The Trump Zuckerberg Situation is Crazy & The AI Gambling Problem is Worse Than You Know
PDS Published 04/07/2025
-
But that said, let's jump into Deep Dive Week and today's show starting with this.
Want to do a little bit of a deep dive with you today.
Right.
Because these days there's one main billionaire in Trump's orbit that we talk about a lot.
Right now I want to talk about one who's now circling the president closer than ever, though he doesn't have as big of a spotlight on.
Because it seems like after years of flip flopping or playing both sides on issues like free speech, content moderation and diversity, Mark Zuckerberg and Meta along with him, they're going all in on MAGA.
And to fully appreciate and understand the situation.
We got to go back to 2016, when Donald Trump won the presidency for the first time.
As you might remember, there were a lot of people trying to explain what happened with one of them being Facebook.
Critics at the time, not only painting the platform as an online echo chamber,
But also blaming it for the near unchecked spread of fake news, disinformation and conspiracy theories that they say propelled Trump to victory.
As far as Mark Zuckerberg, of course, Facebook's founder and CEO,
He defended the company at first, right, denying that the platform had any impact on the election.
In fact, he called the claim that fake news on Facebook influence the election crazy.
Then just a few days later, he was writing an apology post announcing a series of steps meant to deal with it spread, saying, “bottom line is we take misinformation seriously.”
With that he previewed Facebook's fact checking program,
Which would actually be launched just a month later.
Of course, you know, despite that, the criticism kept coming, with a seeing outlets continually reporting on the shortcomings of the companies fact checking efforts.
By 2018, for example, the company was increasingly being blamed for contributing to the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Myanmar.
Reporting at the time, beginning to show how the country's military had waged a systematic, multi-year propaganda campaign on the platform.
With then not long after that, Facebook again apologizing, admitting that the site had been used to incite violence.
And that led to Zuckerberg expanding moderation teams and better defining rules around acceptable speech with him.
Also, sometime that year, speaking to Steven Levy,
Who wrote a book called Facebook The Inside Story about how the solution to disinformation and hate speech was more content moderation.
Him reportedly telling the author it is no longer enough to give people tools to say what they want,
And then just let our community flag them and try to respond after the fact.
Saying we need to take a more active role in making sure that the tools aren't misused.
Think we're doing the right thing.
It's just that we should have done it sooner.
But then a year later, facing accusations of censorship by conservative politicians, including Trump, Zuckerberg seemingly began swinging back the other way.
Him stirring controversy at the time.
Right.
Facebook refusing to take down a Trump ad making false claims about Joe Biden.
Zuckerberg then defending the decision in a speech in Georgetown,
Hailing his side as a bastion of free expression.
This is a seemingly aimed to rewrite the true origin story of the platform with a new founding myth, talking
About how when he was in college, the country had gone to war in Iraq.
And with that saying that he felt we were acting without hearing a lot of important perspectives and claiming those early years shaped his belief that giving everyone a voice empowers the powerless and pushes society to be better over time.
Which appears to be a very interesting revisionist history version of the creation of Facebook.
Because like, if you if you look into it.
He initially made face mash, which is a website where you could rate the attractiveness of their female classmates.
Or, and he did so by hacking into the so-called Facebooks of the different houses at Harvard,
With the meta and writing in a journal published on the site itself at the time.
Kirkland Facebook is open on my computer desktop,
And some of these people have pretty horrendous Facebook pics.
I almost want to put some of these faces next to pictures of farm animals,
And have people vote on which is more attractive.
But in any case, with that history set aside in a newly connected origin story to take its place, Zuckerberg just kept pushing back.
With his then saying things like in 2020, Zuckerberg claiming that Facebook's commitment to free speech was a reason to not act on inflammatory posts from Trump regarding the Black Lives Matter protests.
There were also notably, around the same time you had activists and human rights groups who use Facebook to document human rights abuses in the Middle East,
Accusing the company of deleting their accounts.
All while in the United States, Zuckerberg defended Facebook's policies and resisted pressure to act more forcefully against hate speech.
There were a big thing I will say is that the company still had a hate speech policy at the time,
And Zuck claimed that they were proactively removing roughly 90% of it.
But then something changed again.
Biden won the election, Trump lost, and hundreds of his supporters invaded the Capitol.
And again, Facebook got some of the blame.
And we saw them banned Trump indefinitely for the role that he played in inciting the insurrection.
