a Better Bubble™
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
Three Democratic U.S. representatives introduced a bill last week that would require the Environmental Protection Agency to create a pilot program for air monitoring in communities overburdened with pollution. The program would have a $100 million annual budget over five years to allow local agencies to monitor the air quality in neighborhoods, block by block.
One of the lead sponsors, Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., cited ProPublica’s work on toxic air pollution as a factor motivating her introduction of the Environmental Justice Air Quality Monitoring Act. “I’m grateful for ProPublica’s work to expose the devastating consequences of air pollution, economic inequality, and environmental racism on vulnerable Americans,” Castor said in an emailed statement to ProPublica, after highlighting stories from our “Sacrifice Zones” and “Black Snow” series on social media.
“The data provided by ProPublica’s air pollution mapping tool and the Environmental Protection Agency demonstrates the urgent need to decisively address toxic air pollution that is putting Americans at greater risk for cancer and other harmful health outcomes,” Rep. A. Donald McEachin, D-Va., a co-sponsor of the bill, wrote in an email. “For too long, low-income communities and communities of color have borne the brunt of environmental degradation and injustice, and it must end.”
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., introduced a nearly identical bill last July, weeks after ProPublica and The Palm Beach Post published an investigation into air quality in the Florida Glades, one of the country’s largest cane-sugar-producing regions. For years, residents in the area’s largely Black and Hispanic communities had been saying that the sugar industry pollutes the air when, as part of the harvest, workers set fire to the crops to rid the cane of its outer stalk. Sugar companies have long insisted the air was safe to breathe.
State officials used a single monitor to track air quality across the entire 400,000-acre sugar-growing region. So the news organizations worked with residents to set up commercially available air sensors that measured particulate matter during the burn season and identified short-term spikes in pollution on days when the state had authorized cane burns and when smoke was projected to blow toward the sensors. These shorter-term spikes in pollution, which are a defining feature of Florida’s harvesting process, had been obscured by federal and local regulators’ reliance on longer-term averages. The spikes often reached four times the average pollution levels in the area — high enough that experts said they posed health risks.
U.S. Sugar operates a tour of fields, sugar mills and other harvesting activities in and around Clewiston, Florida. (Thomas Cordy/The Palm Beach Post)In November, ProPublica began publishing “Sacrifice Zones,” a series of stories that exposed how and where toxic air pollution elevates the cancer risk of residents who live close to industrial facilities. An estimated 256,000 people live in areas where the cancer risk exceeds levels the EPA considers acceptable, ProPublica found through a first-of-its-kind analysis. Predominantly Black census tracts have more than double the estimated cancer risk of majority-white tracts.
Our analysis used EPA air modeling to reveal the estimated industrial cancer risks at a granular level in every neighborhood across the country. Such models are a starting point for identifying areas in need of actual monitoring. The new bill proposes a hyperlocal approach by requesting “ongoing measurements of air pollutants at a block-level resolution.”
A spokesperson for Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., another lead sponsor of the bill, said in an email that ProPublica’s stories “helped raise attention on this issue as well as concerns from our constituents. Our congressional district, NY-15 based in the South Bronx, has one of the highest levels of pollution in the entire state of NY. Residents are deeply impacted by bad air quality that leads to dangerous health conditions.”
If passed as currently written, the Environmental Justice Air Quality Monitoring Act would award grants or contracts to state, local and tribal agencies in partnership with local nonprofit groups or organizations that have a demonstrated ability to conduct hyperlocal air quality projects. The bill does not outline what steps should be taken if the air monitoring finds unacceptable levels of pollution in the air. The EPA said it does not comment on potential legislation.
After Markey introduced his version of the bill in July, the Senate referred the legislation to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. There is no vote scheduled for the bill, according to committee aide Jake Abbott.
