Facebook Responds to President Biden's Criticism

Facebook is on the defensive after President Biden said the company is “killing people.” The president blamed Facebook for not managing misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine and, as a result, causing more deaths: “Look, the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated. And they’re killing people.”

President Biden later softened his message, saying that information from about a dozen people is wrongly influencing people’s decisions: “Facebook isn’t killing people; these 12 people are out there giving misinformation. Anyone listening to it is getting hurt by it. It’s killing people. It’s bad information.”

In response, Facebook published a statement on its website, “Moving Past the Finger Pointing.” The writer, Guy Rosen, VP of Integrity, offers several points of evidence. He mentions partnerships with universities, the high vaccination rate among Facebook users (85%), and measures the company has taken, including promoting “authoritative information” and labeling “debunked” content.

Rosen disputes what is perhaps President Biden’s implied claim: that Facebook is the reason he missed his goal of having 70% of Americans vaccinated by July 4.

A New York Times Daily podcast analyzes the arguments and finds strengths and weaknesses on both sides. The reasons people don’t get vaccinated are complicated. At the same time, the reporter concludes, Facebook could do more to prevent the spread of misinformation.

This story is a good example of persuasion—and politics and business.

Clear Line Charts

A New York Times opinion article illustrates the power of the line chart. With the title, “This Is Tax Evasion, Plain and Simple,” the author describes the U.S. corporate rate over time and compared to other countries.

The authors argue that countries have reduced corporate rates to compete for businesses, and over time, the rate has become too low. The chart at right compares the U.S. to other countries, while the chart below shows the change in U.S. wage and corporate taxes since 1950.

Additional charts show that companies have moved money to tax havens abroad, but economies and workers have not benefitted.

An economist and a writer and graphics editor paired up to produce the article. We see the influence of both—the data, plain language, and charts paint a vivid picture.

Persuading Wall Street

The Wall Street Journal describes a hedge-fund manager’s decision to convince Wall Street investors to improve Exxon’s board oversight. A former coal mine owner, Christopher James spent $250 of personal funds to rally support from other fund managers and win three board seats to encourage environmental, social, and governance (ESG) changes at the company.

Exxon was vulnerable, and the timing was right. James created an organization, Engine, which wrote an open letter to Exxon and shareholders. The demands include “putting the Company on a path to net zero total emissions by 2050.”

James says his inspiration came from a conversation with his children:

The hedge-fund manager’s school-aged sons asked him how he could consider himself an environmentalist if he invested in energy companies, and Mr. James said he struggled with his explanation.

“As I was listening to myself talk, I thought `I am really splitting hairs on this.’” One of his sons, he said, “had this look on his face where his forehead wrinkled. He didn’t buy it.”

James also said, “I can get rid of this compartmentalization. I could realign my values with an investment thesis.”

This story is a great example of integrity and courage character dimensions. James is living his values and took action despite risks.

Grubhub's Goodwill Message

Grubhub is demonstrating gratitude with an ad directed primarily toward restaurants. The company benefitted greatly during a tough year for restaurants. During COVID restrictions, food delivery services did well, raising prices and cutting into restaurants’ margins. Grubhub and others have been criticized for hefty commissions and for listing restaurants on their sites when they weren’t affiliated with the service.

Now that restrictions are lifting, analysts predict that delivery services will continue to thrive. Still, an AdAge author notes that Grubhub needs to “remain relevant as in-person dining comes back.”

In the commercial, Grubhub speaks to restaurant workers:

“Here’s to you, restaurant. Thank you, from the bottom of our stomach. . . . Without you, we wouldn’t be Grubhub. We’d just be ‘hub.’”

Will the commercial ring false? Will it feel to restaurant owners and staff that Grubhub is manipulative or insincere? I don’t know. Obviously, the secondary audience is diners.

Senders of true goodwill messages, for example, messages of appreciation, don’t expect anything in return. Thank-you messages may bring about favor, but they are not intended for future reciprocation.

Popeyes Publishes Diversity Scorecard

Popeyes fast-food chain is publishing its diversity data related to marketing. The company will provide data about females and ethnic diversity among those represented in ads and members of creative teams, marketing departments, and external ad agencies.

