The rushed collective departure of popular fast food, FMCG, automobile, clothing, cosmetics and luxury lifestyle brands, much like the disconnection of Russian banks from the SWIFT international banking system, caught the audience both inside and outside of Russia by surprise. Suspense filled the air in anticipation of the social and political impact that this would have on the conflict resolution efforts. To the dismay of all producers, consumers and far side observers alike, Putin’s offensive progressed further into Ukraine, bombing Kiyv, the capital, and Kharkiv, the second largest city in the country.

Fast Food and Fast Fashion

Reluctant to do so, western companies saw themselves obliged to sell their remaining stocks and premises, thus narrowing the window of opportunity to return. In response to the events that broke out on 24 February, McDonald’s closed its 850 restaurants across the country, but continued operating as a dark kitchen, offering its meals online on the Russian food delivery platform Yandex.Eats. However, the American fast food chain has now announced a definitive exit from the Russian market, where it represents 7% of the fast food market. Since March, the progressive closure process has cost McDonald’s $127 million, including staff costs, payments for leases and supplies, food waste and equipment disposal. The company estimates that costs will continue rising about $50 million a month.

Yet, like any story, that of western companies leaving Russia also has a flip side. The share of the Russian market sales in the Western companies’ total revenues is insignificant. In the same way, the economic contribution of these companies to the Russian economy are insignificant. These factors also explain why the mass brand protest did not affect the socio-political climate in Russia. For comparison, sales from Russia-based venues only made up 9% of McDonald’s total revenue and 3% of its total profit. In turn, the American fast food chain contributed $2.5bn to its host’s economy per annum, including tax payments, purchase of 4,2% locally produced potatoes and 1,8% locally produced cheeses. In the end, the iconic burger brand chose to sell its Russian business to Alexander Govor, who has already been a partner since 2015, operating 25 restaurants in Siberia.

Popular clothing and fast fashion groups Inditex SA, owner of Zara, Massimo Dutti, Bershka, Pull and Bear, and Hennes & Mauritz AB, which include H&M, COS, Arket, & Other Stories, also temporarily stopped all sales in Russia and closed their shops. H&M owned over 150 stores in Russia, while Inditex had 502 across the country, of which 86 were under the Zara brand. Like for McDonald’s, the companies’ revenues from the Russian market were not significant, with Russia accounting for only 8.5% of Inditex’s total earnings before interest and tax, and only about 5% of H&M’s group sales, despite being the company’s sixth-biggest market.

Interestingly, the Japanese basic fashion brand Uniqlo did not initially intend to suspend its sales in Russia, with the CEO famously comparing clothing to a basic human right, ”a necessity of life”. Yet, in the digital age, it is the public opinion voiced on social media that has the last word.

FMCG and Everyday Consumption

Major FMCG multinationals like Unilever, Danone, Nestlé, Carlsberg and Coca-Cola found themselves in a complex dilemma, especially for the likes of Unilever and Procter & Gamble which own brands that have become household names. Most of these conglomerates halted the production of all non-essential goods and stopped investments into marketing campaigns in Russia, but are continuing to provide basic nutrition and hygiene products, such as milk, baby food and diapers. In the digital age, however, public opinion outweighs business concerns. A case in point is Nestlé, which fell under Twitter attack, cornered by Ukraine’s President Zelensky for not taking a firm stand in the conflict and continuing its business activities in the aggressor country. As a result, sweet tooths in Russia can no longer access their favorite consumer goods like KitKat bars and Nesquik chocolate mix.

In a similar way, Russia-based consumers are now limited in their choice of household goods, such as furniture. Ikea suspended its sales and closed all its premises, but pledged to maintain their staff salaries and rent payments at least until the end of August, with a hope for extension. To put matters into perspective, Russia’s market share in Carlsberg is 10%, 6% in Danone, 2.4% in Procter & Gamble, 1.8% in Nestle and 1.4% in Coca Cola.

The foreign cigarette producers are still present and people in Russia can smoke the stress away. Philip Morris seems to not be ready yet to renounce the world’s fourth-largest cigarette market by volume and its second-largest IQOS market. Luckily the loud statements by the Marlboro and IQOS parent company expressing intent to exit Russia were just about enough to appease the ethical concerns of its western consumers…for now. Again, Russian sales only account for 6% of the group’s total revenue, 5% of its profit, but 20% of IQOS sales. Philip Morris has reduced production volumes, stopped marketing campaigns and product launches. Its main competitors, British American Tobacco Plc and Imperial Brands Plc also reassured their consumers with statements of intent to sell their Russian businesses to local partners.

Automobile Industry

Japanese, Korean, European and American car manufacturers also announced the suspension of production, sales and any import/export deals with Russia. The French Renault sold its 68% controlling stake in the Russian manufacturer AvtoVAZ to the Russian state institute for auto research NAMI…for 1 RUB, which at the time was equivalent to about $0.01. And yet, hope dies last as Renault requests to include a 6-year buyback option in the sale agreement. On the other hand, in light of Putin’s threat to seize all Russian assets of the companies that choose to exit the market, this could be considered as a generous offer.

A rare case is the German car parts supplier Continental AG, which resumed tyre production at its plant in Kaluga, presenting this decision as a measure to protect its employees from criminal charges, without ever explaining how the interruption of production activity would put the furloughed employees under the risk of prosecution.

At the same time, foreign automobile companies cutting ties with Russia caused shortages in cars and spare parts across Central Asia and the Caucasus. In these somewhat satellite regions, the local automotive markets also rely on exports and on the production of western cars and spare parts from Russia. In this way, not only the consumer in Saratov faces less choice when buying a new car or spare parts replacement for his existing automobile, but also the consumer in Kazakhstan. At the same time, the western players are also suffering costs and shortages. Russia produces about 40% of the world’s raw palladium, used to clean vehicle exhaust, as well as nickel, used in electric vehicle batteries, which the leavers no longer have access to, until further notice.

Luxury Lifestyle sector

Once the first sanction packages were imposed, Bloomberg published an article suggesting that wealthy Russians were investing in luxury jewelry and watches to preserve their savings from the crashing ruble. As a defense, luxury retail groups such as LVMH, Richemont and Kering announced they will donate profit from their proceedings to humanitarian groups in Ukraine, but social media users pushed the luxury brands to take a firmer stance in response to the conflict. As a result, to avoid public backlash, the luxury conglomerates started closing the stores that they directly operate in Russia. Emphasis is on ‘directly operated’.

Richemont (Cartier, Hermes, Van Cleef & Arpels) went first,LVMH (Tiffany&Co, Louis Vuitton, Moet Hennessy), Kering (Gucci, Saint Laurent, Balenciaga) and Chanel followed. By contrast, the Swatch group that also owns Omega, Longines, Harry Winston and Tissot, only suspended exports from Russia at first and kept its boutiques open for sales. Shortly after, the Swiss watchmaker and jewelry group succumbed to the social pressure and suspended its sales operations too.

At a closer look however, while Russian wealth is a great contributor to the luxury lifestyle industry, sales from Russia make less than 5% of the world’s luxury sector total revenue. Richemont’s financial performance for the year to 31 March 2022 shows how minimal the withdrawal effect was on its sales. Having spent $177m on exit expenses, the Swiss luxury mob leader still doubled its profits.

The luxury department stores of Russia wow-ed social media users with images of closed, taped off stores, and naked mannequins. At the same time, some of the stock of popular high end fashion can still be purchased in brand named boutiques operated by Bosco di Ciliegi and the Mercury group. Two of Russia’s largest retailers in the ultra-convenience segment, together represent all of the brands owned by LVMH, Richemont, Chanel, Kering and more. For instance, Gucci only operates 13 stores in Russia, but the Russian consumer can still buy Gucci branded items in Bosco stores.

The departure of western brands has given rise to the domestic fashion market, from high end to fast fashion. The same influencers who were the most favored clients of Louis Vuitton, Bottega Veneta and Hermes are now actively promoting the young designers and their friends, also designers, to their audience. In this way, the already established Russian fashion designers Alena Akhmadullina, Valentin Yudashkin, Gosha Rubchinskiy and Ulyana Sergeenko are now being joined by brands such as Vika Gazinskaya, 12STOREEZ, Yulia Yadryshnikova and Walk of Shame, amongst others.

