President Barack Obama said Sunday he’d avoided ethical scandals throughout his administration by trying to follow the spirit, not just the letter of the law, and suggested President-elect Donald Trump would be wise to follow his example.

Closing out his final foreign trip, Obama was asked about the complex conflict-of-interest questions Trump faces as he transitions from real estate mogul to Oval Office occupant. Though Obama declined to explicitly offer Trump advice, the president said he’d been served well by selling his assets and investing them in Treasury bills.

“It simplified my life,” Obama said. “I did not have to worry about the complexities of whether a decision that I made might even inadvertently benefit me.”

Good government advocates have criticized Trump’s decision not to liquidate his sprawling business interests, but put them in a blind trust entrusted to his children, who are playing major roles in helping him form his administration and are expected to remain involved in one capacity or another.

Obama said he was proud his administration hadn’t faced the scandals he said have “plagued” other administrations. He said after eight years, he felt he could tell Americans he’d lived up to his promise to run an accountable and ethical government.

He summed up the rule of thumb his first White House counsel used to come up with policies for his administration: “If it sounds like it would be fun, then you can’t do it.”

Obama’s remarks came as he concluded his final world tour as president. For Obama, it was the last time he’d take questions on foreign soil, a staple of his overseas trips that his administration has seen as an important symbol of America’s commitment to a rigorous free press.

Obama chatted briefly earlier Sunday with Russian President Vladimir Putin as the summit got under way. The conversation, which was likely to be the leaders’ last face-to-face interaction, lasted just four minutes.

Obama later told reporters he encouraged Putin to uphold his country’s commitments under the Minsk deal aimed at ending the Ukraine conflict. Both the White House and the Kremlin said the leaders had agreed that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov should keep working throughout Obama’s final months on initiatives to lower violence in Syria and alleviate suffering.

Putin, speaking later in Lima, said he and Obama had noted that while their working relationship had been difficult, they’d “always respected each other’s positions — and each other.”

“I thanked him for the years of joint work, and said that at any time, if he considers it possible and will have the need and desire, we will be happy to see him in Russia,” Putin said.

The short interaction came amid intense speculation and concern about whether Trump’s election might herald a more conciliatory U.S. approach to Russia. Under Obama, the U.S. has enacted severe sanctions on Russia over its aggressive behavior in Ukraine and has sought unsuccessfully to persuade Moscow to stop intervening in Syria’s civil war to help prop up Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Questions about Trump trailed Obama throughout his final overseas trip, as anxious world leaders quizzed him on Trump’s stances on key issues like trade, foreign policy and the NATO alliance. On his final day in Peru, Obama sought to reassure world leaders gathered here that their longstanding ties with the U.S. wouldn’t falter under Trump.

Sitting down with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia, Obama said he assured Turnbull that the alliance between their countries would remain as strong as ever. Turnbull said he and Obama were of the mind on trade — an issue Trump sees quite differently. Still, he added that Australia wanted the U.S. to succeed under Trump.

Both the U.S. and Australia helped negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multinational trade agreement involving 10 other Pacific Rim countries. But Congress is unlikely to ratify the deal, dealing a blow to Obama’s once high hopes of having the agreement become part of his presidential legacy. Trump says trade deals can hurt U.S. workers, and he opposes TPP.

Obama, who met with TPP country leaders the day before, said they’d told him they want to move ahead with the deal.

“Preferably, they’d like to move forward with the United States,” Obama said.

He alluded to a competing deal China is trying to broker that he said would be worse for workers and environmental concerns.

Meeting with Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Obama said he had no doubt the close and important U.S.-Canada relationship will persist after he leaves office, saying that’s been constant with Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Trudeau said he’s invited President-elect Donald Trump to visit Canada soon after Inauguration Day and hopes to welcome him to Canada.

President Barack Obama said Sunday he doesn’t intend to become his successor’s constant critic — but reserved the right to speak out if President-elect Donald Trump or his policies breach certain “values or ideals.”