With Zach.
Then soon after telling investors that the company was considering steps to straight up reduce political content across Facebook, which was done shortly after.
But of course, they didn't stop fact checkers.
Researchers in the media from finding ways of the platform was still being used to spread misinformation and increase political polarization.
Come.
You had Zuck getting brutalized before the US Senate, then reinventing his image.
And last August wrote that letter to Congress accusing the Biden administration of pressuring what had by then become meta into censoring more Covid 19 content.
Then he said he felt comfortable with, as well as then announcing that he wouldn't repeat the contributions he made in 2020 to support nonpartisan electoral infrastructure,
Because the gifts made him appear not neutral.
Notably, that spending was also part of the reason that Trump accused Zuckerberg of plotting against him during the 2020 election.
Something that also reportedly involved threats to throw him in jail for the rest of his life.
Then, despite all that, within weeks of Trump's reelection, Zuckerberg was dining with the then president elect at Mar-A-Lago.
It was also at this time, according to reporting by The New York Times, that Trump adviser Stephen Miller told Zuckerberg that he had an opportunity to help reform America, but it would be on Trump's terms.
With Zuck there reportedly signaling to Miller and his colleagues,
Including other senior Trump advisers,
That he would do nothing to obstruct their agenda.
And in fact, according to The Times, Zucker reportedly began preparing to make sweeping changes to meta to, in the words of the Times remake meta for the Trump era.
Notably with that, The Times interviewed more than a dozen current and former meta employees, as well as executives and advisers to Zuckerberg.
And they reportedly described his shift as serving a dual purpose.
Right.
On one hand, it's about positioning. Meta.
For the current political climate, with Trump and Republican power ascendant.
Also to and maybe even more notably people close to him reportedly say that the shift reflects Zuckerberg's personal views of how his company should be run.
Right views that he no longer wanted to keep quiet.
You know, with all that,
According to The Times as a whole process, it was highly unusual.
Because in the past, meta would modify policies affecting its apps by inviting employees, civic leaders and others to weigh in, so with that, the process would generally take months.
But this time it was a, quote, six week sprint blindsiding even employees on his policy and integrity teams.
Then on January 2nd, meta appointing Republican Joel Kaplan to lead its global policy team to implement the changes.
And then a few days later, he added three new men to the board,
With one, of course, being Trump's friend, Dana White.
On January 7th, most of his 72,000 employees reportedly learned about the rest of Zuckerberg's plans, along with the rest of the world.
Was, of course, famously announcing that it was killing its fact-checking program in favor of a community note system similar to X's.
But with him also revealing that political content would no longer be suppressed,
And finally declaring the company would be loosening restrictions on how people can talk about contentious social issues such as immigration, gender and sexuality.
Notably here all of that came not just in a written statement from Joel Kaplan, but it was also announced by Zuckerberg in a video that had him say.
After Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy.
We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth.
But the fact checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the US.
The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech.
So we're going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms.
Right.
And then in the days after the full extent of the changes became clear, Or the company ending its hate speech policy now calling it hateful conduct
With this policy now allowing posts saying you hate people of certain races, religions and sexual orientations.
That including permitting, quote, allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation.
With also an intercept.
Investigation claiming examples of other newly permissible speech highlighted in media training materials,
Including immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of shit, and gays are freaks.
A seeing Gillian York, director for International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and notably, someone who has criticized metaphor,
Which she described as over moderation in the past, saying, “these examples demonstrate that Meta's policy changes are political in nature and not intended to simply allow more freedom of expression.”
Then beyond that, we've seen things like the company also reportedly removing the transgender and non-binary themes on messenger, Instagram.
At one point blocked LGBTQ hashtags and mark them as sexually suggestive content,
Though meta said afterwards that it was a mistake.
And then off the platform.
Facilities managers were reportedly instructed to remove tampons from men's bathroom, and that his offices in Silicon Valley, Texas and New York.
Of course, the company also announcing that it would be ending its work on diversity, equity and inclusion,
With reportedly a memo being sent to staff referring to the fact that, quote, the legal and policy landscape surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the United States is changing.
You know, since then, Zach's kind of just been handing Trump more wins.
You have meta paying $25 million to settle a Trump lawsuit dating back to his ban from Facebook has been praising the Trump administration openly,
And now he's reportedly hunting for a home in DC to be closer to Trump.
