2012), title ("TED and inequality: The real story"), and content of Anderson's rebuttal. asked shuttered version Anderson opened by stating that "TED was subject to a story so misleading it would be funny... except it successfully launched an aggressive online campaign against us." He described an ensuing "firestorm of outrage" on sites including Reddit and Huffington Post, wherein TED was "accused of being cowards ... in the pay of our corporate partners ... [and] the despicable puppets of the Republican party." Anderson's account of the decision not to release Hanauer's talk differed dramatically from the circulating rumors: Here's what actually happened. At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality. The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. (The talk is explicitly attacking what he calls an article of faith for Republicans. He criticizes Democrats too, but only for not also attacking this idea more often.) And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance, such as the apparent ruling out of entrepreneurial initiative as a root cause of job creation. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings  some enthusiastic, others critical. At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media. We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets. As Anderson noted, income inequality was the subject of at least one [uncensored] TED Talk video in 2011. video Much of the rumor regarding Nick Hanauer's purportedly banned TED Talk segment hinged upon the differing assertions made by TED and Nick Hanauer at the time of the controversy in 2012. However, Anderson's claims (that TED curators are tasked with promoting only the most impactful clips) weren't implausible or suggestive of a coverup. It would be difficult to determine whether Hanauer or anyone working on his behalf threatened a public relations offensive, but TED maintained that quality and not content was behind the decision not to feature the video (which clearly was not "banned" from public view but was simply not promoted by TED). Since the time of the initial debate over whether or why the TED talk was "banned," the clip has been distributed both by TED and other outlets and widely viewed by a large online audience. In August 2014, Hanauer returned for a TED Talk titled "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming." titled While it's true that TED opted not to promote Hanauer's initial appearance (during which he discussed income inequality) his segment was not banned, and the organization cited his lack of substantive content alongside his primary reliance on partisan ideas as the reason it was not curated alongside other featured TED Talks. At no point during the immediate controversy did TED appear to deny the existence of the video, remove it from the Internet, interfere with its distribution, or otherwise thwart the ideas advocated by Hanauer from spreading. The group simply chose initially not to promote the clip (as they do for a large number of TED Talks) in favor of other content selected by their curators. Last updated:  27July 2015 Originally published: 27July 2015 On July 25, 2010, David Gregory, the host of NBC'sMeet the Press, asked his roundtable panelists to consider Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege, aWall Street Journalop-ed column from July 22, in which Sen. James Webb, D-Va., argues against federal affirmative action laws.I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship, Webb wrote. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white. In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.Marc Morial -- president of the National Urban League, a century-old civil rights organization -- was one panelist who took the challenge, arguing that non-whites continue to experience disadvantages compared to whites.I don't agree that Latinos and Asians have not suffered discrimination in this country or that Native Americans have not suffered discrimination in this country, Morial said. I think the question is, how do you target and tailor policies that are going to help all economically and socially disadvantaged people. And it's a fair debate to have, but it also needs to be positive with facts. Look at the Latino unemployment rate. It's higher than the white rate. The black rate is higher than the Latino rate. So to suggest that there are not disparities that affect the Latino community, that affect the Native American community, most in depth, the African-American community, we've got to have the discussion that Jim Webb wants to have. We have facts, real facts, that give a picture of how life is in this nation.We won't take sides on Webb's proposal to end policies that provide race-based advantages, a topic that inspires passions on both sides, but which isn't a checkable fact. Instead, we'll focus on the narrower question of whether Morial is accurate on the question of comparative unemployment rates for whites, blacks and Latinos.The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates seasonally adjusted unemployment rates by race and ethnicity. We found that in June 2010, the white unemployment rate was 8.6 percent. The