Offering a rare glimpse into his thoughts on his post-presidency, Obama suggested once he was out of office he would uphold the tradition of ex-presidents stepping aside quietly to allow their successors space to govern. He heaped praise on former President George W. Bush, saying he “could not have been more gracious to me when I came in” and said he wanted to give Trump the same chance to pursue his agenda “without somebody popping off” at every turn.

But Obama suggested there may be limits to his silence.

“As an American citizen who cares deeply about our country, if there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal or battle or go to core questions about our values and ideals, and if I think that it’s necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals, I’ll examine it when it comes,” Obama told reporters.

Obama, who has consistently praised Bush for the way he’s handled his ex-presidency, faces a conundrum about how to handle his own. Though he’s vowed to ensure a smooth handover of power, Obama is keenly aware he’s being replaced by a new president whose views on many issues are antithetical to his own.

The president spoke out vigorously throughout the campaign against Trump’s calls for banning Muslim immigrants, deporting millions of people living in the U.S. illegally, reinstituting waterboarding, repealing “Obamacare” and canceling the Paris climate deal, to name a few. Those policy proposals and others like them have stoked fear for many Americans who oppose Trump and are hoping that vehement opposition from Obama and other Democrats might prevent Trump from implementing them.

Yet Obama suggested that while he might not always hold his tongue, his goal wasn’t to spend his time publicly disparaging the next president.

“My intention is to, certainly for the next 2 months, just finish my job,” Obama said. “And then after that, to take Michelle on vacation, get some rest, spend time with my girls, and do some writing, do some thinking.”

Obama’s remarks at a news conference in Lima offered some of his most specific indications to date of how he feels Democrats and Trump opponents should handle the next four years. Asked whether Democrats in the Senate should follow Republicans’ example of refusing to even consider a Supreme Court nominee, Obama said they should not.

“You give them a hearing,” said Obama, whose own Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, has lingered for more than half a year due to the GOP’s insistence that no Obama nominee be considered. Obama said he certainly didn’t want Democrats to adopt that tactic spearheaded this year by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

“That’s not why the American people send us to Washington, to play those games,” Obama said.

He declined to weigh in explicitly on whether House Democrats should stick with Rep. Nancy Pelosi as minority leader, arguing it was improper to meddle in the vote. But he said of the California Democrat, who faces a challenge for the leadership post: “I cannot speak highly enough of Nancy Pelosi.”

Obama’s remarks came as he concluded his final world tour as president. For Obama, it was the last time he’d take questions on foreign soil, a staple of his overseas trips that his administration has seen as an important symbol of America’s commitment to a rigorous free press.

Obama said he’d avoided ethical scandals by trying to follow the spirit, not just the letter, of the law, and suggested Trump would be wise to follow his example about conflicts of interest. Though he declined to explicitly offer Trump advice, Obama said he’d been served well by selling his assets and investing them in Treasury bills.

“It simplified my life,” Obama said. “I did not have to worry about the complexities of whether a decision that I made might even inadvertently benefit me.”

Good government advocates have criticized Trump’s decision not to liquidate his sprawling business interests, but put them in a blind trust entrusted to his children, who are playing major roles in helping him form his administration and are expected to remain involved in one capacity or another.

On his final day in Peru, Obama chatted briefly with Russian President Vladimir Putin about Ukraine and the Syria crisis. The four-minute conversation, likely the leaders’ last face-to-face interaction, came amid intense speculation and concern about whether Trump’s election might herald a more conciliatory U.S. approach to Russia

Putin, speaking later in Lima, said he and Obama had noted that while their working relationship had been difficult, they’d “always respected each other’s positions — and each other.”

“I thanked him for the years of joint work, and said that at any time, if he considers it possible and will have the need and desire, we will be happy to see him in Russia,” Putin said later.

Questions about Trump trailed Obama throughout his final overseas trip, as anxious world leaders quizzed him on Trump’s stances on key issues like trade, foreign policy and the NATO alliance. Obama sought to reassure Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders gathered in Peru that their longstanding ties with the U.S. wouldn’t falter under Trump.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Facebook could start labeling stories that might be false, company founder Mark Zuckerberg says, laying out options for how the site handles what he calls “misinformation.” Other ideas include automatic detection of potentially false stories and easier flagging by users.