The legislation “is what communities around industrial facilities have needed for a long time,” Wilma Subra, an environmental health expert, said in an email. Subra has spent her career helping communities struggling with air and water pollution. She said the data from localized air monitoring could tell residents what they’re exposed to and when the pollution exceeds government standards, which could prompt additional scrutiny of industrial polluters.
The House bill was introduced amid a nationwide push for more monitoring of air pollution. In the wake of ProPublica’s “Sacrifice Zones” investigation, the EPA announced that it would establish a new team to conduct aerial monitoring from planes and track emissions on the ground. It pledged to spend more than $600,000 on air monitoring in parts of the southern U.S., such as Mossville, Louisiana, one of the hot spots highlighted in ProPublica’s analysis. The agency also ordered a Louisiana chemical plant to install air monitors along its boundary. These initiatives follow the EPA’s decision last summer to make $50 million in American Rescue Plan funding available to communities interested in improving air quality monitoring. The deadline for applications is March 25.
Applying for federal funding, however, can be a lengthy and complex process. Penny Dryden grew up a few miles away from a handful of chemical plants just south of Wilmington, Delaware. Last summer, Dryden worked with community members to set up five handheld air quality monitors in the area after securing a grant from a local health care system. She is now working with a team to apply for EPA funds to expand that effort so that residents and regulators can better understand which chemicals they are breathing and whether more protections are warranted.
“I’ve been at this work for over 30 years, but there were rarely federal funding opportunities, and now here we are, and it is even difficult for me,” said Dryden.
She and others were encouraged by the introduction of this latest bill, which could push agencies and organizations to partner with communities like Dryden’s.
“Hopefully through this bill people can have their voices heard in wanting to understand what’s going on in their community that could be impacting their health and well-being,” said Sheryl Magzamen, a Colorado State University professor who specializes in air quality and health. Magzamen helped ProPublica and Palm Beach Post reporters design the air quality monitoring plan and assess the results of the “Black Snow” project. The work prompted Magzamen to submit a research proposal to NASA, which awarded her team a $218,000 grant to use low-cost sensors and satellite data to better track pollution in Florida’s cane-burning region and other areas.
“Problems are able to be solved when we have data that points us to what the problems actually are, and monitoring is a huge step in the right direction,” Magzamen said.
As so-called "conservatives" (a decently large number of them appearing to actually be white supremacists and bigots engaged in harassment) complained Big Tech was slanted against them, a host of new services arrived to meet the sudden demand. Gab, Gettr, etc. hit the marketplace of ideas, promising freedom from the "censorship" of "liberal" social media platforms, ignoring evidence that indicated "conservatives" weren't actually being "censored," but rather extremists calling themselves "conservatives" were being booted for multiple violations of site policies.
New services arrived, promising unabridged speech and a safe space for bigots, transphobes, disgruntled MAGAts, and everyone else who felt oppressed because they frequently went asshole on main. But as soon as these sites debuted, they began moderating all sorts of speech, starting with the clearly illegal and ramping things up to eject trolls and critics.
Moderation at scale remains impossible. And it's not much easier when you're dealing with thousands of users rather than millions or billions. Decisions need to be made. While it was clear to see the upstarts were unfamiliar with the moderation issues bigger platforms have struggled with for years, it was also clear to see the upstarts were more than happy to "censor" speech they didn't like, despite claiming to be the last bastions of online free speech.
"You're free to say whatever you want," platforms like Gab and Gettr proclaimed, muttering asterisks under their breath. You were indeed free to say what you wanted, but that would not prevent your content or your account being banned, deleted, etc.
Gettr has experienced the growing pains of platform moderation. This has happened despite its initial guarantees (*offer void pretty much everywhere) that it would only remove illegal content. Porn is not illegal, yet Gettr seemed to have a problem with all the porn being posted by users, perhaps because a majority of it involved animated animals.