With vivid colors and eye-catching graphics, the “scorecard” shows demographics at-a-glance. The chart is easy to understand and shows clearly where the company has more work to do. Text on the webpage admits deficiencies:

“We acknowledge our own lack of diversity and our commitment to be better, more diverse, and more inclusive. So today, we want to share our starting point.”

Text also draws conclusions for each group, for example, the ad teams:

“Our agency teams demonstrate the highest gender diversity of any pillar, but continue to lack in racial and ethnic diversity amongst Black/African-Americans.”

Popeyes’ approach is solid for improving diversity—and getting publicity. The Wall Street Journal article reflects well on the company. For the webpage, the “mandates” work well to identify targets, although they seem easily achievable. I don’t see on the webpage why diversity is important. Beyond the obvious—to increase market share—so what?

The scorecard is a good example of transparency but can be improved in other ways. A summary would give an overall percentage that can be tracked more easily over time. Also, I wonder about employees and partners who don’t identify as either male or female. Maybe that non-binary group could be represented as well.

Amazon’s Statement About the Failed Union Attempt

Employees at Amazon’s Bessemer, Alabama, warehouse voted against forming a union. Of 5,876 employees, 1,798 voted against and 783 for the union—not enough. The New York Times presents a simple, clear graphic of the vote.

Critics say that Amazon used aggressive tactics to deter workers from favoring the union. For example, union organizers approached employees at a traffic light, which the city changed based on a request from Amazon management. The change led to longer green lights and shorter red lights based on traffic. Before the vote, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determined that two employees were fired illegally for their union-organizing activity.

In messages to employees, the company used a slogan, “Do it without dues,” meaning employees should negotiate with their managers and not through a union, which charges fees. The slogan was also the URL for a website, which has since been removed.

Amazon posted a statement about the win. The company denies intimidation charges and reinforces its $15 wage and starting benefits. Although the statement indicates that 16% of employees at the facility voted for the union, a higher percentage of those who voted were favorable towards the union.

CEOs Speak Out

JPMorgan Chase published its Annual Report, leading with a letter from CEO Jamie Dimon. The introductory paragraph and corresponding callout quote reflect a leader’s and a company’s grappling with an extraordinary year.

Like many company leaders today, Dimon addresses societal issues directly. We’re seeing increasing employee and CEO activism, and this letter is a good example.

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece questions when leaders are even more direct about political events, such as Black leaders in Georgia speaking out against the election law decision. The law restricts voting rights, which doesn’t affect the companies directly. The WSJ editorial board writes, “To wit, they are pitting themselves against the interests of their own shareholders.”

The open letter appeared as a full-page ad in The New York Times, signed by Black CEOs, former CEOs, and others of major U.S. companies.

In my view, the CEOs demonstrate leadership character, particularly authenticity, courage, and integrity. By definition, demonstrating character carries some personal risk.

AstraZeneca's Data Problems

AstraZeneca has been accused of presenting “outdated and potentially misleading” data about the vaccine that has suffered implementation trouble in Europe. In a press release and a CNBC interview with the president, the company reported a 79% effectiveness rate, despite later results between 69 and 75%.

A group of independent experts wrote a letter to U.S. government officials to express their concern, as The Washington Post reports:

The DSMB is concerned that AstraZeneca chose to use data that was already outdated and potentially misleading in their press release,” the letter states. The data “they chose to release was the most favorable for the study as opposed to the most recent and most complete. Decisions like this are what erode public trust in the scientific process.”

The company promised a review: “We will immediately engage with the independent data safety monitoring board to share our primary analysis with the most up to date efficacy data.” But damage is already done.

The Washington Post explains, “But it appears to be the latest in a series of self-inflicted wounds from the team behind the vaccine, which has had months of stumbles involving messy science and bungled communication.”

This latest misstep only complicates a possible U.S. rollout and breeds more skepticism in those who fear the vaccine. Fears in some populations, such as Black Americans, are based on understandable mistrust of the healthcare system, and this news will not likely inspire more participation in plans for herd immunity.

As an issue of credibility, AstraZeneca is caught in a public quagmire. What might have been a small misstep is now viewed as part of a larger, potentially intentional plan to deceive, whether or not that is true. The company’s integrity is in question because they have not been fully transparent about the vaccine results.

Image source.

Comparing News Reporting About Shooting

How the media reports news reveals their political leanings and inherent biases. Compare the home pages of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal from screenshots taken the evening of March 17, 2021.