“While the percentage of misinformation is relatively small, we have much more work ahead on our roadmap,” Zuckerberg wrote in a posting to his Facebook profile last night.

Zuckerberg outlined seven projects his company is working on that could undermine fake news stories. The approaches range from consulting with journalists and fact-checking organizations to disrupting the flow of money in the often-lucrative online fake news business.

“We are raising the bar for stories that appear in related articles under links in News Feed,” Zuckerberg wrote of one initiative. Of another, he said, “A lot of misinformation is driven by financially motivated spam. We’re looking into disrupting the economics with ads policies like the one we announced earlier this week, and better ad farm detection.”

The idea of using software to classify misinformation is sure to generate discussion. Zuckerberg says it would bring “better technical systems to detect what people will flag as false before they do it themselves.” He didn’t specify what the effects of that determination might be — whether it would mean the removal of the content from certain news feeds or from the site altogether.

Several of the highest-rated comments on Zuckerberg’s post were positive, with this idea from George Papa ranking near the top: “If people had a bit of brain and did some research on their own when they read something that does not sound right…we would not have this problem.”

Together, the projects signal another step in Facebook’s evolution from its start as a tech-oriented company to its current status as a complex media platform. The company has come under criticism that its news feeds and ad payment systems are too welcoming of fake news, particularly after a contentious presidential campaign season that culminated in last week’s upset win by Donald Trump.

Trump’s Nov. 8 election left many pollsters and pundits mystified. It also prompted social media users to complain that Facebook and other sites had kept people in bubbles of like-minded opinion; some also said that fake news had influenced the vote.

Days after the election, Zuckerberg sought to allay those complaints, saying that fake news makes up a “very small volume” of the content on Facebook, as NPR’s Aarti Shahani reported. And he said hoaxes existed long before his site went online.

“There’s a profound lack of empathy in asserting that the only reason why someone could have voted the way that they did is because they saw some fake news,” Zuckerberg said last week.

As Aarti reported Thursday, Facebook has long relied on users to flag suspicious or offensive stories — and it relies on subcontractors in the Philippines, Poland, and elsewhere to make quick yes-no rulings on those cases, often within 10 seconds.

With last night’s announcement, Zuckerberg gave a glimpse of how Facebook is wading into an area that’s often fraught with controversy: verifying or censoring content.

“The bottom line is: we take misinformation seriously,” he wrote. “Our goal is to connect people with the stories they find most meaningful, and we know people want accurate information.”

Here’s the list of steps Zuckerberg laid out (here we’re quoting his post):

“- Stronger detection. The most important thing we can do is improve our ability to classify misinformation. This means better technical systems to detect what people will flag as false before they do it themselves.

“- Easy reporting. Making it much easier for people to report stories as fake will help us catch more misinformation faster.

“- Third party verification. There are many respected fact checking organizations and, while we have reached out to some, we plan to learn from many more.

“- Warnings. We are exploring labeling stories that have been flagged as false by third parties or our community, and showing warnings when people read or share them.

“- Related articles quality. We are raising the bar for stories that appear in related articles under links in News Feed.

“- Disrupting fake news economics. A lot of misinformation is driven by financially motivated spam. We’re looking into disrupting the economics with ads policies like the one we announced earlier this week, and better ad farm detection.

“- Listening. We will continue to work with journalists and others in the news industry to get their input, in particular, to better understand their fact checking systems and learn from them.”

Several items on the list hint at how daunting the task of silencing fake news may be.

Exclusive breaking news stories, for instance, could have trouble getting the green light from either an algorithm or an independent fact-checker; and both the reporting and warning features could become new tools in advocates’ fights to push their own views — and reinforce the bubbles that have prompted Facebook users’ complaints.

