While covering a Nov. 10 protest led by @copsoutofNU, I spoke to an Evanston resident who experienced an easy relationship between EPD and Evanston residents. He put NIPAS in a different category, saying they appeared "dangerous." 🧵:

As of yesterday, we learned EPD police chief is responsible for all NIPAS calls and behavior, including calling for the firing of pepper balls on NU students on 10/31. Some of these students needed medical attention.
And while NIPAS, with their numbers and ammunition, appears chiefly responsible for larger, crowd control activities, EPD typically handles arrests.

I've spotted EPD arrest vehicles present at almost every NUCNC protests, big or small.
While covering NUCNC, I've noticed esp. in higher-income, White parts of Evanston that residents see the police relationship as peaceful.

( I work at a a local Evanston restaurant, and customers will often offer to pay for EPD officers meals when they eat at the restaurant.)
The idea, it seems to me, is that many residents in these higher-income, predominantly White parts of Evanston see the community as a gold-standard, liberal community where police and citizens get along.

When police are recorded engaging in violence, the blame shifts elsewhere.
In the case of the 10/31 protest, that blame shifted toward NIPAS. Residents saw NIPAS as the "bad guys" (if residents saw the police activity as crossing a line at all, which some did not).
What's important to note about what we learned last night (Thanks @maia_spoto , @delaneygnelson , @whereisourtent , @alexhairysun) is that EPD and NIPAS are intertwined. EPD summons NIPAS and EPD makes many of the calls regarding NIPAS behavior.
And while there may be an ethos of protecting the citizens of Evanston, aggravated behavior toward students seems to be justified by painting the students as outsiders to the city, despite the fact that many NU students pay rent and work in the city and live here full time.
And for the sake of honoring the facts, I like to bump my coverage of the 10/31 protests whenever discussions about that night surface. This is the only on-the-ground coverage and some claims made by EPD are unverified.

https://t.co/VBK5X4VbnC
Also check out this thread where I face-checked some of the common claims from that night:
https://t.co/e9h3BJ6D5K
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from For later read

This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.

@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.

Some counterpoints 👇


1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.

This does not seem self-evident to me


Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇

If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted

2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.

But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.

Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.

3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:

"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."

To

"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."

IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
@snip96581187 @Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen Clearly, because as I have been saying for 8 months now, DTRA and DARPA have been using Ecohealth and UC Davis to collect novel pathogens for gain of function work back in the USA. I have documented this in many threads which I will post here just to annoy everyone.

@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen


@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen


@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen


@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen

You May Also Like

The UN just voted to condemn Israel 9 times, and the rest of the world 0.

View the resolutions and voting results here:

The resolution titled "The occupied Syrian Golan," which condemns Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, was adopted by a vote of 151 - 2 - 14.

Israel and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/HoO7oz0dwr


The resolution titled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people..." was adopted by a vote of 153 - 6 - 9.

Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/1Ntpi7Vqab


The resolution titled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan" was adopted by a vote of 153 – 5 – 10.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/REumYgyRuF


The resolution titled "Applicability of the Geneva Convention... to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory..." was adopted by a vote of 154 - 5 - 8.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/xDAeS9K1kW
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?