

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

A broad civil society coalition is sounding the alarm on Big Tech and Big Publishing’s unchecked power over digital books—and surveillance of those who read them.
25+ human rights organizations are calling for a Congressional investigation into Big Tech and Publishing's overreaching control of the content, reader data, and existence of digital books. Released today, the coalition letter focuses on the cascading harms of a small number of corporations controlling Americans’ ability to read and create books—rights that are essential to a functioning democracy.
This letter is the first time that such a broad constituency has called for federal action on these matters. Signatories include the Athena Coalition, Color of Change, Reproaction, MediaJustice, UltraViolet, Presente.org, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, The Greenlining Institute, Woodhull Freedom Fund, the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, and more—with representation from groups spanning civil rights, LGBTQ+, anti-surveillance, anti-book ban, racial justice, reproductive justice, immigration, labor, and antimonopoly interests. The letter was organized by activists at queer women-led digital rights organization Fight for the Future.
The full letter text is available for preview here. A final count and list of signatories will be available at BattleForLibraries.com/congress on the evening of December 6, 2023.
For centuries, people have read books without being surveilled, wondering if what they’re reading is what the author wrote, or worrying that their book might disappear. These rights parallel a long history of battles to protect the right to read anonymously as well as to resist censorship and combat exclusion in publishing. With the increasing popularity of digital books, such battles have entered a new, much more opaque playing field.
The letter reads in part: “For years, authors have been sounding the alarm about the crisis of discriminatory practices in book publishing. Such behaviors stand only to be exacerbated when hidden behind the facade of an app like OverDrive’s Libby or Amazon’s Kindle. We’re already seeing what widespread censorship can do in communities around this country: eliminate education on the history of slavery, ban LGBTQ+ stories from public and school libraries, threaten access to critical information on reproductive healthcare, and force the bigoted views of a few into the experience of thousands. This is only the beginning.”
The letter also points to a recent report detailing the reader-to-data broker pipeline that the world’s largest publisher, Elsevier, has quietly established for students and any reader of their digital publications. Concerningly, Elsevier tracks more than what books someone reads—it surveils readers’ search and browsing history across the whole web, collects their locations, and builds profiles based on inferences from this data. Such wholesale exposure of readers’ intimate personal data could have life-altering implications when data brokers sell it to law enforcement, vigilantes, hackers, stalkers, potential employers, or landlords. The act of reading a digital book should never result in threats to a reader’s safety and future.
Lia Holland (they/she), Campaigns and Communications Director at Fight for the Future, who organized the letter, said: “Big Tech and Big Publishing teaming up to control the future of books would mean an end to the ability to read books privately. Reading is going to out people who receive gender-affirming and abortion care. Books are going to be invisibly censored at the whims of moralizing corporate shareholders. In fact, this may already be happening and we just can’t see it. With libraries like the Internet Archive facing multiple lawsuits for trying to offer alternatives to this literary hellscape, it’s clear lawmakers have got to step in. We need urgent federal action to ensure readers aren’t being surveilled and authors aren’t being erased.”
Brenda Victoria Castillo (she/her), President & CEO of signatory National Hispanic Media Coalition said: “Access to information is a powerful tool for Latines to participate in our democracy. Book bans aim to limit our power by limiting our access to stories about resilience, justice, and leadership by and for our community. As the lead organization in the Latinx Publishing Coalition, the National Hispanic Media Coalition calls on Congress to protect our democracy from book bans and harmful digital rights violations."
Ricci Levy (she/her), President & CEO at signatory Woodhull Freedom Foundation said: "In the realm of human rights, digital erasure threatens our collective knowledge, while libraries stand as bastions defending freedom of access. Censorship and reader surveillance breach the trust vital to intellectual exploration. Let our pursuit of knowledge be liberated, safeguarding the essence of our shared heritage."
Sean O'Brien (he/him), Founder of signatory Yale Privacy Lab, said: “The war over publishing has gone too far—readers deserve the ability to learn and grow from a vast collection of digital books. Without that freedom, societies become totalitarian walled gardens. That's great for the bottom line of the media giants and terrible for future generations and democracy at large.”
Signatory Athena Coalition, a coalition of civil society and worker organizations focused on Amazon's abuses of power, said: "It runs counter to our democracy that a corporation like Amazon should have the power to control the distribution of books, goods and services, and computer power. Amazon has already shown that it will use its power over ebooks to the detriment of authors, libraries, and the public. Congress must act now to prevent this mega-corporation from becoming even more concentrated and powerful, and less accountable to our democratic institutions and the public."
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026"This is a board of colonial administration, run by war criminals and kleptocrats," said one critic. "It has zero legitimacy."
Criticism of President Donald Trump's so-called "Board of Peace" mounted Monday after the White House invited controversial figures—including two leaders wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes—to join the body tasked with supporting the management and reconstruction of Gaza.