Closing Thoughts

All in all, the impact of foreign brands leaving Russia in socio-political protest is more symbolic than numeric. The withdrawal of Western and Japanese brands producing household, fashion, luxury and automobile goods was in a major part pushed and encouraged by the non-Russia based consumers of these brands through social media posts and comments. In this way, the unprecedented unity in strategic shift, albeit calculated in a way to minimise the financial costs of leaving, and thus showed the power of conscious consumerism on business and production, however big it may be. Yet, it seems that the same cannot be said about the effect of business and public stance on foreign policy and military strategy. In the end, with Russian multi-brand retailer groups and domestic brands filling the void, combined with the strengthened Russian Rouble, the exodus of western companies would only have a negative effect on Russian consumer sentiment in the long run.

Join us!

Stay up to date on the latest Etha updates and download the app on Apple or Android devices to experience the beginning of the future.

Follow us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook or LinkedIn!

The Philippine’s national and local elections in May 2022 will be the first to be held in the aftermath of the global pandemic; however, social media will undoubtedly influence the outcome. The 2016 presidential election was largely regarded as the Philippine’s first mainstream “social media election.”

Rodrigo Duterte surged into power with the support of what appeared to be an “army” of devoted social media followers in that election. Scholars of Philippine politics credited Duterte’s victory to his campaign’s smart use of social media, which included circulating fake news.

However, that Duterte’s win was simply due to his brilliant social media approach that exaggerates the power of virtual manipulation at that time and ignores the symbiotic relationship between the online engagement zeal and the grassroots of political mobilisation.

Candidate’s reliance on social media in Duterte’s campaign tactics is projected to grow, given the rising use of social media by Filipinos and the physical limits caused by the Covid-19 outbreak. It is unlikely that a candidate can win the presidency only through a successful social media plan, there is a growing recognition that this type of technology is becoming an integral part of the modern “electoral machine.”

Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms were never intended to be used for political objectives. However, as technology has advanced, many people have noticed its potential for political mobilisation. Big social media companies have profited by exploiting how users communicate information, including political ideologies, thoughts, and policy viewpoints.

It is now widely acknowledged that misinformation has spread due to its ability to evoke emotional responses and hence increase social media engagement. The nature of electoral campaigning appears to match perfectly with social media algorithms embedded into the technology. To put it another way, social media and election campaigns appear to be a great match: one serves the financial motive of the internet corporations, while the other serves the desire of politicians and parties to gain votes. So far, the 2022 election campaigns have demonstrated the growing utility of social media as a rapidly emerging information and communication technology that removes some of the contact limitations imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic.

So far, election campaigns have shown a more active and diversified use of social media to disseminate disinformation and fake news in order to support or defame any specific candidates. These problems cannot yet be addressed, due to insufficient rules and lack of a specific legislation governing the use of social media in electoral campaigns in the Philippines.

However, the lack of an effective regulatory regime in the country has allowed social media apps to spread misinformation about pandemic situations in voting booths and other important locations. At present, the Philippine’s election commission admits that without a law governing social media campaigning, their ability to detect and sanction misinformation is severely limited.

Social media enhances the toxic nature of electoral campaigning. As the algorithms of such apps like Facebook feed users with more content than they want in order to sustain or increase engagement, it is unavoidable that pernicious polarisation between the Marcos and Robredo camps will dictate the 2022 election.

Micro-targeting enables misinformation to be tailored to certain voter groups. As data breaches in social media apps become more prevalent, a more intricate social media strategy that targets specific voter groups is now becoming feasible. Micro-targeting appeals to voter’s emotional trigger points which may prompt them to vote for or against a certain candidate and even impact their vote on election day.

In the 2022 elections, the possibility of foreign involvement and influence is very real. The 2022 elections, like those in other countries, may be subject to foreign-induced or backed interference. This is a credible and dangerous threat, putting elections as the sovereign voice of the Filipino electorate in jeopardy. There is a temptation to sway the 2022 elections in favour of the large powers since the Philippines is on a tightrope in the great power conflict between the US and China.

Given these obstacles, social media regulation must be thorough, deliberate, and persistent. Even if the country’s Elections Commission can establish a clear guideline on social media campaigning, execution may be challenging. Regulation must also keep up with the current trends, such as the use of “deep fakes’’ or computer-generated videos.

The news media should be an unbiased medium in terms of political coverage which helps in reinforcing its audience without manipulating their beliefs and perspectives. Etha, is an unbiased and balanced medium which will revolutionise how we interact with the media and politics. A platform created by and for the people, with the goal of increasing political transparency and media accountability to the public.

Media today has become the voice of our society. Globally, there are a variety of media platforms that have stimulated the thoughts of the younger generation and other sections of our society, but these mediums have not been able to provide the experience of free speech to the public. Etha believes that free speech is essential to democracy, it facilitates the search of knowledge and aids in the discovery of truth. Etha promotes ‘honesty’ and ‘integrity’ which defines who we are and what we do. All our efforts are focused on ensuring that every person maintains their right to speak, write and print with total freedom.

There is a long list of the countries in which political partisans eliminate free speech through diverse mediums of communication and find different approaches to manipulate their voters. Rectifying, sharing and bringing your political ideologies representing them on media could be a challenging task, however Etha is that medium which can turn the table around, by making you experience a different political world, where every person has equal right to share, post or to make political leaders comments more open and accountable towards their audiences.

The spread of fake news has migrated away from social media applications like Facebook and Twitter and into chat apps like WhatsApp, Viber and Facebook Messenger, where posts or messages are not as widely shared as they are on other apps. This is an obvious gap in social media regulation which Etha tries to bury and bring a new notion which allows users to interact with Politician statements enabling them with free speech.

Join us!

Stay up to date on the latest Etha updates and download the app on Apple or Android devices to experience the beginning of the future.

Follow us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook or LinkedIn!

Visit our Website!

This first element to take apart a paradox like Roe V. Wade is our current political system. We have separation of powers for checks and balances, politicians as middlemen, and an external factor — mass media. What this article is talking about is an Algocracy. Presently, in the United States, we have two parties that control and govern just about everything — and it’s clearly not working. The media, politicians, and our parties have made one point into two separate arguments, that only ever suit half of the country at one time, and it has driven a society that once used to have middle ground, into an unstoppable tipping point that delves into a mirror of beliefs against one another. The solution? A brand new, re-written system, that accounts for governance and an equilibrium that is controlled by both government and people, as the way it was intended to be through our founding fathers; but this time with a digital fortress around it — an algocracy. Algocracies, by definition, are an alternative form of social ordering, controlled by algorithms. Algocracies can be applied to generally anything (from law enforcement to transportation), with use of advanced technological concepts. This includes the pro-choice and pro-life paradox, and cutting the middle-men out of the picture. Uber has no cars, AirBnB has no homes — the same should be for a political system, governed by very few leaders, the general public’s way of thinking, and a new system that creates equilibrium to account for every situation. Eventually, technology will eat the world, no matter if you like it or not. An algocracy, will be that ‘new new’ thing for the future.

If you see the big picture now, all good (and bad) things come to an end, and eventually implode when a tipping point arises. In the US and across the world, we have reached this ‘critical-mass’ stage, and if something is not done about it, the current system will never be able to catch up with the rest of the world’s innovations, and likely end in destruction. This is what most people can see on the news and social media today. Misinformation is one of the biggest causes of this tipping point, and just like the housing market crash, there is something bigger lurking between the current distractions and narratives that are presented before us today. Misinformation is not only disastrous for the general public, but for politicians and the government, as well. Everyone is soaked into ideological bubbles to the point of no return, people arguing the smallest things that they make off of their own experiences, which is far from reality. Truth is, there is no truth in anything, just as there is no lie in anything. There are multiple answers to every truth and lie, multiple angles that can approach everything. Keeping this in mind, the way to account for and solve a paradox like Roe V. Wade is to blatantly show public perception as a whole for that subject and prove where the lies and truth are in that paradox, with both logic and experience. Computers have much more capability to show reality and falsehoods, than a person with one experience or belief that is tied into something as strongly as pro-life and pro-choice. There truly is a solution for all in an algocratic system. It will be a combination of the entire world’s best and worst practices in law and power — a true mathematical ‘balancing’ platform.

