So the newly elected representative who is best known for her near-constant presence on social media now says it’s a public health risk. From Yahoo News:

“I personally gave up Facebook, which was kind of a big deal because I started my campaign on Facebook. And Facebook was my primary digital organizing tool for a very long time. I gave up on it,” said Ocasio-Cortez, whose campaign still has an account on the social media platform but who mostly uses Instagram and Twitter to connect with her followers.

“Social media poses a public health risk to everybody,” she continued. “There are amplified impacts for young people, particularly children under the age of 3, with screen time. But I think it has a lot of effects on older people. I think it has effects on everybody. Increased isolation, depression, anxiety, addiction, escapism.”

The Washington Post reports that while AOC may have quit Facebook, she’s still promoting herself with ads on the site:

She still has accounts on the site, she said, and according to the company’s ad library, her official Facebook account has dozens of active advertisements sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for Congress. Among the ads are calls to support her signature Green New Deal, and fundraising pleas to support progressive legislation and to counteract a super PAC aligned against her.

“The congresswoman’s words speak for themselves,” said Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez.

So it’s harmful to everyone and she doesn’t use it…but her campaign does. Also, what good is quitting Facebook if you’re still spending time every day on Twitter and Instagram? Like much of what AOC says, it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

In the same interview, AOC was asked about a recent poll which showed a majority of respondents in her own district supported the Amazon deal and the 25,000 jobs it was supposed to bring. She replied, “Where does that 25,000 number come from?” She added, “Everyone always cites this number and it is almost completely unsubstantiated and it almost feels like it only comes from Amazon.”

Where else would it come from? I mean, Amazon made a deal to create a new corporate headquarters in New York (and Virginia). Isn’t it up to Amazon to determine how many people will be involved in that? And if so, how can anyone else really determine how many jobs will be involved?

In any case, podcast host Michael Isikoff made the obvious point: “So what if it was only 15,000 jobs?”

“Even then, my opposition was less and is less about something personal with Amazon, and it’s more about the structure of the deal,” AOC said. She continued, “A lot of people say, ‘Oh, this thing pays for itself.’ First of all—revenue neutral—I don’t know if revenue neutral is the goal that we need right now. Secondly, 25,000 jobs at $150,000 is what was promised. Does that sound, like, realistic? Does that sound like something that’s going to happen…”

First, the idea wasn’t that the deal was revenue neutral but that the tax breaks would pay for themselves because of all the additional tax revenue the company would bring to the city. Second, Amazon has 613,300 workers worldwide with most of those (more than half a million) in the U.S. Amazon has doubled its staff in the past two years. So, yes, it seems very, like, realistic that Amazon could have added 25,000 high paying jobs in New York at a site they were touting as HQ2, i.e. their second headquarters. It really is unfortunate for New Yorkers that they elected this ignorant person to represent them, someone who doesn’t seem to know anything about the company she’s badmouthing.

For the moment the video isn’t embeddable so you’ll have to click here to view it. (Notice AOC is wearing a Captain America shirt.)