---

The New York Times led with the news and posted five stories at the top of the page. Stories focus on “Anti-Asian Hate in the U.S.” The Wall Street Journal posted one small article, and the headline makes no reference to the victims—six of the eight were Asian women.

I’m struck by the surrounding articles on the WSJ home page. The business and economy focus makes sense for the paper’s mission, but several other articles imply negative messages about Asians or Asian countries.

The headline about the Tokyo Olympics official, particularly, is quite inflammatory (or as a student in class said, “clickbait”). Although the news is notable given that this is the second official to resign for negative comments about women, the photo and headline, below news of the shooting is, as my partner said, “insensitive.” Do we need the actual negative statement?

Also in fairness to the WSJ, the shooter had not (and as of this writing, has still not) been charged with a hate crime, and he denies the association of bias. Perhaps the NYT is fueling the flames of xenophobia?

And yet, discrimination, bias, and violence against Asians and Asian Americans has been increasing in the U.S. Shouldn’t that be a significant part of any reporting about this terrible shooting?

Royal Family Responds to Racism Allegations

In an interview with Oprah, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle accused the British royal family of racism, and the fallout is severe. Markle talked about having suicidal thoughts and how she had been treated by the family, including plans for the couple’s baby. She said he wouldn’t have a title or security, and that the family had “concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he was born.”

Prince Harry said that he a discussion with his grandmother and two with his father about the couple’s concerns until his father “stopped taking my calls.”

Victoria Murphy, a writer for Town & Country magazine, describes the family’s reaction:

So far, the royal family has remained tight-lipped. There have been no statements and, it seems, very little guidance offered. Perhaps they are retreating into a default “no comment” stance, or perhaps they are sensibly waiting to see what sticks before deciding whether to add fuel to the fire. In this war of words, there is a sense that we could go on and on.

Buckingham Palace did release a short statement, and the Queen took some time before signing off:

The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.

Of course, the issue is that the royal family is a public organization, with several public figures, whether they wish to be or not.

Two days later, Prince William gave an interview and said, “We’re very much not a racist family.”

Murphy sums up the situation: “Make no mistake, this is an interview that will go down in history as having rocked the British royal family to its core.”

Governor Cuomo Address Sexual Harassment Allegations

In a video statement, Governor Andrew Cuomo addressed sexual harassment allegations made by three women. He begins well, explaining his decision to speak directly to the public on the topic, although lawyers advised him to wait. To preserve his image, this is a good call: research shows that his apology is unlikely to negatively affect lawsuit outcomes—and may even have a positive effect.

But his apology goes awry. He uses language that is classic in non-apologies, for example, “It was not my intention” and “I certainly never meant to….” In sexual harassment law, intent does not matter—only the impact. Further, this type of language typically doesn’t land well. People don’t care. Instead, he should focus on the impact on these women and perhaps on the office.

He also says, “I now understand that I acted in a way that made people feel uncomfortable.” This is problematic because first, as he says at the beginning, he is a lawyer. As a lawyer and as a political leader, he should know better. Such language is reminiscent of “I’m sorry if you were offended,” implying that it’s the receiver’s problem. A couple of days earlier, after the second allegation, the governor said, “To the extent anyone felt that way, I am truly sorry about that.”

To his credit, he says, “I apologize” and “I’m sorry,” which people do want to hear in these types of statements.

We will see what results from these allegations, in the midst of calls for his resignation. Governor Cuomo also is embroiled in charges that he lied about the number of Covid deaths in nursing homes. So far, he says that he will not resign.

School Board Apologizes for Mocking Parents and Resigns

The Board of an elementary school in California resigned over embarrassing comments on a video call. Board members didn’t realize that they were public when they made disparaging comments about parents wanting schools to reopen. They mentioned that parents miss teachers as “babysitters” and want to be able to use marijuana again.

In response, several board members resigned, and the school district wrote a statement. Within the larger statement is a message from the board members who resigned:

We deeply regret the comments that were made in the meeting of the Board of Education earlier this week. As trustees, we realize it is our responsibility to model the conduct that we expect of our students and staff and it is our obligation to build confidence in District leadership; our comments failed you in both regards, and for this we offer our sincerest apology.