Another feat to this paradox, is solving for the Lorenz attractor and Chaos theory. A more common subset of chaos theory that people are usually aware of is the ‘Butterfly Effect’ . In theory, the butterfly effect has branches of mathematics, focusing on underlying patterns, laws, dynamic systems, and are highly sensitive to initial conditions. Coupled with an algocracy, chaos can actually save the world and rid them of paradoxes like Roe V. Wade from ever happening again (if it should have from the get go). Our political systems were created in 1776, and are very archaic to the levels of mathematics and physics we have today. While a new system should keep the constitution in mind, it truly will account for a fair way to go about all laws and systems in the future. While Chaos still needs to be proven, it ultimately can put something so opposing like the pro-life and pro-choice argument, into a mathematically balanced equation, to satisfy even the most extremist and religious viewpoints. Another complexity of this system is adding on a layer of mathematics and differential equations — The Lorenz Attractor. The Lorenz Attractor is another system of differential equations and is notable for having chaotic solutions for certain parameter values and conditions. Couple Chaos theory with the Lorenz attractor, and you’ll find balance between the good and bad, extreme left and extreme right, in a symbiotic relationship that has never once been dreamt of by our founding fathers, when they first created our political system.

You can take the image of the Lorenz Attractor below, and through visual representation, see how both the left and the right will eventually merge, and be governed by a collective of people, mathematics and systems. Roe V. Wade will forever exist in this ecosystem, but will remain as a part of history, in the era of fake news, facts, and misinformation. In a new algocratic system that dissolves misinformation and represents reality from illusion, the general public (and anyone involved really), will be able to tell the difference, and live in symbiotic relationships.

Stay up to date on the latest Etha updates and download the app on Apple or Android devices to experience the beginning of the future.

Follow us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook or LinkedIn!

Visit our Website!

How is it we do this? As an unbiased medium, we crowdsource news and provide unfiltered, real-time analytics on current political events. Our platform conveys an honest public perspective, rather than the agenda of wealthy partisans. 

Behind every great endeavor is a team of dedicated innovators with the drive and desire to make that change a reality. Etha’s team includes professionals from across various industries all united for the core mission of socio-political change. As we prepare for the next steps in the company and sthe platform’s realization, we invited some of the brilliant minds behind Etha to elaborate on their role and vision. 

A key to what makes Etha unique is its integration of AI to better analyze online discourse and misinformation. Chief Technical Officer (CTO) Aastik Saini elaborated on how AI is created and implemented with Etha. His background on the core team of four different start ups, cloud computing, and AR-VR prepared him for this role at Etha. 

What is AI? 

As our societies become increasingly saturated with technology it's important to understand the innovative ways in which these systems work. More than just tech, AI-powered smart technology is increasing its presence - whether it is a smart refrigerator in the kitchen or Siri on an Apple Watch.  

Though what is AI exactly and what are some of the main pillars behind the technology? 

Quite simply, artificial intelligence (AI) “ is a way to help computers make sense of things that they wouldn’t have otherwise and learn from it,” says Aastik. In other words, AI learns from “previous data and patterns to understand what can be. It is a way smart computers learn from different inputs.”

There are four primary subsets of AI which include: reactive machines, limited memory, theory of mind, and self-awareness. Each one involves a different type of interaction with smart technology, the data, and its given environment. Self-awareness being the ultimate higher state for a smart machine.

Sample AI use cases 

AI use cases are actually more common than one may think, and only increasingly so. In fact, AI is integrated in some services which billions of people use on a daily basis.

Most notably smart assistants like the leading ladies Siri and Alexa are both based on artificial intelligence technology. Moreover, Netflix recommendations and spam filters are also AI-based. 

Difference between machine learning and AI 

It’s important to note however, that AI and machine learning are two similar but different operations. Aastik explained that machine learning methods follow a more generic route of supervised learning.*

*“It’s where we have a data set and we teach the whole algorithm what it has to look out for. For example if I’m looking at pictures of cats, the algorithm should look out for ears that look like cat ears, eyes that look like cat eyes, and noses that look like cat noses. 

In an AI model, I would have to just specify that is a picture of a cat and this is not a picture of a cat. From there I give it to the model, teach it about the images, give it 200, 300 images. Then it learns which pictures would be cats and not be cats on its own. In an ML model, I’d have to specify those different patterns.”

How is AI integrated into Etha? 

As far as Etha is concerned, AI is one of the most critical elements to the product. Etha uses AI as the primary mode for distinguishing information and helping to determine biases, fake news, and more. 

“We follow a very different route for things,” says Aastik. “The AI that we have curates news articles across various media outlets and runs a sentiment analysis on it which understands what kind of narratives and biases they’re putting out.”

“Based on that we try to understand how people are reacting to certain narratives, which gives us better insight as to what the general consensus or option to a certain idea, topic, issue, event or politician is. We try to find a balance. When we find a disruption in the balance, some news article which could be a possible source of misinformation, we pinpoint it and investigate it further.”

Why is AI integral to Etha? (Aastik answer) 

The primary purposes of Etha reveals biases in media for the purpose of accountability and facilitation of constructive discourse. In order to do this, AI is integral. There is no Etha in the way the team envisions, without a properly developed and trained AI core. 

A major advantage of working with machines is the lack of bias, Aastik says. “AI itself has no bias. It learns what the people are feeding it in order to understand how people respond towards certain topics, issues, events, policies, or politicians. The AI will learn those patterns and to avoid having an influx of the AI leaning to any side, for AI to maintain its neutral standpoint, we use certain algorithms which help the AI not learn those extreme political patterns and stay unbiased and neutral in the long run.”

For this reason, AI is integral for the promotion of a healthy, thriving community on both the Etha platform and in public discourse. 

“To help keep it clean. To identify constructive conversations and deconstructive conversations. With it,  we can better analyze people’s sentiments towards politicians and hold those politicians accountable for the deliverable they have promised or the things they are speaking to in the public and how it affects everything.”

The future is AI - but don’t be scared!

Artificial intelligence is a buzzword these days. It increasingly shows up in the media and sometimes under false colors. “The media has portrayed AI to be somewhat of a sentient being,” Aastik said, “which is not the case. AI is very simple. Most AIs are developed to do one specific thing very well, as good as a human even. When you put all of them together in a constructive manner, there’s nothing to worry about.”

In fact, AI isn’t something new and terrifying. It has been a part of our lives for decades and both the humans creating it and it itself are becoming more efficient. 

“AI is the future, AI is the past. The current conventional AI we’ve been using since the early 2000s in different areas. It is only now where we can fully utilize those algorithms and develop AI that can do things. The future holds a lot of possibilities and if used in the right way, AI can help change lives.”

Why Etha? 

Etha has a team dedicated to the mission of truth and transparency in the media. For team members like Aastik, Etha is also about using this intricate technology for the overall betterment of humanity. 

“That’s why Etha, because we’re trying to solve an issue that has become critical.”

Join us! 

Aastik is one of many like minded innovators behind the vision of Etha. We are a collective with a vision to change the reality of media and political relationships. As we prepare to take this platform into the future, we want you to join us.

Stay up to date on the latest Etha updates and download the app on Apple or Android devices to experience the beginning of the future. 

Follow us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook or LinkedIn!

Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former public defender and judge on the influential Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, had long been rumoured as a top candidate in the event of a high court retirement or vacancy. She possessed many of the sitting justice’s sterling credentials, including an Ivy League law degree and a federal judgeship and her groundbreaking nomination energised Democrats at a time when some of the party’s most ambitious legislative proposals had failed.

The fact that a Black female Supreme Court judge has been long overdue reflects the slow progress that the United States has made toward racial and gender equality.

While Democrats sought a bipartisan vote on Jackson’s nomination, many Republicans who are fighting over the confirmation of previous conservative nominees used last month’s hearings to highlight the country’s fault lines.

Throughout the investigation of Jackson’s record, many Judiciary Committee Republicans used race, criminal justice, and gender dynamics as a stick to knock Jackson off balance, despite her largely positive reception from the American public.

Democrats have confirmed federal judges at a rapid pace since Biden took office last year, hoping to make up for past mistakes in shaping the judicial system. According to data from the Federal Judicial Center, roughly 67% of the president’s confirmed federal judicial nominees have been nonwhite with 31% of all confirmed nominees being Black.

For Democrats, Jackson’s nomination was supposed to be the culmination of Biden’s efforts to appoint the first Black female jurist to the Supreme Court without the sharp polarisation of previous hearings. That did not come to fruition.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham used his questioning time to criticise Jackson’s record on sentencing for child pornography offenders, which many Republicans claimed was too lenient as she imposed sentences that were lighter than the federal guidelines in several cases. Fact-checkers and legal experts debunked the claims, claiming they lacked key context and data demonstrating that Jackson’s behaviour was within the norm and the guidelines were out of date.

