Section 230 of the

The end of Roe v. Wade is leaving web platforms struggling to handle moderation — and data safety — questions around newly instituted abortion bans.

For years, web platforms have faced relatively little backlash for pledging to remove posts that violate US law, even if there’s debate over whether specific content meets that standard. Policies that “match the laws of the country” — Elon Musk’s initial description of his plans for Twitter — are typically code for very permissive moderation in the US, where the First Amendment has historically protected a huge swath of content. The 2018 FOSTA-SESTA carveout, a rare exception, targeted the marginalized community of sex workers and used the justification that it was fighting the rightfully loathed cause of coercive sex trafficking.

But the present and coming state laws against abortion may change that. The laws — currently active in several states — ban a medical procedure that most Americans believe should be legal, and some groups want this ban to cover even information about the procedure. Large parts of the web have mobilized in response, offering to put up people seeking abortions and ship abortion pills, publicizing information about self-managed abortion, and (in rare cases) calling for violent resistance.

That’s already raising questions for Facebook and Instagram’s parent company, Meta. Earlier this week, both platforms removed posts that offered to mail abortion pills , citing rules against offering to “buy, sell, trade, gift, request, or donate pharmaceuticals.” According to a report from The Intercept , it also banned praising or supporting an abortion rights protest group called Jane’s Revenge, which has claimed responsibility for setting a fire at the office of an anti-abortion group, among other incidents.

These decisions aren’t particularly surprising. Shipping abortion pills to states like Texas could run afoul of those states’ laws, and Meta has bans on selling drugs like cannabis as well. Jane’s Revenge supports a cause many people find sympathetic, and the extent of the group’s size or activity is far from clear , but it’s claimed credit for crimes and called for a “night of rage” and “drastic measures” against anti-abortion infrastructure.

That said, critics have questioned the level of scrutiny abortion-related content has gotten. Instagram briefly removed the account of an abortion services locator and limited the hashtag for “mifepristone” on the grounds that it was being used in posts that violated guidelines. Jane’s Revenge was reportedly designated a “Tier 1” priority group, a higher restriction than the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters insurrectionist groups.

These decisions could eventually make their way to the Oversight Board, which theoretically exists to make difficult, nuanced moderation calls with some independence from Meta. But, with Roe v. Wade overturned barely a week ago, the Oversight Board hasn’t taken up any abortion-related cases. (A spokesperson acknowledged an email from The Verge asking whether it was considering the issues, but the organization didn’t respond by press time.) It seems plausible it will do so in the future — possibly drawing lines between things like providing medical information and directly facilitating a procedure.

But, even if it takes on the issue, that wouldn’t stop states and politicians from going after platforms that host abortion-related content. A model anti-abortion law from the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee would ban offering information about getting an abortion illegally, and South Carolina lawmakers have already proposed an apparent version of it in the state legislature. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act helps protect sites from liability right now, but it’s facing numerous challenges in courts and Congress.

Abortion isn’t the only issue where platforms could end up facing a patchwork of requests to take down content. As Politico notes , 34 states have introduced (and two have passed) bills governing social network moderation; many require sites to leave specific content up , but others demand takedowns of things like medical misinformation. Meanwhile, there’s a growing political movement to stop booksellers and libraries from letting minors access LGBTQ-related books, and if it continues to escalate, the fight could easily move online.

Web platforms have always had to deal with following laws their founders don’t necessarily agree with, and they’ve often acquiesced. Twitter limited hate speech in European countries while aiming to serve as “the free speech wing of the free speech party,” and Amazon recently restricted LGBTQ searches in the United Arab Emirates, among many other examples. But they’ve also been called upon to draw moral lines that go beyond following the laws of a given country. Apple, for instance, has been excoriated for following Chinese demands for censorship and access to user data. In the US, sites that submit to abortion-related police requests could face the same censure.

Companies like Meta have practical incentives to avoid being seen as partisan inside the US, and they’ve taken pains to do so, even when it involves deliberately putting their thumb on the moderation scale. While many have expressed support for employees’ reproductive choices, they’ve been quieter about any broader stance on the end of Roe v. Wade . But as abortion bans spread, that’s going to become more and more difficult — and eventually, they’ll have to make a call.

Most Lululemon fanatics know that the cult-favorite brand’s best kept secret is its “We Made Too Much” section. It’s Lululemon’s sale section (just with a less direct name), and right now the page features major discounts on some of the brand’s most popular men’s and women’s styles. Because full-blown Lululemon sales only happen a couple of times a year, the section is of the only ways to save on the activewear company’s designs—so it’s definitely worth checking out.

Lululemon’s “We Made Too Much” section gets restocked every Thursday, so you have the widest selection of discounted styles, sizes and colorways to choose from at the end of the week. Right now, you’ll find deals on everything from the best-selling Energy Bra to a non-slip yoga mat . Below, check out 12 markdowns we recommend adding to your cart.

forbes.com Lululemon Promo Codes | 30% Off In March 2022 | Forbes

Our Lululemon Sale Section Picks

A Popular Tank

---

This Basic T-Shirt

---

A Slip-Proof Yoga Mat

---

A Warm Half-Zip

---

This Best-Selling Sports Bra

---

These Lightweight Shorts

---

These Sweat-Proof Leggings

---

These Go-To Joggers

---

A Springy Crewneck

---

A Comfy Workout Tee

---

These Wear-Everywhere Pants

---

A Chic Headband

An historic bridge in the Netherlands will reportedly no longer be dismantled to allow Amazon founder Jeff Bezos ‘ new superyacht to pass through.