It also had problems keeping trolls from impersonating the illustrious conservative figures it hoped to host exclusively. Aggressive trolling resulted in Gettr temporarily banning Roger Stone's actual account under the assumption it couldn't possibly be the real Roger Stone. It followed this up a few months later by banning the term "groyper" in an effort to limit the amount of white supremacist content it had to host. This too was somewhat of a failure. First, it told white supremacists their awful (but not illegal) speech wasn't welcome on the "free speech" alternative to Twitter. Then it became apparent the ban on "groyper" could be easily evaded by adding an o or two.
Now, there's even more "censorship" to be had at Gettr. One of its financial backers is Guo Wengui, a (former) billionaire and supposed anti-communist who recently filed for bankruptcy. There are reasons to believe Wengui isn't the most trustworthy of online associates. Wengui left China and has spent several years living in a New York City hotel overlooking Central Park. He has applied for asylum but has yet to be granted this request. Despite apparently distancing himself from China, he is still hounded by claims that he's only in the US to obtain information he can deliver to the Chinese government. These allegations were made by Strategic Vision US during a lawsuit over business dealings the company had with Wengui.
Strategic Vision said it concluded Mr. Guo was seeking information on Chinese nationals who may have been helping the U.S. government in national-security investigations or who were involved in other sensitive matters, according to the filing.
“Guo never intended to use the fruits of Strategic Vision’s research against the Chinese Communist Party,” the court filing said. “That is because Guo was not the dissident he claimed to be. Instead, Guo Wengui was, and is, a dissident-hunter, propagandist, and agent in the service of the People’s Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party.”
Others have echoed this allegation. While it has yet to be proven true, Gettr is insulating its bankrupted backer from online criticism by deleting content that insinuates Wengui is a Chinese spy.
Journalists at the Daily Beast spent a few days running accounts on Gettr to see if the "free speech" site had a problem with criticizing Wengui. Unsurprisingly, the "we won't censor" platform engages in plenty of moderation when it comes to speech it doesn't like.
In an attempt to test the claims that even so much as mentioning the allegations of Guo being a “spy” would result in a permanent suspension from the platform, The Daily Beast created six separate Gettr accounts critical of Guo over the past two weeks.
These accounts posted variations on the question of whether the platform’s billionaire benefactor is a “Chinese spy.” For example, one of the accounts asked, “Does Chinese spy Miles Guo fund Gettr?” It was banned from the platform just 19 minutes after its creation. “Guo a spy??” another Daily Beast-operated account asked in response to a post from the businessman.
All six accounts were promptly banned, with 83 minutes being the longest span of time a single critical post remained live. They were banned without notice of wrongdoing or explanation for the permanent suspensions.
The hypocritical chickens have come home to roost. You're free to run your mouth on Gettr with copious exceptions. And one of those exceptions is the repeating allegations about someone who put some money into Gettr. Meanwhile, over on Twitter, users are free to insinuate the company's principals and backers are in bed with the Chinese government without running afoul of the terms of service.
Gettr will undoubtedly continue to pretend it's a free speech champion, even as it engages in actions that show it's really no more protective of speech than any other platform. It will continue to disappoint refugees from other, more heavily-trafficked social media platforms by engaging in (completely lawful!) moderation of speech it would rather not see on its platform. And while it may be more inviting of general harassment of people with alternative viewpoints (which is generally a lot less fun in Gettr's echo chamber) and election/COVID misinformation, it sees absolutely nothing wrong with silencing dissent and criticism. Its promises of a social media Wild West are as empty as its promises to give Twitter users a better place to express their "conservative" views.
Aspiring filmmakers, YouTubers, bloggers, and business owners alike can find something to love about the Complete Video Production Super Bundle. Video content is fast changing from the future marketing tool to the present, and in these 10 courses you'll learn how to make professional videos on any budget. From the absolute basics to the advanced shooting and lighting techniques of the pros, you'll be ready to start making high-quality video content and driving viewers to it in no time. This bundle will teach you how to make amazing videos, whether you use a smartphone, webcam, DSLR, mirrorless, or professional camera. It's on sale for $35.
Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.
stLouIST