Zuckerberg has spoken about the difficulty of bursting those bubbles in the past. As Aarti reported last week, “The problem, he says, is that people don’t click on things that don’t conform to their worldview. And, he says, ‘I don’t know what to do about that.’ “

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Yep. President-elect Donald J. Trump. That’s still a thing. So while you continue to process that, we wanted to catch you up on some of some things you ought to read, hear and watch around the world of race and culture. And — good news — not all of it is election-related. (Okay a lot, but not all.) So.

The Post-Election Hangover Continues (pass the Alka-Seltzer)

Never mind trying to understand the mindset of victors in last week’s election, says Baratunde Thurston in a (long-but-worth-it) Vox column. Thurston says there’s gotta be multilateral, not unilateral, outreach if that much-talked-about healing is going to begin. But he wants to stay mad for a few more minutes. Thurston, Vox.

Amidst all the hand-wringing and angst about how the Trump campaign revealed all the ill will toward those who are different by race, ethnicity gender or sexual orientation, Hus Hsu at The New Yorker says, nah! That bigotry? It was there all the time. Hsu, The New Yorker.

Writer Amy Alexander isn’t feeling the sisterhood from the 53% of white women in the 43-54-year-old demographic who voted for Donald Trump. She has words in The Root. Alexander, The Root.

Lots of immigration news, some good, some bad:

From NPR’s the Two Way, the latest about a Korean-American who turns out to be Korean, period. He’s about to be deported back to the country of his birth; a country he doesn’t remember. And he’s not the only person in this situation. Domonoske, NPR.

Well, looks like people who want to build That Wall are going to have to find other property to build it on: The Tohono O’Odham Nation tribal leaders say “not in our back yard…” Carrie Jung, from NPR Member Station KJZZ in Phoenix, Ariz. reports. Jung, KJZZ.

Far, far away, in an alternate universe somewhere:

Someone is seriously suggesting that there be a registry for Muslims, just in case, you know, the government needs to find them at the last minute. Code Switch’s Kat Chow reports on who’s trying to revive the plan, and why. Chow, Code Switch.

A Neo Nazi group has declared New Balance the “Official Shoes of White People.” (Really. They’re serious.) Apparently New Balance shoes are the only athletic shoes still made in the US, and receive stiff competition from shoes manufactured abroad. The company was against the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), fearing it would leave them at a competitive disadvantage. For the Neo Nazis, the enemy of their enemy is their friend. Or something. New Balance fans who aren’t Neo Nazis responded by torching or tossing their shoes. New Balance responds. Mettler, Washington Post.

And don’t miss:

NYT Magazine writer Nikole Hannah-Jones’ excellent piece on her visit to her home state, Iowa. She wanted to find out how people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 were moved to vote for Donald Trump last week. She writes about it in The End of the Post-Racial Myth. Jones, New York Times.

Finally, a little advice:

Thanksgiving is next week, and it could end up being a tough one, people. Besides the obligatory drunk uncle asking—again—why you aren’t married yet, and the Nana who wants to tell you it’s not too late to spend more time at church, and your mom insisting everyone turn off his/her cellphone (wait…what?), there will be discussions about politics that will be more heated than the yam casserole. Trust. But we have help: a mini-roundup of how to get through the day and still stay close to your people. You’re welcome.

Gail Rosenblum at the Minneapolis Star Tribune says go anyway, just make your visit shorter. (Maybe leave before Drunk Uncle starts to rant?).

Our play cousins, Wesley Morris and Jenna Wortham over at the New York Times, talked with Times food writer Sam Sifton about the various ways to deal with the conflict. Sifton urges us to “practice radical acceptance of where you are and who you’re with.” After all, it’s a couple of hours, right? Jenna has another solution: forgoing the gravy and mashed potatoes for a trip abroad. Listen and be warned: It will make you hungry.

And a heads up: the Code Switch podcast will deal with post-election tension at Thanksgiving, too. Check it out next Wed.

Finally, a little help from Leathershirts. His 2015 Vine on reactions to out stuff people might say at Thanksgiving will give you a roadmap on how you might look when Drunk Uncle goes off.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)