Graham warned Democrats shortly before Jackson’s full Judiciary Committee vote that if Republicans controlled the Senate, she would not have received a hearing, citing the need for a more “moderate” candidate. Senate Minority leader McConnell has remained silent on whether he would even consider a future Biden Supreme Court nominee in a Republican-controlled Senate.

However Republicans have their own list of complaints about how Democrats have abused the process, dating back to when Democrats controlled the Senate in 1987 and blocked Ronald Reagan’s nominee, the late conservative judge and scholar Robert Bork.

During Jackson’s three-day confirmation hearing, she was subjected to a barrage of questions. She was frequently interrupted as she defended her previous representation of alleged terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as a public defender, as well as a few sentences she handed down as a federal judge in child pornography possession cases referred above. For them, “it is not just about Jackson’s reputation, which has been repeatedly tarnished by Republican senators peddling false narratives about her alleged coddling of child pornographers and terrorists, it is about the Senate’s legacy and the Supreme Court’s future.”

Jackson was confirmed by a vote of 53–47, with the support of all 50 Senate Democrats and three Republicans — Maine Senator Susan Collins, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski and Utah Senator Mitt Romney. She was not a controversial nominee, but three Republican votes were seen as a breakthrough in the current political climate.

Jackson is the first former criminal defence attorney to be nominated to the Supreme Court since Marshall. As a result of this, Jackson seems to be in an unusual position on the bench. As a public defender “it will help Jackson understand the very real human toll of the criminal justice system in the United States”.

A new justice means there’s a new court, even if the ideological balance doesn’t necessarily shift. This is a really interesting time to watch the Supreme Court, because the majority on the court right now is willing to question things that seemed like they were settled for a long time.

There can be endless questions and debates about Jackson’s win but it was her merits and passion which made her the first ever Black Woman Judge in the Supreme Court.

Stay up to date on the latest Etha updates and download the app on Apple or Android devices to experience the beginning of the future.

Follow us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook or LinkedIn!

Visit our Website!

How is it we do this? As an unbiased medium, we crowdsource news and provide unfiltered, real-time analytics on current political events. Our platform conveys an honest public perspective, rather than the agenda of wealthy partisans.

Behind every great endeavor is a team of dedicated innovators with the drive and desire to make that change a reality. Etha’s team includes professionals from across various industries all united for the core mission of socio-political change. As we prepare for the next steps in the company and the platform’s realization, we invited some of the brilliant minds behind Etha to elaborate on their role and vision.

Chief Operating Officer (COO) Dimitry Kushelevsky elaborated on his insights on the product and his own ethos in startup building, AI integration, and the power of Etha’s mission.

What is COO at Etha?

Dimitry: COO is a pretty cool role.

The way I see my role and ability to add value is to take this wealth of experience building a number of startups and take this idea I’m committed to and build it into a coherent, air tight business model. One with a rock solid value proposition. One that has not just the idea or goal, but a solid vision of how we get to that goal.

Immediately, Dimitry recalled being taken with the idea of Etha. He knew he could take this idea and cultivate the right type of chemistry in the executive team to bring this platform to life. So what’s his approach when taking on such a compelling task?

Dimitry: My approach is that I don’t know all the answers, but I have a lot of experience. I can promise that I know the right questions to ask and can facilitate the process of putting an idea through the rigor of brainstorming and prioritize the following steps needed to follow through with the business model.

For Dimitry it’s all in the attitude.

**Dimitry: **If you approach life with an entrepreneur attitude there is no such thing as a failure. Even startups that crash and burn are some of the biggest learning experiences.

Since we already have our project, our biggest goal is to ensure that our users and future customers agree that we have this great value to add to their lives and to the world. The world of politics, the world of news, and the world overall.

A Passion for Growth

Dimitry’s solid background in corporate business environments prepared him to help mold startups into flourishing companies. While much of his work is rooted in technology-based companies, some of the start ups he’s worked with or fostered himself range in industry.

Dimitry: I received my MBA with an official concentration in finance and investment but I also had enough classes to get a minor or secondary concentration in marketing and sales. Initially, I started out in the large corporate setting with AT&T.

I was hired into their leadership fast track program. It was an incredible opportunity and I developed a passion for leadership very quickly. It was mind boggling to me, even still today, that they believed a kid straight out of college was worthy of [high level] leadership training.

With a newfound love for leadership and working with ideas, Dimitry started his first company. Shortly after the fall of the Iron Curtain, he saw a need and used his leadership skills to fill it. It provided the ability for skilled individuals and organizations from the former Soviet Union to gain access to the tools they needed for life post-communism.

Later on, with years of corporate and personal ventures under his belt, Dimitry’s unquenchable passion for startups changed his professional trajectory.

Dimitry: I decided to take a brief pause from my large corporate career and see if I can do something really impactful. One great thing about entrepreneurship is how big of an impact you can make in other people’s lives.

Why Etha?

When Dimitry discovered Etha, he knew that this could be one of those impact making moments in his entrepreneurial life.

Dimitry: Right off the bat I couldn’t help but realize that they’re addressing a massive problem. As a follower of politics and observer of the political events that shape our world, it was really disheartening for me to watch mainstream media to go further down this rabbit hole of proposing very politicized, very polarized, highly biased news pieces.

The sad reality of that is that not only is it disgusting to watch, it literally started to tear our country apart.

There is no platform that I can name today, certainly no major platform that truly says we’re completely impartial. If we can make this work it can be a real disruptive force in an industry that seems to be desperately needing some sort of disruption.

By helping to obliterate at least some of the biased nature of the news from the major outlets as well as the discourse between the people themselves on social media, that could be a big benefit. It could be a great way for me as a part of our team to really leave a mark and make a very positive difference. Both for our country and for millions and millions of people.

AI Integration and Etha

One of the key components to Etha’s neutrality and moderating capabilities is innovation artificial intelligence (AI) solutions. In his business and entrepreneurial background, Dimitry has been working with AI innovators for years. The use case of AI integrated with Etha can be a tool for great good.

Dimitry: The potential uses of AI are many. We could monitor potentially thousands of conversations happening at any given time and moderate them to ensure that they don’t become destructive. If we see strongly partisan participants engaged in a battle and it’s becoming destructive, we can use our AI to call that out.

The ability to combine AI and crowdsourcing will increase the factuality and accuracy of Etha’s results.

Dimitry: There’s a great benefit to combining wisdom of the crowd or crowdsourcing and AI as well. The great thing about using the wisdom of the crowd is that it is extremely powerful. However, it’s also a bit difficult. The larger the crowd the harder it is to match that community.

AI is a very powerful technology. If we design it right, if we tune it properly, and if we instill it with a very strict adherence to neutrality, we can actually manage that public discourse in a way that no manual group of people is going to be able to do.

Dimitry believes in safe and constructive AI use cases. To those who are weary of AI Dimitry says like every innovation there are good and bad outcomes.

Dimitry: There are certainly people who are very weary of AI and accuse it of being sinister. To that my answer is, it’s what we make of it. Every new innovation was presented with this dilemma. Nuclear energy can obliterate entire cities with hundreds of thousands of residents and nuclear energy can literally feed billions of people when produced safely and administered by responsible people.

AI is going to be no exception. The technology is already here and we can’t make it go away. Just like every technology prior to AI, it’s up to us — the leaders and innovators in the space- to ensure that we create AI as a force of good. And that we use our AI, that we create, for positive constructive purposes that benefit potentially billions of people in the process.

The Future of Media with Etha

Through AI moderation, Etha has the ability to change not only the landscape of the media in the United States, but the world. For the founders, this change is the heart of the mission for a better, more truthful future.

Dimitry: I envision a change, no question about it. I envision a great deal of improvement. We’re not trying to change the news. A matter of fact, our goal is to try and be an impartial observer of the news. If anything we want to present the news without bias and whenever there is bias we want to be able to identify it.

That’s the really exciting part about what we’re trying to do. We will, in essence, in a positive and constructive way, enforce better behavior and a sense of responsibility and accountability for what’s being published.

However, this changes more than the media and public discourse. There is the possibility to change the way politicians themselves communicate with the people they serve.

Dimitry: Another great benefit we will bring to the world with our solution is through accountability for the politicians. That’s where it really hits home.

When we introduce this type of transparency and oversight to the news media, at least political news media, it will have a direct impact on the thought process that the individual politicians and government agencies have to go through before they make a particular decision.

That’s certainly another very direct and impactful benefit that I feel strongly we can and will bring to the political community in the U.S. and around the globe.

Join us!

Dimitry is one of many like minded innovators behind the vision of Etha. We are a collective with a vision to change the reality of media and political relationships. As we prepare to take this platform into the future, we want you to join us.

