New York Times columnist David Brooks has written a favorable piece praising online communities, such as Facebook Groups, in connection with the release of a study of the Groups feature partially funded by the social media giant, Buzzfeed News reported Friday.

In the piece, Brooks praises Facebook Groups as having a “tendency to subvert social hierarchies,” and says they seem to “create opportunities especially for non-dominant groups, people who might feel uncomfortable walking into an in-person meeting place.”

Brooks also says that Facebook Groups have created a new type of “online community leader,” the administrators who monitor the groups. “There are 70 million admins in the world today,” Brooks writes. “That’s 70 million community leaders, practicing their leadership in new and novel ways. Surely we should be focusing a lot of attention on these people, on helping them perform their role well.” Brooks also mentioned that Facebook is creating certification processes to help the group admins, and connecting them with “potentially revenue generating brands.”

In 2018, Brooks created Weave: The Social Fabric Project, a nonprofit that supports “hyperlocal community builders.” Weave is affiliated with the Aspen Institute, which receives funding from Facebook. A Facebook spokesperson told Buzzfeed that it has publicly disclosed its financial support for the Aspen Institute “for years,” and the Aspen Institute confirmed to Buzzfeed that Weave had received funding from Facebook.

Brooks said that the community leaders working with Weave “heavily rely on social media sites like Facebook to communicate with their communities, to deepen relationships, to do their work. I would say that they are suspicious of Facebook the corporation, but I’m struck by how often they are glowing about what they can do on Facebook with their neighbors.”

The Buzzfeed report says Brooks’ post raises questions of journalistic ethics. “Brooks’ ties to Facebook raise questions of conflicts of interest at the world’s most influential newspaper, and highlight how the social network is working to rehabilitate its brand after years of criticism and scrutiny for its roles in spreading conspiracy theories, fomenting hate, and influencing elections,” the Buzzfeed story says, pointing out that Facebook’s own internal research suggests that the Groups feature fosters polarization, radicalization, and misinformation.

Although Brooks, who is no stranger to controversial takes, acknowledged that studies have shown that “the rise in social media has been accompanied by a rise in depression, suicide, and political polarization,” he said that in recent years his mind has been changed by studies that “find surprisingly little or no correlation between social media uses and these social maladies [of depression, suicide and political polarization].”

When asked whether Brooks’ piece for Facebook and his connection to a group partially funded by Facebook violate any Times policies, a Times spokesperson provided Mediaite with the same statement provided to Buzzfeed.

“David was asked to respond to a research report and participate in a panel discussion in connection with his work with the Weave project, a nonprofit community-building effort connected to the Aspen Institute that David has worked with for several years,” the statement said. “The report was done by outside academics and he was given complete intellectual freedom to write and say what he thought. No compensation was involved.”

“David’s editors were not aware of the blog post or panel discussion,” the statement continues, “and they are discussing with him now what additional steps he might take to make sure that his work with the Weave project doesn’t create any appearance of conflicts with his Times journalism.”

Photo credit: Eric Baradat, AFP via Getty Images

The Washington Post editorial board called out President Joe Biden for failing to directly sanction Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, the architect of the murder of the paper’s former columnist, Jamal Khashoggi.

On Friday afternoon, the Post‘s published an op-ed entitled “Mohammed bin Salman is guilty of murder. Biden should not give him a pass.” In it, it called out the new Democratic president for his decision not to put in place any kind of official government punishment on MBS, as he’s known, for the killing of Khashoggi, who was a permanent U.S. resident and frequent critic of the Saudi regime.

From the Editorial Board:

Mohammed bin Salman is guilty of murder. Biden should not give him a pass. https://t.co/NyVdxgzi8C pic.twitter.com/Jsimylkr22

— Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) February 26, 2021

 The Post’s op-ed was published just hours after a New York Times story went live that summarized a leaked official U.S. intelligence assessment that found bin Salman directed the assassination (and subsequent dismemberment) of Khashoggi. Nevertheless, the Biden White House announced no specific sanctions of MBS, which ignited a swift backlash that had one political observer saying Biden was adopting the same position as former President Donald Trump: “save MBS’ ass.”

That was not acceptable to the Post’s board, which called for a enacting a travel ban and asset freeze on MBS.

That heinous crime against a permanent U.S. resident and contributing columnist to The Post should not go unpunished. Under U.S. law, Mohammed bin Salman, or MBS, as he his widely known, ought to be banned from travel to the United States and subjected to an asset freeze. That President Biden has chosen not to pursue that course suggests that the “fundamental” change he promised in U.S.-Saudi relations will not include holding to account its reckless ruler, who consequently is unlikely to be deterred from further criminal behavior.

By failing to do so, the Post hit Biden as essentially flip-flopping on his campaign rhetoric by giving “a pass” to the Saudi Crown Prince. Failure to do so, the paper warned, will only embolden the MBS to kill more dissidents at home or abroad.

Mr. Biden is nevertheless granting what amounts to a pass to a ruler who has sown instability around the Middle East in recent years while presiding over the most severe repression of dissent in modern Saudi history. It is a risky course to adopt in the absence of evidence that MBS is prepared to fundamentally alter his regime. At a minimum, the administration ought to require, as a condition for normal relations, that the architect of the Khashoggi murder and other human rights offenses — Saud al-Qahtani, a close aide of MBS named in the CIA report — be brought to justice. If the criminal apparatus MBS employed against Khashoggi is not dismantled, there will be more victims.

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Friday evening on the long-awaited $1.9 trillion stimulus package aimed at providing Americans with economic relief.

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, or H.R. 1319, is expected to include, among other measures:

• Direct $1,400 payments to individuals make less than $75,000 annually;
• Funding to extend enhanced federal unemployment benefits through August;
• Funding for a 15 percent increase in benefits for food stamp recipients through September;
• $350 billion in aid to states, cities, and tribal governments;
• $130 billion for K-12 schools;
• $50 million in funding for Title X groups, such as the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association and Planned Parenthood;
• $40 billion for higher education;
• $50 billion for small business;
• Miscellaneous pork spending, such as $100 million for San Francisco’s BART transit system.

The legislation is also expected to include a measure that would mandate a $15 minimum wage across the country by 2025, despite dim odds it will pass the Senate. That chamber’s parliamentarian ruled on Thursday evening that it would be procedurally improper to include the minimum wage measure in a proposal on the budget. At least two Senate Democrats, Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) and Joe Manchin (WV), also said they would vote against the proposal.

The package will proceed to the Senate after Friday’s passage in the House. Lawmakers are expected to have a final product on President Joe Biden’s desk by March 14.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) took a parting shot at the proposal in the hours leading up to Friday’s vote. “It takes care of Democrats’ political allies while it fails to deliver for American families,” McCarthy said. “We already know what is the best stimulus plan out there: It is to fully reopen our economy. To do that, we need our economy to go back to work, back to school and back to health.”

The House Rules Committee was still debating the package as of early Friday evening.

Watch above via the House Rules Committee.