Under The Radar – 18 June

Christian Lue on Unsplash

This week, we discuss:

1. Allegations that the DOJ ‘snooped’ on Democrats and journalists

2. The rise of OnlyFans

3. The G7’s plan to counter Chinese influence in the developing world

Shadow of Russia investigation still looms over Capitol Hill

What happened?

John Demers, the head of the US Justice Department’s (DOJ) national security division, is resigning after it emerged the DOJ subpoenaed Apple for the data of House Intelligence Committee members, their staff, and their families during the Russia investigation. Journalists at the New York Times, CNN and The Washington Post were also targeted as part of the DOJ’s investigation into the repeated leaks to the media.

What does it mean?

While Demers is not thought to have been personally involved, it’s hard to believe that he was not briefed on the extraordinary move, given that he was appointed as division head just days after the subpoenas were issued. Demers’ scalp is the first to result from the almighty backlash on Capitol Hill and in America’s newsrooms, who have rightly pointed out that media leaks of this nature were certainly not illegal, and posed no actual threat to national security.

The subpoenaing the phone records of members of Congress is almost unheard of in the U.S, with investigations of elected officials always likely to be perceived as being politically motivated. Indeed, the purpose of the Constitution’s ‘Speech or Debate’ clause is to protect members of Congress from having to worry that anything they say in the course of legislative activities will implicate them legally.

It’s not hard to imagine that President Trump and his administration would have been furious about the repeated leaks, before strong-arming the DOJ into locating their source. Such an inference – of political influence in this scandal – raises fresh concerns about the DOJ’s integrity, especially during one of the most tumultuous periods in America’s history.

Was the DOJ more concerned with silencing President Trump’s sworn enemies than it was with upholding the rule of law? The jury is still out.

Can OnlyFans keep its fans?

What happened?

The content subscription service, OnlyFans, is exploring a share sale to new investors.

The social media platform allows content creators to sell video clips directly to subscribers who pay between $5 and $50 a month with OnlyFans taking a 20 percent cut of each transaction. While ostensibly aimed at all types of creators who want to make money off their own content, by far the majority of the material on the site is pornography.

What does it mean?

In its coverage of this news, Financial Times framed the site as a lockdown success story. It reported that, with more than 120m users and $400m in net sales this year, OnlyFans would have a multibillion pound valuation if it went public, making it one of the UK’s leading tech companies.

This type of assessment ignores the fact that the company has to face the ethical and reputational quandaries that come with allowing explicit content on its site.

All social media platforms need to make a bargain between duty of care and profit, but for OnlyFans the stakes are especially high.

OnlyFans’ appeal is that it gives creators ownership over their own work, allowing them to set their own prices and establish their own boundaries. But, as more sex workers join the site, creators will be incentivised to upload increasingly more graphic content for less money in order to stay competitive. Although the site requires all users to be over 18, a recent BBC investigation uncovered a trove of teenage creators – some as young as 13 – who cheated the age-verification processes to upload explicit videos.

OnlyFans promises a more authentic, intimate relationship between creator and subscriber. Let’s see if it can ensure these relationships don’t turn ugly.

Shifting attitudes towards China: a new era on the horizon?

What happened?

Among other news to come out of the G7 summit was the announcement that a task force will be established to explore a Western alternative to the Chinese ‘Belt and Road Initiative’. This reflects an ongoing shift in attitudes towards China and signals a more hardline, unified stance from the Western powers towards countering Sino influence in the developing world.

What does it mean?

The Chinese government has appeared impervious to international criticism, especially in relation to its human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. It has become clear that trying to influence Chinese domestic affairs is a fruitless endeavour and yields no results. The new task force announcement suggests that the Western powers are changing their approach and refocusing their efforts on influencing Chinese interests and supremacy abroad – more specifically, in the developing world. The major challenge already facing the task force is to successfully deliver on a project that embodies the twin objectives of Western powers: carbon neutrality and shared values and systems of governance. For it to succeed, there also has to be a cohesion of values and actions among those involved. This is likely to prove a considerable challenge when dealing with the developing world, where corruption and political instability are rife. Consequently, convincing developing countries to embrace any new proposals for a Western-led revolution in global standards to tackle corruption is by no means guaranteed.