Among Trump's latest invitees to the board are Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Lukashenko has repressively ruled Belarus for over 30 years and supports Putin's ongoing invasion and occupation of Ukraine, for which the Russian president is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes. Netanyahu is also wanted by the ICC for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
Trump—who has bombed 10 countries over his two terms in office—will chair the organization, whose executive board will also include former British leader and alleged war criminal Tony Blair, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, US Mideast Envoy Steve Witkoff, World Bank President Ajay Banga, billionaire businessman Marc Rowan, real estate investor and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner—who has publicly called for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza—and others.
"As if the people of Gaza have not suffered enough," Global Justice Now director Nick Dearden said on Bluesky. "But Blair’s inclusion confirms the obvious—this is a board of colonial administration, run by war criminals and kleptocrats. It has zero legitimacy."
Leaders of countries including Argentina, Canada, Egypt, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Thailand, and Turkey were also invited to join the board. So was the European Union, with whom US relations are strained over issues including Trump's tariffs and threats to invade Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory and NATO member.
Countries seeking permanent Board of Peace membership will be required to pay a $1 billion fee. A US official told the Associated Press that the fee would go toward reconstructing the obliterated Palestinian strip following more than two years of Israel's genocidal assault and siege.
There are no Palestinians on the board.
A separate National Committee for the Administration of Gaza—a 12-member technocratic body led by Palestinian official Ali Shaath and tasked with managing day-to-day affairs in the strip—held its inaugural meeting last week in Cairo as Witkoff said that Phase 2 of Trump’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza had begun.
While Trump's invitation letters to prospective Board of Peace members said the body will “embark on a bold new approach to resolving global conflict," critics panned the panel as a vanity project for Trump, who fancies himself a grand peacemaker despite having bombed seven countries this year alone.
"I hope he can find time to attend Board of Peace meetings between meetings about invasions of Venezuela, Iran, Greenland, Canada, and Minneapolis," University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket said of Trump in a Bluesky post.
Former US State Department diplomat Aaron David Miller told the Washington Post Monday, “The Board of Peace is a concept tethered to a galaxy far, far away, not tethered to the realities back here on planet Earth."
"The Board of Peace is not going to be able to solve the conflict in Sudan. It is not going to do what American mediators and Europeans couldn’t do with respect to getting a ceasefire in Ukraine," he continued.
"We need on-the-ground diplomacy, not the performative creation of committees and bringing large numbers of countries and individuals into a process in which most of them will have no role," Miller added. "You need Trump. You need Netanyahu. You need Hamas’s internal and external leadership, and you need the Qataris and the Turks.”
On Monday, far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich condemned the Board of Peace.
“It is time to explain to the president that his plan is bad for the state of Israel and to cancel it,” Smotrich said during a ceremony to inaugurate the new Yatziv apartheid settlement in the illegally occupied West Bank. “Gaza is ours, its future will affect our future more than anyone else’s. We will take responsibility for what happens there, impose military administration, and complete the mission.”
This, after Netanyahu said earlier in a rare public rebuke of Trump that the board “was not coordinated with Israel and runs contrary to its policy.”
Nearly a year ago, Trump also said that the US would "own" Gaza, ethnically cleanse it of Palestinians, and transform the coastal strip into the "Riviera of the Middle East." He later clarified that he meant the "voluntary" transfer of Palestinians, which critics said amounted to a euphemism for ethnic cleansing.
The White House also reportedly circulated a plan to transform a substantially depopulated Gaza into a high-tech hub replete with a "Gaza Trump Riviera and Islands" development and an "Elon Musk Smart Manufacturing Zone."
Palestinians have largely been highly skeptical of the Board of Peace.
"When I read the names of the peace council members, I felt this was not a plan that prioritizes the interests of Gaza's residents," Sameh Abu Marsa, a forcibly displaced Palestinian living in a refugee camp in Gaza City, told Xinhua Monday. "It looks more like a new form of international mandate, with decisions made externally and without participation from people on the ground."
"These names suggest political deals rather than genuine peace," he added.
Khaled Elgindy, a Palestinian scholar at Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, said on X Saturday that "tellingly, there is not a single reference to Palestinians, their rights, interests, or even a future [Palestinian] state—none of which are a priority for Blair, Trump, or the so-called Board of Peace."
Others noted the continuing dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza as Israel restricts the entry of aid, as well as Israel's more than 1,200 violations of the three-month ceasefire with Hamas. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, at least 465 Palestinians have been killed and 1,287 wounded since the tenuous truce took effect on October 10.
"How can we talk about a peace council while Israel's violations continue here?" asked Khan Younis resident Abdul Raouf Awad.
"Every dollar of tariff revenue represents a dollar extracted from American businesses and households."
President Donald Trump has long insisted, in the face of decades of research by economists, that foreign producers are the only ones who are paying for his tariffs on imported goods.
However, a major new study released Monday by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, an economic think tank based in Germany, shows that US businesses and consumers are shouldering the burden for the vast majority of Trump's tariffs.
After examining more than 25 million shipment records of goods imported to the US last year, the institute found that foreign exporters only absorbed 4% of the $200 billion in tariff payments, with the remaining 96% being passed on to US importers and consumers.