black unemployment rate was 15.4 percent, and the Hispanic/Latino rate was 12.4.So Morial is correct that the Latino unemployment rate is higher than the white rate and that the black rate is higher than the Latino rate.Though it falls beyond the boundaries of our fact-check, we'll note one other point from the statistics. Morial argued that Latinos and Asian Americans have suffered discrimination in the United States, and we think most people would agree with that at least as a historical matter. But if you look at the unemployment rate for Asians, it's 7.7 percent. That's actually lower than the rate for whites. (Technically, the BLS only calculates a non-seasonally-adjusted rate for Asians, but the comparable rate for whites is still higher at 8.7 percent. )Still, as we indicated, Morial made no specific claim about unemployment among Asian-Americans, and for the groups that he did mention -- whites, blacks and Latinos -- his numbers were accurate. So we rate his comment True. Claim:  Wal-Mart is trying out products embedded with RFID tracking chips.  Example:  [Starrett, 2003] BIG BROTHER COMES TO WAL-MART  Starting this week, the nation's largest discount retailer will quietly begin selling tracking-chipped products to clueless shoppers. The first volley in their war against our privacy is set to start at their Brockton, Massachusetts store.  Wal-Mart will put Radio Frequency I.D. sensors on shelves stocked with RFID-tagged Gillette products, but they'd rather you didn't know about it, because, hey, you might not like it, and then you might make noise and then they'd have a big PR mess on their hands.  You might even stop buying Gillette products or, say, refuse to shop at Wal-Mart.  These chips, researched at M.I.T.'s Auto-ID Center are about the size of a grain of sand. Chipsters say the technology will only be used to help retailers keep track of inventory  like bar codes. But privacy-loving consumers question the very concept of a device that sends out radio waves to "readers" that not only identify the article, but where and with whom it's going.  [Click here to view rest of article] here Origins:  One of the keys to the success of giant retailing chains such as Wal-Mart has been the advancement of information technology which allows for tight control of inventory.  The ability to quickly and accurately track the movement of product through their stores enables retailers to ensure that customers don't find a wanted item out of stock, while avoiding the spoilage and costly inefficiencies that come with keeping too much unsold inventory on hand.  These improvements lower retailers' operating costs, and the savings are (theoretically) passed along to consumers in the form of lower  prices. The adoption of the Universal Product Code, or UPC (more commonly known as the "bar code"), in the 1970s was one of the most significant steps in automating the tracking of inventory.  With every product assigned a unique code (encoded in bar form on the packaging) which could be read by a scanner and matched up with information stored in a database, retailers could eliminate the costly and time-consuming processes of individually price-tagging every single item and manually counting items to determine the amount of inventory on hand; instead, prices could be read by scanners at the point of sale, and purchases could be tracked automatically and the number of items sold subtracted from stock-on-hand to calculate current inventory levels. UPC A more recent advance in inventory control has been the development of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology.  Described as "bar codes on steroids," tiny RFID chips are being embedded in products (or their packaging) to assist retailers with Automatic Identification and Data Capture (AIDC).  The RFID chips, when triggered by sensors, emit short bursts of identifying data streamed via radio waves; this system is a significant improvement over bar coding system for a number of reasons, including: RFID  RFID chips can store much more information than bar codes.  RFID chips are a read/write technology, so more information can be added to them as needed.  RFID chips don't require line-of-sight proximity (i.e., the information they store can be read even when products are still encased in boxes or crates).  RFID chips are more robust (i.e., not subject to problems caused by tearing, creasing, or alteration) than bar coding. Most important, perhaps, RFID chips can enable the tracking of individual pieces of merchandise.  That is, rather than simply identifying an item as a box of Cheerios (as bar codes do), an RFID chip can uniquely identify a particular box of Cheerios and enable it to be tracked all the way through the sales chain, from the warehouse to a consumer's shopping cart.  This level of uniqueness in tracking can, for example, aid in the removal of expired merchandise from store shelves or assist in locating items designated as part of a product recall. The announcement in June 2003 that Gillette would be trying out some of their RFID-tagged products (such as batteries, razors, oral care products) in cooperation with a Brockton, Massachusetts, Wal-Mart prompted the article by Mary Starrett quoted above, a dire "Big Brother" warning insinuating that RFID tags would not necessarily be disabled at the point of purchase and could be used to track items even after consumers had purchased them and taken them home.  