Above all, it remains unclear as to whether such a coordinated move will have any tangible impact on the way in which China positions itself on the global stage and handles domestic dissent. History suggests not.

This Week’s Must Reads

1. ‘Biden’s Summit Gave Putin the World Stage He Craves’ by Brian Bennett for TIME

2. ‘Has BrewDog’s toxic culture pierced the craft-beer balloon? begun’ by Melissa Cole for The Telegraph

3. ‘Social media platforms must abandon algorithmic secrecy’ by Frederick Mostert and Alex Urbelis for the Financial Times

4. ‘”Worst of times”: Hong Kong media defiant amid police crackdown’ by Helen Davidson for The Guardian

Subscribe

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

Job Title

Company

Industry

Under The Radar – 11 June

Photo by Jeremy Bishop on Unsplash

This week, we discuss:

1. The power struggle at the heart of the Guardian Media Group

2. Bitcoin becoming legal tender in El Salvador

3. Bellingcat’s report into the activity of Russia’s FSB agents

Battle for The Guardian

What happened?

Guardian Media Group (GMG) chief executive Annette Thomas has quit after repeatedly clashing with its editor-in-chief Katharine Viner. Thomas is leaving the news organisation just over a year after joining and is expected to receive a £600,000 payoff.

What does it mean?

Unlike other news organisations, The Guardian’s editor has a high degree of independence and is answerable to the board of the Scott Trust, the owner of GMG. As such, Viner was on par with Thomas, setting up a year-long battle consisting of conflicting responsibilities and competing visions for the historic newspaper.

The main point of contention between the pair was over the group’s finances. Thomas has pushed hard to raise more money from readers whilst Viner has led the staunch resistance from within the paper to implementing any form of paywall. And whilst Thomas focused on promoting fiscal restraint, The Guardian‘s surprising performance during the pandemic prompted calls from Viner for even more investment.

Cultural differences have also contributed to their strained relationship. Thomas is an American executive with a background in scientific publishing who, in her short time at the paper, has made cost-cutting measures that have included job cuts, much to the chagrin of journalists. On the other hand, Viner rose through the ranks of the left-wing newsroom before she was elected by her fellow journalists to the position of editor-in-chief in 2015.

With both women diametrically opposed to the espoused goals of the other, it was inevitable that one of them would eventually have to go. A house divided cannot stand. 

“Are you paying with cash, card or bitcoin?” 

What happened?

President Nayib Bukele has made the historic decision to include bitcoin as a legal tender in El Salvador. The move is aimed at increasing economic growth and facilitating greater financial inclusion in a country where 70 percent of Salvadorans lack access to traditional banking.

What does it mean?

It is hoped Bitcoin usage will reduce El Salvador’s reliance on the US dollar, something a number of developing countries have recently proposed yet failed to implement. And while this is a victory for bitcoin champions and entrepreneurs, skeptics have commented that El Salvador will essentially now have two currencies operating without government control. With President Bukele consolidating his power in increasingly autocratic ways, concerns have also arisen about the propensity of Bitcoin to facilitate corruption and money laundering in El Salvador. Due to the fact that bitcoin lacks a physical currency, and is secured by the blockchain underpinning it, it presents as an attractive option for criminal gangs and sleazy elites determined to continue their illegal activities with impunity.

However, the saving grace to Bukele’s plan could be the ongoing reliance of Salvadorans on remittances from US-based family members, which currently make up one fifth of El Salvador’s GDP according to the World Bank. With transfer fees sometimes reaching up to $125, the use of Bitcoin to send and receive remittances could make the whole process a much cheaper one. If this transpires, it can be expected that other large remittance markets such as Mexico will soon follow suit.  As we await the inevitably long and bumpy road ahead in Bitcoin’s quest to become a mainstream currency choice, many will be watching closely to see if Bukele’s decision will be a revolutionary one.

