There is a rule that I have learned from experience: Never do or refrain from doing something because you are concerned about what people might think about you. The fact is that nobody is even thinking about you at all.

Facebook has invoked its free speech right as a publisher, insisting its ability to smear users as extremists is protected, but its legal immunity thus far has rested on a law which protects platforms, not publishers. Which is it?

Facebook has declared it has the right, as a publisher, to exercise its own free speech and bar conservative political performance artist Laura Loomer from its platform. Even calling her a dangerous extremist is allowed under the First Amendment, because it’s merely an opinion, Facebook claims in its motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Loomer...​

“...Under well-established law, neither Facebook nor any other publisher can be liable for failing to publish someone else’s message,” Facebook’s motion to dismiss Loomer’s defamation suit reads, justifying its decision to ban her from the platform. It also points out that terms like “dangerous” or “promoting hate” cannot be factually verified and are thus constitutionally protected opinions for a publisher, while also claiming it never applied either term to Loomer, despite banning her from its platform under its “dangerous individuals” policy.

“Juul [an electronic cigarette maker] made my nicotine addiction a lot worse,... When I didn’t have it for more than two hours, I’d get very anxious.”

• As of October 1, 2019, 1,080* lung injury cases associated with using e-cigarette, or vaping, products have been reported to CDC from 48 states and 1 U.S. territory.
• Eighteen deaths have been confirmed in 15 states.
• All patients have reported a history of using e-cigarette, or vaping, products.

Taxing home flippers 25 percent before they even pay a penny of income or capital gains taxes doesn’t make any economic sense. It’s unfair, removes many sellers’ options, will hurt many small businesses and likely lead to layoffs, will increase urban blight, and will decrease the availability of housing, leading to higher prices and rents.

The spread on the 2Y-10Y is slightly positive (0.06 percent) as of this writing, but it briefly dipped negative in August. A 2Y-10Y inversion has preceded every single one of the last nine recessions—although by as much as 34 months. For the 2007-2008 Great Recession, the yield curve inverted 22 months prior to the bottom falling out.

In the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat, according to a newly published article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
​
The article draws on internal documents to show that an industry group called the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to 'refute' concerns about sugar's possible role in heart disease. The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding.

The sugar-funded project in question was a literature review, examining a variety of studies and experiments. It suggested there were major problems with all the studies that implicated sugar, and concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease.
​
The authors of the new article say that for the past five decades, the sugar industry has been attempting to influence the scientific debate over the relative risks of sugar and fat.

New York City's Commission on Human Rights announced on Thursday that residents could face up to $250,000 in fines if they use terms such as 'illegal alien ... with intent to demean, humiliate or harass a person.'
​
"Hate has no place here," a tweet from the City of New York read. The city's announcement ticked off a list of offensive ways to address immigrants -- including threatening to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or harassing someone for their 'limited English proficiency.'

Calling a person “she” instead of 'ze' could be grounds for a $250,000 fine in New York City under new civil rights guidelines published just before Christmas which ban the 'misgendering' of individuals.