We love our students, our teachers and our community, and we want to be part of the remedy to help the District move forward, returning its full focus to students' needs. To help facilitate the healing process, we will be resigning our positions as Trustees of the Oakley Union Elementary School District, effective immediately. The Superintendent will be working with the Contra Costa County Office of Education to address the vacancies on the Board of Education.

This was a difficult decision, but we hear the community's concerns, and we believe yielding to your request that we step down will allow the District to move forward. Please do not let our failure in judgment cast a shadow on the exceptional work that our teachers, administrators and hard-working employees are doing for the students of this District. They deserve and will need your support as you move forward.

Business communication students will find ways to improve this message. The authors use passive voice in the first statement and weak subjects twice in the first paragraph (“it is”). As an apology, the statement also could do better. Sincere apologies include more about the impact of the act—the damage done. I don’t see that recognition clearly.

Image source.

Questions Are Different for Women in Economics

A working paper shows that women in economics receive more and tougher questions than do their male counterparts. Researchers analyzed data from 462 presentations at seminars and job talks, when candidates present their research to prospective faculty colleagues.

Controlling for fields, types of seminars, and other factors, the researchers found that women receive 12% more questions and more “hostile” or “patronizing” questions. One concern is that woman might be discouraged from presenting their work or applying for positions, which hurts the field of economics.

The authors note that less than one percent of presenters were Black or Hispanic, so no conclusions could be drawn about how these groups are treated.

The authors acknowledge that these questions may not result from ill intent but may be a result of implicit bias or part of a more systemic male-dominated culture. Sadly, the authors say that some comments are “demoralizing,” and again, they warn of the negative impact on the field:

“Many of us have heard stories of friends and colleagues whose bad experiences in seminars have led them to re-evaluate whether a career in economics is really the best choice for them.”

Lincoln Project Statement

Frank Bruni is right his article, ”When You Don’t Have Trump to Hide Behind: There’s now space for other scandals. Witness the Lincoln Project.” I’ve been missing hearing about improprieties with the shadow of Trump for the past four years. Now trouble at the Lincoln Project, a political group started in 2018 by Republicans to prevent the re-election of the former president, has come to light.

The issue raises questions of integrity. As the organization criticized the former president for his actions, 21 young men accused one founder of sexual harassment, while organization leaders knew of but did nothing about their complaints. In addition, questions linger about whether group leaders misused funds for personal gain.

The one leader accused of “grooming young men online” responded in a statement:

I am so disheartened and sad that I may have brought discomfort to anyone in what I thought at the time were mutually consensual discussions. In living a deeply closeted life, I allowed my pain to cause pain for others. For that I am truly sorry to these men and everyone and for letting so many people down.

The Lincoln Project also issued an official statement. One, dated January 30, isn’t available because of a broken link on the homepage. But another, dated February 14, is below:

The Lincoln Project has retained the law firm of Paul Hastings to investigate allegations of inappropriate behavior by John Weaver as part of a comprehensive review of our operations and culture. The review process is currently underway.

We are committed to creating a positive, diverse, and inclusive workplace environment at The Lincoln Project and inappropriate behavior by anyone associated with the organization will not be tolerated under any circumstances. We have already taken decisive action to address internal concerns. Additionally, we are releasing staff and former staff from the confidentiality provisions in their employment agreements to discuss their workplace environment. Based on the findings of this review we will take all necessary action to correct any issues or deficiencies that are identified.

Concurrently, we are also working with outside counsel and professional consultants to strengthen our corporate governance, finance and operational structure, human resources, and leadership to position The Lincoln Project to further maximize our impact and lean into our important mission advancing democracy.

The Lincoln Project was founded to combat political forces who seek to undermine our democracy. We revolutionized how political action committees operate and spent $81 million last cycle to create and place more than 300 advertisements, host national town halls, conduct voter outreach, and launch a podcast and streaming video network that engaged millions of voters. Eighty percent of our funds went to voter contact and content production. Our historic results speak for themselves.

Moving forward, we have important work ahead of us and we have created a nationwide movement of Americans who support our objectives.

In order to continue fulfilling our promise to our millions of supporters and contributors, we must address any and all internal organizational issues immediately and put in place a governance and diverse leadership structure that reflects our core values and ensures we will continue to attract the best talent available.