Though I would say, notably the right, Trump and his team, not fully buying it, maybe.
Because according to Rolling Stone, various members of his inner circle are skeptical of Zucker's MAGA makeover.
With one senior Trump administration official even reportedly telling the outlet is a lot more assessing that needs to be done, saying he just needs to prove himself.
It's a good start, but he can't just snap his finger and make the pass not happen.
So, you know, with all that, I'd love to know your thoughts on the situation in general, but also.
Zuckerberg and what we've seen with a number of multi multimillionaires or billionaires.
Do you think this is kind of the the evolution, the final form?
They finally feel free to be this version of themselves
Or do you see this more as than being shapeshifters.
Going whichever way the wind blows for better financial or personal gain.
What do you think and why?
-
If I were to ask you, over the course of a year, how many Americans engage in some form of gambling, what do you think the number would be?
I’ll give you a second to think about it, and … the answer is 55%.
That’s according to a survey conducted last summer for the American Gaming Association. [Image and Quote, find “55%”]
And it’s up from 49% the year prior. [Same assets]
So we’re talking about tremendous sums of money, like some 150 billion dollars on sports alone last year, according to estimates. [Quote, find “150”]
With FiveThirtyEight founder, author and famed data nerd Nate Silver estimating in his new book that the total wagers placed by Americans every year passes one trillion dollars. [B roll 01:47 and Quote, find “trillion”]
Which, if true, would mean that in 2022, Americans bet the equivalent of nearly 4% of their nation’s GDP and lost over 10% of that money. [Same quote]
And that shouldn’t be surprising, since today we bet on just about everything.
Sports games, political elections, stock prices, meme coins, online lotteries, casino apps, Luigi Mangione’s plea, the existence of aliens.
Hell, Polymarket even let people bet on different aspects of the Los Angeles wildfires, like how fast they’d spread and when they’d be contained. [Headline and B roll, 00:04]
Though to be clear, that’s only available to betters outside the United States.
But clearly the most prominent driver of the new gambling culture in recent years has been sports. [Image]
Right, because ever since the Supreme Court struck down a federal ban on sports betting in 2018, nearly 40 states and D.C. have legalized the practice. [Headline and Headline]
Though the two most populous states in the union—California and Texas—have yet to join them. [Highlight states on map]
So if they did, those gambling numbers would likely balloon a lot more.
And you better believe industry executives’ mouths are watering at the idea.
Because companies like DraftKings, FanDuel, Caesars, MGM and Disney (through ESPN) have raked in the profits from this gambling boom.
With even the big sports leagues, who have historically opposed betting, now caving in as they sign partnerships with sportsbooks. [Image]
And we’ve seen a whole cottage industry sprout around these markets with one very controversial goal, which is the reason we’re talking about this today:
Use the revolution in artificial intelligence to turbocharge the gambling boom. [Image]
Right, they’re doing this in a number of ways, but we’re gonna start with the mildly concerning and end with the downright dystopian.
So first up, you’ve got companies that use AI to streamline many of the creative tasks the gambling industry already does, namely writing persuasive marketing copy.
With Narativa [Nare-uh-teeva], for instance, a firm that reportedly gets a quarter of its business from gambling clients, [Quote, find “quarter”]
Churning out everything from automated summaries of sports games to SEO-friendly reviews of online casino games to promotional social media posts. [Same quote]
But then you’ve got firms like SharpLink that use AI in somewhat more “innovative” ways.
Namely to convert regular sports fans into sports bettors. [Quote, find “conversion”]
With it reportedly doing this by gathering data about each individual, analyzing it for patterns, then personalizing betting offers specifically designed for them. [Same quote]
So for example, if you’ve got a favorite sport, team or player, you’ll get targeted with bets for those things. [Image]
But once you’re already in the betting game, the technology does everything it can to keep you there, making more and bigger bets.
With one prominent example of this being micro bets.
Right, they’re not exactly new; you just bet in real time throughout the game on stuff like who gets the next touchdown or makes the next tackle, or whether the next play will be a run or a pass. [Image]
So they’re especially low-value, high-frequency, and get settled within minutes or even seconds. [Image]
But as Business Insider points out, artificial intelligence gave these kinds of bets a shot of adrenaline right in thee ass.