Stay up to date on the latest Etha updates and download the app on Apple or Android devices to experience the beginning of the future.

Follow us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook or LinkedIn!

Visit our website!

As the Russian invasion continues, we are all witnessing the world’s fastest-growing refugee flow in modern history. As we write these lines, over 3.1 million Ukrainians have fled their homes in search of refuge in other countries, with nearly 2 million of them settling in Poland, resulting in a 5% increase in the country’s population.

Countries such as Hungary, Moldova, Romania, and Slovakia are also receiving unprecedented numbers of refugees in comparison to their populations. In the midst of nonstop coverage of Ukraine’s crisis, a pattern has emerged that the position of Ukrainians are distinct from other victims of conflicting states. The way we talk about conflicts can have an impact on those who are already and directly affected by war, the refugees.

According to some recent commentators, the Ukrainian refugee crisis has demonstrated that humanitarianism can triumph over bureaucracy.

The 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention recognises racial discrimination as one of the grounds for refugee protection. However, the convention was written with a bias toward European refugees, despite protests from non-European countries, who pointed to displaced populations in their own regions.

This racist distinction between supposedly ‘civilised’ and ‘uncivilized’ populations is unsurprising, given how deeply ingrained this logic is in migration and refugee policies.

Regardless of your skin colour, eye colour, economic status, or access to education. We hope that this conflict serves as a turning point in which we recognise the humanity of all people, not just those who most resemble us.

The welcoming of Ukrainian refugees exemplifies this hierarchy. The European Union, as well as countries such as Canada and the United States, certainly resettle refugees from various backgrounds. While the current response demonstrates the enormous capacity to host refugees, it also demonstrates selective generosity based on the assumption that some refugees are more ‘deserving’ than others.

Unfortunately, the existing legal infrastructure contributes to vastly different outcomes for people fleeing from conflicted countries based on their skin colour and country of origin. Thousands of refugees from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and other countries have faced racial hostility in Europe. Now, the refugee crisis in Ukraine is exposing Western hypocrisy.The backlash of government’s callous actions due to them rejecting brown-skinned Afghan refugees fleeing the way was unavoidable.

Poland is the most blatant example of national racism. Its government, whose country borders Ukraine, has welcomed traumatised Ukrainians after turning Afghans away just months before. As if these optics weren’t bad enough, Polish nationalists have attacked people of colour amongst the refugees fleeing Ukraine. African students in Ukraine joined the exodus following Russia’s invasion and were stopped at the Polish border. Poland might as well erect a huge sign along its border that reads, “Whites Only.” Thankfully they are being welcomed into neighbouring countries, as refugees prompting accusations of racist double standards.

Pointing out government’s and the press’s double standards at a time when Ukrainians are witnessing their country’s utter destruction will inevitably elicit accusations of insensitivity and irresponsible “whataboutism” to make a point. But now is the time to state unequivocally what human rights organisations and independent journalists have been saying for years: that US and NATO-led wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia and elsewhere are racist and that callous dismissals of the resulting humanitarian disasters are equally barbaric.

Welcoming those fleeing wars sparked by the West would be an admission of Western responsibility. Ukrainian refugees not only provide palatable infusions of whiteness to European nations, but they also allow governments to express self-righteous outrage at Russia’s imperialist ambitions and violent militarism.

If Ukrainian refugees are proof of Russian brutality, then Afghan and Iraqi refugees are proof of US and NATO brutality.While Europe’s double standard on refugees is on full display in Russia’s war on Ukraine, the US is far from blameless. During the presidency of former President Donald Trump, he effectively shut the door on refugees and bolstered his anti-refugee policies with racist language.

President Joe Biden, who campaigned on undoing Trump’s anti-refugee policies, initially failed to keep his promise after taking office. Restrictions on allowing refugees into the United States were eventually lifted. Afghans were naturally desperate to flee last year, when US troops abandoned Afghanistan to the mercy of the Taliban. While the Biden administration laudably expedited Afghan resettlement in the United States, problems persist, with one refugee advocate calling the process “abysmal.”

Decisions by Poland and other countries to welcome fleeing Ukrainians “show that the European Union can accept a large number of asylum seekers in a relatively efficient manner.”

A simple thought experiment could shield governments, journalists and us from further accusations of racist double standards: we could treat all refugees as if they were white-skinned Ukrainians, as if they were human.

Visit our Website!

The Biden administration has warned Russia that military intervention in Ukraine would be met with harsh economic sanctions, including not only the blocking of Russia’s gas exports through the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline, but also strict export controls that would deny Russia access to high-tech goods from the US and other countries. Such sanctions would undoubtedly go much beyond those taken after Russia annexed Crimea eight years ago and would cause havoc on the economy. These measures, unfortunately, may not be sufficient to stop Russia from taking military action against Ukraine.

The proposed legislation would also go beyond what was addressed by the Senate’s Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act (DUSA), which was presented in mid-January. Aside from prohibiting Nord Stream 2, the bill would also prohibit financial transactions with large Russian banks that involve government debt and participation in Russia’s extractive industries (oil, gas, coal, minerals). Russian financial institutions would also be barred from joining the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), a global cooperative that facilitates international financial transactions. It also proposes putting prominent political and military figures to the US Treasury’s list of Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) and Blocked Persons, which entails asset seizures and travel restrictions for those identified.

Another, more potent consequence, would be the imposition of US export and re-export curbs on advanced semiconductors and other high-tech goods, similar to the controls recently imposed on Chinese companies. The Biden administration has briefed US high-tech companies on the possibility of restricting US and international shipments to Russia of goods built using US equipment or containing critical US components under the US Export Administration Regulations’ foreign direct product (FDP) rule.

Broader international sanctions on Russian energy exports are removed from the list, likely because they would also cause substantial economic disruptions in European markets. Even a partial severance of links with the West would hurt the Russian economy, but total sanctions against Russia would hurt European economies far more than US producers and consumers. The European Union’s commerce and investment with Russia dwarfs that of the United States: EU merchandise trade with Russia is eight times that of the United States, and EU foreign direct investment (FDI) in Russia is about 25 times that of the United States. Officials in the United States and the European Union are likely to adjust their limits to avoid causing collateral harm to their economies.

The question that pops, is is Putin concerned enough about the threat of sanctions to deter him from pursuing Russia’s territorial ambitions?

Russia’s actions eight years ago taught us a valuable lesson. Soon after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2014, US officials imposed a series of sanctions aimed at punishing high-level government officials and weakening the Russian economy by restricting trade and finance with Russian energy companies and specific banks, in the hope that these measures would deter further military advances in Ukraine and neighboring countries. Additional measures were added in July and September 2014, coordinated with European allies, but fell short of the restrictions imposed against Iran, which had previously isolated the country from most channels of international trade and finance.

The sanctions had only a minimal economic impact on Russia, did little to evict them from Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and only temporarily discouraged Putin’s territorial ambitions, as currently appears to be the case. The fact that Putin’s closest circle was targeted appears to have had no impact on their behavior or support for Russian policies. Those who were targeted frequently, just transferred their assets out of reach of US officials, received little in the way of travel limitations, and were generously rewarded by the Russian government. Sanctions have slowed the development of energy resources, but they haven’t stopped Russia from maintaining high levels of oil and gas production and selling enormous volumes of natural gas to Europe via a network of pipelines.

Putin has taken additional steps to protect his country over the last eight years, including increasing Europe’s reliance on Russian gas, opening new gas export markets in China, and developing a new financial messaging platform, the System for Transfer of Financial Messages, to compensate for the possibility of being kicked out of SWIFT.

One step that has been discussed in the news is adding President Vladimir Putin and his senior government and military leaders to the US Specially Designated Nationals list. It’s quite improbable that any of them have overseas assets that may be taken by Western authorities, or that any of them have vacation plans in Florida or the French Riviera. However, any measures would further isolate Russia as a failed state.

In terms of pursuing Russian financial institutions, the US Treasury may blacklist many Russian banks, prevent transactions involving new Russian sovereign debt issuances, and deny access to SWIFT for selected companies. These restrictions would make both domestic and foreign transactions in Russia more expensive and time-consuming to finance. Sanctions to divorce major Russian banks from foreign markets will cost many hurdles to the customers and shareholders, but the systemic impact will be minor compared to equivalent action against China’s top banks, which are the world’s largest. Important Russian businesses will almost certainly continue to be able to obtain funding from the Russian government.