A Belling-cat and mouse game

What happened?

Investigative organisation Bellingcat has published a new report, revealing that the same Russian agents who tailed opposition leader Alexei Navalny before his poisoning had also shadowed the author and journalist, Dmitry Bykov, before he suffered a near fatal illness in 2019.

What does it mean?

At the time, doctors attributed Dmitry Bykov’s mysterious illness to bacterial food poisoning, but Bellingcat’s new report implies that it may have come from a more sinister source. With both the circumstances and symptoms of Bykov’s illness mirroring Navalny’s, it appears he was another victim of the infamous nerve agent Novichok. The media rhetoric around Novichok has always been filled with contradictions. On the one hand, it is supposedly a chemical weapon capable of killing anyone who so much as handles a doorknob with traces on it. On the other hand, all of the alleged targets of Novichok poisoning – the Skripals, Navalny and, now, Bykov – have survived and recovered from it. This contradiction captures the challenge of understanding Putin’s Russia, which is unpredictable and often defies logic. The narrative of sophisticated deep state operations and misinformation campaigns is in stark contrast to the hapless thugs who left a trail of radioactive poison across London. Bellingcat’s latest report only adds to the confusion: while Bykov’s poems incisively satirise Putin, he is not a real political threat and it is unclear what the regime would gain from his murder. What is certain, however, is that this report comes out at just the right time to cause maximum impact, with Presidents Biden and Putin set to have their first bilateral meeting in Switzerland next week. Navalny’s poisoning is already on the agenda, and now so too will Bykov’s.

This Week’s Must Reads

1. ‘The Minister of Chaos’ by Tom McTague for The Atlantic

2. ‘Exporting Chinese surveillance: the security risks of ‘smart cities’ by

3. James Kynge, Valerie Hopkins, Helen Warrell & Kathrin Hille for the Financial Times.

4. ‘Election Denial and $16 Spritzers: Welcome to Florida’s Trump Coast’ by Joshua Green for Bloomberg

5. ‘How Biden puts Emmanuel Macron in a bind’ by Rym Momtaz for POLITICO

Subscribe

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

Job Title

Company

Industry

Under The Radar – 04 June

Photo by Cris Tagupa on Unsplash

This week, we discuss:

1. The grand coalition to end Benjamin Netanyahu’s twelve-year tenure as Prime Minister of Israel

2. The race to become the next mayor of New York City

3. Johnson & Johnson’s Supreme Court defeat

Israeli Opposition Parties Unite to End Netanyahu 12-year Term as Prime Minister

What happened?

In a move no one thought possible, eight opposition parties – spanning the entire political spectrum in Israel – have united in a grand coalition to end Benjamin Netanyahu’s twelve-year tenure as Prime Minister.

What does it mean?

The grand coalition is still waiting for a formal vote of no confidence in the Knesset as of writing this article. If successful, the ramifications for Israel would be far-reaching and potentially very positive.

First off, the Arab-Israeli party Raam is part of the proposed coalition. If successful, their inclusion alone represents a considerable shift in the political dynamics in Israel as Arab-Israeli parties have spent over a decade without political representation at the top of Government.

Given intercommunal tensions unleashed in the most recent clashes with Hamas, such a move could go a long way to healing some of the rifts between Arabs and Jews exposed during the conflict. Furthermore, the coalition has publicly stated that it won’t initially pursue policies on the Israel-Palestinian issue; it is unlikely the settler movement will enjoy any of the political support it has become accustomed to under Netanyahu.

Although this does not solve the Israel-Palestine conflict, it won’t escalate tensions in the short term. It could also provide some much-needed breathing space to Palestinian parties hoping to ensure Hamas does not win the upcoming Palestinian legislative elections in the West Bank.