Ms. Starrett also suggested that the Brockton store was chosen for this experiment because "the store's customers are typically lower income minorities who'd be less likely to be aware of the tracking devices, and even less likely to make a fuss about them." (RFID tags have no built-in batteries or power supplies; they're activated by radio waves sent out from RFID readers which emit just enough power to trigger the tags and have a limited range limit, so Orwellian nightmare scenarios involving avaricious corporations tracking the locations of every one of their products all over the globe are not yet a reality.) The wireless inventory control system trial referenced in this particular 2003 warning did not take place.  On 9 July 2003, CNET news reported that Wal-Mart had canceled it: canceled "The shelf was never completely installed," Wal-Mart spokesman Tom Williams said. "We didn't want it. Any materials that were there (in Brockton) were removed. We never had products with chips in them." In July 2010, news accounts stated that Wal-Mart would soon be placing removable RFID "smart tags" on individual garments such as jeans and underwear in order to optimize stocking and inventory control procedures (and, if the results were promising, the company would eventually roll out RFID-tagging with other products as well).  Privacy advocates responded by again raising concerns that the RFID technology could be used not just for inventory purposes, but for intrusive customer-tracking activities: While the tags can be removed from clothing and packages, they can't be turned off, and they are trackable. Some privacy advocates hypothesize that unscrupulous marketers or criminals will be able to drive by consumers' homes and scan their garbage to discover what they have recently bought. They also worry that retailers will be able to scan customers who carry new types of personal ID cards as they walk through a store, without their knowledge. Several states, including Washington and New York, have begun issuing enhanced driver's licenses that contain radio- frequency tags with unique ID numbers, to make border crossings easier for frequent travelers. Some privacy advocates contend that retailers could theoretically scan people with such licenses as they make purchases, combine the info with their credit card data, and then know the person's identity the next time they stepped into the store. Wal-Mart tried to allay fears by noting that it was notifying customers about the RFID tags, that the tags would be easily removable, and that the tags themselves contain no personally identifying information: Wal-Mart is demanding that suppliers add the tags to removable labels or packaging instead of embedding them in clothes, to minimize fears that they could be used to track people's movements. It also is posting signs informing customers about the tags. "Concerns about privacy are valid, but in this instance, the benefits far outweigh any concerns," says Sanjay Sarma, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "The tags don't have any personal information. They are essentially barcodes with serial numbers attached. And you can easily remove them." Additional Information: Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering  (CASPIAN)  Last updated:  25 July 2010    Gaither, Chris.  "Tiny Tracking Chips Surface in Retail Use."   The Boston Globe.  9 June 2003.     Shim, Richard.  "Wal-Mart to Throw Its Weight Behind RFID."   CNET News.com.  5 June 2003.     Shim, Richard and Alorie Gilbert.  "Wal-Mart Cancels 'Smart Shelf' Trial."   CNET News.com.  9 July 2003. Digital artist Alex Lex's Facebook page is full of surreal images showcasing exotic animals in various locations around North Carolina. Regular visitors to the site are likely aware that these images are digital creations, not genuine photographs, but the realistic qualities of the work can easily fool the uninitiated. images That was exactly the case on 18 February 2018, when an image was posted showing an enormous shark that purportedly washed up on a North Carolina beach: posted   This post was shared tens of thousands of times and many viewers unfamiliar with Lex's body of work believed that this was a genuine photograph.  However, that was not the case. This is a composite of at least two different photographs. The image of the shark was taken by photographer Jack Cohen in September 2015: photographer   Cohen also commented on the hoax image: commented Hi everyone, this guy is ripping off my original shark photo and trying to take it as his own. It is now going viral and any help you can lend in commenting on his photo that I am the original photographer and that this is copyright infringement would be really appreciated! Thank you! In September 2017, Lex posted an image purportedly showing a terrifyingly huge wave crashing down on Jennette's Pier during Hurricane Jose; that image, too, was fake.  fake