The Lincoln Project will continue producing and distributing our popular content and commentary while these reviews are being conducted and we are operating at full capacity.

The statement start is unfortunate and squirrely. Perhaps an apology might be more appropriate? As an apology, if this is the intent, the statement doesn’t work very well. Apologies admit specific wrongdoing, acknowledge the impact, and describe positive steps planning for the future. I don’t see that here.

McKinsey Pays Settlement for Work with Purdue Pharma

Management consulting company McKinsey will pay almost $600 million to settle several lawsuits over its role in the opioid crisis, including offering marketing advice to Purdue Pharma. The largest settlement is for $573 million, which Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey describes in a video.

Healey’s presentation and delivery are interesting because she represents families and is speaking for 47 attorneys general in several U.S. states. Her anger is evident, but her audience is small: only 53 views one week after it’s posted, and at least three of those are me. What are the communication objectives? This will make a good class discussion.

McKinsey’s response is also interesting for students studying business communication and character. In an email to staff, Global Managing Partner Kevin Sneader describes “setting a higher standard.” Whereas the governors consider McKinsey’s actions unlawful, Sneader does not agree:

“Indeed, while our past work with opioid manufacturers was lawful and never intended to do harm, we have always held ourselves to a higher bar. We fell short of that bar. We did not adequately acknowledge the epidemic unfolding in our communities or the terrible impact of opioid misuse and addiction, and for that I am deeply sorry.”

The Massachusetts court filing explains the legal argument.

At some point in 2019, two McKinsey executives debated in emails “eliminating all our documents and emails.” These executives have been terminated. (See McKinsey communications.)

Amazon Announces New CEO

In a news release, Amazon announced that CEO and Founder Jeff Bezos will be stepping down, transitioning to role of Executive Chair of the board. He will be succeeded by Andy Jassy, currently CEO of Amazon Web Services. The change won’t take place until the third quarter of 2021.

The news is announced in two short paragraphs within the company’s fourth quarter results:

Amazon is also announcing today that Jeff Bezos will transition to the role of Executive Chair in the third quarter of 2021 and Andy Jassy will become Chief Executive Officer at that time.

“Amazon is what it is because of invention. We do crazy things together and then make them normal. We pioneered customer reviews, 1-Click, personalized recommendations, Prime’s insanely-fast shipping, Just Walk Out shopping, the Climate Pledge, Kindle, Alexa, marketplace, infrastructure cloud computing, Career Choice, and much more,” said Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and CEO. “If you do it right, a few years after a surprising invention, the new thing has become normal. People yawn. That yawn is the greatest compliment an inventor can receive. When you look at our financial results, what you’re actually seeing are the long-run cumulative results of invention. Right now I see Amazon at its most inventive ever, making it an optimal time for this transition.”

In a longer message to employees, Bezos writes in the same conversational style, but he is more inspirational. The email is also posted on the Amazon public site.

The change is big news and garnered the lead Wall Street Journal story today with the headline, “Amazon CEO Change to Come Amid Regulatory Scrutiny.” The article cites Amazon’s 44% profit increase in the fourth quarter of 2000 as well as the challenges ahead:

“But Amazon also faces the biggest regulatory challenges in its history, with multiple federal investigations into its competitive practices and lawmakers drafting legislation that could force Amazon to restructure its business. Tension with regulators and lawmakers has directly embroiled Mr. Bezos, who was called to testify in front of Congress last summer for the first time.”

Bezos also was in the news recently because his ex-wife, MacKenzie Scott, donated $5.9 billion in the past year. A New York Times article contrasts her philanthropy with criticism about Bezos’s extraordinary wealth and lack of attention to environmental issues and employees’ concerns. A Vanity Fair author writes, “She got even [for his having a public affair] by doing what he does not: sharing his unbelievable, unconscionable, indescribable wealth with those he makes his money off of, i.e. everyone else in the world.”

Image source.

Disneyland Announces "Sunsetting" of Annual Pass Program

With economic uncertainty during the COVID-19 pandemic, Disneyland remains closed, and the company announced the end of its annual pass program. The 40-year-old program offered unlimited park visits, exclusive discounts, and other benefits.

Disney’s statement explains the reasons and offers customers ways to get a refund for existing passes. In the segment below and another for Premier Passholders, the writers use “sunsetting” three times. The euphemism is a curious choice, and I wonder why “ending” isn’t used instead. Perhaps “cancelling” sounds too harsh?