With DraftKings recently acquiring SimpleBet, whose automated processes reportedly raise the maximum number of possible micro bets by an order of magnitude. [Quote, find “magnitude”]
So according to the outlet, “No longer bottlenecked by the capabilities of human sportsbook odds calculators, every moment of a sports game can be turned into a wager.” [Quote same link and Image]
“Won your bet that Lamar Jackson would throw on 2nd and 10? Why not bet again that he'll scramble for the first down on 3rd and 3?” [Same quote and image]
But it’s not just sports betting that’s getting a taste of AI.
You also see traditional casino websites giving each visitor a personalized, dynamic homepage with the perfect game—be it bingo, slots, poker, pick your poison. [Quote same link, find “Future Anthem” and image]
Then adapting to meet the player’s desire at any given moment, and offering bonuses if they’re getting dejected. [Same quote and image]
Well, okay, that’s to be expected with websites, but what if you go to the casino in person? The AI can’t possibly be there too, right? Image
Except uh … yeah, it is.
Right, the start-up nQube [N-cube], for example, reportedly uses machine learning to optimize the placement of slot machines on the casino floor. [Quote same link, find “nQube”]
So according to Insider, removing the total number of machines can actually increase the casino's "win" if the machines are arranged in a way that redirects players to games where they'll make larger bets. [Same quote and image]
Also, casinos have figured out how to personalize the experience for each player, too.
With some locations reportedly putting RFID chips inside every gambling chip, then tracking each person’s behavior, building a digital profile, and automatically directing human workers to intervene accordingly. [Quote same link, find “RIFD”]
Whether that means a free drink, a bonus spin, or any other perk that keeps them playing longer.
And when it comes to the marriage between gambling and AI, we’re really just getting started.
Right, when you look at what industry insiders are imagining for the future, it starts to get a little Brave New Worldy.
With the consultant Deloitte’s Global Lottery and Gambling Centre of Excellence publishing a research paper last spring predicting that games could be personalized in real time for each gambler. [Quote same link, find “Deloitte”]
Writing that Ai could “allow the games themselves to generate content based on the explicit or even implicit actions of players, from instantly generated new items and playing levels to in-game characters that can have lifelike discussions.” [Same quote]
Now you can probably guess what the human cost of all this profiteering is: a virtual epidemic of gambling addiction.
With the National Council on Problem Gambling estimating that about 1% of American adults have a severe gambling problem, and 2 to 3% have a mild or moderate problem. [Quote, find “1%”]
Which, in absolute terms, would total somewhere between 7.5 and 10.5 million people. [Same quote]
And if you go global, the numbers get really shocking.
With a recent report from The Lancet Public Health commission on gambling finding nearly 450 million people have experienced at least one behavioral symptom or negative consequence from gambling. [Quote, find “450”]
And as you’d expect, the habit can take a nasty bite out of a person’s finances.
With researchers at UCLA finding that states that legalized sports betting saw bankruptcies jump 28% and debt collections rise by 8%. [Quote, find “28%”]
As well as lower credit scores, more Auto loan delinquencies and more debt consolidation loans. [Same quote]
With another paper finding that for every dollar a household puts into betting, it takes two dollars out of safer, long-term investments like retirement accounts. [Quote, find “2 fewer”]
Or in Brazil, reportedly the world’s third largest sports betting market, people now spend as much as one-fifth of their welfare money on gambling, according to the Associated Press. [Image and Quote, find “20%”]
But many critics and supporters alike agree that none of this is inevitable, and even the application of AI doesn’t have to be exploitative.
Right, in theory, the same software that profiles individual players so it can feed them more bets could instead be used to identify problem gamblers and ween them off.
So as one company proposed, you could look for patterns—things like unusually large bets, declined deposits, playing at unexpected times—then intervene to stop them. [Quote, find “declined deposits”]
But with so many different ways and places to gamble, you’d almost certainly need regulators to get involved and protect consumers from predatory business practices and themselves.
With some throwing around ideas like placing a cap on deposits or imposing a maximum bet limit.
And in September, Democrats Senator Richard Blumenthal and Representative Paul Tonko introduced the SAFE Bet Act to get the ball rolling.
With that bill including limits on advertising, affordability checks and restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence to create bets and target bettors. [Quote, find “Safe Bet Act”]
Then, in December, the Senate Judiciary Committee held its first hearing to address the harms to public health caused by sports betting.
[Clip, 00:58 - 01:13] Caption: “It is virtually impossible to watch a sporting event today without being barraged by ads encouraging you to bet, or hearing from a celebrity endorser about the latest parlay you should try.”