The United States’ policy with Russia has alternated between intermittent attempts to engage, reset, and integrate Russia into international and European institutions and brief periods of conflict. With presumptions that Russia was in decline, US policy has been defined by short bursts of strong emphasis and extended intervals of apathy. Despite its modest economy, Russia has established itself as a worldwide player.

The United States must accept the terrible reality that Russian foreign policy will remain unchanged as long as Putin is in power. The Biden administration aspired to have a “stable and predictable” relationship with Russia when it took office. The United States does not desire a new Cold War, but Putin’s Kremlin has never stopped fighting the previous one. As a result, the answer to a Russian invasion is more about establishing a continuous policy to isolate, restrain, and weaken Putin’s Russia than it is about discrete policy actions.

Visit our website!

It’s a key component of his assertion, mocked by Ukraine, that Ukraine isn’t a real country. In an improvised version of history, he said that it was “completely created” by Soviet planners out of Russian imperial soil. Putin’s allegation is that Ukraine is a fictitious country which misses important aspects of a country’s identity. In any event, linguistic and ethnic divisions have long persisted in Ukraine, notably between the primarily Russian-speaking people in the east and the Ukrainian-speaking districts of the west near the borders with Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary.

The ambition for an exclusive sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus is ostensibly motivated by Russian security concerns. NATO expansion to the east has been depicted by the Kremlin as the original sin of post-Soviet international relations with the West, which must now be corrected. Regardless of facts, different interpretations, or the security concerns of equally sovereign nations, Moscow says that it will use military force to preserve its security interests if such guarantees are not provided.

For years, Russia has criticised political ultranationalism in Ukraine. To be sure, tensions exist in Ukraine, and neo-Nazi paramilitary members have fought alongside the troops. However, Russia exaggerates the presence, citing the history of Ukrainian nationalists working with Germany during World War II in an attempt to establish an independent state. Many interpreted Putin’s Nazi remark as a threat to destabilise Ukraine’s government which is led by President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a Jew who denies allegations that his government includes neo-Nazis.

Putin and his allies began accusing the Ukrainian government of “genocide” against Russian speakers in the Donbas breakaway regions, a baseless charge that Ukraine, as well as the United State Government and EU states have strongly denied. In reality, fighting between rebels and the Ukrainian military killed an estimated 14,000 people, mainly in the year after the Crimean crisis. Russia and Ukraine have repeatedly accused each other of violating the Minsk agreements, which were mediated by Germany and France and aimed to cease the fighting and secure a political settlement. Fulfilling Minsk would have given decentralised control to Russian-speaking breakaway provinces, perhaps providing the Kremlin veto power over national policy shifts like joining the EU or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Putin effectively scuttled Minsk days before the assault by recognising the separatists self-styled republics. On February 24, he justified the invasion by declaring a goal of “demilitarisation,” implying that Ukraine’s military capability would be dismantled, rendering it unable to defend itself and hence ineligible to join NATO. Another goal, he stated, was the “denazification” of the country.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin engineered the current critical phase of the Ukrainian issue. Russian troops, artillery, armoured vehicles, tanks, and other equipment surround Ukraine, threatening a major military confrontation. They are stationed along the Russian border with Ukraine, in the annexed Crimean territory, and in Belarus.

It’s difficult to pinpoint a precise reason for Russia’s decision in 2021 to transfer tens of thousands of troops and their armaments close to Ukraine or the December 2021 escalation of events. Since the early 2000s, the Kremlin’s approach toward Ukraine has been tough. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, they occupied Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and started the continuing war in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region which has claimed the lives of thousands of Ukrainians. Nonetheless, the timing appears to be influenced more by Vladimir Putin’s political preferences, his assessments of events and reactions in Ukraine, Europe, and the United States than by events in the contested Donbas region.

Moscow and Putin, for a number of reasons, are at play. To begin with, enormous shifts have occurred in Eurasia during the past two years, with trends appearing to have reached a tipping point. Moscow has effectively reasserted itself as the major political force and security provider in the region, thirty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and 22 years after Vladimir Putin came to power. Only Ukraine and the three Baltic states, which joined NATO and the European Union in 2004, have managed to escape Moscow’s grasp. Following their forcible reincorporation into the Soviet Union during World War II, the United States never recognised the Baltic states as part of the USSR. For Moscow and Vladimir Putin, pushing Kyiv and its leadership back into Russia’s orbit is unfinished work in this perspective. In what Russia views to be its “protected zone of interests,” Ukraine is the regional outlier. Opposing Russia, Ukraine continues to pursue NATO membership, tight links with Europe, its own economic, political, and foreign policy agenda as well as building up its military forces. By leveraging economic and military links or exploiting a territorial conflict, Russia has pushed other former Soviet governments into stronger political and security ties with Moscow or into a neutral, marginal international standing.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in November 2021 about the dangers. According to allegations from the British government and intelligence agencies, Moscow has been plotting to replace Ukrainian President Zelensky with a pro-Kremlin puppet administration during the present crisis.

These changes in Eurasia have strengthened Russia. In dealing with the disturbances, the United States had no meaningful part. It was noticeable by its absence. The United States appears severely weakened in Russia’s eyes, both at home and internationally.America’s political shift and President Biden’s inability to carry out his domestic agenda was not satisfactory for many leaders worldwide. The US and NATO urged a politically and economically battered Russia to remove its armed forces from Eastern Europe in the 1990s. Putin sees America’s plight as a once-in-a-lifetime chance. If the US is indeed in a condition of breakdown at home and retreat abroad as the Kremlin claims, Russia may be able to reverse the last 30 years of American security supremacy in Europe, as well as constrain Ukraine’s independence.

Visit our Website!

Neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden have been able to unite America towards a common goal, rather they remain focused on their existing supporters. This lack of open communication between these two parts of the nation and the vilification of the other has created a scenario where both the Republicans and Democrats are taking arms against one another. Rather than soothing this tension - as political leadership should; they instigate these differences to strengthen their vote banks and ensure a hold over the power dynamic.  

With the launch of Trump’s new application - TRUTH Social, we are bound to see an exponential increase in the polarization that is already rampant in the country. Considering the past few years of Trump’s presidency, we should all be hesitant in accepting all that is put out into the world on Donald Trump’s behalf, but it would be folly to side-line the fact that his charisma and ideology speaks to a lot of people in the country. 

Following the events of the Capitol Hill riot, and the leeway he took with his posts on social media regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, Donald Trump was permanently removed from most social media sites in 2021. In response to this, Trump launched his own tech firm, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) in October of the same year, as a means of waging war on the media conglomerates that attempted to silence him. 

Trump’s biggest selling point for the launch of his new app is to give voice to those Americans that feel they have been censored by the current government as well as ‘mainstream’ media. It is, in their own way, a rebellion against ‘the tyranny of Big Tech’. To a great extent, these claims have merit. Recently, the tolerance for ‘alternative’ beliefs has dwindled significantly, especially with the rise in ‘cancel culture’. Whatever political ideology one subscribes to, everyone has become set in their own ways, which make understanding the other utterly impossible. One part of the country feels that their right to have differing political viewpoints and the right to voice said points has been directly challenged by social media applications that are mass banning users from their platforms. 

Applications such as Truth Social, Parler, Rumble, and MeWe, have all been designed for the purpose of bringing together people who share the same political ideology. But again, the question arises, how much faith are we willing to put into such applications that are, essentially, creating duplicates of existing platforms? Expecting ‘truths’ and ‘retruths’ from such applications is counterproductive when their only agenda is to enable and prey on the general public’s fear and struggle. 

In theory, Truth Social is centered around the idea of not censoring any content published on their application but, according to their official guidelines, they reserve the right to remove any users that they feel violate their guideline. For an application that is solely focused on promoting ‘free speech’, their CEO - Devin Nunes, let it be known that the application will be strictly moderated in order to make it family friendly. Despite the application’s community guidelines stating that, “In no instance will Truth Social determine what content will be removed or filtered, or whose account will be eliminated, on the basis of the point of view shared within the content at issue”, they have already managed to block a parody account of their CEO Devin Nunes. 

As much as Truth Social advertises themselves to be a platform for those with different political ideologies, Trump’s agenda remains personal. He has already stated that he will be throwing his hat in for the next election and this platform allows him direct access to his followers without any moderation of any kind. He is well aware of the impact that his statements have had through platforms such as Twitter and with Truth Social, Trump can capitalize on this influence even further. 