“Sunsetting” indicates phasing out, and some passholders can enjoy discounts for a limited time. But the program is clearly ending. Dictionary.com refers to a “sunset clause,” and a tech site provides this definition: “Sunsetting, in a business context, is intentionally phasing something out or terminating it.” Both have legal undertones and, in my view, should be avoided for a consumer audience.

Image source.

Twitter Announces Ban of President Trump

Two days after the riots on the U.S. Capitol, Twitter announced a “permanent suspension” of President Trump’s account after a temporary suspension.

Comparing Twitter and Facebook’s message, on January 7, about a temporary suspension, is a lesson in writing structure. Whereas Mark Zuckerberg used the indirect organizational plan, Twitter’s message states the news right up front. Zuckerberg starts with the rationale and announces the decision at the very end. Twitter starts with the decision, and then provides explanatory text, including sample tweets and the company’s assessment.

Another difference between these messages is the writer. The Twitter post is unsigned, whereas Zuckerberg signed the Facebook message himself. Additional rationale for the decision is posted on the Facebook site. Both approaches could work, and analyzing the communication is (almost) as interesting as the decisions themselves.

Random note: “Permanent suspension” sounds odd to me. A suspension is something temporary.

---

Company

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

By Twitter Inc.Friday, 8 January 2021

After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence. 

In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action. Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open. 

However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence, among other things. We will continue to be transparent around our policies and their enforcement. 

The below is a comprehensive analysis of our policy enforcement approach in this case.

Overview

On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump Tweeted:

“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

Shortly thereafter, the President Tweeted:

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks. After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service.

Assessment

We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

This determination is based on a number of factors, including:

• President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th.

• The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending.

• The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.

• The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.

• Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.

As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.

University Assistant Coach Fired Over Disparaging Comments

Assistant coach of the Mocs football program at University of Tennessee at Chattanooga has been fired. Chris Malone posted a disparaging, racist, and sexist tweet about Stacey Abrams, who is credited for gaining democratic votes in the tight Georgia political races.

University Chancellor Steven Angel posted a video to explain the decision. He covers the basics of an apology but deserves credit for using video as a medium in addition to the athletics director’s and head coach’s written statements:

Mark Wharton – UTC Vice Chancellor & Directory of Athletics
"Last night, a totally inappropriate social media post by a member of our football staff was brought to my attention. The entire post was appalling. The sentiments in that post do not represent the values of our football program, our Athletics department or our University. With that said, effectively immediately, that individual is no longer a part of the program."

Rusty Wright – UTC Head Football Coach
"Our football program has a clear set of standards. Those standards include respecting others. It is a message our players hear daily. It is a standard I will not waver on. What was posted on social media by a member of my staff is unacceptable and not any part of what I stand for or what Chattanooga Football stands for. Life is bigger than football and as leaders of young men, we have to set that example, first and foremost. With that said, effectively immediately, that individual is no longer a part of my staff."

Comparing the three statements demonstrates what each leader focuses on and, perhaps, their emotional reactions to Malone’s post. This situation illustrates accountability and integrity, but I might want to see more authenticity and vulnerability. Do we know more about these leaders as a result of this situation?

Zuckerberg's Message About President Trump's Account

Facebook has decided that President Trump will no longer use its platform for his messages—at least for a while. The decision came after riots at the U.S. Capitol and after Twitter and Facebook suspended the president’s account. The tech companies said that the president violated its rules by inciting violence and/or making false claims about the election.

YouTube blocked a video of President Trump expressing sympathy for the protestors and calling them “special.” The tech platforms had tried labeling posts, but the president’s false claims were still believed.

Some call this time an “inflection point": “Hey Mark Zuckerberg, @jack, @SusanWojcicki and @sundarpichai -- Donald Trump just incited a violent attack on American democracy. Is that FINALLY enough for you to act?!" At this point, Twitter has not yet permanently banned the president from tweeting.

Zuckerberg uses the indirect style for his post, with the main point in the very last sentence. He makes his argument first, and then we read the decision. It’s an interesting choice, which might not convey the courage that people would like to see.

Additional analysis and rationale for the decision are posted on the Facebook site.