Back in February, it was reported that Koningshavenbrug, a now-decommissioned lift bridge known locally as De Hef, would be taken apart temporarily so the billionaire’s new 417-foot yacht Y721, which is being built by Dutch firm Oceanco, could reach the ocean .

At present, the three-mast ship, set to be the second largest superyacht in the world and valued at nearly $500 million, cannot fit under the bridge without removing the middle section.

The plans sparked public outcry with De Hef viewed by many as one of Rotterdam’s leading landmarks and a popular destination for sightseeing tourists .

Now, according to Dutch news outlet Trouw , which filed a freedom of information request, the proposal has been shelved. It reports, as quoted by the NL Times, that Oceanco has “informed the municipality that it is canceling its current logistical plans.”

Trouw reported that the decision was a direct result of a public outcry that blew up when the plans were first proposed. “Shipyard employees feel threatened and the company fears it will be vandalized,” Trouw said, according to DutchNews.nl.

Local groups had previously voiced their opposition to the move. In February, Ton Wesselink from local history society Historisch Genootschap Roterodamum told Rijnmond : “Jobs are important, but there are limits with what you can and should do with our industrial heritage.”

There was similar anger online with a petition calling for a halt to the plans amassing thousands of signatures . The petition noted that De Hef was only renovated in 2017, at which time “the municipality of Rotterdam promised that the bridge would never be dismantled again.” Yet, it noted that that promise seemed “bound to be broken.”

While Bezos had pledged to cover the costs incurred in dismantling and rebuilding the bridge, the petition organizer felt the plans still sent a message that “as long as you are rich enough, there are no restrictions whatsoever.”

“Monuments can be modified and rules—that apply to everyone—lifted,” they noted, going on to contrast “the eagerness with which Bezos’ request is being indulged” to his “rigidness and refusal in providing basic human rights to his warehouse workers.”

Thousands more signed up to a planned protest that would have seen the superyacht pelted with rotten eggs as it traveled through the city.

“Calling all Rotterdammers,” wrote event organizer Pablo Strörmann on Facebook , “take a box of rotten eggs with you, and let’s throw them en masse at Jeff’s superyacht when it sails through the Hef in Rotterdam.”

It is not yet clear how Bezos or Oceanco intend to proceed with the delivery of the super yacht.

Newsweek has contacted Amazon, Oceanco and Strörmann for comment.

Christchurch engineer Joo Cho thought he knew best in designing the building at 230 High St. His work has sparked controversy that has embroiled 12 New Zealand engineering firms and prompted a court battle. MARTIN VAN BEYNEN reports.

In four years, not much has changed at 230 High S t, a trouble-plagued building in a prime location in Christchurch’s CBD.

To look at the nearly-finished building in July 2022, it’s as though workers suddenly dropped their tools and fled.

Autumn leaves have made their way under a ground-level glass door which was supposed to be the entrance to a Coffee Club cafe. Instead of tables, happy patrons and the smell of coffee, there is a wheelbarrow, a ladder and unopened packets of insulation material.

READ MORE: Engineer behind faulty Christchurch office building found to be ‘incompetent’ Defective central Christchurch high-rise still in limbo after two years Developer declined Rockwell group responsible for substandard building in Christchurch

The blue and green glass panels used to clad the front of the building look like an abstract painting, but there is nothing abstract about the building’s predicament.

Due to defects in its design, it will have to be dismantled or demolished. In the meantime the only action on the building will be in the High Court.

Proceedings started in late 2021 and, with three plaintiffs, seven defendants and multiple claims and counterclaims, it promises to be a complex and bitter scrap unless the parties settle before trial. Stuff has obtained the documents from the High Court. They tell a sad story.

A quick history

The land and building at 230 High St is owned by Hyung Sun Kim, who lives in Auckland and has business interests in Manila. Design work began in 2015, with the foundations and superstructure designed by Auckland firm Blue Barn Consulting. Its work was peer-reviewed by ISPS Consulting Engineers, a Taupō firm then owned by Ian and Mary Smith. The couple were killed in a car accident near Tokoroa in October 2016. The firm has closed. Blue Barn’s design received a consent from the Christchurch City Council in May 2016.

The developer, Rockwell One Ltd, then asked Christchurch firm Seismotech, a one-man band consisting of owner Joo Hyun Cho, to prepare detailed design drawings and calculations for the steel girder superstructure.

Cho did his engineering degree in Korea, completed post graduate studies at the University of Canterbury and had worked for several firms and the Christchurch City Council. He became a chartered engineer in 2008.

On the High St job, he completely redesigned the structure. The work was peer-reviewed by engineering firm Miyamoto International NZ which has an office in Christchurch.