"This finding has profound implications," the study explains. "If foreign exporters do not reduce their prices in response to tariffs, then the entire burden of the tariff falls on US buyers. The tariff functions not as a tax on foreign producers, but as a consumption tax on Americans. Every dollar of tariff revenue represents a dollar extracted from American businesses and households."
The study identifies several factors to explain why exporters did not slash their prices to remain competitive in the lucrative US market, including exporters shifting their sales to other markets where they will not face such high tariffs; firms not being able to shoulder the high price cut that would be needed to overcome the tariff rates set by the president; and companies not wanting to give Trump an incentive for further tariffs by rewarding US consumers with lower prices.
Julian Hinz, research director at the Kiel Institute and an author of the study, described the Trump tariffs as an "own goal" that has harmed Americans far more than it has harmed foreigners.
"The claim that foreign countries pay these tariffs is a myth," explained Hinz. "The data show the opposite: Americans are footing the bill."
The Kiel Institute study came out two days after Trump vowed to slap even more tariffs on European countries opposed to his efforts to take over Greenland.
In an analysis published Monday, economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) said that the latest Trump tariffs on Europe amounted to a "$75 billion tax increase" in an attempt to fulfill the president's "demented dreams" of taking over the self-governing Danish territory.
"Well over 90% of the cost of a Trump tariff is borne by consumers or importers in the United States, not by the exporting countries," Baker contended. "When Trump starts yelling 'tariff, tariff, tariff,' he is yelling 'tax, tax, tax,' and we’re the ones paying it. And $75 billion is not trivial. It’s 1% of the budget, more than twice the cost of the enhanced premiums for Obamacare policies that Trump says we can’t afford."
"Europe should respond to Trump’s blackmail with targeted measures aimed not at American consumers, but at American billionaires," wrote Gabriel Zucman.
The leading French economist Gabriel Zucman is urging European governments to inflict financial pain on American billionaires in response to US President Donald Trump's effort to seize control of Greenland, a mineral-rich island that some of Trump's rich campaign donors see as a potentially massive profit opportunity.
"Europe should respond to Trump’s blackmail with targeted measures aimed not at American consumers, but at American billionaires," Zucman wrote in a post on his Substack. "Access to the European market—by billionaires and the companies they own—should be made conditional on paying a wealth tax: in effect, a tariff for oligarchs. If Elon Musk, for example, wants to keep selling Teslas in Europe, he should have to pay it. If he refuses, Tesla would lose access to the European market."
Zucman outlined his proposal after Trump threatened over the weekend to hit France, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland with tariffs up to 25% if they don't drop their opposition to the US president's demand for "the complete and total purchase of Greenland," an autonomous territory of Denmark.
The targeted countries are currently weighing retaliatory tariffs and other potential responses to Trump's threat.
Zucman, a renowned expert on global inequality, argued that while existing mechanisms such as the anti-coercion instrument known as Europe's trade "bazooka" can be useful, "anti-oligarchic protectionism has a decisive advantage: It opens a two-front struggle against Trump, at home and abroad."
"By targeting oligarchic wealth rather than national pride," Zucman wrote, "Europe can blunt Trump’s ability to mobilize nationalist resentment and rally part of the American public behind his imperial agenda."
Trump's proposed Greenland takeover is widely opposed by the island's population and US voters. But as journalist Casey Michel wrote for The New Republic last week, there is one key constituency that stands to benefit massively from a US takeover of the mineral-rich territory: American oligarchs, including some of Trump's top campaign donors.
"Ranging from tech moguls to fossil fuel company heads, all of these figures and forces have invested in mining and extraction companies across the island—and all stand to profit if only they can cut out any pesky Danish or Greenlandic authorities from regulating or restraining their operations," wrote Michel. "The figures behind the curtain are by no means obscure. KoBold Metals, a mining outfit helping lead Greenland’s 'modern gold rush,' has seen investments from figures like Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and hedge funds like Andreessen Horowitz."
"Another company eyeing Greenland," Michel added, "is Critical Metals Corp, which is backed by the same hedge fund that Howard Lutnick, now Trump’s commerce secretary, spent years running."
"The vast fortunes of the sleaze buckets who put Trump into the White House and back his attack on democracy in the United States and around the world will suddenly be thrown into question."
Tariffs targeting such firms and the billionaires behind them, Zucman argued, would be the most effective way to penalize Trump's reckless behavior and deter him in the future.
"If imperialism is driven by oligarchic power, then oligarchic power must be confronted," Zucman wrote. "What are the alternatives? Doing nothing invites endless blackmail."
US economist Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, made the case for a similarly aggressive European response to Trump's economic warfare.
"European countries can announce that they will no longer honor US-owned patents and copyrights," Baker wrote Monday. "Putting US patents and copyrights on the line is a guaranteed attention grabber. The vast fortunes of the sleaze buckets who put Trump into the White House and back his attack on democracy in the United States and around the world will suddenly be thrown into question."
"The key point is that European countries, by opting to not respect US patents and copyrights, have an incredibly powerful weapon to use against Donald Trump and his rich supporters," Baker added. "The time has come for them to go nuclear."