Ideologies, beliefs and passions all need to be backed by cold-hearted facts but with social media and its capacity for perverting and manipulating the truth in favor of the corporate elite and corrupt officials, the general population has lost the plot. In our hedonistic desire for consumption of any kind, we take in everything the internet has to offer without dialogue, debate or question. At Etha, we seek to keep ourselves and our users informed of all events, regardless of orientation. There are no discrepancies in what we offer to our users and what we say we offer. Free speech just for the sake of it removes accountability from the equation completely but with Etha and its non-partisan polling tool, we aim to bring a healthy dose of ‘truth’ back to the people.

visit our website: https://etha.one

While COVID-19 still poses a significant risk, political reactions and public perceptions in the United States have been divided along ideological lines. This raises concerns about the role that politicians and the media have played in amplifying the politicisation and polarisation of COVID-19, as this type of news coverage has the potential to influence public attitudes in ways that exacerbate partisan divides.

In 2016, when Donald Trump debated his Republican primary opponents, he never mentioned public health. Similarly, these issues were not addressed in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It’s safe to say that pandemic preparedness and response were not a hot political topic. PEPFAR (The President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief), for example, has embodied a major bipartisan commitment to public health since its inception by President George W. Bush, though not without any political controversy.

However differences in partisan perceptions of COVID-19 may be due, in part, to differences in messaging on the issue by partisan elites. President Trump and leading conservative political commentators like Peters & Grynbaum and Rupar have frequently called COVID-19 a “hoax” and dismissed the virus’s risks. In the early stages of the outbreak, right-wing media outlets were more likely to spread misinformation about COVID-19, and more frequent viewers of conservative media outlets were more likely to be misinformed about COVID-19. Given these partisan messaging trends, a critical question is how much mainstream news outlets amplified political actors’ voices in COVID-19 coverage, as well as how much language in news coverage highlighted partisan differences when discussing Republican and Democratic actors.

Some of the current studies addresses these concerns by examining the degree to which mainstream newspaper and network television news coverage of COVID-19 was politicised and polarised between March and May 2020. The prominence of political actors in news coverage of an issue is referred to as politicisation. Politicization of an issue can occur for a variety of reasons, and it is not always negative. Coverage of politicians banding together to address a social risk, for example, is likely to be highly politicised. However, biases in newsroom norms and the desire to draw attention to an article can lead to increased politicisation of content. Journalists frequently use personalised stories that focus on petty arguments between opposing actors to highlight conflict and dramatise issues.

A high level of politicisation may be more concerning when coverage is also highly polarised, that is, divided along partisan lines. When it comes to a novel issue, such as a new pandemic, the news media is usually the first source of information for the public. When such coverage is both highly politicised and polarised, motivated reasoning and the public’s proclivity to rely on political rather than scientific viewpoints mean that news coverage can amplify partisan differences in risk perceptions and responses to an issue. That is, when media coverage is polarised, members of the public are more likely to form opinions aligned with political elites they trust and reject information that contradicts this view, even if it comes from experts. As a result, the extent to which media coverage of pandemics, such as COVID-19, is both politicised and polarised is an important question.

At some point, the pandemic and its accompanying media coverage became yet another deeply divisive political issue — a chessboard for politicians to score points on, rather than a challenge for the nation to meet. Speeches, tweets, and news coverage have all become focused on making or taking away points. In a parallel reality, leaders from both parties could have set aside their usual differences, rallied behind a national strategy, and held each other accountable for putting it into action. Tragedy on top of tragedy.

Trust in institutions may shift as a result of how the government responds and performs during the pandemic. Legislators have been most responsive to the concerns of economic elites in recent decades, as inequality has increased. Is it possible that this will change in the aftermath of the pandemic? To what extent has partisan politics influenced public reactions to the pandemic? To what extent will the public’s perception of “elites” (politicians, business leaders, scientists, and the media) change? What role might elite rhetoric or anti-elite conspiracy theories play in shaping public perceptions and responses to the pandemic? How will disparities in health and economic outcomes across states affect political engagement, partisan identification, polarisation, voting access, or attitudes toward safety net programmes and redistribution? Is yet to be discovered!

The arrival of this pandemic created an unexpected need for ordinary people to find and process large amounts of complicated and rapidly changing information. Americans sought information from a variety of sources, but two frequently cited ones, the White House and the news media, revealed especially striking partisan differences in attitudes.

On many coronavirus-related issues, public opinion differed not only by political party, but also within each party, depending on where people tuned for news and information. Republicans who relied on Trump and the White House for COVID-19 news, for example, were consistently more likely to rate Trump’s response positively — and the media’s response negatively. Meanwhile, with perceptions of the trustworthiness of information from the White House and the media deeply divided along partisan lines, Americans expressed concern about the spread of misinformation.

As early as mid-March, nearly half of Americans reported seeing at least some information about COVID-19 that appeared to be completely made up, on topics ranging from the virus’s origin to its risks and potential cures. A sizable proportion of both parties, particularly Republicans, said- it was becoming more difficult to tell what was true and what was false about the outbreak. And conspiracy theories gained traction: a quarter of U.S. adults believed that powerful people had purposefully planned the outbreak.

Debates over mask requirements, vaccination mandates, economic shutdowns, and school closings have raised philosophical questions about the proper role of government in establishing rules for society, as well as where those rules should be established. Disagreements over these issues have even erupted into violence in some cases.

In its broadest sense, the crisis has widened the divide between Americans who believe that the federal role in vaccine development and economic rescues demonstrates how important government is in dealing with big problems and those who believe that government institutions have proven to be incompetent and overly intrusive. The former sentiment will benefit Democrats, while the latter will benefit Republicans.

Visit our Website!

The entire world came to a standstill for months, and many were doubtful about things ever going back to normal. In some ways they still have not, but it is during exigent circumstances that human ingenuity really takes root and allows us to make a difference in the world. One such story is of Nicole Ogloza — the CEO and Co-founder of Etha (a media platform designed to dispel misinformation and polarization in the political landscape).

At the start of the pandemic in the United States, like a lot of people, Nicole Ogloza found herself without a job or prospects, facing the gut-wrenching decision to turn away from the life she had built in California and head back to Florida, a place which was no longer home. She has been laid off from her job at Warner Media as a systems engineer and to make matters worse, her start-up and its $32 million contract was also lost. There was not much left to do but start the arduous journey back home.

If the 2700 odd miles were not challenging enough by road, she soon found herself in the middle of a barren stretch of Nevada when a massive blizzard swept her car off the road leaving her stranded in the desert. She tried digging the car out and even placing her clothes under the tires for some form of traction but to no avail. With no way to call or text for help, after having thrown her phone in a fit of frustration, she was 40 miles from civilization with only the cruel desert mistress for company.

In a stroke of luck or perhaps pure chance, she found fireworks in her trunk, leftover from a New Year’s party. Nicole went about firing them in successions of three as an S.O.S. signal. After waiting for 6 long hours, she was finally found by the highway patrol, who were following up on a missing persons report filed by her friends in California when she went M.I.A. The highway patrol helped tow Nicole’s car to the nearest town but her trials were still not at an end. Her car was completely totaled and certainly could not make the rest of the trip to Florida.

Under normal circumstances, this would hardly be an issue. Nicole could easily catch the next train and be on her way home, but thanks to the restrictions placed on travel during the peak of the pandemic lockdown as well as the remoteness of her location, she was once again, stranded. Gritting her teeth and gathering up every last bit of will and resourcefulness left in her, Nicole started on the second phase of her journey home. Giving up, just was not an option, regardless of how impossible her situation seemed.

Miles off course from her intended route home, she managed to hitchhike 300 miles east of the endless expanse of the Nevada desert land to the state border town of Wendover, Utah. With nothing but a backpack and a water jug, Nicole walked 18 miles, only to end up at a limestone mine quarry rather than a railway station. Somehow, she managed to hitchhike to her journey’s halfway point — Denver, where she quarantined on a friend’s couch until she was able to catch the next train to Florida. It was her journey into the heart of America in the middle of a raging pandemic that enabled Nicole to redirect her entire approach to life and found Etha. What started out as a late night conversation with a friend about the state of the world, warped into this new media platform that is rooted in the representation of the individual, free of sensationalism and fear mongering.

We sat down with Nicole Ogloza to chat about her unique experience during these four weeks.

Jahnavi: What would you say was your most profound or most interesting experience during your travels?

