Facebook, Google, Twitter: You Are “Crime Scenes”

British journalist Carole Cadwalladr has taken fifteen important minutes to explain how the tech giants are damaging democracy.

One excellent point she makes is that these massive corporations refuse to divulge which misleading political advertisements are being directed at which voters, and who is behind those advertisements, and how much money is being spent on them. As a result, the British laws that limit campaign spending and have been in effect for 100 years no longer work, thanks to the “gods of Silicon Valley”. She addresses Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin and others directly:

Liberal democracy is broken. And you broke it. This is not democracy. Spreading lies in darkness paid for with illegal cash from God knows where. It’s subversion. And you are accessories to it.

Of the Democrats seeking the presidency, Senator Elizabeth Warren is the one who has offered a plan to rein in the tech giants. You might consider donating to her campaign.

Meanwhile, give Carole Cadwalladr fifteen minutes of your time. She is worth listening to.

The Brexit Referendum May Have Simply Been Political Theater

Andrew Moravcsik, a political science professor at Princeton,ย predictedย back in April thatย the United Kingdom wouldn’t leave the European Union even if the “Leave” referendum were to pass. Now that it has passed, it’s important to remember that it wasn’t legally binding. The parliaments in Scotland and Northern Ireland may be able to vetoย it. In addition, neither Prime Minister David Cameron norย the Brexit-supporting MP,ย Boris Johnson, who wants Cameron’s jobย are in any rush to begin the formal process of leaving:

The Brexit debate has become a global spectator sport, which suggests that something very important must be at stake. Yet, unlike issues such as migration, the euro crisis and Ukraine, it lacks real significance: under no circumstances will Britain leave Europe, regardless of the result of the referendum on June 23. It is instead a long kabuki drama in which politicians, not least Eurosceptics, advocate policies they would never actually implement…

Instead, the government would probably do just what EU members โ€” Denmark, France, Ireland and the Netherlands โ€” have always done after such votes. It would negotiate a new agreement, nearly identical to the old one, disguise it in opaque language and ratify it. The public, essentially ignorant about Europe, always goes along.

Now that Brexit appears within [the Euroskeptics’] grasp, they are backing away from it. What they really seek is domestic political power. If Britain votes to leave, the government will fall or, at the very least, the cabinet will be reshuffled. For Eurosceptic backbenchers, this is a onceยญ-inยญ-a-ยญlifetime opportunity. Yet they lack parliamentary and popular majorities to govern alone. They would have to strike a deal, which means moderating anti-European demands โ€” all amid postยญ-referendum economic chaos. Renegotiation inside the EU would be almost inevitable.

Excessively cynical? Hardly. Few Eurosceptics are more prominent (or ambitious) than Boris Johnson, and he has signalled his willingness to compromise. The mayor [now former mayor] of Londonโ€™s soundbites remain flamboyant: โ€œThe door of the jail [is] open, and people can see the sunlit land beyond.โ€ But read the fine print.

When the referendum was announced, Mr. Johnson said that voting to leave need not necessarily mean leaving. Britain might renegotiate a better deal inside the EU, followed by a second referendum. So voters need not worry: โ€œIf you vote to leave, all your options are good.โ€