The coming days and weeks will be interesting as Netanyahu won’t go quietly. He is currently on trial in Jerusalem on corruption charges, so leaving office would leave him vulnerable to the full force of the court. As such, we expect a vicious political battle to ensue as he does everything possible to derail the coalition.

As Netanyahu attempts to persuade legislators in the Knesset to defect from the coalition to back him and Likud, the first battle is already underway. Watch this space. 

NYC mayoral hopefuls face off 

What happened?

New York City mayoral candidates participated in the second Democratic debate on Wednesday night, in preparation for the June 22nd primary. Eight contenders were grilled on crime, education and the economy, in a race that will choose the Democratic nominee and most likely the next Mayor.

What does it mean?

While candidates challenged each other on policy, pundits remarked on how personal, and in some cases chaotic, the attacks became.

All eyes were on the two front runners: Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, and Andrew Yang, the former presidential candidate. The pair are contrasting characters, representing different styles of leadership and visions for the city. Adams is the establishment figure, with decades of experience in local government, giving him the expertise and skill to run the metropolis. On the other side of the coin is Yang, the tech entrepreneur who ran an exciting presidential campaign that galvanised mostly young Americans last year. Like his pitch for the White House, he thinks the city needs an outsider with fresh ideas rather than more of the same (despite modelling himself on former Mayor Bloomberg).

Adams attacked Yang over his lack of political experience, and for fleeing the city during the pandemic. Yang countered with questions over Adams’ integrity, pointing to a string of corruption investigations that have dogged the politician’s career.

The chaos meant the debate lacked a clear winner. It’s a disappointing show considering the stakes could not be higher. New York City is still reeling from the pandemic’s impact on public health and the economy, with tourism in freefall and the divide between rich and poor widening.

Voters want a grown up for Mayor, not political theatre.

Neglected by the medical system, women turn to the courts

What happened?

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) will pay $2.1bn in damages after the Supreme Court refused to hear the drug maker’s appeal over a pay-out to twenty-two women who had claimed that asbestos in J&J’s talcum powder had caused their ovarian cancer.

What does it mean?

Recent pharmaceutical news has been dominated by the vaccine effort, giving big drug makers like J&J a huge PR boost. But this case draws attention back to an uglier side of the industry: mass lawsuits brought by victims of the medical system’s alarming disregard for women’s health.

Indeed, this case exemplifies the slew of consolidated mass torts – personal injury lawsuits related to a single product – that flows through the US legal system. The fact that the claimants are women makes this case all the more typical of the trend: 32% of mass tort cases involve products that either exclusively or primarily injure women. Only 6% involve products exclusively affecting men.

These statistics cannot be explained away by women being more litigious. 67% of the deaths and injuries reported to the FDA are women, demonstrating the painful reality that women are more likely than men to suffer injuries from pharmaceutical drugs.

There is a long and depressing history of the medical system taking women’s health less seriously. For example, pharmaceutical oestrogen was prescribed to women in menopause for several years before it was eventually clinically tested and acknowledged to increase the risk of cancer. However, a study on men in the 1950s had already found it too dangerous to use, yet nothing stopped its untested use for women two decades later.

With researchers and regulators both paying insufficient attention to half of the population, the court is often the only place in which women can have their grievances heard.

This Week’s Must Reads

1. ‘Why GB News will be the biggest threat yet to Sky News’ by Ben Woods for The Telegraph

2. ‘The future of the high street: the scars are unmistakable after a year of covid’ by Michael Keith for The Times

3. ‘This Will 100% Save Somebody’s Life: Athletes See a Turning Point for Mental Health After Naomi Osaka Takes a Stand at the French Open’ by Sean Gregory for Time

4. ‘The revolution in DIY testing that will outlive the pandemic’ by Anna Gross for the Financial Times

Subscribe

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

Job Title

Company

Industry