Nicole: It was really silent outside, and you know, even when I was in a very dangerous situation I started jumping up and down, in the snow, in the desert, because no one was out there and for the first time it felt like I was the only person on the planet. At the same time I also felt that even if I don’t die, this is the coolest experience I will have because you could really find yourself in the middle of chaos and that is what happened to me. Until you’re at the point of death, you really don’t appreciate things for what they are and sometimes things that fill you with terror go away easily when you have experienced that.

J: So, you threw your phone, had no GPS, no way to contact anyone. Did that give you a different perspective on our world and our dependence on technology?

N: Yes, it really did because you have to start communicating with people, that is the only way to survive. You just have to really rely on everybody. There are no airports, trains, or cars, because covid. You really have to rely on brave individuals to help you out. Most of the time people thought I was gonna be the dangerous one, getting into their truck but I was also feeling the same things. A lot of people are generally afraid of each other and that shouldn’t be the case. I mean, technology has really sucked us into our own world.

You can’t rely on your technology for the first time in your life and you’re without it for four weeks and it’s just like, when you are off the grid, you finally have such silence inside of your head that you don’t really know what to do with it. This might sound crazy but you finally come to grips with yourself and the fact that there are so many people so connected with technology but a lot of us are actually aching to be completely disconnected for once and really get down to how to interact with people again. Until you leave your phone, you still have a false sense of reality.

J: What was the most surprising thing about the people that you came across during your sojourn into rural America

N: I actually saw the good side of the US, instead of the ‘truckers are gonna kill you if you ever go hitchhiking with them’. Every single one of them had a very different perspective on life as well. I had very deep conversations, either about race, religion, drugs, and all these other crazy things. I never was in any danger, except maybe to myself nor was I a danger to others. It was really cool to see how helpful people were when you are going through something like this. It kind of brought it back to 9/11 when in the US, everyone just kind of grouped together and I think that it is also within us — this kindness, but if you are on your phone you are not going to have any interactions with anybody. The fact that these truckers were so willing to go out of their way to drive me, even at the risk of them losing their jobs. What stood out to me was that not everything was what the media generally makes it out to be.

I almost thought that this Covid thing was not real when it started because people just didn’t care and they did not believe it was real. No matter what state I was in, no one was really talking about Covid. I think technology really accelerates the rate of sensationalism and really makes everyone afraid.

J: Would you or have you considered writing a book about your journey and experience?

N: Absolutely! Because this is one hell of a story. I mean I have already written a general piece, but there is so much detail to be added that it is insane.

J: I mean every single hour of those 4 weeks must have been exciting and nerve wracking at the same time!

N: Yeah, you literally could either get bitten by a snake, eaten by a coyote, run over by a train, die of thirst. Any one of those things could happen at any point and I am lucky that I brought a lot of water with me because most people do end up dying of dehydration in the desert. I had left my car, but I still had a large jug of water. And right before I left the gas station and ended up at the mine quarry I had filled it. But at that point of time, the uncertainty, you either had to embrace it or you’re never gonna make it out alive. And I think it is because of this experience that it has been easier for me to manage a company. I was surprised that I was not afraid most of the time, just kind of excited because you do not know what is going to happen to you but when you go into survival mode, you get into this very specific mindset where nothing is terrifying and you just keep pushing through until you get somewhere.

J: In one of our previous conversations, you mentioned that it was this four week journey of yours that brought about the start of Etha. Can you elaborate on that?

N: I think going back to conversation before technology is like the main goal of Etha. We do have a huge world of digitization and visualization but I don’t think that it is represented in the correct way in terms of people per area and per type. I think stereotypes can be easily broken if it is done in the correct way. I also think that if you converse with people normally without having chaos, the general population’s stress goes down. We are all so stressed out with the news these days, with everything that is going on that if you could make the current media a bit more three-dimensional and bring reality into it. This could really bring the digital world and the idea behind Etha together. There are so many different and beautiful things out there that are misrepresented.

Nicole mentioned how these four weeks completely changed her as a person and how she became much more calm and collected, which in turn enabled her to start Etha and work towards a more open and welcoming world. She shared the mindset behind Etha as a media platform and as a company in the following interview — The Mind Behind Etha and its Revolution. Check out Etha’s website for more details!

Visit our Website!

We have the world in the palm of our hands but so much of it has become convoluted that distinguishing reality from fiction gets more and more difficult with each passing day. This is especially harmful considering the circumstances we are in, where misinformation can easily lead to severe health and mental decline. In the midst of a worldwide pandemic, we cannot afford misinformation about safety measures, vaccines, health regulations and developments in research about Covid-19.   

In the era of constant digital communication, the flow of information is seamless. Decisions can be made in a split second, when required, without need for a second opinion. For a world that relies so heavily on constant access to everything and anything, manipulation of information can lead to some damaging consequences. From drinking bleach in order to avoid Covid to questioning the results of an election, a simple tweet or statement can be blown out of proportion, simply because everyone has access to it without any kind of filtration. 

As more American adults sit up and pay attention to the political state of the country, they are overwhelmed with lack of factual insight about issues that concern them directly. Media outlets churn out propagandas that allow people to feed their prejudices with published data and even influence others. During tumultuous times, people expect to be able to turn to their government and officials for the right information and a plan of action, but the past few year’s events have proved how unfounded that trust is when the government itself is the hub of propaganda.

A study published by the Pew Research Center in 2020, states that 64% of Americans believed that the negative impact of social media is directly responsible for the state of affairs in the country during the pandemic. Due to a vast majority of the population believing everything they see and read on the internet without thorough research; misinformation, partisanship, and polarization are rampant. The same research center also published a survey that states that legal voters in America have observed their trusted news sources blatantly favouring one side of a particular issue and showcasing inaccurate and incomplete information to support their views. “More than half (56%) say their news sources have published breaking information before it was fully verified, and 37% say their sources have reported made-up news that is intended to mislead," (Pew Research Center, 2020).

World history is not bereft of this mass manipulation either. Whether it is racism, genocide or just unfounded bias, time and time again we can observe how the media of that particular time exploited public opinion to their favour. It is not exaggeration that one of Nazi Germany’s most powerful man was their propaganda minister - Joseph Goebbels. 

There is a present and urgent need for a reliable source of information, free from polarization and bias. A source that fulfills the original intention behind mass media outlets of providing the public with factual information about current events which they can use to navigate the political landscape. To facilitate this reliability, you can look towards a brand-new media platform - Etha, which is wholeheartedly focused on providing the public with the truth, regardless of their comfort zones. 

Check out https://etha.one to sign up for updates

Deep from this realm of misinformation, gossip, momentary trends (and whatever relatives on WhatsApp are sharing) comes the urgent need for factual information, which can be relied upon to form logical conclusions about current events and crises. Politics no longer remains a subject that can be disregarded with a centralist viewpoint. Increasing polarity between the left and right have created an atmosphere of perpetual unrest, which in turn is greatly aggravated by the media.

The solution to this turmoil can be a simple one. A media platform that allows users to navigate the world of politics and governance with hard facts rather than the urge to pull out one’s hair or someone else’s for that matter, all the while, enabling people to educate themselves about upcoming policies, elections, and global occurrences.

To quench the thirst for factual information, we present to you, Etha — the world’s first non-partisan polling tool for politics. Etha focuses on stabilizing and depolarizing mass media with a fresher notion, where the audience can vote thumbs up or down on any piece of news published on the forum. Etha aspires to be at the forefront of the news revolution by making it a ‘one of a kind’ media outlet.

Media censorship has become a phenomenon that foreshadows most information channels and coats audience beliefs with a dominating political perspective. To counteract that, Etha will provide a plethora of interactive news access to its audience without any added ‘spin’ to narratives and get as close to the truth as possible through AI verification analytics and crowdsourced stories. Moreover, Etha makes politics more participatory by gamifying user experience, and avoids misinformation about politics with access to aggregated online information through various sources from the web, media, and news.

Fragmentation, censorship, clickbait, and generic filler content murk the political news landscape and prevent the public from reaching well-informed conclusions about policies which directly impact their lives. Statements are corrupted beyond recognition through constant reproduction before they ever reach the people. By essentially removing the barriers of information flow between the state and public, Etha aims to open up the discourse and make room for accountability and debate through the means of crowdsourcing and dissecting political problems by issue with a real-time relay of public opinion.

The goal behind Etha is to restore a shared reality by promoting active public participation and re-establishing the true meaning of democracy through the decentralization of power, which in today’s day is simply the right information. Rather than counting views and reaching a daily quota of articles published, Etha distances its identity from the digital mountain of content churned everyday merely for the sake of it and aims at restoring the power of information back to its rightful owners — the people.