[Clip, 27:32 - 27:43] Caption: “NCPG estimates that every dollar spent to prevent and treat gambling addiction saves government at least two dollars in criminal justice and healthcare-related social costs.”
[Clip, 35:01 - 35:12] Caption: “With gambling addiction, the risk of suicide is omnipresent. Research shows that one in every two people will contemplate suicide, and one in five will attempt.”
But keep in mind, that was from the last Congressional session; right, this one’s got different people and different priorities.
So you recently had Bill Miller, the president of the American Gaming Association, telling the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States that he expected an industry-friendly federal government. [Quote, find “Bill Miller”]
Saying, “We have a Republican president, Republican Senate and Republican House. And so what does that mean for the gaming industry? It means probably less pressure.” [Quote same link,
And if he’s right, that’s a striking development for the GOP, which used to be the party of the “moral majority” and “just say no.”
But as Manhattan Institute fellow Charles Lehman [Lay-min] argued in a New York Times op-ed, they’ve embraced a new constituency of young men whom some have labeled “Barstool conservatives.” [Quote]
So pointing out the president’s relatively liberal attitudes toward things like sports betting, marijuana and cryptocurrency, he concluded, “Trump seems willing, even eager, to embrace vice.” [Quote same link]
But to be fair, Kamala Harris wasn’t exactly a moral crusader on those issues, either.
Right, she ran campaign ads on Draft Kings, supported legalizing marijuana, and promised to encourage the growth of crypto markets. [Headline, headline, headline]
And of course, all this comes at a time when it seems like virtually everything in American life is designed to be as addictive as humanly possible.
I mean, you’ve got social media platforms, streaming services, online marketplaces, video games, pornography, cannabis, painkillers, even the Philip DeFranco Show.
All of which are constantly competing for your money or your attention, or both.
And then, you’ve got Nate Silver, whom I cited earlier, arguing that even putting capital-G gambling aside, Americans have drifted toward a more volatile culture of risk-taking in general. [B roll 01:50 and Quote, find “volatile culture”]
Whether it’s in dating apps, venture capital or public health, with millions now foregoing vaccines. [Same quote]
Or, I’ll add, in politics, since a lot of people seem willing to roll the dice on demagogues they know are dangerous just to try to shake up the establishment.
But we’ve talked about a lot, so I’ll put a pin in it there and look forward to seeing your thoughts down in the comments.
And I also wanna thank you for enduring this endless assault on your senses from so many different players and still finding 30 minutes a day, four days a week for my humble little show.
Go to Rocket Money to cancel your unwanted subscriptions with Rocket Money.
-
The FBI is exploring whether to charge animal activists who break into factory farms with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.
A charge that can carry a life sentence in prison.
Right, that is what was revealed in agency records obtained through Freedom of Information Act litigation by an animal rights group and seen by The Intercept.
With the outlet reporting that the FBI:
“has been collaborating with the meat industry to gather information on animal rights activism [...] under its directive to counter weapons of mass destruction”
And specifically, the bureau reportedly floated the possibility of charging these activists under a statute that pertains to biological weapons.
Which are a subtype of WMD that includes things like toxins, viruses, and microorganisms intentionally used to spur disease outbreaks or death.
But many experts say that the charges are totally bogus.
Right, it is true that the activists are breaking and entering — which is definitely a crime,
But in the cases in question here, they’re committing misdemeanors, like trespassing to take pictures of the conditions these animals are in, or stealing some smaller animals.
And animal rights lawyers and advocates say that any effort to charge them under WDM laws is just a pretense to scapegoat activists and justify harsher prosecution.
According to Justin Marceau (Mar-So), a law professor who runs a legal clinic for animal activists at the University of Denver, this is an attempt to blame activists for the disease outbreaks that are already rampant on these big, corporate farms.
Outbreaks that happen because of the unsanitary packed conditions these animals live in.
With Mar-So explaining:
“It’s a transparent form of scapegoating and blame shifting [that avoids] talking about the disease risks that come from having animals intensively confined in these high stress conditions. We know these are just petri dishes of disease and contamination.”
And adding: “This kind of escalation in charging or threats of charges is textbook escalation by government actors against successful efforts by social movements that they disagree with or find subversive. The very framing of civil disobedience against factory farms as terrorism is a form of government repression.”