Miyamoto provided certificates saying Cho’s new steel structural design complied with the Building Code and in February 2018 the city council issued a consent. The council used Opus International Consultants (now WSP New Zealand) to help with the consenting process and the firm also advised Seismotech’s design met Building Code standards.

Construction started in November 2015 and was well advanced when, two years later, a graduate engineer working for Aurecon Consulting Engineers walked past the site and became alarmed .

The debacle

The young engineer reported what they thought were design flaws in the building to their bosses. It was the start of a debacle for everyone connected to the building.

More experienced heads in Aurecon looked at the rookie’s concerns and agreed. They approached Cho but he was adamant Aurecon did not understand the method he had used. Aurecon then went to the council which asked Cho and Miyamoto for their response. Cho assured the council his design was compliant. Not satisfied, the council asked Holmes Consulting Engineers to review Aurecon’s worries.

In the meantime, Rockwell continued with construction and in February 2018 the council issued another consent. That August, Holmes came back to the council saying most of Aurecon’s concerns were valid.

The council then went to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) for a ruling on Cho’s design. In December 2019, after a review by global engineering firm Beca , MBIE concluded the building had major defects, including the design underestimating seismic loads by 25 per cent; a column in the superstructure being overloaded by 500 per cent; demands on the columns being 10 times the capacity of the piles; a column splice (a feature designed to spread load) being inadequate for the column; and a potentially dangerous brace at ground level which had been modified to allow access to the stairwell.

As a result the council, which had been charging full commercial rates on the building since May 2018, had no choice but to stop issuing consents and code compliance certificates . The building was in limbo. The owner’s own engineering report by Structex Harvard Consulting Engineers concluded the building could not be refitted and would have to be demolished or dismantled.

Cho struck off

Acting on a complaint by a partner at Aurecon, the Disciplinary Committee of Engineering New Zealand held a hearing and ruled in December 2021 to remove Cho from the register of chartered professional engineers , citing incompetence and his refusal to look objectively at the concerns. Cho, still adamant his designs were compliant, told the committee he had retired.

Engineers from Miyamoto, the firm which peer-reviewed Cho’s design, told the committee their certificate approving Cho’s design was subject to plan changes it wanted. The changes weren’t made even though Cho confirmed the issues were resolved. Cho had made fundamental design changes during construction “without our review”, they said.

The battle begins

Every civil court action begins with a statement of claim filed by the parties who want to recover their losses. They are called the plaintiffs. In this case there are three: the building’s owner Kim; Rockwell E & C Ltd, a construction company owned by Riccarton resident Jinho Kwon; and Rockwell One Ltd, a property investment company also owned by Kwon. Kwon’s companies were in charge of the development and construction of the building.

The plaintiffs are claiming against seven defendants, the first three being the Christchurch City Council, Cho and his company Seismotech. The other four are the engineering firms involved in vouching for parts of the design – Blue Barn, ISPS, Miyamoto and WPS (formerly Opus).

Essentially all the defendants are accused of failing in their legal responsibilities, whether designing, peer-reviewing, consenting or inspecting. The result was a non-compliant building that is useless, it’s claimed. In the court documents, the plaintiffs claim losses of about $19 million including the cost of a rebuild and demolition expenses.

The plaintiffs make much of the contention that if a rookie engineer could spot the problems from the street, they should have been plain to everyone else involved.

They also claim the building poses a risk to pedestrians and neighbouring properties, a claim denied by the council.

Defences and counterclaim

The council, in its statement of defence, maintains it used reasonable skill and care in issuing building consents and carrying out inspections. The plaintiffs, it says, failed to mitigate their loss, alleging they knew of Aurecon’s concerns at least by November 2017, but continued to maintain the building’s design was compliant and carried on with construction. No independent expert was engaged until June 2019.

The council also counterclaims against Seismotech, Cho, Miyamoto and WSP citing much the same failures as the plaintiffs. If the council is found to be liable, the four parties should indemnify it for any liability, the council says. Cho also breached his duty to the council by not being insured despite his statements to the contrary, the council says.

More defences

In his defence Cho denies the structural design was defective and says Beca, who did the report for MBIE, used the wrong methodology and based its conclusions on assumptions without detailed supporting calculations. He insists his structural design met the Building Code. Like the council he also alleges the plaintiffs should have taken remedial action when told of the supposed defects.

Miyamoto’s position in its statement of defence is much the same as what it told the Engineering NZ Discipinary Tribunal in that it did not review all elements of the building design that were found to be defective. WSP says it was a member of a panel of preferred consultants set up by the council to help process building consent applications and under its contract its review was limited to four or five hours for each consent. Its check did not involve a peer review or a looking at underlying calculations.

In the court documents, Blue Barn and ISPS both say Cho made changes to the design they prepared and approved.

All defendants accuse the plaintiffs of not doing enough to mitigate their loss.

Looking ahead

The parties will now start discovery, a process where all relevant documents are collected.

A trial will be years away and in the meantime the building’s owner has few options other than to begin demolition. Unlike Cho, the engineering firms embroiled in the legal battle will be well insured. A resolution is likely. Watch this space.