Now, very notably here, it doesn’t appear that any activists have been charged under WMD statutes yet, but just the fact that they are targets of the FBI’s WMD directive is absolutely massive.
And the FBI records have real examples of this happening.
For example, there was one incident back in 2019 involving Holmes Foods, which is the largest privately owned chicken producer in Texas.
And there, Holmes Foods reportedly tipped off the FBI that activists from the group Meat the Victims had broken into a poultry boiler that the company bought chickens from.
And records show that Holmes Food simply asked the FBI’s Dallas outpost for “guidance on preparing for future incidents.”
But, in response, the office’s local WMD coordinator had a phone call with the producer and other FBI agents.
And despite the fact that the company’s executives told the FBI that “no damage or product loss was immediately identified,” Dallas’s WMD program still recorded the event as part of its intelligence gathering on “animal rights environmental extremism” —
Which the FBI classifies as a form of domestic terrorism.
And that isn’t the only example that came out of the FBI’s WMD outpost in Dallas.
The next year, The Meat Institute — which is the biggest trade association for poultry and livestock industries in America — reportedly invited an FBI agent for Dallas’s WMD program to its 2020 Animal Care and Handling Conference to:
“provide insight into agroterrorism and federal law enforcement’s approach to protecting the United States meat industry.”
And there, the Intercept says that agent presented a slideshow called “Agroterrorism in the Meat/Livestock Industry.”
With the presentation reportedly detailing the “emerging” WMD and domestic terrorism threats posed by animal rights activist groups that often break minor criminal laws, like trespassing.
But the records show that, during the presentation, the agent warned:
“minor criminal actions associated with animal rights activist extremism have a tendency to escalate toward substantial direct actions, to include the unintentional introduction of biological materials, toxic chemicals or other hazards into a herd and/or flock.”
With the agent also reportedly encouraging meat industry groups to report this type of behavior to its WMD Directive or Joint Terrorism Task Forces.
And then going on to provide a glimpse into various legal strategies the agency had been looking into, including charging activists under three different federal criminal statutes concerning WMDs.
And after that, the agent reportedly noted that the Meat the Vicitims activists in Texas were “charged with misdemeanor criminal trespass,” but also “emphasized the potential [domestic terrorism] and WMD food sector connections.”
With the The Intercept claiming that move suggests: “that this is the type of activism the bureau might target with criminal charges.”
But like animal rights lawyers and other advocates, some activists themselves also argue that this is just a frivolous attempt to blame them and justify extreme crackdowns.
With one member of Meat the Victims who was arrested on misdemeanor trespassing charges saying that the Texas poultry farm didn’t even lock its gate or barn door, so:
“they’re obviously not too concerned about biohazards.”
And even arguing that the most serious bio-risk would have remained hidden without the activists’ intervention, explaining:
“Nobody is coming in there and cleaning up the dead [chicken] bodies. If there’s disease, you know, disease is just going to spread rampant.”
But the FBI’s efforts here went beyond Texas.
Right, the agency also tried to paint animal rights activists as biosecurity and infectious disease threats in another incident in San Francisco back in 2019.
And there, a memo shows that the FBI’s San Francisco field office claimed that activists with the group Direct Action Everywhere were breaking into poultry facilities and rescuing birds with “little to no regard for basic biosecurity measures.”
With the FBI citing a handful of journal articles to determine that the activists’ actions helped contribute to the spread of a highly contagious bird illness called Newcastle disease.
And during the prosecution of one of the group’s organizers, ZoeRosenberg, a California prosecutor tried to frame her as a bioterror threat.
But Rosenberg disputes the bio-risk claims, telling The Intercept that Direct Action Everywhere goes “above and beyond” the biosecurity protocols outlined by federal and state agencies.
This including wearing a biosecurity suit, gloves, hair net, and shoe covers while working with farm animals.
And adding that, when leaving a facility:
“all of that protective equipment is sealed and disposed of safely, just in case it is contaminated with any bacteria or virus from within the facility.”
So for now, we’ll just have to wait and see if these FBI efforts grow, and more people are targeted under the WMD directly — or if there is a major escalation and we start seeing actual WDM charges.
But with this, I’d love to know your thoughts here — especially if you aren’t necessarily a supporter of animal rights groups and think their actions are extreme.
Right, do you think these kinds of charges are fair or go way too far?
Go to MeUndies and use code philipdefranco to get 20% off your first order, + free shipping on orders of $75 or more.
